MA Cops Awarded "Corruption" Plaques; Might File Federal Charges Against the Dirty Rat That Did This

Ungrateful?

Police in Lawrence, MA were so unhappy at receiving plaques honoring them for being corrupt, they're thinking of making a federal case out of it.

The impressive-looking plaques were each embossed with a gold police shield, a small gun and each was engraved with an officer's name.

Police launched an investigation immediately into sent them the awards.

The cops were so upset at receiving the award, they are contemplating filing federal charges.

But these "plaques" sent to the police department Sunday were no awards. They came from a bogus address in Puerto Rico, supposedly sent from a former assistant district attorney and were in recognition for the officers being "corrupt." They were dated "9-11-2007."

As first reported on The Eagle-Tribune's Web site eagletribune.com yesterday, police Chief John Romero has launched an investigation into who sent the packages. He said police are contemplating criminal charges, possibly at the federal level. Police yesterday dusted the plaques for fingerprints. Romero was one of the recipients of the so-called award.

Lawrence police also notified the postal inspector in Boston. The sender could face federal charges for using the U.S. Postal Service "to threaten, harass or intimidate," Romero said.

Police said that they have a suspect in mind "based on similar harassing correspondence" Romero had received. He declined to identify the suspect.

It's not uncommon for the Police Department to receive disparaging or critical letters along with notes of kudos and praise. But Romero said he's never received a plaque of this nature.

"It seems this individual went to great lengths and expense to do this. That, in itself, is disturbing," Romero said.

Whoever made up the plaques and shipped them went to considerable expense, Romero said. The plaques probably cost $200 apiece to make and the shipping total was $75.

Local papers routinely publish the names of people arrested for charges which are later dropped. This unwanted publicity is sometimes called "rehabilitation through humiliation".

Seems someone must have thought the Lawrence, MA police department needed rehabilitated.

by Mondoreb
hat tip: Brock Lorber, FP
image: eagle-tribune
Source: Fake Plaques sent to the Lawrence police for corruption



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Romney's Pro-Life Claims on 'Meet the Press' Questioned

Republican candidate Mitt Romney was on NBC's Meet the Press and made the following blanket claim: "...every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as a Governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life."
--Mitt Romney, Meet the Press 12/16/07

Pretty impressive.

We like Mitt, but a quick check of his record throws doubt on the claim.

Some facts about Romney's record as Massachusetts governor and abortion.

* Romney's health care legislation provides taxpayer-funded abortions for a co-pay of just $50.
o Romney vetoed EIGHT provisions in his health care bill that he deemed objectionable, but he did not veto Planned Parenthoods' guaranteed position on the Advisory Board or ensure that abortions were covered only in medically necessary situations (as required by MA court ruling). All abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program with no medically necessary limitation.

* Romney included in his health care legislation a guarantee that Planned Parenthood would have a representative on his MassHealth Payment Policy Advisory Board. No such provision was included for a pro-life representative.

* Romney forced private Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after-pill, a position applauded by Democrats and pro-abortions groups.

Romney's health care legislation provides taxpayer-funded abortions for a co-pay of just $50. Romney vetoed EIGHT provisions in his health care bill that he deemed objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. He did not veto Planned Parenthoods' guaranteed position on the Advisory Board or ensure that abortions were covered only in medically necessary situations (as required by MA court ruling). All abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program with no medically necessary limitation. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services; "Romney's Health Care Vetoes," Associated Press, 4/12/06)

More:

Romney included in his health care legislation a guarantee that Planned Parenthood would have a representative on his MassHealth Payment Policy Advisory Board. No such provision was included for a pro-life representative. "You cannot be personally opposed to abortion and then contribute money to an organization whose purpose is to provide abortions," said Jerry Zandstra. "Given the Romney family's support of Planned Parenthood, it now makes sense why he mandated that a member of the RomneyCare Policy board be appointed by the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts." (RepealRomneyCare.com, "Pro-Life Leaders Denounce Romney's Planned Parenthood Connections," Press Release, 5/10/07)

Romney forced private Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after-pill, a position applauded by Democrats and pro-abortions groups. "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception. 'And on that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,' Romney said..." (Scott Helman, "Romney Says No Hospitals Are Exempt From Pill Law," Boston Globe, 12/9/05)

Catholic leaders urged hospitals to reject Romney's mandate or risk "compromising their religious integrity and Catholic identity." "C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, a conservative Catholic organization, said Catholic hospitals should refuse to abide by the law. 'T he appropriate response for Catholic hospitals is noncompliance. Otherwise, they would be compromising their religious integrity and Catholic identity,' he said." (Steve LeBlanc, "Confusion Over New Emergency Contraception Law Deepens," Associated Press, 12/9/05)

Like we said, we like Romney and cheered him on, especially after his great speech on faith last week. We applauded his standing up for his beliefs.

We understand that a person can change their views. We applaud that, too, especially when they come around to supporting the pro-life position.

However, it helps neither Romney's current campaign, nor his attempts to build rapport with pro-life groups to muddy the waters about what was done in the past, while he was governor of Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in the union.

He demonstrated he was a political survivor during his tenure. He continues to show that same trait.

Speaking up honestly about his past actions concerning abortion while heading Massachusetts would be a further sign that he's comfortable with, not only his past actions, but his future ones too.

In a tight contest, things like honestly stating what you believe and what you did in the past can be big pluses with the voters.

Abortion is a subjec fraught with pitfalls. But pro-life voter confidence isn't served by Mitt Romney obscuring what actions he took in the past.

It's too easy to check the facts.

by Mondoreb
[image:2004dnc]
Source: Mitt Romney Fact Check on Preserving the Sanctity of Life



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Rhode Island Lesbians: Marriage Without Parole

Now that gay couples are getting married, at least in some states, they're learning the awful truth about the state of matrimony. If you're gonna take that trip to the altar you might want to make sure there's a Fire Exit.

Two lesbians in Rhode Island learned this the hard way. When Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers' three year marriage hit the skids the two tried to file for a divorce in their home state of Rhode Island. One problem, the state has no provisions for gay couple civil unions much less divorces.

Ormiston and Chambers were married in Massachusetts which recognizes civil unions between gay couples.

Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, restricts the unions to residents of states where the marriage would be recognized, and a Massachusetts judge decided last year that Rhode Island is one of those states.

Rhode Island only recognizes civil unions between a man and woman.

Ms. Ormiston, or Mrs. Chambers, we're not sure, was not happy.

"My civil rights, my human rights have been denied," Ormiston said in a phone interview after the ruling. "It's no small matter."

Is Rhode Island's lack of divorce statutes for gay couples a violation of Ms. Ormiston/Mrs. Chambers human rights?

Why would Rhode Island have divorce statutes for gay marriages if the civil unions are not yet on the books?

Unless either of the lesbians relocates to Massachusetts or the unhappy couple patches up their marriage they'll be forced to deal with the old adage, ball and chain.

Source - Yahoo News

By LBG
Image [ WomenDoingTime.com]



Back to Front Page.