Pennsylvania
Voter ID Law Ruling: Judge Halts Enforcement Of Law For Election
Dan FroomkinSource: huffingtonpost.com
Posted: 10/02/2012 10:03 am EDT
Updated: 10/02/2012 10:16 pm EDT
A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday postponed the enforcement of the state’s new strict voter ID requirement until after the November presidential election.
In a much-anticipated ruling, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. ordered that voters without government-issued photo ID should be allowed to cast regular ballots.
“That’s a huge win,” said Witold J. Walczak, an attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, “because last week the judge was suggesting that he was going to have every [voter without ID] vote provisionally.”
At the same time, the judge specifically ruled to allow the state to continue its education and advertising campaign, which currently tells voters that IDs are required.
Walczak said that if the state doesn’t change that message, “we may be back in court.”
“You can’t be telling people you need ID if you’re not actually requiring ID,” he said. “That advertising has to be modified to reflect reality.”
“Confusion is not a good thing on election day,” he said. “Confusion is going to mean some voters stay home. Confusion is going to mean that some poll workers get it wrong.”
Matthew Keeler, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania secretary of state, said the state is “pleased because the law itself hasn’t changed. What’s going on is there’s a soft rollout for the general election, just like the primary.”
Voters will still be asked for ID, he noted. If they don’t have it, they’ll be given information on how to get it.
Click Here to continue reading.
http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/
ter.
The court document and lawsuit, The American Tradition Institute Environmental Law
Center v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
can be read here.
In the court documents,
it notes, for instance, that one plaintiff, asthma-sufferer Landon Huffman,
participated in human experiments several years ago that he was led to believe
would “help people with asthma.”Huffman, the documents note, “was not informed that the pollution EPA was forcing into his lungs could actually cause him to have an asthma attack. Nor was he ever given anything from EPA that would possibly relieve his asthma.”
One “obese woman with hypertension and pre-experiment evidence of cardiac irritability” was placed in a gas chamber and exposed to small particles “at levels far above what the EPA had published as safe.” She was later hospitalized.
Clearly these poor people were seen as expendable by this out-of-control government agency.
A medical ethicist named Dr. John Dale Dunn looked at the post-experiment results and was stunned by what he learned.
Said Dunn: “I am outraged and saddened to know that highly trained and expert physicians would be involved in scandalously unethical and immoral professional research, subjecting humans to toxic or lethal levels of small particles.”
Two other plaintiffs, Steven J. Milloy and Dr. David Schnare, had relatives in Nazi concentration camps. Milloy’s uncle, Zoran Galkanovic, who was incarcerated at the Mauthausen concentration camp, “was forced to … identify those individuals at the concentration camp too ill to work, knowing they would subsequently be executed.”
Located in Austria, the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp was known for unspeakable horrors
that included all sorts of gruesome and deadly medical experiments.
Camp physician Hermann
Richter “surgically removed significant organs – e.g., stomach, liver, or
kidneys – from living prisoners solely in order to determine how long a
prisoner could survive without the organ in question.”It is because of what happened to his family member that Milloy has “(a)ccepted as a family responsibility the fight against any government who subjects its citizens to inhumane treatment.”
Dr. Schnare, meanwhile, worked for the EPA for 33 years and was shocked to learn of the illegal human experimentation by the EPA. He told the American Tradition Institute, based in Burke, Va., that he is a plaintiff because he “abhors current governmental experimentation on humans for the purposes of determining the effect of poisons.”
One new study, called CAPTAIN, is currently ongoing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, believe it or not. CAPTAIN, according to court documents, “imposes a risk of immediate death from an acute exposure” to dangerous particulates.
The plaintiffs are seeking an end to CAPTAIN and other sinister experiments taking place in the Tarheel State and elsewhere, via the federal courts.
Meanwhile, the EPA scientists, it was revealed, conducted some potentially lethal experiments in Durham, North Carolina. “order(ing) human subjects be placed into a gas chamber and exposed to a lethal gas.” In this case, diesel exhaust.
Three days ago, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a ranking member on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, wrote a letter to that committee’s chairwoman, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), addressing this shocking lawsuit.
Writes Inhofe, in his letter
dated September 28th: “As I understand from the complaint, the EPA
exposed dozens of human subjects, many of whom were health-impaired (e.g.
asthma, metabolic syndrome, elderly) to concentrated high levels of substances
like fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and diesel exhaust, which EPA has
previously and officially determined can kill people and cause cancer.”
Inhofe continues: “It
also appears that the EPA researchers failed to inform the institutional review
board and the study subjects of its official views concerning the
lethality and toxicity of PM2.5 and diesel exhaust.”Inhofe also tells Boxer that he would like the committee, which is responsible for EPA oversight, to “conduct hearings on this matter in the upcoming ‘lame-duck’ session.”
Inhofe also says that the EPA “may be held criminally liable for its conduct.”
We hope to have more on this story in the coming weeks.
1 comment:
There are no judges in the UNITED STATES, Inc., just administrators of the bankruptcy. Even the, so called, Supreme Court, is not empowered by constitutional authority because the corporation (USA, Inc.) operates outside of constitutional authority. And since the USA, Inc. is bankrupt we have administrators of the bankruptcy instead of judges. Simple as that.
Post a Comment