Rush Limbaugh may sue the Democratic Party (and 3 other court cases to watch)
In just the past couple of days, several headlines have appeared involving court battles. The nature of many of these battles speaks volumes about life under the Obama regime. Here’s a sampling of a few court battles that have recently emerged or are being considered:
Rush Limbaugh considers suing the Democratic Party
The left have ramped up their attacks against Rush (and his advertisers). It’s high time he and other high-profile conservatives took the Democrats to task.
On Monday, Rush Limbaugh’s attorney sent a letter to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warning them of a potential lawsuit over the DCCC’s manipulation of comments from his program. Limbaugh demanded “an immediate retraction and public apology.”
According to the letter, on September 17, 2014, the DCCC created and began distributing a doctored tape of Limbaugh’s broadcast, cutting ten words out of context in order to completely reverse the meaning of Limbaugh’s statements, despite the fact that the DCCC had the entire tape of Limbaugh’s comments in advance. The DCCC then allegedly lied that Limbaugh “excus[es] rape on college campuses,” “is advocating a tolerance of rape,” and “perpetuate[s] a culture of sexual assault.” The DCCC then used those alleged knowing lies for fundraising purposes.
Patricia Glaser, Limbaugh’s attorney, wrote that such treatment of Limbaugh’s words amounted to “defamation” under the law.
Go, Rush! Do it!
Colorado High School forbids prayer
Pine Creek High School in Colorado has forbidden students from praying and/or talking about religious topics during free time in the school day. (Yes, you read that right.)
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed suit in federal court Friday on behalf of a Pine Creek High School senior told that he and a group of other students may no longer informally meet to pray and discuss religious topics during free time as they have for the past three years.
School officials claimed the “separation of church and state” required the religious speech ban during an open period of the day…. (snip)
ADF attorneys sent a letter to the school district explaining the unconstitutionality of the school’s policy and practice, but the district responded in its own letter that it stands by the school’s decision. That prompted the lawsuit Windebank v. Academy School District #20, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
ICE prosecutor sues after being punished for resisting orders to release illegal invader criminals
Upholding the law will not be tolerated in the Age of Obama.
An award-winning, career prosecutor at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) alleged in a blistering new lawsuit she was punished for resisting orders to release convicted criminal illegal aliens from custody.
The allegations from Patricia M. Vroom, 59, implicate Peter Vincent, the recently-resigned top lawyer at the agency.
Vroom said in an Nov. 6 filing with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Arizona District she was ordered to drop prosecutions of illegal aliens with prior DUI convictions because, in the alleged words of senior ICE official Jim Stolley, “We don’t give a shit about that. Let it go.”
She also details pressure from supervisors to drop prosecutions of illegal aliens with identify theft convictions, including one who registered to vote “not once, but twice, both times falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen,” according to the filing. (snip)
After President Obama issued the executive “DREAM Act” order in 2012, providing legal status to individuals brought to the U.S. illegally as children, senior officials including Vincent coordinated to prevent the deportation of a DACA recipient convicted of ID theft in Arizona.
Hats off to Patricia Vroom. Let’s hope and pray she prevails.
Veterans and their families hold banks accountable for processing money from Iran that funded terror attacks
Yahoo News reports:
Wounded U.S. veterans and family members of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq sued five European banks on Monday, seeking to hold them responsible for shootings and roadside bombings because they allegedly processed Iranian money that paid for the attacks. (snip)
The lawsuit was brought under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, a 1992 law that permits victims to bring private suits against alleged financiers of militant operations.
The lawsuit alleges the banks conspired with Iranian banks to mask wire transactions in order to evade U.S. sanctions. The Iranian banks then funneled more than $100 million to militant groups that operated in Iraq at Iran's direction, according to the suit. (snip)
The case faces major obstacles, said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame University law professor. The Anti-Terrorism Act does not specifically permit conspiracy claims, and federal courts in New York have previously refused to permit cases to proceed unless they allege a direct link between banks and militant attacks.
The law also bars claims for wartime injuries. "The law was not intended to give a private right of action to soldiers in a military conflict," Gurule said. (snip)
The suit is the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Act in which former U.S. soldiers seek damages against international banks. It is also one of the first to be crafted as a conspiracy case.
More power to these veterans and their families. I hope they win.
Hat tip for the Colorado school story: The Right Scoop