X
X
SO- I HAVE FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE ALLEN COUNTY ELECTION BOARD- MARCH 18TH; 2015.
THE ELECTION BOARD REFUSES TO TRANSCRIBE THEIR AUDIO RECORDING TO WRITTEN FORM. YOU HEARD THE SAYING "GET IT IN WRITING"? IT WAS BECAUSE I PRESENTED ALL MY EVIDENCE FROM PUBLIC RECORDS SEARCHES VIA THE INTERNET; AND THEN
E-MAILED IT ALL TO THE aceb HEARING OFFICIALS; WHERE I SHOULD HAVE PRINTED IT ALL OUT AND HANDED THEM A STACK OF PEPERS.._ IWAS MERELY TRYING TO EXPEDITE AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR EVERYONE.
THE ELECTION BOARD REFUSES TO TRANSCRIBE THEIR AUDIO RECORDING TO WRITTEN FORM. YOU HEARD THE SAYING "GET IT IN WRITING"? IT WAS BECAUSE I PRESENTED ALL MY EVIDENCE FROM PUBLIC RECORDS SEARCHES VIA THE INTERNET; AND THEN
E-MAILED IT ALL TO THE aceb HEARING OFFICIALS; WHERE I SHOULD HAVE PRINTED IT ALL OUT AND HANDED THEM A STACK OF PEPERS.._ IWAS MERELY TRYING TO EXPEDITE AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR EVERYONE.
X
SO- trying to request the ACEB to provide me with a written trtanscript - is like the infamous NIXONIAN STONEWALLING AND THE MISSING 2O MINUTES OF AUDIO RECORDING.S IN THE WATER GATE HEARINGS.
ITS NOT LIKE ITS THE CITIZENS DUTY TO PROVIDE A CAM-CORDER- TO RECORD THE PROCEEDINGS- EVERY COURT HAS A STENOGRAPHER-A COURT RECORDER/REPORTER. EVEN MY COUSIN VINNIES CASE HAD ONE..
SO- I DONT CARE HOW THE aceb DOES IT- CONVERTS THE ADIO FILE TO WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT AND YES- IT WAS A 2 1/2 HOUR PROCEEDING- THATS THE PRICE OF DEMOCRACY;
ITS NOT LIKE ITS THE CITIZENS DUTY TO PROVIDE A CAM-CORDER- TO RECORD THE PROCEEDINGS- EVERY COURT HAS A STENOGRAPHER-A COURT RECORDER/REPORTER. EVEN MY COUSIN VINNIES CASE HAD ONE..
SO- I DONT CARE HOW THE aceb DOES IT- CONVERTS THE ADIO FILE TO WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT AND YES- IT WAS A 2 1/2 HOUR PROCEEDING- THATS THE PRICE OF DEMOCRACY;
BUT I SUGGESTED THE SHORT STAFFED; OVERWORKED ACEB LADIES- ALL 4 OF THEM- COULD HIRE MAYBE AN UNDERUTILIZED COURT REPORTER/STENO - FROM LIZ BORGMANNS CLERK/COURT OFFICE- OR WHOMEVER IS RESPONSIBLE- AND PAY WHOMEVER A FEW BUCKS TO DO THE JOB.
AFTER ALL- I CANT DO IT- AS IM NOT CERTIFIED- IT HAS TO BE OFFICIAL- PRODUCED AND TRANSCRIPTED BY THE ACEB; ALLEN COUNTY COURT SYSTEM..
SO- WE PLAN THE NEXT STEP- THE BATTLE FOR THE PUBLIC RECORDS IN A LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE FORM FOR EVIDENTIARY PURPOSES..
X
SO- WE PLAN THE NEXT STEP- THE BATTLE FOR THE PUBLIC RECORDS IN A LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE FORM FOR EVIDENTIARY PURPOSES..
X
FOR REFERENCES- CHECK THIS BLOG S FEBURARY POSTS- FOR YOUR OWN INFORMATION.
AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS-
AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS-
X
X
EDITORIAL
It's time for cameras in the court
Latest News
- All hands on deck: Open-air bar ban getting in the way of fun, common sense 12:01 am
- Restaurant Notes: New market to open at Coldwater, Union Chapel roads 12:01 am
- Fort Wayne police briefs 12:01 am
- Graphic artist tackles women's issues through drawings12:01 am
- Amish Cook: Family proves to be comforting when nephew dies 12:01 am
- TV Diary quiz: David Morse's diverse career 12:01 am
- Nearly a third of FWCS students won't get bus service next year 12:01 am
Monday, March 23, 2015 - 8:57 am
The public's business should never be hidden from view.
Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dick Durban, D-Ill., are again trying to get cameras into the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. We wish them well, but it’s probably a lost cause.
They tried the same thing in 2010 and 2012. The bills got out of committee but never made it to a full Senate vote, perhaps because our legislators are too in awe of the Supreme Court justices, who are generally strongly opposed to the idea. It is said that justice is blind, and it apparently doesn’t want to be seen, either.
The Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2015 would require TV coverage of all open sessions of the high court unless the justices decide, by a majority vote, that doing so would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more of the parties arguing before the court.
“Open sessions” basically means oral arguments, and televising them, or streaming them on the Web, is hard to argue against. The court already releases audio recordings of the proceedings at the end of every week, and there are transcripts online. Isn’t the logical next step to film the proceedings?
Critics worry that cameras would affect the behavior of justices and the people who argue before them. Some might be intimidated; some might grandstand. That might be true, but so what? The justices will still have to hear all the arguments, then consider them along with all the other evidence available in their (properly private) deliberations.
The justices might want to take a peek at a study in Indiana released last year of an 18-month pilot program that allowed three cameras in three Lake County courtrooms. It found that the cameras, which were small and discreetly placed, had no negative effects on trial proceedings. (Still haven’t heard, by the way, if this good news will encourage the Indiana Supreme Court to open up Hoosier courts to cameras.)
And they might also want to stop and consider that they are public officials doing the public’s business. Their work has profound effects on us all, and we have the right to know what they are doing and to learn it as soon and as thoroughly as we can using the most current technology available.
This is as true of the Supreme Court as it is of Congress and the president. None of them have any business keeping our business from us.
No comments:
Post a Comment