Mirror of Justice

From A Consumer To A Producer

July 18th, 2009 at 02:56am Under Consumer Law

FROM A CONSUMER TO A PRODUCER

A Better U.s. Constitution?

July 17th, 2009 at 08:56am Under Constitutional Law

If you’ve read it, you may have noticed that the U.S. Constitution, in designating how representatives were to be apportioned by population, excluded “untaxed” Indians, and counted each black slave as three fifths of a person. That’s in the first couple paragraphs, by the way. Fortunately it was changed when the 14th amendment was ratified.

Obviously the writers had the prejudices of the times they lived in. The lesson here is that we cannot create a perfect constitution that will stand the test of time. To think so is to think we have nothing to learn. Any document that is so important will need to be changed as we learn more and progress in our political and moral ideas.

Of course it could be dangerous to create an entirely new constitution, given the politics that would go into writing and ratifying it. Still, if we were to do so, what should it include? I can think of many changes that I would like to see, including an electoral process that is less based on geography and more on citizens political beliefs. In such a system, representatives would be elected not by districts but by voters across the country who share common political causes or goals.

But apart from the specific provisions throughout a new constitution, there is one important change that I would like to see right up front: A declaration of purpose and intent. The current document governing the United States is vague enough that there are many “gray” areas. The result is laws that may or may not be unconstitutional, based on differing interpretations. Differing interpretations are inevitable to some extent, but a clearer statement of purpose would resolve much of the confusion. An example follows.

A New Constitution – Preamble

“The government of the United States has only the powers specified in this constitution, and may not do anything which is not explicitly authorized by this document. The intent of this document is to protect the rights of individuals within the country, both citizens and all others, and that is the only valid purpose of government. When the United States government acts outside its borders, it must still act in accordance with this constitution, and refrain from violating the rights of individuals. This is in recognition that rights are not a gift of government, or an earned privilege, but are inherent in every human being.”

The idea here is to state plainly what the intent of the constitution is and what the proper purpose of the government is. This makes it much easier to determine when a law is allowable or unconstitutional. Combined with the clear enumeration of powers laid out in the rest of the document, there would be much less room for mis-interpretation than there currently is.

It also makes it clear that rights are not a matter of citizenship. Any and all who are within the jurisdiction of the government are to have their rights respected and protected. Also, the government cannot violate an individual’s rights just because that person is not within the borders of the country.

Finally, this preamble states that government power is limited. The current United States Constitution is supposed to do this as well, but is vague in many ways. A new constitution should state plainly what the government is allowed to do, and should require that all new laws specify the constitutional clause that authorizes them. This will prevent much of our useless legislation, and help prevent an abuse of power on the part of the government.

Here’S What You Need To Know About The New Tax Law

July 16th, 2009 at 04:09pm Under Education Law

One Nation Under Law

July 14th, 2009 at 10:11am Under Elder Law

Inconceivable, with Liturgy and justification for all.The story of my life starts with my awareness that nothing I saw made much sense. I just couldn’t see a happy ending. There was an observable pointlessness. Although at the age of eight or so I really wouldn’t have used words like this. The sense was that this world wasn’t going to end well. It wasn’t heading anywhere. That’s what it was in a nutshell. It was going nowhere.

One of the real sore spots was the rules. People kept telling me to do things. I kept asking why. They kept saying things like, “that’s what people do…” or the dreaded, “because I said so…”. Let’s just say that as far as I was concerned there was no good reason for me to follow any of these rules. The real reason that I was being asked, no commanded, to follow these rules was not really clear to the people giving the orders. They couldn’t tell me, because they didn’t know. When they did attempt to give me the reasons, as they understood them, I was always left with the same underlying feeling of, “sorry but that doesn’t add up to anything”. This was the beginning of my walk in society. My “knowing” that it would end badly. It had to. Because it’s not designed to go anywhere. It could only end in – nothing. Nothing has changed.

So I went on from confrontation to confrontation. Here’s a rule that I didn’t get: respect your elders. Look around for the origin of that. You’ll find that it comes out of indigenous settings where the ritual and stories are passed along from generation to generation by the elders of the community. The only relationship our forefathers had with the indigenous tribes was to kill them or corrupt them – for profit. They did it then, they are doing it today. Right now. In our society it means, coercion. It has nothing to do with anything else. It’s just the big older children (adults) trying to make the small people (kids) obey them, or leave them alone. Or so the “grown ups” be treated “like they want to be treated” without the inconvenience of deserving it. As far as I know this collective life of law started with the old testament bible. Someone came up with the “God Decree” and it’s just gotten increasingly stupid with each generation.

The culmination of this obsession with telling people what to do came when a branch of this insidious creation granted the corporation the rights of a person. Sometimes we have thoughts and feelings about things and don’t no where we got them. One of these would be our ideas about judges. Judges are just the upper echelon in the life of law. They aren’t necessarily wise or just. They don’t even have to be smart. With the passing of the law concerning the corporation it came to pass that you can hold a seat on the supreme court and be, not just dumb but, insane. Anyone in there right mind who was approached with this “corporate” idea would immediately, without hesitation, show the petitioner to the door. If you don’t you’re either an idiot or a crook. Who were these petitioners? That’s right, lawyers.

One of the big failings of law is that it doesn’t protect anyone from anything. It doesn’t insure a society of safety or sanity, peace or freedom. In fact, if one looks at the history of society and the history of law, I’d think it would be clear that it is a failed system. In the long run, it doesn’t help. That one rule of law concerning the corporation meant that a few goofballs could ruin the lives of millions. Including those whose lives it was written to enhance. The law was written to protect corporations from common sense. In fact the idea of law itself is the replacement of common sense. It has done this, one thing, to perfection. Not only is there a ever increasing lack of common decency and judgment but common sense has vanished completely. Sense has become compartmentalized. It’s no longer common. There is no sign of it anywhere. There are those who have good sense, it’s just not common to the society. The elders are gone. We are a nation whose only tradition is that we take possession of things under the system of law. If a law prohibits the acquisition then the law is changed or a law is written.

This one event, the corporate rights law, shows that, as a system, it’s flawed. There is no fixing a flawed system. The system is what you start with. Everything that follows are results. If you want different results you have to get a different system. There is no other way. If we wanted to make a good law it’s not all that tough. It could be written like this – Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you. Now this could never really be a law. It is to close to common sense. Also we would have to try and figure out a way to enforce it and then it would just start the whole process up again and in a few generations we be as balled up as we are now. Law doesn’t work for people ( unless you’re a corporation ). So what does? What is it we need to do? We need to do something and we need to do it now. We need to do it “commonly”. That means we need to do it as one. At once. Meaning as one movement at the same time. The first thing we must do is break the law. Not commit a singular criminal act. Break the tyranny of law. Revolt with a unanimous and resounding – No More. No more stupidity. No more greed. No more insanity. No more rulers and ruled. No more armies in sheep’s clothing. No more patrioticide. No more lies.

The reign of law must end. Either that or we just take every thing we hold dear and turn it in, now. We might as well get it over with. We either do it voluntarily or we do it when we’re told to – under the law – that will be written. We already live without freedom, safety, peace of mind, good health. The list is long. We don’t even have the right to ownership. If you don’t believe this stop paying the money that the law requires and see who really has ownership. Ownership will revert back to the cartel set up “Under the Law” to control every possession known to man. Even things “common sense” would never think of as a possession. Like life. Yes there are laws that made it possible for an insane person to get a patent on a life form. Common sense laughed at the idea. Law prevailed. The life we dreamed about is gone. It will never come back. The past is indeed lost to us. There is no way to reroute the ship. We have to board a different ship. We will have to come up with a new dream. A common dream that will re-establish our common sense. The re-emergence of common sense will overwhelm law. Common sense is not dead. Like all ideas it can’t die. It is in the dormant phase of the inactive idea. We can activate it and we should.

It’s a good idea. Unlike the idea of law.

Here’S What You Need To Know About The New Tax Law

July 13th, 2009 at 02:54pm Under Computer Law

All that you should know about Right To Information Act, 2005 of India

July 13th, 2009 at 06:20am Under Appeals and Writs

From Mr. R.S. Praveen Raj, http://secularcitizen.net/

Right to Information viz. RTI is a part of fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, which says that every citizen has freedom of speech and expression. The people cannot express themselves unless they know what’s happening in the systems that govern them. Every citizen, being the tax payee has the authority as the masters in a democratic system to know how the government bodies and public authorities, meant to serve them, are functioning.

But it is quite unfortunate that the Government authorities are still hesitant to part with the information under their control. It is in this context that the recently passed ‘Right to Information Act’ becomes very significant. Right to Information Act, 2005 is a public drafted legislation to set out a mechanism to avail information in the hands of Public authorities and Government Officials. It does not confer any new right, but simply lays down the procedures on how to apply for information under the control of public authorities, and how to avail it.

 The preamble of Right to Information Act, 2005 says – “Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed”. As sounded by its preamble, the Act envisages a corruption-free and transparent governance and polity. The Act covers not only the Executive, but the judiciary and the legislature also. It extends to the entire gamut of central, state and local government systems including those bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by government and also those Non-government organizations substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by government. Information relating to any private body that can be accessed by a public authority also comes under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005. 

The RTI Act defines “Information” as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, and data material held in any electronic form. It is interesting to learn that “Right to Information” also covers

Inspection of work, documents, records; taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records; and taking certified samples of material. It implies that any citizen can exercise his right to invigilate the transparency and accountability of governance or even insist that a particular civil work be performed in his presence. Any citizen can avail a copy of every bill settled from funds controlled by any of the public authorities and even the statement of accounts of every activity/project/event funded or organized by the Public Authority. Public authority is also obliged to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons, and publish all relevant facts while formulating important decisions affecting the public. Another interesting aspect of RTI Act is that there is “Penalty for forfeiture of information”.

Section 4(2) of the Act says that “it shall be the constant endeavor of every public authority to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including internet, so that the public shall have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information”. So the dream is the change of mindset from maintenance of Official Information in Secret to Maximum Voluntary disclosure of information.

            Having told the philosophy of Right to Information, it is imperative that the ways and means of availing the information shall be set. So the RTI Act directs that ‘

Every Public Authority shall designate as many Public Information Officers (PIO) in all the administrative units or Offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting information”. PIO is also required to help any person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. The Act further stipulates that “every public authority shall designate an Officer at each sub-divisional or other sub-district level as Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) to receive the applications for information or appeals under this RTI Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the respective PIO or 1st Appellate Authority or Information Commission. The Burden of proving that PIO/APIO has acted reasonably and diligently in discharge of his functions or obligations under RTI Act will be on the respective PIO/APIO.

            PIO may seek assistance of any other Officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties. Section 5(5) of RTI Act says that such Officer will be deemed as PIO for the purposes of providing the information requested. All the Burden including liability for Penalty on defiance of information will stand transferred to the Deemed PIO, if PIO transfers the request to such Officer with a note indicating the same

            The Request for information has to be submitted to PIO or APIO in writing or through electronic means in English, Hindi or Official language of the area with a nominal Fee of Rs. 10/-. (There is no fee for persons Below Poverty Line). PIO can demand additional sum of Rs. 2 for each page created or copied for giving it as information to the requestor or Rs. 50/- per diskette/floppy if the same is given in electronic form. Incase if Inspection of work is requested no fee is chargeable for the first hour, but Rs. 5/- each for every subsequent hours.

            The Act mandates that the PIO shall provide the requested information as expeditiously as possible, but in no way later than 30 days. However the public authorities can take 5 days more to part with the information sought, if such request is made through APIO. But in any case where the requested information involves the question of “life or liberty”, such information should be given within 48 hours.

Section 6(2) of RTI Act makes it clear that a person requesting information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details. However this freedom implies that the citizens shall show a greater sense of responsibility on the part of the use of information in the media and elsewhere. (Dissemination shall be in Public Interest.). In view of the national security, Intelligence and Security Organisations such as IB, RAW of Cabinet Secretariat, BSF, SPG, CISF, DRDO, Special Branch CID of Andaman & Nicobar, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Narcotics Control Bureau etc. have been exempted from stringent provisions of the RTI Act. But it is very interesting to note that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations are not exempt from disclosure even in the case of those organizations. That conveys the very intention of this Legislation.

            Now comes the real question – What is the remedy if the requested information is denied? RTI Act establishes an Independent and Non-judicial appellate mechanism in which a body called “Information Commission” (Central Information Commission and State information Commissions) has been set as the apex body. Further Section 23 of the Act asserts that ‘No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act’. But this provision cannot be interpreted as a complete bar on jurisdiction of courts, since the options of Writ petitions and Special Leave petitions always subsists. Information Commission also would entertain the complaints from any one who is aggrieved on account of any matter relating to obtaining information under this law including the cases where the public authority refused to accept the RTI Request.

            In order to give an opportunity for the ‘public authority’ to review its on decision as to the denial of Information requested from PIO, the Act requisitions that an Officer senior in rank to PIO be appointed as the First Appellate Authority, to whom the aggrieved citizen can appeal within thirty days of expiry of time limits within which he/she should have received the information requested. The First Appellate Authority (AA) shall ordinarily dispose of the appeal within thirty days or latest by the forty-fifth day with reasons for availing such prolonged period. An appeal to the respective Central or State Information Commission may be made within a period of 90 days from the date of decision of the Appellate Authority or from the date of expiry of time limit for the disposal of the first appeal made before the first Appellate Authority.

Information Commission may, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, impose upon PIO, a fine of Rs. 250 per day, up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/-, if he/she has without any reasonable ground: refused to accept an application for information; or delayed furnishing of information; or malafidely denied information; or knowingly given incomplete, incorrect, or misleading information; or destroyed information that has been requested; or obstructed furnishing of information in any manner. So the Act has teeth; it can not only bark but bite also. But of course the PIO will be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him

. The RTI Act extends its arm further to declare that if PIO persistently violates his obligations under RTI Act, Information Commission shall recommend for disciplinary action against such PIO under the service rules applicable to him.

            Though the Right to Information Act moots complete transparency in the governmental system, it is also equally important that the strategic information pertaining to the State and any personal information devoid of larger public interest be exempted from disclosure. Accordingly Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act bars the disclosure of the following information.

a)      Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

b)      Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

c)       Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;

d)      Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, (unless larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information); 

e)      Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, (unless the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information);

f)        Information received in confidence from foreign Government;

g)      Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

h)      Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

i)        Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. (However, after the decision is taken and the matter is complete or over, the decision, the reasons thereof and the material leading to the decision shall be made public);

j)       Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless larger public interest demands its disclosure

       Further, Section 9 of the Act insists that any information that i

nfringes the copyright of any person other than the State should not be disclosed. While Section 8 and Section 9 prevents the disclosure of the kind of information mentioned above, the Act maintains vide

 Section 10(1) that ‘access may be provided to that part of the record, which is not exempted from disclosure, and which can reasonably be severed from any part of that contains the ‘exempt information’

            You would also be delighted to learn about an important decision of the Full Bench of Central Information Commission (Decision dated 23rd April 2007), which declared that there is “No fiduciary relationship” in respect of “Evaluated Answer Sheets”, while maintaining accepting that there existed “Fiduciary Relationship” between a) Lawyer and Client; b) Doctor and Patient; c) Bank and Customer; d) Trustee and Beneficiary; e) Organisation and Reporting Officer in respect of CR of an Employee etc. Therefore the Information Commission directed that the answer sheets should ordinarily be disclosed in all circumstances, but subject to the scrutiny under S. 8 (1) and Section 9 of RTI Act. The Commission stated further that the evaluated answer sheets could be disclosed withholding the name of the Examiner, in view of the fact that the disclosure of identity of the examiners might pose a danger to the life and safety of the Examiner. The decision also implies that marks given by each of the Interview board members are givable without revealing their identity.

          So RTI Act, 2005 is the most pretty and powerful legislation that the democratic India gifted to its citizens. Its Supremacy is being reiterated in Section 22 of the Act, which states that ‘

The Provisions of RTI Act will be having the overriding effect on any contradicting provisions in Official Secret Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or any other instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act”

Let me add a few sagas of successful RTI ventures as an anecdote here. The first story is from a north Indian village. Mazloom Nadaf, a 70-year old rickshaw puller had no scope for his long-awaited dream until he found light in RTI. The story reads as follows – Nadaf did not get any response for the first five years on his application on Indira Awas Yojana – India’s National housing Scheme. Five years later, authorities demanded Rs. 5000/- from him to process the application. But he refused to give the money and, instead approached the legal aid centre of an NGO working in Madhubani district and sought their assistance in drafting and filing an RTI application. In his RTI request, Mazloom asked for the daily progress report made on his application to avail of the Indira Awas Yojana. The application was filed with the Circle Officer for his block who forwarded the same to the Block Development Officer (BDO). The BDO on receiving the RTI application called Mazloom and treated him like a VIP and with a lot of respect handed over a Cheque of Rs. 15,000 (first installment payment) under the Indira Awas Yojana. He was also promised that he would get the subsequent installments in time.

           Right to Information Act was also effectively used by residents of a village in Rajasthan’s Bikaner district to put an end to the practice of selling grains from ration shops in the black market. Mr. Revat Ram, Secretary, Jagruk Yuvak Manch of the areas was Instrumental in this achievement. Revat Ram and his friends used the RTI Act to get all records of their ration shop in Himmatsar village and exposed how grains meant for the poor were being black-marketed at a ration shop in Bikaner. After the move, the villagers got the dealer removed. Besides losing dealership, the ration shopkeeper was also forced to pay poor families in the village over Rupees Four Lakhs, the cash equivalent of the grains he had sold illegally.

“They threatened us and also offered money. But we refused, because we wanted to ensure that people in our village get the grains they deserve from the government. And we did not get scared in fighting for the rights of our people” – Says Mr. Revat

.

            The message of RTI Act is very clear – Uproot corruption and make the governmental system totally transparent and accountable to the people. So Government Employee is no longer a Government Servant. He/She has to transform to a Public Servant in Letter and Spirit.

            To End with, I wish to quote the father of our nation

-”The real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of capacity by all to resist authority when abused

“.

Is it that the Independent India needed 58 years to realize what Mahatmaji told? 

If Congress Shall Make Any Law?

July 13th, 2009 at 02:58am Under Constitutional Law

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is rocketing up the Obama Administration’s enemies list because she is asking questions no liberal wants asked and making points they certainly do not want made. Yes indeed she is. For while asking questions of Timothy, smartest man in the room, America cannot survive without him at Treasury, Geithner about past actions and current plans to allow the federal government more power to seize and manage the assets and contracts of businesses it deems, “too big to fail,” Ms. Bachmann no doubt caught the ear of Big Brother himself over in the White House. For you see, Ms. Bachmann did something that always catches the ears of liberals and lefty politicos busily scribbling words on to paper in order to secure themselves more and more power.What is this thing she did? Why, she cited the Constitution of these United States. And for yet another brief moment in a growing long line of brief moments it became clear once again that Timothy Geithner was indeed not the smartest man in the room.You could hear the uneasiness in Geithner’s voice as he was forced to attempt to answer an actual question of substance. You could also imagine at how at the same time as he was trolling for an answer in that vast, empty sea of a brain of his that he was making mental notes about who he would have to contact to make sure no such substantive questions would ever be raised again.Here is how it went down and how Geithner struggled:BACHMANN: “What provision in the Constitution could you point to … to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of ‘08?”GEITHNER: “Oh, well, the — the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities.”BACHMANN: “Sir, in the Constitution. What — what in the Constitution could you point to to — to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken?”GEITHNER: “Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is — is — has been using authority granted by this body — by this body, the Congress.”BACHMANN: “And by — in the Constitution, what could you point to?”GEITHNER: “Under the laws of the land, of course.”Note that not once did Mr. Geithner ever actually answer the simple question posed to him. When asked to cite the Constitutional authority for any of the actions taken by the Treasury since early last year he simply responded that Congress had given the Treasury certain powers and that they are “under the laws of the land.” But his response is a non-response. The smartest man in the room was flabbergasted and unable to answer a question that he knew that if he answered truthfully would doom all the current, past and future plans of he and his fellow travelers. Perhaps he should have borrowed President Obama’s teleprompter and had his remarks prepared for him by a speech writer.But let’s explore his non-answer answer further. Is citing Congress doing something good enough of an excuse? Is Congress’s power to make law absolute under the Constitution? Of course we all know that it is not. If it were then what powers would be reserved to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment exactly?Geithner’s response, had it been truthful, would have been that there was no such authority for the vast, vast, vast majority of what the Treasury has done in the last year. But to answer truthfully it would mean that he would have to admit that he and his fellow liberals, both Democratic Party socialists and Republican Party socialist-lites, had violated the Supreme Law of the Land. So truthful answers to these sorts of serious questions are never things you will get from the blowhards inside the beltway.We all know that just because Congress makes a law that the law is not de facto Constitutional. If it were, no law would ever be stricken as being unconstitutional. But since many laws have been it puts the lie to any notion that just because Congress decrees from on high that the order should be accepted and obeyed. We can even go very absurd to prove this point if you like. If Congress were to, for example, pass a bill that stated all people who have blond hair and blue eyes were inferior and not subject to the same rights as people with other combinations of hair and eye colors would it be a Constitutional law? Even if everyone accepted the law would it still be Constitutional? No.Now say that we do not have to worry about Congress being so absurd all you like. That is not the point. And besides we all know that many absurd laws have indeed come out of Congress. Add to that the fact that liberals throughout time and all over the world have espoused the same sort of social and economic philosophies and have indeed sought to treat people very differently based on how they looked . The point is that if Congress did make a law stating such it would not be Constitutional just because Congress made such a law.But Mr. Geithner and the liberals in charge of our government probably have little to fear from the American public recognizing this fact. Because they know that most Americans do not have a clue what our Constitution says and that they will not understand the importance of this exchange between Geithner and Congresswoman Bachmann. Instead they will carry on in blissful ignorance as the nation burns and President Obama fiddles.

Minnesota Coalition Of Civil Rights Organizations Oppose Rybak Budget Proposal Cutting Complaints Investigation Unit

July 11th, 2009 at 02:54am Under Civil Rights Law

Rybak is calling it a “transfer” but this proposal is to cut five full time minority attorney investigators, two contract minority attorney investigators and one supervisor, minority law school graduate of Thurgood Marshall Law School, who has been in the unit for over eight years.Protection of civil rights within the City of Minneapolis can be traced back to an executive order issued by Mayor Hubert M. Humphrey. In 1967 the Minneapolis Civil Rights Ordinance was passed. In 1974 the investigative powers were strengthened with subpoena power, less than 10 cities have this power with such power in the nation. In 1991 a new section was added to provide for Domestic Partner registration at City Clerk. “Cutting this unit is discarding decades of civil rights history and ignores the growing need to service Minneapolis’ increasingly diverse population,” said George Brandon, from the Council of Black Minnesotans. “We cannot stay quiet; citizens of Minneapolis must rally to have their voices heard by contacting the Mayor’s office and City Council Persons, because cutting this unit means that it will never come back.”For the first time in the department’s history, they have an all minority attorney staff doing this legal work and have closed 100% more cases in 2008 than in 2007. The Complaint Investigations Unit has seen a backlog of cases from its inception, which is a sign of the amount of discrimination complaints that make it through its doors. There are over 450 open and active cases and it is highly unlikely that the Minnesota State Department of Human Rights can absorb all of these cases as they face cuts also. Additionally, there are jurisdictional and time limits issues which may make transfer of these cases impossible. “I truly believe the Department’s role in investigating and adjudicating complaints affordsaccess to justice for people who otherwise feel they have none,” explains Amy Johnson, Executive Director of OutFront Minnesota who served as an attorney Civil Rights Commissioner. “Investigators can come and go but at the end of the day, it is the people of Minneapolis who will be disenfranchised and their voices will not be heard because Saint Paul is just not as accessible to citizens of Minneapolis like this department is,” said Toni Newborn, former President of the Black Law Students Association – William Mitchell College of Law chapter. The Ways and Means Committee Meeting is on March 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM and full City Council meeting is on March 6, 2009 at 9:30 AM. Civil Rights Coalition includes: Council on Black Minnesotans, Council on American-Islamic Relations – MN Chapter, Jewish Community Action, MN Dakota Conference NAACP, OutFront Minnesota, Urban League Minneapolis