Subscribe to RSS
DUI Attorney Michael Bowser explains sobriety check points (or road blocks) in Massachusetts, which are especially prevalent during the holiday season. Attorney Bowser has successfully defended hundreds of cases for clients charged with drunk driving, commonly referred to as “Operating Under the Influence” (OUI) in Massachusetts. Attorney Bowser has developed a well earned reputation for being one of the top drunk driving defense attorneys in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. www.bowserlaw.com
BOSTON — Mark Wahlberg says he’s considering a jailhouse meeting with James “Whitey” Bulger, but victim’s relatives are criticizing the actor’s interest in the reputed former mob boss. Bulger has reached out to Wahlberg, the actor told Boston’s WAAF-FM radio Friday, and he speculated Bulger wants to give him rights to his story. “He wants me to come down and visit him. Maybe he’ll give me the exclusive rights to tell his story, `cause he knows, you know, we can do it better than anybody else,” Wahlberg said. Wahlberg grew up in South Boston, also Bulger’s home when he ran a local gang in the `70s, `80s and `90s while working as an FBI informant. Bulger, 82, is accused of participating in 19 murders before fleeing in 1995, allegedly after his FBI handler tipped him that an indictment was coming. He was caught in California last year after 16 years on the run. Wahlberg said his “heart goes out” to loved ones of Bulger’s victims, but the story has tremendous potential. “If there’s a story to be told there, and, you know, we can do it in the way we want in the way that we best see fit, then, you know, then it’s certainly something that we would explore,” he said. Patricia Donahue, whose husband, Michael Donahue, was allegedly killed by Bulger during a hit on another man, said Saturday that’s there nothing she can do to stop someone from making a movie. But, she said, she prays the filmmakers don’t make Bulger a hero and “will portray him as he really is, the murderer that he is.” Donahue said she doubted Bulger would be honest with Wahlberg. “The government can’t get the truth out of him, nobody seems to be able to get the truth out of him, so why is he gonna to pour his heart out to Markie Wahlberg?” Donahue said. But Wahlberg’s local roots could help him sort through the lies, she added. “He has a pretty good idea of who’s who in this whole episode,” she said. Steven Davis, whose sister, Deborah Davis, was allegedly strangled by Bulger, told the Boston Herald that Bulger ruined “my whole family” and shouldn’t be glamorized. “I have a lot of respect for Mark (Wahlberg). I would hope that he would reach out to us, too,” he said. Phone messages left with Wahlberg’s representatives at Leverage Management were not immediately returned Saturday. A Massachusetts legislator, Sen. Stephen Brewer, has proposed a bill that allows only Bulger’s victims to profit from his story. Bulger is awaiting trial. A federal prosecutor said Wednesday at a status conference that he believes Bulger is trying to “manipulate the system” so he’s never brought to trial for his role in the murders. Bulger’s lawyer said the volume of evidence he has received from prosecutors is “enormous” and he and other lawyers need more time to go through it, and noted that it generally takes 18-30 months for a murder case to go to trial in Massachusetts. Another status conference in the case is scheduled for next month. Read the original: Will ‘Whitey’ Bulger Sell His Story To Mark Wahlberg?
Sobriety checkpoint run by the Massachusetts State Police and Wellesley Police on Route 9 in Wellesley, Mass on Sept. 10, 2011.
This article comes to us courtesy of California Watch By Will Evans The Occupy Wall Street movement has focused the national discourse on wealth inequality and, specifically, the split between the richest 1 percent and the 99 percent that’s left. While most Californians, by definition, are not members of the wealthiest 1 percent, it turns out that many of us are represented in Congress by those who have attained that elite status. The cutoff for the top 1 percent of American households, in terms of net worth, is about $9 million, according to New York University economics professor Edward Wolff. His estimate is based on the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances, which put the figure at $8.2 million in 2007, he said. That puts many members of Congress squarely within the 1 percent, including prominent members of California’s delegation, such as Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein; Rep. Nancy Pelosi, also a Democrat; and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, a Republican. Exact numbers are hard to come by because politicians report their wealth within wide ranges. A real estate asset, for example, might be worth somewhere between $5 million and $25 million. The Center for Responsive Politics compiled the numbers from 2009 as a range between minimum and maximum wealth. Issa, worth between $156 million and $451 million, is California’s wealthiest representative in Washington, based on the center’s 2009 statistics. Issa doesn’t appear to be an Occupy supporter, calling for an investigation into whether union members’ money was inappropriately funneled to fund the protesters. An Issa spokesman did not respond to questions. Feinstein is next, with between $46 million and $108 million. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, on the other hand, doesn’t make the 1 percent cut, with assets between $1.2 million and $5.6 million. A Feinstein representative pointed out that she supported President Barack Obama’s jobs bill, which included increased taxes on the wealthy. âThis would have been paid for by asking Americaâs millionaires and billionaires â those who have benefited from this economy while so many others have suffered â to contribute a little more,” Feinstein said after Senate Republicans blocked consideration of the bill. GOP Rep. Gary Miller, who sits on the committee overseeing the banking industry, is worth between $19 million and $84 million. Pelosi reported a lot of liabilities, so her total is somewhere between negative $7 million and a maximum of $124 million, for an average of $58 million. Pelosi, however, has been supportive of the Occupy Wall Street movement. “I support the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.” Story continues below. The Occupy protest in Cesar Chavez Park in downtown Sacramento is marked by a collection of signs that read, “We are the 99 percent.” But exactly who makes up that percentage seems to be more of an idea than an actual number to some protesters. A woman at an information table at the small protest said there are no rich people in the 99 percent. “The 99 percent are the ones that are low income, and they get taxed more than anyone else,” said Mary, who declined to give her last name. Another protester, Kevin Carter, said only billionaires â of which there are none in Congress â should qualify for the 1 percent. “Millionaires are fine â theyâre part of the 99 percent,” said Carter, 51. “Our challenge is to get the millionaires to understand this is not about class warfare.” Carter said he’s less concerned that politicians are wealthy than that they’re swayed by corporate lobbyists. Derek Cressman, Common Cause’s Western states regional director, said the extreme wealth of many politicians puts them out of touch with regular people. The influence of the wealthy, he said, has led to “policies that have really made the 1 percent dramatically better off and left 99 percent of us behind.” “If we want a government of the people and by the people … youâd want 99 percent of the members of Congress coming from the 99 percent of society that’s not worth $9 million,” he said. Some wealthy politicians, like the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, do stick up for the poor, Cressman said. But in a representative democracy, he said, “the 99 percent should be represented ourselves, rather than counting on the charity or benevolent sympathies of the 1 percent.” Members of Congress are out of touch because they are powerful professional politicians, not because they’re rich, said Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. The emphasis on the richest 1 percent can be harmful because it targets people who are successful but haven’t done anything wrong, he said. “I think that corporate welfare is obscene, but I donât think the existence of inequality and wealth is simply a bad thing,” he said. “There’s people who got rich because they worked hard or gave us something that we really want.” Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs is a lot different from admitted fraudster Bernard Madoff, Tanner said. “Steve Jobs did more to make us better off than a lot of social workers,” Tanner said. “I donât care that he got rich â I got an iPad.” Table 1: Members of California’s congressional delegation with average net worth above $9 million, from 2009 Source: Center for Responsive Politics Table 2: All members of Congress with average net worth above $9 million, from 2009 Source: Center for Responsive Politics Will Evans is an investigative reporter for California Watch, a project of the non-profit Center for Investigative reporting. Find more California Watch stories here . Read the original post: Which California Lawmakers Are Part Of The One Percent?
CINCINNATI — Mitt Romney had gingerly distanced himself from a labor issue on the Ohio ballot one day. The next, he embraced the initiative “110 percent.” The reversal highlighted his record of equivocations and underscores the local political minefields national candidates often confront in their state-by-state path to the presidency. Candidates visiting Nevada often wade into the debate about where nuclear waste should go. They’re pressed in South Carolina to stake out a stance on an aircraft maker’s labor dispute. In New Hampshire, they face questions about right-to-work issues. And then there are the perennials, such as ethanol subsidies in Iowa and flying the Confederate battle flag in South Carolina. Such local issues aren’t of concern to most voters across the nation, but these topics can matter greatly to voters wanting to hear the thoughts of candidates soliciting support ahead of presidential primaries. Candidates often work to strike a balance between addressing issues local voters care about without staking out hardline positions that could hurt them elsewhere. “They’ve got to be careful about not weighing in on issues that are exclusively local. That could backfire,” said Kevin Smith, a conservative activist and likely Republican gubernatorial candidate in New Hampshire. “It’s something that could easily be blown up into something bigger than it ought to be.” As Romney proved this week, such local issues can trip up even the most cautious candidate, causing headaches for their national campaigns while hurting their standings in important states for both the primary and general elections. “Fully support that,” Romney backtracked on the Ohio ballot initiative while visiting a local Republican Party office Wednesday in Fairfax, Va. The former Massachusetts governor was trying to fix a problem he created a day earlier during a trip to Terrace Park near Cincinnati. Romney visited a site where volunteers were making hundreds of phone calls to help Republicans defeat the Issue Two ballot effort to repeal Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s restrictions on public sector employee bargaining. Romney took a pass on supporting the measure just as a newly released Quinnipiac University poll indicated Ohio voters opposed the GOP-backed restrictions 57 percent to 32 percent. But Romney already had weighed in, supporting Kasich’s efforts in a June Facebook post. Republican and Democratic critics alike were quick to point out Romney’s waffling. His campaign rivals Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman fired off statements supporting the union restrictions, and Obama’s Ohio state campaign director, Greg Schultz, sent out emails Tuesday night to supporters that noting Romney’s “sidestep.” Roughly 24 hours later, Romney clarified his support for Kasich. Even so, Huntsman, the former Utah governor languishing in polls, sought to gain ground by arguing that the episode showed that Romney failed to show leadership. “This is a time when if you are going to be president of the United States, you show a little presidential leadership. That’s by taking a position and leading out – sometimes there is a risk associated with taking a position, but that’s all part of leadership,” Huntsman told ABC News. And some observers questioned whether Romney’s response had less to do with the GOP primary, which Ohio will hold well after the early voting states, and more to do with the general election and the need to woo independent voters. On the other hand Romney may lose the party loyalists he needs to get the GOP nomination by waffling on the matter. “The people who would be paying the most attention to this are probably the base of the Republican Party, and that’s why it has the potential to be most damaging to him,” said veteran Ohio political scientist Gene Beaupre of Xavier University. At one time presidential candidates visiting Iowa would stumble over that state’s pet issue: support for subsidizing ethanol, the fuel additive the state leads in producing. But the issue has faded as a litmus test in the years since Bob Dole, a strong advocate, won the Iowa caucuses while opponent Phil Gramm of Texas finished a disappointing fifth. That hasn’t stopped Romney this year from noting his support for – and Perry’s opposition to – the federal renewable fuel standard as Romney seeks Iowa agribusiness’ support. In South Carolina, candidates always are asked about flying the Confederate battle flag on Statehouse grounds. Supporters say it honors heritage and valiant native sons, opponents led by the NAACP say it is a divisive reminder of slavery. Republicans usually say the flag is a state matter, but Arizona Sen. John McCain said after losing the 2000 primary that he should have spoken out on the issue and admitted that he feared opposing the flag would scuttle his chances in the state. This year, candidates campaigning in South Carolina have been all but forced to weigh in on the Boeing efforts to build a plant in the state. And in South Carolina and Nevada, opening Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste depository is a sensitive issue. South Carolina’s congressional delegation wants the site in Nevada opened to relieve the Savannah River site, which has been storing nuclear weapons waste. That made recent debate pronouncements by Romney, Perry and Texas Rep. Ron Paul against using the Nevada site hard to swallow for some South Carolina Republicans “It’s got to go somewhere, and we can’t wait for them to figure out where it’s going to go,” Republican Gov. Nikki Haley said. Voters “are going to want to know what their answers are to that.” In New Hampshire, candidates have had to weigh in on a right-to-work drive aimed at unions. Romney has already voiced support, saying in an August stop in Claremont, N.H., that “people should have the choice of deciding whether or not they want to join a union and have union dues.” ___ Associated Press writers Steve Peoples in Concord, N.H., Jim Davenport in Columbia, S.C., Tom Beaumont in Des Moines, Iowa, and Philip Elliott in Fairfax, Va., contributed to this report. ___ Link: State Issues Prove Tricky For GOP Presidential Field
SAN FRANCISCO — Gays and lesbians are not entitled to the same heightened legal protection and scrutiny against discrimination as racial minorities and women in part because they are far from politically powerless and have ample ability to influence lawmakers, lawyers for a U.S. House of Representatives group said in a federal court filing. The filing Friday in San Francisco’s U.S. District Court comes in a lesbian federal employee’s lawsuit that claims the government wrongly denied health insurance coverage to her same-sex spouse. Karen Golinski says the law under which her spouse was denied benefits – the Defense of Marriage Act – violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. But attorneys representing the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group counter that DOMA is subject to a lower level of court scrutiny because gays and lesbians don’t meet the legal criteria for groups who receive heightened protection from discrimination. Under that lower standard, DOMA is constitutional, they argue. “A spate of recent news stories only confirms the conclusion that homosexuals are far from politically powerless,” the filing says, arguing that the court should deny Golinski’s motion for summary judgment in her favor. “Accordingly, gays and lesbians cannot be labeled `politically powerless’ without draining that phrase of all meaning.” The filing cites a poll of Americans showing support for gay candidates, New York’s decision to legalize gay marriage, and the lifting of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces. Golinski’s attorney, Tara Borelli, said in a phone interview Saturday, “We don’t think that DOMA can survive a court review under any level.” A recent ruling by a District Court judge in Massachusetts supported that view, Borelli said. Golinski’s case has received support from the Obama administration. In a brief filed in July that urged the court to find DOMA unconstitutional, the administration argued that it reflected Congressional hostility to gays and targeted an immutable characteristic – sexual orientation – that has nothing to do with someone’s ability to contribute to society. The administration also characterized gays and lesbians as minorities with limited political power. It had previously said it would not defend the marriage act. The House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group stepped in to defend it. See the rest here: Do Gays And Lesbians Deserve The Same Protections As Other Minorities?
