Returning home from a Police Convention Chief of Police Shane Harger Harassed and Placed on Leave After Signing Pledge to Uphold Constitution at Convention

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

A police chief was detained and harassed by federal agents while traveling to a constitutional convention before returning home to be told he was being placed on administrative leave and ordered to disband his police department after signing a pledge to uphold the bill of rights.

Police Chief Shane Harger of the Jemez Springs, NM Police Department was flying out of Albuquerque Airport last week on his way to a Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) convention taking place in Las Vegas. CSPOA is an organization headed up by Sheriff Richard Mack under which law enforcement officers gather to re-affirm their commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Before passing security, Harger was approached by a TSA agent who asked the police chief to show his credentials. Moments later, a man claiming to be a “federal agent” also asked to see Harger’s credentials before telling him he was a “person of interest.” The federal agent then demanded to know where Harger was traveling to and why.

When Harger told the federal agent he was attending the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association Convention in Las Vegas, he was detained for 35 minutes before finally being allowed to board the airplane.

On Tuesday January 28, a day after his return, Harger was placed on administrative leave and ordered by Sandoval County, NM, Sheriff Douglas C. Wood to disband his entire police department due to his “political affiliations”.

While attending the convention, Harger, along with 38 other police officers, signed a declaration affirming their pledge to “obey and observe” the U.S. Constitution, in addition to refusing to carry out unconstitutional orders such as gun confiscation without constitutionally compliant warrants, violations of the 4th amendment without probable cause, detainment or incarceration of citizens without probable cause, or working with the military for domestic law enforcement.

In other words, Harger was targeted for federal harassment and subsequently suspended for re-affirming his belief in the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold and protect in order to become a police officer in the first place.

“Despite having received a meritorious commendation from the Mayor of Jemez Springs on January 22, 2014, it seems that no one in the village government is willing to come to the assistance of Harger. It appears that Harger’s stance to defend and uphold the Constitution has put him and his entire department of ten part-time and volunteers out of business,” writes Vincent Finelli.

“I was at the convention and I never saw nor heard anyone say nor do anything that was a violation of any law. The CSPOA convention was an assembly of peace-loving Americans who just wanted to uphold their oath of office, that being to support and defend the US Constitution and Bill of Rights for all of us, We The People,” adds Finelli.



The 38 others who signed the document may also be in trouble.

Source.... Paul Joseph Watson with Infowars.com

Stay Safe Out There - If You Need Help just Give Me a Call!

To schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help you, contact Beverly Hills DUI Attorney Jonathan Franklin today.

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600    
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Supreme Court's Decision on Affirmative Action and the Future

                                                       University of Texas, In Austin, Tx.

What follows is a condensed version of a statement by a group of constitutional scholars offering an explanation and assessment of the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action in Monday's decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin:

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. University of Texasreaffirms thirty-five years of precedent upholding the compelling interest in educational diversity in higher education, and clarifies the legal standards that courts and educational institutions must follow in order to comply with the Constitution.

Consistent with the Court's previous rulings, the Court in Fisher upheld the value of diversity in promoting important educational benefits, in addressing racial isolation and stereotypes, and in preparing students for leadership in a diverse society. At the same time, the Court reinforced its earlier rulings that university admissions policies must be narrowly tailored and necessary to advance the compelling interest in diversity.

The Court's opinion in Fisher reaffirmed its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Court concluded that the promotion of diversity in higher education is compelling: "We have repeatedly acknowledged the overriding importance of preparing students for work and citizenship, describing education as pivotal to 'sustaining our political and cultural heritage' with a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of society. . . . For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity." Moreover, as the Court stated in Grutter, higher education "must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America."

At the same time, the Court in Fisher clarified the standard that courts must apply in determining whether the means colleges employ to pursue diversity satisfy the Constitution. The Court disagreed with the lower court's assumption that the university's "serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives" was sufficient to justify the consideration of race in university admissions. Rather, academic institutions must demonstrate "that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice" to achieve their objectives.

The Court in Fisher emphasized that courts must closely scrutinize university admissions plans to determine that the university has fully exhausted race-neutral means of achieving diversity before resorting to race-conscious policies. Because the lower courts misinterpreted the Grutter standards by allowing too much deference to the University of Texas's judgment about the need for a race-conscious policy, it remanded the case to the lower courts to evaluate the evidence under the correct legal standard. The Court also clarified that the lower courts must determine that an admissions process works in a way that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and that race or ethnicity is not a defining feature of the application.

The decision in Fisher, like the 2003 ruling in Grutter, clearly rejects a constitutional requirement of an absolute race-blind approach to higher education admissions. Admissions programs that consider race as one of many factors in the context of an individualized consideration of all applicants can clearly pass constitutional review if they are shown to be necessary to promote diversity.

In sum, Fisher makes clear that promoting diversity in higher education can justify race-conscious admissions policies when they are carefully designed and consider race only as part of a flexible and individualized review of all applicants. There is nothing in this opinion that should lead universities to abandon affirmative action. We encourage universities to more fully document the factual necessity of their plans and the reasons why some limited consideration of race in a holistic review process is the only practical way to achieve the diversity they think necessary to serve compelling educational interests. Such a showing should not unduly burden universities or undermine their efforts to achieve diversity.

Read More.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/affirmative-action-the-future_b_3499582.html

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600   
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com