One Hundred Forty Characters To Revolution In Iran.

A week ago I was at a campaigns and technology conference in Washington DC. We were learning about the importance of social networking technology in politics.  While we discussed the various uses that could and should be made of the facebook, blogs and twitter, we were discussing it in terms being successful in political campaigns.

 

For those unaware of what Twitter is, think of it as a short hand form of blogging which is limited to 140 characters per communication.  The Twitters are sent out to all those who have chosen to follow what you twitter about. 

 

Our discussions at the conference were about whether this type of communication had a relevance to political campaigns and if so how best to use this new communication tool.  Some, mostly those who already use Twitter were enthusiastic about the prospects for its usefulness and those who don’t did not understand how it could be anything more than a passing fad. 

 

Some of those I overheard discuss Twitter during the break between sessions derided the idea of sending messages of 140 characters or less, as being meaningless dribble about mundane activities, such as what someone was eating for lunch or when they were going to the bathroom.  (The actual phraseology used was a little more in the vernacular of

the street) One of the older participants likened twitter to a children’s toy for adults.

 

One week later, and Twitter can no longer be seen as trivial.  A revolution is being born in Iran through a string of uncensored 140 character messages. 

 

While the Iranian Regime has been successful in stopping the reporters from around the world from reporting live from Iran, they have been unsuccessful in their efforts to shut down Facebook, Twitter and other forms of uncensored electronic communications. 

 

Two thirds of Iran’s 70 million people are under the age of 30. Many of those taking to the streets are students. The students and the educated population of Tehran and elsewhere in Iran, are not only using Twitter to communicate with one another and to coordinate their protests they are sending out reports of their efforts to the world. 

 

The video being put up on You Tube is interesting, in that, it is from the perspective of those involved, not the perspective of  the professional media from some outside country interpreting what the rest of the world should know.  Those protesting or capturing the events of each day are uploading them to the World Wide Web so all of us can see what the Totalitarian Theocracy is doing to subjugate it’s people. 

 

This is a movement not only for freedom from theocratic rule but for equality of woman in Iranian society.  The Supreme Ruler of Iran just gave a speech in which he forbid further protests.  The protests are continuing despite the Iranian government’s best efforts to suppress them. The Chinese, North Korean, and other totalitarian governments are surely taking note of the power of these children’s toys.

 

The question in the coming days will be whether the Iranian military is going to be willing to use force against their brothers, sisters and children. At some point the Military will have to choose whether to use force or restraint. They have started to arrest those students who have been taken to the hospitals and are now raiding homes in the dead of night to take people away.

 

Hopefully some in the military will be following their friends and or family on twitter and will choose Democracy and Freedom for the future of the Persian people.

GOVERNOR O’MALLEY SIGNS BILL TO STEAL THE PREAKNESS RACE.

This is the fifth of the seven worst bills of the 2009 legislative session serious, it is not as timely as it could have been but what do you expect, I am working with legislative time, always a few years late and a billion dollars short.

In 2002, House Speaker Michael Busch made the statement, “If the Preakness left the State of Maryland would anyone really miss it?” Of course back then, a Republican Governor was trying to pass legislation to allow slot machines to be placed at race tracks so the Maryland Equine industry could be competitive with those in the surrounding States which were using slots revenues to subsidize their horse racing industries.

 

If slots had been passed in 2002 the Preakness would not be in danger of being taken from the State of Maryland by its current owners or in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Now that it is clear that the Maryland racing industry is in danger of being lost along with our own second jewel in the triple crown, the Prerakness stakes. All those who were unwilling to vote to keep the Preakness here, by legalizing slots in 2002, are now wanting to rewrite history to  later be able to claim they fought like tigers to keep the Preakness.

This last session, Democratic leadership rose on the House Floor to plead with the membership to “Save the Preakeness” or to help “preserve the Preakness” by voting to use the power of eminent domain to take the Preakness from its lawful owner and transfer possession of the Preakness to the State Maryland.  Eminent Domain is normally only a power used by the State to take possession of Real Property for the purpose of the public using said property to build a road, library,  hospital etc.

 

A few years ago there was a case in the Supreme Court called the Kelo decision which expanded the use of Eminent Domain to those instances when the use was for the “public benefit”, not just the “public use”. There was an uproar across the country regarding the expansion of the use of eminent domain powers. Now the Maryland Legislature has expanded eminent domain powers to taking personal and intellectual property from private owners.  I argued on the  floor of the House of Delegates that this action amounted to an abandonment of Democratic Capitalism and an adoption of Socialistic and Fascist policies. I argued on the floor, “We are not saving the Preakness nor preserving the Preakness, we are stealing the Preakness”.

 

In addition to being anti-american policy, these actions my also be in vein.  The federal bankruptcy court is not bound by any decision the State of Maryland makes but rather is concerned with assuring that the creditors are paid the maximum return on what they are owed.  We argued that the Eminent Domain legislation would stifle potential purchasers from offering top dollar due to the risk that any new purchaser would be limited in where they could take their purchase and in how they could use it. Knowing this, the Governor supported the eminent domain legislation nonetheless. It is the intent of the Governor to say I fought to save the Preakness, if it should eventually leave, and to argue he saved the Preakness should it stay.  

 

The danger of extending the use of eminent domain to the Preakness is that if it is successfully used here why couldn’t the State use it in the future to take a world reknown horse, which a Maryland owner plans to sell to someone out of State but that the State does not want to see go? Just imagine a horse of the stature and re known as was the legendary horse Kelso was to be sold and the Maryland legislature decided it wished to keep the horse in Maryland. Why would anyone in the equine industry want to own property in Maryland if the threat of the use of eminent domain hovers over their heads like the sword of  Damocles?

 

The die have been cast and we only have but to wait and see what becomes of Maryland’s latest efforts at taking private property.

Cecil County SPCA Press Release Is Full Of Errors And Omissions.

 The Cecil County SPCA sent out a press release last week in an attempt to spin a letter to the Cecil County State’s Attorney into a exoneration of all the allegations made against their agency by 16 individuals who came forward and presented complaints about the agency to State Delegate  Michael D. Smigiel, Sr.

 

The CCSPCA claims to be vindicated because one witness out of 22 possible (16 who came forward with complaints and at least 5 people at CCSPCA) was asked to take a polygraph and was told she failed. (The witness denies ever admitting that she lied) The witness, states,  before the test,  she was accused by the officer of being a drug user and was told she was in trouble. She states she was upset by the police before she took the test and then questioned  about whether her husband beats her. She said she felt like she was the defendant not a witness and did not understand why the police were asking about her husband beating her since she was there to testify about animal abuse and neglect she had witnessed while working at the CCSPCA.  ,Her husband states he is, and was, willing to take a polygraph, he just could not do it during working hours. He agreed to take a polygraph either after work or during the weekend but the police would not accommodate his work schedule.

 

The CCSPCA does not mention in their press release that according to State’s Attorney Newell, “several of the animal control officers alleged to be involved in various incidents declined  to take polygraph tests as well, as I understand it. As you well know, results of polygraph tests, or refusals to submit to polygraph testing, are inadmissible in criminal cases, but it may raise a question of their sincerity in the eyes of the public.”

 

According to Ms. Schwerzler, she was not even asked to take a polygraph! The report mentions nothing about Ms. Susan Maldonado, the Director, Ms. Deeming nor the Veterinarian, Dr. Mc Dermott.   All the other witnesses who came forward, including the former volunteers and citizens who just visited  the facilities relate that they were not even asked to take polygraphs despite their volunteering to do so.

 

Some of those witnesses whom the State Police investigator may have wanted to ask to take a polygraph include but are not limited to:

 

1.  Deputy Laura Jones- Who came forward with the heartbreaking story of what happened to her two beautiful Akitas.
2. Thomas Bishop-A young teenage volunteer who states he witnessed dogs being kicked, thrown and slammed when they would not go into their kennels. He also reports seeing animals operated on when Dr. McDermott was not present.
3. Patti Clifton – Who states her dog, Pizza, was killed with a “heart stick” without being sedated.  
4. Jennifer Snellings Barber – WhoseDog, Molly, died according to her, because of the Vets failure to attend to the Dog after a surgery.
5. Ruth Ann Sargent – The owner of, TeTe, who she states, was shot several times by the animal control officer, Jerry Hawkins, as she and her  children begged him not to shoot the dog who was running away from the officer towards the woods. 
6. Erin Miller – Whose affidavit says she participated in giving the euthanizing drugs, even though she was not trained or listed with the State as authorized to do so.  She also swears she was present on at least two occasions when dogs were restrained with a catch pole  around the neck, while the animal control officer (who refuses to be polygraphed) shot the dog through the chest with his  handgun.  She swears the dogs were still alive so she had to get a sedative then a euthanasia drug to put the pets down after they had been shot.  Ms Miller is still willing to take a polygraph but was never asked!  These accusations are totally ignored.

 Instead, the State’s Attorney focused on her accusations about botched operations and said they were just gut feelings. He also dismisses a corroborating internal E-mail which was sent to her by Ms. Deeming. The State’s Attorney said he could not prove it came from Ms. Deeming, yet they did not go through her computer files to see.  Equally disturbing is that the State’s Attorney      wrote in his report that “the CCSPCA suggests that Ms. Miller is a disgruntled former employee with an ax to grind, fired for poor    work ethic and suspicion of involvement in a bungled burglary along with an allegedly abusive drug seeking boyfriend. ”  Ms. Miller    reports she had never been asked about the CCSPCA suggestions. They are not true and irrelevant to the allegations of animal abusea and neglect.   What we do know is that Ms. Deeming wrote the following about Erin Miller while she was working there:

 

                        ”You on the other hand, do care about the animals, are very pleasant with the clients and do your job the best you know how.”

 

                        All that is needed is to find out if she is telling the truth about seeing the dogs shot in the side while being restrained by   the neck on a catch pole.  Certainly a polygraph would be helpful. Yet, no one on this list was even asked to take a    polygraph even though they, along with others have agreed to. 

 

CCSPCA’s press releases do not discuss are the following statements which were in Mr. Newell’s June 1, 2009 letter; Mr. Newell’s “first recommendation”  was to “recommend that the County decide whether they want to continue with the current system of contracting out the animal control function or develop their own county department of animal control, with the immediate oversight available for any other county department. Assuming the County Commissioners do not want to change the overall structure, I would wholeheartedly recommend that the Sheriff, and County Commissioner, and any Assistant State’s Attorneys withdraw from direct service to the CCSPCA, and if necessary revise any ordinance that requires their service….”

 

State’s Attorney Newell further wrote:  “the specific allegation that the director, Jean Demming, is benefiting from a relationship between the CCSPCA and her private purebred rescue is more troubling. While that relationship does not appear to be illegal, per se, it certainly has the appearance of impropriety to the extent it implicates tax dollars. I would recommend that the director sever all ties between the two entities, if any exist. Given the generous salary currently offered to the director, I think it would be reasonable to restrict her ablity to operate a side business that has financial dealings with the CCSPCA….”    

 

 

The Board President, Ms. Nancy Schwerzler, accuses Mr. Newell of falsly claiming that a fired employee, Mr. Carl Ewing, had an attorney hired for him by the Cecil County SPCA.  Yet, in his letter of June 9, 2009 State’s Attorney, Newell, states the following:  

 

        ”In Mr. Ewing’s CCSPCApersonnel file is a letter from his attorney, copied to Deeming, describing how he would be able to get out on work releaseand keep his driving license, while describing how the CCSPCA was going to oversee the payment fo his legal fees.  Later, legal invoices were sent directly to Ms. Deeming at the shelter’s address. Again, such actions are not illegal, but in my view inappropriate considering the degree to which CCSPCA is taxpayer funded.”  

In her June 8, 2009 letter to the Veteranary Board investigating the Vets activities at CCSPCA, the Director Ms. Deeming makes the statement that “CCSPCA did not pay Mr. Ewing’s legal fees.” 

Ms. Deeming then tells writes that Mr. Ewing, while being represented by Mr. Smigiel, last week, accepted a plea bargain admitting theft of fencing from CCSPCA.  This statement is absolutely false! In fact, the court was told that Mr. Ewing does not admit to any wrong doing but was willing to accept the State’s offer for a Stet Docket.  Ms. Deeming would have known this had she stayed in the court but she left moments after I arrived to defend Mr. Ewing. (Which I did for free because I believe the allegations were retaliation for his whistleblowing about the mistreatment and neglect of animals at CCSPCA) Delegate Smigiel also obtained an ethics opinion which concludes the Delegate’s actions in this regard were entirely appropriate. Delegate Smigiel has authorized the full publication of the ethics opinion which will be posted at a later date.

We will be posting additional facts which have been withheld or distorted by the CCSPCA in the near future.

Cecil County SPCA Investigation Concludes – Questions Persist

As you may recall, numerous allegations of the atrocious treatment of animals have been made against the Cecil County SPCA. Apparently, the politics of this is much more important than actually performing a thorough investigation of ALL the facts of the case .

What follows is part one of my analysis of the so called “investigation of all the facts”.

On June 1, 2009 the State’s Attorney for Caroline County, Mr. Jonathan Newell, sent a letter to the Cecil County State’s Attorney (Chris Eastridge) stating that he had completed reviewing  ” the volumes of photographs and documents ” he had been furnished with regarding the allegations of abuse and neglect of animals as it related to the Cecil County Society for Prevention of Animals (CC SPCA).

While there are many recommendations for changes to the current manner of running the CC SPCA (which I will cover in a future posting) there are some interesting additions to the report which I am struggling to understand and have asked to have explained by those responsible for them.

Numerous calls to Mr. Newell’s office have gone unanswered to date.  I was at the meeting of the CC SPCA committee last Tuesday night when Mr. Eastridge came to speak. Mr Eastridge told the committee he had just received the report from Mr. Newell that day and he would be providing the Commissioners a copy of it the next day.

Wednesday morning at 8:30 a.m. I called Mr. Eastridge’s office and asked if he could please call me ASAP about the CC SPCA letter from Mr. Newell. I also explained I had called Mr. Newell three times over the last few days but had yet to hear back from him. I left a message for Mr. Eastridge, that Mr. Newell had erroneously stated in his letter that I was representing a former employee “at taxpayer expense”.  Not only is this allegation incorrect it is impossible since I am not a public defender.

Particularly troubling is the fact that I was never interviewed as part of the investigation despite the fact that the complaints were initiated by my office after we had been contacted by a visitor to the shelter who was appalled at what she had seen.

After reading this unfounded and defamatory(not to mention IRRELEVANT) statement in the report on the allegations into the alleged animal abuse and mismanagement of the CC SPCA I called the officer who had conducted the investigations to ask him why he would have included such a thing in his report.

I was surprised to learn from the investigating officer that he had not written anything about me in his report. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the false statement about my representation of these complainants at “taxpayer expense” had to have been added by the State’s Attorney Mr. Newell.

Still having not received  any response from Mr. Newell, I called the State Legislative Ethics Counsel and requested an opinion as to whether such a statement could even be possible.  Mr. Somerville quickly responded with a letter indicating that ” I would not consider any of your actions in that regard to have been carried out “at taxpayer expenses”.   “Circumstances were such that the criminal charge may have constituted retaliation against a “whistle blower”.  You offered to represent the individual, pro bono, in the matter.”

I faxed a copy of the letter from the legislative ethics counsel to the Cecil County States Attorney, Mr. Eastridge on June 4, asking that the statement be stricken before the report was disseminated. I explained that not only was the information about me incorrect but there was also incorrect information about Mr and Mrs Ewing and Ms. Erin Miller. I demanded an apology and explanation from Mr. Newell but to date I still have not heard from either States’ Attorney.

I was told by a third party that Mr. Newell has realized he was in error and that he is going to reissue a new report without the defamatory statement claiming that, at “taxpayer expense,”  I am representing someone alleged to have stolen from the CC SPCA.  Unfortunately, I am also informed Mr. Newell intends to add the new accusation that my pro bono representation of this former employee of the CC SPCA is a “conflict of interest”

According to the State Legislative Ethics counsel, Mr. William Somerville.: ” I do not see the existence of a conflict of interest. First of all, you are not being financially advantaged by any of your actions in this matter. Indeed, the provision of free legal service is a detriment to your law practice.  Secondly, I believe that both actions-your advocacy for the investigation of possible abuses by the CC SPCA, and your pro bono legal representation-constitute complementary parts {of} a single interest, rather than separate and conflicting interests.  Your representation of the witness, who may be the victim of retaliation for his testimony, serves to encourage other citizens to come forward with information about possible impropriety affecting the county, in this particular matter as well as in future matters. For these reasons it is my opinion that there is no conflict of interest…”

Unfounded accusations in this report were not limited to myself.  Mrs. Erin Miller had signed a sworn affidavit telling how she, personally had participated in euthanizing animals despite the fact, she had not been properly trained or listed with the State as employed to do so. She also included in her sworn affidavit the details of  instances where she was required to euthanize two dogs which were held on catch poles and then shot through the chest by an animal control officer with his handgun. Ms Miller agreed to take a polygraph test if requested to do so. Yet, the State Police investigators never asked her to take a polygraph. All of the CC SPCA animal control officers refuse to be polygraphed and she volunteers to be polygraphed, yet is not.  What is wrong with this picture?

The reason given for not believing the affidavit of Ms Miller, according to Mr. Newell’s letter of June 1, is that “ the CC SPCA suggests that Ms Miller is a disgruntled former employee with an ax to grind, fired for poor work ethic and suspicion of involvement in a bungled burglary along with an abusive drug seeking boyfriend. Ms. Miller states the first time she ever heard of these “suggestions” and “suspicions” was when I read them to her from the June 1, 2009 letter.  No one, during the investigation, ever raised these accusations with her. She states quite clearly that these allegations are untrue and unfair.

Ms. Miller’s testimony would appear to be some of the most compelling and relevant since she personally participated in the activities she relates.  Clearly,  the reported shooting of these dogs would be prosecutable if a jury or judge believed her. After all, the State’s Attorney Newell, himself, wrote that “if cats were shot and intentionally left to suffer in the manner described by the Ewings, it would certainly constitute a violation of the criminal abuse statute.

Ms. Miller swears in her affidavit, that two dogs were held steady on catch poles around their necks and then summarily shot through the chest area but did not die, so she (personally) then administered a sedative and then a euthanasia  drug to kill the dogs.  Yet, she is not given a polygraph, even though she volunteers to take one! The animal control officer refuses to take a polygraph.   This event is reported to have occurred in the spring of 2008 and is thus within any statute of limitations, but no charges will be filed.  No polygraph is to be given to  Ms. Miller, who is willing to take one and remember that all the animal control officers refused to take polygraphs, according to Mr. Newell’s report.

How can we trust ANYTHING in this report if it can  get it so wrong with the allegations manufactured against numerous people and failed to pursue such patently obvious abuse as shooting dogs with a handgun while they are being restrained on a catch pole?

I will address the other errors involving the Ewings and others, shortly, in my next posting. In the interim, I am going to try to get an apology and an explanation of why innuendo and character assassinations are occurring within what should have been a compilation of facts regarding the allegations brought by the former volunteers, visitors and employees of the CC SPCA.

Stay tuned, as they say in politics, you can’t make this stuff up!

Welcome to the Blogo “smear”.

The internet can be a useful tool for communicating information, for political debate and for discussion of various topics of interest to the public. Yet, like any tool in the hands of the uninformed or those with an evil intent it can be a weapon of propaganda, slander and just used to smear those you disagree with.  Unfortunately the ability to be anonymous on the net allows the uninformed, ignorant or evil at heart to spew venomous untruths free from accountability.  It takes a certain kind of coward to be intelligent enough to utilize the technology associated with the internet  and to set up a web site, yet to hide their name  and affiliation with the product of their labor.  

For instance, some coward has opened a web site called “Smigiel2010″.  This site has nothing to do with me. They have never contacted or spoken to me to ask me about any of the things they post.  If you were to publish a piece of paper with the exact same information that appear on this Web site, State law would require that there be an “authority line” so a reader would know who the author is and who is responsible for the content. 

There is a loop hole in the law that allows someone to claim to be a journalist and thus claim they are not covered by the State authority line requirements when blogging, on line.  I have some attorneys looking into this matter now to determine if  the fact that the annonymous author is hiding behind a site name that gives the public the impression that the site is associated with me is enough to make the State laws apply. In addition to my attorneys reviewing the matter the appropriate State authorities are reviewing for violations of State law.

Whether the State law applies, there are limits on what people can write, even about public officials.  There will be some suits filed in the near future to reinforce those limitations for those who choose to defame out of malice.  

An example of just how misleading and unfair a malicious coward can be is seen in the most recent posting on the above mentioned website where it was written that:

                         {HOUSE BILL 939, which Smigiel proposed, is as follows

:Requiring the Maryland Public Broadcasting Commission or a division of the Commission, when entering into a contractual relationship with the State or an entity of the State for television broadcasting services, to include a provision in the contract to allow the Commission or a division of the Commission to select the events it will film and broadcast”

It is still before the House.

How can someone portraying himself as a Patriot, and former Marine, propose a Bill before the House that is contrary to EVERYTHING that every Marine or serviceman and woman has died for in the history of this country?}

The language of the bill cited, simply says that the Maryland Public Television will have a clause in its contracts with the State which allows it to go where it wants, when it wants, to film!

What the writer would have known had they called me, is that a few years ago I noticed that  Maryland Public Television never covered the big controversial stories, such as gay marriage or “right to carry”,  but rather would be recording a hearing on some esoteric non-controversial subject, like what should be the State designated eating utensil.  After asking why this was so, I discovered that the Senate President, Mike Miller or the House Speaker, Michael Busch, scheduled where and when the Maryland Public Television crews would tape.

I  therefore offered a bill called the Maryland Public Television Freedom to Broadcast Act.  The purpose of this bill was the exact opposite of what the author of the smear article cited above writes it is.  This bill sought to allow the Maryland Public Television crews to video tape where ever they chose and when ever they chose. This Bill sought to give them freedom not to take away their freedoms.  While the bill did not pass it was effective, in that when I put the Bill in last year, I received a call from the Maryland Public Television representative telling me they no longer had restrictions upon them.  I therefore withdrew the bill because we had accomplished what we had sought to do.

So the moral of the story is that if you are reading something  but can’t find out who is responsible for the content or find the writer spends little time on facts and a lot of time on charachter assasination, you may want to assume you have stumbled upon one of the vermon in the blogo “smear”  who timidly hide in annonimity.  

 As Teddy Roosevelt said in a speech given in Paris at the Sorbonne in 1910

“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

As for the anonymous author of the dribble appearing on the web site, I will debate you in any public forum, on any topic, at any time, if you have the guts to crawl out from under your virtual rock and show your face in public.  I will be glad to give you the opportunity to defend your string of factually incorrect blogo “smears”.