Thomas Rex Lee

Thomas Rex Lee is a justice on the Utah Supreme Court. He received his bachelor's degree from Brigham Young University in 1988 and graduated with a law degree from the University of Chicago in 1991. Following his graduation, he began his legal career by serving as a law clerk in the Fourth Circuit Appellate Court in Richmond, Virginia.

After ending his clerkship, Thomas Rex Lee joined the Salt Lake City based law firm of Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless, where he acted as a private lawyer from 1992 to 1997. During this time, he also served as a clerk for Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas from 1994 to 1995. In 1997, Thomas Rex Lee left private practice with Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless to teach law at Brigham Young University. He also became a part-time associate with the firm of Howard, Phillips & Andersen. From 2004 to 2005, he also served as a deputy assistant attorney general for the civil division of the United States Justice Department.

As a private attorney and legal scholar, Thomas Rex Lee specializes in issues of copyright and trademark infringement. One of his most prominent cases came in 2002. Thomas Rex Lee represented the state of Utah in the case of Utah v. Evans. The Supreme Court case concerned methods used by the Census Bureau when conducting the 2000 census. The organization used a method known as "hot-deck imputation" in order to fill in information that could not be obtained. "Hot-deck imputation" means that when an address or unit owner cannot be located, the Census Bureau assigns it the same population numbers and characteristics that have been recorded in the nearest property for which data has been collected.

Hot-deck imputation was used in both the state of Utah and that of North Carolina. As a result, the recorded population of North Carolina increased by 0.4%, leading to being granted one more representative in the Congressional House of Representatives. However, when the same methods were applied in Utah, the population increase recorded was only 0.2%.

Thomas Rex Lee represented the argument of the state of Utah, which contended that this hot-deck method violated both the census code's prohibition against using sampling methods to determine populations and violated a similar prohibition in the United States Constitution. Thomas Rex Lee appeared before the Supreme Court in 2002. The case was ultimately decided against the state of Utah on both charges with a five to four verdict.

In 2010, Thomas Rex Lee became a justice of the Utah Supreme Court. Despite never having served as a judge before, he was chosen by Governor Gary Herbert on the basis of his academic and professional credentials. During his time as a state justice, Thomas Rex Lee has written a number of opinions representing the majority opinion of the court. In addition, he has frequently filed separate opinions both concurring and dissenting with the majority opinion of the court.

Arthur K. Delaney

Best remembered today as the first mayor of Juneau, Alaska, Arthur K. Delaney began his professional career as an attorney. Born in New York State, he arrived in Alaska in the 1890s as part of the larger wave of travelers seeking fortune during the Klondike Gold Rush. At the end of 1895, Arthur K. Delaney was admitted as a judge presiding the District Court of the United States in and for the District of Alaska,

In 1896, one of two cases which eventually were heard in the United States Supreme Court involving Arthur K. Delaney began. The case began in May of that year when Ohlin H. Adsit filed suit against John F. Malony. In his case, Adsit charged that he had been the occupant and possessor of half of a tract of land in Juneau for nine years before April 29, 1891, upon which he had constructed a large wooden building. At that time, he charged, Malony had unlawfully ejected him from his property.

In his lawsuit, Adsit asked that the court award him possession of either the land in question or an interest in it. On June 8 of 1896, Malony filed a demurral, a motion stating that the person filing suit does not have sufficient basis for their litigation to proceed. However, on October 9 the court overruled him and gave Adsit time to file a response. Subsequently a trial was scheduled and was heard the following year before Arthur K. Delaney.

The right to trial by jury was waived. In his ruling, Arthur K. Delaney found in favor of Adsit. The following year, Arthur K. Delaney resigned from his position as a judge. However, the case continued after his exit as Malony first filed a "bill of exceptions," a document allowing a party in a legal case to state their objection to a ruling on a legal basis. The judge who signed this document had resigned by the time Malony filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

The case of Malony v. Adsit was heard by the Supreme Court in 1899. The specific issue at stake was the validity of the bill of exceptions. Because the judge who had signed it had preceded Arthur K. Delaney, the Supreme Court found that the bill of exceptions could not be considered and ruled in favor of Adsit.

Arthur K. Delaney appeared directly before the Supreme Court in 1901, acting as counsel for the defense in the case of Marks v. Shoup, acting on behalf of J.M. Shoup. That same year, Arthur K. Delaney was elected the first mayor of Juneau, serving in that capacity for a year. In 1902, Arthur K. Delaney was succeeded in his office by Ohlin H. Adsit, who served in that capacity until 1904. Arthur K. Delaney left that year and relocated to California, where he died in January of the following year. 

George Tiller

George Tiller was a Kansas doctor nationally known as one of three Americans physicians at the time offering abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy. He was shot and killed in 2009 by an anti-abortion activist.

Under Kansas state law at the time, anyone who wished to receive an abortion was required to receive an opinion from two separate physicians who could not be financially affiliated. In 2003, George Tiller faced charges that 19 patients had received second opinions from Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus in appointments scheduled through his office.

 In court, George Tiller said that this scheduling arrangement had been established on the basis of his attorney. Each charge carried a potential sentence of up to a year. However, the only witness presented by the prosecution was Dr. Neuhaus, weakening their case. George Tiller was acquitted of all the charges against him, pending an administrative review of his license by the state Board of Healing Arts.

 In May 2009, George Tiller was killed by Scott Roeder, who shot him in the head. Roeder had previously been arrested and convicted when he was discovered transporting explosives in his car in 1996. Initially unidentified as the shooter, Roeder escaped from the scene of the crime but was found and arrested within three hours. He was arraigned on June 2, 2009. At this time, Roeder declined to enter a plea regarding the murder of George Tiller and requested that he be assigned a public defender. A preliminary hearing concerning charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault was held on July 28.

 In January of 2010, Roeder's arguments successfully argued that he could be charged with "voluntary manslaughter," in which a fatality is committed by someone who honestly believes it to be justifiable. The actual trial began on January 22. During the course of argument, Roeder's lawyers attempted to call two judicial officials who had attempted to convict George Tiller on other charges at earlier dates to testify about his abortion activities. However, the court ruled that this testimony regarding legal abortions was irrelevant and likely to prejudice jurors and disallowed it.

 Scott Roeder took the stand as a witness in the trial of the murder of George Tiller on January 28. During the course of his testimony, Roeder defended himself by saying homicide was justifiable to save the lives of unborn children. However, his attempts to provide graphic descriptions of the abortion process practiced by George Tiller were successfully objected to by the prosecution. At the conclusion of his testimony, the judge reversed the earlier standing and prohibited the jury from convicting Scott Roeder on charges of voluntary manslaughter.

 The day following Roeder's testimony, the jury found him guilty of the murder of George Tiller as well as the two aggravated assault charges. His sentencing occurred on April 1. At this time he was given a sentence of 50 years of incarceration without the possibility of parole.

Michael C. Dorf

Michael C. Dorf is a legal scholar specializing in issues of constitutional law. His work has frequently been cited by courts when rendering verdicts. One of the most prominent cases he was involved in recently was the 2010 Supreme Court case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.

The case involved a dispute between the Christian Legal Society and Hastings College of Law, a division of the University of California. Hastings College of Law has an official non-discrimination policy which forbids denying admission to any student on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. The school took the position that any student organization which wished to receive official recognition from the school, which would include funding and support, was similarly prohibited from such discriminatory practices in admitting members.

Hastings accordingly denied official recognition to the Christian Legal Society, which denied admission to homosexuals. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Christian Legal Society argued that its right to freedom of speech and free practice of religion was being violated. Michael C. Dorf was the primary author of an amicus curiae brief filed by the Association of American Law Schools on behalf of Hastings.

In this brief, Michael C. Dorf argued that Hastings was not violating the constitutional rights of the Christian Legal Society by enforcing an "all-comers" rule requiring that any student group seeking official recognition offer admission to any students who wished to join. The brief further argued that the school had the right to use this rule in deciding how to allocate funding. The Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning made by Michael C. Dorf and ruled 5 to 4 in favor of Hastings.

What is Alpha Phi Alpha?

Alpha Phi Alpha was the first fraternity every established for African Americans.  The fraternity was founded on December 4, 1906 at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.  The founders of the fraternity saw a need for a strong Brotherhood of African descendants, and the founders—known as the “Jewels” of the fraternity—are Henry Arthur Callis, Charles Henry Chapman, Eugene Kinckle Jones, George Biddle Kelley, Nathaniel Allison Murray, Robert Harold Ogle, and Vertner Woodson Tandy. 

Members of the fraternity were leaders of the African American civil rights movement, such as W.E.B DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., Edward Brooke, Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Andrew Young, Willian Gray, Paul Robeson, and others.  The fraternity became interracial in 1945. 

Taxes and Alpha Phi Alpha

Chapters are required to use the identifying number of 501(c)(3) if they formed a charitable organization in their community.  However, contributions made to the fraternity are not deductable as “charitable contributions.”  The fraternity is nationally exempt under section 501(c)(7), but it does not classify as a charitable organization under the IRS code. 

The fraternity recommends that each chapter should contact the IRS to determine their tax ID status.  Each chapter is unique, and the tax IDs are thus unique. 

Anti-Hazing Efforts by Alpha Phi Alpha

The fraternity is strongly against hazing and has strict anti-hazing policies compared to other fraternity in the United States.  In its anti-hazing statement, the fraternity specifically prohibits all forms of mental or physical hazing.  “Pledging” is abolished by the fraternity, and the fraternity states, “Aspirants must not submit themselves, or agree to submit themselves, to any membership activities that are prohibited by the Fraternity.  Members of Alpha Phi Alpha are forbidden from requiring any aspirant to engage in prohibited membership activities.” 

If any hazing occurs at a chapter, the fraternity recommends that you contact the Chapter Advisor, the District Director, or the Regional Vice President.  A Hazing Reporting Form can also be forwarded to the National Director of Membership Services. 

Possible Sanctions

The fraternity declares that any individual or chapter convicted of hazing will be face suspension, expulsion, or revocation of the chapter’s charter.  The individual or chapter may receive fines, and they are subject to penalties from the university as well. 

If the individual is suspended, they are not allowed to participate in any fraternity activities until the Regional Vice president restores good standing after approval from the General Convention.  If the individual is expelled, their membership is revoked. 

Lawsuits Involving Alpha Phi Alpha

In July of 2012, the general president of the fraternity, Herman “Skip” Mason, was removed from his position after the fraternity claimed his mismanaged finances.  He filed an emergency temporary restraining order with the DeKalb County judge, but the judge denied his request.  Mason’s attorneys stated Mason’s term was about to end this year and denied that Mason ever mishandled funds.  The restraining order would have reinstated Mason, but he still removed from the position. 

Sources: https://www.alpha-phi-alpha.com/alpha-new-look/alpha-interactive/homepage-intro.html

What is Political Correctness?

The term refers to language, ideas, behavior, etc, that is used in political, societal, and public discourse so individuals of a certain gender, sexual orientation, race, culture, ethnicity, religion, belief, age, occupations, etc, are not offended.  The topic of political correctness is hotly debated, and numerous pieces of legislation have tried to install the idea of “political correctness” into law. 

The Debate over Political Correctness (P.C.)

On one side, proponents of p.c. argue that certain terms should be used in public broadcasts, such as on the radio and television, to ensure members of certain societal groups are not offended.  Certain pieces of legislation like the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004 have set up fines for people or parties that broadcast “obscene, indecent, or profane language.”

Opponents of p.c. argue that the standards are an obvious attack on the First Amendment rights for the freedom of speech. 

On February 5, 2000, Bill Lind compared p.c. to cultural Marxism.  He argued that p.c. was a movement toward an ideology that was enforced by the power of the state.  He ripped at p.c. and stated the following:

“The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious.  In fact, it’s deadly serious.  It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.  It is the disease of ideology.  PC is not funny.  PC is deadly serious.”

Examples of Political Correctness

Authors Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf provide common examples of p.c. used in political and public discourse in their book titled The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook.  Some of the examples listed in the book include the following:

·         using “intellectually disabled” instead of terms like “retarded”

·         using “African American” instead of “black,” “negro” or other terms

·         using “Native American” instead of terms like “Indian”

·         using “Caucasian” instead of terms like “white”

·         using words like “visually impaired” or “hearing impaired” instead of “blind” or “deaf”

·         using gender-neutral terms like “server” instead of waitress or waiter or “police officer” instead of “policeman”

·         using terms like “winter holiday” instead of “Christmas” to respect religious rights

Views on Political Correctness

P.C. is, in large, a truly American term, and other countries have criticized the United States for restricting the rights it was founded upon.  Many left opponents of p.c. argue that it’s a social issue rather than a constitutional issue. 

In March of 2004, Representative Ron Paul called the Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004 an “indecent attack on the First Amendment.  He stated, “And now comes the right’s attack on the first amendment, with its effort to stamp out “indecent” language on the airways.  And it will be assumed that if one is not with them in this effort, then one must support the trash seen and heard in the movie theaters and on our televisions and radio.” 

Even though legislations has approached the idea of p.c., it is likely to stay a social issue and remain a highly debated topic for years. 

J. Michael Luttig

J. Michael Luttig is an American attorney best known for his period as an appellate court judge. J. Michael Luttig served in this capacity in the fourth circuit court from 1991 to 2006, writing opinions on many major cases during this period. Prior to this period, he worked in private practice from 1985 to 1989. In 1989, he entered the Department of Justice.

In 1994, J. Michael Luttig's father was killed during a carjacking. The defendant twice filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. However, many of the Supreme Court justices recused themselves from hearing the case because of their personal familiarity with J. Michael Luttig. The defendant was later executed.

One of his most prominent opinions was written in 2003 when hearing the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The case concerned Yaser Esam Hamdi, who had been captured in Afghanistan and detained as an enemy combatant despite being an American citizen. Hamdi appealed his custody and was rejected by the majority court, which deferred to the powers of the executive branch in deciding not to hear his case. However, in a dissenting opinion, J. Michael Luttig stated that Hamdi was entitled to a rehearing of his case, since he had not been granted due process. J. Michael Luttig also stated that the reasoning given in favor of the executive branch was insufficiently strong. The case was later heard by the US Supreme Court.

Another prominent case concerned the detention of another enemy combatant. The case concerned Jose Padilla, who was arrested in 2002 on suspicion of planning to detonate an large bomb. Padilla had been detained as an enemy combatant, a legal procedure which was validated by a Fourth Circuit Court decision. The majority opinion was written in September of 2005 by J. Michael Lutting. However, in December of that year a decision was made by the Bush administration to transfer Jose Padilla to a civilian prison. J. Michael Lutting refused to authorize this request, arguing that the government's request seemed to be motivated by a desire to avoid a Supreme Court hearing about the earlier opinion. The Supreme Court eventually approved this request.

Another prominent case occurred in 1999, when J. Michael Lutting wrote the opinion of the majority regarding the Violence Against Women Act. This was legislation permitting victims of gender-motivated crimes to file suit specifically regarding such actions in federal court. In his opinion, J. Michael Lutting argued that this act was unconstitutional, since Congress is not permitted to regulate interstate commerce by permitting citizens to file such damage claims against the states. The Supreme Court later concurred in its hearing of the case.

During his time as a judge, J. Michael Luttig was often compared to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom he had formerly acted as a clerk. In 2006, J. Michael Luttig left the Fourth District Court and took an executive position with Boeing Motors. 

Lee A. Johnson

Lee A. Johnson is an American judge. After graduating from law school in 1980, he entered private practice. He served as the city attorney of Caldwell, Kansas from 1987 to 1997. In 2001, Lee A. Johnson was appointed to the Kansas Court Appeals system. From 2001 to 2007, Lee A. Johnson served in this capacity until appointed to the state Supreme Court in 2007.

 One notable case Lee A. Johnson has ruled upon recently concerned placing caps on settlement payments related to medical malpractice. The case was filed by a woman who, during surgery to remove her right ovary, instead had her left ovary removed. The woman filed suit and was awarded $759,679.74 in damages. Of this sum, $575,000 was concerned with pain and suffering and related side effects of the surgery rather than pure economic loss. State law stipulates that this type of non-economic compensation should be limited to $250,000. Therefore, the amount of the settlement was modified by the judge.

The plaintiff then filed an appeal challenging the constitutionality of this restriction and the settlement adjustment made by the judge. The doctor also filed an appeal, alleging that the plaintiff had failed to conclusively demonstrate evidence of malpractice and that expert witness testimony had been improperly restricted.

The court heard this case in October 2012. Lee A. Johnson contributed to the majority opinion issued by five members of the Supreme Court. In their opinion, the court noted that placing caps on malpractice compensation is a controversial issue which the state Supreme Court has previously issued conflicting rulings about. The majority opinion went on to state that this restriction did not violate the right to trial by jury, the right to the due course of law and the right to equal legal protection. The majority opinion also stated that this legislation did not constitute  violation of the separation of powers between state and federal governments.

While Lee A. Johnson concurred in part with the majority opinion, he filed a partial dissent alongside fellow justice Carol A. Beier. In their dissent, they noted that they believed the plaintiff's right to trial by jury and due process of law had been violated and did not issue a judgment as to whether the plaintiff's right to equal protection had been violated. However, Lee A. Johnson concurred by the majority concerning the separation of powers.

Lee A. Johnson also concurred with the majority in restoring $100,000 to the plaintiff awarded to cover future medical expenses, which had been granted by a jury but removed by a post-trial judge. The majority opinion concurred that the jury had had sufficient evidence to justify such an award. In total the plaintiff was awarded that amount, $250,000 for noneconomic damages, and roughly $84,000 in medical expenses already incurred. All arguments presented by the doctor concerning her lack of malpractice were rejected.

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar is an American attorney currently serving as a Senator for the state of Minnesota. Prior to her assuming this public office in 2007, Amy Klobuchar practiced both private and public law. In 1998, she became the first female county attorney to be elected in Hennepin County. Amy Klobuchar maintained this position from 1999 to 2007, when she assumed the office of Senator.

During her period as Hennepin County Attorney, Amy Klobuchar emphasized the prosecution of repeat offenders and violent criminals as a matter of particular importance to her office. As part of her efforts, Amy Klobuchar was instrumental in the creation of a community prosecution initiative. The first such program was established in Manhattan in 1985. The purpose of such a program is to establish stronger ties between citizens of the area in question and the prosecutors managing it.

Under the supervision of Amy Klobuchar, the community prosecution initiative established in Hennepin County consisted of three different divisions. One, located in the Third Police Precinct, provided a full-time prosecutor tasked with coordinating law enforcement with local police officials and consulting regularly with a community council on the needs and concerns of the area.

The second division of the community prosecution initiative established by Amy Klobuchar is located in the Fourth Police Precinct and is staffed by two full-time prosecutors concerned with juvenile crime. Another prosecutor in this office is concerned with adult crimes. Community initiatives allow community members to participate in the sentencing and rehabilitation process. The third division of the community prosecution initiative established by Amy Klobuchar is located in the city of Bloomington. Here, one full-time attorney is concerned with handling all juvenile crime cases which occur in the area.

In addition to her active work in prosecuting criminal offenses, Amy Klobuchar was a strong advocate for criminalizing driving while intoxicated as a felony level offense in the state of Minnesota. The appropriate litigation was passed, in large part thanks to her efforts.

Following her arrival to the Senate, Amy Klobuchar has been involved in a great deal of high-profile legislation. One bill which Amy Klobuchar co-authored along with two other Senators is known as the "Commercial Felony Streaming Act." This legislation, which is pending and has not yet been introduced to the Senate, concerns streaming copyrighted material on a computer from an unauthorized provider. Currently, this is only a misdemeanor offense.

However, under the terms of the legislation co-authored by Amy Klobuchar, would criminalize such activities at a felony level. In order to be charged with a felony violation, the defendant in question would have to have streamed material whose value was in excess of $2,500 or for which the licensing fees are in excess of $5,000. Furthermore, to be prosecuted the defendant in question would have to made use of this kind of illegal streaming video at least 10 times within the period of 180 days.