Perhaps no event better illustrates the power of the United States Supreme Court than the resolution of the 2000 presidential election. Just when you thought the separation of powers issue had been settled once and for all, the Court stepped in to adjudicate who had won the biggest political contest of all. Legions of Court watchers, law professors, media commentators, and armchair legal analysts across the country thought the Court's willingness to step into the fray was a major misstep. Still, somebody had to decide who's in charge!
Background info
Election night 2000 was a cliffhanger that went on for weeks. Many people went to bed that night thinking that Al Gore had won, only to discover in the morning that George W. Bush had been declared the winner. In fact, the election was simply too close to call. Several states were up for grabs, but in the end it came down to one: Florida, where Bush's younger brother, Jeb, was governor. Florida electors were unable to commit themselves to either Bush or Gore owing to the closeness of the vote. Brush fires erupted in several precincts where the candidates' surrogates traded allegations about various improprieties. Recounts were started, then stopped as Republicans and Democrats wrangled over what standards to apply. It was more than a little chaotic.
The Court steps in
The Supreme Court actually interposed itself into the election contest three times. Only the last two are known as Bush v. Gore. In the first of these cases, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, the Court hoped to end the election crisis by putting a stop to the Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the time for certifying the vote past the period set by state law. But by the time the Court began hearing arguments in the appeal on December 1, the certification had already occurred. The embarrassed justices sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, instructing the lower court to rewrite its opinion so that it would not create a conflict between state and federal law.
A week later, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ballots. Unlike its earlier decision, however, this one was not unanimous. With the Florida justices split 4-3, the U.S. Supreme Court once again exercised its discretionary appellate review jurisdiction and granted certiorari, or review, to Bush v. Gore. The day after the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a recount, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary stay, or delay, in enforcing the Florida Supreme Court's order. The U.S. Supreme Court justices, too, were narrowly divided, 5-4. The five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five conservatives who had been moving the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade. The first hearing of Bush v. Gore telegraphed to the nation what would happen if the Court took further action in the case.
The Court's third and final intervention in the 2000 presidential election came just days later. In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida recount. Allowing the recount to go forward, the Court said, would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, which had no alternative but to dismiss it. The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice.
Needless to say, the George W. Bush camp was jubilant. Al Gore supporters were incensed. Many people were simply happy to have things settled. But others worried that the Court had gone too far. In the past, in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which put an end to legal segregation, and United States v. Nixon (1974), which led to the first presidential resignation under threat of impeachment, were unanimously decided. After Bush v. Gore, the concern was that the Court had not only overreached itself but undermined its authority by not speaking with one voice. That split decision, 5-4, suggested that Bush v. Gore was a political, not a judicial, decision.
Precedents
Bush v. Gore wasn't the Court's first foray into the realm of king making. The election of 1876 pitted Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic governor of New York, against Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican governor of Ohio. After the votes had been counted, it seemed that Tilden had won the popular vote and had 184 uncontested electoral votes to Hayes's 165. The magic number was 185 electoral votes. Twenty votes of the Electoral College were still up for grabs, however — all but one of them in the southern states of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. (The exception was Oregon. They always have marched to a different drummer.)
The Twelfth Amendment stipulates that in a contested presidential election, "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." Because in 1876 Congress was equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled House set up an electoral commission to decide who would become president. The Senate chose three Republicans and two Democrats to sit on the commission, and the House chose two Democrats and three Republicans. The remainder of the commission was to consist of five justices of the Supreme Court. The bill setting up the commission named two Republican justices and two Democratic justices, but let those four select their own nonpartisan tiebreaker.
The only truly neutral member of the Court at the time was David Davis. But Davis resigned from the Court almost immediately, leaving only Republican justices as alternatives. Joseph Bradley, seemingly the least partisan of those remaining, was selected as the final member of the commission. To no one's great surprise, the commission voted along party lines, selecting the Republican Hayes. Democrats, who were mostly Southerners, cried foul, claiming that Davis, and perhaps Bradley, had been subjected to political blackmail. When the uproar threatened to derail the orderly transfer of power, a deal was struck. The Republicans agreed to withdraw the federal troops still occupying the South in the wake of the Civil War, to appropriate funds for Southern improvement, and to appoint at least one Southerner to the cabinet. In return, the Democrats agreed not to delay Hayes's inauguration. It was a flat-out political deal, and ever since its implementation, the Court has been criticized for having played a part in what many saw as outright log rolling.
And the winner is . . .
Why, then, did the Supreme Court agree to get back into the fray after the election of 2000? In a sense, the justices had no choice. When the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore proved too close to call, the contestants resorted to a series of lawsuits in an effort to settle the matter. These suits proceeded simultaneously in the state court system and in federal court. The cases largely concerned the matter and manner of vote counting (and recounting) in the pivotal state of Florida. There were charges of voter intimidation, ballot rigging — all manner of political shenanigans. Something had to be done.
CNN's Jeffrey Toobin is extremely Cocky however he's right about the Health Care Law. The Individual Mandate makes it Unconstitutional.
Here's why.
Its highly possible that come June the SCOTUS will strike down Pres. Obama's Affordable Health Care Act.
NOT because its a Bad Law because the Affordable Health Care Act is in all actuality a really Good Universal Law.
For example the Affordable Health Care Act prevents Health Insurers from Denying Coverage to Citizens with Pre-Existing Medical Conditions & allows Children to remain on their Parent's Health Insurance plans until the age of 26.
The Law also requires States to provide more Medicaid/ Medicare Coverage & Quality Patient Care for Low Income & Elderly Citizens. i.e., Medicaid Expansion.
However....
Just because a Law is Good does not mean it is Constitutional.
And SCOTUS Justices are Legally Bound to rule solely based on the U.S. Constitution & Similar Federal Case Law.
According to the Preamble & U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, Health Care is in fact a Basic Human Right but Congress does NOT have the Broad Legal Authority to Mandate each Individual Citizen in America to take Personal Responsibility for their Own Health Care Insurance via a TAX.
That's Right!
The Individual Mandate is a TAX!
According to the 16th Amendment Congress does have the Legal Authority to TAX but it Can't use its Taxing Authority to Penalize American Citizens for NOT Purchasing Health Care Insurance.
If Pres. Obama had included a Public Option or Single Payer Option, his Affordable Health Care would be probably be very hard for the SCOTUS to strike down.
But in the "Spirit of Bi-Partisanship" he allowed 2 GOP Senators, (Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins), to talk him into excluding a Public Option & Single Payer in exchange for the Individual Mandate.
Bad Political Move!
Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins have both served in Congress much Longer than Pres. Obama. They're Slick Politicians who knew exactly what they were doing!
Requesting that Pres. Obama exclude a Public Option & Single Payer in exchange for the Individual Mandate was Politically Strategic & Destructive for the Affordable Health Care Law because Snowe & Collins knew a Mandate would make this Law Unconstitutional.
A Shrewd, Dirty Political Move pulled by 2 Seasoned, Female, GOP Senators!
Now Suddenly two years later, Senator Olympia Snowe claims she was "against the Individual Mandate".
Please STOP Lying Olympia!
If you were against the Individual Mandate then why did you Vote "YES" on passage of the Health Care Law?
Almost immediately After the Affordable Health Care Law was Authorized by Congress, Pres. Obama's Administration started granting Waivers to Certain Large Corporations giving them Legal Permission to Opt-Out of Providing Health Care Insurance to their Employees without being Penalized.
This Action Hurt the Law's Viability even more so because granting Corporations Waivers to Opt-Out of the Law gave the Appearance of Proprietorship or Enforcement of the Law based on Economic Status.
Is it Fair to force Smaller, Less Profitable Companies to provide Health Care Insurance for their Employees, while allowing Larger, More Profitable Companies to Opt-Out?
Thus the valid concerns mentioned in this post about Pres. Obama's Health Care Law, means the Probability of this law being struck down by the High Court remains a very likely possibility.
Its not yet clear if the Affordable Health Care Act can stand alone without the Individual Mandate.
I personally believe the Law can Survive without the Individual Mandate but only with a Public Option.
Its also not clear if the entire Affordable Health Care Act will be struck down or just the Individual Mandate.
What is clear is that although the Affordable Health Care Law is a good law, Congress may have overstepped its Broad Legal Authority by Including a New Tax as a Penalty within this Law.
Stay Tuned.
SCOTUS Justices will release their decision & Opinions on the Health Care Law Challenge case in June of this year.
CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, following Supreme Court arguments on President Obama's health care law, said on CNN that based on what he heard inside the Court, things didn't look good for proponents of the law.
"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration," he said. "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... if I had to bet today I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate."
Toobin added that he felt that U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli simply wasn't prepared for the conservative justices.
"I don't know why he had a bad day," he said. "He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices."
Toobin also said he thought Justice Kennedy, the perennial swing vote, was a "lost cause" for supporters of the health care reform law.
As the Supreme Court gets ready to hear a case involving the constitutionality of President Obama's health care overhaul, social scientists are asking a disturbing — and controversial — question: Do the intense feelings about the health care overhaul among ordinary Americans stem from their philosophical views about the appropriate role of government, or from their racial attitudes about the signature policy of the country's first black president?
In a new paper published in the American Journal of Political Science, Michael Tesler presents survey and experimental data that suggest that the racial attitudes of ordinary Americans have shaped both how they feel about the health care overhaul, and how intense those feelings are.
The paper is one of many studies that examines how the views of voters on policy issues are shaped — at least in part — by factors unrelated to those subjects: Voters are more likely to back the policies of leaders with whom they share some core aspect of identity, such as race or religion.
Tesler finds that blacks have become increasingly supportive of health care under Obama's watch. Among whites, Tesler finds a sharp divide between whites who have a liberal outlook on racial issues compared with those who have a conservative outlook on racial issues.
In an experiment, Tesler presents a health care overhaul policy to whites, telling some that the policy is advocated by Bill Clinton and telling others that it's advocated by Barack Obama; Tesler finds that whites with liberal racial attitudes become more supportive of the policy when they think Obama is its chief advocate, while whites with a conservative attitude become less supportive of the policy when they think of health care as an Obama policy.
The study is part of a broad range of research projects that shows that issues such as race and religion play a powerful role in shaping how people feel about policies related to war, welfare and crime.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has amended the state’s lawsuit against the federal government over the rejections of their voter ID law to include a direct strike at the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.
Abbott argues in the amended complaint that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, amended by Congress in 2006, “exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and conflicts with Article IV of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment.”
“For the Department of Justice to now contend that Texas cannot implement its voter ID law denies Texas the ability to do what other states can rightfully exercise under the Constitution,” Abbott said in a statement.
While several courts have dealt with challenges to the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act — which forces certain states with a history of racial discrimination to have their election laws precleared by either the federal government or in a D.C. court — Texas’ challenge is the most prominent. Law professor Rick Hasen thinks there’s at least a chance the Supreme Court could hear the case before the November election.
“It is really late in the SCOTUS term. So maybe this does not make it to SCOTUS before adjournment in June. But if Texas wants to use its voter id law in November, the Court could well take it up even in September, before the usual October start of the Court term,” Hasen writes.
People who build low income housing want to move into Charlotte's Elizabeth neighborhood.
The proposed development would be right behind a school and next to a park, so neighbors want to make sure the apartments will be a good fit.
Elizabeth is considered one of the Queen City's hidden jewels, and neighbors want to keep it that way.
“It’s pretty much the closest I think you can be to a small town in Charlotte,” said Beth Haenni, the Vice President of the Elizabeth Community Association.
“We have an eclectic neighborhood, smart, and lots of people who are thinking hard about this project and want to know a lot more details about it before we'll blindly support it.”
The new project is low income housing that would be built right near Elizabeth Traditional Elementary School. There’s already a similar complex on North Davidson Street.
“Residents come here, they lease an apartment, they are able to stay as long as they want and we wrap supportive services around them to help them be successful,” said Pam Jefsen with McCreesh Place.
It’s called permanent supportive housing. People at risk for homelessness pay 30 percent of their income to live here and get a one bedroom apartment.
We are very selective about who can come here and live in a community like this one,” Jefsen added.
Jefsen says crime is a non-issue.
NewsChannel 36 checked and found very few calls for service to the facility.
The tree lined streets, the beautiful old homes, the walkability to bars and restaurants. Charlotte's Elizabeth neighborhood is one of just a few of its kind in the Queen City.
There are many stakeholders, from the residents to the nearby hospitals to the colleges to the businesses. Many have the same goal: growth. "We said we need to take a step back and make sure that we've got an overall picture for the community that we wanna push forward in the next 25 years," says Andy Misiaveg, the president of the Historic Elizabeth Neighborhood Foundation.
This week, the Elizabeth Area Plan was adopted by Charlotte city council. It's been in the works for four years. Its focuses include preserving residential areas close to busy streets and promoting the commercial development of Elizabeth Avenue. That's good news for Mike Dawson, co-owner of Crown Station Coffee House. He says, "A lot of things are directed toward Uptown businesses and it's nice to see them take care of the businesses on the outskirts of the Uptown area."
Independence Park is another important part of the Elizabeth Area Plan. Community leaders want to enhance the green space and protect it. Misiaveg says, "We feel like the park is in a pretty precarious position between the Elizabeth Avenue development, the hospital, CPCC, all encroaching right around the park land."
Leaders will try to secure a historic preservation designation for the park to permanently protect it from development.
Elizabeth Community Association President Monte Ritchey says the entire 25 year plan is a model for other Charlotte neighborhoods, as this area tries to grow responsibly but maintain it's unique identity. He says, "We still tend to get nipped away at year after year at the edges, we lose 2, 3, 4 structures a year."
Another priority in the Elizabeth Area Plan is pedestrian improvements along 7th street, especially after the recent deaths of people trying to cross the busy road. For starters, they want to add more cross walks ASAP.
This entire Unfortunate, Legal Situation which Divides North Carolina's WHITE Citizens against BLACK Citizens, is directly related to the Duke LaCrosse Case.
In fact its Institutional Backlash because Tracey Cline was involved with that case. (whether anyone else cares to admit it or not!)
Its also another example of North Carolina's Racist, WHITE Establishment using a BLACK Citizen as a Scapegoat to Keep other BLACK, North Carolina Citizens "In Their Place"!!!
This Legal Situation is also directly related to North Carolina's WHITE Leaders being Angry about passage of the Racial Justice Act because it prevents them from being able to send Thousands of BLACK Men each Year to Death Row or LIFE in North Carolina's Privatized Prisons.
So YES Tracey Cline is the Scapegoat to appease their (North Carolina's WHITE Leaders) Anger!
Please understand I am in NO way Implying that ALL of North Carolina's WHITE Leaders are RACIST because such a Characterization would be an Unfair Generalization.
You know like how many Southern WHITE People Falsely label All BLACK People as being on Food Stamps???
However since North Carolina is demographically located in the Deep South, and since the Klu Klux Klan is Still in full force here, I would be Naive not to read the Writing on the Wall.
Many of North Carolina's WHITE Leaders, including many Democrats, are NOT Pleased with the Very likely Possibility of President Barack Obama being Re-elected.
Democrats?
Yes Democrats because in North Carolina the Democratic Party is Racially Divided.
All of North Carolina's WHITE Democrat Leaders Rule, while All of North Carolina's BLACK Leaders do as they are TOLD & Ordered to DO!
However if Erskine Bowles or Pat McCrory (both WHITE NC Citizens) campaign for NC Governor, I WILL support Erskine Bowles.
If Mr. Bowles declines to run, I WILL support Pat McCrory.
Why?
Because I don't believe either of them are RACIST.
This is why I am now a Registered, Independent Voter.
A Registered, Independent Voter who fully Supports Pres. Barack Obama's Re-election this Fall.
A Registered, Independent Voter who refuses to allow North Carolina's SCARED, BLACK Leaders tell me how to THINK!
As I was saying there are some Racist, WHITE North Carolina Citizens displaying their Anger regarding Pres. Obama's Re-election in ALL kind of ways, including some WHITE Drivers Intentionally hitting Innocent BLACK Citizens (Pedestrians) with their Vehicles. i.e, Hit & Run!
Or Trying to remove from Office a BLACK, Female District Attorney who became "Too Uppity"!
"Uppity" is the Term many Southern WHITE People call BLACK people who are Confident, Intelligent & Aware of their Legal Human Rights.
And why haven't any of North Carolina's BLACK Leaders come to Tracey Cline's Rescue?
They are SCARED!!!
It takes REAL COURAGE to be a Real BLACK Leader in 21st Century North Carolina!
COURAGE!!!!
If they refuse to Comply with North Carolina's WHITE, Racist, Institutionalized Establishment those BLACK Leaders who choose to speak up against the Establishment will:
Be Financially Destroyed,
Have their Professional Careers Destroyed,
Have their Families Destroyed,
End up Missing,
Their Homes or Businesses may be intentionally set on Fire (ARSON),
Either they or their Families could End up DEAD or Seriously Ill via Mysterious Circumstances,
Either they or their Families could End up Declared Mentally Unstable or placed in a Mental Institution.
THIS IS A FACT!!!
Why?
To inflict FEAR into the Hearts of North Carolina's BLACK Citizens so they won't Speak up or buck against North Carolina's RACIST, WHITE Establishment!
But Wait a minute!
Is this the 21st Century?
YES!
Is this North Carolina in the 21st Century?
YES!!!
ATTENTION ALL TOURISTS:
Please Beware!!!
North Carolina is a Beautiful State which still Reeks of the Klan's Ugly, Hateful Presence!
With Durham County District Attorney Tracey Cline suspended from office, many are wondering who's in charge and what comes next?
So far, Gov. Bev Perdue has yet to appoint an interim D.A. ABC11 was told the D.A.'s office is functioning much like it would when Cline is simply out of the office.
However, by law, Perdue must appoint an interim D.A. in Cline's absence. It's unclear if that will happen before the scheduled removal hearing where Cline will get the chance to defend herself.
Right now, the governor's office will only say it hopes to make an interim appointment as soon as possible. There's a lot of speculation about what will happen, but legal experts caution Cline's future is still uncertain.
"This is historic, in a sense. It's sad we're coming after the Nifong situation into this," said North Carolina Central University Law Professor Irv Joyner. "Durham hasn't healed from that and now Durham is having to deal with this situation which is obviously embarrassing to a lot of people and probably unnecessary."
Cline's removal hearing is set for Monday, Feb. 13.
Why is North Carolina's First BLACK, Female District Attorney (Tracey Cline) being attacked by the regional Legal System she works for?
Is it due to Tracey Cline's ties to the infamous Duke LaCrosse Case and because she dared to help a troubled, BLACK, Young Woman who in fact may have actually been Sexually Assaulted but did NOT have the Money, nor the Political Connections to Accurately & Properly defend herself Legally?
Possibly.
The Alleged Victim/ Accuser Crystal Mangum is now Imprisoned in North Carolina for LIFE, probably being Drugged daily by State Penal Officials so she won't TALK and... is also probably being Raped by Men (Prison Guards) & Female Inmates.
I was NOT at the location in North Carolina several years ago when & where the Alleged Sexual Assault of Crystal Mangum took place.
The ONLY people who REALLY knows what actually occurred that night are Crystal, her Female Friend, the College Students present & more importantly GOD!
For Everyone else its just Mere Speculation & Heresay.
Its also NO Secret that North Carolina's SBI DNA Lab was later discovered to be Extremely Corrupt due to Witness Tampering by Racist SBI Lab Employees.
So we may NEVER know what REALLY happened.
Just because a North Carolina Court cleared those Duke LaCrosse Players, ONLY God knows what REALLY Happened!
Just because NC Attorney General Roy Cooper cleared those Duke LaCrosse Players, ONLY God knows what REALLY Happened!
Just because those Duke LaCrosse Players won a Civil Lawsuit, ONLY God knows what REALLY Happened!
Those Duke LaCrosse Players were Young, WHITE Guys from Very Wealthy East Coast Families.
They had the MONEY to Clear their names.
The Alleged Victim/ Accuser Crystal Mangum did NOT have such Luxury.
Am I implying NOTHING happened that night of the Alleged Incident/ Crime?
NO.
SOMETHING Did Happen but ONLY God & the people involved will EVER know the REAL Truth!
However what is True is that EVERYONE involved with the Duke LaCrosse Case with the exception of the Players, has been Destroyed or is being Destroyed.
Former NC District Attorney Mike Nifong is ruined for LIFE!
Alleged Victim/ Accuser Crystal Mangum is ruined for LIFE!
Now North Carolina's Extremely Biased Leaders (Including Many Very RACIST Democrats) are attempting to ruin Tracey Cline for LIFE as well.
Tracey Cline is being Retaliated against & Victimized by SCARED, BLACK, North Carolina Leaders.
As it relates to Tracey Cline’s situation local BLACK Leaders are secretly complying to the desires & orders of North Carolina’s WHITE, Racist Establishment.
You see if those BLACK Leaders refuse to Comply with NC's WHITE, Racist Establishment, they too will be ruined for LIFE!
This entire situation further proves North Carolina's Institutions (Legal, Education, Finance, Tax Revenue, Medical, etc.,) are still being ruled by the Klu Klux Klan and 21st Century Extreme RACISM!
For Decades North Carolina's Social Workers & Physicians Forced BLACK Women & Girls To Suffer Unnecessary Illegal Sterilization.
As a Resolution to that Heinous practice how do North Carolina's Leaders (including Bev Perdue) plan to Remedy this problem?
By Offering the Survivors a measly $50,000!
$50,000 for Racism, Being Used as Medical Guinea Pigs, Humiliation & Physical HELL!
What A Shame!
Whenever BLACK People in North Carolina attempt to Speak out against that State's Historic, EXTREME Racial Injustice those Outspoken BLACK Citizens lose EVERYTHING Materially, they go Missing, end up DEAD, are thrown in Mental Institutions or they are Sentenced to Prison for LIFE on Trumped up Criminal Charges!
Is This The 21st Century? YES!
Is This North Carolina In The 21st Century? YES!
This is why I am Supporting BARACK OBAMA again this FALL!
God Help Us All!
For We Shall All Reap What We Have Sown!
Please Continue to Pray for Me, Pray for God to Expose the TRUTH about North Carolina’s Institutionalized Racism & for God to remove those Leaders who are practicing or allowing Racism to continue in that state.
A Franklin County Judge decided Friday to suspend Durham County District Attorney Tracey Cline from her duties pending a hearing next month.
Cline's accusations of bias against Durham County Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson put her own performance under scrutiny in recent months and led one defense attorney to push for her ouster.
Defense attorney Kerry Sutton filed an affidavit that alleges Cline has "brought the office of the Durham County District Attorney and the entire Durham County justice system into disrepute."
The filing is the first step required by law to remove Cline from office.
On Friday, Sutton said, “It’s an on-going process, and by the time we get to the end everyone has a chance to make their case.” She and Cline will get that opportunity Feb. 13.
Cline has repeatedly accused Hudson in recent months of bias against her and has asked to have him barred from handling criminal cases in Durham County. Two other Superior Court judges have found Cline's complaints to be groundless.
Hudson, the chief judge in Durham County, handed the complaint over to Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood, who on Friday suspended Cline with pay.
Marcia Morey, a former assistant district attorney in Durham and current District Court Judge, said “It’s a sad day for Durham. The justice system is supposed to be working for the people of this county."
The clash not only puts Cline on the sidelines, it could cause chaos in her office, according to Irv Joyner, a law professor at North Carolina Central University.
"You have a feud or an attack involving the top two elected officials in our court system here, and that does not look good," Joyner said. "It's not good for our profession nor is it good for Durham County."
Michael B. Nifong, the disbarred district attorney of Durham County, N.C., was served an order at his home yesterday that suspended him from office and was told to turn in his parking pass and office key.
The suspension order, served by the county sheriff, cut short Mr. Nifong’s plans to stay in office four more weeks. On Friday he announced plans to resign, and on Saturday he was disbarred by a state ethics panel. He then told the governor he would resign July 13.
The county’s senior judge, Orlando F. Hudson Jr., said Monday night that those findings allowed him to suspend Mr. Nifong immediately, with pay, for willful misconduct and bringing the office into disrepute.
Beth Brewer, a Durham resident who led a campaign opposing Mr. Nifong in the 2006 election and who had filed a petition for removal with Judge Hudson, said she was “flabbergasted” and “appalled” that Mr. Nifong had showed up for work Monday and tried to delay his departure.
Mr. Nifong declined to comment. His wife, Cy Gurney, said in a telephone interview that Mr. Nifong, 56, would have left earlier if Judge Hudson had talked to him. She said he learned about it from a newspaper and was stunned and further humiliated. She said Mr. Nifong had wanted to stay until July 13 to assure an orderly transition.
“I think it’s the end,” Ms. Gurney said. “He understands that and he wants that.”
Gov. Mike Easley will appoint a successor. Also, the state House of Representatives voted unanimously yesterday to allow the governor to remove a disbarred judge or district attorney from office.
A longtime NC Prosecutor took the oath of Durham County district attorney Monday, becoming the first black woman to hold the post.
Tracey Cline, a sex crimes prosecutor in the 14th Judicial District for more than a decade, won the district attorney position during the May primary with 46 percent of the vote, beating out three other Democratic challengers.
Because no Republican sought the position, she ran uncontested during November's general election.
Cline replaces David Saacks, whom Gov. Mike Easley appointed to the position in September 2007 to serve out the remainder of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's term.
Nifong, who was at Monday's ceremony, resigned two months earlier in July after being disbarred for breaking more than two dozen rules of professional conduct for the way he handled the Duke University lacrosse case.
It centered on three players of the school's highly ranked men's team who were accused of raping an exotic dancer.
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper later dismissed the case and declared the three men "innocent victims" of a prosecutor's "tragic rush to judgment."
Cline said Monday that she is ready to take on the challenge of overcoming the scandal, which put the Durham District Attorney's Office under public scrutiny.
Durham County, she said, is ready to move forward and as district attorney, she said she can help do that.
"Being a prosecutor is not about power, it's about doing the right thing," Cline said. "You don't have to be popular to be DA. You have to do the right thing, and that's what people are looking for. And I'm going to do that."
During her campaign, Cline said the Duke lacrosse case was one of thousands the district attorney's office handled and that although it did not define the office, it is a part of the city's history.
"I don't think we can separate ourselves from it," she said in an April interview. "I think we can learn from it and move on."
Among her family, friends and colleagues were Superior Court Judge Jim Hardin, who served for 11 years as district attorney before being appointed to a judgeship in 2005.
Hardin said Cline – his first hire as district attorney – is hardworking and that he is very pleased that she will serve in the position.
North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson, who administered the oath of office, said Cline, as a young public defender in Fayetteville, stood out to her when she served as a District Court judge because of her thoroughness and ability to think on her feet.
Meanwhile Monday, Saacks was also presented with an award from the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys for what director Peg Dorer said was bringing an even keel to the job.
A Franklin County Judge decided Friday to suspend Durham County District Attorney Tracey Cline from her duties pending a hearing next month.
Cline's accusations of bias against Durham County Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson put her own performance under scrutiny in recent months and led one defense attorney to push for her ouster.
Defense attorney Kerry Sutton filed an affidavit that alleges Cline has "brought the office of the Durham County District Attorney and the entire Durham County justice system into disrepute."
On Friday, Sutton said, Its an on-going process, and by the time we get to the end everyone has a chance to make their case. She and Cline will get that opportunity Feb. 13.
Cline has repeatedly accused Hudson in recent months of bias against her and has asked to have him barred from handling criminal cases in Durham County. Two other Superior Court judges have found Cline's complaints to be groundless.
Hudson, the chief judge in Durham County, handed the complaint over to Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood, who on Friday suspended Cline with pay.
Marcia Morey, a former assistant district attorney in Durham and current District Court Judge, said Its a sad day for Durham.
The Justice System is supposed to be working for the people of this county."
The clash not only puts Cline on the sidelines, it could cause chaos in her office, according to Irv Joyner, a Law professor at North Carolina Central University.
"You have a feud or an attack involving the top two elected officials in our court system here, and that does not look good," Joyner said. "It's not good for our profession nor is it good for Durham County."
A longtime NC Prosecutor took the oath of Durham County district attorney Monday, becoming the first black woman to hold the post.
Tracey Cline, a sex crimes prosecutor in the 14th Judicial District for more than a decade, won the district attorney position during the May primary with 46 percent of the vote, beating out three other Democratic challengers.
Because no Republican sought the position, she ran uncontested during November's general election.
Cline replaces David Saacks, whom Gov. Mike Easley appointed to the position in September 2007 to serve out the remainder of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's term.
Nifong, who was at Monday's ceremony, resigned two months earlier in July after being disbarred for breaking more than two dozen rules of professional conduct for the way he handled the Duke University lacrosse case.
It centered on three players of the school's highly ranked men's team who were accused of raping an exotic dancer.
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper later dismissed the case and declared the three men "innocent victims" of a prosecutor's "tragic rush to judgment."
Cline said Monday that she is ready to take on the challenge of overcoming the scandal, which put the Durham District Attorney's Office under public scrutiny.
Durham County, she said, is ready to move forward and as district attorney, she said she can help do that.
"Being a prosecutor is not about power, it's about doing the right thing," Cline said. "You don't have to be popular to be DA. You have to do the right thing, and that's what people are looking for. And I'm going to do that."
During her campaign, Cline said the Duke lacrosse case was one of thousands the district attorney's office handled and that although it did not define the office, it is a part of the city's history.
"I don't think we can separate ourselves from it," she said in an April interview. "I think we can learn from it and move on."
Among her family, friends and colleagues were Superior Court Judge Jim Hardin, who served for 11 years as district attorney before being appointed to a judgeship in 2005.
Hardin said Cline his first hire as district attorney is hardworking and that he is very pleased that she will serve in the position.
North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson, who administered the oath of office, said Cline, as a young public defender in Fayetteville, stood out to her when she served as a District Court judge because of her thoroughness and ability to think on her feet.
Meanwhile Monday, Saacks was also presented with an award from the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys for what director Peg Dorer said was bringing an even keel to the job.
Not all the foreclosures emptying homes across the Carolinas originate from banks and lenders. Increasingly, the institution doing the foreclosing is made up of neighbors who run the homeowners association–known as the HOA.
Consider one family’s story:
Michelle Roberts’ parents helped her and her husband buy their first home in Gaston County in 2003. Even though she and her husband Darin paid the mortgage, her mom and dad signed the note. Their names are on the deed. That means her parents are on the hook now that the home is in foreclosure and the courts have ordered her family to pack up and leave this week.
“We're going to have to move back in with mom and dad for a while,” Michelle said, sitting among boxes in her living room. “We have no choice.”
This is not one more bank foreclosure–one more mortgage gone bad. No, the Roberts are losing their home to their neighbors–their HOA.
“We just wanted them to work with us,” said Michelle. “We didn't neglect paying them on purpose. They neglected to notify us.”
The Mountain View Community Association off of Spencer Mountain Road near Ranlo, North Carolina and its management company, Hawthorne Management of Charlotte, did not send a bill to the Roberts for years.
“Not one word for six years,” said Michelle, “Not one word.”
The HOA lost track of the Roberts lot and two others when the builder transferred the property to their family. Then in May of 2009 the HOA sent Michelle’s parents a statement asking for almost six years worth of dues at once–$945.
“I don’t know how we would pay that, and I don’t think it’s fair,” said Michelle’s husband Darin Roberts.
At first the Roberts say they called a neighbor who served on the board of the HOA.
“She said, ‘Don’t worry about it. We’ll work it out. It’s not that big of a deal,’” said Darin.
That was before the lien notices and threatening letters began arriving from the HOA’s law firm.
“We were blindsided,” said Michelle.
So the Roberts tried repeatedly to work out a payment plan.
“They wanted a $444-a-month payment and refused to accept anything less than that,” said Michelle.
“I had my daughter selling brownies on the weekend,” Darin said. “I borrowed from my sister. I did overtime. I’m a middle class family dude that tries to pay his bills and feed his family.”
The Roberts made payments totaling $888 last May–which sounds like they’d paid off the bulk of their original HOA debt.
“You would think wouldn’t you?” said Michelle. “You would think.”
But no.
By that point, the HOA’s attorneys were involved. And they charged far more than the original debt in fees and court costs to try to collect it all. Court records show the Roberts whole payment went to legal fees–not to the HOA.
In fact, the paralegal working for the law firm e-mailed the Roberts that, “Your account will be charged $45 for every payment plan request” even if the lawyers refused to accept the terms.
“It’s just burying us deeper and deeper,” said Michelle. “Trying to fix the problem is just making it worse. Every time they touch it, every time they pick up the phone, we’re getting billed again.”
The Roberts gave up. The HOA and its law firm foreclosed.
“Now it just seems like the HOA’s can do whatever they want anytime they want,” Darin said.
And that original bill of less than a thousand dollars? T he attorneys added almost $6,000 in court costs and legal fees.
“The people that are benefiting are the attorneys,” said Michelle. “They’re getting five times what the original bill was.”
The people who are not benefit ting from this HOA foreclosure? The neighbors. Because the foreclosure means the HOA–the neighbors–now own the Roberts home.
“I don't know what good that is,” said Michelle. “People can't sell their homes who legitimately want to sell their homes now.”
Foreclosures can drive down property values for the neighbors since would-be buyers look to comparable nearby properties – known as “comps” – to gage the price they should pay. And foreclosed homes often sell at fire-sale prices, dragging down the neighborhood average.
“The HOA will get their $975,” said Michelle. “But they’ll also have an empty house along with the others they’ve done this to.”
The I-Team searched through Gaston County Register of Deeds records and found six more foreclosures in the last year and a half in the same Mountain View neighborhood from the same Hawthorne Management company and the same law firm: Sellers, Hinshaw. (Click here to read an e-mail from Sellers, Hinshaw)
“We try to work with people,” attorney Tim Sellers told the I-Team in an earlier interview.
Sellers refused to speak on camera about Mountain View and the Roberts.
“The vast majority of the ones we deal with if they’re not in compliance we work to get ‘em in compliance,” he said.
Sellers sent the I-Team a five page time line (click here to read) detailing two years of back-and-forth with the Roberts concluding, “Collection action was authorized only when the Association received no response from the owners or after the owners defaulted on the written agreement for installment payments.”
The Roberts say they made a good faith effort to try to pay an old debt during trying times and lost their home in the process.
Sitting on her couch before loading it on the truck, Michelle summed it up: “We’re like every other family. We’re struggling. We’ve had to take three pay cuts in the banking industry just to keep a job. My business was cut in half. My father has a rare and aggressive cancer.”
Michelle’s father, Dennis Hiatt, said he may go bankrupt. Between breaths from an oxygen tank he says: “It may be legal what they’re doing but it’s just not right.”
Todd Bodine is accustomed to the sound of winning.
The NASCAR driver has won the sport’s truck series twice, most recently last year. But earlier this month, if you were to pass by the Bodines’ well-kept home in the Harris Village neighborhood of Mooresville, you would have heard the sound of Todd Bodine losing, as he and a crew of helpers tore down his prize pool house and tiki hut board by board and piece by piece, the result of an epic four-year battle with his homeowners association, or HOA.
A select committee of North Carolina lawmakers considering reforms of the HOA statutes heard that 53% of owner-occupied homes in the state are governed by HOA’s. But few of those homeowners sue their HOA and appeal all the way to the state Supreme Court, only to lose and have to tear down a structure, plus pay opposing attorneys’ fees and fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Bodines did.
“I think I’ve been done wrong,” Bodine said, sitting in shorts by his pool, the remnants of his poolside bar covered with a tarp. “And it’s incredible how unjust it is.”
The disagreement started in July of 2007 when the HOA board president who the Bodines had entertained over beers as they built their pool abruptly told them the pool house was not approved. “The president never said ‘it's OK for you to start building,’” said Keith Black, the Greensboro attorney who represented the Harris Village HOA.
Todd Bodine insists the HOA president had told him verbally to go ahead and build. “Everything was always, fine, OK, looks good,” said Bodine.
The issue came to a head at an emergency meeting in the Bodines’ driveway. Bodine was upset. “It was on then. I got in his face,” Bodine said. He and his wife went inside their home while the board members talked things over. The board members signed a “Request for Architectural Approval” checked “approved” pending the approval of the Town of Mooresville Codes Department, which the Bodines quickly secured.
But the dispute continued. The board’s attorney contends that the document was conditional on the Bodines submitting final drawings with dimensions and that the board never realized how large the structure would be. The HOA had issued interpretations of the covenants limiting the size of “accessory buildings” including tool sheds and utility buildings to 320 square feet. But the document was never recorded as part of the covenants.”They ignored the phone calls, the e-mail and built the thing,” said Black.
So when the Bodines returned home after several weeks on the road racing, they faced threatening letters and the prospect of fines from the HOA. “They were fining us $100 a day which is absurd,” said Bodine. The Bodines filed suit.
Bodine insists the HOA targeted him, knowing he could afford the fines. “I was gouged pretty hard because of who I am,” Bodine said. “I believe a lot of it was because of my celebrity as a NASCAR driver.”
But Black, the HOA’s attorney, says the lawsuit had nothing to do with Bodine’s status, further saying the HOA tried to settle. “They said, ‘No. We're not gonna do it. You're wrong. Kiss our rear end. We'll see you in court,’” said Black.
If it’s true that you can’t fight city hall, Todd and Janet Bodine found you really can’t fight the HOA. They lost at every level. It started when the trial judge gave a directed verdict to the HOA so the jurors who sat through days of testimony never even got to deliberate. “We were all dumbfounded,” said Bodine. Then the Bodines lost on appeal. And finally the state Supreme Court refused to even hear the case.
In the whole four years no one said the Bodines’ pool house hurt Harris Village. “Hell it was nice looking,” said Black. “That wasn't the issue. Nobody said it's ugly and you have to take it down.”
Instead the HOA stood on principle and said if they let the Bodines build a pool house without the permission of the HOA board – then what next? “They open the door for anybody and everybody else to say, ‘Well I want to paint my house purple and have pink toilet seats all over the front yard,’” said Black.
The Bodines say other Harris Village homeowners have broken the architectural guidelines of the HOA, so they believe the fight got personal. “I think it was a small group of people out for vengeance,” said Bodine. “They saw their cash cow and they were going for it.”
So now the Bodines are on the hook for their own attorney’s fees, the HOA’s attorneys’ fees and almost $40,000 in accrued fines. The HOA put a lien on their home for the unpaid fines. Bodine was fed up. “I told ‘em, ‘Take it. Take the house,” he said.
Having exhausted their appeals in the courts, the Bodines would like the state legislature to consider reigning in the powers of HOA’s, a group of almost 18,000 neighborhood governments in North Carolina run by neighbors. “A lot of time their power is just way too strong,” said Bodine.
Black and other attorneys representing the HOA’s say that neighbors have legal remedies built into the law and if they don’t like the way the HOA is run they can always throw out the board by electing someone else. “Anytime somebody loses all of a sudden they want it to be changed,” said Black.
But the Bodines are hardly the only homeowners to run afoul of a group of neighbors bent on tearing down their property. And the state legislature is considering several bills to reform HOA’s. None of them will help the Bodines who this month tore their pool house to the ground.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
