OH WHERE OH WHERE DID OUR ACLU-MD GO; OH WHERE OH WHERE CAN IT BE?!



THIS IS THE NATIONAL ACLU FINALLY BEGINNING A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT.  MOST OF THE SUBPRIME MORTGAGE FRAUD WAS TARGETED AT BLACK HOMEOWNERS, BUT AS THE FRENZY GAINED TRACTION ALL LOW-INCOME PEOPLE....SENIORS, WORKING-CLASS WERE CAPTURED IN THE NET.  REFINANCING/HOME EQUITY LOANS WERE TAKEN BY MOST FOR NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS AND THE PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY WOULD HAVE YEARS TO REPAY....THEY DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS MASSIVE FRAUD AND A HUGE COLLAPSE AROUND THE CORNER.....MOST ARE NOT IRRESPONSIBLE.  I SENT THIS TO ACLU-MD TO ASK WHEN THEY WOULD START THEIR LAW SUITS

Monday, October 15, 2012 7:36 PM


Learn more about the ACLU's groundbreaking lawsuit challenging Wall Street's racially discriminatory practices.

Dear Cindy, "I don't like to say that I am losing my home, instead I tell my family that I'm fighting for my home."

Those are the words of the ACLU's client Rubbie McCoy, a Detroit homeowner who has been victimized by predatory lending practices driven by the voracious appetite of Wall Street for high-risk mortgages.

Today, the ACLU went to court to help Rubbie McCoy and other Detroit area homeowners fight for justice. We're suing Morgan Stanley, the Wall Street investment firm, for discriminating against black homeowners and violating federal civil rights laws by providing strong incentives to a subprime lender to originate mortgages that were likely to be foreclosed on.

Watch our video to learn more about Rubbie's battle to keep her home and our groundbreaking lawsuit challenging Wall Street's racially discriminatory practices.

It is the first lawsuit linking Wall Street firms bundling of unjustifiable high-risk mortgages to racial discrimination. And it is the first in which affected homeowners are directly suing an investment bank rather than the subprime lenders who preyed on communities in order to feed Wall Street's thirst for risky mortgages.

With this lawsuit, real victims of the subprime lending scandal are stepping forward to hold investment banks like Morgan Stanley accountable for the devastation the banks wrought in their lives and in our economy.

Illegal practices surrounding mortgage-backed securities robbed people of their homes, violated our civil rights laws and left all Americans holding the bag as our economy teetered on the brink of another Great Depression.

Let's make it clear that we won't tolerate — and the law won't allow — reckless, discriminatory lending that preys on people who are particularly vulnerable to economic ruin.

Watch the video and learn more about our case now.

Our clients in this lawsuit — and millions of homeowners like them across America — have been through so much pain and turmoil. But, they're still fighting — and the ACLU is fighting right alongside them.



Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director, ACLU



__________________________________________________
Urge President Obama to Ban Retaliation in Federal Contracting 

Do you know that you can be fired for disclosing your own wages to a co-worker?

Did you know that almost 50 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, women still, on average, make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man? The figures are even more dismal for women of color in 2010, African-American women only earned approximately 62 cents and Latinas only 54 cents for each dollar earned by a white man.

However, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, nearly half of all workers are either forbidden or strongly discouraged from discussing their pay with colleagues. Pay secrecy means that there is no way for many women to even know they are being paid less than their male co-workers.

In fact, they can be fired for trying to do something about it. Read more.

Allowing workers to discuss their salaries without fear of losing their jobs will help women to know whether or not they are being treated equally. Federal protections are needed to prohibit retaliation against workers who ask about their employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages.

Fortunately, there is a step President Obama can take to help.

For over 70 years, president after president, of both parties, have used the power of executive orders to protect employers who work in companies that contract with the federal government. There are approximately 26 million workers employed by federal contractors, which is nearly 22 percent of the civilian workforce. Because these companies receive federal funds, presidents have used executive orders to protect their employees from discrimination on the job and to expand other workplace rights. These steps have often led the way for expanded protections for all workers.

Urge President Obama ban retaliation in federal contracting for wage inquires.



Message * Subject: Dear President Obama,

You have been an extraordinary leader on issues surrounding fair pay, including signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act as your first bill in office. We thank you for your leadership, but there is more that still needs to be done.

* Personalize your message
 
Almost 50 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, women still, on average, make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. And the figures are even more dismal for women of color. But in many workplaces, employees can be fired for just asking about their wages. Your issuing an executive order protecting persons employed by federal contractors against retaliation for disclosing or asking about their wages would have the critical effect of banning retribution against employees for trying to determine if they are being paid fairly this is only right in workplaces receiving federal dollars. While federal legislation is still needed to protect employees in all workplaces, this is an important first step that you can take that will reach over 20 percent of the civilian workforce. Overwhelming majorities of Americans support federal policies that give women more tools to get fair pay in the workplace, including majorities of self-identified Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Signing an executive order allowing workers in federally funded workplaces to discuss their salaries without fear of losing their jobs, will give women an important tool to help determine whether or not they are being treated equally.

Now is the time to ensure that federal contractors receiving federal funds do not penalize workers for trying to determine their worth. I thank you for all of your important work for pay equity and urge you to sign an executive order to prevent federal contractors from retaliating against workers who are trying to assess if they are paid fairly in the workplace.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]

_____________________________________________________________________________

How Big a Deal is H.R. 347, That “Criminalizing Protest” Bill?

By Gabe Rottman, Washington Legislative Office at 11:56am Recent days have seen significant concern about an unassuming bill with an unassuming name: the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." The bill, H.R. 347, has been variously described as making the First Amendment illegal or criminalizing the Occupy protests.

The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.

It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.

These restricted areas include locations where individuals under Secret Service protection are temporarily located, and certain large special events like a presidential inauguration. They can also include large public events like the Super Bowl and the presidential nominating conventions (troublingly, the Department of Homeland Security has significant discretion in designating what qualifies as one of these special events).

The original statute, unchanged by H.R. 347,made certain conduct with respect to these restricted areas a crime, including simple trespass, actions in or near the restricted area that would "disrupt the orderly conduct of Government," and blocking the entrance or exit to the restricted area.

H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU. We will monitor the implementation of H.R. 347 for any abuse or misuse.

Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on how this law will be interpreted and used by law enforcement — especially in light of the coming elections.

UPDATE: The headline has been changed to provide some description of the bill.

 
_________________________________________________________________________________


Surveillance & Privacy

In the wake of 9/11, mass surveillance has become one of the U.S. government’s principal strategies for protecting national security. Over the past decade, the government has asserted sweeping power to conduct dragnet collection and analysis of innocent Americans’ telephone calls and e-mails, web browsing records, financial records, credit reports, and library records. The government has also asserted expansive authority to monitor Americans’ peaceful political and religious activities. 

But this government surveillance activity is not directed solely at suspected terrorists and criminals. It is directed at all of us. Increasingly, the government is engaged in warrantless surveillance that vacuums up sensitive information about innocent people. And this surveillance takes place in secret, with little or no oversight by the courts, by Congress, or by the public.

Using their power to collect massive amounts of private communications and data, agencies like the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) apply computer programs to draw links and make predictions about people’s behavior. Tracking people two, three, four steps removed from the original surveillance target, they build “communities of interest” and construct maps of our associations and activities.

With this sensitive data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people. The data sits indefinitely in government databases, and the names of many innocent Americans end up on bloated and inaccurate watch lists that affect whether we can fly on commercial airlines, whether we can renew our passports, whether we are called aside for “secondary screening” at airports and borders, and even whether we can open bank accounts.

Dragnet surveillance undermines the right to privacy and the freedoms of speech, association, and religion.

Additional Resources:
Spy Files: Today the government is spying on Americans in ways the founders of our country never could have imagined. The FBI, the intelligence agencies, the military, state and local police, private companies, and even firemen and emergency medical technicians are gathering incredible amounts of detailed information about us.

Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act: Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): On July 10, 2008 President Bush signed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA). Until Congress enacted the FAA, FISA generally prohibited the government from conducting electronic surveillance without first obtaining an individualized order from the FISA court. The new law gives the court established by FISA an extremely limited role in overseeing the government’s surveillance activities.

Blog of Rights Related Posts See All» Trending Topics Government Surveillance Occupy Movement Online Privacy Social Networking Privacy Consumer Online Privacy Freedom of Expression Twitter Protestors' Rights H.R. 347 Facebook See All»

Related Issues Features See All» Take Action Protect Your Privacy Tell your Representative today to reject legislation that will make it easier for internet companies to share your personal information with military spy agencies. Act Now»