CRW Files Again, Same Old Thing
Did you realize that the Citizens for Responsible Whatever are still moaning about Montgomery County's gender-identity discrimination law? They're still mad because there wasn't a referendum. There wasn't a referendum because their side failed to get enough valid signatures. We are talking about events in 2008 now.
The CRW filed an ethics complaint against Dr. Dana Beyer, who was at that time working for a county council member. They claimed that Beyer had intimidated them, and other things, and to make a long story short, the county Ethics Commission had a big hearing and took depositions and contemplated the evidence and concluded that Beyer had not done anything wrong.
The CRW has filed again to reopen the case. In a December 15th letter to the Ethics Commission which was linked from a CRW newsletter sent out yesterday, CRW president Ruth Jacobs wrote:
Reading this, you might think that the Ethics Commission had said something like this: "A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person's freedom to engage in political activity, as a function of being on the job, self-identifying as a public employee, or entailing the prestige of office." That's what CRW president Ruth Jacobs says they said.
Here's what the Ethics Commission actually wrote (quoted HERE):
The stark letter of the law is set in a context, this and similar regulations have been argued and interpreted, and given the context of legal precedent the Commission believes that public servants have rights when they act as private citizens, and ethical restrictions when they act in their official capacity. The CRW does not like that, because ... they want to win.
Last night's newsletter from Ruth Jacobs is just like the one they sent out August 8, 2011, it is largely the same as one from April 7, 2011, and they used much of the same content for their October 13, 2010 newsletter. There are indecent personal attacks on Dana Beyer and Duchy Trachtenberg, references to irrelevant hypotheses about the effects of the new law, links to a silly eight-second video, there is simply nothing new here. The group -- assuming the CRW is more than one person at this point -- decided years ago that if gender-identity discrimination was made illegal, women's shower-rooms and restrooms would be jam-packed with sexual predators and pedophiles, and that has simply not happened, not once. Their "not my shower" argument has no support. There is something weird about the fact that they can't let this go.
The CRW filed an ethics complaint against Dr. Dana Beyer, who was at that time working for a county council member. They claimed that Beyer had intimidated them, and other things, and to make a long story short, the county Ethics Commission had a big hearing and took depositions and contemplated the evidence and concluded that Beyer had not done anything wrong.
The CRW has filed again to reopen the case. In a December 15th letter to the Ethics Commission which was linked from a CRW newsletter sent out yesterday, CRW president Ruth Jacobs wrote:
On its face, Sec. 19A-14(e) of the Montgomery County Ethics Code’s conflict-of-interest provision reads:A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person's freedom to engage in political activity.
However, in its decision, the County Commission added the words “as a function of being on the job, self-identifying as a public employee, or entailing the prestige of office” to the end of the above provision. See M&O at p. 17, attached. The County Commission did not cite any legislative history or legal precedent to justify its sudden rewriting of the County’s public ethics law. Yet by adding this language to Sec. 19A-14(e) of the Code without any advance notification, the County Commission dismissed MCRG’s complaint because it deemed that Beyer’s harassment did not occur within the conditions of the added language.
Reading this, you might think that the Ethics Commission had said something like this: "A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person's freedom to engage in political activity, as a function of being on the job, self-identifying as a public employee, or entailing the prestige of office." That's what CRW president Ruth Jacobs says they said.
Here's what the Ethics Commission actually wrote (quoted HERE):
The ethics law is not an unbounded general code of civil conduct for county employees. Rather, the ethics law is concerned with the way employees conduct County business; the law addresses employees’ private conduct only where the conduct intersects with their public employment. Accordingly, inherent in § 19A-14(e)’s proscription against a public employee’s intimidating, threatening, coercing or discriminating against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person’s freedom to engage in political activity is a nexus with County employment. In order for § 19A-14(e) to be violated, the employee’s conduct must be on the job, include self-identification as a public employee, or otherwise entail the prestige of office.
The stark letter of the law is set in a context, this and similar regulations have been argued and interpreted, and given the context of legal precedent the Commission believes that public servants have rights when they act as private citizens, and ethical restrictions when they act in their official capacity. The CRW does not like that, because ... they want to win.
Last night's newsletter from Ruth Jacobs is just like the one they sent out August 8, 2011, it is largely the same as one from April 7, 2011, and they used much of the same content for their October 13, 2010 newsletter. There are indecent personal attacks on Dana Beyer and Duchy Trachtenberg, references to irrelevant hypotheses about the effects of the new law, links to a silly eight-second video, there is simply nothing new here. The group -- assuming the CRW is more than one person at this point -- decided years ago that if gender-identity discrimination was made illegal, women's shower-rooms and restrooms would be jam-packed with sexual predators and pedophiles, and that has simply not happened, not once. Their "not my shower" argument has no support. There is something weird about the fact that they can't let this go.
posted by JimK at 7:49 AM
67 Comments:
Jim,
As always, thanks for the update on the "shower nuts."
Stephanie
Get a life, Dr. Ruth Jacobs.
It's time to move on from your four year obsession.
Idee fixe is such a sad thing that affects folks. It seems like their lives stop at the point the fixe is set in and they never live again.
"Did you realize that the Citizens for Responsible Whatever are still moaning about Montgomery County's gender-identity discrimination law?"
no, I didn't
generally, most people don't hear about stuff like this until TTF starts moaning about it
TTF has a sort of sick co-dependency relationship with CRC
of course, TTF doesn't really take any curriculum seriously, as they prove when they call it a "whatever"
if they can't discuss it seriously, why should anyone pay attention to their opinion?
"They're still mad because there wasn't a referendum."
yes, they are somewhat angry that their rights as citizens were denied by the legalistic shenanigans of a lunatic fringe gay advocacy group
"There wasn't a referendum because their side failed to get enough valid signatures."
only by a standard not applied to other referendums
the hypocrites at the lunatic fringe gay agenda groups didn't want a referendum vote for one simple reason:
they would lose because their views are fringe views
"We are talking about events in 2008 now."
they are responding to the Ethics Commission's ruling in a much more timely manner than the Commission made the ruling
"The CRW filed an ethics complaint against Dr. Dana Beyer, who was at that time working for a county council member."
Dana didn't perform clerical work but was an exempt employee, charged with enacting the agenda of an elected politician: Duchy.
"They claimed that Beyer had intimidated them, and other things,"
yeah, "other things" like violate the County ethics code for professional advisors to elected politicians
"and to make a long story short, the county Ethics Commission had a big hearing and took depositions and contemplated the evidence and concluded that Beyer had not done anything wrong."
their reasoning was wrong, as CRW rightly pointed out in their December letter
"the Commission believes that public servants have rights when they act as private citizens, and ethical restrictions when they act in their official capacity. The CRW does not like that, because ... they want to win."
they don't like it because if that interpretation were to hold up, the referendum law would be meaningless
how could an employee who is charged with advancing their employer's agenda not be acting in an official capacity?
Duchy calls Dana into her office. Shuts the door. "you've got to find a way to stop this referendum- or else" Dana says "OK. I'll do it on my coffee break so it won't violate ethics rules"
The point of the law is place a check on the capacity of office-holders to intimidate citizens.
Dana went around telling the petitioners they were breaking the law and all their ballots would invalid because if that. Dana worked for the individual who sponsored the bill.
The conflict of interest and appearance would cause any rational person to see this is improper.
When the gay agenda groups become brave enough, they might consider making their case to the public.
If they avoid that, they remain the fringe.
Maybe they can't get over it because they just don't like queer people. It would be as though they went to an opposing organizations blog and commented endlessly and boringly about how queer people were deviants. Oh wait.
Oooof!
Good one, Robert!
"Oh wait"
we're still waiting, Robert
when are you going to make an intelligent comment?
btw, do you not think queer people engage in deviant practices?
Maybe you should consider dating Ruth Jacobs.
It is apparent you both need to find interests that do something other than putting people down.
I don't know what Robert thinks, but I think you and Ruth are the deviants.
"Their "not my shower" argument has no
support. There is something weird about the fact that they can't let
this go."
They obviously suffer from OCD.
the shower thing is not the only argument
it's just the only one TTFers want to discuss- for obvious reasons
if you guys want to engage in deviant behavior, I couldn't care less but don't get all snippy because we call it that
facts are facts
they don't change for PR purposes
stating them isn't necessarily a "put-down"
depends on the fact
have the guts to own them
The Maryland State Ethics Commission has been asked by Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government (MCRG) to review a Montgomery County Ethics Commission (MCEC) decision which protects Gender Identity confusion over reality. MCRG claims that MCEC's decision was flawed by MCEC's refusal to consider testimony from key witnesses simply because they used pronouns that correctly identified birth sex. In denying the credibility of these witnesses, it appears that MCEC issued a decision based on its own personal bias instead of relying on the ethics law.
Per MCRG's newly filed complaint, MCEC illegally revised the County's ethics code to arrive at its decision, denying MCRG due process under the law. The controversial decision could enable any Montgomery County public employee "off the clock" to harass and intimidate citizens engaging in political activity.
In its complaint filed with the Maryland State Ethics Commission, MCRG is asking for a complete review of the Montgomery County Ethics Commission's decision,
reached earlier last year, to dismiss ethics violations against Dana Beyer, M.D., a former Montgomery County Council employee and special assistant to former Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg. According to the complaint, the four-member County Ethics Commission blatantly misinterpreted the County's ethics law, going so far as to create non-existent stipulations and requirements.
For example, the County Ethics Code (Sec. 19A-14(e)) reads: "A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person's freedom to engage in political activity." However, in its decision, the County Commission, added the conditional words "as a function of being on the job, self-identifying as a public employee, or entailing the prestige of office" to the end of this provision. The County Commission did not, says the MCRG, cite any legislative authority or legal precedent to justify its sudden rewriting of the County's public ethics law.
The original MCRG ethics complaint lodged with the County against Dr. Beyer charged that Beyer repeatedly violated County ethics laws by harassing and intimidating participants in a citizen-driven referendum effort to place the County's controversial "gender identity" law on the ballot. According to the complaint, Beyer also misused her power and position at the Montgomery County Council. Beyer, as an aide to then County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg and vice president of Equality Maryland, a gay and transgender advocacy group, was repeatedly hailed as one of the chief architects of the law.
"The Montgomery County Ethics Commission ignored transcripts of 911 calls,
a video, and numerous affidavits detailing the harassment; it suddenly revised the law on its own initiative and without any authority to do so in its problem riddled ruling," said Dr. Ruth Jacobs, MCRG President. "The Ethics Commission also rejected key testimony of witnesses simply because they used pronouns which reflected Beyer's own gender confusion," said Jacobs. "If the Commission wasn't acting out of personal bias, why should it question the truthfulness of everyday Americans who were simply being honest about gender?"
Dr. Dana Beyer was born as Wayne Beyer, lived as a male throughout his youth, married a woman as an adult, and fathered two sons. In his forties, Wayne Beyer became a transgender woman, and legally changed his name to Dana.
Because of the harassment by Beyer and other Equality Maryland members, the gender identity bill became law despite the request for a referendum by Montgomery County residents who wanted to vote on the proposed law. The "gender identity" law was used by Beyer in a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the County which Beyer eventually dropped. Beyer has been quoted as stating, "I helped craft the bill, and I'm the first person to use it...That's a delicious irony."(Gazette, Nov. 18, 2009)
"The MCEC's startling decision allows Dana Beyer and any other public employee to harass and intimidate citizens with a purpose to interfere with their freedom to engage in political activity," stated Dr. Jacobs. "How can citizens trust their government if the law is rewritten whenever the County Ethics Commission feels a personal and biased need to do so? Therefore the purpose of the MCRG complaint is to ensure that all citizens have due process under the law in Montgomery County, Maryland."
The previous two comments are a copy-and-paste of the email that the CRW's Ruth Jacobs sent out yesterday, with the subject line "Use the Wrong Pronouns and You're Out," whatever that is supposed to mean. They included a link to their new complaint at notmyshower.com, which I linked in the blog post.
The Ethics Committee reviewed all the evidence that was submitted to it, and last year they concluded:
The Commission found [ CRW witness ] Mr. Schall’s testimony, as well as [ Giant assistant manager ] Verlon Mason’s audiotape and affidavit, unpersuasive. Mr. Mason’s use of the derogatory term “shim” when referring to Dr. Beyer, evidences a bias against transgendered individuals. Similarly, Mr. Schall displayed a palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals which, in the Commission’s judgment, makes his testimony not credible.
On the other hand, the disinterested witnesses do not support the charge. Montgomery County Police Sergeant Douglas Cobb did not testify to any confrontation, let alone conduct that might violate § 19A-14(e). And while Giant manager Aaron Williams testified that there was a “confrontation,” “shouting,” and “loud talking back and forth,” he would not identify what, if any, role Dr. Beyer played in this confrontation.
The game is over. The shower-nuts played out their hand, and they lost.
JimK
"they used pronouns that correctly identified birth sex"
What "birth sex" is "shim," Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.?
What "birth sex" engenders "a palpable and unapologetic disdain" for someone, Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.?
"If the Commission wasn't acting out of personal bias"
Freud would have a field day with that remark, Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D., because it's clear who is acting out of personal bias. Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.'s numerous losing legal actions against Dana are the evidence that proves Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.'s personal bias.
Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.'s very own patients' ratings are half the national average, according to Health Grades, "the leading independent health care ratings company." How could anyone call Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.'s office and do anything but complain about her personal bias?
"Because of the harassment by Beyer and other Equality Maryland members, the gender identity bill became law despite the request for a referendum by Montgomery County residents who wanted to vote on the proposed law."
Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.'s referendum failed because the highest court in the State of Maryland ruled "the 10,876 challenged signatures were invalid as a matter of law."
"with the subject line "Use the Wrong Pronouns and You're Out," whatever that is supposed to mean"
really, Jim, the feigned ignorance is not cute
"The Ethics Committee reviewed all the evidence that was submitted to it, and last year they concluded:
The Commission found CRW witness Mr. Schall’s testimony, as well as Giant assistant manager Verlon Mason’s audiotape and affidavit, unpersuasive. Mr. Mason’s use of the derogatory term “shim” when referring to Dr. Beyer, evidences a bias against transgendered individuals. Similarly, Mr. Schall displayed a palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals which, in the Commission’s judgment, makes his testimony not credible."
there you go, Jim
you're ignorant no longer
unless you refer to trans they way they want you to and endorse their views, you're "biased" against them and your testimony has no credibility
a manager of a store where the petition was being taken has vital testimony that shouldn't be ignored simply because he doesn't endorse surgical indulgence of mental illness
this whole episode proves what the pro-family forces always say: the net effect of the gay agenda is to rob any citizen who doesn't endorse them of their legal status and rights
that's part of the goal
"On the other hand, the disinterested witnesses do not support the charge. Montgomery County Police Sergeant Douglas Cobb did not testify to any confrontation, let alone conduct that might violate § 19A-14(e)."
there was videotape of Dana telling petitioners that their activity was illegal
that violates the ethics code
it's not a code against violent and inflammatory action
it's a code against political activity by those with an unfair advantage and conflict of interest
in many ways the gay agenda movement resembles the early political activity of the Nazis in the Weimar Republic
disruption directed at preventing citizens from exercising their right of free speech and assembly
not surprising, since many early Nazi leaders were actually gays
"And while Giant manager Aaron Williams testified that there was a “confrontation,” “shouting,” and “loud talking back and forth,” he would not identify what, if any, role Dr. Beyer played in this confrontation."
there's video evidence of what Dana of what was up to
"The game is over. The shower-nuts played out their hand, and they lost."
"game" is not the correct term but the effort continues
"Freud would have a field day with that remark, Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D., because it's clear who is acting out of personal bias."
Dr. Jacobs assessment of the transgender situation is not bias,
its an educated assessment that agrees with the official DSM
"Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.'s numerous losing legal actions against Dana are the evidence that proves Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.'s personal bias."
other than this, when else has Jacobs sued Dana?
"Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.'s referendum failed because the highest court in the State of Maryland ruled "the 10,876 challenged signatures were invalid as a matter of law.""
the standard used to invalidate these signatures were never used to stop any other referendum before
you know as well as anyone that a sufficient number of citizens wantes this issue put to referendum
these signatures were invalidated for technicalities like not using a middle initial on the petition when you used it on your voter registration
furthermore, there's no telling how many more signatures would have been taken had Dana not unethically interfered
fact remains: TTF and lunatic fringe gay advocacy don't want a vote because they know their views are fringe views
what other explanation could there be?
that's the motive behind Dana's reprehensible behavior
"Shim" is not a pronoun. "Shim" is "a derogatory slur for transgender people" just like kike is a derogatory slur for Jews, the n-word is for Africans, and cracker is for Caucasians.
Displaying "a palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals" is not accomplished by simply using a "wrong pronoun."
Of course we understand why you don't understand those facts. Your repeated use of the derogatory slur "deviants" for gays demonstrates your "palpable and unapologetic disdain" for them.
CRC, CRG, CRWhateverTheyAreCallingThemsevesNow have lost every lawsuit they have ever brought against the MCPS curriculum that teaches a few simple facts about LGBT people, as has every lawsuit they have filed against Dana Beyer. The outcome of Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.'s personal bias lawsuit will be no different than all the others have been.
Poor never been a parent, never been married Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D. Personally, I think Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D. is jealous that Dana is a parent, has been married, and is a whole lot prettier than she is. I almost feel sorry for her.
Almost.
“generally, most people don't hear about stuff like this until TTF starts moaning about it
TTF has a sort of sick co-dependency relationship with CRC”
Said the CRG troll whose obsessive-compulsive homophobic rants would have no home were it not for the TTF blog.
Self-awareness just isn’t your strong suit, is it?
Why don’t you prove you have no co-dependent need by having the CRG restart its own blog? Maybe by now, the hot heads have cooled off enough that their anti-gay vitriol won’t undermine their own efforts, and the CRG can leave their comments up.
“if they can't discuss it seriously, why should anyone pay attention to their opinion?”
Try asking yourself that question, TWICE, before you post anything again. Their have been a number of people here who have tried to engage you in a serious discussion. On a few occasions, it looked like you might just start, but that always devolved.
“only by a standard not applied to other referendums”
It was the same standard written into law years ago, and re-iterated by the court. Not every speeder gets caught by the cops, but the same speed limit applies to everyone. Stop complaining because you just happened to be the one that got pulled over. If you had followed the law, you’d have nothing to complain about. It’s your own fault. Own up to it.
“fact remains: TTF and lunatic fringe gay advocacy don't want a vote because they know their views are fringe views”
“they would lose because their views are fringe views”
Trans-friendly laws have stood up to the test of voter referendums in a number of cities, despite identical (or even better) “bathroom” scare tactics. If you like, I can put together a list for you.
“what other explanation could there be?”
We have better things to do than spend our time and money inoculating the public against a well-funded anti-LGBT propaganda campaign.
“unless you refer to trans they way they want you to and endorse their views, you're "biased" against them and your testimony has no credibility”
Hardly. One has to keep in mind, that if you are accusing someone of doing something in something like a court hearing, you need to actually show or explain some factual evidence. If you can’t control yourself long enough to make a few simple factual statements, and most or all of your testimony comes out as a bunch of puerile epithets, don’t expect to be taken seriously – by anybody – much less by those on courts or ethics committees. This is the crux of the issue that the CRG has failed to learn even after multiple court losses.
“Accordingly, inherent in § 19A-14(e)’s proscription against a public employee’s intimidating, threatening, coercing or discriminating against any person…”
The CRG has an 8 second video of Dana they think fits this description:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYqz2rffZ0w&feature=plcp&context=C32a7264UDOEgsToPDskIV0D-zVV8-xlaeOzHHzhbu
Somehow, those women don’t look intimidated.
And Anon claims:
“in many ways the gay agenda movement resembles the early political activity of the Nazis in the Weimar Republic
disruption directed at preventing citizens from exercising their right of free speech and assembly”
And if Dana had dropped a glass bottle of cranberry juice on her way out of Giant, you clearly would have considered this evidence of another “Krystallnacht.” Try to stick to the facts Anon, you’ll have a much better case.
If you want to see what “intimidating, threatening, coercing or discriminating against any person” REALLY looks like, check out the Chrissy Lee Polis video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWWHa4crQjo&feature=related
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
You know what gets me...
That the MD court of appeals can toss out fully 1/2 of the gender identity signatures based on middle initial, etc...
My own husbands signature was tossed, because he printed FirstName LastName and signed his name illegibly (as do I) ....
the old rules used to say if you could identify the voter, they accepted the signature, there were inclusive.
So using the new rules, the firefighters referendum comes up, and similarily 1/2 their signatures get tossed (though I saw no comments on illegal signatures from the press)...
and what does the MD court of appeals do, well change the rules AGAIN, of course. some technicality that I guess means now they are only looking at the printed name not the signature... I haven't dug into it. Truly unbelievable however the CLEAR and OUTRIGHT preference shown from a body that took an OATH to be impartial... crazy me, oaths ? and democrats ? what WERE YOU THINKING ????
the dream act referendum comes along and decides that the new rules on signatures are way to onerous (which I would agree with, given the numbers of William vs Bill and Johnathon vs John and if you don't remember they toss your signature)... they come up with a clever way to access the voters registration on line so that you can look up your signature and print a form EXACTLY as you are registered.... and THIS completly reasonable way of not disenfranchising voters gets challenged in court (not sure where that one is... I got so DISGUSTED I stopped following it)...
I don't see how any REASONABLE democrat defends this completely outrageous behavior by the courts.
David, why don't you have a go ?
Defend the recent MD signatures laws and challenges, why don't you ?
Theresa
Go have another drink and calm down, Theresa.
Then let Wisconsin's RECALL WALKER effort show you how many petition signatures a good recall effort should collect to have enough valid legal signatures to get the job done.
you didn't address any of the points I made.
You started throwing personal insults instead.
really ?
typical.
Theresa, there is only one point to make: you guys didn't have enough signatures. The law is clear and your people didn't follow it. You can complain about middle initials and stuff, but that's just how it works -- it is not supposed to be easy for people to take a group's rights away, it is a rigorous standard and the CRW didn't meet it, even lying to people about men going into women's shower rooms.
No, under the original law that had been in place for 30 years or so we qualified and were certified for the ballot.
Than Equality MD (good at taking away the PEOPLE's right to decide) filed a lawsuit, claiming that the pratice of the BOE in validating signature was wrong. That you had to sign EXACTLY as your voter's registration said. They also said that the number of signatures should have been calculated based on the INACTIVE voter roles, not the ACTIVE voter roles. Never mind that there were 7 108 year olds, 6 of whom were dead on the ACTIVE voter roles... and that we had already been given a number which we exceeded.
We turned more than 30,000 raw signatures, 27,000 of which were certified originally, against a requirement of 25,001. We were OVER the amount of signatures. The undercourt agreed with Equality MD that the number of signatures required should have included the inactive voter count, but decided it would be too unfair to raise the number of required signatures AFTER THE FACT. The outrageously biased MD court of appeals, who EM went to next, not only raised the number of signatures AFTER THE FACT but also tossed half ours out based on the middle initial rule.
No, under the original law that had been in place for 30 years or so we qualified and were certified for the ballot.
Than Equality MD (good at taking away the PEOPLE's right to decide) filed a lawsuit, claiming that the pratice of the BOE in validating signature was wrong. That you had to sign EXACTLY as your voter's registration said. They also said that the number of signatures should have been calculated based on the INACTIVE voter roles, not the ACTIVE voter roles. Never mind that there were 7 108 year olds, 6 of whom were dead on the ACTIVE voter roles... and that we had already been given a number which we exceeded.
We turned more than 30,000 raw signatures, 27,000 of which were certified originally, against a requirement of 25,001. We were OVER the amount of signatures. The undercourt agreed with Equality MD that the number of signatures required should have included the inactive voter count, but decided it would be too unfair to raise the number of required signatures AFTER THE FACT. The outrageously biased MD court of appeals, who EM went to next, not only raised the number of signatures AFTER THE FACT but also tossed half ours out based on the middle initial rule.
No, under the original law that had been in place for 30 years or so we qualified and were certified for the ballot.
Than Equality MD (good at taking away the PEOPLE's right to decide) filed a lawsuit, claiming that the pratice of the BOE in validating signature was wrong. That you had to sign EXACTLY as your voter's registration said. They also said that the number of signatures should have been calculated based on the INACTIVE voter roles, not the ACTIVE voter roles. Never mind that there were 7 108 year olds, 6 of whom were dead on the ACTIVE voter roles... and that we had already been given a number which we exceeded.
We turned more than 30,000 raw signatures, 27,000 of which were certified originally, against a requirement of 25,001. We were OVER the amount of signatures. The undercourt agreed with Equality MD that the number of signatures required should have included the inactive voter count, but decided it would be too unfair to raise the number of required signatures AFTER THE FACT. The outrageously biased MD court of appeals, who EM went to next, not only raised the number of signatures AFTER THE FACT but also tossed half ours out based on the middle initial rule.
but it gets worse. The firefighters ambulance referendum comes along. They turn in a LOT of signatures as well. But the new rules from our case are applied to them. As a result, fully 1/2 of THEIR signatures get tossed out. But this is cause DEAR to the heart of the MD court of appeals... they LIKE THIS group. So what to they do ? Decide that the rules they applied to OUR referendum were too harsh, and CHANGE THEM again.
so, what the rules on counting signatures are vary, BASED on whether the MD court of appeals LIKES the particular referendum or NOT
COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS.
Since when is it "throwing personal insults" to suggest you take some of "granny's calming medicine" and calm down after you come here on a Friday night SCREAMING about court decisions and Democrats?
The only question you asked was of "David" and I am not "David." Just who were you addressing when you screamed,"what WERE YOU THINKING ????"
We now have two shower nut commenters in this thread all too willing to demonstrate their complete lack of self awareness. Is that a pre-requisite or something?
You're the one who came here throwing the insults last night, Theresa. I had hoped, for your sake, it was a little Friday night cocktail making you scream like a banshee, but apparently it was all you.
If you want people to address your "points," maybe you should consider making them without screaming and throwing insults around.
Here's another suggestion for you. Get a grip, take a good long hard look at yourself in the mirror, and try not to flounce around like a fishwife, although I am coming to realize that type of behavior is completely "typical" for you.
I rest my case.
"No, under the original law that had been in place for 30 years or so we qualified and were certified for the ballot."
No, Theresa, you are mistaken. Quit making a fool of yourself and learn something. Go read Maryland Green Party v. Maryland Board of Elections, 377 Md. 127, 832 A.2d 214 (2003).
I had suggested David respond to the flip flops of the MD court of appeals. I wanted to see if he could defend it. Can you ? You didn't even try, you just went back to throwing insults....
I have since checked on the MDPetitions.com dream act referendum. They turned and certified double the number of signatures (over 100K against a 50K requirement), and so far it looks like their referendum WILL be on the ballot this November. Though CASA de Maryland and two illegal aliens did file a lawsuit against it.
I guess throwing out a referendum where the group gathered and certified double the amount was a little much for even our over the top liberal activist MD court of appeals... GOODBYE MD DREAM ACT. It will be a nice lesson to the MD legislature on what the general public thinks about having their tax payer dollars given to illegals. should be a nice wake up call for the general legislature in the true views of the people......
"I had suggested David respond to the flip flops of the MD court of appeals. I wanted to see if he could defend it. Can you ? You didn't even try"
No, and I won't try. Like you, I'm not a lawyer. Unlike you, I'm smart enough not to think I am.
I said this at the time and it's still true:
this is another example of the gay agenda messing up our system
their legal chicanery has now decimated our referendum system and made it worthless
three points are obvious, despite TTF's grandest and most bombastic rhetoric:
1. a sufficient number of citizens favored the referendum under the law to necessitate its inclusion on the ballot
2. the techniques used to invalidate legitimate signatures had never been part of the BOE process in any past referendum
3. gay advocacy groups, by resisting a popular vote, were conceding thta their views are fringe
everyone reading this, regardless of their opinion of the transgender law, knows perfectly well that three facts are facts
meanwhile, the gig is up for gays
these sick homosexuals who meet their bottoms at a gay bar and leave with them are now going to be tracked by the FBI:
"WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration says it is expanding the FBI's more than eight-decade-old definition of rape to reflect a better understanding of the crime and to broaden protections.
The new definition counts men as victims for the first time and drops the requirement that victims must have physically resisted their attackers.
Vice President Joe Biden, author of the Violence Against Women Act when he was in the Senate, said the new definition announced Friday is a victory for men "whose suffering has gone unaccounted for over 80 years." Calling rape a "devastating crime," the vice president said, "We can't solve it unless we know the full extent of it.""
this would seem to eliminate most of the recreational activities of the homosexual community
they can do that stuff behind bars in prison now
Another win for reality, fairness and equality.
Rape is rape, no matter who or what does the raping.
It is un-American to put a minority's rights up for a vote and you can't blame people for wanting to stop the referendum.
The law is clear, petition signers need to sign exactly with the same name as their voter registration. That may seem nit-picky but it's the law, and CRW did not follow it. You are free to lobby to change the law, but you are obligated to follow it however it is written at the time.
The Board of Elections told you guys the wrong target to shoot for. You needed five percent of registered voters, and they gave you the number of active voters. There might be a few dead people among the inactive voters but very few, this is just sour grapes on your part. A lot of people don't vote in every election, it doesn't mean they're dead, they are just inactive. They are still registered, and you needed a percentage of registered, not active, voters. That's the law, and you should have known it. The Board of Elections should have known it too, but they are incompetent in general. They were going to accept your bogus signatures, for instance, until the appeals court made them follow the law.
The ambulance case was entirely different. The issue there was that the BOE wanted to have legible signatures, which was not an issue with your petitions. The court ruled that signatures did not have to be legible, as most signatures are not, including mine. This was not a flip-flop and it did not mean that the courts liked one group better than another, it was a different issue altogether.
I notice you are not addressing the most important point. CRW petition handlers stood outside stores telling people that the law was going to allow men to go into women's restrooms. You painted a picture of predators and pedophiles going into women's shower-rooms and ogling or molesting the women, and the law would not be able to stop them. Our wives and daughters were supposed to be at risk, remember? What happened?
It was all a big lie, Theresa. It has been two years now and it hasn't happened, even once. You should ask yourself why you wanted people to believe that, why it was so important for you to be able to discriminate against transgender people.
And think about this while you're at it, shower nuts.
"Chicago Archbishop Cardinal Francis George just apologized for comparing the LGBT community to the Ku Klux Klan.
"I am truly sorry for the hurt my remarks have caused," George said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. "Particularly because we all have friends or family members who are gay and lesbian. This has evidently wounded a good number of people. I have family members myself who are gay and lesbian, so it's part of our lives. So I'm sorry for the hurt. When I was talking I was speaking out of fear that I have for the church's liberty and I was reaching for an analogy which was very inappropriate for which I'm sorry. I didn't realize the impact of what I was saying...Sometimes fear is a bad motivation."
The posts about rape were just bizarre. What are you talking about?
I googled the quotes in the above strange rape post. It's a story about the FBI catching up to most states by including men as possible victims of rape, and make the crucial matter consent for all instances, rather than violence. Apparently the FBI's original definition was written in 1929.
The rants about gay people were just pure hate. You poor baby, that you think that way.
"The law is clear, petition signers need to sign exactly with the same name as their voter registration. That may seem nit-picky but it's the law, and CRW did not follow it. You are free to lobby to change the law, but you are obligated to follow it however it is written at the time."
that is not who the board of elections had been interpreting the law on every other referendum in the past 30 years. If they could identify the voter (from the DOB or the name and address) they counted the signature.
as evidenced by the fact that they told us we had enough signatures and sent us a letter to that effect.
uppping the number of signatures AFTER the fact is just, wow, so totally and completely unfair it is outrageous.
the BOE also told us to expect to get 25% tossed out. under the new rules (or granted, interpretation) you can expect to get more than 1/2 tossed out.
BIG difference.
The Board of Elections an Independent Agency under the Executive Branch of Maryland State Government. The Maryland Court of Appeals is highest office in the Judicial Branch in the state. There were many precedents cited by the Court of Appeals that figured into their decision making process. The Court of Appeals found the Board of Elections to be out of compliance with election laws written and enacted by the Legislative Branch.
Here's a list of a few of the cases cited by the Court of Appeals when they ruled that over 10,000 petition signatures were not proper and that Inactive Voters were improperly ignored by the Board of Elections in determining the number of petitions signatures required to petition a law in Montgomery County to the ballot.
Barbre v. Pope, 402 Md. 157, 172-73, 935 A.2d 699, 708-09 (2007)
Roskelly v. Lamone, 396 Md. 27, 912 A.2d 658 (2006)
Heery International, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 384 Md. 129, 137, 862 A.2d 976, 981 (2004)
Maryland Green Party v. Maryland Board of Elections, 377 Md. 127, 832 A.2d 214 (2003)
Anne Arundel County v. Corridor Wine, Inc., 361 Md. 403, 418, 761 A.2d 916, 924 (2000)
Gisriel v. Ocean City Board of Supervisors of Elections, 345 Md. 477, 504,693 A.2d 757, 770 (1997)
Sugarloaf Citizens' Association v. Department of Environment, 344 Md. 271, 288, 686 A.2d 605, 614 (1996)
State Election Board v. Election Board of Baltimore, 342 Md. 586, 599, 679 A.2d 96, 102 (1996)
Morrell v. Williams, 279 Md. 497, 506, 366 A.2d 1040, 1044 (1976)
Crowe v. Houseworth, 272 Md. 481, 489-90, 325 A.2d 592, 597 (1974)
Ferguson v. Secretary of State, 249 Md. 510, 240 A.2d 232 (1968)
Barnes v. State ex rel. Pinkney, 236 Md. 564, 204 A.2d 787 (1964)
Takoma Park v. Citizens for Decent Government, 301 Md. 439, 442-44, 483 A.2d 348, 351 (1984)
Cavanaugh v. Arundel Park Corp., 218 Md. 484, 489, 147 A.2d 427, 429-30 (1959)
Brooks v. Childress, 198 Md. 1, 14, 81 A.2d 47, 54 (1951)
Lichtenberg v. Joyce, 183 Md. 689, 697, 39 A.2d 789, 793 (1944)
Zier v. Chesapeake Railroad Co., 98 Md. 35, 40-41, 56 A. 385, 387 (1903)
Theresa, read the law: 2010 Maryland Code ELECTION LAW TITLE 6 - PETITIONS Subtitle 2 - Content and Process of Petitions Section 6-203 - Signers; information provided by signers.
It starts like this: "§ 6-203. Signers; information provided by signers.
(a) In general.- To sign a petition, an individual shall:
(1) sign the individual's name as it appears on the statewide voter registration list or the individual's surname of registration and at least one full given name and the initials of any other names; and ..."
The first court ruled that the law was suggestive and not mandatory, but the appeals court ruled otherwise, arguing (you can read it HERE) that the word "shall" means something is mandatory.
If the Board of Elections has not been following that law, that is a different kind of problem. The law hadn't been repealed, it was not vague, it says the name has to be signed as it appears on statewide voter registration lists. That's not a word trick, it's right there in the law.
As for the BOE telling you that you needed X number of signatures when you needed Y, well, that was bad luck but anybody could have done the math themselves. Green Party (which somebody in this thread has already linked to) established that the number should be "registered" and not just "active" voters.
and turning around and changing the interpretation again ????
okay, so you have established that the court decided to follow STRICTLY by the law when challenged by a referendum that they didn't want to succeed.
the justification for then turning around, and making the laws easier, when presented with a referendum they liked ?
AND OF COURSE.
interpreting the laws very strictly for a referendum they disliked....
followed by flexing the laws some for a referendum they liked....
in order to disqualify or include more signatures based on whether or not the court LIKED or DISLIKED the content of the referendum....
a COMPLETE COINCIDENCE. I AM SO SURE.
"They were going to accept your bogus signatures, for instance, until the appeals court made them follow the law."
My husband's signature, one of the tossed, was bogus ? REally ? He has lived here in MC and paid taxes for the past 16 years. Most of the signatures you all challenged were on the middle initial issue (like 10K of 27K). My husband Dale's was one of them. They were ALL real signatures.
YOu challenged only about 80 as fradulent. I called EVERY single one of the signatures you challenged as fraudulent .. I spoke with probably at least 1/2.
In some cases they were husbands and wives that you thought had signed for each other. They were all in their 70's or so... I guess when you stay together that long your signatures merge... because I spoke to at least 40 of these folks that swore both husband and wife had signed individually (not one for the other).. but even if they had, and a spouse has Parkinsons and the spouse signs for the other spouse, isn't that still legal ? I am asking because my stepfather has Parkison's... I don't know what the true case was with this 80 (which wouldn't have made a differnce anyway) but the 40 or so folks I spoke to ALL swore they had signed individually.
And even Katie, your star signature, is a real person. I spoke with Katie as well. She was a 24 year old living sometimes with her mom and sometimes with her dad. I don't know how you determine residency in that case, but Katie exists.
You make this BROAD sweeping statement that our signatures are "bogus" but when 1/2 the firefighters signatures get tossed out on the middle initial rule, you don't say a word.
the VAST majority of our signatures were disqualifed on the middle initial and doesn't match voters registration rule - BASED ON YOUR ANALYSIS and the court's concurrence with your analysis.
but you continue to make broad, sweeping statements that they were "bogus" signatures... even though you of COURSE, better than ANYone, know that that statement is "BOGUS".. how do you look at yourself in the mirror every morning while spewing such blatent falsehoods ?
they're justified, Theresa, because the gay agenda is the most important movement in the history of mankind
all is fair in deviance
All the pro-bono legal work provided by the Scottsdale, Arizona based, Christian non-profit Alliance Defense Fund turned out to be worth exactly what the shower nuts paid for it: not one red cent. The ADF's lawsuit, however, did cost tax-paying residents of the great State of Maryland, including Theresa, a lot of money wasted on hearing their losing arguments. A simple and accurate reading of the law and a search for related MD cases was all ADF needed to do to know they should walk away from the CRG and not look back like Liberty Council decided to do to the CRC years earlier.
" They were ALL real signatures. "
Are you saying that even the pages of multiple signatures all in the same handwriting were "real" signatures? Well sure, someone really filled out those pages and really wrote those signatures, it's just that the signatures were not put there by the people who's name was shown.
Theresa, wish as you might, they were not "ALL real signatures." There were entire pages filled out in the same handwriting. This is apparently a difficult concept for you to understand, but sometimes the law is written clearly and means what it says. It's cool when a 25MPH speed limit means you can really go up to 34MPH without getting a ticket, I appreciate that flexibility myself. But some laws mean what they say, for instance you only have to kill one person to be charged with murder, you can't argue that some people kill more than that without being charged. And in this case, it may seem strict, but the law wanted you to collect signatures in a particular form and you didn't do that.
BTW, I trust that your use of the second person means "my side" did something, rather than me personally.
I did not say all the signatures that were rejected were bogus, but the BOE was going to accept clearly illegitimate ones -- bogus ones -- without questioning them. You want to argue that it should be okay for a real registered voter to sign a petition but with a different name from the one they registered with, and that is simply wishful thinking on your part.
Readers should know about Katie, as she is a typical example that was cited by the appeals court. She registered to vote as "Katie M. Toth," and signed the petition as "Katie." The question is not whether she is real or not, the question is whether the rules of a third-grade classroom are adequate for promoting a referendum to invalidate a law that grants civil rights to a minority who need them. No, Theresa, "Katie" is not a valid signature. On your petitions, 10,876 signatures were challenged. They were not all middle initials, there were many kinds of violations.
This referendum was so important to you because of the safety of women in showers and restrooms. You said that men were going to lurk in there and attack women and there was no legal way to prevent it. None of that happened, but you still seem to want to repeal the law. Did you really believe that men would go into ladies' restrooms, or was there another reason you were opposed to this law? Now that we know it does not lead to rape and molestation why do you still oppose it?
Sorry to change the subject but today is the anniversary of the carnage in Tucson, AZ by a gun in the hands of a person who never should have been permitted to buy a firearm and ammunition.
You can watch a video entitled, "Tucson Survivors Share Their Stories One Year Later," and send messages of support to the survivors here.
a lot of verbiage here which doesn't obscure the fact that a sufficient number of citizens favored a referendum to have it placed on the ballot
laws have purposes and it is common for the judiciary to examine the intented purpose in order to interpret the law
never have petition signatures been held to the standard held in this case and they haven't since
not having a vote clearly subverts the will of the public and is clearly opposed by those who know full well that their views would lose in the court of public voting
their legal shenanigans affirm that their views are fringe
if not, they would savor a chance to prove otherwise
Anon, we have a form of government where we elect representatives rather than letting the masses vote on everything. Our elected representatives voted unanimously for this bill.
The verbiage here does not obscure the fact that no women or girls have been imperiled by men posing as women in any ladies room in Montgomery County since this law was passed. The shower-nuts wanted to stop the law because of the danger it posed to women.
What happened? And why do you still want to repeal it?
"Anon, we have a form of government where we elect representatives rather than letting the masses vote on everything. Our elected representatives voted unanimously for this bill."
actually, we have a form of government with checks and balances
in addition to re-election, the legislature is subject to other checks, such as judicial review, recall, impeachment, and, yes, referendum
"The verbiage here does not obscure the fact that no women or girls have been imperiled by men posing as women in any ladies room in Montgomery County since this law was passed. The shower-nuts wanted to stop the law because of the danger it posed to women."
that was one of the reasons CRG opposed it
personally, I never cited that reason myself
TTF just likes to argue against that reasoning
"What happened? And why do you still want to repeal it?"
right now, we're not discussing that
we're discussing why citizens we're deprived of their right to vote on this issue
once we get back on the ballot, we can have a civil discussion about how this law is unnecessary and deprives business owners of their right to pursue their business
"The verbiage here does not obscure the fact that no women or girls have been imperiled by men posing as women in any ladies room in Montgomery County since this law was passed."
hey, guess what else it doesn't obscure?
the fact that, other than the author of the bill, no citizen of MC has taken action under or accused anyone of violating this law
we don't have laws for PR reasons
there was no need of this law and it represents a hindrance on small business in our community
there was never any widespread, systematic and insurmountable bias against trans in our community
they were doing just fine
"there was no need of this law
...they [trans women] were doing just fine"
Ask Crissy Polis and Vicky Thoms, the woman who tried to come to her rescue but got punched in the face by one of the two girls who was beating the crap out of Crissy because she is a trans woman who tried to pee in the ladies room.
Trans women should be allowed to pee in the Ladies Room without risking life and limb.
Get out of the state of denial you are in.
"we're discussing why citizens we're deprived of their right to vote on this issue
...this law is unnecessary and deprives business owners of their right to pursue their business"
What small business do you own and can't conduct your business now that transfolk can now pee in the rest room that matches their identity?
Cue the chirping crickets.
Maybe if a Ron Paul type wins the Presidency we can have all US citizens vote on the civil rights and voting rights acts citizens were unable to vote on back in the day. I'm sure that would please a lot of long "deprived" small businesses that have suffered so badly having to give equal access to African Americans.
Oh wait, small businesses didn't suffer one bit when any of those acts were approved by only elected officials, just like none are suffering now that Bill 23-07 was also approved by only elected officials.
Crissy Polis link repaired
"Ask Crissy Polis and Vicky Thoms, the woman who tried to come to her rescue but got punched in the face by one of the two girls who was beating the crap out of Crissy because she is a trans woman who tried to pee in the ladies room"
why ask anyone about an assault incident in Baltimore County, which has a transgender discrimination law, about whether Montgomery County needs such a law?
this incident wasn't prevented by the transgender law that was in effect where the assault took place so why would it do so in MC?
"Trans women should be allowed to pee in the Ladies Room without risking life and limb"
assault someone because they urinated in the wrong place is already against the law
"Get out of the state of denial you are in"
I'm not denying anything but you're denying that MC didn't really need this law
"What small business do you own and can't conduct your business now that transfolk can now pee in the rest room that matches their identity?"
interesting that you deride CRG for claiming that this law will effect who can use bathrooms and yet that is the only aspect of the law you seem capable of discussing
"I'm sure that would please a lot of long "deprived" small businesses that have suffered so badly having to give equal access to African Americans.
Oh wait, small businesses didn't suffer one bit when any of those acts were approved by only elected officials,"
well, actually, there is a cost associated with such laws
we as a society thought racial discrimination laws were worth the burden, however, because blacks faced insurmountable discrimination that prevented them from pursuing a ordinary life because of a physical characteristic
"just like none are suffering now that Bill 23-07 was also approved by only elected officials"
why do you say that?
"this incident wasn't prevented by the transgender law that was in effect where the assault took place so why would it do so in MC?"
And the robberies reported in MC last week were not prevented by breaking and entering and larceny laws on the books MC either. Would you like to petition those laws for repeal too?
Those teens who beat the crap out of Crissy and assaulted Vickie were animals and Vickie got it right when she walked into the restaurant where employees were standing around doing nothing. Vickie told reporters "“I just couldn't understand why he was standing there, watching somebody being beat up and not helping,’ she said....The Baltimore County State's Attorney has not yet made a determination on whether hate crime charges should apply. Vicky Thoms says the distinction didn't occur to her during the assault; She saw someone in trouble, and she tried to help. “I don't look at her as different, I looked at her as human,’ she said."
I wonder how many showernuts would have risked injury to save Crissy from that savage beating like Vickie did.
"interesting that you deride CRG for claiming that this law will effect who can use bathrooms and yet that is the only aspect of the law you seem capable of discussing"
What's really interesting is that CRG changed their name to NotMyShower to fight this law. They didn't select the name "NotMyTaxi" or "NotMyApartmentBuilding" did they?
I don't know about you, but I find showers are usually located in bathrooms.
So think about it. Who seems think bathrooms are "the only aspect of the law" that needs to be discussed?
CRShowernuts, that's who.
"And the robberies reported in MC last week were not prevented by breaking and entering and larceny laws on the books MC either. Would you like to petition those laws for repeal too?"
no, there were many robberies that were prevented by the law
"Those teens who beat the crap out of Crissy and assaulted Vickie were animals and Vickie got it right when she walked into the restaurant where employees were standing around doing nothing. Vickie told reporters "“I just couldn't understand why he was standing there, watching somebody being beat up and not helping,’ she said....The Baltimore County State's Attorney has not yet made a determination on whether hate crime charges should apply. Vicky Thoms says the distinction didn't occur to her during the assault; She saw someone in trouble, and she tried to help. “I don't look at her as different, I looked at her as human,’ she said.""
the MC law has no relevant connection to this incident
the perps didn't take action that would have violated the MC trans law
the violated the age-old law against aggravated assault
"I wonder how many showernuts would have risked injury to save Crissy from that savage beating like Vickie did"
pretty sure they would have intervened upon witnessing such an assault
I doubt a TTFer would though
they'd think: that's the government's job
"What's really interesting is that CRG changed their name to NotMyShower to fight this law. They didn't select the name "NotMyTaxi" or "NotMyApartmentBuilding" did they?
I don't know about you, but I find showers are usually located in bathrooms.
So think about it. Who seems think bathrooms are "the only aspect of the law" that needs to be discussed?
CRShowernuts, that's who."
well, I've told you that's not my reason for opposing the law and yet you persist
obviously, you agree with CRG about the impact of this law
"Those teens who beat the crap out of Crissy and assaulted Vickie were animals and Vickie got it right when she walked into the restaurant where employees were standing around doing nothing."
yes, it was a crime
the guilty parties were arrested and charged
it would have been a crime in MC before the the transgender law was enacted and still is after
I know TTFers love to relive this incident over and over, but how is it an argument for the trans law that Dana inappropriately got enacted in MC?
"there were many robberies that were prevented by the law"
Name one robbery in MC that was prevented by our laws and show us some proof of your claim.
"this law ... represents a hindrance on small business in our community"
Name one small business in MC that has experienced any "hindrance" as a result of 23-07 being enacted and document it.
You won't be able to as neither of these allegations you've made is true.
Then document how you have determined no crimes against transfolk have been prevented by 23-07. Show us some proof/documentation of your allegations.
You can type all you want, but without proof of your allegations, all you are doing is demonstrating your "palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals."
"they were doing just fine"
Not according to the testimony of members of the transgender community in MC before the MC County Council. Their wrenching personal stories recounted many crimes and much discrimination against members of the MC transgender community, which the MC County Council found compelling enough to vote unanimously to approve protections for them from the likes of CRShowernuts.
We as a society and a nation have determined that equality, fairness, and freedom for all are important ideals for us to uphold. The CRShowernuts, on the other hand, represent a radical fringe of the far right that does not think equality, fairness and freedom for all are important ideals to uphold. Instead, they consider some humans to be "deviants" because of who they love or what their gender identity is. CRShowernuts proudly display their "palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals" as you have done here.
The CRShowernuts specific claims of dangers to women and girls in public restrooms and showers by the enactment of 23-07 have not occurred. Your claims of "hindrances" to small businesses by the enactment of 23-07 have not occurred either. None of the irrational fears of the CRShowernuts, from "Women and Children at RIsk" to "Liberty Lost" to "Exploitation by Voyeurs" to "Health Risks" have happened as a result of the enactment of 23-07. You clearly show how far you are in denial by your continued refusal to accept the reality of these facts.
"Name one robbery in MC that was prevented by our laws and show us some proof of your claim"
I think it's common sense that robberies would occur if there were no law enforcement. There are many events that could be used for proof. There is looting during blackouts. Similar phenomena occur in wartime when the civil authority is abolished. The law serves to restrain evil.
Are you denying this?
"Name one small business in MC that has experienced any "hindrance" as a result of 23-07 being enacted and document it."
Any business that has a transgender apply or a job, or a transgender apply for a lease, or walk into their restaurant. Because of this law, special attention has to be paid and documentation has to be created and maintained in such situations to protect the business from legal liability.
Are you denying this?
"Then document how you have determined no crimes against transfolk have been prevented by 23-07. Show us some proof/documentation of your allegations."
Transgenders weren't generally jobless and homeless and lacking opportunity to engage in business before the law was passed. The general population in MC is and has been extraordinarily tolerant of this form of deviance. There's no reason to believe we became intolerant after the law was changed and that transgenders wouldn't be able to function in our society without it.
Are you denying this?
"Not according to the testimony of members of the transgender community in MC before the MC County Council."
well, if all these examples exist of insurmountable burdens on transgenders, why do you keep bringing up some incident of assault in Baltimore
transgenders were finding jobs, homes and enjoying the same services as the rest of us before this law was passed
Are you denying this?
"Their wrenching personal stories recounted many crimes and much discrimination against members of the MC transgender community, which the MC County Council found compelling enough to vote unanimously to approve protections for them from the likes of CRShowernuts."
really? let's hear one
"We as a society and a nation have determined that equality, fairness, and freedom for all are important ideals for us to uphold."
transgenders had all three before this law was passed
are you denying this?
"The CRShowernuts, on the other hand, represent a radical fringe of the far right that does not think equality, fairness and freedom for all are important ideals to uphold."
BS
"Instead, they consider some humans to be "deviants" because of who they love or what their gender identity is"
actually, I think it's based on sexual behavior
some sexual behavior is deviant
are you denying this?
"The CRShowernuts specific claims of dangers to women and girls in public restrooms and showers by the enactment of 23-07 have not occurred."
we have always believed that having men get dressed with females is inappropriate
are you denying this?
"You clearly show how far you are in denial by your continued refusal to accept the reality of these facts."
as I've noted above, you appear to be in denial on a number of issues
fairy tales may sometimes be fun but they're not facts
"I think it's common sense that robberies would occur if there were no law enforcement."
Ah yes, back to the "I think, therefore it is" argument. Pathetic. Your opinion is non-factual.
Your claim was not about "law enforcement." It was about "the law" or "this law" or "a transgender discrimination law" or "the MC law" or "the MC trans law." All those quotes are your words. The term "enforcement" just materialized out of nowhere in your last comment.
You are unable to support your claims by providing a single robbery that was prevented by breaking and entering laws on the books or a single MC small business that has suffered "any "hindrance" as a result of 23-07" or a single female who has suffered in any way due to transgender women being allowed to use the ladies' room in MC.
"why do you keep bringing up some incident of assault in Baltimore"
Because there's a videotape of it that clearly illustrates the risks transgender folk face every day just for trying to go to the bathroom in a restaurant -- even in a jurisdiction where laws allowing Ts to use the restroom matching their gender identity are on the books.
Why don't you tell us why you keep bringing up an 8 second videotape of Dana, in which neither Henrietta Brown nor Steina Walter act "intimidated" at all? In fact, Rhetta doesn't appear to notice Dana is there or speaking. Further, that 8 second video was not filmed at the Arliss Road Giant in Takoma Park where CRG member Steven Schall, who according to the MC Ethics Commission exhibited a "palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals," and the part-time weekend Giant assistant manager he intimidated at the scene, alleged something illegal occurred.
""Their wrenching personal stories..."
really? let's hear one"
You'll have to click the link to read the testimony of Maryanne Arnow Full Text, which was published on Vigilance a few years ago.
"BS"
A sure sign you have no cogent response but can only spit venom, displaying your own "palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals."
"Ah yes, back to the "I think, therefore it is" argument. Pathetic. Your opinion is non-factual."
actually, my opinion is based on several facts
"You are unable to support your claims by providing a single robbery that was prevented by breaking and entering laws on the books"
actually, I did support by citing examples of societies where laws have broken down and the result was rampant robbery
besides, everyone reading knows I'm right
I even asked you if you deny this fact and you...DODGED...the answer
"or a single MC small business that has suffered "any "hindrance" as a result of 23-07" or a single female who has suffered in any way due to transgender women being allowed to use the ladies' room in MC"
oh, I touched on it briefly here but I've explained it in detail before
proof of infringement of discrimination is always subjective and forces the burden of proof on the acused so businesses are burdened with tracking, documenting and acting in a way that leaves no question
in addition to business owners, normal citizens are also burdened by unnecessary laws
let me know if you need me to paint a detailed scenario
in other words, if you want to continue to...DENY...the facts
"Because there's a videotape of it that clearly illustrates the risks transgender folk face every day just for trying to go to the bathroom in a restaurant -- even in a jurisdiction where laws allowing Ts to use the restroom matching their gender identity are on the books"
proof positive that such laws have no effect
"Why don't you tell us why you keep bringing up an 8 second videotape of Dana, in which neither Henrietta Brown nor Steina Walter act "intimidated" at all?"
OK. It was an example of something Dana was doing- abusing Dana's position in the government by going around and falsely telling petitioners that they were violating the law
Dana's pretty despicable, huh?
the intimidation was the fact that Dana could reasonably be assumed to be a representative of the county government
if a lawmaker's minion tells you it's against the law, it might easily be construed to have the force of law
thank goodness both Dana and Duchy are County Council...HISTORY...
"CRG member Steven Schall, who according to the MC Ethics Commission exhibited a "palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals,""
people who have disdain for transgenders don't lose their constitutional rights, despite the earnest desires of the lunatic fringe
believe or not, our system of law doesn't center around deviance
"You'll have to click the link to read the testimony of Maryanne Arnow Full Text"
actually, I don't have to
if you have an example you'd like to cite, which I doubt, cut and paste
"A sure sign you have no cogent response but can only spit venom, displaying your own "palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals.""
in response to an unsubstantiated claim that CRGers wouldn't assist a victim of assault, as it were, my comment was completely appropriate
and true: your statement was BS
Is that you, Ruth M. Jacob, MD, explaining why you continue with your personal vendetta against Dana?
Who's giving you free legal representation this time?
Sure, Duchy lost election in 2010, but Bill 23-07 had nothing to do with it. Just ask any MoCo union member who made sure Duchy, the union's dreaded "contract buster" didn't get reelected.
This blue county does not take kindly to union busters.
The non-union busting co-sponsors of Bill 23-07, Valerie Ervin and Marc Elrich, easily won re-election in 2010 and shortly thereafter, in December of 2010, Ervin was elected to be County Council President.
This blue county does take kindly to those who support non-discrimination.
oh, the ethically dubious practices of her sidekick may have contributed
Duchy's sidekick went around trying to convince petitioners against Duchy's law that they had no legal right to collect signatures
now, Duchy's gone
you can say it's not cause and effect if you want but looks like instant karma knocked her right in the head
""It was the Unions that put Duchy in office and it was the Unions that took her out. Justice served!" read a text message forwarded at 1:24 a.m. Wednesday by John Sparks, head of Montgomery's firefighters union.
Trachtenberg netted support from public employee unions four years ago but later challenged what she considers unsustainable compensation packages. The cost of government salaries and benefits have soared over the past decade in Montgomery and are a key driver of ongoing budget problems in the wealthy county.
Trachtenberg, head of the council's management and fiscal policy committee, said low voter turnout overall gave an opening to the public employee unions, which she termed highly motivated "special interests."
"Duchy beat herself. She tries to vilify and demonize, and that's not the way you win an election," Bader said.
But Trachtenberg said her union foes can't handle being challenged.
"That's just them reacting to the fact that a grown-up actually said 'no' to them," she said. "I said to them, 'We can't afford this.' I don't regret it.""
yes, she told pro-family groups to "grow up" too
she got what all elected officials get when they begin to believe they are superior to their constituents:
an updated resume'
Scott Walker's going to love it!
Feel the love, soon-to-be-ex-Gov. Walker!!
"A Million Wisconsinites Petition to Recall Scott Walker
John Nichols on January 17, 2012 - 1:09am ET
Petitions with the names of 1 million Wisconsinites were submitted to state elections officials today, in a move that will jump-start the process of removing the nation’s most notorious antilabor governor from office.
A total of 540,208 valid signatures are required to recall Scott Walker, the Republican governor, who was elected in 2010. On Tuesday afternoon, the United Wisconsin movement that was organized to recall and remove the governor submitted almost twice that number.
"The people have spoken loud and clear and we are ready to put an early end to Governor Walker’s reign," announced Wisconsin AFL-CIO President Phil Neuenfeldt.
In addition to the 1 million signatures seeking Walker's recall, petitions with 845,000 signatures were submitted to force the recall of Republican Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch.
Petitions were also filed to recall four Republican state senators: Terry Moulton in northwest Wisconsin, Pam Galloway in north-central Wisconsin, Van Wangaard in southeast Wisconsin and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, Walker's legislative point man in the struggle last year over the governor's move last year to strip collective bargaining rights from state, county and municipal employees and teachers. If just one of the four senators is recalled and removed, control of the chamber will shift from the Republicans to the Democrats—who picked up two seats in recall elections last summer.
In all, close to 2 million signatures were submitted Tuesday, building the historic in-the-streets popular uprising that rocked Wisconsin in 2012 into a electoral uprising that has the potential to rock the politics not just of the state but of the nation in 2012.
The movement to oust Walker will have secured the support of a higher percentage of eligible voters than has ever before sought to recall an American governor.
No other gubernatorial recall drive in American history has gathered the signatures of so large a proportion of the electorate. The total number of signatures submitted Tuesday represents 46 percent of the turnout in the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial election. That compares with 23.4 percent that signed the petitions that initiated the successful recall of California Governor Gray Davis in 2003 and 31.8 percent that signed petitions to recall North Dakota Governor Lynn Frazier in 1921.
The figures are ominous for Walker, whose poll numbers collapsed after he attacked the collective bargaining rights of state, county and municipal workers and teachers in a move last winter that provoked mass demonstrations. Neither Walker nor his foes now express serious doubts about the prospect that Wisconsin’s high standard for forcing a recall election will be met."
What kind of remark was that. Sounds like you have made an assumption about his life. Should it be true who are you to bring it out? Are you flawless??
Post a Comment
<< Home