Legislative Update

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: [Indyfriends] An Open Letter to Sarahh Palin About Rick Perry
From: "Linda Curtis"
Date: Fri, February 5, 2010 8:11 am
To: indyfriends@lists.independenttexans.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Open Letter to Sarah Palin About Rick Perry From Independent Texans

Dear Sarah:

We been trying to reach you ever since we heard that you're going to be in Texas during the Super Bowl this Sunday to support our Governor's run for yet another term. Please don't treat us like you treated President George HW Bush, who called you twice but never got a call back. Some people say you did that for political reasons, others say you just ain't got no home training. We really don't know what to think.

We just wanted you to know that Texans have been planning a Tea Party for Rick Perry in Galveston Bay ever since the good Governor tried to carry out the largest private land grab in US history for the Trans- Texas Corridor. Texans have been trying to give back a little piece of the hell Rick Perry has been giving to us for the last 8 years.

Everybody's talking about why you are coming here if you're really a tea partier. Then we heard you were getting paid to appear. Well at least somebody's getting paid around here.

Mrs. Palin, maybe you don't have time to return a few phone calls.

Maybe you should just butt out and let Texans settle up with Rick Perry.

Respectfully,

Linda Curtis, Independent Texans

BootPerry.org (go ahead, press the red button)_______________________________________________

Indyfriends@lists.independenttexans.com

http://lists.independenttexans.com/listinfo.cgi/indyfriends-independenttexans.com

posted by Elmer  # 3:45 PM

You can get to the January 2010 Warrior online at this time.

Click on TMR2 and then Warrior Online to get to the main web page or you can click on the links below.

Webpage - http://www.tmra2.org/waronl.shtml

Warrior - http://www.tmra2.org/images/warrior201001.pdf

URGENT URGENT URGENT


Please put on your website and pass along as best you can!

We received several reports of Riders from out of state moving into Texas and being required to take the Rider Training Course to renew their MC classification on their Drivers License. We called John Young at the DPS Motorcycle Rider Training Division and he informed us he was getting calls on that problem also.

By checking with the Drivers License Division we were informed that was how their Legal Staff told them SB 1967 had to be interpreted. An out of state licensee was a first time license in Texas and required proof of having taken the Training Program. We contacted Senator Carona’s Office and requested a “Letter of Intent� that stated that was not the intent of that Bill. He agreed to furnish the requested document. We were then informed that the License bureau’s Legal Staff would not accept a Letter of Intent to change their ruling.

We then contacted Representative Chavez’s office and requested the same type letter figuring to use the two letters to file a lawsuit the next time we heard of a rider moving into Texas and being told they had to take the course to renew their license. Then I recalled how well we had worked with Colonel Beckworth when he was Chief at DPS and called him. I explained the problem and he assured me he would look into the matter.

Just got off the phone with Colonel Beckworth on his return call. He informed us he had with Colonel McCraw and their Legal Staff and they would allow out of state riders to renew their license without the course.

He said they will send out a Memo to all Driver License Offices tomorrow telling them of the decision. He then asked that we clarify the Bill in the next session. I assured him it would be done.

If anyone has trouble please contact John Young at the Rider Training Course 512-424-2021 or Sputnik 512-971-6777.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday seemed headed toward telling police they must explicitly advise criminal suspects that their lawyer can be present during any interrogation. The arguments in front of the justices were the latest over how explicit the Miranda warning rights have to be, as justices debated whether the warnings police gave Kevin Dwayne Powell made clear to him that he could have a lawyer present while being interrogated by police. Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection. Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

The Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn't adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning. Joseph W. Jacquot, Florida deputy attorney general, argued that the warning given Powell "expresses all the rights required under Miranda." Justice Stephen Breyer clearly disagreed.

"Aren't you supposed to tell this person, that unlike a grand jury, you have a right to have the lawyer with you during interrogation?" Breyer said. "I mean, it isn't as if that was said in passing in Miranda. They wrote eight paragraphs about it. And I just wonder, where does it say in this warning, you have the right to have the lawyer with you during the interrogation?"

Different courts have came down on different sides on what exactly should be said, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. "We've got a split of circuit courts and state courts on whether this reasonably conveys or not.

Shouldn't that be enough of an ambiguity for us to conclude it can't reasonably convey, if there's this many courts holding that it doesn't?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. Powell's lawyer, Deborah K. Brueckheimer, said that the warning Powell was given from Tampa, Fla., police gave him the impression that "once questioning starts, that he has no right to consult with a lawyer anymore, and it certainly doesn't tell him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney with him in an interrogation room, where the coercion takes on a highly new meaning." Justice Scalia called Brueckheimer's argument "angels dancing on the head of a pin." "You are saying, 'Oh, if he had only known. Oh, if I knew that I could have an attorney present during the interview, well, that would have been a different kettle of fish and I would never have confessed,'"Scalia said.

"I mean, doesn't that seem to you quite fantastic?" Miranda rights have been litigated since they first came into being in 1966. The courts require police to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one. But those requirements likely will continue to be parsed by lawyers and judges.

For example, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that most police start off Miranda rights by saying "You have the right to remain silent." But,Alito said, what happens if someone begins talking to the police and then decides that they want to be silent? "Once you break your silence, there is nothing in there that says you have the right to resume your silence,"

Alito said. "We could write that down. It could be the next case," Justice Anthony Kennedy said to laughter.

This is the third Miranda case the court has heard this year. The justices heard arguments earlier over whether officers can interrogate a suspect who said he understood his rights but didn't invoke them, and whether a request for a lawyer during interrogation can expire after a lengthy period of time. Decisions in all three cases are expected next year. The case argued Monday is Florida v. Powell, 08-1175.


Sputnik

A new posting of the Warrior is available online. You can read it at.....

http://www.tmra2.org/images/warrior200912.pdf