re: Acorn Re-Defunded - I'd say that the logical next step, since the court has verified that the "Defund Acorn" act is constitutional, would be to apply it to defense contractors that have actually been CONVICTED of felonies and wasted BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars.

If Congress Attacks the Mighty Oak of Contractor Misconduct, It Shouldn't Just Settle for an ACORN

I think Congress needs to hear from "6 or 7" of us.

Brad

Got to say, its pretty pathetic to link to the decision but prove you don’t understand it.

The court specifically said this defunding was not punishment. Indeed the government contested that issue only. From the opinion:

> Because the government does not challenge the District Court’s determination that the specificity and lack-of-judicial-trial elements are satisfied in this case, we focus on whether the laws constitute the type of “punishment” that runs afoul of the Bill of Attainder Clause.

In short the Federal Government put all its marbles on that issue—that it was not punishment. Then they go on through a three part test to determine if it counts as punishment and state on each point that it is not.

Bluntly if you are THAT BAD at reading an opinion, you just need to step away from the subject. You have no business even trying. But bluntly I find it implausible for you to miss what the court actually said. There are some issues that are complex in law and hard to understand, but sometimes not so much. This is something I expect a lay person of reasonable intelligence to understand.

Aaron Worthing @2

I read the decision and Brad's reporting of the decision. There is no discrepancy in Brad's report and the ACORN appellate court ruling. None

Brad's report was not an analysis of or commentary on what the court decided.
Brad gave background info, The appellate court's decision in light of what the district court previously found, he noted district court judge Nina Gershon's decision, noted the 3 judge appellate panel disagreed and then cited what ACORN's legal counsel said and their next course of action...

Please explain to us what Brad didn't understand...

Aaron is dead on correct. Brad, one can draw 2 conclusions from your piece regarding ACORN: 1) You're not terribly intelligent or 2) You're a bald-faced liar.

The court found that the defunding of ACORN did not constitute punishment under the functional test.

Whether by ignorance or falsehood, you've completely misrepresented the court's ruling...

Bluehawk:

Brad wrote this:

"The appellate court determined that Congress can target a specific group for punishment..."

The court did no such thing. In fact, they quoted a previous decision saying the exact OPPOSITE:

"We therefore hold that corporations must be considered individuals that may not be singled out for punishment under the Bill of Attainder Clause."

How you can't see the discrepancy is beyond me...

Steve @4&5

Brad's FULL sentence was...

The appellate court determined that Congress can target a specific group for punishment, despite what the district court judge had identified as an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder in light of the government having "offered no...unique reason to treat ACORN differently from other contractors accused of serious misconduct."

You can't...or I better say shouldn't cherry pick the article. Sentences are complete thoughts...parts of sentences (as you and Aaron cite) aren't the thought fully expressed and explained...seems you edited Brad's sentence for your own purposes.

Sound familiar ?

So in comes Pathetic Patterico (aka Deputy LA County DA Patrick Frey) pulling an out of context quote from the court's opinion:

"[W]e doubt that the direct consequences of the appropriations laws temporarily precluding ACORN from federal funds are “so disproportionately severe' or 'so inappropriate' as to constitute punishment per se. . . . In sum, the plaintiffs have failed to show that the appropriations laws constitute “punishment” under the functional test. . . . Nor is the legislative record sufficient to demonstrate 'punishment' cumulatively with the historical and functional tests of punishment analyzed above."

Frey, then follows up with yet another unprofessional and childish remark that makes me ashamed to admit that he is a fellow member of the CA state bar:

"IN YOUR FACE, BRAD FRIEDMAN!"

Frey, of course, chooses to ignore the underlying facts which have exposed the scurrilous and libelous right-wing smear job that led to the defunding of ACORN --- a libelous smear that he happily echoed at his site, repeatedly --- just as he refused to acknowledge federal criminal James O'Keefe's violations of CA Penal Code 632, a law which Frey, as a Deputy DA, took a solemn oath to uphold.

Brad then writes, above:

The appellate court determined that Congress can target a specific group for punishment..."

Frey repeats his out-of-context quote and, in his typically unprofessional "in your face" fashion, calls Brad a "liar."

That sends Frey's under-informed, wing-nut follower over here (Aaron Worthing @2) to repeat that Brad is either a liar or that Brad is "not terribly intelligent."

Obviously, neither of these blinded-by-the-right wing-nuts bothered to read the decision. They simply accepted, at face value, the representation made by their propagandist-in-chief, Patrick Fry, that the court had actually found that the defunding legislation was not punitive.

But the actual decision [PDF] reveals that it was Patrick Frey and not Brad Friedman who has been deceptive.

The court of appeal stated:

"The withholding of appropriations does not…constitute a traditional form of punishment that is considered punitive per se. …There may well be actions that would be considered punitive if taken against an individual, but not if taken against a corporation….The Harshbarger report reveals that ACORN only derives 10% of its funding from federal grants. Thus, we doubt that the direct consequences of the appropriations laws temporarily precluding ACORN from federal funds are ‘so disproportionately severe’ or ‘so inappropriate’ as to constitute punishment per se."

Thus, the court is stating that if this identical statute were applied to an individual, it may well have been considered punitive per se. If one isolates the 10% figure, as this court did, it might be reasonable to conclude that the action was not "disproportionately severe." But the truth is that the Congressional ban, combined with the deceptively edited video smear job, led to a drastic reduction of ACORN revenues from states and from traditional private donors. It indeed proved the economic death knell for this benevolent community organization.

Next, the court of appeal conceded that "there is some evidence of record that ACORN was precluded from receiving federal funds upon the legislature’s determination that ACORN was guilty of abusive and fraudulent practices. This evidence points in the direction of a traditional form of punishment."

The District Judge made a determination that such evidence was persuasive. Rather than extend to the district court the deference this finding was entitled to, the court ruled that ACORN had failed to prove punitive intent by "unmistakable evidence" because that the law itself does not mention ACORN’s guilt and "there was no Congressional trial to determine ACORN’s guilt."

But the absence of a trial actually underscores the grave injustice that occurred.

A blind man can see what happened here. The hard right came charging into Congress with their deceptively edited videos. The Republicans in Congress openly labeled ACORN a criminal organization, and the corporate media, corporate Congressional Dems and the Obama White House did what they have consistently done in the face of the hard-right noise machine --- at least until this latest fiasco over Shirley Sherrod blew up in Andrew Breitbart's smug little face --- they turned turtle.

Shame on you Patrick Frey!

Blue Hawk @6. I wholeheartedly concur with your assessment. Curious that the hard-right can cry phony tears about a community organization which has been exonerated by every independent organization but have no problem with our government's continued contractual relationship with KBR which has not merely bilked the U.S. taxpayers of $billions but has erected shoddy showers in which members of the U.S. armed forces have been electrocuted in Iraq. And of course there is Blackwater/Xe to consider.

One wonders what happened to the "support the troops" crowd when a real scandal hits home.

Ernest,

I don't have a clue who this Fry or Frey or however you spell their name person is. And I have no idea what they have to do with me, but whatever helps you sleep at night. I'm a registered Democrat and ardent Hillary supporter (but not a supporter of the current pretender-in-chief. I'm praying we wake up and do in 2012 what we should have done in 2008.)

It's been entertaining watching you and Blue Hawk spin and spin and spin. No wonder you like Brad. You all seem to have swum in the same intelligence pool.

The ruling says what it says. Period. ACORN wasn't punished. Period. Personally, I'd like us to part ways with them as they've been involved in shady dealings for a number of years. Hard to point out all of the crap the right wingers do and then give a wink and a nudge when it benefits us. No thanks. I'd rather we be above this.

As I said before, Brad is either incompetent, or a liar. Neither are very desirable qualities.

Steve, I'll accept at face value that you are not one of Patterico's right-wing trolls; that you support one militarist corporate Democrat--Hillary Clinton--over another militarist corporate Democrat--Barack Obama.

As an attorney who has practiced law for 33 years and who carefully read the decision, I cannot accept what appears to be the careless interpretation as an untrained, lay individual as to what the Court of Appeal said. The decision does not read, "ACORN wasn't punished. Period."

The court said that ACORN had failed to establish by "unmistakable evidence" that ACORN was punished even though the court conceded "there is some evidence of record that ACORN was precluded from receiving federal funds upon the legislature’s determination that ACORN was guilty of abusive and fraudulent practices" and that this "evidence points in the direction of a traditional form of punishment."

I do recognize that this type of subtle evidentiary distinction is too much for the untrained mind to grasp--which explains why a lay individual, such as yourself, would come to the conclusion that decisions of this nature are clear cut--they either were or were not punished.

Since the government prevailed on the appeal, in your mind the court simply ruled "ACORN wasn't punished. Period."

Steve @9
I ask you what is spinning...
You using a partial sentence by Brad and coming to a full conclusion about what he meant (your comment 5); either you were trying to be purposely misleading or you're not a good reader...

or me quoting Brad's whole sentence to show what he was actually saying ?(comment 6)
My posting of Brad's whole sentence intact, actually debunked your assessment of Brad's article...

You now have been proven wrong in your assessment and you come back to lash out.

Not very adult Steve.

"I don't have a clue who this Fry or Frey or however you spell their name person is."

From this sentence we can conclude that Steve is not terribly intelligent. I mean Ernest used the name repeatedly but Steve still isn't able to spell a four-letter word. F-R-E-Y

I'm a registered Democrat and ardent Hillary supporter (but not a supporter of the current pretender-in-chief.

Whatever you think of the president, he was elected and is therefore is NOT a "pretender," but the legitimate POTUS.

We can therefore conclude from that "pretender" statement that Steve is a bald-faced liar. Kinda sounds like a Tea Klan bigot too.

In sum: Steve is not terribly intelligent AND he is a bald-faced liar.

Well Earnest did spell it wrong once as "Fry." Not all that confusing, though. Hey Earnest, they are begging for you to come over and explain the issue some more at patterico. They will just call you names, and not understand, but they keep asking...

Brad,

Should Greene with an "e" step down, I'm not hopeful of Judge Vic Rawl's chances of victory. The same electoral process which made Rawl "lose" the first time can just easily make him "lose" the second time.

Actually, to be fair to Steve, I did misspell "Frey" more than once, but when he called it to my attention, I corrected the comment.

While we're on the subject of spelling, Chris, while I try to be earnest, there is no "a" in the name "Ernest".

FayWray: I think you misread Brad's piece. It does not say that there is a new challenge pending from Vic Rawl.

The bigger problem is not whether Rawl replaces Greene but the fact that North Carolina elections continue to be conducted on the 100% unverifiable ES&S iVotronic touch-screen voting systems.

A single insider with less than one minute access to this unverifiable system can predetermine the outcome of an election irrespective of which candidate receives the most votes. Rawl "could" have received 95% of the votes in the primary and Greene less than 5% but the iVotronic system "could" have declared Greene the winner and no one can "prove" otherwise.

Given what one computer scientist academic study after another has shown and given what we know about the original Greene/Rawls primary "contest," a malicious hack provides the most likely explanation for the result. However, the iVotronic is such a shoddy and unreliable piece of equipment that one can't rule out "machine error."

If Steve is a liberal, I'm freakin Winston Churchill ovaherre

OK steve, so you want Hillary Clinton to run in 2012. Pull a TedKennedy-bloodies-Carter-so wingnut-Raygun-can October suprise him?

is that your game
?

So, steve, How do you feel, as a Clinton supporter, about what was done to ACORN? The doctoring of the videos. The lies and distortions flooding the media, the supine Congress getting rolled by not too Brightbart's money men?

Steve said @ 9:

I don't have a clue who this Fry or Frey or however you spell their name person is. And I have no idea what they have to do with me

Wow! Imagine the extraordinary coincidence of your having quoted the exact same snippet of my text and the exact same snippet of the court ruling that the tax-payer funded Patterico did in his silly blog item! And then offering a nearly identical assessment about my either being lazy, stupid or a liar! Just as Patty did!

Gosh and golly, what a freaky-deaky scary coincidence, eh?!

I'm a registered Democrat and ardent Hillary supporter

Um, I don't think anybody asked you about that ,Steve. So why would you possibly think to mention such a thing in this thread which has nothing to do with that?

Three points for ya:

1) Smart trolls have figured out that the dumbest way to "prove" your not a troll is to include "I'm a registered Democrat, however..." in their posts.

2) We have clearly posted rules against posting knowing disinformation to comments. I suggest you give them a read and mind them.

3) Welcome to The BRAD BLOG. You're welcome to disagree with me all you like, and even call me names and/or insult me. You are not, however, allowed to violate the very few rules we have for commenting here. You have now received what will be your first and last warning for having done so. Next time, you will end up on the "moderate list", just as Patty did (no, he wasn't "banned" as he knowingly lied to you), for posting knowing disinformation. The choices you make from here on out are yours. Choose wisely.

Peace.

Well, Chris Hooten, since they repeatedly asked for it, I dropped this little snippet over at Patterico's Pontifications:

I’m sure, Mr. Frey, that as a Deputy DA you understand the difference between an “acquittal” and a finding of “innocence”.

For the benefit of your under-educated, blinded-by-the-right readers, that difference can be explained with just two letters–”O.J.”

If Brad Friedman intended to say that the appellate court found that the defunding legislation was “punitive”–and that isn’t entirely clear when one reads the entirety of his remarks as opposed the out-of-context, partial sentence excerpt you culled–then Mr. Friedman erred, just as you erred in your representation that the appellate court found that it was not punitive.

The appellate court simply ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to prove “punitive intent” by way of “unmistakable evidence.”

With all due respect to the appellate court, its reasoning is exceedingly suspect.

First, contrary to standard appellate practice, it failed to give deference to a factual determination by the district court. Second, the two reasons advanced by the appellate court–the absence of an express finding of criminality in the legislation itself and the absence of a Congressional trial are insufficient to overturn the trial court’s factual determination when the record is viewed as a whole.

And no, I did not suggest that Bills of Attainder are lawful when Congress conducts a trial.

What occurred here typifies what occurred during the dark days of the early 50s when Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) destroyed the lives and careers of numerous innocent individuals on nothing more than unsubstantiated “allegations” and innuendo.

Whether we deal with McCarthy or with the 21st Century right-wing smear machine, truth is irrelevant. And, to their shame, the corporate Dems in Congress and the Obama White House have repeatedly turned turtle in the face of the smear merchant onslaught.

The Congressional rush to judgment without so much as a hearing into whether there was any “truth” in the “allegations” in the deceptively edited videos is a fact in aggravation of the injustice that occurred.

Finally, Mr. Frey, I have not weighed in sooner at your site for two vital reasons.

1. I do not find our dialogue especially stimulating. I regard you as my intellectual inferior. Typical of such inferiors, you resort to name calling and “in your face” tactics to compensate for your intellectual impotence.

Your inability to observe appropriate decorum is the reason Mr. Friedman placed your comments into “moderation.” You were never “banned” from his site.

2. The quality of your site is such that, whenever I visit Ponterico’s Pontifications, even briefly, I feel the urge to take a shower.

!!!!CHEERS TO STEPHANIE!!!!
I came out back in the 80s, and although it wasnt as bad as in the 60s or 70s, it was still quite risky.
I am glad that it is much more acceptable to openly come out now. I thank all the people, like the good folks on this blog, whose open hearts and minds have made it safer to be our natural selves.
Cheers again to Stephanie!

I got a big laugh out of O'Keefe's poorly thought proclamation that his work is the "Nadir of Morality"(!?!?!?!)

You can tell that he truly wanted to sound so smart and erudite, with so much passionate conviction... and he wound up, yet again, exposing himself as the dim-witted and arrogant ass that he truly is.

The only “convictions” James O’Keefe can claim are those he got for himself and his pals in NOLA (and those which he hopefully will get in CA and Philly.)

Looks like O'keefe and co dont just neglect to check their facts, or even their own data, but also their dictionaries!

Nevertheless, this is probably the only honest thing O’Queef has EVER had to say... and that is something for a well-funded slanderer and habitual liar.

Yes James, you ARE the Nadir of Morality.
You ARE the summit of depravity.
You ARE the apex of dishonesty.
And you ARE the Zenith of hate-driven negligence.

“The Nadir of morality!” ...He sounds so freakin sure when he says it!!!!

From your mouth to gods ears, eh jamsie?

I'll remember this thread next time a liberal claims that they are in the reality-based community.

If you can't see that

1) Brad claimed that the 2nd circuit said an organization can be singled out for punishment, and

2) this decision said nothing of the sort

then you are truly blind.

Now feel free to disagree with the 2nd circuit conclusion (although by that logic, I am being punished because the federal government isn't giving me money at all).

Look we all make mistakes. I never beat up on Dan Rather for the initially airing of the fake memos. But his steadfast refusal to look the evidence of their forgery straight in the face made him a liar over time. I previously defended Brad on Patterico, saying, bluntly, to be fair lay people are often really clueless about the law. So, i concluded, it was unfair for Patterico to call you a liar.

But this is inexcusable cluelessness, Brad (and ditto to his sychophants). The court literally said the opposite of what you claimed, in language i don't think you can reasonably misunderstand.

Its time to correct this post.

And I don't even get the "why" of this deception. One way or the other they ruled against you. You don't like that. So why not denounce what they did say, instead of pretending they said something they didn't?

I don't expect you to go "well, they said X, therefore now i agree." I know you felt the District Court had it exactly right, so ANY deviation from that would be wrong iyho. So why pretend they said something they didn't?

Aaron (#21) says,

And I don't even get the "why" of this deception...
So why pretend they said something they didn't?

That’s a very interesting question, Aaron, if not completely ironic with respect to the issue.

But generally speaking, it is far more appropriate to pose that very question to the various video postings and bogus “news stories” edited by Andrew Breitbart, james O'keefe, and all the liars over at BigGov.com (as well as at Patsy’s nasty ol’ porthole.)

BigGov.com and its affiliates have a richly consistent record of dishing out some pretty harsh and bald-faced lies (ones proven repeatedly as such).

They have a catalogue of fabrications over just about anything and everything; circulating lies fashioned entirely against the back-drop of desperate ideological needs, rather than solid material fact (Shirley Sherrod's case being the most recent.)

The irony, dear Aaron, is that you are asking these questions about a matter relating to a series of tapes whose content truly does demand answers to the query- "why pretend they said something they didn't?" (and even a cursory review of the ACORN tapes, or anything else peddled by BigGov etc, makes that abundantly clear.)

Sorry Aaron, but it doesnt look good for you when try to call out others for purported dishonesty on behalf of a mendacious group of proven charlatans like those in the employ of Andrew Breitbart (eg, Patsy, Okeefe, etc...)
And it makes even less sense to attempt that when you don’t have a case to begin with.

That being said, i do see why Patsy's Pawns are trying so tenaciously to hold on to this one, even to the point of picking at so much minutiae to “vindicate” poor, unvindicated Pats.

After their boy james got “sandbagged” on GMA, after being caught in a huge lie over Shirely Sherrod (one which lost Breitbart a number of speaking engagements), after the problem with Pezzi, after being dismissed across the board as unreliable, etc... BigGov and its various avatars (Patsy, Erikson, Veritas, etc...) are pretty much in need of a finely-toothed lice comb to try and tease out something resembling a silver lining.

After all, things havent been so hot for them this year,... so a word to wise, go easy on ‘em. They are really pissy right now, and will only get more pissy until they have the money shot they are claim to be so excited about at the end of the month.

As rightly stated in the only honest thing O'Keefe EVER said, they are the very nadir of morality... its a sad place to be.

Sree

um no. The opinion spends literally the whole time saying X. Brad claims they said "Not-X." he doesn't even selectively quote from the opinion, because there is hardly a single word that can be TWISTED to say what the opinion doesn't.

So your defense is "other people did it too!" I am sorry, but that is no excuse, even if true. YOU should be honest, and indeed if you have no problem with Brad telling a stupid and obvious lie in this post, on a point that is not even relevant, then you forfeit your right to complain about anyone else's lies again. clearly you don't mind lying so long as it is for a good cause, or i guess in this case, since there is no purpose to this lie, you just support the lie because the liar is "on your side."

Aaron,

No dear, you misunderstand me.

First– My defense is not that "other people did it too." Not in the slightest.

In all honesty, I am not trying to "defend" anything. I dont see anything here that needs a "defense."

Furthermore, no one else has done what Pats and his masters at BigGov have.
No one else (aside from Karl Rove)has ever sunk to the unscrupulous depths of deception which they routinely indulge.

And certainly, no one on this blog has ever posted anything so grotesque and maliciously dishonest as Patsy, Breitbart, or that pathetic Nadir of Morality, James O'Keefe.

Those men are exceptional in their fevered devotion to the obstinate promotion of politically orchestrated lies. That’s just a verifiable fact, no matter how you slice it, and (thank heavens) even many on the right are finally acknowledging that.

Secondly– Simply put, what I was pointing out in my last post was the incredibly stark irony in which the very question you present puts you.

As you say, "So why pretend they said something they didn't?"

Well, that is exactly the question that everyone has been asking from the people back at BigGov.com (and its affiliates) regarding EVERYTHING they have ever posted on ACORN, Kevin Jennings, Shirely Sherrod, their own words, etc...

No one else needs to answer that question, and there is no point in trying to deflect away from the issue of that truth.
This issue is quite central to the actual problem of Patsy, his pawns, and his providers at BigGov.com.

Your cynicism is misdirected, and that by the design of your political betters.

I am sorry your thinking has been co-opted by such degenerates, but that’s your own choice.

(In any case, you dont want them at the helm of your political party.)

If you really want the last word on it, its all yours... i am done.

Have a good rest of the weekend.

Sree

You are either such a liar, or so deluded, or so naively trusting of the guy that you wrote:

> I dont see anything here that needs a "defense."

The court said its not a punishment. The court said this in language no lay person could have misunderstood.

Brad said the court said it was.

If you don't have a problem with that, or if you cannot see the plain truth of those statements, then what more is there to say. Brad could say gravity pulls upward and you would see nothing wrong with it.

Aaron @25 and all your other comments for that matter...your complaint is answered in comment 6.

You excerpted part of Brad's sentence and made it his whole statement, thereby mangling Brad's intent.

You come back today and redouble your effort.

As I said earlier...either you're attempting to be really dishonest or you're not a good reader...either way your behavior is trollish.

Nevermind Aaron...Comment 6 was for Steve...but you two seem to be acting in concert, so comment #6 holds some insight for you too.

Although I sense that insight may elude you.

Aaron Worthing said:

One way or the other they ruled against you.

They did?! I wasn't aware I was a party to the case. Who knew?!

Perhaps your hoax leader Patty can't tell the difference between reporting the news and using it to flog a political agenda which seeks personal validation through news and judicial events. And perhaps you've fallen mesmerized by his Breitbartery long enough that you can't either. But we can. And do.

No, in case you were unclear, I'm not a party to the case and was not "ruled against". And poor, self-loathing Patty's "vindication", as he has sadly chosen to describe it, is against a strawman which doesn't exist, other than in his embarrassingly public case of low self-esteem which he puts on parade every day over at his silly political propaganda site.

But thanks for passing on his message to us. He could, of course, have done so himself here. But he'd rather play the victim and lie to you and his readers about being "banned" and such. (For the record, I actually am banned from posting over there, as hopefully even the dishonest Deputy D.A. would tell you.) I'd advise against allowing Patty's lack of self-esteem to drag you down into the same self-loathing gutter, but judging from your comments here, it seems it may be too late for that. So best of luck to you in all your endeavors. I'm sorry, truly, that you have yet to notice that Patty is playing you for a chump.

Okay, Brad,

So now you have seen my comment. but you have chosen not to revise your post, update it or anything.

So, does the truth matter to you or not?

Are you unaware of the fact that your is 180 degrees wrong on the holding? Have you even read the decision.

The issue isn't patterico, the evil republicans or anything. Its YOU and your integrity. And as of this writing, you have not seen fit to change one word of the post.

I have to conclude therefore you are not only a liar, but a person prone to tell stupid and obvious lies that only the truly blind will ever believe.

Blue Hawk

um no, that is not answered. Brad is still misstating what the court held. this is just a boring game of pretend that the context changes the words, when in fact it doesn't.

Aaron Worthing @2 wrote:

"The court specifically said this defunding was not punishment"

Fact:

The appellate court did not say that the defunding legislation was "not punishment."

While acknowledging that there was evidence in the record which "points in the direction of a traditional form of punishment," the court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to prove "punitive intent" by way of "unmistakable evidence."

A ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove "punitive intent" by way of "unmistakable evidence" does not amount to a finding that the statute was "not punitive."

I suspect that if you are not an attorney that distinction is a bit too subtle for you to grasp. Think of the difference between an "acquittal" and a "finding of innocence." If "O.J." were innocent, as opposed to simply "acquitted," he could not have been sued in a civil case for the wrongful death of his alleged victims.

I will repeat something I told to your pathetic Patterico (aka LA County Deputy DA Patrick Frey):

If Brad Friedman intended to say that the appellate court found that the defunding legislation was “punitive”–-and that isn’t entirely clear when one reads the entirety of his remarks as opposed the out-of-context, partial sentence excerpt you culled–-then Mr. Friedman erred, just as you erred in your representation that the appellate court found that it was not punitive.

People, especially individuals who lack legal training, can make an honest mistake in reading the content of a legal opinion.

In your case, I'm going to assume that you either (a) did not read the opinion or (b) did not understand it.

That doesn't make you a liar, and certainly, if it had been Brad's intent to say that the court found the appellate court's intent to say this statute was punitive, which I doubt, that would not make him a liar.

Frey, on the other hand, is an attorney whom I suspect knew full well that the appellate court did not say that the statute was not punitive. He knows full well that the appellate court said nothing of the sort.

You have two choices, Mr. Worthington. You can go back and carefully read my previous comments, compare that to the actual language of the decision and acknowledge your error, or you can persist as you have and prove to everyone that you are simply a dissembler.

Earnest

This is hilarious. So you are not saying Brad is right (oh, except that maybe he was taken out of context—hilarious), just that I am wrong. Well, even if I am wrong, how does that excuse Brad’s mistake?

As for the claim I am wrong, you write

> The appellate court did not say that the defunding legislation was "not punishment."

> While acknowledging that there was evidence in the record which "points in the direction of a traditional form of punishment," the court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to prove "punitive intent" by way of "unmistakable evidence."

Except of course the court was using that as part of a three part test:

> With respect to the existence vel non of punishment, three factors guide our consideration: (1) whether the challenged statute falls within the historical meaning of legislative punishment (historical test of punishment); (2) whether the statute, “viewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, reasonably can be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes” (functional test of punishment); and (3) whether the legislative record “evinces a [legislative] intent to punish” (motivational test of punishment).

The court is not punting on the question and indeed since it is a legal question they cannot punt. They have to answer it: is it punishment or not? They answered in the negative.

I know that is too subtle for non-lawyers to figure out, but there you go.

My dear Aaron Worthing @32, I'd suggest you go back to pathetic Patterico (aka LA County Deputy DA Patrick Frey) and tell him to come in and present his own legal arguments. Otherwise, you open yourself to scorn and ridicule.

Obviously, Mr. Frey failed to explain the difference between a "test" and a "factor"

You provide a correct quote from page 13 of the appellate decision, to wit:

"With respect to the existence vel non of punishment, three factors guide our consideration: (1) whether the challenged statute falls within the historical meaning of legislative punishment (historical test of punishment); (2) whether the statute, 'viewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, reasonably can be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes' (functional test of punishment); and (3) whether the legislative record 'evinces a [legislative] intent to punish' (motivational test of punishment)."

But you should have continued to page 14 of the decision in which the court added [Emphasis added]:

"All three factors need not be satisfied to prove that a law constitutes 'punishment'; rather, 'th[e] factors are the evidence that is weighed together in resolving a bill of attainder claim.'"

In other words, if the evidence revealed a legislative intent to punish, this could be sufficient.

Here, the timing of the defunding legislation shows a clear temporal relationship between the deceptively edited, phony pimp videos, the direct statement by the Republican members of Congress calling ACORN a criminal organization and the passage of the legislation.

The district court found these factors to evince a legislative intent to punish. The appellate court, which is supposed to give deference to the factual determinations of the trial court did not. It cited two reasons for concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove punitive intent by way of "unmistakable evidence"--the absence of an express finding of criminality in the legislation itself and the absence of a Congressional trial.

With all due respect to the appellate court, those two factors cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence that this was punishment for alleged "criminal" behavior on the part of a benevolent community organization which had done nothing wrong.

Once again, Aaron, the court of appeal did not find that the statute was not punitive. You are wrong. Pathetic Patterico was wrong, and the fact lesson you should take away from all this is--People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Finally, I've noted that the typical approach of one of pathetic Patterico's trolls when caught with their verbal pants down is to respond by saying that its all "hilarious." Your beginning with that word is exceptionally weak, but quite revealing.

Earnest

Twist and turn all you want, but a finding of no punsihment is a finding of no punishment. And none of it vindicates Braddy-boy, given that even you are interpreting the decision in a way he didn't. But of course you are engaged in the classic approach to dissembling, which is to say, "look a squirrel!"

There you go again, Aaron. I've patiently explained to you that the court did not make a "finding" of "no punishment."

I could excuse your initial error as simply the product of a lack of a legal education.

For you to then repeat that the court made a "finding of no punishment" reveals that you typify the propagandists of the hard-right.

Your application of Joseph Goebel's "Big Lie" technique--repeat the lie over and over until it is accepted as truth--won't work here at The BRAD BLOG.

But I thank you for exposing to all who are capable of sustained logic--which is most of the readers of The BRAD BLOG--the real Aaron Worthing.

well, its almost midnight here. Brad still ain't corrected it, so i guess that means he doesn't care about truth.

And Earnest you don't win an argument by insisting you are really, really right. especially when you are obviously wrong. lawyers know you are wrong. hell people who can read above a sixth grade level know you are wrong.

Hey Brad, if two young people show up at your house dressed like a pimp and a prostitute asking for help with their taxes--DO NOT LET THEM IN.

A wise man once said: "I don't know, ask a girl."

Sree-Bee @ #24. beautiful. poetic even.

"unscrupulous depths of deception"

"grotesque and maliciously dishonest"

..........oh, just the whole thing. Real tour de force in commentville.

Thanks for saying what I wish I had the talent and the time to say.

Aaron is really saying...
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain !"

The court ruling said one thing...but Aaron demands that it said another thing. An attorney (Ernest) tediously spelled out what that ruling said...but Aaron (who's untrained in legalities)robotically repeats that Ernest is wrong and he, Aaron is right.

Such is wing nuttery.

Stephanie, how about that 3-way now?!

;)

BlueHawk @39. Excellent summation.