Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 18:45:19 -1000 From: Martin Rice Subject: MAN QUESTIONS MICHIGAN AG--FOLLOW-UP Aloha auwinala kakou. Spoke with Dorothy Sellers from the Hawai Attorney General's office who will be heading the Appeal effort regarding Judge Chang's decision in Baehr v. Miike. I was transferred to her after speaking with three different people. Ms. Sellers was unable to take the call initially, but did return it in a matter of two hours. I asked her specificly about three topics: 1) How the State of Nebraska, and eventually 10 other states, came to post an amicus brief? Ms. Sellers responded, that in these circumstance, where significant public policy debates are happening in state courts, it is not uncommon for a particular state AG's office to appeal to the National Association of State Attorney Generals for assistance, although she could not/would not confirm or deny that that actually happened. She stated that she was unaware of a specific call or letter requesting help from the various State AG's originating from the Hawai AG's office. 2) I asked her if attorney Charles Cooper had initiated the call to the various states, to which she said that she would be very surprised if he had. Again, a purposefully vague and indirect response. 3) I asked her if there was anyway to find out who initiated the request that led to the eleven mainland states entering an amicus brief, and she stated that she believe it would not fall under information that was available to the public domaine, as it was probably a private request. This can be construed in three ways. She is either unready for the task, unfamiliar with the details of the appeal, or she is being evasive. She did ask me if I was an interested party or not, to which I replied "No" as I am not part of a legal team or a plaintiff, etc. She also stated that she was new to the case, having replaced Richard Eichor, who resigned recently. I don't know where to go from here. Any suggestions? One thing, however, does cross my mind. Since this is basically a civil rights case, in that Loving v. Virginia establishes that marriage is a right, and that there are approximately 240 Hawai state benefits and 110 federal benefits that go along with obtaining a marriage license, could the Attorney Generals of Alabama, California, Colorado, Hawai , Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina and South Dakota be called to task for Conspiracy to deny a class of citizens their equal rights? A hui hou, Martin And this from a reader . . . . Question? Is one potential line of attack to pursue state agencies and watch dog groups concerned with issues of taxation without representation? Can this be spun in a way that will bring the - What is your state AG doing with tax payer resources - angle on it? It's essential that the public be made aware that state officials are using tax payer moneys to promote personal political agendas rather then pursuing criminals or performing their actual duties. - Thank You, One more quick idea - Mike Krause's letter contains a number of procedural ideas. Maybe it would be effective to list them in a kind of - How to list form - i.e. 1) Call your state AG office - ask .... , If the response is ... then you can insist on .... 2) Call .... Does anyone think their may be a state AG office out there willing to take a positive stand - or one willing to denounce the 'friend of the court' actions taken by other states as inappropriate? Thank You. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I personally do not intend to stay in a politics dominated by smearing and mudslinging--a politics which has all too often been characteristic of recent years in this country." --Newt Gingrich, 1983 ~~~~~ Fred and Martin 24 years, yet strangers before the law ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~