Utah vs Harvey Milk: Do Utah's Attorneys Need a Babysitter?

[Silhouette]

Utah state officials are asking a federal appeals court for more time to prepare arguments in defense of the state's same-sex marriage ban — in part to be able to bring their newly chosen team of private attorneys up to speed.

The Utah attorney general's office is asking for a 10-day extension to prepare a "fulsome, detailed and quality" brief, court documents filed Friday show.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set a deadline of Jan. 27 for opening briefs. The Denver-based court has set an expedited schedule....

...Utah announced Thursday it will pay $300,000 to have three out-of-state attorneys handle its appeal before the 10th Circuit Court. The lead attorney is Gene Schaerr, a Utah native who is leaving a Washington, D.C., law firm to lead the legal team... Utah wants time in gay marriage case - The Denver Post

I'm only asking the question of "Are Utah's Attorneys Trustworthy" because of what happened last year with the "defense" of DOMA by Mr. Paul Clement. The oldest "last ditch" trick in the book is to insert one of your own in the opposing "team".. Very worrisome that Utah feels pressured to submit their briefs so soon and must hastily gather a "trusted" attorney team.

Beware Utah. Be VERY aware. This pressure tactic is the oldest trick in the book and I nearly lost a case I was involved in due to exactly this phenomenon of legal trickery.

Is Paul Clement Trying to Throw the DOMA Case? DOMA: Is Paul Clement Trying to Throw the Case?

Probably not — there's not enough money at stake here to make a Leopold-and-Bloom operation worth the risk. But his brief in United States v. Windsor (he's the attorney for House Republicans) is a cornucopia of unconvincing arguments. Ian Millhiser spotted this one first:


Later in the decision, Clement cites one of Congress's original rationales for DOMA.


Congress recognized the basic biological fact that only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring. Congress sought to encourage the raising of such children by both their biological parents in a stable family structure.


That's what Congress said. Clement takes it further.


It is no exaggeration to say that the institution of marriage was a direct response to the unique tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended offspring. Although much has changed over the years, the biological fact that opposite-sex relationships have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring has not. While medical advances, and the amendment of adoption laws through the democratic process, have made it possible for same-sex couples to raise children, substantial advance planning is required. Only opposite-sex relationships have the tendency to produce children without such advance planning (indeed, especially without advance planning).

In case you missed that, that was an attorney "for" DOMA blatantly arguing the other side's case. He should be disbarred. But I digress.

One point made in arguments then was this, and Utah should sit up, take heed and stare at their "team" with slitted eyelids:

In short, gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history. [same link as above]

Let's hope for the citizens of Utah that there are no Paul Clements on their team.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Silly, it's time for a straitjacket!

 

[Howey]

Silly, it's time for a straitjacket!

Silhouette's alread tied up in one. He posts with his weenie while dreaming about Harvey Milk.

 

[daws101]

Silly, it's time for a straitjacket!

Silhouette's alread tied up in one. He posts with his weenie while dreaming about Harvey Milk.

jim bowie thinks Silhouette is female.....
I know it's hard to get past the idea the jim bob thinks..

 

[Silhouette]

It turns out that Gene Schaerr [lead attorney in the Utah team] is a ready-defender of state's rights vs federalism. He almost always seems to appear to argue on behalf of a state's sovereignty vs federal imposition. Which is a good thing.

So maybe Utah is in good hands after all. But still, this Clement apparent sabotage is still fresh in the minds of onlookers.

Here is a link to some oral arguments made by Mr. Gene Schaerr. He seems reasonably good. Search - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know Gary and have met Sean. They will make sure the attorneys are good. Having said all this, I still think the state's appeal will be denied by the circuit court.

 

[Silhouette]

I know Gary and have met Sean. They will make sure the attorneys are good. Having said all this, I still think the state's appeal will be denied by the circuit court.

Considering your pro-gay stance, that is worrisome that you know two of "Utah's" attorneys personally. Especially with your certainty of a loss for Utah on appeal. That's doubly-worrisome. ie: you putting out that you know two of "Utah's" attorneys personally and then asserting your certainty of a Utah loss all in the same paragraph is pretty much the bold/italic/underscore for the reason I wrote this thread.

How well do you know them and how do they feel about gay marriage, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[hazlnut]

Utah state officials are asking a federal appeals court for more time to prepare arguments in defense of the state's same-sex marriage ban — in part to be able to bring their newly chosen team of private attorneys up to speed.

The Utah attorney general's office is asking for a 10-day extension to prepare a "fulsome, detailed and quality" brief, court documents filed Friday show.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set a deadline of Jan. 27 for opening briefs. The Denver-based court has set an expedited schedule....

...Utah announced Thursday it will pay $300,000 to have three out-of-state attorneys handle its appeal before the 10th Circuit Court. The lead attorney is Gene Schaerr, a Utah native who is leaving a Washington, D.C., law firm to lead the legal team... Utah wants time in gay marriage case - The Denver Post

I'm only asking the question of "Are Utah's Attorneys Trustworthy" because of what happened last year with the "defense" of DOMA by Mr. Paul Clement. The oldest "last ditch" trick in the book is to insert one of your own in the opposing "team".. Very worrisome that Utah feels pressured to submit their briefs so soon and must hastily gather a "trusted" attorney team.

Beware Utah. Be VERY aware. This pressure tactic is the oldest trick in the book and I nearly lost a case I was involved in due to exactly this phenomenon of legal trickery.

Is Paul Clement Trying to Throw the DOMA Case? DOMA: Is Paul Clement Trying to Throw the Case?

Probably not — there's not enough money at stake here to make a Leopold-and-Bloom operation worth the risk. But his brief in United States v. Windsor (he's the attorney for House Republicans) is a cornucopia of unconvincing arguments. Ian Millhiser spotted this one first:


Later in the decision, Clement cites one of Congress's original rationales for DOMA.


Congress recognized the basic biological fact that only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring. Congress sought to encourage the raising of such children by both their biological parents in a stable family structure.


That's what Congress said. Clement takes it further.


It is no exaggeration to say that the institution of marriage was a direct response to the unique tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended offspring. Although much has changed over the years, the biological fact that opposite-sex relationships have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring has not. While medical advances, and the amendment of adoption laws through the democratic process, have made it possible for same-sex couples to raise children, substantial advance planning is required. Only opposite-sex relationships have the tendency to produce children without such advance planning (indeed, especially without advance planning).

In case you missed that, that was an attorney "for" DOMA blatantly arguing the other side's case. He should be disbarred. But I digress.

One point made in arguments then was this, and Utah should sit up, take heed and stare at their "team" with slitted eyelids:

In short, gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history. [same link as above]

Let's hope for the citizens of Utah that there are no Paul Clements on their team.

They have no case.

There is no case to prepare.

Banning same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment and most state constitutions.

End of story.

Allowing two consenting adults to get a marriage lic. and define marriage as they see fit by having a ceremony of their choosing does not "redefine" Catholic marriage, Jewish marriage, or right-wing Christian crazy marriage (which usually ends with the husband in a hotel room with a male prostitute)

 

[Silhouette]

They have no case.

There is no case to prepare.

Banning same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment and most state constitutions.

End of story.

Allowing two consenting adults to get a marriage lic. and define marriage as they see fit by having a ceremony of their choosing does not "redefine" Catholic marriage, Jewish marriage, or right-wing Christian crazy marriage (which usually ends with the husband in a hotel room with a male prostitute)

So you don't think that LGBTers who have elevated an orphaned-minor/teen sex predator as their sexual icon should be denied top-tier status to adopt orphaned kids eh?

Marrige would put the Harvey Milkers in direct contact with orphaned kids.

As you know, if you suspect a danger to children, state and federal laws compel you to report it to authorities charged with protecting them. One of those authorities is the US Supreme Court...

 

[Silhouette]

I know Gary and have met Sean. They will make sure the attorneys are good. Having said all this, I still think the state's appeal will be denied by the circuit court.

Jake, I'm still left wondering if, since you apparently know the AG of Utah and one of the attorneys representing the state in the Harvey Milk folks vs Utah case, if you know what their private stances are on gay marriage?

It's very obvious that you are avidly pro-gay marriage. I just wonder how close of friends you are with them and if you know how they personally feel about it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They have no case.

There is no case to prepare.

Banning same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment and most state constitutions.

End of story.

Allowing two consenting adults to get a marriage lic. and define marriage as they see fit by having a ceremony of their choosing does not "redefine" Catholic marriage, Jewish marriage, or right-wing Christian crazy marriage (which usually ends with the husband in a hotel room with a male prostitute)

So you don't think that LGBTers who have elevated an orphaned-minor/teen sex predator as their sexual icon should be denied top-tier status to adopt orphaned kids eh?

Marrige would put the Harvey Milkers in direct contact with orphaned kids.

As you know, if you suspect a danger to children, state and federal laws compel you to report it to authorities charged with protecting them. One of those authorities is the US Supreme Court...

Yes, please, by all means, go before a 10th Circuit panel and argue that same-sex couples should be denied their equal protection rights because all gays molest children.

And don’t be concerned that you have no evidence in support of this, the panel will gladly take your word for it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know Gary and have met Sean. They will make sure the attorneys are good. Having said all this, I still think the state's appeal will be denied by the circuit court.

Jake, I'm still left wondering if, since you apparently know the AG of Utah and one of the attorneys representing the state in the Harvey Milk folks vs Utah case, if you know what their private stances are on gay marriage?

It's very obvious that you are avidly pro-gay marriage. I just wonder how close of friends you are with them and if you know how they personally feel about it?

I am certainly pro marriage, for sure. The "Gary" to whom I refer is Governor Herbert. Sean Reyes is AG. "Close friends" is not accurate at all. I believe they are pro Amendment 3 to the bone.

This state, as large as it is, remains centered for all political and social and religious purposes from Utah County (Provo-Orem) to Weber County (Ogden). That's probably, I am guessing, at least 90% of the state aligned along an interstate corridor anywhere from two to 12 miles wide and about 90 miles long. Everybody professional crosses everybody's paths within two touches of each other. We watch the same stations, root for the college and professional teams, most of us go to some religious or spiritual experience weekly, etc. It's hard to not have met people. For instance, I am not LDS but I know General Authorities of the Church, and I like and respect almost all of them. It's a great place to live.

 

[Silhouette]

I am certainly pro marriage, for sure. The "Gary" to whom I refer is Governor Herbert. Sean Reyes is AG. "Close friends" is not accurate at all. I believe they are pro Amendment 3 to the bone.

This state, as large as it is, remains centered for all political and social and religious purposes from Utah County (Provo-Orem) to Weber County (Ogden). That's probably, I am guessing, at least 90% of the state aligned along an interstate corridor anywhere from two to 12 miles wide and about 90 miles long. Everybody professional crosses everybody's paths within two touches of each other. We watch the same stations, root for the college and professional teams, most of us go to some religious or spiritual experience weekly, etc. It's hard to not have met people. For instance, I am not LDS but I know General Authorities of the Church, and I like and respect almost all of them. It's a great place to live.

Hmmm... OK. Let's take a look at what you said then under the context of what you just said now. Before you said this:

I know Gary and have met Sean. They will make sure the attorneys are good. Having said all this, I still think the state's appeal will be denied by the circuit court.

It begs the question then if you also know the 10th circuit judges? Or do you have some sort of concrete knowledge of how the Utah appeal will fail? And if so, please do share those details of either scenario?

Also, how do you feel about this sudden "switcheroo" with AGs for Utah to "Sean", the sudden scrambling to assemble a legal team on such a crucial issue for voters rights in Utah per Windsor and the mysterious haste the 10th has laid on the case pressuring briefs be filed by the 27th of this month, I think it is?

That seems like pressure tactics to me and as such, something smells fishy in Denmark. When legal teams are all ascramble, hastily assembled and pressured to quickly file briefs, mistakes and omissions can happen. Is this how you know the Utah appeal will fail at the 10th Hearing?

 

[Silhouette]

Hmm...Jake? How about answering post #13?

Meanwhile, there are sound reasons in the 1st Amendment arena why Utah and just christians in general should sue to have their votes on marriage counted:

Here's my breakdown on that argument in answering someone who said that Lot offering up his daughters for gang rape was a worse sin than homosexuality. In defense of the Bible, and perhaps a very logical God with a Bigger Plan than many myopic humans can focus on:

You know what, I really do want a little more evidence than a 3000 year old book written by ignorant, bronze age sheepherders before deciding what is a venial sin.

In short. I think that offering your children up for gang rape is a much more serious sin than being gay. So would 99.9% of the population.

You also work on the assumption that I'm really bothering to "ask" you bible thumping assholes for anything. Fuck that. we're just going to change the laws, and if you guys discriminate, we sue your asses. Done.

Sue away. But when you do, remember it's a very costly and time consuming project with ultimately the 1st Amendment standing between you and your goal at the end of the appeal's process.

I'm not a bible thumper. I'm not even christian. I just was christian and have a background somewhat in the topic and just a broad general interest in ancient history and quite a lot of other things actually..lol..

And I know how to use a search engine.

It doesn't matter what you think about the Bible and which sins are worse than others. It doesn't even matter what your speculated & inflated claim of "99.9%" of other people think. You can't answer for the christian God and why some sins are worse than others. Neither can the ordinary christian. They are taught to abide by their faith and not parse out the big stuff: just obey the big examples. Sodom was one of those in that all its people were wiped off the map and sent to the pit of fire for enabling a homosexual-promoting culture.

Let's take a look at that last bit and at least try to parse it out in the way an all-seeing logical creator figure might look at it. No, I'm not God, but I like to fancy that God would be logical above all other things when trying to achieve an objective:

You grumble because a man who offered his daughters up for gang rape is not equal to or worse than the sin of an entire city promoting deviant homosexuality. Think of it this way: numbers. Which sin would have the potential for numbers of people to fall to the Pit of Fire? Perhaps God, being a logical being [remember my premise], surmised that an individual committing one terrible sin under duress [as gay sex crazed men were banging on his door threatening to knock it down, demanding sexual access to his devout male guests inside] is not as great a long-term damager to his overall project.

Let's say that overall project is to test and reap as many good strong souls from this planet to take to Heaven and dwell there with him: for whatever reason. God has its reasons.

So one individual who probably figured those lurkers banging on his door wouldn't even look at or touch his daughters anyway, committed, yes, a terrible sin of offering them up for gang rape. But it was his sin, limited to him, and he could later atone for it and improve himself hopefully to shine in the final reckoning.

Let's say though in Sodom's case, there existed a gigantic matrix, a social stew. It was much much larger than one individual and as such had much greater power of influence over the individual souls within. Thousands of them. Perhaps tens or even hundreds of thousands of them [again, remember "numbers"]. A culture of tolerance towards homosexuality and its lack of self awareness or control, being spawned of a base nature of the "animal man" and conditioning, means the entire city gives the individuals within it not a chance. ie: the city and its social mileu had taken on a life of its own. As such, it did not give the various individuals within it even a fighting chance to redeem their souls.

Someone I was speaking with not long ago even had a formula for the tipping point of where God smites entire areas and wipes the slate clean to start over again. It was something like 80%-20%. He said that if a social matrix reaches a point of 80% saturation of a sinning behavior cultural value, that's when the Big Guy steps in with his bad-ass angels and cleans house, or busts a cap.

The numbers game of saving souls means if one person does a terrible thing, it's one terrible thing that person can try to mitigate or atone for later. If an entire matrix that houses multitudes of people goes awry, there is no hope because of the nature of social pressures, to redeem any of them inside. And so to the pit of fire they go for enabling the mess to exist in the first place.

And this is why in Jude the passages says to "earnestly contend" for "the common salvation". And it held out Sodom and other social matrixes like it as an example of what will happen if you don't. If early in Sodom's history, good people stood up and earnestly contended for the faith and common salvation, perhaps that city would still be standing somewhere today where it once stood?

We are at that crux right now, that turning point in our version of Sodom right here in the US. Given that LGBTers are already being open about celebrating sex with minors who are addled on drugs [see my signature], I'd say we've almost crossed over the tipping point.

All according to if God is a logical being who wants the greatest number of souls to strengthen themselves against the temptation of sin and to ascend to chill with him in his Crib. Hence the MORTAL sin of enabling an entire social matrix to pressure sin into people through their formative years in childhood even vs the random sin commited by a man in duress.

And what do you know, gays are pumping out laws in California one after the other designed to make and keep gay "normal" in kids eyes.

1. Requiring them to celebrate Harvey Milk in school.

2. Blocking their access to therapy to change their orientation until kids are 18, even if they know themselves it is artificial and gotten by being molested by a same-sex perp when they were young. By 18 their habit will be too ingrained to change, dontcha know..

3. Forcing kids to accept "transgender" [mentally ill] children to use opposite gender bathrooms to complete their fantasy of not wanting to accept the gender they were born into.

This is the Sodom stuff that was warned about. To me the most chilling part of all of it is not the actions of the meat puppets serving their Sin Master; for they literally are on autopilot and know not what they do. It's the people who know what is wrong and sit quietly by, not wanting to rock the boat or risk any criticism: even when it comes to protecting their own children against what they know full well is advancing upon them!

So, here are the passages from Romans and Jude addressing the specifics from the Bible about the mortal sin of enabling or promoting homosexuality in a cultural matrix: [The most damaging and bastardizing form of this of course would be via marriage. That's like flipping the biggest middle finger to the warnings you could muster up]

Romans 1:

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

More Romans 1:

Romans 1:28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

(Romans 1:29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

(Romans 1:30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

(Romans 1:31) Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

(Romans 1:32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Jude 1:

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

So, If I read the Bible properly, and I believe that I have, it's not just the gays in Utah slated for the Pit of Fire if gay marriage is passed there: It is the entire state of Utah and everyone within, for not contending earnestly for the faith and common salvation...sitting on their duffs and letting a steamroller roll over the top of them and their children... It's that Romans 1:32 bit in red bold. Not just the homosexuals, but their enablers also...death, pit of fire, mortal sin.



I'll await your response about how you know the Utah appeal will fail at the 10th level. What are the judges names and do you know them also personally?

 

[Silhouette]

Hey Jake? How is it again that you know Utah will lose in the 10th circuit? Personal inside info or just an educated guess? If the latter, what evidence do you have that supports the weight on the side of suppressing Utah's citizens the right to determine marriage per DOMA June 2013?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette is being quarrelsome because she (1) is not getting the answers she wants and (2) ignorantly discounts the role of the 14th Amendment that subjugates the state's will of the people that violates all citizens' rights and (3) thinks biblical scripture means anything before SCOTUS in determination of our rule of law.

I answered her questions before #13 and she offers nothing of worth since.

Anyone who lives in Utah will have a hard time believing that the Governor and the AG are setting up the appeal for fail.

I do believe the appeal will fail.

 

[Silhouette]

No Jake, you are being evasive and won't answer a direct quetion put to you. And you are evading that question by alleging misconduct in your questioner.

Hey Jake? How is it again that you know Utah will lose in the 10th circuit? Personal inside info or just an educated guess? If the latter, what evidence do you have that supports the weight on the side of suppressing Utah's citizens the right to determine marriage per DOMA June 2013?

It's really not that hard to answer. Answer, don't divert. You didn't answer my questions about whether or not you know the 10th circuit judges personally, or how you know Utah's appeal in the 10th will fail. You answered the previous questions about your knowing the AG and one of the team attorneys "for" Utah. The second question was whether or not you know the 10th judges as well.