RISE UP FOR JUSTICE -- Help Protect Voting Rights!

Let’s not mince words – this week’s Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder left our country with a badly weakened Voting Rights Act. The Shelby County decision stopped the enforcement of Section 5, which was probably the most effective tool ever in the battle against voting discrimination. In response, the Lawyers’ Committee and its allies are launching the RISE UP FOR JUSTICE campaign!
The Lawyers’ Committee has already started working to address the damage done by this shortsighted decision. We’re thinking of new ways to advocate for a revitalized Voting Rights Act while combatting newly-emboldened voter suppression and disenfranchisement efforts. But we can’t do it alone. 
Now, more than ever before, we need YOU to RISE UP FOR JUSTICE and help us ensure that Americans are able to exercise their right to vote free from discrimination. We need YOUR eyes and ears on the ground to help us find and stop discriminatory changes to voting rules and practices in your town, city, county, or state. While it was in effect, Section 5 prevented thousands of discriminatory redistricting plans, changes to election rules, changes in polling place locations, changes in voter qualifications or eligibility, changes to candidate qualifications and new voter identification requirements. These and other changes to voting procedures or practices may threaten the right to vote if they go undetected and unchallenged.
Call the Election Protection Hotline at 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) to report new or proposed voting changes in your community or for more information about the Shelbydecision.  Calls will be answered live from 9 AM to 5 PM Eastern Time Monday through Friday, and you can leave us a message at any other time, which we will return as soon as possible. 
To learn more about the Shelby decision and the Voting Rights Act, visit the Election Protection website at http://shelby.866ourvote.org. Be sure to check back frequently for updates and advocacy actions! 
Remember, WE NEED YOU to RISE UP FOR JUSTICE and join us in this crucial fight to restore and protect your voting rights! We look forward to working with you in the coming weeks, months, and years and thank you so much for your dedication to this vitally important cause.
Barbara R. Arnwine
President and Executive Director
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
P.S. You can also contact us and stay up-to-date on late breaking voting news by following us on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/866OurVote and http://www.facebook.com/LawyersComm) and Twitter (@866OurVote and @LawyersComm using #RiseUP)!

Join Us For A Rally Today at 5:30 PM As we celebrate the DOMA And Pop8 Decisions

History was made today as the U.S. Supreme Court held that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, returning marriage equality to California. 

In addition to holding Prop. 8 unconstitutional, the Court also invalidated the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – so finally couples in the growing number of marriage equality states will also get the federal rights and benefits they deserve.

And though today will be remembered as a watershed moment in the fight for equality, the Court unfortunately stopped short of a broader decision on the fundamental right to marry.

Millions of us have been fighting for years – first to stop Prop. 8 from passing, and then to reverse it. Today's victory, while joyous, is a reminder of the long road to win marriage equality nationwide.

Marriage Equality

Those of us who have been working on these cases would not have reached this moment without the courageous plaintiffs, the brilliant legal teams (including Ted Olson, David Boies, Roberta Kaplan, American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the ACLU, and the law firms involved), and all of you.

The coming day will be filled with celebration. But with millions still living without equal rights, we will not stop until every LGBT person – wherever they live – has full equality under the law, including the right to marry the one they love.

Here's the plan to cut carbon pollution

The carbon pollution that causes climate change isn't a distant threat, the risk to public health isn't a hypothetical, and it's clear we have a moral obligation to act.
The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15 years, and 2012 was the hottest one we've ever recorded. When carbon pollutes the air, the risk of asthma attacks increases. When the Earth's atmosphere fundamentally changes, we see more heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods.
These events also create an economic imperative to act. When farms wash away and crops wilt, food prices go up. Last year, we saw 11 different weather disasters that each cost the United States more than $1 billion.
And confronting this challenge isn't just about preventing disaster -- it's also about moving America forward in a way that creates hundreds of thousands of good, new, clean energy jobs. It's about wasting less energy, which saves money for every business and every family in America.
So the debate's over. It's time for action. 
First, he's laying out a plan to cut carbon pollution in America -- by working to cut pollution from power plants, protect the health of our kids, boost clean energy, and revamp our transportation sector for the 21st century. Second, he's preparing the United States for the impacts of these changes -- by building stronger, safer communities and developing resources to make our country more resilient. And finally, he's leading international efforts to combat global climate change.
We've put together a graphic that breaks this all down -- from the effects we're already seeing to the specific actions we're going to take to lead this fight.
No single step can reverse the effects of climate change, but that's no excuse for inaction. We have a moral obligation to leave our kids a planet that's not broken and polluted.
So here's what we're going to do:
Share President Obama's plan to make sure people in your community understand why we're taking these steps and what comes next.  

Statement by the President on the Supreme Court Ruling on Shelby County v. Holder

I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision today.  For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act  enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress  has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans.  Today's decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.

As a nation, we've made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote.  But, as the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists.    And while today's decision is a setback, it doesn't represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination.  I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls.  My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process.

Details on today’s Supreme Court orders

Details on today’s Supreme Court orders

The Court granted cert. in nine cases today. Brief summaries as well as details on additional orders are below.
The issue in No. 12-515, Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, is whether federal law permits a state to sue an Indian tribe to try to stop operation of a casino that is outside the tribe’s reservation.
The issue in 12-820, Lozano v. Alvarez, relates to deadlines for filing a petition under the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; specifically whether the one-year filing period is tolled when the abducting parent has concealed the child’s whereabouts from the left-behind parent.
The issue in No. 12-99, United Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, is whether a federal statute that prohibits an employer from giving a union “any money or thing of value” prevents the employer from giving the union other forms of assistance (for example, the names and contact information of non-unionized employees whom the union wants to contact for union organizing purposes, or a promise to remain neutral to union organizing efforts).
No. 12-930, Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio, is an immigration case–it relates to whether people who are children when a visa petition is filed, but grow older and stop being children by the time the visa becomes available, should be treated as children or as adults for the purposes of being beneficiaries of sponsored immigrants.
The issue in 12-1182 EPA v. EME, and 12-1183 American Lung v. EME, is the validity of the EPA’s cross-state pollution rule. This is an important case regarding the enforcement of the Clean Air Act.  The D.C. Circuit held that the rule was invalid, so the case is up on the Obama administration’s petition.
The issue in 12-1281, NLRB v. Noel Canning is the validity of the President’s recess appointment power.
No. 12-1168, McCullom v. Coakley is a case from Massachusetts regarding abortion buffer zones, and asks whether an older Court case regarding abortion buffer zones (Hill v. Colorado) should be overruled.
No. 12-1200, the Executive Benefits v. Arkinson, is a bankruptcy case involving the jurisdiction of the federal courts based on the “implied consent” of litigants.
No. 12-1208, UBS v. Union de Empleados, is about shareholder derivative class actions, it asks whether the facts that plaintiffs have alleged in a shareholder derivative complaint were sufficient to dismiss a pre-suit demand on the corporation’s board of directors.
In 12-651, Amy & Vicky v. U.S., the child pornography victims case, the Court did not act. So it very likely will be reconsidered at the end of this week.
The Court did not act on 12-1094, Cline v. Ok Coalition, on RU486. Presumably it will be reconsidered late this week.
In the CVSG cases, here are the issues:
In 12-786 Limelight v. Akamai, and 12-960, Akamai v. Limelight, the question relates to patent infringement; specifically, whether it’s possible to prove infringement of a method claim when one party doesn’t perform all the steps of the claim (and instead induces another party to perform one of the steps)
In 12-1078, Samantar v. Yousef, the issue is whether a violation of international law abrogates a foreign official’s common law immunity for official acts.
 Max Mallory, Details on today’s Supreme Court orders,SCOTUSblog (Jun. 24, 2013, 11:44 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/details-on-todays-supreme-court-orders/

Waiting on Proposition 8 and DOMA decisions: In Plain English

And it has all come down to this.  Over four years ago, superlawyers Ted Olson and David Boies – who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore presidential election case – came together to challenge California’s ban on same-sex marriage on behalf of two California couples.  In the next few days, the Supreme Court is finally expected to rule on whether that ban (known as Proposition 8) and the federal Defense of Marriage Act – which limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law – are constitutional.  But then again, it might not . . . .  So let’s talk about the same-sex marriage cases and what the Court could do with them in Plain English.  
Let’s start with United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which may wind up as the less complicated of the two.  (More background on the case can be found in my earlier posts herehere, and here.)  And let’s be clear on what this case is not about:  it is not about whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  Instead, it is about whether Congress can treat married same-sex couples differently from married opposite-sex couples in federal laws and programs like Social Security benefits, immigration, and income taxes. 
Congress passed DOMA in 1996, and then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law.  The Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations all defended DOMA against court challenges.  But in 2011, President Obama changed his mind and concluded that DOMA violated the rights of same-sex couples, so House Republicans stepped in to defend the law.
The challenge to the constitutionality of DOMA now before the Justices was filed by an octogenarian from New York, Edith (“Edie”) Windsor, who in 2007 married Thea Spyer, her partner of over four decades, in Canada.  When Spyer died a few years ago, Windsor inherited her entire estate, but the estate also came with a federal estate tax bill of nearly four hundred thousand dollars that Windsor would not have had to pay if she had been married to a man.  Windsor prevailed in the lower courts, which agreed that the law was unconstitutional.  And with the United States now taking her side in the legal fight, the Supreme Court granted review last winter.
To the extent that you can make any predictions based on the oral argument, Windsor and her supporters may have reason to be cautiously optimistic.  The Court’s four more liberal Justices – Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan – seemed to be squarely on her side.  They may also have a vote from Justice Anthony Kennedy (who is often regarded as the swing vote on the Court) to strike down the law as well, although perhaps for a different reason.  Generally a staunch supporter of states’ rights, he seemed troubled by the idea that with DOMA Congress was trying to regulate marriage – which, he seemed to indicate, has traditionally been the role of the states.
But there’s a chance that the Court might not even get to the question whether DOMA is constitutional at all.  The case may have a fatal procedural flaw.  In a normal case that comes to the Court, the party that lost in the lower court is the one asking the Court to review the case.  But this is not, as you may have figured out by now, the average case.  Windsor and the United States won in the lower court, by getting a ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional.  And to make things even more complicated, usually it is the federal government that appears in court to defend the constitutionality of federal laws, but the government isn’t doing that here; House Republicans are doing it instead.
The fate of California’s Proposition 8, before the Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry, seems murkier than DOMA’s.  Proposition 8 was a response to a 2008 decision by the California Supreme Court ordering the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Before the end of that year, California voters had passed Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage.  A few months later, Boies and Olson filed a lawsuit challenging the ban on behalf of two same-sex couples who wanted to get married.  (My earlier “Plain English” posts on the case are available hereherehere, and here.)
The sponsors of Proposition 8 defended it in court, because the State of California refused.  The two couples prevailed in the federal trial court and then in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the latter holding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took the previously granted right to marry away from gays and lesbians just because people didn’t like them.
There is a threshold question of “standing” that piqued the interest of several Justices – the Chief Justice and the Court’s four more liberal Justices in particular – who seemed inclined at oral argument to hold that the sponsors of Proposition 8 lacked the legal right to defend it in court.  Justice Kennedy, who had recently suggested that the Court was deciding too many hot-button issues that should be decided by the legislature instead, seemed skeptical about a potential problem with the sponsors’ “standing” but offered another path to avoid deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution:  the Court could simply dismiss the case on the ground that it had made a mistake in taking it on.
The one thing that didn’t seem likely after the oral argument was what some supporters of same-sex marriage had long feared:  a decision holding that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional.  As I explained in an earlier post, some gay rights groups had been irked by Boies and Olson’s decision to bring the Proposition 8 case at all; that split reflected a concern that the country wasn’t ready yet for same-sex marriage, and that a ruling upholding Proposition 8 would be a huge setback for the cause.  Of course, public support for same-sex marriage has swelled significantly in the four years since Olson and Boies filed their lawsuit, and the expectations of same-sex marriage supporters have increased along with that support.  And so it will be more than a little ironic if the same people who once feared a ruling on the merits will now be disappointed that they won’t get one.
A few words about timing.  As we have explained in a response to our readers’ frequently asked questions, the Court does not announce what opinions it will release on any particular day.  All we know is that the Court is expected to issue opinions on Monday and one or more later days.  We’ll have a lot more certainty (about logistics, if not the future of DOMA and Proposition 8) soon.  Stay tuned . . . it’s going to be a historic week.

 Amy Howe, Waiting on Proposition 8 and DOMA decisions: In Plain EnglishSCOTUSblog (Jun. 23, 2013, 10:16 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/waiting-on-proposition-8-and-doma-decisions-in-plain-english/

Because There Is A Black Man In THe White House

Michelle Cottle joins Rev. Al Sharpton to discuss the GOP preoccupation with alleged corruption in the Obama administration


We are currently casting in Florida for a brand new season of Fox Television’s “Hell’s Kitchen!” We’re looking for all different types of chefs/cooks/kitchen staff to compete! In order to be taken into consideration for the show, applicants must fill out the application, which is available online at www.theconlincompany.com, and they should bring a completed copy of the application to the casting call as well.

Where: Eden Roc Renaissance Hotel (4525 Collins Avenue · Miami Beach, Florida 33140)- Promenade Ballroom
When: Saturday, June 22nd, 10AM-3PM
Parking: It is $17/day for valet, or there is a public parking structure next door for $1/hr.
Additional info: Applicants are encouraged to fill out the online application, as well as come to the open call. By filling out the application ahead of time, Producers can have a chance to review the application in advance. It’s also important to remember that this is an audition for “Hell’s Kitchen,” NOT a job interview. Applicants should come with lots of energy and ready to show us who you are, and why you should be on the next season of “Hell’s Kitchen!”

FOXʼs hit unscripted series “HELLʼS KITCHEN” is back again as Chef Gordon Ramsay looks
for the BEST of the BEST to work beside him in the hottest kitchen on Earth! The nationwide
casting call starts JUNE 23RD , 2013 and weʼre in search of Americaʼs culinary elite
who not only have the skills but the stamina to cook alongside the infamous, CHEF GORDON
“HELLʼS KITCHEN” will follow the chefs 24/7 through the perils of working in Chef Ramsayʼs
pressure-filled restaurant, capturing the wrath, emotion and adrenaline rush that comes with
cooking in a top-notch restaurant. Contestants will have to prove they have the endurance and
skills to work with Chef Ramsay as they are pushed to their limits.
CASTING is searching for culinary candidates, 21 and over, who are outspoken, competitive and
can stand the HEAT in one of the MOST EXCLUSIVE and TOUGHEST kitchens in the world.
Applicants must be passionate, skilled at their craft and aim to become the next winner of

If you think you have what it takes to smoke the competition then visit
http://www.fox.com/casting.php or www.theconlincompany.com for open call locations and
general casting information.
**This is a casting call with no guarantee of acceptance

EMAIL: hellskitchen@theconlincompany.com

Invitation to Town Hall on Access to Health Care and Medicaid Expansion

Join us in the front of the Broward County Government Center to show support for our Broward Delegation to urge the Governor to step up to the plate and call a special session to allow our Legislators the opportunity to vote to give over a million Floridians access to Medicaid.

 Rick Scott signed into law HB 655, a ALEC Written and sponsored bill. the anti-Earned Sick Time, anti-middle class legislation that disproportionately impacts working women and tramples over the power of local government to decide what's best for our communities. Then he jumped on a plane to France for yet another tax payer funded "work trip". 

This is not the act of a governor who cares about Florida's middle class.  
This is the act of a governor with the wrong priorities.
And now it's time we engage people across this state more than ever before.

With one stroke of a pen, Scott sent a clear message to Florida's middle class that he does not care about the needs of working families. His priorities are with big business and his CEO, big donor buddies. And as quoted in the Orlando Sentinel:

"The fact that Rick Scott signed this anti-middle class, anti-family bill into law, then jumped on a plane to France, proves that the governor of Florida does not care about working middle class families and he knows how unpopular and damaging this bill is," Amy Ritter of Florida Watch Action told the Orlando Sentinel.
Help spread this pledge around, so Rick Scott knows we will not sit idly by while he destroys our economy with anti-democratic power grabs. Join the efforts of thousands of Floridians across the state to pink slip Rick.

The gimmick is up and once again, Rick Scott has proven that he will always side with corporations and big business special interests over working middle class Floridians.

Rick Scott signed this anti-middle class bill into law. Now it's up to us to sign the pledge to give him his pink slip.
Amy Ritter, Executive Director
Florida Watch Action

Board Workshop discussion on the creation of a Human Relations Committee

Board Workshop discussion on the creation of a Human Relations Committee - Office: (754) 321-2008  donna.korn@browardschools.com

Miami-Herald: As diversity needs shift, Broward schools consider new advisory group

Where Will You Be When SCOTUS Rules On Marriage Equality

Please Spread The Word
Will the #SupremeCourt rule today? Stay tuned! #SCOTUS #gay #lesbian #LGBT #LGBTatSCOTUS #equality #DOMA #Prop8

Watch The Ruling Live http://www.scotusblog.com/
Net Ruling Monday June 24 or Thursday June 27th
Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on AFER’s challenge to California’s Proposition 8.

Here’s a full run-down of what will happen:
  • The Court is scheduled to issue decisions next on Monday, June 24. Additional decision days may be added, and we’ll be sure to let you know if they are. Click here to see how the Court could rule. 
  • The Court will begin announcing decisions at 10 a.m. ET/7 a.m. PT. The ruling in the Prop. 8 case may not be the only one announced, and may be handed down before or after a number of other decisions. Sign up for breaking news updates.
  • Once the Court hands down its ruling on Prop. 8, our attorneys will carefully review the decision. As the official sponsor of the Prop. 8 case, AFER is your best resource to find out exactly what the ruling means. Follow us on Twitter for live updates. 
  • After the Court is adjourned, AFER’s lead attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, along with our four plaintiffs, Kris & Sandy and Paul & Jeff, will be on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court to react to the decision. Watch our free live stream. Sign up here.
  • At 5:30 p.m. PT, AFER will host a community event in West Hollywood, CA featuring the plaintiffs who challenged Prop. 8, the attorneys who worked on the case, elected officials, gay and lesbian couples who want to get married and a diverse array of community leaders. Join us in West Hollywood for the special event or watch it online.
As we near final resolution in our case, I am proud of the work we’ve done together.

AFER’s attorneys built a solid record at trial, resulting in a historic August 2010 District Court decision that conclusively found Prop. 8 unconstitutional. Then, in February 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Finally, in March 2013, we made the case for marriage equality before U.S. Supreme Court, where over 50 friend-of-the-court briefs where filed in support of our plaintiffs—including briefs from the Obama Administration, over 130 Republican leaders, 100 of the nation’s largest businesses and California and 13 other states.

As each day passes, public support for marriage equality continues to grow. More than 30 polls show that a solid majority of Americans support marriage for all, and 12 states now recognize the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples.

This is our moment. Next week, when the Court rules, I have great hope that the Justices will put an end to Prop. 8 once and for all.

Judge Gisele Pollack Making Waves

Go, Gisele, Go! - there's at least one Broward judge who is fighting back against selective enforcement of the drug laws, detailed in this New York Times Editorial.  Gisele Pollack is working to get each and every cannabis case automatically diverted to her misdemeanor Drug Court division upon filing by the Clerk, no matter how bad a Defendant's prior record may be.  Those who qualify by statute and choose to stick with the program can get the charges dropped, while felons can earn a withhold if they follow through, keeping their driver's licenses and jobs in the process.  Howard Finkelstein has already signed off, but the SAO still hasn't agreed, hardly a surprise since Satz also remains the stumbling block in getting a DUI Diversion program in place in Broward like the ones in Palm Beach and Miami.

Here's what Pollack had to say when asked why she's pushing for widespread cannabis diversion:

"I don't want the disproportionate arrest factor being perpetuated in the criminal justice system any longer.  It bugs me.  It really does.  I want to eliminate it by giving every individual a fair opportunity to participate in a misdemeanor Drug Court program."Not much to add to that, except all judges need to listen up when Gisele's talking ...

        The pig says what?

Real Housewives of Miami, co-star Dr. Karent Sierra was arrested by the Broward Sheriff's Office

In case you missed watching it live earlier today, Real Housewives of Miami, co-star Dr. Karent Sierra was arrested by the Broward Sheriff's Office. Sierra, was charged with one count each of "being too smart, too pretty and pleasant to be with." 
Broward State Attorney Mike Satz served her with the arrest warrant and Broward Sheriff Scott Israel and deputies, took her into custody. Sierra was quickly brought before Judge David Singer who set her bond, after Sierra answered some questions, at $6,000. 
It was all in fun at the annual American Cancer Society Jail & Bail. All monies raised goes to the American Cancer Society. 

Karent's aunt Dolly Valencia her mother's oldest oldest sister was like a grandmother to Karent Sierra died of breast cancer in 1997

Dr. Karent SIerra will need all of her fans to help her bail out of jail, if you want to

help her and get to meet her or take a picture with Dr Karent Sierra please stop By
 the trainer to the stars Luis Perez bail his clients today to go to jail.
His grandmother died of ovarian cancer, his mother also had ovarian cancer got treatment she is in remission
To help the America Cancer Society
by the Jail house and help a great cause. The America Cancer Society find a cure

For more information please call David Singer ESQ 

David W. Singer, Esq.
1011 So. Federal Hwy
Hollywood, FL 33020
305-945-3045 Dade Office
954-467-3045 Broward Office

EyeOnSouthFlorida and EyesOnNews



Broward County Florida, State Attorney Michael Satz has issued an arrest warrant for

Dr. Karent Sierra. She will be arrested by Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel.

She will be arrested June 18th 2013 at the Sheraton Hotel (95 and Griffen Rd.)

Her Charges are: Too smart, very pretty, and extremely sweet

Dr. Karent SIerra will need all of her fans to help her bail out of jail, if you want to

help her and get to meet her or take a picture with Dr Karent Sierra please stop

by the Jail house and help a great cause. The America Cancer Society find a cure

For more information please call David Singer ESQ 

David W. Singer, Esq.
1011 So. Federal Hwy
Hollywood, FL 33020
305-945-3045 Dade Office
954-467-3045 Broward Office
561-833-6944 W. Palm Office
305-904-4899 Cell
954-926-5746 Fax

Florida Democrats Score Homerun

The energy was high and the enthusiasm was incredible as the Florida Democratic Party were unified in their desire to take back the state of Florida and unseat Republican Governor Rick Scott. Former Governor Charlie Crist was on hand to heighten the enthusiasm with his possible run for Governor again but this time as a Democrat. Democratic leaders embraced Crist-as-Democrat on Saturday, tossing aside concerns of the man who once was a self-described Reagan Republican.
Senator Bill Nelson, Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro were all speakers at the 2013 dinner. It was a magical evening for the Party and the Democratic stars shown brightly.

Source EyeOnSouthFlorida.com

From The Sun Sentinel

Can You Bail Me Out Of Jail

  I am on the Jail And Bail Parole Board, To Benefit The American Cancer Society.
June 18th to June 21. I Will Be in Jail On Tuesday June 18th From 9am till Noon,
at the Airport Sheraton in Fort Lauderdale.
I would like to call on my  Friends for a donation, as small or as large as you can afford, If you would like to join us at the Airport Sheraton in Fort Lauderdale June 18-21 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m and make phone calls to your
friends and family to make a donation. I I can call you from 9am to 11 am for a donation or to be a jailbird an any day for a hour please email me ron@ronmills.us You do not have to live in Florida for me to call you for a donation

The event will take place at the Airport Sheraton in Fort Lauderdale June 18-21 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.each day. It raises money with fake arrests (the police are real) and court trials where "bond" is set, all to raise money for cancer research, education and advocacy.

The event chairman, David W. Singer, selects people to form the parole board. The board is taught how to find jailbirds – community leaders to be arrested and thrown in the mock jail for the cause. Once in, jail pledge calls are made to raise "bail money," which benefits ACS.

I am dedicating this effort in the memory of my Little Brother who died last year from leukemia William Mills and his Mother Carolyn Angell who just started Chemo this week for ovarian cancer.
For More Info


Taylor Chapman became the most hated person on the Internet, has been fired from her marketing position

Taylor Chapman became the most hated person on the Internet, she has been fired from her marketing position, according to a statement released by her former company at 1:30 a.m. this morning.
PowerSales Team, which is based in Fort Lauderdale and has directed Chapman to represent several local businesses in hilariously boring videos,uploaded to its website one more starring Chapman late last night.
But this video -- if it's authentic -- is the strangest one yet.

First, the company posted this rather benign, but direct message declaring Chapman's termination:
We have previously employed Taylor Chapman as a Video spokesperson in the past. But due to her racist viral video rant on two Dunkin' Donuts employees and the large amount of complaint calls and public outcry to our website. We have made an official statement regarding the status of Taylor Chapman with our organization.
We will no longer employ her for any future video spokesperson positions. Her behavior was disgusting and foul to say the least, and we do not work with anyone who displays such toxic rhetoric as we have seen Ms. Chapman do on her video.

But then, an additional video was uploaded, which is chilling, vile, and goes further to publicly demonize Taylor Chapman than what would be normal American business etiquette at the time of someone's 

Rubio Doesn’t Support ‘Special Protections’ For LGBT Community

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said Thursday that all Americans should be protected from discrimination in the workplace--with the exception of the LGBT community.
At the Faith and Freedom Forum luncheon, ThinkProgress asked Rubio if he'll be supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would bar federal contractors from firing employees for their sexual orientation.
"I haven't read the legislation," Rubio told ThinkProgress. "By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I’m not for any special protections based on orientation."
ThinkProgress then asked Rubio to clarify whether he believed workers should be protected on the basis of race and gender, to which the senator replied that's already "established law." Rubio did not respond when asked again if he believed sexual orientation should be protected under the law. 

The Fight for Voting Rights

If the Supreme Court strikes down a key part of the Voting Rights Act this month, it’s going to be open season on voting rights.
Section 5 of the Act requires states with histories of racial discrimination to get Justice Department approval before changing their voting laws. It’s a necessary check on politicians seeking to disenfranchise people who aren’t likely to vote for them.
Now the high Court – dominated by conservatives – is deciding whether to get rid of that section of the law altogether, giving Republicans carte blanche to deny voting rights to millions of citizens.
The ruling could come at any time, so we have to show the Court where we stand on this right now.
The right to vote shouldn’t vary depending on what state you live in, but we’ve seen what Republican governors are willing to do to stack the deck in their favor.
They are using their control of state capitols to limit early voting windows, complicate voter registration efforts, and generally make it as difficult as possible for Democrats to cast a ballot.
Just this week Nevada’s Republican governor vetoed a common sense bill expanding the voter registration window in his state.
The bottom line is that if the Supreme Court overturns this key part of the historic Voting Rights Act, it would give Republicans even more leeway to pass new voter suppression laws. We can’t let that happen.
I wish we were past the year 1965 when it comes to voting rights, but sadly Republicans have demonstrated that they can’t be trusted to protect the democratic process.
I’m not going to sit idly by while they take away our rights, and I know you won’t either.

On March 7, 1965, John Lewis threw an apple, an orange, a toothbrush, some toothpaste and two books into his backpack, and prepared to lead a fifty-four-mile march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. The impromptu march was organized to call national attention to the disenfranchisement of African-Americans in the South and to protest the death of a young civil rights activist shot by police during a demonstration in a neighboring town. 
On an overcast Sunday afternoon, Lewis and Hosea Williams, a top aide to Martin Luther King Jr., led some 600 local residents marching in two single-file lines. The streets of downtown Selma were eerily quiet. “There was no singing, no shouting—just the sound of scuffling feet,” Lewis wrote in his memoir. “There was something holy about it, as if we were walking down a sacred path. It reminded me of Gandhi’s march to the sea.” Lewis thought he would be arrested, but he had no idea that the ensuing events would dramatically alter the arc of American history. Lewis’s group, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), had been trying to register voters in Selma since 1963. They hadn’t gotten very far. At the time of the march, only 383 of the 15,000 black residents in Selma’s Dallas County were registered to vote. At 25, Lewis had already been arrested twenty times by white segregationists and badly beaten during Freedom Rides in South Carolina and Montgomery. 
As they crossed the Alabama River on Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge, Alabama state troopers descended on the marchers with batons and bullwhips; some demonstrators were trampled by policemen on horseback, and the air was choked with tear gas. Lewis, who suffered a fractured skull from a clubbing, thought he was going to die. That evening, the prime-time network news played extensive footage of what came to be known as “Bloody Sunday.” Those scenes “struck with the force of instant historical icon,” wrote historian Taylor Branch. 
* * *
Eight days later, President Lyndon Johnson introduced the Voting Rights Act before a joint session of Congress. “It is wrong—deadly wrong—to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country,” Johnson said. On August 6, 1965, a hundred years after the end of the Civil War, the VRA became law. It quickly became known as the most important piece of civil rights legislation and one of the most consequential laws ever passed by Congress. The VRA led to the abolition of literacy tests and poll taxes; made possible the registration of millions of minority voters by replacing segregationist registrars with federal examiners; forced states with a history of voting discrimination to clear electoral changes with the federal government; and laid the foundation for generations of minority elected officials, including Barack Obama. Lewis has the pen LBJ gave him after signing the VRA framed in his Atlanta home and a bust of the thirty-sixth president in his Washington office. “When Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act,” Lewis said on a recent trip to Alabama, “he helped free and liberate all of us.” 
Lewis, now a thirteen-term congressman from Atlanta, was a leading participant in nearly all of the pivotal events of the civil rights movement—the Nashville sit-ins, the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the Mississippi Freedom Summer. But his signature achievement is the VRA. Of all the surviving leaders of the movement, Lewis is most responsible for its passage and its overwhelming reauthorization four times by Congress. He is the soul of the voting rights movement and its most eloquent advocate. So many of his comrades from the civil rights years have died or drifted away, but Lewis remains as committed as ever to the fight to protect the right to vote. 
”I feel like it’s part of my calling,” he says. 
On March 3, Lewis returned to Selma for the forty-eighth anniversary of Bloody Sunday. Thirty members of Congress accompanied him—part of a pilgrimage to Alabama that Lewis has led since 2000—along with Vice President Joseph Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder. On a sunny Sunday afternoon, Lewis locked arms with Biden and Luci Baines Johnson, LBJ’s youngest daughter, and once again marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Fifteen thousand people followed, some of whom would continue all the way to Montgomery. “Woke up this morning with my mind/ stayed on freedom,” activists sang as they climbed the bridge. At the top, high above the Alabama River, Lewis grabbed a bullhorn and retold the story of Bloody Sunday. “You have to tell the story over and over again to educate people,” Lewis told me. “It is my obligation to do what I can to complete what we started many, many years ago,” he said in Selma. 
Every return to Selma is meaningful for Lewis, but this trip had special significance. Just four days before, Lewis had sat inside the Supreme Court as the justices heard a challenge to Section 5 of the VRA, which compels parts or all of sixteen states with a history of racial discrimination in voting, primarily in the South, to clear election-related changes with the federal government. (A decision in that case, Shelby County v. Holder, is expected at the end of June.) Lewis calls Section 5 the “heart and soul” of the law, and was deeply disturbed by the arguments from the Court’s conservative justices. “It appeared to me that several members of the Court didn’t have a sense of the history, what brought us to this point, and not just the legislative history and how it came about,” Lewis said afterward in his congressional office, which is decorated with iconic photographs of the civil rights movement. “They seemed to be somewhat indifferent to why people fought so hard and so long to get the act passed in the first place. And they didn’t see the need.” 
Justice Antonin Scalia said the law represented a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that the federal government is discriminating against states like Alabama more than Alabama is discriminating against its own citizens. Chief Justice John Roberts implied that Massachusetts has a bigger problem with voting discrimination than Mississippi. Clarence Thomas, who as is customary didn’t speak, had already declared Section 5 unconstitutional in a previous decision. 
Lewis called Scalia’s statement “shocking and unbelievable” and said he almost cried when he heard it. “So what happened to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?” he asked, shaking his head. “What happened to the whole struggle to make it possible in the twentieth century, and now the twenty-first, for every person to be able to cast a free and open vote?” 
Forty-eight years after Bloody Sunday, Lewis is once again in the fight of his life, with conservative officeholders resurrecting voter suppression methods not seen since the 1960s and Supreme Court justices asserting that the federal efforts to combat historic discrimination in voting—reforms that Lewis nearly died to win—are no longer needed. In January, he filed an amicus brief with the Court opposing the Shelby County challenge. It noted “the high price many paid for the enactment of the Voting Rights Act and the still higher cost we might yet bear if we prematurely discard one of the most vital tools of our democracy.” 
* * *
Lewis grew up a hundred miles southeast of Selma, in the rural Alabama Black Belt near Troy. He was the third of ten kids; his parents farmed cotton, corn and peanuts. Their farmhouse had no electricity, running water or insulation. He was a bookish, devout child who wore ties and preached to his chickens, sneaking away from the fields to attend school. His life changed when, at 15, he heard about the bus boycott in Montgomery in 1955 and listened to Martin Luther King Jr. (who quickly became his idol) preaching on the radio. 
While at college in Nashville, Lewis played an instrumental role in the sit-ins and Freedom Rides that hastened the demise of Jim Crow. “I was like a soldier in a nonviolent army,” he says. He soon became the movement’s field commander, assuming chairmanship of SNCC in 1963. “John was probably the most committed person I’ve ever met,” says South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn, who met Lewis at a SNCC conference in 1960. A lifelong adherent of peaceful resistance, Lewis saw his mission as “bringing the Gandhian way into the belly of the Black Belt.” 
Lewis became head of the Voter Education Project in 1970, which took the lead in registering black voters in the South after the VRA’s passage. The VEP registered 2 million voters from 1970 to 1977, including Lewis’s mother and father. The group distributed posters that read: “Hands that pick cotton…can now pick our elected officials.” In 1986, Lewis won election to the US House from Atlanta, defeating his close friend Julian Bond. “Vote for the tugboat, not the showboat” was one of his slogans. Lewis became known as “the conscience of Congress,” with an unmatched stature on civil rights. “I don’t think I’ve seen anybody in the movement that carries the moral cachet that John Lewis has,” says Clyburn. 
Lewis initially endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2008, based on their close friendship, but viewed Obama’s election as a culmination of what he and so many others had put their lives on the line for. “Because of what you did, Barack Obama is the president of the United States,” Lewis said in Selma following Obama’s 2008 victory, on the forty-fourth anniversary of Bloody Sunday. 
Lewis knew the president would be attacked because of his race, but the full-scale assault on voting rights that followed the 2010 midterm elections caught him and other movement veterans off-guard. More than a dozen states, including critical battlegrounds like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, adopted new laws to restrict access to the ballot—all of which disproportionately affected communities of color. “I was naïve to think voting rights were untouchable,” says Bond, former chair of the NAACP. “I didn’t dream that Republicans would be as bold and as racist as they are.” 
Lewis saw the restrictions as an obvious ploy to suppress the power of the young and minority voters who formed the core of Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant” in 2008. “It was a deliberate, well-greased and organized attempt to stop this progress,” he says. “They saw all these people getting registered as a threat to power.” 
In July 2011, when few were paying attention to the issue, Lewis delivered an impassioned speech on the House floor about the right to vote. “Voting rights are under attack in America,” Lewis told the nearly empty chamber in his deep baritone. “There’s a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process.” He called voter-ID laws a poll tax—a year before Attorney General Holder would make the same comparison—and recalled how, before passage of the VRA, blacks who attempted to register in the South were required to guess the number of bubbles in a bar of soap or the number of jellybeans in a jar. “We must not step backward to another dark period in our history,” Lewis warned. “The vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a democratic society.” To combat voter suppression, Lewis sponsored the Voter Empowerment Act, which would add millions of voters to the rolls and increase turnout by modernizing registration, mandating early voting and adopting Election Day registration. 
On the last night of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, which took place just twenty-five miles from where Lewis was beaten 
as a Freedom Rider in Rock Hill, South Carolina, he implored the faithful to “march to the polls like never, ever before.” By that time, civil rights activists, the Obama administration and the judiciary had heeded his warning on voting rights, as ten major restrictive laws were blocked in court under the VRA and federal and state protections. “The election of 2012,” Lewis said on MSNBC, “dramatized…the need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.” 
Lewis spent the pivotal Sunday before the election campaigning in Ohio for Obama. The Ohio GOP had tried to prevent early voting three days before the election, but the Obama campaign had successfully sued to reinstate those days. As he approached the Hamilton County Board of Elections in Cincinnati, Lewis saw the line of voters stretching for nearly a mile around city blocks, with hundreds waiting for hours in the damp cold. “This is very, very moving,” Lewis said as he walked the line. “This is living testimony that people who tried to make it hard and difficult and who put up stumbling blocks and roadblocks—it’s just not working.” 
The successful resistance to voter suppression may be the most important story of the 2012 election. Compared with 2008, 1.7 million more blacks, 1.4 million more Hispanics and 550,000 more Asians went to the polls, versus 2 million fewer whites. The turnout rate among black voters exceeded that of whites for the first time on record, according to the Census Bureau. While the turnout rate fell among nearly every demographic group, the largest increase came from blacks 65 and over. Those, like Lewis, who had lived through the days when merely trying to register could get you killed were the people most determined to defend their rights last year. 
Yet Lewis viewed Obama’s re-election as only a temporary victory, given the challenge to Section 5 before the Supreme Court. The mood in Selma during this year’s anniversary of Bloody Sunday was more somber than celebratory. “Here we are, forty-eight years after all you did, and we’re still fighting?” Biden said in Selma. “In 2011, ‘12 and ‘13? We were able to beat back most of those attempts in the election of 2012, but that doesn’t mean it’s over.” After Holder cited the continued importance of Section 5 in combating discrimination, the crowd at the foot of the bridge chanted, in what had to be a first, “Section 5! Section 5!”
“When it comes to voting rights,” says Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP, “you realize the past isn’t the past.”
* * *
On May 20, 1961, Lewis and two dozen Freedom Riders traveling through the South to desegregate interstate bus travel were assaulted by a frenzied mob at the Greyhound station in Montgomery. Lewis was struck over the head with a Coca-Cola crate and left lying unconscious in a pool of blood. The Freedom Riders sought refuge at the First Baptist Church, disguising themselves as members of the choir to avoid police scrutiny. Three thousand white supremacists surrounded the church the next night and hurled Molotov cocktails through the stained-glass windows. “That night was unbelievable,” Lewis recalls. “I thought some of us would die.” After tortured deliberation, President John Kennedy sent in federal marshals to escort the Freedom Riders to safety.
This past March 2, when Lewis returned to First Baptist Church with 200 guests, Chief Kevin Murphy, head of the Montgomery Police Department, unexpectedly apologized to him. “We enforced unjust laws,” Murphy said. It was the first apology Lewis had ever received from a law enforcement official, after forty arrests and countless near-death experiences. They embraced, as the congregation cheered and wept, and Murphy gave Lewis his badge. “Chief Murphy, my brother, 
I accept your apology,” Lewis responded. “I don’t think I’m worthy of this.” Then he joked, “Actually, do you think I could get another?” Lewis kept the badge in his pocket for days. “I want to say to all of you here, it shows the power of love, the power of peace, the power of nonviolence,” he said. 

The Montgomery Advertiser featured Murphy’s apology on its front page. Next to it, however, was a story about how, if the Supreme Court overturns Section 5, Republicans would likely dismantle the majority-black legislative districts protected under the act, which illustrates the South’s continuing racial divide. Obama, the article noted, won 95 percent of the black vote in Alabama last year, but only 15 percent of the white vote. “Whites won’t vote for blacks in Alabama,” said State Senator Hank Sanders of Selma. “That’s the state of race relations.” 
Indeed, despite powerful moments of reconciliation, the South is far from a post-racial utopia. Six of the nine states fully covered by Section 5, all in the South, passed new voting restrictions after the 2010 election. “Section 5,” write law professors Christopher Elmendorf and Douglas Spencer, “is remarkably well tailored to the geography of anti-black prejudice.” Of the ten states where anti-black stereotypes are most common, based on data from the National Annenberg Election Survey, six in the South are subject to Section 5. Racially polarized voting and “explicit anti-black attitudes,” according to an AP survey, have increased since 2008. Arkansas and Virginia have passed strict new voter-ID laws this year, while North Carolina is considering a slew of draconian restrictions. 
“Places like Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, they forget recent history,” Lewis said. “We’re not talking about something that took place a hundred years ago, but a few short years ago. And some of it is still going on today. And if you get rid of Section 5 of the VRA, many of these places, whether it be state, county or town, will slip back into the habits of the past.” 
Against this backdrop, it’s shocking that the Supreme Court appears to be leaning toward overturning the centerpiece of the country’s most important civil rights law. Last year, Lewis found out that his great-great-grandfather had registered and voted after becoming an emancipated slave following the Civil War, during Reconstruction—something that Lewis could not do until 100 years later, after the passage of the VRA. He wept when he heard the news. It underscored how delicate the right to vote has been throughout American history. If the Court upholds Section 5, as it has in four prior opinions, Lewis’s legacy will be cemented. And if the Court eviscerates it, Lewis’s voice will be needed as never before. n