Name
Patricia M. Blevins     Patricia.Blevins@state.de.us
Colin R. J. Bonini senator-colin@prodigy.net
Brian J. Bushweller brian.bushweller@state.de.us
Catherine Cloutier catherine.cloutier@state.de.us
Bruce C. Ennis bruce.ennis@state.de.us
Bethany A. Hall-Long bethany.hall-long@state.de.us
Margaret Rose Henry MargaretRose.Henry@state.de.us
Gerald W. Hocker Gerald.Hocker@state.de.us
Gregory F. Lavelle greg.lavelle@state.de.us
David G. Lawson Dave.Lawson@state.de.us
Ernesto B. Lopez Gerald.Hocker@state.de.us
Robert I. Marshall robert.marshall@state.de.us
David B. McBride David.McBride@state.de.us
Harris B. McDowell III Harris.McDowell@state.de.us
Karen E. Peterson Karen.Peterson@state.de.us
Brian Pettyjohn Brian.Pettyjohn@state.de.us
Nicole Poore Nicole.Poore@state.de.us
F. Gary Simpson gsimpson@udel.edu
David P. Sokola David.Sokola@state.de.us
Bryan Townsend Bryan.Townsend@state.de.us
Robert L. Venables Sr. Robert.Venables@state.de.us

(DEP) Commissioner Carter Strickland today announced that construction has begun on a $21.2 million project to connect the Catskill and Delaware aqueducts for the first time. The two aqueducts together convey approximately one billion gallons of water each day to the city from six separate reservoirs located in the Catskills. The interconnect project at the Delaware Aqueduct’s Shaft 4 in the Town of Gardiner in Ulster County will allow DEP to move as much as 365 million gallons each day from the Delaware Aqueduct into the Catskill Aqueduct, providing additional operational flexibility and another tool to reduce turbidity in the water supply system after large storms.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/press_releases/13-064pr.shtml

Forty-seven-year-old Jose Oyola, of Greenwood, is facing charges including Theft and Extortion following an investigation by State Police.

Police say that Oyola, who was a middle school teacher for the Woodbridge School District and a coordinator for the English as a Second Language program, promised numerous services to the immigrant families he was able to come into contact with via his job and never delivered on them. Such services included securing legal work residencies, visas and housing for the victims, who were charged fees ranging from $100 to more than $5,000.

Officials say that Oyola never delivered on his promises and proceeded to threaten his victims with deportation if they didn’t make their payments or tried to file a claim with the authorities.

Authorities were alerted to Oyola’s activities after several victims approached members of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Unit who attended the 2010 Hispanic Festival in Millsboro.

Jose Oyola was arrested on April 18th and now faces six felony charges, including one count of Extortion and five counts of Theft.

[listicle id=55129 align=left show_title=true]

You know me, DeDivahDeals, always looking for a bargain, well I came across what I think is the best way to find and buy daily deals.  In the past, I have bought deals from Groupon and Living Social but the constant emails for deals that I wasn’t interested in was annoying.  Thankfully, this is not the case with www.dailydealsuperstore.com.

www.dailydealsuperstore.com has all the deals in one place – from the recognizable, big names to the really local deal companies, and everything in between.  I have created my own profile so I only get the deals from Wilmington, and the surrounding areas and Philadelphia, PA and I don’t have to read through a bunch of others.   I can change my profile any time, so when I plan a trip I can add my destination and pick out a few cool deals before I leave.

www.dailydealsuperstore.com gives me a lot of categories to choose from so it’s really easy to either see the deals I want and hide the ones that I’m not interested in. Beauty deals not your thing? No problem, deselect the box and those deals won’t show up in your personalized list.

www.dailydealsuperstore.com has a great Facebook app too, so I can share deals with my Facebook friends – and earn rewards!   We all could earn points from every deal and redeem them for gift cards.  Saving money on deals AND earning rewards – winning!

Anywho, click on the banner below to register and start getting some great deals today – try it, I think you’ll like it!

Going to check out some deals for Father’s Day! 

You look like a runner

Below is a picture of how I actually looked, uncombed hair and all.

It’s nice when people recognize you for what/who you are!

What is one thing about yourself that you LOVE when people notice?

One of our best meals in Rehoboth was at Confucius Chinese Cuisine. Coming from and living in places that truly understand Asian food – New York and Hawaii – this was not as good as what I am used to, but it was still good. We began with pork and cilantro dumplings, wrapped super thin and served with a dipping sauce. These were tasty, but Mikayla thought they might have been purchased elsewhere, frozen.

The star of the meal was the chicken and egg fried rice, which was delicious and satisfying, fatty without being heavy. I liked that the chicken was sliced into manageable bite-sized pieces and that it was simple, with few ingredients. I could have eaten the entire plate myself.

Lastly, we shared the Peking duck, which baffled us upon arrival. Usually served with steamed Chinese pancakes or buns, this version came with tortillas! We were very surprised, but we smeared the sauce on the tortillas, filled them with duck and scallions, and dug in. The thin, crispy skin was satisfying and well-seasoned. The sauce was rich and sweet, and together with the scallions the flavors made me want to keep eating. The tortillas, however, were just so incongruous that we couldn’t really get over it. The meal would have been greatly improved with warm, soft buns, but overall, we were still happy when we were done.

Confucius Chinese Cuisine

Location: 57 Wilmington Ave. Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971 Phone: (302) 227-3848

Office of the Law Revision Counsel

Further info:

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
• Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
• Federal Rules of Evidence
• Local Ninth Circuit Rules
• Supreme Court Rules
• Federal Judiciary’s Federal Rulemaking website

Federal Opinions and Court Information

• History of the Federal Judiciary
• Map of Federal Judicial Circuits

Return to top

Love has its own logic, and doesn’t enter our hearts with rules surrounding it. No one has the right to tell another person how to love and who to love.

I honestly don’t think we are lacking people who support and believe in equality as much as we think we do. I truly think a large portion of equality supporters are closet supporters- they are afraid to voice their support in fear that they too will be judged. So instead of offering their support for what they believe in, they just keep their beliefs and opinions to themselves. What I don’t think these “closet supporters” are realizing, is that by not voicing their support in this huge fight for equality, it is automatically assumed that they are against it. Society is not a mind reader and never will be- no one will ever know what causes you support unless you speak up and say so. All not speaking up does, is deplete the amount of support that is needed for us to win this fight for equality.

As Bob Marley sang to us many years ago:
“Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don’t give up the fight!”

Seriously people, what good is it to have a belief in something (anything for that matter) if you don’t openly show your support?

So please, if you are in support of equality for all, say so! Supporting equality does NOT mean you are gay, nor does it make you gay- and it’s not a disease, you will not “catch it.”

Love is love, is love, is love.

It will be so much easier for you to dismiss this whole website & all of the information you are going to find here because it will take some work to understand & that is EXACTLY what the Government in general wants you to do. Did you know that Political Science is very rarely taught in schools anymore & if so it is merely an elective course & does NOT count as a required credit for Home Schooled children?

If you don’t want anyone to challenge you you keep them uneducated. If you merely want slave labor keep the slaves happy & they will never question you.. oh but if you want to take something from them convince them you are doing it for their own good.

The “Patriot Act” & the “National Defense Authorization Act” are just that, Acts, acts of Treason by the US Government & sanctioned by the US Citizens. Like stupid lazy ignorant sloths being led off to slaughter we went happily along not even realizing we are all now permanent residents of a virtual government slaughterhouse… Well most of did.

There is plenty of information out there, but you have to get off of Facebook & Pinterest for 5 minutes to find it. You actually have to read something & learn it without getting a bonus & going on to the next level. You also have to get off the couch, & off the net to assert the rights that millions died for you to have.

Again ~ Freedom isn’t free ~The Constitution was written in the blood of millions

I want you to read this story, it is very important in understanding a little about the law, & how it effects you. It is a long read but it is still very important.

Myths Of The Criminal Justice System: Part 1

Note: In conjunction with the launch of HuffPost’s Crime vertical, senior writer and criminal justice reporter Radley Balko looks at several myths and misconceptions about the criminal justice system. In this first of three installments, Balko looks at double jeopardy, enhanced sentencing and ignorance of the law.

Myth 1: You Can’t Be Tried More Than Once For The Same Crime
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This protection against “double jeopardy” is intended to prevent the government from retrying the same defendant over and over until prosecutors can get a conviction.
But there are some exceptions. First, the protection only comes into play once a jury has convicted or acquitted a defendant. So in trials that end with a hung jury or a mistrial, the prosecution can usually bring the same charges again. One particularly egregious example is Curtis Flowers of Mississippi, who has been tried an incredible six times for the murder of four people in 1996.
Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government can charge a defendant with both a crime and the conspiracy to commit that crime without violating the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy. This gives the government two opportunities to convict for essentially the same offense. Conspiracy is often easier to prove than the underlying crime. It also gives prosecutors a way to rope in alleged offenses they can no longer charge separately due to statutes of limitations.
Finally, there is the “separate sovereigns” exception to double jeopardy. This allows a defendant to be tried, convicted and sentenced for the same crime in both state and federal court. The most well-known example of the separate sovereigns exception is when the Los Angeles police officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted in state court, then convicted in federal court of violating King’s civil rights.
But it’s becoming more common in high-profile cases, where both state and federal prosecutors want a chance at a career-making conviction. Michael Vick, for example, was twice convicted on charges related to his dogfighting operation, once under Virginia law and once under federal law. (He was also indicted on various dogfighting-related crimes and conspiracy to commit those crimes.) As the federal criminal code continues to grow, it seems likely we’ll see more examples of defendants who are tried twice for the same crime, particularly in cases involving celebrities and politicians.

Myth 2: The Government Can’t Punish You For A Crime Without First Convicting You
Under federal sentencing law, once a defendant has been convicted of any federal crime, when determining a sentence, the judge can consider other crimes he or she may have committed. That includes crimes for which the defendant has never been charged and even crimes for which he or she has been acquitted.
In 2007 Antwuan Ball of Washington, D.C., was charged and tried for a long list of alleged federal crimes, including drug dealing, conspiracy, racketeering and murder. The jury was apparently unimpressed with the prosecution’s case. They acquitted Ball on all charges, save for a relatively minor $600 sale of half an ounce of crack. But last March, a federal judge sentenced Ball to 18 years in prison, a disproportionately long sentence the judge said was due to his disagreement with the jury’s decision to acquit on the other charges.
According to Douglas Berman, who teaches at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and writes the blog Sentencing Law and Policy, three federal appeals courts (the 7th, 8th, and 11th circuits) have allowed judges to consider uncharged or acquitted murders in handing down enhanced sentences to defendants who have been convicted of less serious crimes. In one case, a Virginia defendant was given a life sentence for drugs and firearms charges because the judge found convincing evidence the defendant had been involved in three murders, despite the fact that he had never been charged for those murders, much less convicted.
The doctrine of civil asset forfeiture allows the government to seize the property of people it believes are engaged in criminal conduct before they’ve been convicted. In fact, the government isn’t even required to file criminal charges, only to show some vague connection to criminal activity. Though the policy varies from state to state, the general idea is that the government can seize property if it can show any link between the property and some sort of a crime. The policy is most often used in drug crimes.
Under most civil asset forfeiture laws, the property itself is accused of the crime. The government then files a complaint against the property in civil court. Because it’s a civil proceeding, the government’s standard of proof is much lower. In fact, in some states the burden is on the property owner to prove he or she earned the property legally. That can be a difficult thing to prove.
The cost of fighting a seizure in court can often exceed the value of the property itself. As of 2008, the federal asset forfeiture fund had over $3 billion in assets. Less than 20 percent of the people from whom that property was taken were ever charged with a crime.

Myth 3: Ignorance Of The Law Is No Defense
Every introductory criminal justice class teaches this one. If you’re pulled over for speeding, you can’t claim you didn’t know the speed limit. If you’re pulled over while driving through, for example, in Virginia and the cop notices your radar detector, you can’t claim you had no idea the device is illegal in that state.
This particular “myth” is mostly true. And the problem is that it’s becoming nearly impossible to know what the law actually is. The U.S. Constitution outlines just three federal crimes — treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Various projects have tried to count the number of federal criminal laws passed since, and many have simply given up. But by most estimates, there are at least 4,000 separate criminal laws at the federal level, with another 10,000 to 300,000 regulations that can be enforced criminally.
In his most recent book, the civil libertarian and defense attorney Harvey Silverglate argues that most Americans now unknowingly commit about three felonies per day.
To make matters worse, vaguely-written, broadly-interpreted laws like conspiracy and money laundering give prosecutors yet more discretion and leeway, and make it more difficult for well-intentioned citizens to simply comply with the law. Even the members of Congress who actually pass these laws often don’t know what they’ve just passed, even laws that directly apply to them.
But there is one exception to this rule: If you work for the government, particularly in law enforcement, you can be forgiven for not knowing the law.
Last year, Maryland motorcyclist Anthony Graber was stopped by a state trooper for speeding and reckless driving. The confrontational stop was recorded by Graber’s helmet camera, and Graber later posted the audio and video to YouTube. Graber was later raided, arrested, jailed and charged with two felonies for recording his conversation with the state trooper.
Had Graber lived in Illinois, he would have broken the law, and he would be looking at up to 15 years in prison. Several people in Illinois are facing similar charges, and none of them will be permitted to defend themselves by saying they didn’t know what they were doing was illegal.
But it turns out that is perfectly legal to record on-duty police officers in Maryland. A state judge later dismissed the charges against Graber in a strongly-worded opinion, stating in no uncertain terms that the cops who raided Graber’s home and the prosecutor who charged him were wrong about the law.
But despite the fact that these law enforcement officials wrongly raided, arrested, jailed and charged Graber based on a mistaken understanding of the law, they face no repercussions. It’s unlikely Graber will even be able to sue. Prosecutors have absolute immunity from lawsuits related to the decisions they make about whether or not to charge someone with a crime, even when they are clearly wrong about the law.
In a Supreme Court case decided earlier this year, former New Orleans DA Harry Connick and his assistants failed to turn over exculpatory evidence in the case of John Thompson. Thompson was later exonerated of murder, but only after serving 18 years in prison, 14 of them on death row.
In depositions, Connick and his assistants claimed they didn’t know the Brady rule, which requires prosecutors to turn over all such evidence. Connick was already protected by absolute immunity, and the Court added that the parish that employed him couldn’t be sued either.
A number of studies have shown that while Brady violations are common, they rarely go punished, even in egregious cases that lead to wrongful convictions.
Police officers and most other government employees don’t enjoy the broad absolute immunity afforded to prosecutors and judges, but they do have what’s known as “qualified immunity:” In order for an officer to be held civilly liable for violating a citizen’s rights, the law must be so clearly established that a reasonable person would have known that the officer’s actions were illegal.
In Pennsylvania, the courts have repeatedly ruled that it is legal for citizens to record on-duty police officers. But people continue to get arrested for doing so. And so far, federal courts have refused to allow those who have been arrested to sue the law enforcement officials who arrested them, even though the officials did so illegally.
Last February, police officers in Philadelphia confronted Mark Fiorino for openly carrying a handgun in the city. They then threw Fiorino to the ground, handcuffed him, pointed their guns at him, and repeatedly threatened to kill him.
As it turns out, Fiorino had done nothing illegal. He had his gun permit with him, a fact he told the officers when they tried to arrest him. The police officers didn’t know the gun laws in their own city. Fiorino did.
Not only were the officers not punished for nearly killing a man who had done nothing wrong, Philadelphia District Attorney R. Seth Williams then charged Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct because Fiorino had a tape recorder with him, and recorded the entire confrontation.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story stated that Mark Fiorino was jailed after his altercation with police in Philadelphia. Though he was later charged and tried for a felony, Fiorino was released at the scene and wasn’t jailed.

Myth 4: We have appeals courts to check and verify jury verdicts.
Appeals courts review claims that a defendant wasn’t afforded his rights under the U.S. Constitution, or the constitution of a particular state. They also review claims that the prosecution or judge did not follow the proper rules of criminal procedure and decide whether those lapses resulted in in an unfair trial. But they almost never second-guess a guilty verdict by reconsidering the evidence.
In a 2008 article published in the Columbia Law Review, Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, reviewed how appeals courts handled the first 200 cases in which DNA testing exonerated a defendant who had previously been convicted of rape or murder. Of those 200 convictions, just 18 convictions were at one point reversed by appellate courts. Another 67 defendants’ appeals were denied without even a written ruling. In 63 cases the appellate court opinion described the defendant as “guilty,” and in 12 cases referred to “overwhelming” evidence of guilt. In the remaining cases, the appeals courts either found the defendant’s appeal without merit or found that the errors in the case were “harmless” — there were problems with the case, but those problems were unlikely to have affected the jury’s verdict — due, again, to the convincing evidence of guilt.

Myth 5: Due to their position, law enforcement officials are held to a higher standard of conduct than regular citizens.
A strong argument can be made that they’re actually held to a lower standard. Unlike any other profession in America, prosecutors and judges are protected by the doctrine of absolute immunity, which completely shields them from civil liability for the decisions they make in the course of their jobs. The courts have ruled that prosecutors can’t be sued even if they intentionally manipulate or manufacture evidence that results in the conviction of an innocent person.
Police officers and most other government officials are protected by qualified immunity, which holds that even if they violate a citizen’s rights, they can only be held liable if a reasonable person would have known their actions were illegal. And unlike private sector workers, most government employees — including police officers — are not expected to have specialized knowledge of the laws governing their professions.
Many states have also passed a “police officer’s bill of rights,” a special set of protections for officers accused of serious misconduct, including acts that could result in criminal charges. In many jurisdictions, police officers get a “cooling off period” after a shooting or allegation of excessive force. During this period, which can range from 48 hours to 10 days, the officers under investigation cannot be asked any questions about the incident. In most states, police officers also can’t be questioned about misconduct without a union representative or attorney present. If any part of the police bill of rights protocol isn’t followed, even officers who commit egregious misconduct can find themselves back on the force, often with back pay.
In most places these extra rights only pertain to internal, administrative investigations, not criminal investigations — but the internal investigations usually take place first. That means bad cops can use those protections to gain advantages not afforded to those who don’t happen to work in law enforcement.
Unlike other professions, police officers and other public officials also can’t be fired from their jobs or disciplined for invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Myth 6: Dangerous criminals frequently escape punishment by “getting off on a technicality.”
A regular viewer of Bill O’Reilly or Nancy Grace could be forgiven for thinking our criminal courts are heavily stacked in favor of child molesters, drug dealers and cold-blooded killers. In truth, the conviction rate for federal prosecutors is 90-95 percent. For state prosecutors it varies by jurisdiction, but convictions rates generally fall between 60 and 85 percent.
It also isn’t true that appeals courts are setting criminals free en masse because of technical errors that occur in the police station or the district attorney’s office. Even when an appeals court does overturn a conviction, the defendant usually remains in custody until the state decides whether to retry the case, and isn’t released unless acquitted at the new trial.
But reversals aren’t as common as one might think. Though data is difficult to come by, according to a 2005 study in the Florida State University Law Review, from the mid-1940s until about 2004, 87 to 99 percent of federal guilty verdicts were upheld on appeal. A look at 2006 affirmance rates in criminal appeals published in the Marquette University Law Review put the reversal rate of guilty verdicts at about 12 percent. It’s even more difficult to find data at the state level, but the same Marquette article looked at a multi-state study from the late 1980s that found about 70 to 80 percent of guilty verdicts were upheld on appeal.

Myth 7: No one confesses to a crime he didn’t commit.
False confessions are more common than one might think. In a 2008 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Washington, D.C., Detective Jim Trainum wrote about a case in which he was able to extract a murder confession from a suspect. The confession included details about the murder only the perpetrator could have known. Trainum was later shocked to learn that the woman who had confessed to him couldn’t possibly have committed the crime. He went back to review the tape, and found that he had inadvertently revealed details about the crime during his interrogation.
According to the Innocence Project, about one in four convictions that have been overturned by DNA testing involved defendants who at one point had actually confessed to the crime for which they were later exonerated.
Minors and the mentally disabled are especially prone to false confessions, but anyone under considerable duress or who has endured an unusually long or harsh interrogation can be susceptible. Rob Warden and Steven A. Drizin point out in the book “True Stories of False Confessions,” an anthology of reports of 48 people who confessed to felonies they didn’t commit, the confession often puts a halt to the investigation, even when the confessions “aren’t corroborated or don’t fit the facts of the alleged crimes.”

Myth 8: Sex offenders are more likely to reoffend than other criminals.
There’s no set of crimes more plagued by misconceptions and hysteria than sex crimes. In some cities, laws restricting where convicted sex offenders can live once they’re released have become so restrictive, they’re forced to live under bridges or in patches of woods.
While it’s understandable that lawmakers and the public in general would have little sympathy for rapists or child molesters, in truth, people have landed on sex offender lists for exposing themselves in public (remember the “streaking” craze in the 1970s?), public urination, or having sex at age 17 with someone who is 15. In Texas, children as young as 10 can be put on the sex offender list.
In some states, you can land on the sex offender list for crimes that have nothing to do with sex. In seven states, “unlawful restraint of a minor” will land you on the list. See the Illinois case of Fitzroy Barnaby, who is now forced to register as a sex offender for grabbing a girl by the arm to lecture her after she road her bike out in front of his car, nearly causing him to hit her. The federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, passed in 2006, requires all states to put in place similar regulations in order to continue to receive federal funding.
Because they’re usually passed out of anger and passion rather than after careful contemplation, sex offender laws often make little sense. People caught with child pornography on their computers, for example, can be subject to harsher penalties than people who actually molest children, despite the fact that many people who merely consume child porn aren’t a threat to actual children. (Some were molested as children themselves, and consume pornography as a form of therapy.)
As Jacob Sullum points out in a recent article for Reason magazine (my former employer), under federal law, “a defendant with no prior criminal record and no history of abusing children would qualify for a sentence of 15 to 20 years based on a small collection of child pornography and one photo swap, while a 50-year-old man who encountered a 13-year-old girl online and lured her into a sexual relationship would get no more than four years.”
There’s also little support for the common belief that sex offenders are especially likely to repeat their crimes after they’re released from prison. Sullum points to a litany of research debunking that misconception, including a 2003 Department of Justice survey finding a 5 percent recidivism rate for sex offenders within three years of their release, versus a 22 percent rate for people convicted of nonsexual assault.
None of this is to say we should give a pass to people who actually do prey on children, or others. But our laws ought to address the actual harm, not perceived harm, and they should be passed based on real-world data, not the hysterical visions of pundits and politicians, or in response to a single incident.

Myth 9: Seeing is believing. Eyewitness testimony is a reliable way of solving crimes.
Scientists have known about the problems with eyewitness testimony going back to the 19th century, when psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus’s research on human memory gave us the “Forgetting Curve,” a graph plotting how human recollection fades over time — within minutes of creating a memory. Since Ebbinghaus, there have been a number of fascinating studies confirming his research.
In a 1999 Iowa State University study, participants were shown grainy video footage of a real case in which a man shot and killed a security guard while robbing a convenience store. They were then given five pictures, and told that the culprit was included in the photo set — except that he wasn’t. Yet every one of the participants still claimed they could positively identify the culprit in one of the photos.
More troubling, when the researchers positively reinforced one group’s selection of the culprit, that group became more confident in their identification. Half said they were now “certain” of their identification. Those participants also said they would be more willing to testify against the suspect. They were more likely to describe the hazy security footage as “clear.”
Another study released in 2009 took the 1999 experiment a step further. Psychologists Lisa Hasel of Iowa State and Saul Kassin of John Jay College staged the theft of a laptop in front of a group of students. The students were then shown a lineup of possible suspects, but the lineup did not include the actual thief. The students weren’t told they had to pick someone, only if they recognized him. They were then asked to rate their confidence in their selection from one to 10. Incredibly 173 students wrongly identified a suspect from the lineup. Just 33 said they couldn’t pick out a culprit.
Two days later, the researchers brought the students back. Some were told that one of the suspects had confessed. Half the students who originally (and correctly) refused to finger a suspect from the lineup then changed their minds, now asserting that the person who confessed was indeed the person they saw. Of those who identified the suspect who later confessed, their confidence level in their identification increased from a six to an 8.5.
It’s important to note that the students weren’t asked to rate their confidence in the suspect’s guilt, only in their ability to identify him from memory. Memory fades over time, but positive feedback from authority figures can actually make an eyewitness more confident in a false recollection.
The criminal justice system has been disturbingly slow to embrace the established science on human memory. More than three of every four wrongful convictions overturned by DNA testing were in part the result of faulty eyewitness testimony.
Simple reforms would go a long way, such as making witness and photo lineups double-blind, where neither the officer conducting the lineup nor the witness knows which person is the suspect. Lineups should also include people that the police know are innocent. If a witness selects someone police know is innocent, police and prosecutors will then know that particular witness’s memory isn’t reliable.
Yet police departments have been slow to embrace change. Stephen Saloom, policy director for the Innocence Project, told Nature last year that despite the research showing clear problems with eyewitness identification, and the simple reforms that could compensate for them, “The majority of jurisdictions are simply sticking with what they have always done.”

Myth #10: Wrongful convictions are tragic, but they’re inevitable in an imperfect system. We at least take care of the wrongly convicted once we realize there has been a mistake.
With some notable and laudable exceptions, prosecutors often find it difficult to let go of a conviction — even once it’s clear that they got the wrong man. Currently in Texas, where there’s strong evidence that the state has already executed an innocent man, public officials from the local prosecutor all the way up to the governor are fighting to prevent death row inmate Hank Skinner from testing DNA from his case that could prove his innocence (or clearly establish his guilt).
In Mississippi, District Attorney Forrest Allgood fought for years to prevent death row inmate Kennedy Brewer from running the DNA from his case through a state database to see if it matched a known convict. When Brewer finally won the right to run the test, it not only exonerated Brewer, but showed that Allgood had also convicted another innocent man in another case, Levon Brooks. The DNA pointed to a man named Albert Johnson, who later confessed to both crimes.
Illinois Assistant State’s Attorney Michael Mermel has had DNA tests clear a number of suspects in cases his office was handling in Lake County, yet he has been stubborn in clearing their names. In one particularly egregious case, Mermel suspected a man named Jerry Hobbs of raping and killing his 8-year-old daughter and her friend. When DNA testing showed that the semen found in the mouth, rectum and vagina of Hobbs’ daughter didn’t belong to Hobbs, Mermel dismissed the results, explaining that the girls must have inadvertently picked up the semen while playing in a woods where teenagers were known to have sex.
Even after there’s a consensus that the state has convicted the wrong person, it can be a struggle for the exonerated to get compensation. In 23 states, there’s still no automatic compensation for the wrongly convicted. They have to go to court. And in states that do have compensation laws, the exonerated are deemed ineligible if they contributed to their own conviction by, for example, giving a false confession (see “Myth 7: No one confesses to a crime he didn’t commit”).
In other states, the wrongly convicted are only eligible for compensation if they’re cleared by DNA testing, even though DNA evidence is only dispositive of guilt in a small percentage of cases. So in Missouri, for example, when Josh Kezer was exonerated by a judge after serving 15 years for a murder he didn’t commit, he wasn’t eligible for the state’s compensation law.
Perversely, if Kezer had committed the crime, then been paroled after 15 years, he would have been eligible for job training and other state assistance programs designed to integrate ex-cons back into society. But because Kezer was declared innocent, he wasn’t eligible for those programs, either. (Kezer was eventually awarded a settlement by the county that convicted him, but the county wasn’t obligated to settle under state law).
In many states, compensation is awarded for each year of wrongful incarceration, but it’s paid out not in a lump sum, but in annual installments, usually spread out over 20 years. So a man imprisoned for decades for a crime he didn’t commit, but who isn’t exonerated until he’s 70, isn’t likely to live long enough to see much of his compensation.
The exonerated are also often subject to codes of conduct in order to continue to receive compensation. It’s as if they’re on parole, even though they’ve been cleared of the crime for which they were convicted.

A)  We learned we are right.  You say “How?  We lost”.  Yes for now, but we now erase the doubt we might have had that we couldn’t make any difference. We did. We did not lose 21 to 0 as we did in the Senate on SB 51. We gained 6 converts in the House since SB 51 passed there   There is  far more fired up opposition than before… Here is what is important. Everyone… whether its been on blogs, through emails, or one on ones, whom we’ve engaged has come around to our way of thinking.   The other side knows this. That’s the reason for the rush, That’s the reason for the secrecy. That’s the reason there was no debate on any education bill, until we parents pushed it!..  Bottom line is we are gaining numbers; they are losing numbers.  Something of which we should all be extremely proud!

B) This is a child-led reform… The protagonists are the children who need us to proxy for them.  The antagonists are wealthy, well connected businesspeople who control the playing field, who have many minions in their power, and who want to muscle into a lucrative piece of property belonging to those children. This battle is and will be, between children and business men.  Everything else is distraction.  If you choose to be pro business; you will be anti child.

C. They control the castle.. Some day we will have to storm that castle, but we have everything outside its walls to draw from.   Our first step is to build an army.  A really big army. We’ve been introspective in this battle up to now.  Now is the time to reach out.  They are stuck in the castle, we have the entire world.   When those inside finally look out, as see the massive army arrayed against them, then they will understand what we were trying to say.  It’s the only way.

D.  It is obvious they have no clue of what they did.   Even Jacques could not explain the bill effectively. Even Jacques had to install Amendment 3 which is longer in length than most full bills passed in either chamber. They know they are in trouble….  ”Their bottle of Doctor’s greul ain’t no Coca-Cola.  Very good legislators think they are supporting progress against the “naysayers” on the outside…  They simply don’t know.  What we did too much of was preach to the choir.  It is time to go out and evangelize.

5.  They are wounded.  Now is not the time to rest up.  Now is the time to press the fight when they are licking their wounds…

Forward…  all… we are moving at a forced march to press the fight on them.  Kids everywhere are counting on us; we cannot let them down.

yawn… it was a long day..

The House on Teacher’s Lane is a story about love and family relationships set within the framework of rehabbing a hundred year old row house in the small city of Wilmington, Delaware.  I read chapter one and think, Yes!  This is just what I was hoping for.  I discover that the author’s neighborhood, “sandwiched between downtown office towers at the hill’s peak and a genteel park at the hill’s bottom”  is a real community where neighborly gatherings are common and people care about each other.  It’s a place where you can walk to do errands or down to the park across a nineteenth century stucco bridge and along a cobblestone road.  Walking along the Brandywine Parkway toward the river, you might even spot a great blue heron.  Simon and her husband see one all the time.  They’ve named him Edward.  There’s a zoo and a major hospital and it’s close to the interstate, but quiet.  It seems lovely.

The house itself has a terra cotta porch, a heavy oak front door, hardwood floors, plaster walls and working transom windows.  Just before the project begins, Simon and her husband share a moment holding hands and looking out at the street from the third floor music room.  She says, It seemed as if we were in a glass ship sailing down a river of row houses and trees, embarking on a voyage that transcended our failed past.  I can picture the majestic sycamores which line the street and drape one set of windows while the sunlight streams in.  I think about their failed past.  Simon and her husband, Hal, have only been married a few years after having an on again, off again relationship for nineteen years. Nineteen! It seems she couldn’t commit and didn’t recognize all of Hal’s great qualities until she spent time away from him.  But now they’re back together and living their happily ever after.

Near the end of chapter one, Simon muses:  “Is it possible that I’m beginning to see less of what isn’t and more of what is?”  And herein lies the rub.  Simon seems a bit of a whiner.  She does seem to always comment on what isn’t — what’s lacking in relationships with her husband and her family, what’s lacking in the old house.  The concept here is that against the backdrop of the construction project, Simon works on her relationships in the same way her husband works on their remodel.  But I don’t think these two ideas echo each other in a convincing way in this memoir.  And, for my purposes, I’m looking for a book that gives me a real sense of Delaware as a place.  Early on, Simon notes that while Hal thinks in terms of things you can see or hear . . . my conversation seldom strayed from emotions and memory and relationships and the meaning of life.”  Alas, this is also true.  Only in chapter one do I get a sense of what makes Wilmington unique.  The rest of the book could be happening in Anywhere, U.S.A.  There is some lovely writing here, and Simon has some useful things to say about relationships and what it takes to keep them viable, but the memoir lacks what I am looking for and this worries me.

I realize that in my first attempt to explain exactly what I’m after in my quest to read a book about each state, I have not made myself clear.  After all, I’m just beginning this journey, trying to figure it out while I dive right in, or drive right through.  But wait.  The bookseller at Ninth Street Book Shop mentioned another Delaware writer first, Christopher Castellani.  I should look him up!  Even though his latest novel takes place in Italy, the earlier ones in this family trilogy are set in Wilmington.  But they might be out of print.  I log on to the Seattle Public Library catalog.  Turns out that the second in the trilogy, The Saint of Lost Things, the story of an Italian couple who move to Wilmington to start a new life in the 1950′s, is available so I order it up with my fingers crossed.

Why? Our Constitution & our courtrooms have been hijacked by lawyers & politicians. The law was created for US not them, yet they have turned our courtrooms into  a 3 ring circus & law is left to be interpreted by a bunch of legally sanctioned vultures & hyenas.

For a time I tried to learn from the Patriot Community, but it seemed to me some of the ploys used by them also bordered on treason. I love our Constitution, it does not need changing, but this is what happens when you push ordinary citizens into a corner & take from them every thing they believe & everything they own, & have ever been taught. I honestly believe it is the Patriots & the Survivalists who will be the only ones who will be able to save us from our own ignorance & laziness.

It has been said that Diapers & Politicians must be changed often for the same reason… Nothing is truer. Unfortunately we have turned Judges into politicians by making them elected officials. That needs to change, they need to become ordinary citizens on a state, city or county payroll,held to the same standards as any other public employee.

Lawyers & Judges are still both Attorneys & the only agency that oversees their conduct are other lawyers through one of 2 agencies, the State’s Judicial Commissions & the States Bar Associations. The Judicial Commission is nothing more then a bunch of overpaid attorneys, & the Bar is by far the biggest joke there is. They are not a legal or Government agency, they are a private association, the same lawyers they are supposed to be “watching” are the same one’s who pay a yearly fee to be there. That also needs to change.

Next of the most incestuous relationship of the courts is the “Public Defense” System. You have the Judge, The Prosecutor & the Public Defender, all lawyers, all paid by the same agency, & somehow you are supposed to believe that one of them will have your best interest at heart. Even if you are one of the lucky ones who get an attorney who wants to fight with you, if he or she files more then 1 or 2 motions in your defense they will be sanctioned & targeted by the Bar Association & the Judge. The sad part is most people don’t even realize most of what I have said here today. Most people don’t even know what the “Bill of Rights” is or what it says.

Millions have shed their blood to make sure we have these rights because Freedom is NOT free yet most people would rather sit on Facebook making fake farms & playing with pissed of birds.

Most people like myself thought that the Government would just take care of everything, write good laws, protect our rights, because it is far easier then thinking for ourselves.The “Patriot Act ” & “NDAA” have proven that we can longer trust the Govt to wield OUR power anymore.

Teach yourself, teach your children, teach your grandchildren, your family, your friends, your neighbors & PROTECT & DEFEND the Constitution

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription ~ The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “BILL OF RIGHTS”

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As we grew as a Nation we also presented other Amendments to protect citizens rights
AMENDMENT XI
Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.
Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

AMENDMENT XII
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

AMENDMENT XVIII
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.
Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XX
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.
Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.
Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3rd day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5.
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

AMENDMENT XXI
Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.
Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.
Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXIII
Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.
Section 1.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXV
Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.
Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.
Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.
Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XXVII
Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – June has stormed into the Delaware Valley with a Tropical Storm, record rainfall and a tornado which touched down just yesterday in Newark, DE.  Since the beginning of the month, the region has experienced its most extreme weather since Hurricane Sandy slammed into our coastline last October.

During the first week of June, Tropical Storm Andrea quickly formed and spun up the East coast dumping as much as five inches of rain in spots. Our area was hit hard on Friday by Andrea’s relentless downpours and gusty winds. The storm proved to be a problem before the storm ever arrived. Flight delays snarled passengers for hours from New York State to Florida and power outages were counted in the thousands up and down the U.S. East coast.

In our suburbs, the Brandywine, Chester and Neshaminy creeks among others could not handle all the runoff from Andrea’s rains and quickly overflowed their banks.  Poor drainage areas and low lying streets were closed off due to flooding and traveling on the roads became a traffic nightmare for some, as they head home, on Friday afternoon. Before all was said and done, Andrea dumped over three-and-a-half inches at the Philadelphia airport, which set a new record for daily rainfall on June 7^th.

The flood waters barely had time to recede before another significant storm hit our area on Monday. A strong area of low pressure barreled out of the Midwest with enhanced moisture and drenched our area once again with several inches of rain. Flood Watches were posted for the second time in less than three days and as expected the susceptible waterways spilled out of their banks when the rain began. Rain from Monday’s storms totaled 2.1 inches in Philadelphia and that was enough to break another daily record that stood for over one hundred years. The last time it rained so much on June 10^th was back in 1903 when 2.08 inches of rain fell on the city.

The extra force of Monday’s storms even led to the season’s first confirmed tornado and 10-20 homes near Newark, Delaware sustained EF0 damage. Winds in the tornado were estimated to be 80 mph and this was enough to topple large trees and send debris flying for miles though the air. Several people in the Robscott Manor neighborhood had to abandon their homes yesterday but thankfully there were no injuries or fatalities.

Since the beginning of the month, we have received 6.79 inches of rain at the Philadelphia International Airport, currently making it the 10^th wettest June of all-time (with over a half of the month still to go).  Rainfall is already 5.57 inches above the normal, and the record for the month of June stands at 10.06 inches set back in 1938.  If we continue on our current rainfall pace, it is highly likely that we will drown this record for good.

Before we get too comfortable with a break in the action today and tomorrow, our eyes are now turned to another large scale event expected on Thursday. The Storm Prediction Center has already placed part of the region in an enhanced risk for severe weather (primarily Philadelphia and south) and multiple weather models are indicating very heavy rain and strong thunderstorms. Any thunderstorm could contain damaging wind and hail and there is even the threat of an isolated weak tornado. No matter what exactly occurs Thursday, it is looking more and more concerning that the area will have to sustain another deluge from Mother Nature and this time the streets, creeks and rivers are even more vulnerable to flooding.

The heaviest rain is expected Thursday afternoon and evening before the front crosses the region and moves out to sea. Residual showers are forecasted on Friday before high pressure moves in and finally gives us sunshine for the weekend.

Now, you will likely never find me defending Ann Coulter, and I assure you that I will not here. A lot of the things she said in the interview I disagreed with, and she’s definitely wrong on a number of points because she pretty clearly side stepped follow up questions. The one point that resonated with me was when she called us pussies for picking and choosing the battles we fight in front of liberals. Frightening though it sounds, does she have a point?

Today I applauded Governor Jack Markell for his efforts to progress the GLBT cause, and provide equality for all under Delaware law. Here are two Tweets the Governor put out today.

We’ve come a long way in the 50 yrs since inception of #EqualPayDay but until the earnings gap disappears we haven’t gone far enough. #netDE

— Gov. Jack Markell (@GovernorMarkell) June 10, 2013

Latest post on @huffpostpol re: #GenderID Equality in #netDE. LINK: ow.ly/lUI1j @eqde#SB97 @huffingtonpost#transgender#lgbtq

— Gov. Jack Markell (@GovernorMarkell) June 11, 2013

Applauding the Governor was very un-Libertarian of me. You see among the debates in the Libertarian party most Libertarians are fundamentally against any laws that favor or harm a person based on their race, sex, etc. General belief is that capitalism and the free exchange of information in the marketplace of ideas should eventually cause such things to happen naturally, and government force should not be needed for those changes to occur.

Now, as some Libertarians will say, once you give something to one group, then you have to turn around and give it to everyone. Once you have “straight marriage” you have to have “gay marriage”. Ideally government would not be involved in marriage at all. See my blog True Marriage Equality: Get the Government Out for more information related to that.

That point aside, I am conflicted as to whether or not I should be supportive of Governor Markell in his efforts to pass Transgender Discrimination Laws, as well as his continued efforts to attempt to force businesses to close the earnings gap between men and women. I refuse to be a slave to the dogma of the Libertarian party, as I was a slave to the dogma of the Republican party on some issues, and so what I may say will come as a shock to some of my devout Libertarian friends, but I’m going to “pussy out” on this one.

We already have anti-discrimination laws in  place in Delaware, and in the foreseeable future I don’t see that changing. We actually have some of the worst anti-discrimination laws in the country, and while I want to see that change, I also want everyone on equal standing on this issue. Gays and lesbians are protected, it’s only fair to extend protection to the transgender community. Ideally no group, in my opinion, would be protected, but we have to be consistent.

As far as the glass ceiling, women’s rights, and minimum wage go I’m going to have to leave those topics for another day. They’ll have to come after something on NSA wiretapping, though…

Related articles

• The rise of libertarianism – again (bangordailynews.com)
• Defining Libertarianism (kingsofdeceit.wordpress.com)
• Delaware’s Jack Markell: Gay Marriage Good For Our Economy (ontopmag.com)

As told only as Nancy can:

“One of the interesting things Jaques told us at the May PDD meeting was that the working group had an agreed process where they reviewed ideas and only those that reached a consensus were added to the list of recommendations.

Jaques said that the up-to-$5 million Charter Performance Fund, to be controlled by DDOE, was NOT placed on the list with consensus. The fund ended up on the list despite NOT being supported by the working group.”

This year Earl (D-Charter Schools Network) has claimed vociferously that he–NOT the Charter School work group–authored HB 165...

In the printed text of Earl Jacques himself:

“So if you want to know where this bill came from – its me along with some help from Rep Kowalko!!  I was also a member of the Charter School Study Group. Therefore, I used the information I gained from that group along with personal observations to author HB 165.”

So where DID the slush fund come from?

In one version it was sneaked in by the real authors, the Delaware Charter Group.

In another, it was all written by Jacques and Kowalko, (even though Kowalko states the bill (he thought he had written) morphed into something totally different….

So which is it Jacques?  Were you the one we must all blame for creating this “gimme piece of legislation” to the aristocrats who run the money behind this state?  Or are you the one we must all blame for being their patsy, and disguising their work to sneak it in under the radar of anyone watching???

Would you lie to me?  Be careful, Jacques… we’re on to you now…

A) The establishment of a Charter Performance Fund, starting at $2 million; I’ll raise you to 5.

B) Charter Schools are a form of re-segregation.

C) The DOE can transfer funds from public to charter schools. If that were such a good practice, then they should also be able to transfer funds from Charters back into public funds. That they cannot do.

D) A charter contract for ten years is way too long. The decisions made today, cannot be changed for bad or worse, until 2023 if this is the case…

Therefore this is a super bad bill and should be scrapped (paraphrased…:) )

For this week’s blog, we decided to give you a video. Markatos Services rep talks all about how to maintain a clean home when you have pets. We love our pets but we hate the mess they leave behind. Pet stains? Pet Hair? NO PROBLEM! Be proactive in preventing your home from looking like your pet owns it. Markatos Services provides professional, detailed cleaning services for both residential and commercial properties. We also offer window washing, pressure washing and handyman services. No surface goes untouched! Call 302.792.0606 or visit markatosservices.com for a free quote.

====

147th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

FISCAL NOTE

Bill: HOUSE BILL NO. 165

sponsor: Representative Jaques

DESCRIPTION: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO EDUCATION AND CHARTER SCHOOLS.

ASSUMPTIONS:

1. This Act is effective July 1, 2013.

2. This Act will fund minor capital improvements at the same level as Vocational Technical School Districts whereby the state will provide 100 percent of funding for minor capital improvements versus the current formula of 60 percent of funding.

3. The proposed level of funding for minor capital improvements for charter schools included in the Fiscal Year 2014 Governor’s Recommended Capital Budget updated for current school year enrollment is $528,597. This amount represents 60 percent of funding for minor capital improvements. This Act will increase the proposed level of funding to $880,454, an impact of $351,857 as it represents 100 percent of funding for charter school minor capital improvements. These estimates do not include Pencader Charter School as it is scheduled to close at the end of the current school year.

4. This Act also establishes a Charter School Performance Fund that is subject to an appropriation and shall not exceed $5.0 million annually. The Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Act, as written by the Joint Finance Committee, includes an appropriation of $2.0 million for the Charter School Performance Fund pending the passage of this Act.

5. The Charter School Performance Fund is to be administered by the Department of Education through an application process focusing on an applicant’s performance, supplemental non-state sources of funding, plans for start-up or expansion, and service to high-need students, as defined by the Department of Education.

Cost:

Fiscal Year 2014: $351,857 for minor capital improvements

Indeterminable for the Charter School Performance Fund as it is subject to available appropriation ($2.0 million is included in the FY 2014 Budget)

Fiscal Year 2015: $351,857 for minor capital improvements

Indeterminable for the Charter School Performance Fund as it is subject to available appropriation.

Fiscal Year 2016: $351,857 for minor capital improvements

Indeterminable for the Charter School Performance Fund as it is subject to available appropriation.

Office of Controller General (Amounts are shown in whole dollars)

June 03, 2013

MJ:MJ

0271470011

=====

Fiscal Conservatives should be up in arms because the if this bill passes, the amounts for The Charter Performance fund are undetermined as of yet.  It will bust the budget by $3 million dollars!  THAT’S  THREE  TIMES  MORE  THAN  THE  PORT  OF  WILMINGTON   IS PUTTING  US  IN  THE  RED   EACH  YEAR !!!!!!!!!!!

The sky IS  falling.

Every General Assembly bill with money involved must have a fiscal note attached.  I’d looked over it before and once was almost going to make a post over ”Gee, What Could Cost $351,857 That Would Break Down Consistently Across The Next Three Years.”  Well you know what I was thinking:  this was an arbitrary slush fund being buried supposedly with “minor repairs” attached to its checkbook which could be used however it is to be wished….

Then in a completely unrelated verbal conversation taking place last summer, this statement got thrown out… “What’s the rent for putting in that charter school?”   “Umm, just 55K over a million, across three years…”

On a hunch… and it could be coincidence….

3 years  X  $351,857  =  $1,055,571..….

This entire charter bill is a smokescreen to get the state to put up 1.5 million for a connected someone’s Private School…  It has nothing to do with School Lunches. It has nothing to do with new charters. It has nothing to do with closing bad schools.  It has nothing to do with anything really, except get people to talk about the other…. so this $1.5 million for “a friend of ours” gets done….

Now let me be perfectly clear.  The money, now that we know why it is being rammed through, now that we know for exactly “WHO” it is being rammed through, is inconsequential…

What is unconscionable,  is that every single solitary student remaining in the entire web of the state of Delaware’s public school system, currently one of the finest in the nation,  must suffer, so “SOMEONE” gets their $1.5 million slid over to them in secret…….

That borders the definition of evil…..

Police say that around 10:15 a.m., an industrial painting crew was working under the elevated section of the Christiana Bypass when they found the decomposing body of an adult male.

The body was found in about three feet of water and was fully clothed.

Delaware State Police are currently investigating the incident.

[listicle id=55129 align=left show_title=true]