<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Well, yes, it lost them all except for the suit in 1996 from Phil Batt under which the Fed agreed to remove nuclear waste from Idaho (which was sort of a loss, since the Fed hasn't done what they agreed to do). It's all good. The fund has been used to pay big awards to the attorneys on the winning side, like Planned Parenthood. On one hand, the pols can crow to their supporters that they're standing up for the principles they were elected to defend; On the other hand, their supporters don't realize that the Constitutional Defense Fund is really funding their opponents, by losing and having to pay their attorneys' fees. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Here's the list of losses; <a href="http://www.dailyastorian.com/glance-cases-paid-from-idahos-constitutional-defense-fund-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest7eab5cd3ae714d6788e0d3e30ceda808">http://www.dailyastorian.com/glance-cases-paid-from-idahos-constitutional-defense-fund-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest7eab5cd3ae714d6788e0d3e30ceda808</a></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font size="2">Ron Force<br>Moscow Idaho USA</font></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Saundra Lund <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:v2020@ssl1.fastmail.fm" target="_blank">v2020@ssl1.fastmail.fm</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p><span style="color:#1f497d">More fiscal irresponsibility from Idaho’s GOP & TPers . . . I could be mistaken, but hasn’t Idaho been on the losing end of every Constitutional challenge its brought in the last two or three decades??? It’s a special kind of stupid to keep wasting taxpayer money this way.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Saundra Lund<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Moscow, ID<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1f497d">We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.</span></b><span style="color:#1f497d"> <br></span><span style="color:#1f497d">~ Immanuel Kant<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2015/dec/11/idaho-appeals-ag-gag-ruling-9th-circuit/" target="_blank">Idaho appeals 'ag-gag' ruling to 9th Circuit</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Betsy Z. Russell<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#777777;text-transform:uppercase;background:white">FRIDAY, DEC. 11, 2015, 2:33 P.M.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#777777;text-transform:uppercase;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:13.2pt;margin-left:.5in;line-height:20.55pt;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333">The state of Idaho has filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit of the U.S. District Court decision overturning the state’s “ag-gag law,” the law passed by the state Legislature making it a crime to surreptitiously videotape agricultural operations. Idaho lawmakers approved the law in 2014 after the state’s $2.5 billion dairy industry complained that videos of cows being abused at a southern Idaho dairy filmed in 2012 unfairly hurt their business. The Los Angeles-based animal rights group Mercy For Animals released the videos, which showed workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping and otherwise abusing cows in 2012.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:13.2pt;margin-left:.5in;line-height:20.55pt;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333">The court invalidated the law in August, holding that it violated First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was the first federal court ruling on an “ag-gag” law; eight states have passed them. Last week, the groups that filed the lawsuit, led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, filed a motion with the court asking that the state pay more than $250,000 to cover their attorney fees and costs.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:13.2pt;margin-left:.5in;line-height:20.55pt;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333">Todd Dvorak, spokesman for Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, said the office had no comment today on the notice of appeal, which was filed late yesterday.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:13.2pt;margin-left:.5in;line-height:20.55pt;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333">Ag groups including the Idaho Farm Bureau and Idaho Dairymen’s Association had been urging the state to appeal the ruling, according to the<span> </span><a href="http://www.capitalpress.com/Idaho" target="_blank"><span style="color:#006081">Capital Press</span></a>, an ag newspaper.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:13.2pt;margin-left:.5in;line-height:20.55pt;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333">In the August ruling, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill found that the law’s “primary purpose is to protect agricultural facility owners by, in effect, suppressing speech critical of animal-agriculture practices.” He ruled that evidence indicated the law was “intended to silence animal welfare activists, or other whistleblowers who seek to publish speech critical of the agricultural production industry.”<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div><br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br></div>