Pay to Play Hoopla

Heath Haussamen takes the Journal to task for their assertion that the pay to play grand jury investigation into the Governor's office involvement with CDR Financial is old news:

The Journal article, which you can read by clicking here, called Monday’s report from Bloomberg.com -- the first to publicly reveal the grand jury investigation -- “old news,” at least “for the most part.”

Why is that? Well, the Journal article goes on to recount the fact that the newspaper had already reported in August and again in October on the federal investigation into the fact that CDR Financial was paid more than $1.4 million on a contract it won in 2004 to advise the New Mexico Finance Authority on interest-rate swaps and other work related to a $1.6 billion transportation project.

Marjorie Childress notes that according to a ranking by political reporters New Mexico is the third most politically corrupt state in the nation:

Outcome of a 2003 report that revealed the opinions of statehouse reporters? Whoa. We shot way up there! Reporters who cover the Roundhouse in New Mexico think it’s a pretty darn corrupt state — we’re ranked No. 3.

There are few convicted officials in New Mexico compared to other states… but a class of reporters who think their subjects are totally corrupt.

So, my friend who sent me the article asked, does this mean our reporters are biased? Or does it mean we have really poor ethics laws and really poor prosecution by U.S. attorneys in our state?

It's interesting to me that Marjorie puts the blame on either the lack of ethics laws or poor prosecution by the U.S. attorneys. She seems to forget that the highest ranking law enforcement official in the state is the independently elected Attorney General. Why not hold him, or in the recent past, her accountable for failure to prosecute?

Now, anyone who has been reading this blog for any length of time knows that pay for play politics has been business as usual under the Richardson administration for for quite some time - basically, since the Governor was sworn into office. Heck, on some occasions, it even seemed like extortion. You know, you give once, and you can expect to be "encouraged" to give again and again.

Make no mistake, we do not need new ethics laws to deal with this problem. We just need to enforce the laws on the books. The problem here is not the size of the political contribution. The problem is the willingness of those who receive them to reward the contribution with lucrative contracts, or special treatment.

Now, yesterday the Governor held a press conference, and then ran from the room when questioned about this latest scandal. You might be wondering how Richardson thinks he can get away without making any statement on the subject? Simple, he's done it many times before. No matter how much coverage a particular Richardson scandal has received, it always blows over in a day or two if the Governor just chooses to ignore it.

So, what's different this time? It all comes down to timing. The national press attention on the Illinois Governor indictment, our President-elect's home state, means that the nation is focused on this issue. It also means that it is unlikely to go away in a day or two. And, unfortunately, for Governor Richardson, his little problem is going to finally get the attention it deserves.

Criminals Now Have Safe Haven in New Mexico

If you're in the country illegally, you are breaking the law. If you're breaking the law you are acting criminally. If you're acting criminally, you should expect the police to come knocking (subscription) at your door.

Until now.

The chief federal judge in New Mexico has ordered the Otero County Sheriff's Department to halt communitywide raids in poor Chaparral neighborhoods conducted solely to find illegal immigrants.

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit said the raids illegally targeted low-income Latino residents and were carried out using Operation Stonegarden funds earmarked for anti-terrorism activities.

The preliminary injunction ordered by Chief Judge Martha Vázquez is virtually unprecedented nationally, at least at this stage of proceedings, attorneys familiar with immigration cases say.

Vázquez entered the order Friday in favor of the Border Network for Human Rights, which filed suit on behalf of more than a dozen alleged victims of the raids, including three children.

Albuquerque lawyer William Slease, who represents Otero County, said he does not comment on pending litigation, but defendants in court documents deny they are acting illegally.

Plaintiffs' attorney Briana Stone, director of the Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project, said the order marks a milestone. "The judge's decision confirms that within our borders, everyone has the constitutional rights to be safe in our homes and free from discrimination elsewhere," she said. "Hopefully this ruling will ease some of the fears that residents of Chaparral have had since Operation Stonegarden began."

The only residents in Chaparral who should have been fearful are the illegal residents of Chaparral. Someone please explain to me how rounding up law breakers is discrimination? Judges should not be creating new rules of law, but that is exactly what Chief Judge Martha Vázquez has just done.

TEN Prior Burglary Arrests

Remember Elton Richard. He was the decorated marine a judge sent to prison for protecting his family against a twice convicted felon. At the time, there was an uproar, and thankfully the judge reconsidered and Elton Richard, a hero by most standards, was released.

Well, now this puts it all in perspective (subscription):

The doorbell was ringing frantically.

A man was looking through the windows.

The stranger wanted inside, and 13-year-old Seresa Lobardeux was home alone.

She grabbed a knife, ran to her mother's bedroom and locked herself in a bathroom.

She called her mom on her cell phone. There was no answer. She called her aunt, who told her to call 911.

While on the phone with dispatcher Amy Maurino, she could hear the blinds to a window moving. Then she heard footsteps in the hallway. Maurino stayed on the phone with her, and within nine minutes, police arrived and wrestled the man to the ground.

Adolph Ware, who was arrested on residential burglary charges, was on probation. He had 10 prior burglary arrests.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Our court system is broken. When a man with 10 prior burglary arrests is free to roam the streets and terrorize a thirteen year old girl, there is something seriously wrong.

There is a happy middle to this story... the police arrived and arrested the scumbag. Now, let's see if the rest of the justice system will do its job and ensure that this menace is off streets. If they do, it will be an exception to the rule as T. J. Wilham reported in the story (subscription):

An Albuquerque Journal investigation last year revealed that just 12.5 percent of the 281 people Albuquerque police arrested in 2006 on burglary charges received jail sentences.

That's disgraceful. More importantly, that's dangerous for you and me.

Your Property Just Lost Value

If you own a piece of land and have failed to drill a well for water before now, you might be up a creek without any water (subscription):

A state court this week threw out New Mexicans' longstanding legal right to drill a domestic water well without having to worry about whether it would leave less water for their neighbors.

The ruling is a victory for activists who say that uncontrolled domestic well drilling poses a long-term threat to New Mexico's ability to manage its dwindling water supples. But the details of how the ruling will affect developers who rely on domestic wells to supply the homes they build is unclear, experts said Friday.

The automatic right to a domestic well, Judge J.C. Robinson of the Sixth Judicial District Court in Silver City concluded, conflicts with the historic Western principle, written into the New Mexico constitution, that the first users of water in a region have the highest priority water rights.

What is bizarre about this case is that it is the result of a lawsuit brought against the State Engineers office. Why is that bizarre? Well, the defendant in this case, the State Engineer, was probably thrilled to lose the case:

Gov. Bill Richardson and the state's top water boss will use their administrative powers to limit new domestic wells after the failure of legislation to accomplish the same goal.

"We will do something," said Bill Hume, Richardson's senior policy adviser. "The governor's serious. The question's not if but how."

Something is fishy here. The State Engineer has successfully lost a case that now requires them to limit new domestic wells - something they've been trying to do for years.

Tom Udall Aligns With Litigating Radicals

Our nations founders believed that a separation of powers and a series of checks and balances were a critical component to maintaining a Democratic society. It is for this reason that we have three separate branches of government each with their own unique role - the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial.

In a nutshell, the legislative branch crafts our laws. The executive branch enforces our laws, and the judicial branch rules on whether or not enforcement of those laws violate our Constitution. This is the basics of our government that everyone is supposed to learn at an early age in school.

On a daily basis, this separation of power comes under attack by radical groups that believe that their agenda is more important than the balance of power created by the Constitution of the United States. One such group is Earthjustice. Read this excerpt from their President's vision:

We function like a law firm in some ways because we represent clients and we don't go to court in our own name. The clients' effectiveness is strengthened by the legal clout and other skills we bring to the issues on which we work together, and the breadth and depth of our work depends on our working with clients.

But, we are not like a law firm in the fundamental sense that we identify critical issues and strategies that need to be moved forward, rather than just wait for clients and cases to show up. We think about what kinds of clients are needed to best advance the particular cause. We bring judgment, experience, and strategic leadership to the problem, working with the clients to figure out what needs to be done in court and elsewhere to achieve lasting results. Our powerful and diverse array of regional offices take on litigation that will make a difference in the places they know best as well as cases that will set nation-wide policies that other groups can use in their own advocacy.

In addition to our unparalleled litigators, we have lobbyists in Washington D.C. who are skilled at moving the politics forward and at protecting our victories from Congressional attack.

In other words, they use the judicial system to do something it was not intended to do - namely the creation of new laws , and then try to prevent Congress from doing what it was intended to do - namely, pass laws. It is these actions, not their environmental cause, that makes them a radical group. Their vision is to try and disrupt the underlying fundamentals of our Democratic system.

So, where does Congressman Tom Udall fit into all of this. Well, a quick Google search of "Tom Udall" and "Earthjustice" shows that Congressman Tom Udall is a reliable ally for this radical environmental group. When they need a pawn in Congress to introduce a bill or an amendment to support their judicial activist efforts, they have been able to count on Tom Udall time and time again.

Earthjustice is one of those groups that keeps America reliant on foreign oil by fighting at every turn domestic oil and gas exploration. When we feel the pinch at the pump, we have radicals like Earthjustice and Congressman Tom Udall to thank.

Yet Another Example of a Broken Legal System

I literally felt nauseous reading about this depraved individual and subsequent miscarriage of justice (subscription):

She says she was 6 when it started, when her stepfather took away her innocence and gave her a normalcy of nightmares and, when she was 14, gave her a child.

The molestations, court records say, occurred on a "very frequent basis" for 12 years in stolen moments when her mother wasn't watching.

It was a secret she kept to herself even after her baby was born in the summer of 2000.

But when the girl turned 18, she told him to stop.

That's when a different sort of nightmare began, tangled within the complex, overburdened and often unforgiving judicial system.

Nearly four years have passed since Eric Fierro, the girl's stepfather, was indicted on 34 counts, 30 of which are either criminal sexual penetration or criminal sexual contact of a minor.

Fierro, 37, was also indicted on two charges of threatening the girl and her mother, his wife, and a criminal solicitation charge involving allegations that he asked their 15-year-old son to kill the girl and her boyfriend.

Fierro has denied molesting the girl— at least while she was of elementary-school age.

Court documents suggest, however, that Fierro believes he had a "consensual" sexual relationship with the girl after she reached her teens.

According to one document filed by his attorney, Fierro admitted three times to police "to having sex with his stepdaughter and that he fathered a child by her."

DNA tests have also concluded that Fierro is the father, prosecutors said.

Complex and overburdened legal system? I don't think so. It is yet another broken bureaucracy that is failing us - the taxpayers. A monster preys on a child. Father's a child with that child. He admits to it, and the DNA supports that fact. Why has this guy not been convicted for life and then some? How can judges and prosecutors let this go on and on and on?

Please Unseat this Judge

Pretend you're a Judge. Now, pretend this predator ends up in your court (subscription):

An Albuquerque man agreed to plead guilty to a dozen child pornography charges, provided that he be allowed to perform his civic duty and vote.

Patrick O'Hara, 66, had been facing 180 years in prison if convicted of the 70 charges of sexual exploitation of children he was indicted on in November.

His son, Timothy O'Hara, 42, was also indicted on 20 similar charges.

If he asked you to let him vote in the upcoming election, would you? Me Neither. Unfortunately, we're not sitting on the bench. However, District Judge Charles Brown is, and here is how he ruled:

Before accepting the plea, O'Hara had a question for state District Judge Charles Brown.

"Prior to your sentencing, can I vote in the June election?" he asked, referring to the June 3 primary election.

O'Hara added that he is "working on" obtaining an absentee ballot.

Brown approved the request, partly because O'Hara is not set to be sentenced until July 16.

There is good news here. District Judge Charles Brown is up for re-election on June 3rd:

State District Judge Charles Brown, also appointed in August, will oppose longtime Albuquerque attorney Gail Prosser in the criminal division.

New judges must stand for the first partisan election following their appointments. After that, they are subject to retention races every six years.

As a Republican, I can't vote against District Judge Charles Brown, but many of you reading can. I don't know anything about Gail Prosser, but if she doesn't think its a good idea to grant special requests to child predators, I'd say she HAS to be better than District Judge Charles Brown.

Why It Makes a Difference Who Becomes President

A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a harsh reminder of exactly what is at stake when electing the next President of the United States.

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a New Mexico case that convictions for drunken driving do not count as violent felonies for enhancing prison sentences.

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, said even though great harm can result from drunken driving, it is different from other crimes that involve purposeful action. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion.

"Great harm can result from drunken driving?" There's an understatement. Death occurs from drunken driving, and the more times someone drives drunk the more likely death is to occur. Exactly, how many times did Larry Begay drive drunk? Well, we know by examining the Supreme Court decision (pdf) that...

At the time of this incident, petitioner was a convicted felon. He had 12 prior convictions in New Mexico for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). While DUI is generally a misdemeanor under New Mexico law, the offense of DUI after at least three prior DUI convictions isa felony requiring a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. N. M. Stat. Ann. §66–8–102(G) (Supp. 2007).

And, according to Judge Alito's dissenting opinion the Supreme Court decision also had the following statistics available to them at the time of the decision:

Statistics dramatically show that driving under theinfluence of alcohol is very dangerous. Each year, approximately 15,000 fatal alcohol-related crashes occur, accounting for roughly 40% of all fatal crashes. Approximately a quarter million people are injured annually in alcohol-related crashes. The number of people who are killed each year by drunk drivers is far greater than the number of murders committed during any of the crimes specifically set out in the statutory provision at issue here,§924(e)(2)(B)(ii)—burglary, arson, extortion, and offenses involving the use of explosives.

Petitioner’s qualifying offenses, moreover, fell within the statute only because he had been convicted of DUI on at least three prior occasions. As noted, petitioner had a dozen prior DUI convictions. Persons who repeatedly drive drunk present a greatly enhanced danger that they and others will be injured as a result. In addition, it has been estimated that the ratio of DUI incidents to DUI arrests is between 250 to 1 and 2,000 to 1.6 Accordingly,the risk presented by a 10th, 11th, and 12th DUI conviction may be viewed as the risk created by literally thousands of drunk-driving events. That risk was surely “serious,” and therefore petitioner’s offenses fell squarely within the language of the statute.

This repeat drunk driver was a violent crime waiting to happen. Actually, considering what brought him to court in the first place, it was only by a sheer stroke of luck that Larry Begay did not commit a violent crime:

In September 2004, after a night of heavy drinking,petitioner pointed a rifle at his aunt and threatened to shoot if she did not give him money. When she replied that she did not have any money, petitioner repeatedly pulled the trigger, but the rifle was unloaded and did not fire. Petitioner then threatened his sister in a similar fashion.

So, when you think about it who to elect as President, remember, they get to select the judges to fill open Supreme Court slots.

A Very Slippery Legal Slope

Looks like New Mexico legal cases are getting national blog coverage again:

In New Mexico, religious rights can disappear in a flash, and no one has learned that painful lesson better than Elane Photography. The company, a Christian husband-and-wife team named Huguenin, has become the latest victims of religious intolerance at the hands of the state of New Mexico for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.

Follow the link above and read the whole thing if you're not familiar with the case, or better yet do a search for "Elane photography."

Now, I'm not sure I see this as an example of religious intolerance. However, I am very concerned about the legal precedent being set here. If you boil this down to simplest terms, this is a case about whether or not any business owner has a choice with regard to whom they take as a client/customer.

I, for one, am not comfortable with that choice being taken away. Some may say that the problem is that the business owners were forthright in their reason for the refusal. Would it have been better for them to have lied? Should they just have said they were already booked and that be the end of that? Does hiding the truth make for a better world? I don't think so.

I'm an American, whose father is from Ecuador, and whose mother is a first generation American born to Hungarian Jews. Before anyone accuses me of not understanding discrimination, I want you to know that growing up I found myself alternately being labeled a kike, a spic and a gringo depending upon the environment. I watched time and time again as assumptions were made about one or both of my parents for very wrong reasons.

So, I don't doubt that the lesbian couple was offended that Christian photographers did not want to photograph their wedding. Nor, do I doubt that Christian photographers are offended by the action of the courts. I can empathize with both parties.

But, what I don't understand is the government's involvement here. Tolerance is to live and let live. Tolerance is not to force one party to embrace, adopt or participate in the actions of the other party. Tolerance cannot be forced. In fact, the opposite is true. When the government attempts to force tolerance, the result is to breed intolerance and contempt. It is actions like this case that divide rather than unite.

I own an advertising agency. If a neo-Nazi group approached me to put together a radio campaign for them, I should be able to decline to do so because I find their beliefs offensive. If a close all borders to all immigrants group asked me to do a television spot for them, I should be able to turn them away. I could go on, but you get the idea.

We're heading down a VERY slippery legal slope.

Making Business the Scapegoat

I think what happened to Elizabeth Garcia is terrible, and I truly feel for her children who have had their mother taken from them in such a brutal way. However, I don't understand how a business is held accountable for the actions of a criminal:

Jury deliberations in the case began Monday. Minutes before the jury was to award Elizabeth Garcia's three children $51 million in damages, Ortiz told jurors the parties had reached a settlement.

Allegra Carpenter, an attorney representing the children—Xavier Mendoza, 13; Jerome Mendoza, 11; and Cene Mendoza, 10—said the terms of the settlement are confidential.

Garcia was working alone overnight in January 2002 when she was abducted from the Hobbs store and later found dead, with more than 55 stab wounds. According to the lawsuit, she had been raped.

Attorneys for Garcia's family said Allsup's failure to protect clerks working the graveyard shift make the near-minimum-wage jobs the most dangerous in New Mexico. They had asked the jury to award $60 million in damages.

The criminal in this case went on to do this again:

Paul Lovett, 27, was accused of killing Elizabeth Garcia, 26, in January 2002, and Patty Simon, 35, in May 2003. He was convicted last month of first-degree murder in both cases and of criminal sexual penetration in the Simon case.

Allsup is a convenient scapegoat for society's anger against the criminal element, but I just don't understand how we can hold a business responsible for a criminal's actions. The attorney for the children in this case argued that this all could have been prevented if there had only been two clerks on duty instead of one. You don't have to search far to know that is not the case. Predators will commit crimes and holding a business responsible is just wrong.

RedState Under the Radar

Looks like RedState's editor and chairman, Erick Erickson, has begun a new column entitled, RedState Under the Radar and yours truly gets an honorable mention. So, I'd like to send a special shout out to District Attorney Kari Brandenburg for her efforts in bringing national attention to this blog.

Thanks to Ms. Brandenburg's continued commitment to prosecuting U.S. veterans for defending their families, their property and the sovereignty of our nation, while letting chronically corrupt judges go free, I'm enjoying a surge in new readers. I realize, of course, that after Ms. Brandenburg is defeated in the November elections, I may see a decline. After all, not much to write about when the next District Attorney prosecutes the criminals and lets the good guys go free.

Speaking of things to write about, you ought to check out the 100+ comments from the Heartland of America inspired by Ms. Brandenburg's devotion to making sure that no good deed goes unpunished.

Homeschooling Receives Potentially Devastating Blow

We send our kids to public school. However, we have several friends who have chosen to homeschool their children with fantastic results, and most are not credentialed teachers. So, this recent decision by the California Second District Court of Appeals is very disturbing:

"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Report after report has our schools failing to educate our children. Schools whose classrooms are run by credentialed teacher. Now, don't get me wrong, this is not an attack on our teachers. In fact, I believe that one of the biggest problems with our education system today is the lack of parental involvement, not the teachers in the classroom. Which is what makes this decision so absurd, homeschooling a child is the ultimate level of parental involvement in a child's education.

Incidentally, in the 1990's, I worked for five years in California public schools as a teacher. First as an emergency credentialed substitute, and ultimately as a long term substitute. I took over the math classes in early October one year for the department chair who had died. I taught those classes until the end of the school year.

I was offered a teaching contract at least once a month during every month that I taught. I never took one because it would've resulted in a significant pay cut and required me to go back and get a teaching credential. This despite the fact that I was finishing a Master's degree.

I bring this up because I do have a unique understanding of what makes a good teacher, and the credential is not what separates the good from the mediocre and the bad. I sincerely hope this is overturned in the California Supreme Court. I also think it should go out as a wake-up call to parents in every state of our nation.

NEVER Should Have Been Prosecuted

Yet, another case that should have NEVER been prosecuted:

The clerk accused of selling alcohol to an intoxicated Dana Papst shortly before a deadly crash that claimed six lives was found innocent by a Sandoval County jury Wednesday.

Shanna Renee Lovato, 31, sobbed when the six-person Magistrate Court jury, four men and two women, returned with the verdict after deliberating 11/2 hours.

Lovato was suspected of selling Papst a six-pack of beer at the Chevron Redi-Mart in Bernalillo before he drove the wrong way on Interstate 25 east of Santa Fe and hit a minivan, killing five members of the Gonzales-Collins family. Papst also died. The wreck occurred in November 2006.

What befell the Gonzales-Collins family is a tragedy. However, there are only two parties to blame here, Papst and our legal system. Papst was a menace to society and the death of this family was completely preventable had he been where he belonged, behind bars:

Papst was convicted of auto theft in 1984 and of driving while intoxicated four times -- in Adams County in 1982, in Westminster in 1987, in Adams County in 1990 and in Eagle County in 1991. His license has been suspended numerous times for other driving offenses; he was cited 12 times for speeding, driving with a suspended license and equipment violations, among other things.

Instead, the state decides to try to make everyone else responsible for preventing the actions of criminals - everyone, but the criminal. Of course, the irony of all of this is that in an unrelated case one man is being sent to jail for preventing future criminal actions by a habitual criminal.

Three Strikes You're Out

Our legal system is broken when an honorably discharged veteran is sent to jail for protecting his private property from being burglarized by a twice convicted felon (subscription):

Elton John Richard II made split-second decisions— good ones— as a member of an elite Marine reconnaissance unit clearing towns ahead of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But District Judge Albert "Pat" Murdoch ordered Richard to spend two years in a New Mexico prison Friday for a decision that propelled him into a fatal pursuit of a man he thought was breaking into his home in 2004.

Richard, then working a Department of Energy courier with a Q clearance, fatally shot Daniel Romero, 34, after chasing him from his yard to Paseo del Norte.

That was taken from a Journal article over the weekend. Today's article makes it even clearer that sending Mr. Richard to jail is nothing short of a travesty of justice (subscription):

Police later located a friend of Romero's, who told them he needed parts for his Bronco and dropped off Romero in the neighborhood with a screwdriver and a hammer thinking he was going to steal a Bronco.

According to a police report, the friend parked on the street near a Dumpster and saw Romero come running from a house where a Bronco was parked in the driveway with a man running after him "beating him up."

Confirmation that there was criminal intent and the twice convicted felon was indeed caught in the act of burglarizing the private property of a law-abiding citizen - a citizen who had put his own life on the line numerous times in service to our country. Service to insure that we have the right to protect our private property.

How is this service repaid?

Assistant District Attorney Theresa Whatley said the case was one of a good man doing a bad thing.

Noting the victim's two prior burglary convictions and making reference to recent car theft statistics, she said the court should send a message to people about being overly zealous in protecting their property.

It's time to send a message to the District Attorney's office that criminals belong in jail, not people protecting their property.

Judicial Travesty

It's a sad day when justice takes a back seat to the law (subscription):

A Bernalillo County district judge ruled Monday that Albuquerque police illegally searched the home of Ronald Santiago, who is accused of killing the couple in their home in August 2005.

A bullet casing found in Santiago's South Valley home connected him to the double homicide.

Santiago was indicted in August 2006 on two counts of first-degree murder and other charges in connection with the deaths of John and Bernadette Ohlemacher, both 46.

The couple were found shot to death in their bedroom early in the morning.

Judge Albert S. "Pat" Murdoch said APD's search was illegal because it was executed after 10 p.m. with a daytime warrant. Searches after 10 p.m. need special authorization from a judge.

Gee, thanks Judge Murdoch.