U. S. Supreme Court Wraps Up "Blockbuster" Term. Watch Video.

Another View, Albeit Intelligent View: George Zimmerman Trial Has All The Ingredients For A Miscarriage Of Justice.

Zimmerman trial has all the ingredients for a miscarriage of justice

In following the George Zimmerman trial somewhat closely online
last week, I noted a familiar pattern:

A "heater" case that draws intense media interest.

Sympathetic victim.

Unsympathetic defendant.

Evidence of innocence explained away with 
far-fetched theories or else ignored.

Evidence of guilt magnified and bolstered with 
irrelevant detail and innuendo.

These are among the key ingredients for all the wrongful convictions
I've written about in the last 20 years.

Investigators and prosecutors put on the blinders early, before all the
facts come in.They fill the gaps and inconsistencies in the case with
suppositions inspired by sympathy for the victim, rage at the defendant
and a desire for what they've decided is justice.

I don't presume to know exactly what happened between Zimmerman
and TrayvonMartin on the subdivision walkway on that rainy night
in Sanford, Fla., in early 2012. And, a week into the prosecution's case,
 I don't know how anyone else can presumeto know.


Zimmerman shot the unarmed Martin dead at
point-blank rangeafter a brief, noisy confrontation.
But who struck the first blow in that confrontation,
escalating a mere misunderstanding betweenan officious neighborhood
 resident (Zimmerman) and an innocent visitor (Martin) into a fight and
then a tragedy?

Who was getting the worse of that fight? If it was Zimmerman, was he
justified in using lethal force to defend himself?

The original gloss on the story that galvanized protests nationwide was
that a white, armed vigilante had pursued and murdered a black child
just for sport, and authorities were shrugging it off.

This summary had great appeal to many of my fellow liberals for whom
it confirmed their worst fears about firearms, the malignant endurance
of racism and the cheapness with which law enforcement regards
African-American lives.

I felt it too. But they've clung to this narrative long after the emerging
facts have shown that the actual story is, at best, far more complex and
murky than the first news stories and protest chants had suggested.

Martin wasn't the slight middle-school student seen in first photos of
him made public, but a tall, athletic 17-year-old who'd had plenty of
time to walk safely home once he knew he was being followed.
Zimmerman was of mixed ethnicity, and he'd lost sight of Martin that
night while attempting to keep an eye on him for police.

Witnesses who last week testified that they heard or saw fragments
of their fatalconfrontation have been all over the place — literally,
in the case of the young woman on the phone with Martin up until
the altercation began. Her testimony places the fight roughly 50
yards from where it actually took place.

Still, the presumed-guilty crowd has continued to alter their narrative
— Martin didn't double back to confront Zimmerman, as the timeline 
suggests, but he hid in fear after he was seen running away, and 
Zimmerman found him! Zimmerman's bloody head wounds weren't 
bloody enough to suggest he feared for his life! —rather than alter
their perspective.

But if they can just take a few steps back for perspective, my friends
will see in themselves here the very police and prosecutors whom
they've justly criticized in so many other instances. They will see a
rush to judgment, tunnel vision and an almost desperate attempt to 
sidestep accumulating reasonable doubts. They will see that skepticism
about the legal process is not something to be set aside when a
prosecution suits your politics.

Again, I don't presume to know exactly what happened between George
Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin that night. I don't presume to say I know
whether Zimmerman was actually justified in using deadly force to defend
himself, or whether the jurors who will listen to every last word of the
testimony will find him guilty.

But I do presume to recognize a familiar travesty brewing when I see one.

Ethical "But For" Dilemma For The George Zimmerman Trial Jury, As I See It, As A Criminal Defense Lawyer, Who Is A Former Prosecutor.

Surprised at the extent of the physical fight between #TrayvonMartin and #GeorgeZimmerman, while I still can't believe the smaller TM got the better of GZ who was training in #MixedMartialArts unless GZ staged it all along so he can say he was defending himself under Floriduh's #StandYourGround law. 

But one thing is very, very CLEAR to me : it is the #butfor scenario. 

The but for question asks: but for George Zimmerman's decision to ignore the directive of the police dispatcher and instead play #BarneyFife in real life, with tragic consequences, would any of this bs resulting in death have happened?

I answer in the negative. 

Therein lies the dilemma for the jury: whether George Zimmerman deserves to pay for the but for, or ride home on a white horse!

Is New England Patriots Tight End Aaron Hernandez A Cold Blooded Murderer With Two Other Men? Police Say They Have Their Men In Custody. Watch Video.

Federal Grand Jury Indicts Another Kentucky Sheriff's Deputy For Using Excessive Force.

Ky. deputy indicted by federal grand jury

A federal grand jury has indicted a south-central Kentucky sheriff's deputy on two counts of using excessive force.
Media reported the Department of Justice announced the charges on Thursday against Pulaski County Deputy Steve Molen.

Molen's attorney, Patrick F. Nash, told the Lexington Herald-Leader that he is confident Molen will be exonerated.

Sheriff Todd Wood said he didn't think Molen had done anything wrong and said the deputy has been a "tremendous asset" and had led the department in arrests for drunken driving. Molen has worked for the department since 2005.
"I support every one of the men and women who work within the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office ... and I support Deputy Molen," Wood said. "These people do a tremendous job, protecting our community in a very dangerous job _ in a time where more and more law enforcement officers are being killed.
"That being said, I respect the U.S. Attorney's Office and I respect this process," Wood added. "We do not take these matters lightly."

Wood said he would consult with others to decide whether Molen should be reassigned to administrative duties while the charges are pending.
The Commonwealth Journal reports the charges stem from encounters Molen had with residents Danny Whitaker, who filed a lawsuit against the deputy that was later resolved, and Gordon Cowan.
"I'm a little dumfounded," Whitaker told the newspaper. "I don't know much about it, but I'm glad to hear it."
Cowan declined to comment.
Both indictments say Molen was acting "under color of law" as a deputy when the alleged incidents took place.
Molen was not arrested, but was cited to appear in federal court on July 11.

Obama's Snitches.

Indictment Returned Against Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Could Get Death Penalty. Watch News Video.

Correction: According To Bowling Green Daily News, Brandon Bradshaw Had Marijuana In His System.

BRANDON BRADSHAW SHOOTING Bradshaw tests have different outcomes

One was positive for marijuana

Bradshaw tests have different outcomes

Two toxicology screens performed on fluid samples taken the day a man was shot Feb. 26 on U.S. 31-W By-Pass resulted in two different conclusions: one positive for marijuana, the other negative.
 
The shooting was the end result of an incident related to a road interaction between motorists Brandon Bradshaw, 27, who was a youth theater educator and former constable, and Tommy Brown, who at that time was an off-duty, Warren County Sheriff’s Office court security officer. Both men were armed with handguns. Warren County Commonwealth’s Attorney Chris Cohron said during a 
March 27 news conference that to his knowledge, Brown was not administered any tests to check for the presence of drugs or alcohol in his system.

Kentucky State Police investigated the shooting and declined to comment on why Brown was not tested.

The case was closed March 27 when a Warren County grand jury did not find sufficient evidence to charge Brown with any crime in the shooting that led to Bradshaw’s death March 2 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. After filing an open records request with state police March 28, the Daily News on April 25 received a copy of the 190-page investigative file. KSP withheld Bradshaw’s toxicology report.

The Daily News appealed that decision to the office of the Kentucky attorney general, which held that KSP improperly withheld that information.

The Daily News subsequently received blood toxicology results from KSP on Tuesday and received urine toxicology results from the agency this morning.

A post-mortem toxicology analysis performed on a blood sample taken from Bradshaw the day he was shot while he was still alive shows that Bradshaw did not have any illegal substances in his bloodstream, according to the report issued by NMS Labs based in Willow Grove, Penn. NMS, a national laboratory, tested the blood on behalf of Forensic Medical Management Services in Nashville.

The blood sample was obtained from Bradshaw at 6:10 p.m. Feb. 26, according to the NMS lab report.

A urine drug screen performed by The Medical Center at 2:45 p.m. Feb. 26 shows that Bradshaw tested positive for marijuana, according to that report. Bradshaw was briefly treated at The Medical Center before being taken to Vanderbilt.

Drug detection performed through an analysis of urine typically has a longer detection window than a blood drug screen, according to an NMS lab spokesperson.

Bowling Green's Homosexual "Couple" Cheers U. S. Supreme Court's Same Sex Ruling, Calls Ruling "A Natural Progression".

Court ruling 'a natural progression'

Christin and Marcie Mulwitz

Christin and Marcie Mulwitz had a mini-celebration Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act – which defines marriage as between one man and one woman – is unconstitutional.
 
In another decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court also cleared the way for gay marriages to take place in California.

Christin and Marcie Mulwitz celebrated their third anniversary June 10.

They married in Provincetown, Mass., and live in Warren County, where they raise two children, ages 13 and 16. Family mementos are scattered through their home, including a plate with the children’s handprints and a glass vase filled with multicolored sand symbolizing the union of the family.

“It’s one of the reasons we went to Massachusetts, because it was important to us to teach the kids, you know, that you want to be in a committed marriage,” Marcie Mulwitz said. “We didn’t want to just move in together and live like that.”

The couple work, attend church and live normal lives, but their marriage isn’t recognized in Kentucky. They believe eventually it will be. The Supreme Court decision shows momentum on that front, Christin Mulwitz said.

Wednesday’s court decision will allow them to file federal taxes together.

“It’s just a natural progression,” Marcie Mulwitz said. “It’s just like any other rights. ... It’s well past time for it to be there.”

In the meantime, they try to protect their family. For example, they made a will so, if one dies, their home can’t be taken from the other, Marcie Mulwitz said.

But there are things for which they can’t make provisions.

“It gives us maybe a false sense of security, I would say,” Christin Mulwitz said.

There’s no guarantee, if one of them were sick or injured, that one would be allowed to visit each other, Marcie Mulwitz said.

Marcie Mulwitz also can’t legally adopt Christin Mulwitz’s children without her relinquishing parental rights. If something were to happen to her, the children might be taken away, Christin Mulwitz said.

That lack of stability wouldn’t be good for them, Marcie Mulwitz said.

“The most important thing in raising a kid is stability for them,” she said.

“And love,” Christin Mulwitz added.

Diane Lewis, acting president of Bowling Green’s chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said she was thrilled about the Supreme Court decisions.

“The tide is turning, and we’re on our way,” she said.

Today’s youths increasingly view homosexuality as a non-issue, and Lewis hopes Kentucky will catch up with national trends on gay marriage and fairness ordinances that help protect against discrimination.

Patricia Minter, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky Board of Directors and an associate history professor at Western Kentucky University, said that, as a legal scholar, she always thought the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. “It’s a major day for civil rights and human rights in the United States,” she said Wednesday.

Marriage is a basic right, Minter said. It’s meaningful culturally, facilitates process like inheritance and helps parents to create stable environments for children.

The Rev. Kara Hildebrandt, associate pastor at The Presbyterian Church on State Street, felt the Supreme Court rulings dealing with gay marriage were positive.

“It keeps the separation of church and state,” she said. “If the church defines marriage one way, that should not be placed on everyone. I think we saw justice in action today.”

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is in the process of discussing how to define marriage. The denomination allows gays and lesbians to be ordained as ministers.

“(It’s about) understanding that we are all God’s children,” Hildebrandt said. “(Sexual orientation) is not a defining factor in whether or not you are qualified to be ordained.”

She’s interested to see what will happen when ministers in states where gay marriage is legal are asked to perform gay and lesbian weddings that go against their beliefs.

Richard Nelson, executive director of the conservative think tank Commonwealth Policy Center in Cadiz, said he was surprised at the Supreme Court decision to strike down DOMA. The law has been in place for 17 years and was approved by large margins.

“It was wrong in that it subverts the democratic process,” he said.

He’s concerned that the activism he sees at the court level will discourage people from participating in the political process.

“When you have an activist court, you undermine that process,” Nelson said.

The ruling also sends the message to young people that marriage can be whatever they want instead of between a man and woman, he said.

Nelson said men and women represent two sides of humanity, and doesn’t believe that having two parents of the same gender is the same as having one of each gender.

“There is a difference between men and women,” he said. “Gender does mean something.”

For the Rev. Dave Thomas at Lakeview Fellowship Church, two things are supreme: God and the Bible. “That sets the boundaries for me of what’s right or wrong,” he said.

Because God says marriage is between a man and a woman, that’s what he believes is right. He is upset by the Supreme Court rulings.

“I think it’s very sad, kind of an indication of where our society is right now,” Thomas said.

It  frustrates him that the decision did not come from the people.

“Seemingly five people decided what’s right or wrong,” he said.

The Rev. Freddie Brown, pastor of State Street Baptist Church, doesn’t think allowing gays and lesbians to marry is in the same category as civil rights, such as the right to vote.

“I don’t see it in that light,” he said. “They are two completely different categories.”

Though he doesn’t believe homosexuality is in line with the word of God, he treats gays and lesbians with love.

“Our decision is to minister to all people, including those with alternative lifestyles,” Brown said. “Maybe we can get them to see God’s way. …It’s just like any other sinner. I might hate their crime, but I don’t hate them. We love the person regardless of the mistakes they made.”

Like I Said Already On FaceBook, Paula Deen Can Kiss My Black Arse. She's Only Sorry That She Got Caught And Is Losing Money. I Will Gladly Throw That Stone At Her Racist Head.

You Can Watch The George Zimmerman Trial Live Here.

Watch live video here.

Toxicology Reports Show Brandon Bradshaw Had No Illegal Drugs Or Substances In His System When He Was Shot, Only A Mild Sedative. Watch VSideo.

The Real Climate Change That Needs Fighting!

Neighbors Testify They Heard A Boy's Voice Yelling For Help, George Zimmerman On Top Of Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman trial: Neighbor testifies she heard "boy's voice" yelling for help

George Zimmerman, left, arrives in Seminole circuit court, with his wife Shellie, on nford, Fla., Monday, June 24, 2013. / Joe Burbank the 11th day of his trial, in Sa

(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A resident of the Florida gated community where former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman fatally shot unarmed teen Trayvon Martin last year testified Wednesday that she heard a boy's voice yelling for help the night of the altercation.

The court heard a dramatic 911 call in which neighbor Jayne Surdyka, crying, calls police to report the shooting. "Oh my god, I see someone killed, laying on the grass," Surdyka said in the recording. "I want to know what happened. Why would this man shoot him?"
On the witness stand, Surdyka appeared to wipe away tears as she listened to the recording.
"I wish I could have done something for the person," she said on the tape, crying. "Someone yelled for help. You feel like you could have helped them. I don't have a gun or anything."

A young female alternate juror and a male alternate juror also both appeared to wipe away tears as the tape was played in court, an Associated Press reporter tweeted.
Zimmerman, 29, is standing trial in the teen's Feb. 26, 2012 shooting death. Zimmerman claims he shot Martin in self-defense.
VIDEO: Zimmerman trial: Prosecutor opens with profanity

Asked by prosecutors to detail exactly what she heard, Surdyka said she believed she heard two voices, a "louder, dominating" voice and one that was "higher pitched," and said she saw two people struggling outside her window. She told the court that before the shooting, she heard the aggressive voice and a softer voice exchanging words for several minutes.
Then, she said she heard two yells for help.
"In my opinion, I truly believe especially the second yell for help, it was like a yelp, it was excruciating. I really felt like it was a boy's voice."
Surdyka also testified that she heard multiple gunshots, "pop, pop, pop." Only one shot was fired in the fatal encounter between Zimmerman and 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Other neighbors also have described hearing cries for help which were captured on their calls to 911. Martin's parents have said they were those of their son, while Zimmerman's father has said he believes the cries belong to his son. Defense attorneys successfully argued against allowing prosecution experts who claimed the cries belonged to Martin.

Next to take the stand was Jeannee Manalo, another neighbor. Manalo said she heard "howling" and saw two men struggling outside her home.

She said she saw a larger man on top of a smaller man, and after watching news reports, she said she concluded the man on top was George Zimmerman. "I believe it was Zimmerman, comparing the size of their bodies," she said.

Also Wednesday, Judge Debra Nelson ruled that she would allow at trial five police dispatch calls Zimmerman made in the months prior to his encounter with Martin.
Prosecutors want to use the calls to bolster their argument that Zimmerman was increasingly frustrated with repeated burglaries and had reached a breaking point the night he shot the unarmed teenager. Prosecutors played the calls for the judge Tuesday with the jurors out of the courtroom.

The recordings show Zimmerman's "ill will," prosecutor Richard Mantei said.
"It shows the context in which the defendant sought out his encounter with Trayvon Martin," he said.
Nelson also dismissed an alternate juror on Wednesday, a man identified as B-71, the Orlando Sentinel reports. Nelson didn't say why the juror was dismissed, but said it wasn't related to the case, reports the paper.

As Earlier Predicted By Me, By A 5 To 4 Opinion, U. S. Supreme Court Voids An Important Part Of Federal Defense Of Marriage Act, Thereby Gutting It.

The Court said this:

"DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset ofstate-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect."

You can read the opinion here.

U. S. Supreme Court Finds That Litigants Lacked "Standing" To Challenge California's Citizen Passed Proposition 8.

You can read the 5 to 4 decision here. The Court held:

"Article III’s requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in the federal system of separated powers. States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse."

Marching For Paula Deen's New Cookbook.

Breaking U. S, Supreme Court News: As I Expected, Court Invalidates Section 4 Of Voting Rights Act, Formula No Longer Valid For Pre-Clearance,

Read the 5 to 4 decision here.

Bowling Green, KY, Iraqis Get New Federal Prison Assignments.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Two Iraqi men sentenced to federal prison after pleading guilty to terrorism charges in Kentucky are getting new federal homes.

The federal Bureau of Prisons lists 32-year-old Waad Ramadan Alwan as "in transit." Alwan had been serving a 40-year sentence at United States Penitentiary-Terre Haute, in a facility 70 miles west of Indianapolis.

A co-defendant, 25-year-old Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, is serving life in prison. He is currently listed as an inmate in Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center. Hammadi had been held at the United States Penitentiary-Big Sandy in Inez, Ky.

Both are awaiting new federal prison assignments.

Isn't It Funny? The NSA Doesn't Know Where Ed Snowden Is! I'm ROTFLMAO!!

FOX News. Might As Well Be Talking About MSNBC, Too!

U. S. Supreme Court Passes On Texas Affirmative Action Case -- Fro Now--, Sends Case Back To Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals For Review.

Read the case here.

Kentucky's Slew Of New Laws Take Effect Next Week Tuesday.

New Kentucky laws start July 1

New Kentucky laws

Here are some of the other bills that take effect Tuesday:
• Child protection: HB 290 puts into state law an independent review panel to investigate cases of deaths and near-fatal injuries. The panel will have access to complete records of law enforcement and the Cabinet for health and Family Services.
• DNA testing: HB 41 will give some felony offenders in prison the ability to get DNA tests to establish their innocence. Currently post conviction DNA tests are available only in death penalty cases.
• Hemp: SB 50 create an administrative framework for the growing of hemp in Kentucky if the crop is legalized by the federal government.
• Human trafficking: HB 3 increases penalties for persons convicted of trafficking and creates a fund for programs to help victims.
• Dropout Bill: SB 97 will let school districts increase the compulsory attendance age to 18 beginning in the 2015 school year. The 18-year-old compulsory age will become mandatory statewide four years after 55 percent of Kentucky school districts adopt it.
• Teacher evaluations: HB 180 will require the Kentucky Board of Education to establish a statewide evaluation system for all teachers and other certified personnel. The Department of Education must put the new system in place before the 2014-15 school year.
• Coyote hunting: HB 60 will allow people to hunt coyotes at night using lights and night-vision equipment outside of deer season.
Election Day alcohol: SB 13 will allow alcohol sales while polls are open in places where alcohol sales are allowed otherwise and unless they are restricted by local government.

FRANKFORT, KY. — Starting Tuesday, people convicted of human trafficking in Kentucky will face tough new penalties; more prisoners will be able to use DNA tests to appeal their convictions; and hunters can pursue coyotes at night.
Also, Kentucky’s longstanding ban on alcohol sales while polls are open comes to an end just in time for a special election in Woodford County.

Those are among the changes coming as 110 bills passed by the 2013 General Assembly take effect — 90 days after adjournment of a productive and unusually harmonious session.
The one discordant note dividing Gov. Steve Beshear and lawmakers came from HB 279 — known as the Religious Freedom Bill — which legislators approved and Beshear vetoed. The House and Senate promptly overrode that veto by wide margins, so it too becomes law on Tuesday.

The bill says laws and regulations can’t “substantially” burden someone’s “sincerely held religious belief” unless there is a proven compelling governmental interest in doing so.
Proponents, including the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, said the measure was necessary to assure government has a compelling reason before it interferes with a citizen acting on his or her religious beliefs. But opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, argued it could legalize discrimination.

People on both sides of the debate over the say they know of no emerging case where someone plans to use its expansion of religious rights to defy the government — though participants in a pending Lexington case involving a company that refused to print T-shirts for a gay-rights group say the bill could become an issue in that case.
“We hope that nobody will use this bill to discriminate,” said Michael Aldridge, executive director of the Kentucky ACLU. “Until then we will monitor the situation closely and take action as necessary.”

The Rev. Pat Delahanty, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, said, “I don’t know what will happen. What I hope happens is that before the state infringes on anybody’s ability to practice their faith that it follows this law and proves it has a compelling reason to do so and uses the least restrictive means.”

 Gov. Steve Beshear said in a statement that he is sure the bill will be tested. “I still have significant concerns that this bill will cause serious unintended consequences that could threaten public safety, health care, and an individuals’ civil rights,” Beshear said. “I expect the bill will lead to costly litigation.”

Concerns about fairness

The largest concern expressed by civil liberties and gay-rights groups was that the bill could prompt business owners and other individuals to defy “fairness” laws in four Kentucky cities that prohibit anti-gay discrimination.
“There is some fear that people will try to use this law to discriminate by saying, ‘I shouldn’t have to serve someone in my restaurant because my religious beliefs say that I don’t have to serve gay people; or I shouldn’t have to employ a gay person at my business, or I shouldn’t have to rent or sell a home to someone because they are lesbian,’” Aldridge said. “And it would be up to a local judge to determine that.”

Paul Brown, president of Gay and Lesbian Services Organization, of Lexington, said he expects the new law to be invoked in a high-profile case that his group brought against a Lexington business before the city’s human rights commission.
The organization filed the complaint last year after Hands On Originals refused print T-shirts advertising the group’s annual pride festival.

Hands On Originals argued that it is a Christian company and disagreed with the message on the T-shirt. The Lexington human rights commission found probable cause of a violation of its fairness ordinance but will not decide the case until after a final hearing, which has not yet been scheduled.
“We think there’s a strong possibility the opposing side will bring up the new law — that this may be the first instance where it is invoked,” Brown said. “I’m not an attorney and I’m not sure what the new law will mean.”
 

Jim Campbell, an attorney with the national organization Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Hands On Originals, said he’s not sure how the bill might affect the case.

But, “Given that it’s a bill that protects the rights of citizens to live and do business in accordance with their faith, it certainly is something that would tend to strengthen Hands On Originals’ position,” Campbell said.
Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for The Family Foundation, said he hopes the new law affects the outcome of the Hands On Originals case.
“That had nothing to do with discriminating against a gay person. That’s a case which involved forcing a private business to engage in activity that promotes something that they disagree with,” Cothran said.

Delahanty said he respects the concerns of opponents, but believes they are unfounded — he said he doesn’t know of any case elsewhere in which a religious freedom law was used to overturn a fairness ordinance.
The best illustration for the need for the new law, Delahanty said, may be a tough immigration bill that was proposed in 2011.
“That bill made it a (crime) for doing anything that enticed an undocumented person to come to Kentucky or encouraged them to say,” Delahanty said, noting that if it had passed, a person acting on religious beliefs to help an undocumented person could invoke the Religious Freedom Bill.
Given the immigration law did not pass, Delahanty said, “I don’t know how or when this new bill will apply, but I’m glad we have it.”

Pay To Play, Kentucky Style?

Official: State contractor who made big political donations 'got what he paid for'

 

Steve Beshear 

A major Kentucky political donor "got what he paid for politically" when Gov. Steve Beshear's office weighed in for him on the subject of roadside mowing, state Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock told investigators last year.

Neal Swartz, vice president of Swartz Mowing of Bath County, lobbied Beshear and Mike Haydon, his then-chief of staff, to switch the Transportation Cabinet's mowing projects to a bid process that yielded less competition and higher prices.
Haydon called Hancock in late 2011 and told him to "look into this," Hancock said. The cabinet made the requested change, overruling its own maintenance officials, who warned it would cost taxpayers more.

Swartz Mowing subsequently saw a 23 percent jump in the value of its state contracts, from $3.1 million in 2011 to $3.9 million in 2012. Statewide, the cabinet paid $13 million for roadside mowing in 2012, up 20 percent from 2011.

On Sept. 13, 2011, the Swartz family gave $30,000 to the state Democratic Party, which supported Beshear's re-election that fall. A week after Beshear won, the family gave the party $10,000 more. Overall in the last 15 years, the Swartzes have made nearly $200,000 in political donations, including $11,000 to Beshear and $69,500 to the state Democratic Party.
"Swartz got what he paid for politically by voicing his concern and having someone voice that concern to us," Hancock told the Transportation Cabinet's Office of Inspector General in August 2012.

Inspector General Cindy James and her investigators spent much of 2012 looking into an anonymous complaint that Swartz Mowing used political influence to change the cabinet's bidding process.
James' investigators did not interview Beshear and were unable to interview Haydon, who died last August after a heart attack.

In a prepared statement to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Beshear spokeswoman Kerri Richardson said political donations do not affect the governor's decisions. The Swartz family was treated no differently than any other Kentuckian with an interest in policy, Richardson said.
"The governor and his staff hear from constituents every day with concerns and requests on any number of issues and follow up accordingly with requests and discussions with various cabinets," Richardson said.

In her report, James wrote that Roosevelt "Sonny" Swartz Jr. and Neal Swartz, the mowing company's president and vice president, respectively, approached various high-level state officials during Beshear's first term in office to lobby about their company's contracts.
James confirmed the family's political donations, the call from the governor's office to Hancock and the subsequent rise in project costs. In November, she submitted her report to Hancock and the cabinet's auditors and lawyers for their review.

She also gave it to the Executive Branch Ethics Commission upon its request, James said last week. The ethics commission said it could not comment on matters that may be pending before it.
In an interview last week, Hancock told the Herald-Leader he stood by his remark on Swartz. However, Hancock said, he already wanted to change the cabinet's mowing program in late 2011 to impose higher standards on companies submitting bids. One mowing contractor walked off the job, and another temporarily closed an interstate highway, he said.
The call from the governor's office was a request, not an order, he said.
"It was very much at my discretion to follow up as I saw fit," Hancock said.
'I'll give you this'

Neal Swartz told the inspector general in July 2012 that he lobbied Beshear personally. Eddie Jacobs, a special adviser to Beshear and longtime Democratic Party leader, arranged for him to meet the governor, Neal Swartz said.
"Asked if he thought the (family's political) donations helped him get his foot in the door and get the change he wanted, Swartz responded, 'You know, when you don't give them anything, they don't even look at you. If you will give them something, at least they will entertain something,'" the investigators wrote in their report.

Swartz told the inspector general that he would say to state officials, "'Hey, you know, I'll give you this or this or this, if you'll do this. Would you consider this? Would you look into this?' And sometimes they've done it."

Speaking last week to the Herald-Leader, Neal Swartz said the donations may have helped him get access to policy makers, but nothing more. Swartz said he complained about the bid process for several years before the cabinet acted.
"We've always given a lot of money to the Democrats," Swartz said. "They do see your name if you donate something to them. That's common knowledge. But I don't think there were any political favors. If there were, it sure took me a few years to get them."
Sonny Swartz, Neal's father, did not return calls seeking comment. Neither did Jacobs, now at the state Labor Cabinet.

Since the 1980s, Swartz Mowing has won Transportation Cabinet contracts for roadside mowing along interstate highways and state routes across Kentucky. Cabinet records show $19.2 million in awards to the company in the decade before the 2011 election.

The Swartzes live in the Bath County community of Olympia. In 2007, patriarch Sonny Swartz pleaded guilty to conspiracy to buy votes in the previous year's Democratic primary, where he backed incumbent Bath County Judge-Executive Walter Shrout. Shrout resigned from office and went to prison for his role. Swartz was sentenced to two years on probation and a $20,000 fine.
Federal prosecutors said in 2007 that Sonny Swartz traded political donations for favors, such as tapping the county's Federal Emergency Management Agency funds.
"Sonny Swartz provides money for Walter Shrout's campaigns, and Walter Shrout ensures that Sonny Swartz gets the lion's share of the FEMA contracts," Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Taylor wrote in a pre-trial motion. "That relationship did not arise in a vacuum in 2006. It has a history of tit-for-tat exchanges between Sonny Swartz and Walter Shrout."

'I pushed and pushed'

In 2006, while Sonny Swartz conspired to buy votes, the Transportation Cabinet prepared to change how it awarded mowing contracts.
A cabinet analysis predicted at least a 10 percent savings — $2.1 million annually — if mowing were moved from the Division of Construction Procurement, or DCP, to the Division of Purchases, or DOP. The DOP did not require prequalification or bid bonds, and it did not publish a list of bidders or release the engineer's estimate showing how much the cabinet thought a project should cost.
Under the DOP, more companies were eligible to submit bids, and greater competition forced down prices.

According to another cabinet analysis, when the DCP handled mowing, the projects received an average of 2.26 bids and cost an average of $35.91 per acre. Once the DOP took over, the average number of bidders rose to 5.98 and the average price fell to $32.84 an acre.
Cabinet officials were pleased by this outcome. Swartz Mowing was not.
Neal Swartz "always complained" about the switch and wanted the projects moved back to DCP, David Cornett, assistant director of the cabinet's Division of Maintenance, told the inspector general last year.
"I suspect it was because Swartz would have encountered more competition in Purchases than in Contract Procurement," Cornett told investigators. "I have heard from other people that he boasted of having influence with the governor's office and that he was going to make sure the contracts went back to DCP."

In 2007, Beshear defeated Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher and took office.
Sonny Swartz and his family gave about $6,000 combined to Fletcher's 2003 and 2007 campaigns. Halfway through 2007, they switched and began giving to Beshear. In 2008, they started making large donations to the Kentucky Democratic Party for the first time in six years.
Neal Swartz hired Frankfort lobbyist David Whitehouse early in the Beshear administration. Together they went to see Joe Prather, who served as Beshear's transportation secretary until 2009, and made their pitch on mowing contracts.

By all accounts of the meeting, Prather was unmoved. He told the inspector general last year that Swartz "seemed very much interested in cornering the market." The cabinet didn't budge.
The inspector general's report contains few dates for meetings or calls. During Beshear's first term, Neal Swartz said last week, he met the governor at an official function, but he could not remember details. He also spoke multiple times with Haydon, the governor's chief of staff, and various others in state government.

"I pushed and pushed to hopefully make 'em see what I see," Swartz said last week. Speaking to the inspector general last year, Swartz said: "I got to know the governor by face and by name, and when he got elected, he did some things for us, and a lot of things he didn't do for us. You know how it is in politics."

Surprise decision

Following the 2011 gubernatorial election and the call from the governor's office, the Transportation Cabinet moved mowing back to the DCP as Swartz wanted.
Hancock told the Herald-Leader last week that he made the decision. But State Highway Engineer Steve Waddle told the inspector general in July 2012 that it was he who made the decision while Hancock was gone on vacation. Hancock told him about the governor's office calling, but that wasn't considered a directive, Waddle said.
"It was more or less my idea because of complaints we were receiving from contractors," Waddle said.

However it happened, cabinet leaders overruled the objections of their own maintenance officials.
"It was somewhat of a surprise to me to learn that decision had been made," Cornett told the inspector general. Using the DOP allowed the state to "get good prices for mowing," he said. Cornett said he and his colleagues requested a meeting with cabinet leaders to discuss their concerns, but they were rebuffed.

The change proved to be temporary.

In 2012, with the DCP back in charge, competition for the average mowing project dropped by 48 percent (down to 3.05 bidders) and prices rose 16 percent (up to $38.24 per acre).
By the start of 2013, faced with escalating costs and an inspector general's report, the cabinet reversed itself and sent mowing projects back to the DOP with a few new restrictions, such as 100-percent performance bonds.
"We concluded after much discussion that the program for mowing is where it needs to be," Hancock said last week.

Is Snooperman Barack Obama Different From Dick Cheney?

Words To Live By, Words Of Wisdom, And Words To Ponder

Love means never having to say you are sorry.

-- A line from one of my all time favorite movies, Love Story

Ok, This Here Is Funny.

Kentucky Governor, Steve Beshear, Follows Annual Tradition And Calls "Special Session" For August 19. So Why Did I Ever Support Annual Legislative Sessions?

Gov. Steve Beshear on Thursday called the Kentucky General Assembly into special session on Aug. 19 to address legislative and judicial redistricting.“I am confident that both the House and Senate will have their plans drawn and any remaining issues resolved by Aug. 19 so the special session will last only five days and therefore minimize the expense to taxpayers,” – Governor Steve Beshear said in a prepared statement.

Kentucky Supreme Court Reverses Conviction In The Killing Of Amy Dye Of Logan County, Ruling That "Threatening [The 17 Year Ol Accused With Death Penalty] Is Objectively Coercive".

Ky. court overturns conviction in death of child

Investigators repeatedly threatened a teen suspect with the prospect of execution and being sexually assaulted in prison unless he admitted to the beating death of his 9-year-old sister, resulting in a coerced confession, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
 
The unanimous high court found police went too far when they questioned Garrett Thomas Dye, then 17, about the death of his adopted sister, Amy Dye, in Todd County near the Kentucky-Tennessee state line. The justices ordered a new trial for Dye, who is serving 50 years in prison, and ordered a trial court to determine if evidence collected based on the statements should be allowed at the trial.

"Not only did the officer erroneously convey that (Dye) was death-eligible, but also that he was certain to receive a death sentence unless he confessed to his sister's murder," Justice Will T. Scott wrote. "We hold that repeatedly threatening a 17-year-old with the death penalty is objectively coercive."

The ruling places limits on what investigators may say to teenaged suspects during an interrogation and barred using such language when questioning teen suspects in the future.

Scott also concluded four officers made "inappropriate allusions" to prison violence and rape throughout the interrogation.
"Everybody's gonna forget about you until you get to Eddyville then they'll remind you of what happened. Every day they'll remind you," an officer told Dye.
"We will not feign ignorance to the fact that the officers were alluding to prison violence and/or rape and that is precisely how (Dye) understood these comments," Scott wrote.
Todd County Commonwealth's Attorney Gail Guiling did not immediately return a message seeking comment Thursday.

The girl's death drew the attention of state lawmakers. Records in the case were eventually released showing social workers either ignored or dismissed allegations of abuse and neglect against the child.
Amy Dye went missing Feb. 4, 2011, after spending the afternoon with her brother shoveling gravel. Police found the body early the next morning in a thicket about 100 yards from the Dye home. Investigators confiscated shovels, clothes, shoes and took a DNA swab from Garrett Dye.

Dye's father told officers he didn't want the teen questioned without an attorney present and he was released. Police arrested Dye the next day and charged him in the slaying.
During four hours of interrogation, police repeatedly told Dye he would be executed for killing his sister with a jack handle.
"Each death penalty reference was immediately followed by an officer asserting the only way for (Dye) to avoid execution was to confess to the murder," Scott wrote.

The officers did not tell Dye he was ineligible for execution under a U.S. Supreme Court decision barring the death penalty for anyone under 18 at the time of a crime. The officers also didn't disclose that Dye couldn't have received a death sentence because there were no aggravating factors to the slaying, which is required under Kentucky law to bring a capital case.

Also, the officers repeatedly told Dye he would be sexually assaulted and possibly beaten in prison if he went to death row at the Kentucky State Penitentiary at Eddyville. Dye at one point said he wanted to speak with a lawyer. Officers later told Dye if he chose to speak with a lawyer before talking to them, he would lose an opportunity to tell the truth.

Those threats and omissions were enough to overcome Dye's will and ability to make a rational decision about whether to talk to investigators, Scott wrote. Based on Dye's statement, officers returned to the house and seized more evidence, including shovels and other yard working equipment.
The admissibility of those materials at trial should be decided by a judge, Scott wrote.

U. S. Supreme Court Has Released A Very Instructive ACCA Case For Those Of Us Who Ractice Criminal Defense In Federal Court. Please Read The Court's Opinion Here..

Go here to read the opinion.

America Takes First Step In Syria, Agrees To Arm Rebels.

Taliban Wishes Peace Talks With U. S. On Afghanistan. Shared Values?

American Government Snooping.

U. S. Supreme Court: Accused Pre Miranda Silence Does Not Protect Him Unless He Claims The Priviledge. WOW.

The case is Salinas v. Texas. You must go and read the opinion here.

The court essentially said, if you do not invoke your Fifth Amendment right, your silence during interrogation can be used against you!.

U. S. Supreme Court Rules Any Fact Which Increases Mandatory Minimum Sentence Must Be An "Element" Submitted To A Jury, Not "Harris" Found By A Judge.

The case is Alleyne V. United States, and you can read it here.

In A Case Of First Impression For Kentucky, Judge Asked To Decide Whether Spousal Testimony Priviledge Applies To Same Sex Couples.

Ky judge to decide same-sex privilege issue

A Kentucky judge is weighing whether a same-sex couple qualifies for the privilege of not testifying against a spouse in a slaying case in Louisville.
The question arose in the case of Bobbie Joe Clary. Clary is charged in the Oct. 29, 2011, murder and robbery of 64-year-old George Murphy, accused of fatally wounding Murphy with a blunt object in his Portland home.

Clary is claiming self-defense, saying that Murphy was raping her and she fought back by hitting him in the head with a hammer.
The Courier-Journal reports ( http://cjky.it/13UjPsJ) Clary and partner Geneva Case were legally married in Vermont in 2004. Kentucky doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.
Attorneys for Clary say the couple is legally married and denying them the same marital rights others have would be a violation of the Constitution.

The case has become the first legal test in the state over forcing same-sex partners to testify against each other _ raising the broader issue of whether the state recognizes marriages or civil unions that are legal elsewhere. The case could have ramifications for issues such as divorces and division of property after death.
"It is going to have a huge impact," Angela Elleman, an attorney for Clary, said.
Elleman noted that couples are leaving the state to marry and coming back with legal issues that are going to have to be resolved.
"It's going to come up again and again and again," she said.

Kentucky voters amended the state constitution in 2004 to say that "only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage."
Similar language passed as an amendment to the California Constitution in 2008. The amendment, known as Proposition 8, has been struck down by a federal appeals court. In what could be a sweeping case, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its verdict on the legality of the California gay-marriage ban soon.

Elleman said the Supreme Court ruling could affect the case here. Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Susan Schultz Gibson has set a July 30 hearing date.
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Stacy Grieve said prosecutors are not trying to make a statement against gay marriage, just follow state law and let the jury hear from a "witness with essential information concerning" the murder.

"Our position is that Ms. Case and Ms. Clary are not in a valid marriage under Kentucky law," Grieve said. "The murder happened here and we have to follow the laws of Kentucky."
Clary is claiming self-defense, saying that Murphy was raping her and she fought back by hitting him in the head with a hammer. The prosecution says Clary admitted her guilt to Case, who also allegedly saw Clary clean blood out of Murphy's van and abandon it in Southern Indiana.

But Case has told the prosecution she will not testify, invoking the "Husband-Wife" privilege under state law, where a spouse can refuse to testify as to events occurring after the date of their marriage.
Prosecutors have asked Gibson to refuse to recognize Case's claim of spousal privilege and order her to testify. Clary's attorneys argue that the civil union Clary and Case entered into was designed to give them all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of a married couple.

Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation at gay and lesbian rights organization Lambda Legal in New York, said there have been different outcomes across the country on the issue.
"This is very much about the privacy of the relationship between the two spouses and the importance of the state not piercing that relationship," she said. "Their relationship is the same for all the purposes and why we have these privileges in the first place."

U. S. Supreme Court Holds That States Are Powerless To Impose Proof Of Citizenship Requirements On Voting Form Before A Person Can Vote.

Supreme Court says states may not add citizenship proof for voting

States may not require additional proof of citizenship on federal forms designed to streamline voter-registration procedures, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court rejected a requirement passed by Arizona voters in 2004 that potential voters supply proof of eligibility beyond an applicant’s oath on the federal form that he or she is a citizen.

The court ruled 7 to 2 that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200.
The federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
Three other states have similar proof-of-citizenship laws, and others have considered the additional requirement.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote separate dissents, although both made the point that the majority ignored the Constitution’s demand that states set the requirements for voter registration.
“I would construe the law as only requiring Arizona to accept and use the form as part of its voter registration process, leaving the state free to request whatever additional information it determines is necessary to ensure that voters meet the qualifications it has the constitutional authority to establish,” Thomas wrote.

The Arizona proposition was immediately challenged after passage. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit — which included retired justice Sandra Day O’Connor, sitting by designation — also held that federal law precluded Arizona’s action.
O’Connor was sitting in the courtroom Monday as her former colleagues upheld the decision.

Scalia noted that the Constitution’s elections clause, which empowers Congress to preempt state regulations governing the “times, places and manner” of holding congressional elections, gives weight to the federal regulation that states “accept and use” the federal form to enroll voters.
The state-by-state battle over who is eligible to vote, what kind of identification or proof may be required and even the hours of voting prompted a host of legal battles leading up to the 2012 elections. In general, Republicans proposed new restrictions as necessary to combat voter fraud, while Democrats said such moves would harm minorities and the poor, who often do not have easy access to the required credentials.

The court’s oral arguments and its decision avoided those partisan battles and concentrated on questions of federalism.
But interest groups that challenged the law claimed a great victory.
“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
“The Supreme Court has affirmed that all U.S. citizens have the right to register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the state in which they live.”

Groups that supported Arizona called the decision dire.
“The integrity of our nation’s elections suffered a blow today from the Supreme Court,” said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative legal group Judicial Watch. “This issue takes on increasing urgency with the prospect of 11 million illegal immigrants being given amnesty. It is essential that our elections be secured by ensuring that only citizens register to vote.”

Scalia, writing for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said Arizona is not powerless to protect against noncitizens voting.
He said the state need not register voters when it has other proof that they are not citizens. He also said the state could petition the federal Election Assistance Commission to alter the form to require evidence of citizenship, and go to court if the commission fails to do so.

Alito in dissent pointed out “that prospect does little to assuage constitutional concerns.”
“The EAC currently has no members, and there is no reason to believe that it will be restored to life in the near future. If that situation persists, Arizona’s ability to obtain a judicial resolution of its constitutional claim is problematic.”

Editor's note: The case is Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and you can read the opinion by clicking here.

U. S. Census Bureau: Minorities Soon To Surpass Whites.

Happy Father's Day To All Fathers -- And Mothers Who Have Become Fathers Too, Because The Fathers Went AWOL.

Where Micheal Douglas Got His Medical Degree!

LOL.

U. S. Supreme Court: Imposition Of Harsher Sentences Due To Sentencing Guidelines Changes That Post Date Offense Violates "Ex Post Facto" Constitutional Prohibition.

Harsher Sentencing Guidelines Can’t Be Used for Old Offenses, Justices Say

WASHINGTON — In a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that courts violate the Constitution when they rely on current federal sentencing guidelines if those guidelines call for harsher punishment than the ones in place at the time of the offense.

Related in Opinion

• Editorial: The Sentencing Guidelines and the Constitution (June 11, 2013)

If such sentencing guidelines were mandatory, as they once were, the case would have been easy. But in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that the guidelines must be treated as advisory to avoid running afoul of a line of Sixth Amendment cases requiring that juries rather than judges make the factual findings supporting criminal sentences.

The question that divided the justices on Monday was whether the current discretionary guidelines retained enough force to subject defendants to a substantial risk of additional punishment and thus violate the Constitution’s ex post facto clause, which prohibits enhanced retroactive punishment.

The case, Peugh v. United States, No. 12-62, arose from bank fraud committed in 1999 and 2000 by Marvin Peugh, an owner of two farming businesses. When it came time for sentencing in 2010, the trial judge took note of the guidelines then in place, which suggested a sentence between 70 and 87 months. The judge settled on the lower number.

Had the judge instead referred to the guidelines in place at the time of the fraud, the suggested range would have been 30 to 37 months. “The low end of the 2009 guidelines range,” still in effect in 2010, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority on Monday, “was 33 months higher than the high end of the 1998 guidelines range,” which were in effect in 1999 and 2000.

Justice Sotomayor said guidelines imposed significant constraints on sentencing judges even after being made advisory. The guidelines remained, she said, quoting an earlier Supreme Court decision, “the starting point and the initial benchmark.” Trial judges are required to explain the basis for the sentences they impose, she added, with a major departure from the guidelines requiring “a more significant justification than a minor one.”

Appellate review of sentences is relaxed, though it does take account of variance from the guidelines along with other factors. “Common sense indicates that, in general, this system will steer district courts to more within-guidelines sentences,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.

That was enough, she said, to establish a violation of the ex post facto clause in Mr. Peugh’s case under the standard set out in a 1995 decision, California Department of Corrections v. Morales. That decision said the clause bars new laws that create a “sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes.”

“A retrospective increase in the guidelines range applicable to a defendant,” Justice Sotomayor concluded, “creates a sufficient risk of a higher sentence to constitute an ex post facto violation.”

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan joined all of the majority opinion, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy most of it.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the guidelines, since they are only advisory, “do not constrain the discretion of district courts and, thus, have no legal effect on a defendant’s sentence.” That means, he said, that there was no violation of the ex post facto clause under the standard announced in the Morales case.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined that part of Justice Thomas’s dissent.

Writing only for himself, Justice Thomas added that the analysis both sides had used, derived from the Morales decision, was at odds with the original meaning of the ex post facto clause, which referred, he said, only to “the punishment affixed by law.”

This was, he said, self-criticism. “As the author of Morales,” Justice Thomas wrote, “failure to apply the original meaning was an error to which I succumbed.”

In another development on Monday, the court let stand a court order barring abortion protesters from displaying images of aborted fetuses in places where they may disturb children. As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for declining to hear the case.

Former Beach Bend Park Employee Sues Park Owner, Dallas Jones, Alleges Numerous Law Violations.

Ex-employee accuses owner of wrongdoing

Beech Bend Amusement Park’s owner, according to a former park employee’s lawsuit, hired a contractor to install drains that dumped raw sewage from the park into the Barren River, allowed inexperienced employees to operate amusement park rides and subjected employees to sexual harassment. Beech Bend, through its attorney David Broderick, says the claims are unfounded.
 
Jason Trepanier’s suit, which was filed Wednesday in Warren Circuit Court, claims he was wrongfully fired from his job in 2012 as a maintenance employee at Beech Bend and that his termination amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress and was done in retaliation for attempting to participate as a witness against Beech Bend owner Dallas Jones in a separate lawsuit involving sexual harassment claims.

“These are serious issues, and my client wanted to bring them to the forefront,” said Trepanier’s attorney, John Caudill of Bowling Green. “The case is going to be litigated, and the facts are going to be developed over the course of several months.”

Reached Wednesday afternoon, Jones referred all questions to Broderick, who said he was surprised by the allegations, noting that “very similar” complaints were made several years ago in a dispute between the park and Matt Baker over a road to the park that cut through Baker’s property.

“I think the suit has an awful lot of allegations in it that I think are unfounded, for sure,” Broderick said. “We don’t think it’s a meritorious suit at all.”

Broderick was surprised by Trepanier’s claims that he was terminated, saying that Jones believed that Trepanier was coming back this season to work.

Trepanier worked at Beech Bend from the spring of 2009 until June 15, 2012, according to the complaint, and performed responsibilities such as cutting grass, electrical and plumbing work, groundskeeping, inspections and bringing safety issues to Jones’ attention.

Trepanier claimed to have witnessed Jones engage in conduct that violated federal environmental and labor regulations, state laws regulating operation and maintenance of rides at the park, civil rights laws and FDA regulations pertaining to food served to the public at Beech Bend.

When he attempted to make recommendations to Jones to bring the park into compliance with federal and state regulations, Trepanier was ignored, according to the complaint.

Jones is alleged in the complaint to have hired a contractor in 2011 to install tile drains and drain leaches underground to go from customer restrooms to a point 150 to 200 feet directly upgrade from the Barren River.

“As a result, since the spring of 2011, Jones has been illegally dumping raw sewage into the Barren River without a permit or other legal authority thereby polluting a drinking water source used by thousands of people down-river from Beech Bend Park,” the lawsuit states.

Drain leaches were also installed to allow chlorinated water from the park’s wave pool to run off into land near and around Barren River, the complaint states.

According to the lawsuit, when Trepanier, contractors and other workers questioned the safety standards of installing the pipes, Jones “would regularly state, ‘I sign your paychecks … do your job or find another one.’ “

Jones also directed employees to keep food items such as Pepsi products and leftover chicken fingers from past seasons to serve in the next season before using fresh items, despite objections from employees, according to Trepanier.

Trepanier claims he was employed in a hostile work environment in which he witnessed Jones engaging in a number of forms of sexual harassment of female employees that included inappropriate sexual advances, inappropriate touching and requests for sexual favors, occasionally in exchange for continued employment or incentives such as raises.

Other allegations from Trepanier involving the wave pool include one that Jones directed him and others to sand off surfaces of the wave pool despite knowing that fiberglass debris was contaminating the water and another allegation that Trepanier and others were instructed to repaint or detail the pool surface while the pool still had water in it, knowing that paint chemicals were seeping into the pool.

Trepanier makes a number of claims involving amusement park rides at Beech Bend, stating in the lawsuit that Jones asked employees to “turn a blind eye to his regular practice of not maintaining and preserving the integrity and operation” of the rides.

Specifically, Jones allowed inexperienced and improperly trained employees to operate the rides, allowed ride operators to work while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, failed to conduct a drug test on any ride operator and failed to request other certified employees to do daily checks of each roller coaster ride for defects, the lawsuit states.

Trepanier names The Rumbler as a ride where daily inspections for defects such as broken track bolts were not conducted.

Instead of inspections, Jones had employees “act as guinea pigs” to test the integrity of each ride prior to the opening of the season in March and April, asking them to sit on roller coaster rides to test whether the tracks had expanded or contracted during the offseason winter months, according to the complaint.

Trepanier said those actions violated federal and state guidelines governing operation of amusement parks that call for owners to use weighted sandbags to test for defective roller coasters instead of people.

During a job removing ceiling panels from a haunted house ride sometime in 2010-11, Trepanier suspected that the panels contained asbestos, but his request to have samples of the paneling sent to a testing facility was denied, with Jones saying that he “wouldn’t waste the time or spend the added expense” of doing so, the lawsuit states.

Trepanier also claims Jones directed him and other employees to dig holes about 30 feet wide and 30 feet long in various fields to be filled with copper, old paint cans, PVC piping and other debris, which would then be covered with soil and land to conceal the contents.

“In 2009 … Jones specifically directed (Trepanier) and other employees to dump debris, including numerous discarded paint cans which contained paint residue or were partially full of acrylic paint, some 600 feet behind the amusement park in self-made landfills which were created for the sole purpose of discarding trash and other improper contaminates,” the suit states.

Trepanier also claims to have knowledge of garbage trucks containing soda and food remnants that were drained twice a week either onto land or public water sources.

The Kentucky Department of Agriculture conducts inspections of rides, and Broderick said he was not aware of any complaints or sanctions from state or federal authorities relating to the rides or labor practices at Beech Bend.

Caudill said that the allegations in the lawsuit are supported by other witnesses.

“During the discovery process it’s going to be much more than Jason’s word against Dallas Jones,” Caudill said. “Other documents will be corroborating him.”

Since losing his job at Beech Bend, Trepanier has been unable to find employment elsewhere, according to Caudill.

Editor's note: A lawsuit is just one person's story. We must all wait for the full story to be told.