The SQ lawsuits are starting.

[custosnox]

Has that happened alot?

I recall here fairly recently a lawsuit because the stte did not provide a drivers license test in Farsi. 

[Red Arrow]

That would necessarily require something called "personal responsibility" but I've been called out for mentioning the "R" word on here 

Shame on you for using that word in the Land of Entitlement.     

[patric]

I recall here fairly recently a lawsuit because the stte did not provide a drivers license test in Farsi. 

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The federal government is investigating whether the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety violated the civil rights of Iranian immigrants by refusing to provide them with driver's license tests in their native Farsi language.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Fardha Sharifi and her husband, Alireza Sanghinmanesh, who immigrated to the United States with their young son, said Hassan Sharifi, Fardha Sharifi's cousin and a restaurant owner in Bartlesville.

Finally, the couple went to the neighboring state of Kansas, located less than 25 miles north of Bartlesville, where they each passed a Kansas exam that tested their driving skills using graphic symbols rather than language, Hassan Sharifi said.

"There was no translation needed," he said. Once they returned to Oklahoma, they exchanged their Kansas driver's licenses to Oklahoma licenses and are now both legally licensed to drive in the state, he said.

The formal complaint was filed with the government by Hassan Sharifi's son, Payam Sharifi, a senior in economics at the University of Oklahoma.

The chief legal counsel for the Department of Public Safety, Wellon Poe, said the agency plans to formally respond to the complaint later this month.

If the state does not comply, it could be penalized by the withholding of federal transportation money.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080401_1__OKLAH23086

[Townsend]

A U.S. District Judge issued a ruling Monday morning blocking the amendment on Islamic law. It prevents the state election board from certifying the results of Tuesday's general election in which the amendment was approved by 70 percent of the voters.

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/state/Copy_of_USIslamic-LawLawsuit_83893523

[custosnox]

And now the next lawsuit starts

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101110_14_A1_Alglca82917

[OpenYourEyesTulsa]

And now the next lawsuit starts

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101110_14_A1_Alglca82917

SQ 751 amends the state constitution to make it constitutional.  All these lawsuits have no merit.

If they are referring to the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment applies because there is nothing in the US Constitution saying that the states cannot have an official language or cannot ban Shariah law.

[Townsend]

SQ 751 amends the state constitution to make it constitutional.  All these lawsuits have no merit.

If they are referring to the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment applies because there is nothing in the US Constitution saying that the states cannot have an official language or cannot ban Shariah law.

Either way my tax money is going to go to defending them over and over and that vexes me.

[Conan71]

Either way my tax money is going to go to defending them over and over and that vexes me.

It's not costing you one extra penny, the state is sued for a variety of reasons every day.  Attornies already on state payroll will defend these suits just like the others.  There's no expensive investigations or exhibits to put together, basically an attorney or attornies will sit at a computer terminal and write motions.  This is basic procedural crap.

[Townsend]

It's not costing you one extra penny, the state is sued for a variety of reasons every day.  Attornies already on state payroll will defend these suits just like the others.  There's no expensive investigations or exhibits to put together, basically an attorney or attornies will sit at a computer terminal and write motions.  This is basic procedural crap.

That's surprising to me Conan.  If that's so though, it'd be great if they'd use that for Tulsa's defense too.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101107_11_A1_Auhaie303191&allcom=1

Tulsa's legal fees to defend itself in police corruption lawsuits could reach $900,000

Edited to add that it still bugs that my tax money is used to defend against BS like these SQ's whether the attorneys are on payroll or not.  It makes me think of the Ten Commandments on government property.

[Townsend]

It's not costing you one extra penny, the state is sued for a variety of reasons every day.  Attornies already on state payroll will defend these suits just like the others.  There's no expensive investigations or exhibits to put together, basically an attorney or attornies will sit at a computer terminal and write motions.  This is basic procedural crap.

I'm having a hard time finding information for or against what you're saying.  So far I've found: 

Pruitt said he's received sound advice from Virginia's attorney general who has already filed one of the state lawsuits against the federal law. Some experts say fighting the federal health care law could come at an enormous cost to Oklahomans.

Now I don't know if "some experts" are referring to financial, spiritual, or human costs but it seems to me that it's going to cost us extra.

[Townsend]

It's not costing you one extra penny, the state is sued for a variety of reasons every day.  Attornies already on state payroll will defend these suits just like the others.  There's no expensive investigations or exhibits to put together, basically an attorney or attornies will sit at a computer terminal and write motions.  This is basic procedural crap.

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.473/pub_detail.asp

In recent years, much attention has been paid to the phenomenon of state attorneys general taking on the role of plaintiffs' lawyers. In lawsuits against the tobacco companies, Microsoft, gun manufacturers, and other seemingly wealthy (and usually unpopular) industries, many of the states' top lawyers have sought to fill public coffers by winning multi-million dollar settlements or judgments for their states. These lawsuits are generally very expensive to litigate and therefore consume a large portion of the personnel and financial resources of the attorney general. Some attorneys general, facing fiscal and political limits on their ability to bring these suits, have come upon a creative solution; rather than seeking increased appropriations to hire new lawyers, they are hiring plaintiffs' firms under contingency fee contracts to litigate the suits for them.

A leader in this new approach to law enforcement is Oklahoma's attorney general, Drew Edmondson. In 2005, after three years of negotiations, Edmondson filed a lawsuit against a dozen poultry companies alleging that waste from thousands of their poultry houses (located mostly in Arkansas) were illegally increasing the amount of phosphorus in Oklahoma drinking water. Rather than seeking more money for the legislature to bring this suit, Edmondson has hired three plaintiffs' firms, under contingency fee contracts that will allocate to the firms up to fifty percent of any judgment or settlement procured, to litigate the cases for the state.

If you continue through the article it reads to me that it will cost us extra.

[Conan71]

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.473/pub_detail.asp

If you continue through the article it reads to me that it will cost us extra.

What you posted is related to the State AG as a plaintiff's attorney.  In the case of suing the Feds over Obamacare, Pruitt would be the plaintiff's attorney acting on our behalf.  I suppose there might be costs involved if they subpoena people within Oklahoma government to travel to DC and back for depositions or experts are hired.  The other "costs" involved probably have to do with blackmail er, cutting state funding on various programs.

However, I thought we were talking about the cost of Oklahoma defending lawsuits on state questions.  It's basic civil rights stuff using staff attornies in cases over constitutionality of state questions.  Defending the state or city against dirty cops is a whole different kettle of fish and the plaintiff's in those cases, I would assume are also looking for a financial gain or reparation of some sort.  Not the case in a SQ lawsuit.  CF or Guido is more than welcome to correct me on this.  I've got a law degree hanging on my wall, but it's not mine. 

[Townsend]

What you posted is related to the State AG as a plaintiff's attorney.  In the case of suing the Feds over Obamacare, Pruitt would be the plaintiff's attorney acting on our behalf.  I suppose there might be costs involved if they subpoena people within Oklahoma government to travel to DC and back for depositions or experts are hired.  The other "costs" involved probably have to do with blackmail er, cutting state funding on various programs.

However, I thought we were talking about the cost of Oklahoma defending lawsuits on state questions.  It's basic civil rights stuff using staff attornies in cases over constitutionality of state questions.  Defending the state or city against dirty cops is a whole different kettle of fish and the plaintiff's in those cases, I would assume are also looking for a financial gain or reparation of some sort.  Not the case in a SQ lawsuit.  CF or Guido is more than welcome to correct me on this.  I've got a law degree hanging on my wall, but it's not mine. 

Sounds reasonable.  I was surprised it's so hard to find info about this.

[OpenYourEyesTulsa]

Either way my tax money is going to go to defending them over and over and that vexes me.

I agree that it is a waste of our money.  It is all partisan politics and lawyers wanting notoriety or a payday.  The federal judge involved in the forbidding of Shariah law was nominated by Clinton.

[Townsend]

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/SQ-751-Challenge-Could-Cost-Taxpayers/P-om_CR_BUyOi4eoWzEKLg.cspx?rss=77

SQ 751 Challenge Could Cost Taxpayers

It's a legal question that could cost taxpayers.  The English only law recently passed by voters is being challenged for its constitutionality.  FOX23's Douglas Clark takes a look at how much it could cost the state to fight the lawsuit.

State Question 751 requires all official state communications to be in English or American Indian languages, except as otherwise required by federal law.  Now the issue is going to court and the costs could add up.

A local attorney has filed a lawsuit in Tulsa County District Court that challenges the constitutionality of the recently passed English-only law.  The suit alleges the law violates the right to free speech.  The issue has drawn mixed reactions.

"If they want to stay here, they have to learn English," says Hispanic immigrant Maria Diaz.

"I feel that they should cater to whatever language they're speaking because they live here and pay taxes," says another woman.

The lawsuit names Governor Brad Henry as the defendant.  But the attorney general's office will likely step in to defend him.  How much will that cost taxpayers?  It depends on how long the case is in litigation.  If it drags on for years with multiple appeals, experts think it could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

While a spokesperson for the AG says the agency would step in if asked, it would prefer if the legislature consulted Drew Edmondson before passing any controversial laws that could be challenged in court.

According to one expert, the burden is on those who filed the lawsuit to prove why they think the law is unconstitutional.  The governor has not yet asked the attorney general's office to step in.  But he's expected to do so soon.