Sunday, February 04, 2007

Abrams Is Off the Hook

I love this headline in The Gazette: "Charges to be dropped in Republican assault."

Here's the story:
Prosecutors plan to dismiss assault charges today against onetime Montgomery County Council candidate Adol T. Owen-Williams and school board member Stephen N. Abrams.

The men had sworn out criminal complaints against each other after they were at each other’s throats following a Nov. 13 Republican Party meeting in Rockville, according to the charges.

The Frederick County State’s Attorney’s Office said Thursday the charges would be dropped today in Montgomery County District Court. Montgomery County State’s Attorney Douglas F. Gansler (D) had asked Frederick to appoint a special prosecutor to try the case to avoid any conflict of interest. Charges to be dropped in Republican assault

The article rehashes the events, I think we have covered it already, for instance HERE. A little bit new here:
On Thursday, Owen-Williams said it was in the ‘‘interest of justice” for prosecutors to dismiss the charges.

‘‘Clearly the charges he filed against me were retaliatory,” Owen-Williams said. Since it was unlikely Abrams would have received any sentence other than probation if convicted, it was not worth proceeding with the case, Owen-Williams said.

‘‘Life is full of harsh realities, and one of those harsh realities is I’m probably not going to receive the money I’m owed,” he said.

Abrams said Thursday that he had not been formally notified that the case is being dismissed and would not comment until the charges are dropped. ‘‘I’ll be glad to talk then,” he said.

Owen-Williams said he regrets that a personal matter between him and Abrams has ‘‘distracted the party from the hard work it needs to do.”

Reinheimer, who witnessed the altercation, said there is nothing in the group’s bylaws or constitution to keep the two men separated at GOP meetings. Both men continue to serve on the Central Committee.

‘‘It’s up to each of them to maintain proper behavior,” Reinheimer said. ‘‘It was just unfortunate it happened in the first place.”

Yes, it is an unfortunate incident. We need our school board to be deciding policy and making decisions. This story is more like something that would involve some third-graders on the playground, not a member of the board.


Blogger andrea said...

Wow, a school board member to be proud of- who voted for this clown???

February 04, 2007 8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This story is more like something that would involve some third-graders on the playground,"

Of course, so is TTF's fascination with it.

February 05, 2007 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Except Steve Abrams is not a third-grader on a playground. He's the former chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party Central Committee. The GOP actively seeks a Constitutional Amendment denying full civil rights for LGBT Americans. He should explain his support of that Constitutional Amendment to the residents here in Montgomery County.

And if he can't stand the heat of the light shining on his questionable behavior after GOP meetings, he should get out of the kitchen.

February 05, 2007 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The GOP actively seeks a Constitutional Amendment denying full civil rights for LGBT Americans. He should explain his support of that Constitutional Amendment to the residents here in Montgomery County."

What's to explain? His views reflect the views of those who elected him.

LBGT have all the same civil rights that everyone else has. What a crock o' propaganda!

February 06, 2007 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"LBGT have all the same civil rights that everyone else has. What a crock o' propaganda!"

No, LGBTs do not have all the same civil rights that everyone else has. Here are some facts that disprove Anon's crock o' propagandistic lies.

Same Sex Marriage: "In 2001, the Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage. At present, same-sex marriages are also recognised in Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts (for same-sex marriages performed within that state under its laws). Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it is still illegal to perform them within the country..."

"Legal recognition of a marital union opens up a wide range of entitlements, including Social Security, taxation, inheritance and other benefits unavailable to couples unmarried in the eyes of the law. Restricting legal recognition to opposite-sex couples excludes same-sex couples from gaining legal access to these benefits, and while opposite-sex unmarried couples without other legal impediments have the option of marrying in law and so gaining access to these rights, that option is unavailable to same-sex couples. Similarly, though certain rights extending from marriage can be replicated by legal means (for example, by drawing-up contracts), many cannot; thus, despite the presence of legal contracts, same-sex couples may still face insecurity in areas such as inheritance, hospital visitation and immigration. Lack of legal recognition also makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children.

At present, same-sex marriages are legal nationally in several countries (see map on the left): the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, and South Africa.

In the United States as of March 2007, only the state of Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, while the states of Vermont, New Jersey, and California offer same-sex partners benefits similar to those of legally married couples. Seventeen other States have constitutional provisions that limit marriages to one man and one woman, while 25 states have statutes containing similar definitions. "

Same-sex Adoption: "Within the United States, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington, D.C. explicitly allow second-parent adoption by same-sex couples statewide, either by statute or court ruling. [2] Courts in many other states have also granted second-parent adoptions to same-sex couples, though there is no statewide law or court decision that guarantees this. In fact, courts within the same state but in different jurisdictions often contradict each other in practice. Single parent adoption by LGBT individuals is legal in every state except Florida. [3] This makes it possible for same-sex couples to "adopt," in jurisdictions where second-parent adoptions are not permitted, though only one individual is legally recognized as the parent. The exception to this is Utah which prohibits adoption by "a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage," [4] making it legal for single people to adopt, but illegal for two non-married people living together to do so, regardless of sexual orientation. Critics of such restrictive policies also point out that in many of the states that have bans on second-parent adoption by same-sex couples, these same couples are still able to act as foster parents."

Military Service: ""Don't ask, don't tell" is the common term for the U.S. military policy which implements Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the numerous exceptions from 10 U.S.C. 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who has sexual bodily or romantic contact with a person of the same sex from serving in the armed forces of the United States, and prohibits any homosexual or bisexual from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The policy also requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders are not allowed to investigate their sexuality...

Some Western military forces have now removed policies excluding individuals of other sexual orientations (with strict policies on sexual harassment). Of the 25 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than twenty permit gays to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two (Britain, France) permit gays to serve openly, and three (United States, Russia, China) do not."

Discrimination: "The United States has no federal law protecting against discrimination in employment by private sector employers based on sexual orientation. However, 17 states, the District of Columbia, and over 140 cities and counties have enacted such bans. As of February 2006, the states banning sexual orientation discrimination in private sector employment are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin (the first state to do so, in 1982).[1]. Many of these laws also ban discrimination in other contexts, such as housing or public accommodation. A proposed bill to ban anti-gay employment discrimination nationwide, known as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), has been introduced in the U.S. Congress, but its prospects of passage were not believed to be good when there was a Republican-controlled Congress. However, the Democratic victory at the 2006 mid-term elections may present a new opportunity for the bill to pass.

On March 4, 1998, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services that federal laws banning on-the-job sexual harassment also applied when both parties are the same sex. The lower courts, however, have reached differing conclusions about whether this ruling applies to harassment motivated by antigay animus."

February 07, 2007 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice design of blog.

August 13, 2007 3:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home