Posted at Disrupt the Narrative –

Yesterday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch has a piece written by Jeff E. Schapiro declaring that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is the defacto leader of the Republican Party of Virginia, NOT Governor Bob McDonnell. I tend to agree with this position as Ken has been leading the charge on issues like Obamacare, Cap & Trade, illegal immigration and other key issues facing the Commonwealth.  McDonnell is subtle. Cuccinelli is anything but. McDonnell, in his rhetoric, proposes the possible. Cuccinelli propounds principle. McDonnell is the accommodating ponderer. Cuccinelli acts with all deliberate speed. Does McDonnell look weak; Cuccinelli, strong? From the start, McDonnell appears to have allowed Cuccinelli to set the tempo. Cuccinelli is an unapologetic conservative leader who fearlessly executes policy based on principle regardless of the political consequences.  He did so as a Delegate to the General Assembly.  He did so as a State Senator and he’s doing so as AG.  This has …

Read more:
An emerging National Leader?

RICHMOND (August 9, 2010) – Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli today joined the attorneys general from 33 states in reaching an agreement with Internet message board host Topix.com to eliminate a $19.99 fee to expedite review of abusive or inappropriate posts. The agreement is the result of an initiative to improve consumer protections on the website.

“Targets of false or harassing posts were being victimized a second time by being charged a removal fee for having the site take those posts down.  I am pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement with Topix to end the fee to expedite the removal of abusive posts,” Cuccinelli said.

As part of the settlement, all reports of abuse on Topix will be reviewed free of charge. The company will also seek to review and remove inappropriate posts within three working days, rather than its previous policy of seven to 14 days.  Additionally, Topix has removed the “flagging” option for reporting abusive posts. The option was ineffective and confusing for consumers as it required multiple users to “flag” a post before it was reviewed.  As a result, many inappropriate posts consumers thought they had reported were never reviewed.

Topix has also agreed to make technical and human resources improvements to better review and block inappropriate posts, as well as to consult on an as-needed basis with the attorneys general to discuss issues of concern, including responsiveness to abuse reports and other consumer complaints.

Topix.com, of Palo Alto, CA, describes itself as a “top ten online newspaper destination” which encourages readers to post comments about news items or other matters of community interest.

Good news from the home of Harry Truman, a honest Chief Executive I admire very much, and that is the citizens have crushed Obamacare at the polls, joining the Commonwealth of Virginia and other states in passing a law barring the individual mandate. 

I also want to express my admiration for my former delegate Bob Marshall and my Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and his able legal staff for their political courage in resisting the individual mandate.  They are looking like visionaries at the moment.  I am looking forward to meeting the attorney General at the Tea Party Convention in October

- U.S. District Court Rejects Federal Government’s Motion to Dismiss Virginia’s Challenge of Constitutionality of Health Care Act –

RICHMOND – Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling issued the following statement in response to today’s ruling by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to deny the federal government’s motion to dismiss Virginia’s challenge to the constitutionality of a mandatory health insurance purchase requirement:

“I am delighted that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia rejected the Obama Administration’s motion to dismiss the health care suit filed by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on behalf of the people of Virginia. We continue to believe that the federal health care legislation is unconstitutional in a number of critical areas and this decision will allow those issues to be further litigated before the court.”

Note- If you are not on Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s list and would like to receive his emails (which are great!), click the link at the end of this post and sign up. Editor

Fresh off of his victory in court over the Obama Administration, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has now ruled that police are free to check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested.

Our Attorney General is doing his job!

More details as they are made available.

UPDATE:

From Fox News:

In a decision that could lay the groundwork for an Arizona-style immigration policy, Virginia’s attorney general said state law enforcement officers are allowed to check the immigration status of anyone “stopped or arrested.”

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued the legal opinion Friday extending that authority to Virginia police in response to an inquiry over whether his state could mirror the policies passed into law in Arizona.

Read the rest on Fox News!

Federal judge rules against feds’ Motion to Dismiss Virginia health care lawsuit; suit will move forward

Richmond (August 2, 2010) – A federal judge ruled today that Virginia does indeed have standing to bring its lawsuit seeking to invalidate the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The judge also ruled that Virginia had stated a legally sufficient claim in its complaint.  In doing so, federal district court judge Henry E. Hudson denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss the commonwealth’s suit.

“We are pleased that Judge Hudson agreed that Virginia has the standing to move forward with our suit and that our complaint alleged a valid claim,” said Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.  Cuccinelli and his legal team had their first opportunity in court on July 1, arguing that Virginia’s lawsuit was a valid challenge of the federal health care act and that the court should not dismiss the case as the federal government had requested.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued that Virginia lacked the standing to bring a suit, that the suit is premature, and that the federal government had the power under the U.S. Constitution to mandate that citizens must be covered by government-approved health insurance or pay a monetary penalty.

In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Hudson found that Virginia had alleged a legally recognized injury to its sovereignty, given the government’s assertion that the federal law invalidates a Virginia law, the Health Care Freedom Act. In addressing the issue of Virginia’s statute, the Court recognized that the “mere existence of the lawfully-enacted [Virginia] statute is sufficient to trigger the duty of the Attorney General of Virginia to defend the law and the associated sovereign power to enact it.” He also found that even though the federal insurance mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014, the case is “ripe” because a conflict of the laws is certain to occur.

“This lawsuit is not about health care, it’s about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land – the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said.  “The government cannot draft an unwilling citizen into commerce just so it can regulate him under the Commerce Clause.”

The Court recognized that the federal health care law and its associated penalty were literally unprecedented. Specifically, the Court wrote that “[n]o reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce.”

A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. to decide if the federal health care law is unconstitutional.

The case is Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Richmond.

Link to ruling:

http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/index.html

Link to the attorney general’s previous health care lawsuit news releases and briefs: http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/index.html

RICHMOND (July 28, 2010) – Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued the following statement regarding today’s ruling by Judge Susan Bolton in the case of United States of America v. State of Arizona, et al.:

“My office is currently reviewing Judge Bolton’s 36-page order regarding the United States’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against Arizona’s immigration law. Much like the ruling itself, my initial reaction to the ruling is mixed.  I am pleased that she rejected the federal government’s argument that the entire statute should be enjoined and I am also pleased she found that it was unlikely that the federal government’s arguments would prevail with respect to certain provisions of the law. However, I am disappointed that Judge Bolton found it was likely that the federal government’s arguments would ultimately prevail regarding other provisions of the Arizona law,” said Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli also noted that today’s ruling was preliminary in nature, stating, “Judge Bolton’s ruling was limited to the motion for a preliminary injunction and was not a final decision on the merits of the case. The ruling is only the first step in the process.  I continue to hope that, ultimately, the courts will find Arizona’s effort to protect its citizens to be constitutional.”

The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

RICHMOND, VA (July 20, 2010) – Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed two separate lawsuits Monday against two Virginia Beach-based mortgage loan modification companies for allegedly charging illegal advance fees of up to $1,200 before performing “foreclosure rescue” services for their customers.

Nationwide Loan Modification Bureau, LLC (Nationwide) and Real Estate Resolutions, LLC (Real Estate Resolutions) offered services to consumers purportedly to help them avoid or prevent foreclosure.

The attorney general alleges that the companies violated the Virginia Foreclosure Rescue law by charging advance fees prohibited by § 59.1-200.1 of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.   Nationwide and Real Estate Resolutions allegedly charged consumers fees up to $1,200 and $995, respectively, before performing any services for or on behalf of their customers.   The Foreclosure Rescue law prohibits a supplier of foreclosure avoidance or prevention services to from “charging or receiving a fee prior to the full and complete performance of the services it has agreed to perform, if the transaction does not involve the sale or transfer of residential real property.”

Cuccinelli also alleges that in some instances, Nationwide violated the Virginia Consumer Protection Act by doing little or nothing to assist its customers in preventing or avoiding foreclosure.   The Virginia Consumer Protection Act generally prohibits suppliers from engaging in deception, false statements, false promises, or misrepresentations in connection with consumer transactions.

“During these difficult times, the last thing people need is to be kicked when they are down,” Cuccinelli said.  “The advance fees collected should be refunded where services have not been completely performed. I am pleased that my office has been able to address the alleged wrongdoing and I hope these cases will send a strong message that we intend to enforce our foreclosure rescue law.”

The Office of the Attorney General has met periodically and worked with the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs and the Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions over the last several months to identify and investigate companies thought to be violating the advance fee prohibition on foreclosure rescue companies.

The two lawsuits were filed in Virginia Beach Circuit Court.  They request that the court enjoin Nationwide and Real Estate Resolutions from violating the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and that any money be returned to consumers where services were not performed completely. The suit also seeks civil penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation of the act.

- Cuccinelli joins eight states filing amicus brief supporting common sense immigration reform -

RICHMOND (July 14, 2010) – Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced today that he has joined a coalition of nine states filing an amicus brief in federal court supporting Arizona’s new immigration reform law.  Arizona’s law is the subject of a lawsuit filed by the Obama Administration.

“In creating immigration laws over the years, Congress created a joint federal-state cooperative immigration enforcement program.  States merely report the immigration status of persons they have lawfully detained to the federal government.  They do not make determinations regarding deportation, as that is a federal matter.  While much of border enforcement is left to the federal government, federal law expressly allows states to arrest people who are not legally present in the United States.  Arizona’s law doesn’t change any of this.  That’s why we are stunned that the government has sued Arizona,” said Cuccinelli.

The amicus brief, filed today in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, defends Arizona’s  and all states’ authority to concurrently enforce federal immigration laws, especially in light of the selective and even lack of enforcement of those laws by the federal government.  Under current circumstances, states have lost control over their borders and are left to guess at the reality of the law.

On July 6, 2010, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed a lawsuit against Arizona and its governor, Jan Brewer, on behalf of President Obama to stop implementation of the state’s new immigration law.  In its suit, the Obama Administration alleges that Arizona’s law is preempted by federal law and seeks an injunction against its enforcement.

The nine states that have signed the brief are Virginia, Michigan, Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Nebraska, and South Dakota.  One U.S. territory, the Northern Mariana Islands, has also joined.  The coalition of states is being led by Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox.

Virginia already has a joint program with the federal government to check the immigration status of people who are booked for crimes anywhere in the state.  In June, Cuccinelli, along with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, announced Virginia as only one of two states that had implemented the Secure Communities program statewide.  The program enables criminal aliens to be identified at the time they are booked in a jail anywhere in Virginia, and those convicted of serious crimes can be prioritized for deportation after serving their sentences.  See more at http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/62110_Immigration.html

The federal lawsuit against Arizona is titled The United States of America v. The State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer, Governor.

Steve Shannon’s unethical ethics

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

Democrat Steve Shannon, who couldn’t identify the divisions within the Office of Virginia Attorney General when campaigning for that office, used a donor incident to criticize Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and to propose an ethics panel (“Virginia’s ethical labyrinth,” The Virginia Pilot).

Politicians are in hypocrisy overdrive when criticizing others about two things: fundraising and ethics. But I thank Mr. Shannon for opening the door for me.

Mr. Cuccinelli received a substantial contribution from Bobby Thompson, the director of a charity called the U.S. Navy Veterans Association. The charity is now under investigation in several states for potential violations of what are called charitable solicitation laws. Mr. Shannon has not only already “convicted” Mr. Thompson of violating charitable solicitation registration law, he wants to pin multiple crimes against humanity on Ken Cuccinelli.

Mr. Shannon would have us believe the contribution was made for favors, which is a very serious allegation. He and some of his fellow Democrats, however, have taken a page from President Obama, who destroyed the families of AIG employees by presuming the company and its executives guilty until proven innocent. AIG was recently proven innocent. All the while, Mr. Shannon’s fellow Democrats load their campaign coffers with money from the corporations they attack.

Mr. Shannon attempts to link Mr. Thompson’s contribution to a bill — not introduced by Mr. Cuccinelli before he was elected Attorney General — that exempted veterans charities from registering under Virginia’s charitable solicitations law. Mr. Shannon also claims the contribution was related to a proposal by Mr. Cuccinelli to bring certain consumer regulatory affairs, such as charitable solicitation registration, into the attorney general’s office.

Mr. Shannon’s article opens, “As a former prosecutor.” Well, given the unprofessional, partisan quality of his attempted smear, Virginians should be most pleased that he is a “former” prosecutor. Mr. Shannon, being unfamiliar with the divisions of the Virginia Office of the Attorney General, wouldn’t know that what Mr. Cuccinelli proposed is consistent with the structure of the attorney general offices in most states.

Here’s a primer for Mr. Shannon and his friends. Forty-one states have charitable solicitation registration laws similar to Virginia’s. Virginia is one of only two states in which charitable solicitation registrations are administered by the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Cuccinelli’s proposal, therefore, is consistent with the majority of states.

I deal with charitable registration laws daily. I’ve litigated about the constitutionality of those laws, and I fight abuses by state officials administering them. Personally, I would oppose a proposal by Mr. Cuccinelli to move charitable solicitation registrations to his office. I don’t believe the issuer of a license should also be the enforcer. However, the fact remains that most states are structured consistent with what Mr. Cuccinelli wants.

What Mr. Shannon’s article doesn’t say, which bolsters my position, is that attorneys general who administer charitable registration laws include his fellow Democrats Richard Blumenthal, Jerry Brown, Martha Coakley and Lisa Madigan. All of them received grades of A or A+ from the corrupt nonprofit ACORN, and all of them have sights on higher offices.

As to the exemption for registration by veterans charities, Mr. Shannon would have us believe that was quid pro quo. Some states, however, exempt veterans and other organizations.

Long before Mr. Thompson’s charity sought exemption from the registration requirements, I and others involved with nonprofit fundraising and First Amendment rights urged that Virginia revoke its charitable registration law. The first conversation dates back eight years, and was mentioned to two of Mr. Cuccinelli’s predecessors in the attorney general’s office. That was based in part on the United States Supreme Court saying on four occasions in the past three decades that nonprofit fundraising communications are protected by the First Amendment.

The exemption for veterans charities, therefore, is not a novel idea. Charitable solicitation registration laws divert a half billion dollars of donor contributions annually to compliance. They are constantly abused and even violated by offices that administer them. These laws act as prior restraints on, and licensing of, speech and press rights of nonprofit organizations.

Charitable registration laws are ripe for abuse by government officials, which is why I believe they should be eliminated altogether, and replaced with an alternative. For example, North Carolina’s Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, Elaine Marshall, administers her state’s law as Secretary of State. Despite campaigning as an advocate for abused women and consumers, Ms. Marshall has posted on the Internet the residential addresses of registrants with her office. That’s a violation of privacy, and makes life easier for identity thieves. It also exposes victims of crime, battered women and others to their stalkers.

The Virginia office that administers the law is among the best in the country. The trouble is, the current law makes it difficult for law-abiding charities, donors and law enforcement itself. Virginia’s statute, by the way, has a provision nearly identical to one declared unconstitutional on its face by the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals in litigation I conducted against Utah.

Mr. Shannon’s attack on Ken Cuccinelli attempts to knit together some loose facts, but is based in ignorance. Meanwhile his fellow Democrats play crony politics with, of all things, the Bill of Rights, as exemplified by the unconstitutional federal DICLOSE Act they are pushing. To get this unconstitutional bill through, Democrats gave exemptions to big, powerful lobbies such as the NRA, AARP and Sierra Club.

If Mr. Shannon were even close to sincere about fundraising ethics, he would need to criticize his own party first. President Obama has been one of, if not, the biggest beneficiaries of contributions from BP, Goldman Sachs and Fannie Mae. Mr. Cuccinelli sequestered the contributions from Mr. Thompson pending investigations of the Navy veterans charity. Mr. Obama has not done the same for the one million dollars in BP money, or any money from the businesses he’s charged with wrongdoing.

Democrats have many other ethical conflicts with their fundraising. The top nine donors to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, for example, gave the DCCC $50 million so far this election cycle. Who are these donors who exceed the legal limit for contributions to the DCCC of $30,400 per year? It’s Nancy Pelosi and eight of her Democratic colleagues in Congress. That’s the closest thing I’ve seen to a legalized money-laundering scheme.

Mr. Cuccinelli has done what is consistent with the law and ethics. Mr. Shannon, in just another desperate attempt by the left to pin anything on Ken Cuccinelli — even when he’s 100% correct ethically and legally — isn’t being an honest broker of the facts or the law.

But thanks, Mr. Shannon, for raising the issue of ethics and fundraising.

Mark Fitzgibbons is president of corporate and legal affairs at a direct marketing and fundraising agency.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Attorney General Cuccinelli announces $173 million settlement with chip manufacturers accused of price-fixing

RICHMOND (June 24, 2010) — Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli today announced a $173 million settlement with six international manufacturers of computer chips, settling claims that the companies engaged in a price-fixing arrangement that cost government purchasers and consumers millions of dollars in overcharges for their chips.

Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) is a common form of memory chip found in desktop computers, laptops, servers, cell phones, printers, and networking equipment.  DRAM sales to major U.S. electronic manufacturers, including Dell, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard, exceed $5 billion a year.

“Price-fixing strikes at the heart of a free market economy and injures the interests of consumers, business, and government agencies,” Cuccinelli said.  “Our settlement sends an international signal that we will not tolerate this behavior and ensures that those who were overcharged will be compensated.”

An investigation by several states revealed that from 1998-2002, the DRAM manufacturers held numerous meetings among their salespeople and upper management in which they exchanged confidential price information and agreed to quote inflated DRAM prices to their customers.  They also agreed to exchange sales data in order to monitor and enforce their price-fixing.  During that time period, the companies sold at least $20 billion in DRAM chips in the United States.

The result of this collusion was to keep DRAM prices artificially high instead of letting market forces operate freely through competition.

Cuccinelli and 32 other state attorneys general participated in investigation and the settlement. In July 2006, the multi-state group filed a complaint in federal court in the Northern District of California alleging that consumers, state agencies, state universities and colleges, and local governments overpaid for products containing DRAM chips at inflated prices because of the price-fixing agreement.

The defendants agreed to the settlement with the states, as well as with private plaintiffs, and will pay $173 million over two years, plus interest.  The settlement requires the companies to refrain from illegal price-fixing and to conduct employee compliance training.

The DRAM manufacturers named in the lawsuit include the American companies Micron Technology, Inc. and NEC Electronics America, Inc.; as well as foreign companies Infineon Technologies A.G. in Germany; Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. in South Korea; Elpida Memory Inc. in Japan; Mosel-Vitelic Corp. in Taiwan; and their American subsidiaries.  The states have previously settled with Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. of South Korea in 2006 for $10 million and with Winbond Electronics Corp., a small Taiwanese company, in 2007 for $2 million.  The states have not yet reached an agreement with Nanya Technology Corp., another Taiwanese company.

The settlement is subject to court approval and the money paid will be allocated among all consumers, including government purchasers.

As a result of a federal investigation, four companies ­– Samsung, Hynix, Infineon, and Elpida – and 12 individuals have pleaded guilty to criminal price-fixing.

Besides Virginia, the other states participating in the settlement are:  Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

More people join Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli in the Health Care Mandate fight.

From a Washington Post Story:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and 26 other Congressional Republicans have signed an amicus brief filed by the American Center for Law and Justice supporting Virginia’s legal case against the federal health care law.

Filed in court Tuesday, lawyers for the ACLJ offer further legal arguments supporting Virginia’s contention that Congress overstepped the bounds of its constitutional authority when it passed a law requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face a fine.

The group attempts to pick apart the federal government’s claim that the individual mandate should be allowed under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said the individual mandate “is just completely contrary to the constitutional framework.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Virginia responds to feds’ attempt to dismiss health care suit

RICHMOND (June 7, 2010) — Virginia has responded to the federal government’s attempt to dismiss the state’s lawsuit against the new federal health care law, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced today.

In its motion to the court to dismiss Virginia’s lawsuit, the federal government argued that Virginia lacks the standing to bring a suit, that the suit is premature, and that the federal government has the power under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause to mandate that citizens must be covered by health insurance or pay a civil penalty.  The government also made alternative arguments based upon its taxing power and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

“If the government prevails and Congress may use the Commerce Clause to order Americans to buy private health insurance, then Congress will have been granted a virtually unlimited power to order you to buy anything.  That would amount to the end of federalism and our more than 220 years of constitutional government,” the attorney general said.

The oral arguments on the motion to dismiss are July 1.  If Virginia’s case is not dismissed and moves forward, a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18.

Here is a brief summary of some of the arguments for and against the motion to dismiss:

You can find a copy of the brief and all its arguments online at

http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/PLAINTIFF’S%20-%20Mem%20in%20Opp%20to%20MTD%20-%20FINAL%206710%20-%20FILED.pdf

Hearing schedule

The following hearing schedule has been adopted:

Oral argument on Motion to Dismiss: July 1, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.  U.S. Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Richmond.

If Virginia’s case is not dismissed, a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.

Editor’s Note: Mr. Fitzgibbons wrote an excellent Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post concerning the Westboro Baptist Church and AG Cuccinelli’s position on the case. Please read the impressive bio at the end of this letter and I am sure you will agree that Ken Cuccinelli has it exactly right on the Westboro Baptist Church issue. And Mr. Fitzgibbons is an expert in this field. (Printed with permission.)

To the editor of The Washington Post:

The partisans quoted in your ever-watchful eye on Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (whom The Washington Post reminds its readers nearly daily is a conservative!) seem to consistently demonstrate the weakness of the arguments in opposition to Mr. Cuccinelli’s actions.

Regarding Mr. Cuccinelli’s Climategate taxpayer fraud investigation, you relied on left-wing academicians who actually believe that, by virtue of the fact that they have PhDs and “teach,” they aren’t subject to the taxpayer fraud statute. That’s quite a lesson.

Your latest example involves Democratic Virginia House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong, who criticized Mr. Cuccinelli’s refusal to sign an amicus curiae brief of state attorneys general in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church military funeral protest (Friends, foes hit Cuccinelli over Marine funeral case). Mr. Cuccinelli stated his 1^st Amendment concerns in declining to sign the brief. His position is consistent with many constitutional scholars, such as Professor Jonathan Turley. The American Civil Liberties Union sides with Mr. Cuccinelli, as do more and more conservatives, especially after becoming aware of the full constitutional ramifications of the case.

I’ve read the attorneys general brief, and Mr. Cuccinelli was kind to his colleagues in how he stated his reasons for not signing it. The brief is terribly flawed factually, legally and constitutionally. Among its many errors, the brief argues that the corporate media have greater First Amendment rights than citizens do.

You generously quote Mr. Armstrong’s criticizing Mr. Cuccinelli’s decision not to sign onto the brief.  Mr. Armstrong’s 1^st Amendment argument (while claiming Cuccinelli has made Virginia a laughing stock) is that “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.”

The correct point, which of course is that the 1^st Amendment does not protect falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, comes from Justice Holmes in the case Schenck v. United States, which upheld imprisonment of American citizens for protesting war. Keep it coming, Mr. Armstrong.

It is Mr. Armstrong, like the Climategate PhDs, who appear to be the laughing stocks by demonstrating their frivolous and privileged view of our rights.

Virginia conservatives eagerly look forward to whomever it is you next pick in your efforts to provide counterpoints to Mr. Cuccinelli.

Mark Fitzgibbons

Manassas, VA

Westboro Church Displays Hatred

Perhaps the phrase “Sets DailyKOS Straight” is a bit of a stretch. These left wing whacks are so far out there that the word “straight” is not in their dictionary. But the left does have a special place in their little black hearts for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Part of the problem they have with him is his ability to think for himself. And this one is not really that hard to understand.

The even more far out members of the Westboro Baptist Church, the infamous cult known for picketing and protesting American soldiers killed in the line of duty and their bigoted, anti-gay hatred campaign, which seems to make them an equal opportunity offender, are tied up in a court battle. They lost the first round when the father of a fallen hero won a lawsuit against them. On appeal, however, the lower court ruling was overturned and the “church” was granted legal expenses. Seems the appeals court believed that the term “free speech” mentioned in the Constitution means, well, free speech.

Now the awarding of fees to the antagonistic Westboro cult was more than some could take. But the soldier’s father had failed to file an objection on time, and the court was pretty much compelled to award the money.

Now the case goes to the Supreme Court to test the “limits” of free speech.

Attorney General Cuccinelli has declined to jump on the overcrowded bandwagon with 48 of his fellow AG’s siding with the father.

Good!

There are few things more repulsive than watching someone burn an American flag to those who love America. But this repulsive act is protected free speech. Would DailyKOS be whining so loud if the church had simply burned a flag? Well, it is hard to imagine anyone who would execute such an act of desecration to of a symbol of this country that is not a regular KOS reader. They attract this type of pond scum, beg money from them and will never criticize these despicable acts. And, sadly, it is hard to believe that KOS would even care if the Westboro cult was not also anti-gay. That may be the only aspect that causes them to raise an eyebrow.

But what the brain-trusts at KOS fail to realize is that if the Supreme Court sides with the father, the next time they want to protest a war, or anything else, this ruling will come up and bite them – hard. Same with the Tea Party or any other protests. There is a great risk of losing free speech. And forcing us to remain silent. If someone finds your protest upsetting, or in poor taste, you better hire a lawyer.

The irony of the entire matter is that the soldier gave his life representing the very people that allow the fruitcake church to protest. In asking the Supreme Court to rule against them, the liberty our soldier’s fight and die for is lost.

So, Virginia’s Attorney General has pushed aside the emotional tears and decided that standing up for our first amendment right, no matter how bitter the speech, is his job.

Virginia should be grateful that Cuccinelli is using his head, unlike most of the emotional basket cases on both sides of the political spectrum.

This is Cuccinelli’s response:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Attorney General Cuccinelli’s statement on not filing a brief in Snyder v. Phelps

RICHMOND (June 1, 2010) — Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has decided not to join other states in an amicus brief on behalf of Albert Snyder in Snyder v. Phelps, which will soon be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Mr. Snyder is the father of Matthew Snyder, a soldier killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by Fred Phelps and his followers at the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.

The attorney general’s office deplores the absolutely vile and despicable acts of Fred Phelps and his followers.  We also greatly sympathize with the Snyder family and all families who have experienced the hatefulness of these people.  The attorney general has always been a strong supporter of the military, both in his words and in his work as a Senator.  But the consequences of this case had to be looked at beyond what would happen just to Phelps and his followers.

This office has decided not to file a brief in Snyder v. Phelps, because the case could set a precedent that could severely curtail certain valid exercises of free speech.  If protestors – whether political, civil rights, pro-life, or environmental – said something that offended the object of the protest to the point where that person felt damaged, the protestors could be sued.  It then becomes a very subjective and difficult determination as to when the line is crossed from severely offensive speech to that which inflicts emotional distress.  Several First Amendment scholars agree.

Virginia already has a statute that we believe balances free speech rights while stopping and even jailing those who would be so contemptible as to disrupt funeral or memorial services.  That statute, 18.2-415(B), punishes as a class one misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500) someone who willfully disrupts a funeral or memorial service to the point of preventing or interfering with the orderly conduct of the event.

We do not think that regulation of speech through vague common law torts like intentional infliction of emotional distress strikes the proper balance between free speech and avoiding the unconscionable disruption of funerals.  We think our statute does.

So long as the protesters stay within the letter of the law, the Constitution protects their right to express their views.  In Virginia, if Phelps or others attempt this repugnant behavior, cross the line and violate the law, the attorney general’s office stands ready to provide any assistance to local prosecutors to vindicate the law.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is taking a serious look at the whole global warming picture. The science, or more specifically the missing scientific data, the emails admitting to “tricks” and the entire debacle surrounding Climate Change has come into question. The serious implications man made global warming could have on mankind is not a frivolous matter.

But recent revelations call the entire “science” into question. Educational institutions around the world have done more to damage the science by hiding data, claiming data has gone missing, and discussing ways to avoid FOIA requests via the leaked emails.

There are not only potentially disastrous events that could occur, if the conclusions are correct that man has caused the earth to warm, but large fortunes that could be made by way of laws designed to support technology required to combat such a disaster.

With so much hanging in the balance, the scientists studying the matter should have taken great care that their work was above reproach. (But that should be the standard in any scientific endeavor.) It should have been expected that any conclusions which would necessitate massive changes in human lifestyles, massive government regulation and control of every aspect of our lives and taxation beyond our worst nightmares, would necessarily require the utmost integrity.

Instead, the leaked emails from East Anglia cast doubt on the entire process. And to find out that the University of Virginia, a school largely supported by Virginian’s tax dollars, was a possible part of this ugly situation, a situation that threatens to impugn the reputation of a public University, one would think that the President of such a University would cooperate fully to prevent such a mark on it’s reputation.

Not University of Virginia President John Casteen III. He supports fighting a request from the Attorney General to release grant information of one of those involved in a possible fraud, former UVA professor Michael Mann. This is an unconscionable act of obfuscation that immediately raises the question: What is Casteen hiding?

According to the Washington Post:

In a motion filed in Charlottesville, the University of Virginia argued that Cuccinelli’s subpoena for papers and e-mail from global warming researcher Michael Mann exceeds the attorney general’s authority under state law and intrudes on the rights of professors to pursue academic inquiry free from political pressure.

Cuccinelli, a vocal skeptic of global warming who is suing the Environmental Protection Agency over the issue, has said he is investigating whether Mann committed fraud by knowingly skewing data as he sought publicly funded grants for his research. Mann left U-Va. in 2005 and now works at Penn State.

Cuccinelli is asking questions and looking for answers. How ironic that an institution charged with providing answers has decided to withhold this information. Stonewalling really does more to convince most people that the science is, indeed, fraudulent.

And what a horrific waste of school funds that could actually go for education instead of legal fees.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Federal government responds to Virginia’s lawsuit over health care law

NOTE: AUDIO and VIDEO clips from the attorney general’s announcement will be available online Tuesday at 8:30 am EDT for download at http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/index.html.  You can find a copy of the federal government’s response there, as well.

RICHMOND, VA (May 24, 2010) – The federal government responded today to Virginia’s lawsuit over the recently enacted federal health care law with a motion to dismiss the suit.

“We are still looking through the motion and 39-page brief that we received late Monday, but at initial glance, this is pretty close to what we expected,” said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

In the motion to dismiss the suit, the federal government argues:

• that as of matter of jurisdiction and procedure, Virginia has no right to bring this case now
• that Congress has the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to order Americans to buy health insurance
• that the health insurance mandate is lawful under the taxing power of Congress.

Cuccinelli and his team look forward to responding to the motion to dismiss by June 7.  The government then has until June 22 to reply to Virginia’s response.

“The federal government is forcing citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce via the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.  We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and should not be subject to a federal mandate,” said Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli argued, “Just being alive is not interstate commerce.  If it were, there would be no limit to the Commerce Clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do.  If Congress has the power to force Americans to buy health insurance, then there’s nothing to stop Congress from forcing us to buy any product.”

In March, Virginia enacted the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which provides that the government cannot require Virginians to buy health insurance.   It was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the General Assembly (90 to 3 in the House and 25 to 15 in the Senate), and had the support of Governor Bob McDonnell.

The federal health care law, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia.  Since the attorney general of Virginia has a duty to defend validly enacted Virginia laws from any challenge, he filed suit in federal court seeking a declaration that the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act is constitutional and that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by imposing the individual mandate.

The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause usually allows federal law to trump state law.  But if a federal law is found unconstitutional while a conflicting state law is found constitutional, the state law will prevail.

The attorney general has offered support in the form of shared research to the other 19 states suing over the health care bill in Florida, but Virginia has not joined that case because of the direct conflict between Virginia’s law and the federal law.  Virginia has chosen to defend a Virginia statute in a federal court in Virginia.

The other duties of the attorney general’s office will continue as normal during this case.  No attorneys have been taken off any other sections, such as public safety, consumer protection, or Medicaid fraud, to work on this lawsuit.

The case is the Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius.  It is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond.

Previous news releases on the case, as well as the text of Virginia’s lawsuit, can be found at http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/index.html

Cuccinelli Casting Out Liberal Demons

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is exactly the right person at exactly the right time to preserve Virginia’s rights and protect her from the Great Federal Intrusion. And his effectiveness is intense. If you doubt just how effective Cuccinelli has been in the short time he has been Virginia’s Attorney General, just take a spin around the left wing media and blogs.

The daily mud tossed by these “progressive” Socialists is reminiscent of Father Damien Karras casting out the demons in The Exorcist. Even as the green split pea soup flows, Father Karras keeps with the task of ridding the world of vermin, so has Cuccinelli methodically focused on legal challenges to the overstepping federal government.

Only people possessed with liberal demons could oppose the Attorney General’s efforts to roll back federalism to a Constitutional level. Each and every one of the federal rules, laws and policies targeted by Cuccinelli are going to cost Virginians a lot in terms of money, jobs and freedom.

We have a Health Reform bill that we now know will add trillions of dollars to the national debt and push Virginians away from their current health plans to a government controlled disaster. The Attorney General has our backs on this. Independents and Conservatives understand that free choices and a free market will provide far better care than government mandates. The sooner we are able to defund, and repeal this bill, the sooner we can attack the real cause of high health care costs: the care itself. The liberals have attacked the symptom, health insurance, and left the high cost of care unchecked.

And for those that believe man has caused the earth to warm, in spite of the fact that it has been cooling for decades, Cuccinelli is like Holy Water to their Church of Climatology, searing and burning the foundation of their illogical religion. Thankfully, someone is demanding accountability for the “tricks” and outright lies these pretend scientists, led by Al Gore, have perpetrated on the world. This is about power, money and control and nothing more. Before we have an already bad economy made worse, Virginia’s Attorney General wants to be sure we are not being scammed.

For the left wing socialists to demand we believe in their scientific consensus (which simply means there is no scientific proof) is absolutely ridiculous.

What these people don’t seem to understand is that their radical agenda has turned America back to common sense Conservatism.

Or perhaps they do understand and that is the reason for the panic. They understand that they are the rising minority.

And perhaps if we could have Governor McDonnell learn some moves from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie we could shake off the last 8 years of Democratic mistakes here in the Commonwealth.