April, 6, 2012 — nicedeb

In what is certain to cause him election year migraines, the Bank of America has filed suit against Missouri Rep. Emanuel *Spittlegate* Cleaver, seeking repayment of $1.5 million from Cleaver, his wife and The Cleaver Company for a 20 year loan that originated in 2002 at a 6.25% interest rate. Cleaver has received three (3) forbearances over the ten year period.

Jacob Turk, Cleaver’s opponent in the District 5 2012 House race, noted on his Facebook page, today, that  Cleaver voted on September 23, 2010 for H.R. 5297 which ‘increases the government guarantees on SBA 7(a) loans from 75 percent to 90 percent’, in essence, putting taxpayers on the hook for his bad debt.

The Kansas City Star reports:

The bank that loaned the Kansas City congressman and his wife $1.3 million in 2002 to buy the Grandview Auto Wash at 12204 Blue Ridge Extension is now demanding payment of more than $1.5 million, after the Cleavers repeatedly fell behind on repaying the loan.

The suit, filed last week in Jackson County Circuit Court, said the demand for repayment came after three attempts to delay foreclosure. Bank of America also is seeking attorney’s fees and a receiver to protect collateral.

“The Cleaver Company failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to pay the outstanding obligations due and owing … under the note and other loan documents,” the lawsuit said.

In an email statement, Cleaver said, “This is a business dispute. The business has been run by an outside manager for years.” He said because it was a legal matter, he would have no further comment.

According to court documents, the outstanding principal totals $1.2 million with interest totaling $240,545 as of March 6. Late fees have reached $54,587. Both Cleavers had personally guaranteed the debts, according to the suit.

The loan was originally part of a Small Business Administration program. It was not clear Thursday how much money, if any, taxpayers will have to provide if the loan defaults.

The Bank of America lawsuit documents are here.

Read the rest here.

Pay attention #OWS…if your still out there.

Washington (CNN) — The Justice Department obeyed a federal appeals court’s unusual order Thursday in a legal and political spat over the health care law championed by President Barack Obama.

Administration lawyers met their deadline and filed a three-page, single-spaced letter — following the specific instructions of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing a challenge to the health care law.

The letter affirmed the government’s stance that federal courts indeed have the authority to decide the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — and any other law Congress passes.

“The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute,” said the letter, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder.

It added that the Justice Department “has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.”

Referring to comments by Obama that set off the imbroglio, the letter concluded: “The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.”

A dispute involving the court and the executive branch has elevated the political stakes over whether the law will survive various legal challenges, including a pending a Supreme Court decision. The high court’s ruling, expected in June, would take precedence over any other courts hearing similar appeals.

The latest dispute surfaced Monday when the president said, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress and I just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a dually constituted and passed law.”

Some conservative critics interpreted those remarks as a challenge to judicial authority, suggesting Obama was putting political pressure on the high court, which is expected to issue its ruling on the constitutionality of the health care by June.

[youtube://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOWNmM0W9rY 450 300]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgrjbFofM-s&feature=player_embedded

Doing the right thing is not always favorable, but let’s you sleep at night. Hopefully, this is not industry wide as we do not need fake ratings.

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

Read the rest here.

Daniel Halper

Dean Singleton, chairman of the Associated Press board, introduced President Obama this afternoon at a speech to news editors in Washington. But Singleton didn’t just tell the audience the president was the next speaker—the supposed newsman offered lavish praise for the Democratic president.

“President Obama made history as the first minority to be elected president,” said Singleton. “Even many who opposed his election felt proud of our country as he took the oath of office.”

Singleton went on to detail the challenges Obama faced, much in the same way Obama himself details his own presidency (the transcript is rushed, there may be small errors):

As president, he inherited the headwinds of the worst economic recession since the great depression. He pushed through congress the biggest economic recovery plan history and what a government reorganization of two of the big three American automakers to save them from oblivion. He pursued domestic and foreign policy agendas that are controversial to many, highlighted by his signature into law of the most comprehensive health care legislation in history. The budget plan’s proposed by the president on the one hand and republicans on the other hand are not even on the same planet. Many democrats believe his agenda doesn’t go far enough and many republicans believe it goes way too far. While we fought be to doubt — while we thought the 2008 white house race was rough and tumble, the 2012 race makes it look like bumper cars by comparison our country has become even more polarized. The 1 percent and the 99 percent are at each other’s throats.  Campaigns are now funded by secretive, multimillion-dollar super PACs. The only thing anybody seems willing to compromise on is — I can’t think of anything. [laughter] really, who would want this job in the first place?”

“We are honored today to have the man currently holding the office and aspiring for another term,” said Singleton before finally announcing the president himself.

Indeed, it sounded like a campaign speech from AP chief himself.

SOURCE

“This bears on your reporting,” President Obama said to journalists. “I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing then they’re equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And an equivalence is presented which I think reinforces peoples’ cynicism about Washington in general. This is not one of those situations where there’s an equivalency.”

“As all of you are doing your reporting, I think it’s important to remember that the positions that I am taking now on the budget and a host of other issues. if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago or even 15 years ago … would’ve been considered squarely centrist positions,” Obama said a few moments later.

SOURCE

K St. brings it all to life…

“President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court appeared to backfire Tuesday, when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to state whether the administration truly believes courts lack the authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional.

On Monday, Obama said that striking down his signature healthcare legislation would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” and would demonstrate a lack of “judicial restraint” by the Supreme Court.

He also pointed out that the nine Supreme Court justices are unelected, suggesting that it would therefore be undemocratic for them to overturn Obamacare, which narrowly eked through Congress by a seven vote margin in the House of Representatives.

“This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments,” Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday, pointing out the courts have had the authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions for over 200 years. “And [they are] trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly had lost intellectually and logically.”

The order from the Fifth Circuit for the Justice Department to clarify its position on judicial authority came during a separate challenge to Obamacare brought by physician-owned hospitals.

As a Justice Department lawyer began arguing the government’s case, Appeals Judge Jerry Smith interrupted the presentation to ask if the Fifth Circuit Court had the legal authority to strike down a law it finds to be unconstitutional. CBS News reports that when the government lawyer answered affirmatively, the judge stated that it was not clear to “many of us” that the president agrees.

The three-judge panel then gave the Justice Department until noon Thursday to provide a three-page letter clarifying whether it believes courts have the authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws….”

Read more

Read here:

In a move that shows Republicans are coalescing around the party’s front-runner, Mitt Romney plans to begin raising money jointly with the Republican National Committee this week as both the candidate and the GOP brace for an expensive general-election fight against President Barack Obama.

The arrangement will allow top donors to write checks as large as $75,000 per person, by giving to party organizations in addition to the campaign. That’s far more than the $2,500 ceiling that applies to individual donations to a presidential candidate for the fall election.

The move reflects a general clamor within the party to begin amassing the funds needed to compete with Mr. Obama’s fundraising operation, Romney and RNC advisers said. “Our donors are ready to mobilize for November,” said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokesperson. For the Republican nominee to be able to compete with the president’s re-election effort, “they need to get started now.”

Acknowledging that the nomination fight isn’t over, the RNC also invited other candidates to participate in joint fundraising, but with little expectation they would agree, RNC officials said. A spokesman for Newt Gingrich said he didn’t plan to work alongside the RNC. Rick Santorum’s campaign said they had no plans to join forces, but “would be happy to raise money with the RNC.” Ron Paul’s campaign declined comment. It makes little sense for challengers scrapping for cash in the primaries to ask donors to give large sums to the party, GOP operatives said.

Eyeing potential wins Tuesday in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia, the Romney campaign also plans to move this week to raising funds for the general election, a step it has delayed for months as all donations have gone to fund Mr. Romney’s primary campaign.

“We’re already a little behind where we should be. The sooner we get at this, the better,” said Brian Ballard, one of Mr. Romney’s top fundraisers in Florida and a member of his national finance team.

Source 

“Wealthy benefactors of special-interest political campaigns may have to reveal their identity in the wake of a federal judge’s ruling.

Source 

“[This post by Michael Halasy was published at Angry Bear Blog.]

Much has been said about “repeal and replace” it has become almost as much a part of GOP lexicon as “drill baby, drill”. The GOP despite having been supportive of the framework for the ACA previously, wants badly to discredit the administration and claim a victory in the name of “freedom”. Too bad history shows that the Heritage Foundation and VP Stuart Butler supported a plan almost virtually identical to the ACA.

Now, along comes Congressman Ryan, despite being rebuffed last year for the “Roadmap”, he has come along with a v 2.0. Unfortunately, he is making headway. I won’t comment on the other aspects of the new and improved Roadmap, but it seems to be just as much of a disaster as the previous one. The House has already passed it of course, and Romney, aka etch a sketch, has enthusiastically received the Congressman’s endorsement and has endorsed Ryan’s plan as well.

So we know that the GOP, primarily the Tea Partier, despise the individual mandate as a violation of their freedom. Ezra Klein had a great article last week about the hidden mandate in the Ryan bill , but does not discuss the fact that it will essentially eliminate employer based insurance.

Now, Ryan’s plan assumes that the state based exchanges (sound familiar?) will produce a lot of savings, and he assumes that market forces will do even more. To that end, he offers a couple of tax credits. But, oh by the way, you LOSE employer based coverage under Ryan. It severs it completely. So an individual gets a 2,300 dollar tax credit (family is 5,700) to buy insurance. I can tell you now, that the average per the Kaiser Family Foundation for a single individual is much higher than 2,300.

Family plan premiums are $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees is about $5,429.

Workers contributed an average of $921 toward the premium of single coverage and $4,129 for family plans.

What this means, is, that under the Ryan plan, your single insurance premium will cost you 2,208 MORE per year out of your own pocket at current cost. Family plans will cost you 5,244 MORE per year out of your own pocket.

That’s the repeal and replace plan folks…..That’s what the House voted on and passed…..That’s what Romney endorsed….THAT’s the GOP plan…

It’ll save businesses money, and it’s great for corporate America. However, it is not so great for the average small family living on 40-45k per year combined income.”

via Ace

That’s what a former FBI counterintelligence officer reveals.

The Independent (UK) highlights the six hundredth revelation that Iraqi informant “Curveball” lied. They bury the actual new news — that the FBI felt it had to move quickly to arrest and deport Anna Chapman, for fear that someone close to Obama was about to snork her, and get caught in a “honey trap” (sex, followed by extortion for secrets/influence).

That someone “close” to Obama? A “sitting cabinet official,” this FBI counterintelligence officer says.

Read the rest here.

“President Barack Obama voiced confidence Monday that the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law in his first public remarks on the issue since the three days of oral arguments last week.

In a rare instance of a president weighing in on a high court case in which the ruling has not yet been released, Obama suggested that the high court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law. He also argued that the justices should uphold the individual mandate, saying it’s a key — and constitutional — piece of the law.

“We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said at a joint news conference at the White House with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon….”

Read more

The state legislature of Arizona has passed a bill that vastly broadens telephone harassment laws and applies them to the Internet and other means of electronic communication.

The law, which is being pushed under the guise of an anti-bullying campaign, would mean that anything communicated or published online that was deemed to be “offensive” by the state, including editorials, illustrations, and even satire could be criminally punished.

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund breaks down Arizona House Bill 2549:

“The bill is sweepingly broad, and would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’ as well as certain sexual speech. Because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.”

First Amendment activist group Media Coalition has written to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, urging her not to sign the legislation into law.

The letter notes that the terms used in the bill are not defined in the statute or by reference, and thereby the law could be broadly applied to almost any statement.

“H.B. 2549 would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’” the letter notes. … ‘Lewd’ and ‘profane’ are not defined in the statute or by reference. ‘Lewd’ is generally understood to mean lusty or sexual in nature and ‘profane’ is generally defined as disrespectful or irreverent about religion or religious practices.”

“H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.” the letter continues.

In this respect the law could even technically be applied to someone posting a status update on Facebook.

“Speech protected by the First Amendment is often intended to offend, annoy or scare but could be prosecuted under this law.”The Media Coalition letter continues….”

Read more

David Martosko

Despite liberal protesters’ claims that Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” gun law demonstrates that Republican policymakers are responsible for the February death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an analysis of its legislative history shows that it was a bipartisan effort — and that no Florida Democratic state senator voted against it.

One Democrat, Fort Lauderdale state Sen. Mandy Dawson, missed the vote. But the rest of the Senate chamber supported it, 39-0.

The Florida House vote was 92-20. Twelve Democrats voted in favor.

And of the 15 states that have passed variations of the law since 2005, the year Florida’s model legislation became law, eight — a majority — had Democratic governors when the laws were enacted. None issued a veto.

Democratic governors who signed “stand your ground” bills, or otherwise permitted them to become law, include Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Brian Schweitzer of  Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Janet Napolitano of Arizona – now the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.

The bills in Louisiana and West Virginia passed with Democratic control of both houses in the states’ legislatures, in 2006 and 2008, respectively.