For some reason I'm reminded of a "lady" I worked with about 15 years ago... I had taken a hiatus from the pharmacy for about 6 months and I worked in a research lab. We studied 'Environmental Fate' of Pesticides, Herbicides, Rodenticides, Fungicides, and Aglaecides... Horrible job.

Anyway... There was this lady who was engaged to get married. We'll call the husband-to-be Jack Sprat.

The lady was considerably older than he... and she was a LARGE "Farm Girl" who could kick all our asses if she wanted to! She was intimidating.

When a co-worker commented on the fellas youth, she said, and I quote: "You gotta get 'em young and raise 'em right."

[shudder]

While reading your entry I saw her as the "Church" or the "Parent" or the "Family"...

I saw the woman in your story as the young fella in way over his head.

When the Church is a Large Farm Girl who could kick your ass... then you tend to fall in line...

...especially when you are young and small.

_______

I've viewed the Church (ANY Church) thus ever since.

They "Get 'em young and raise 'em right".

What damage can be done. What damage IS done.
It's really horrible.

Ever hear of Medicare Part D?

I do not think that that Grayson needs to satisfy the Independent voters nearly as much as he needs to satisfy his base.

I think if Grayson were to placate the independent voters he'd almost certainly alienate his liberal base... and THAT would be political suicide to be sure.

Play to your strengths, right?

Shhhhhhh......

I think he will be rewarded with money, blood and sweat from the Base. I think they will rally behind him bigtime and that support will absolutely swing voters his way come next election.

We shall see.

If this does indeed come to pass... then I'll consider it proof positive that my theory is right. Vindication.

If it doesn't come to pass... well... I'll probably grow just a little more cynical. Unhealthy.

However... all of this could be for naught if the guy is dirty. He needs to keep his hands in his own pockets and his dick in his pants... keep a clean nose... If he's caught up in a scandal between now and then, all bets are off.

(If so, this would further my argument that when you lie down with blue dogs in the middle of the road you get run over)

We shall see...

And, in lieu of recent events, I gotta wonder why she'd be opposed to "basic swimsuit shots"...

Answer: She's a hypocrite.

And now this.

That's Karma with a capital "F" and I like it.

As you can tell this is a very complex area (I left out before that the concept of sovereign immunity springs from the Hobbes' theory that kings ruled as a matter of divine right)- i believe that judges must have absolute immunity to ensure their freedom of decision- I believe that prosecutors should not have absolute immunity-but before a defendant can sue them, he must demonstrate that he was released as a result of subornation of perjury which the prosecutor either knew or reasonably should have known (no none of this "Well you should have investigated x and you would have found that I didn't do it" as then investigators would have to conduct a Magellanian like search in every case)-as for your rights, actually what you are talking about is substantive due process rights-yes, you have the right not to be 'framed' (but the definition of 'framed' fills law volumes in my library)-you have the right to have a trial fitting the minimum standards of a decent society-this was the standard which first forced the SCOTUS to declare that any use of a confession obtained by torture violated due process; that a trial without a jury; or an attorney' etc. violated substantative due process-however sustantaive due process is the most nebulous rights enumerated in the constitution and it has been the hardest to administer

MANY MANY thanks to Sejanus for his insights and opions on this.

We are an English common law country, that is our common law is from British courts and their traditions-as such much of their common law was wholesale imported into our common law including the concept of sovereign immunity-this is not a new doctrine but rather dates back hundreds of years

I disagree with the statement to receive absolute immunity you must be acting in good faith-to the contrary absolute immunity means what its says-it is immunity respective of the motive of the perpetarator-it is only in qualified immunity does the actor's good faith become an issue

to repeat, under common law a prosecutor or judge is immune from anything which they do or say during prosecution of a case in a courtroom-as the post makes clear, they are challenging the proscutor's conduct outside the courtroom in interviewing witnesses and yakiing about absolute immunity to get press

When two sides are shooting at each other, the worst place you can find yourself is in the middle.

And, maybe I'm wrong about this, but it's damned near impossible to "LEAD" from somewhere in the middle.

I'd be willing to bet that the more the BASE (i.e. Liberals) are ignored and snubbed... the more losses Dems will have going forward. The Dems will have shot themselves in the foot and blown a golden opportunity. IMVHO.

One of the first things to understand is that in evaluating a claim of immunity, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true-whether they are or not-so cases which look really lopsided really are not at all-what the petitioner is claiming against the prosecutor is that the prosecutor was present when the key witness was coached into saying falsehoods-this is a very complex area-what can a prosecutor say to a witness? What is coaching? How about if the Defendant is guilty like Bruno Hauptman which the evidence seems to show the prosecution framed an innocent man? Remeber when you make a rule of law you make it for everyone-those who use it in good faith and those who use it for a cynical advantage-do you want every crook to sue every prosecutor for every conviction which he ever obtained? The courts have previously ruled no-even when the prosecutor knowingly presents perjured testimony-the worse case which I ever came across was in a capital murder case the prosecutor edited the tape recording of the defendant's interview to make it inculpatory instead of exculpatory (I put the prosecutor in prison on a money laundering charge)

when applying common law immunity claims (that is what these are) the court must assume that the facts as alleged by the petitioner are true, that is, even if everything you say is true, you still have not stated a cause of action-this is the standard to test the legal sufficiency of any complaint whether it involves immunity or otherwise-prosecution and judicial immunity spring from the ancient and still enforced idea of sovedreign immunity-as first enunciated you could not sue the king for anything which he did (even torturing and killing you); after the whole king thing kind of petered out-the doctrine was switched to governmental immunity-you cannot sue the federal government or any other sovereign (such as an Indian tribe) unless they expressly consent. This immunity extends to their employees providing that they are acting within the course of their employment in their actions-this is why the immunity for cops is qualified immunity as the courts reason that if a cop(or prosecutor) was acting illegally,(that is in violation of statute or settled caselaw) he was acting outside his scope of employment and thus is not immune from suit-that is a nutshell explanation of immunity-here the petitioner is making a case that the prosecutor should not have qualified immunity as he was acting as an investigator, but to sex the case up he argues that the prosecutor should not have absolute immunity as he 'framed' him

as for prosecutors, we are no different that any other gaggle of humans-you will find saints, sinners, liars and crooks if you rub the crystal ball long enuff

Another friend commented:

The idea of Complete Immunity is predicated on the assumption that the Prosecutor acted in good faith and presented the evidence available in such a way as to support the arguments of his case.

If the Prosecutor knowingly altered evidence or aided in concealing evidence from the Defense during disclosure that would have exonerated the accused he has violated the "good faith" portion of the immunity presumption and would both provide grounds for an appeal and open himself a revue of his license by the State Bar Association.

That's it, huh? I guess it's better than nothing...

This just seems wrong to me.

It seems clear to me that a Crime has been committed... and it wasn't by the two fellas who went to jail. They did NOTHING.

The prosecutor just flat out sent two people (who he KNEW were innocent) to jail.

Sejanus, you mention "Sovereign Immunity" beginning with the King... We have no Kings here. As a matter of fact, any power our Gov't has, it has because WE grant it. It says so right here in the Constitution. The Gov't doesn't choose what powers we have.... we get to choose what powers the Gov't has.

I can't imagine a well informed public would grant such power of "immunity" to such a criminally acting prosecutor.

It simply cannot be "OK" for a prosecutor to pick an easy mark and throw him/her in jail just because he wants to... just because "somebody" (it doesn't matter who) has to go to jail for something...

Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:32:52 PM PST

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/4/800316/-Tonights-big-lesson

"They" can spin this however they want... The right is saying "We are turning the corner... the people like what we have to say... " but I don't believe it. The Repugs are polling extremely LOW...
The Blue Dogs can say "This shows that the people agree with our centrist views..." But I think it's the opposite! I think this is evidence that the people REJECT centrist policies...

When THE BASE believed in CHANGE, they (WE) were motivated to hit the streets and knock on doors... and donate money... and make phone calls...

After winning we haven't seen that Change. Actually we've seen a sprint to the middle (That's the OPPOSITE of change as far as I'm concerned).

When the BASE has been snubbed... and doesn't see the point in going all out... then it's not likely that "the voters" will be influence in favor of any Dem candidate. IMHO

In the meantime...