"Claiming they are among the most overworked and underpaid lawyers in the country, court-appointed defense attorneys are suing Wayne County Circuit Court and its chief judges."

"Members of the Wayne County Criminal Defense Bar Association and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to order a new fee schedule. The lawyers represent defendants in Wayne County who cannot afford to hire private attorneys."

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers recruited the nationally renowned law firm of Kirkland & Ellis to handle the suit pro bono. NACDL's Treasurer, Martin Pinales of Cincinnati, has represented NACDL in negotiations with the defendant-judges over the past few months.

This shocked us: "In 1982, defense attorneys representing the poor were earning $250 per cas. Now they are paid less! They get $225 a case. "That includes all the hours put into researching, preparation and other other duties."

The low pay has led to a decrease in the number of attorneys willing to take the cases. In 1999 there were 465 lawyers in Wayne County who accepted court appointments. Now there are 317.

The losers here are the public and the poor. Justice in Michigan is at risk. As an editorial in the Detroit Free Press said today,

"Scandalously low pay for court-appointed attorneys in Michigan is making a sham of the constitutional right to legal counsel.

"The criminal justice system works when truth emerges from the adversarial efforts of a competent prosecutor and a vigorous defense attorney. It doesn't work when an outgunned and underpaid defender is effectively encouraged to cut corners and coax guilty pleas from poor defendants."

"Part of the problem is that defense lawyers simply aren't paid enough. In Wayne County, where fees for court-appointed attorneys have been essentially frozen since 1982, court-appointed defense lawyers in many cases make what amounts to $6-$12 an hour. These are discount-store wages that yield discount justice -- cheap, but suspect in quality. "

"The Legislature should appoint a task force to study how best to get more money to all Michigan counties for criminal defense. Some states have created statewide Public Defender commissions or offices. In Michigan, local control with a mixture of local and state funding would probably work best. "

"Criminal defense attorneys and accused felons are simply not a public priority. But upholding everyone's constitutional rights and keeping innocent people out of prison certainly ought to be."

Immigrants sending cash back home will face strict new controls. Under the new rules,

"Anyone who sends money overseas now must be checked against government lists of suspected money launderers and terrorists, a task that also requires money transmitters %u2014 many of them storefront operations %u2014 to undergo training to spot suspicious movements of money."

Some of the new federal rules took effect this summer while others likely will be implemented in the next few months.

Many of the immigrants fear INS checks and reprisals. "Treasury Department officials, who administer the new federal regulations, have said people making ordinary transfers should not be worried. State Banking Department officials, however, began sharing money transfer information in March with the local office of the F.B.I. All names of customers are checked against lists of suspected criminals."

The new regulations may not be effective at catching terrorist money. The threshold reporting requirements that have been in place for many years were designed "to catch drug traffickers or criminal groups that have a lot of money to disguise or move quickly. Terrorist groups, investigators say, are more likely to move small amounts of money intermittently."

Two California three-strikes cases were heard by the Supreme Court last week. Decisions are expected in the spring. One of the cases involves Leonardo Andrade, who received 50 years in jail as a punishment for stealing $153.00 of videos for his children to watch. Andrade has already served seven years for his shoplifting episode and will be 87 before he is due for release.

Families to Amend California's Three-Strikes is an organization out to repeal three-strikes laws, which they call "a shameful and current blot on California history." We are in complete agreement.

Their website is chock full of interesting links and information. For example, check out these 150 horror stories of three-strikes offenders. As the organization points out, "these likely only scratch the surface in demonstrating the injustice of this law. For instance, we do not receive letters from prisoners who are illiterate, cannot read English, many who are mentally disabled, those who have not heard about us, those who have heard about us but choose not to write us, and those who have committed suicide or died in prison."

As an example, take Steven Bell, who is serving 35 years to life for taking a bike out of a garage.

The site also has a serious compilation of reasons to oppose three-strikes laws, culled from the media, court opinions and other resources. Among those you can read about in detail on the site are:

Economic Reasons
Better Alternatives
Inhumane/Unjust
Applied Disproportionately to Minorities, Poor and Particular Counties
Caused by Counterfactual Fear and Vengeance
3-Strikes Focuses on the Poor, But Ignores Crimes of the Rich
Caused by Politicians who Follow the Mob (or Even Incite It)
Violates Double Jeopardy
Retroactive Application Makes It an Ex-Post Facto Law
Will Result in an Increase in Crime
Will Result in an Increase in Innocent People Being Forced to Plead Guilty
The 3-Strikes law is one of the government's ultimate intrusions into people's freedoms.
The 3-Strikes Law Incorrectly Legitimizes the Use of Violence
Even Before the 3-Strikes Law, The U.S. and California Were Among the Greatest Incarcerators in the World
Caused by Increased Social Construction of Criminals as Evil Monsters
3-Strikes Fallacies

We told you the bad news with respect to yesterday's failed marijuana ballot initiatives. Here is some good news from other states, provided by the Marijuana Policy Project, who spearheaded the unsuccessful Nevada drive:

THE GOOD NEWS

MASSACHUSETTS: Nineteen local advisory measures urging marijuana decriminalization all appear to have passed, most with overwhelming margins. A local advisory measure supporting medical marijuana and another endorsing hemp cultivation passed easily as well.

MARYLAND: Medical marijuana supporter Bob Ehrlich was elected governor in a hotly-contested race. Ehrlich, a Republican member of Congress, is one of 42 cosponsors of Rep. Barney Frank's States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act. His opponent, Democrat Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, was approached during the campaign by medical marijuana supporters but refused to take a stand. This bodes well for our effort to get a medical marijuana bill passed in Maryland next year.

SAN FRANCISCO: In what may turn out to be the medical marijuana "shot heard 'round the world," San Francisco voters passed Proposition S by a nearly 2-to-1 margin. Placed on the ballot by four members of the city Board of Supervisors after a wave of federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, the measure asked voters if the city should explore growing and distributing marijuana for seriously ill patients. Now that voters have responded with a resounding "YES," it will be up to the Board of Supervisors to implement that mandate. MPP plans to work with our many friends in San Francisco to make sure the voters' wishes are carried out.

In some ways it was a rough night, but we are immensely proud of the hard work of our staff and volunteers -- and grateful for your continuing support. We know we won't win every battle, but we will not give up until marijuana prohibition is just a distant, sad memory."

Nelson Rockefeller's grandaughter was arrested while protesting the drug laws that bear her family's name.

Meile Rockefeller was arrested along with two state senators and eight other people outside Gov. Pataki's office.

"Prosecutors strongly support them, but a broad political consensus has formed that they have failed to work as intended — that they are too inflexible, too costly and too harsh when applied to low-level offenders who might do better with treatment and counseling than with long prison sentences. In Albany, political leaders have talked for years about change. But that's where it always ends, with talk."

The protest was sponsored by Correctional Association of New York, an organization that seeks repeal of the drug laws and uses the slogan "Drop the Rock."

Meile's brother Stuart Rockefeller was also at the protest but did not get arrested. Their uncle, Laurance Rockefeller, also opposes the drug laws. In a letter to the New York Times in June he wrote "Overly harsh laws and punishments have reduced faith in government, which is essential to the functioning of a democracy."

Meile, who has been a lawyer and a real estate developer, wants the drug laws repealed so that judges can "regain the power to decide whether a prison term or a treatment program works better for an offender and for society, because they "are the ones right there on the front lines."

Mark Leno, who serves on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is the author of California's Prop S, to be voted on by the public on November 5, asks for voters to approve the measure in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, Prop. S -- Medical pot, again

"Unfortunately, our federal government, through the Drug Enforcement Agency, has decided to stand between our most vulnerable, ill citizens and their physician-recommended medicine by shutting down cannabis clubs and arresting activists attempting to comply with our voter-approved law. It is interesting to note that national polls consistently reveal that at least 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the DEA's actions as they support the medical use of cannabis. "

"If the federal government continues to assault, intimidate and close our community-based cannabis clubs, leaving many unable to access their medicine, I believe that we must have an alternative distribution network prepared to serve their needs. That is why I have authored Proposition S on Tuesday's ballot. It asks voters if, in light of the DEA's continued policy, we should explore creating a program whereby the city of San Francisco grows and distributes cannabis so that patients can exercise their rights under Proposition 215."

"...here's an issue both the left and the right can embrace: For the very same reasons overnment should stay out of our bedrooms, it should also stay out of our medicine cabinets. Please join me in supporting Proposition S."

The President has a new plan to speed judicial confirmations.

"President Bush yesterday laid out an accelerated method for getting the judges he wants onto the federal bench, brushing aside longstanding traditions by trying to fill vacancies before they occur and demanding that the full Senate vote on all nominees."

"Bush said his plan would correct "a lousy record" in which vacancies have mounted and nominees have languished as the selection of judges has become highly politicized. The proposal gives him new ammunition on a favorite issue for conservatives as he begins a five-day campaign swing before Tuesday's elections.The Democrats who control the Senate are unlikely to approve such a plan, but for Bush, that is largely beside the point."

"Republican officials said the timing was designed to dramatize the stakes going into the elections, when just a few races will decide whether Democrats keep their majority. The strategy, drafting proposals for major changes in the way judges are chosen without consulting senators of either political party, suggested an eagerness by the White House to expand its powers rather than to broker compromise on a delicate issue."

Sometimes Instapundit (Law Professor Glenn Reynolds) is just so right on the money--as he is today with this post on his disagreement with the way the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") is being used by the Government.

Prof. Reynolds agrees with another law professor, David Cole of Georgetown, who we link to frequently on civil liberties issues. Read his article Fight Terrorism Fairly from this Sunday's New York Times.

For those inclined to read the actual statute, it is 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, et. seq. A detailed description of the Act's provisions is available here.

While the Supreme Court is contemplating reconsidering its position on allowing execution of offenders who commit murder as juveniles, Florida may edit its death penalty law in a fashion that would lower the age for which juvenile offenders can be exeucted from 17 to 16.

"This is because United States Supreme Court rulings upholding the death penalty for 16-year-olds would take precedence over a 1998 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that declared capital punishment unconstitutional for people under 17."

"Passage of this amendment would restore the death penalty in Florida for 16-year-old offenders," said Stephen Harper, coordinator of the Juvenile Death Penalty Initiative, a coalition seeking to eliminate the death penalty for juveniles. "We see that as a major step back given how other states are dealing with this issue and given how the international community has all but eliminated the death penalty for offenders under 18."

"These critics say voters would have no way of knowing the implications of the change for juvenile offenders from reading the amendment, which makes no mention of it."

We're putting the word out and hope other sites will too.

Liberal Oasis has the link to the House website with the Final Vote Results for Roll Call 455 on the war resolution--a majority of the Democrats voted against it: 126-81.

Here is the text of H. J. RES. 114 JOINT RESOLUTION passed by the House October 10:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

© War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

© RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Source: Thomas, Federal Legislation Server.

The ACLU has issued a press release decrying today's passage of the Election Reform Bill.

"In response to tonight's expected passage of election reform legislation that has been touted by supporters as a cure for America's flawed voting system, the American Civil Liberties Union said that the bill would disenfranchise whole classes of Americans by erecting new bureaucratic hurdles for voters."

"This bill turns back the clock on four decades of voting rights advances," said LaShawn Warren, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Instead of making sure that the voting process is inclusive, this bill provides the tools to excludes people from the voting process, negatively impacting the elderly, the disabled, racial and ethnic minorities, students and the poor. Not only does this bill make it more difficult to vote, it makes it more difficult to register to vote."

Senator Robert Byrd of Virginia writes of his opposition to the war on Iraq in an op-ed article in today's New York Times. Here are some portions, but go read the whole thing.

...."I have listened closely to the president. I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election."

"Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels "is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes — detailed in a recent publication, "National Security Strategy of the United States" — against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat."

...." Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time."

...."We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate."