- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons
Posted on 10/15/14 at 12:55 pm to Vegas Bengal
Posted on 10/15/14 at 12:55 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Let me repeat for the slow learners.... parties to a lawsuit subpoena records from non-parties every hour of every day somewhere in this country. And non-parties move to quash those subpoenas. If the Court doesn't quash them, then you can get your jimmies rustled. But as of at least the OP's link, nothing has happened. If you're a lawyer and you're not trying to discover as much as you can in a lawsuit, then you're not doing your job.
If you're a lawyer, isn't your prevailing guidance to represent your client's best interest?
I don't think anyone is disputing how often this occurs in the world of plaintiffs v defendants. GTFO with that nonsense. The well placed outrage is on the terrible chess move when one of the parties is "Big Government" and the other is church pastors.
How exactly did these geniuses think this was going to play out in the court of public opinion? Was whatever they hoped to be gained from this discovery worth the cost of public outrage?
Who the frick is making these chess moves, Wendy Davis' campaign manager?
0
Posted on 10/15/14 at 12:56 pm to FalseProphet
quote:No, but this subpoena does. Did you read the article? Jesus.
Subpoenas violate the first amendment? I
Posted on 10/15/14 at 12:56 pm to the808bass
Jesus. That's what judges are for. How do you know the subpoena is wrong until someone rules? Just because you say so?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 12:58 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
You're equating a subpoena to internment? And you say this?
Following the logic of "well a judge can prevent it, so don't get upset" I don't see how YOU distinguish the two. So is the rule, if there is a remedy, don't worry about it UNLESS its some horrific abuse?
Tell me, what is the line where I can stop caring about actions because there is a remedy?
If the role was reversed and conservative mayor subpoenaed a bunch of liberal groups for a wide range of their records just because they opposed some of his policies; you would be cool with it, right?
Please
quote:
Ah so assuming you're correct, and you haven't been yet, it's ok for the churches to get involved in politics? Because you know, legally, they can't.
And that is the concern of the city of Houston, how? Any politically inappropriate action of churches belongs to the IRS to investigate...and I am sure there will be no bias there whatsoever.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 12:58 pm to FalseProphet
quote:Citizens sued
How do you know the subpoena is wrong until someone rules?
In response, Churches sermons were subpoenaed.
Those pastors are not on the lawsuit.
It is an obvious suppression tactic aimed at religious beliefs. Regardless of what happens next
How can you not see that?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 12:59 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Ah so assuming you're correct, and you haven't been yet, it's ok for the churches to get involved in politics? Because you know, legally, they can't.
They can't endorse a party or candidate. However, they can advise their people on biblical content and what to look for in a candidate.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:00 pm to genro
I don't give a shite about public opinion or message board opinions. It's Rule 45 or its state equivalent.
How can you not see that it's perfectly legal to issue the subpoena.
How can you not see that it's perfectly legal to issue the subpoena.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:01 pm to Tim
I found a little more color. So the suit is based in a citizen challenge to the ordinance. The religious groups gathered sigs to force a public vote. The city attorney DQ'd a bunch of the sigs causing the petition to fail...then the activists file a lawsuit over the signatures/petition. Feldman the city attorney has provided the following:
So the subpoena is going to the validity of the sigs? That being said they definitely could have approached this in a different way. I think the subpoena gets quashed or severely narrowed in scope.
quote:
Feldman is defending the subpoenas by pointing out a training video by a member of a local pastor council explaining the rules for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative. This illustrates that these folks were politically involved and therefore the speech was not protected, according to Feldman.
So the subpoena is going to the validity of the sigs? That being said they definitely could have approached this in a different way. I think the subpoena gets quashed or severely narrowed in scope.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:01 pm to FalseProphet
Because they issued the subpoena to a totally irrelevant party because of religious beliefs. Religious leaders are in the process of being summoned for their religious beliefs AND FOR NO OTHER REASON
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:02 pm to genro
quote:
AND FOR NO OTHER REASON
Looks like you are wrong. According to cwill, they were hosting gatherings to tell people how to collect signatures.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:05 pm to FalseProphet
Cwill redacted some things after actually, you know, reading the article 
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:06 pm to genro
He just posted it, and his post isn't edited.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:07 pm to genro
quote:
Because they issued the subpoena to a totally irrelevant party because of religious beliefs. Religious leaders are in the process of being summoned for their religious beliefs AND FOR NO OTHER REASON
Have you seen the City's response to the Motion? If not, you're making shite up.
I highly doubt their response is:
quote:
Defendants, through undersigned counsel, aver religious leaders are in the process of being summoned for their religious beliefs AND FOR NO OTHER REASON.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:07 pm to genro
I didn't redact anything, I admitted that I had missed the part where they weren't parties - redact/retract, learn the difference.
But as I recently posted above, the city has provided the basis which when considering the subject of the lawsuit, a subpoena of these third parties isn't outrageous. But I do believe how it was styled was stupid.
But as I recently posted above, the city has provided the basis which when considering the subject of the lawsuit, a subpoena of these third parties isn't outrageous. But I do believe how it was styled was stupid.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:09 pm to cwill
quote:
Feldman is defending the subpoenas by pointing out a training video by a member of a local pastor council explaining the rules for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative. This illustrates that these folks were politically involved and therefore the speech was not protected, according to Feldman.
Still no sale.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:10 pm to cwill
Please link your source. Post-outrage crawfishing doesn't impress me much.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:10 pm to the808bass
quote:
Still no sale.
Based on personal opinion or established legal precedent?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:11 pm to cwill
quote:
Feldman is defending the subpoenas by pointing out a training video by a member of a local pastor council explaining the rules for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative. This illustrates that these folks were politically involved and therefore the speech was not protected, according to Feldman.
ah ha! So there it is.
Here's the remedy... have the judge do an in camera inspection of all documents being subpoenaed. Those that fit the purpose and are not protected, are turned over. Those that do not, are not.
Problem solved.
American Justice System wins again.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:11 pm to genro
quote:
Please link your source. Post-outrage crawfishing doesn't impress me much.
Your assertion that subpoenas for production of documents violate the First Amendment and that the city is only trying to persecute religious officials is much less impressive.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:12 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Looks like you are wrong. According to cwill, they were hosting gatherings to tell people how to collect signatures.
I also read the Chronicle article with the following quote:
quote:
Feldman is defending the subpoenas by pointing out a training video by a member of a local pastor council explaining the rules for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative. This illustrates that these folks were politically involved and therefore the speech was not protected, according to Feldman.
So this is helpful to the suit how? In trying to support that the signatures were fraudulent, they want evidence that the churches went over the rules with their members?
This is clearly political bullying. Shame on y'all for not just calling it out for what it is, instead of hiding behind "well, it's legal so it's cool!" or "well they can get a remedy so no harm no foul!"
Page 13 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News