Today is the deadline that Rep. Conyers gave the Ohio AG...

[Darknyte7]

to provide itemized reports on their Rule 11 (frivolous lawsuit sanction) prosecutions to his Judiciary Committee staff.

Given this context, and to help assure the public that you are not selectively pursuing sanctions in these cases for partisan reasons, I would respectfully request that you provide the House Judiciary Committee and the public with an itemization of all sanctions cases brought and considered by your office since January, 2003. In addition, I would ask that you provide to us and make public an itemization of cases you have considered and pursued under Ohio's campaign and election laws since January 2003. Finally, I would like to receive a an estimate of the costs you would expect to expend of Ohio taxpayer funds to pursue the sanction case you are seeking against Mr. Fitrakis, Susan Truitt, Cliff Arnebeck, and Peter Peckowsky.

...

I would appreciate it if you would respond to me though my Judiciary Committee staff, Perry Apelbaum and Ted Kalo, 2142 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 (tel. [phone], fax [phone]) by no later than January 27. Thank you.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1111

Anyone think that Jim Petro's office will fulfill the Congressman's request?

[electropop]

1. Perhaps with Sensenbrenner's help?

I am waiting to see if Sensenbrenner makes good on his promise. If so, look out Ohio fall guys!

[PaganPreacher]

2. Short answer: no.

Ohio's AG has already filed away Rep. Conyers' request with a "no action taken" stamp.

Why? I can think of two legitimate reasons (there are probably more):

1. Rep. Conyers is acting outside of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In this case, the State of Ohio has the constitutional authority to file suits for torts against the state, and is not required to answer to Rep. Conyers, his ad hoc group (which is not an official subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee), or the House of Representatives for doing so.

2. Rep. Conyers has no authority to demand information from any state office. His ad hoc group does not have subpeona power, and has no mechanism to compel testimony or evidence from anyone (private citizen or state agency.)

Ohio's AG will not spend the state's time or money complying with a request that he is not legally obligated to fulfill. Lawyers don't work that way.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[KaliTracy]

3. Perhaps -- but what he DID do was get it into the public sphere. With

The information posted on various websites, including the House Judiciary Committee's site, Petro can pull a Blackwell and not respond -- but not without a public record of non-response.

[PaganPreacher]

4. "Public record of non-response" sounds nice on DU....

but it is meaningless in the meatworld.

Conyers made a request for information that he has no authority to demand. At this point in time, Rep. Conyers has no more standing or authority than any private citizen. If you and I each sent an identical letter to the AG, we would receive the same response (none).

The AG acted within his authority by refusing to acknowledge the letter, or to provide information that falls outside of Conyers' individual right to know under Ohio's Public Records Act (Conyers' request appears to fall within a specific exception to the Public Records Act- being "trial preparation records"). Ignoring Conyers' letter is a perfectly defensible official act by the AG, with no repercussions.

By ignoring the letter, Ohio's AG deflates it.

If Conyers did his homework beforehand, he knows all of this, which makes his letter nothing more than twopenny opera.


Twopence, struck in 1797

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[thanatonautos]

5. Just my two cents ... the play was called `The Threepenny Opera.'

It was a satire of bourgeois society in the Weimar Republic
and an attack on Wagnerian opera. Altogether an excellent
work, even if it wasn't as explicitly political as Brecht's
later works.

I think there's definitely something to be said in favour
of Conyers' `threepenny opera.'

It's a noble gesture, even without the force of law behind it,
and it's clearly not equivalent to you or I writing the same
letter. Conyers is an elected official.

It's true that people who spoke out against German Nationalists
lost out in the end, but they were right to do it just the
same, and their opposition was not meaningless. It was only
unsuccessful.

[PaganPreacher]

7. The Threepenny Opera- correct! Haven't seen it, though.

The phrase "twopenny opera" has colloquial use for "cheap street theater" or "pantomime." May be an American variation of "three penny opera," or just something my grandmother liked to say.

"Two Penny Opera" was the name of a theater troupe in Los Angeles (not sure if they are still around.) A folk-rock band used to call itself "Two Penny Opera." I don't think my grandmother had any of their albums, though.

If Conyers' intent was to get information, his letter was an ineffective way to go about it. He may be an elected official, but he has no more standing under Ohio state law than any other non-resident.

If his purpose was to play to the faithful, then he has accomplished that, but nothing more. For those people who are looking for results (not noble gestures), Conyers lost this round.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Number_6]

6. No way in Ohio Hell

But the impact of Conyers note is for people like you and I who have
read it already, and to lay the groundwork for Petro's legal action
being legally opposed via being arbitrary. Conyers wants all the
world to see that Petro is willing to spend Ohio taxpayer money
to go after those whose offenses are against Republican offenses.
But that Petro doesn't go after anyone else for similar stated
reasons.

[Darknyte7]

8. kicking...

:kick: