Lawsuit Reform must be Addressed Now


Mary_Fallin_official_110th_Congress_photo sm

I live in Oklahoma. Under former Governor Brad Henry (D) a bipartisan effort was successful to reform the State Law pertaining to frivolous. A State Judge has recently ruled that law unconstitutional. Governor Mary Fallin (R) vehemently disagreed with the State Court’s ruling. She is taking steps to rectify Oklahoma Court reversal by calling State legislators to address the State Court’s ruling by addressing each ruling individually thus reinstating Civil Suit reform.

 

JRH 9/8/13

Please Support NCCR

******************************

Lawsuit Reform must be Addressed Now

 

By Governor Mary Fallin

Sent: 9/5/2013 1:23 PM

 

Beginning this week, I have asked legislators to return to the state Capitol to address an issue of great importance to the state, our medical community and our prospects for economic growth and job creation. That issue is lawsuit reform.

My goal during this special session is to work with lawmakers, as quickly and efficiently as possible, to restore the protections against frivolous lawsuits that have served small businesses and doctors well for the past four years.

To understand the urgency of the situation and the need for immediate action, it is important to remember the recent history of this issue.

Before 2009, Oklahoma faced a legal climate hostile to businesses and ripe with frivolous lawsuits. These lawsuits were particularly damaging to doctors and medical professionals, who were frequent targets of medical malpractice claims.

The results were predictable. Businesses were afraid to invest in a state where they were likely to spend vast sums to protect themselves in court. Oklahoma lost good doctors to neighboring states with stronger legal protections. Lawsuits also helped to drive up the cost of medical treatment, hurting Oklahoma families.

 

Gov Mary Fallin Special Session of State Congress

 

To fix this problem, Democratic Gov. Brad Henry worked with Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature to pass comprehensive lawsuit reform. The law they passed made it easier for judges to dismiss lawsuits without merit and made a variety of reforms meant to deliver a fairer system. It allowed those with legitimate grievances to seek compensation through the courts, without encouraging frivolous claims or unfairly punishing businesses and doctors.

The reforms worked. In the two years after enacting the new laws, the number of malpractice payments declined by 39 percent, reaching an all-time low.

As a result, small business owners and doctors saw greater stability and fairness in our legal system, giving them more confidence to invest and stay in Oklahoma. These reforms were part of a winning formula that has given us one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation.

Unfortunately, these laws are now under attack. Earlier this year, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the reform package unconstitutional, citing the “single subject” rule. Essentially, the court said each provision of the law needs to be passed in a separate bill rather than one large all-encompassing measure.

I disagree with that ruling, but at this time, the best thing to do is follow the court’s lead. To do that, our Legislature must reinstate Oklahoma’s lawsuit reform measures by passing a series of smaller, “single subject” bills that address the court’s concerns.

Some have suggested that we simply wait until next year to address this issue. If we do that, the likelihood is that lawsuit reform will not be reinstated until August of 2014, perhaps even November. While we wait, Oklahoma will move backward. Inaction means opening our doctors and businesses to lawsuits that could drive jobs out of state or drive up the cost of medical care.

I will not watch Oklahoma regress or stand by while we lose jobs. Lawsuit reform is too important for our economy, our small businesses and our medical community to wait until next year.

The time to act is now.
_______________________

(This opinion editorial was authored by Governor Mary Fallin and appeared in the September 4, 2013 edition of the Tulsa World.)

 

Paid for by Fallin for Governor 2014

Oklahoma Prepared for SQ755 Unconstitutional Judicial Ruling


Flag Waving - ALAC

John R. Houk

© August 22, 2013

 

Federal Court Judge suspended Oklahoma’s SQ755 which was approved overwhelmingly to prevent Sharia Law from being recognized as any kind of law of the land in the State. U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange officially ruled SQ755 unconstitutional (This source link is a tongue-in-cheek article about separation of Mosque and State) on August 15, 2013.

 

Why?

 

Because organization like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have pretended (You can read about CAIR skullduggery at the watchdog website Anti-CAIR) to be a moderate Muslim organization and vehemently have protested that Islam’s First Amendment Rights of Religious Liberty was being singled out by a government legislature. Indeed an understanding as presented by a CAIR-like organization would be correct since the First Amendment specifies that Congress shall make no law establishing or curbing the actions of a religion.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold Emphasis Mine1st Amendment)

 

Unfortunately for CAIR-like organizations the Oklahoma Congress thought ahead of the Judge’s ruling and joined a growing number States using the template of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). ALAC goes around the religious standard that Radical Muslim groups in the USA have been decrying by focusing on one principle; i.e. the State Congresses or legislatures have centered their law that foreign laws may not be used as a precedent in American Courts. Guess what Sharia Law is? Sharia and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible in execution hence the foreign nature of Sharia as used in Muslim nations CANNOT be used as a legal precedent in State Courts. And keep in mind some State Courts have ruled according to the stipulations of Islamic Sharia when it comes to civil matters and marriage. That will not happen in Oklahoma where I reside. 

 

Oklahoma has passed their version of an ALAC that a huge majority in both Houses of the State legislature approved of and then promptly signed by Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin.

 

The bill signed into law by Governor Fallin passed the House of Representatives by an 85-7 margin and in the Senate by a 40-3 margin. (American Law for American Courts Enacted in Oklahoma Moves Ahead in Florida; By Jerry Gordon; WatchDogWire.com; 4/20/13 – Read the Whole Article)

 

From an article by Rebekah Maxwell (link above) Sharia is messed up when compared to American Law:

 

In her book, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, former Muslim Nonie Darwish outlines the incongruities of Sharia law and American law, including:

 

1.     Death penalties for anyone leaving Islam

 

2.    Death penalties for adultery

 

3.    Death penalties for homosexuality

 

4.    Special taxes imposed on non-Muslims

 

5.    Institutionalized inequality; Muslims are respected over non-Muslims, as are men over women, the wealthy over the working class.

 

6.    Allowance for slavery

 

7.    Allowance for polygamy

 

8.    No minimum age for marriage

 

9.    Harsh penalties, like flogging, dismemberment, and beheading, for speaking against Islam and specifically Mohammed.

 

And just for the ladies,

 

1.     Your testimony is only worth half that of a man’s

 

2.    It’s not rape without four male witnesses. Otherwise it’s adultery. See #2 above.

 

3.    High burdens of proof for divorce (while husbands merely have to speak a phrase)

 

4.    Forced marriages

 

5.    No protection against domestic violence

 

6.    Losing custody of your children if you remarry

 

7.    Strict clothing/modesty laws…you can be imprisoned for forgoing a veil or showing your ankles

 

 

According to the email from American Public Policy Alliance Governor Fallin signed the bill into law on April 22, 2013. So take that Muslim Brotherhood loving and Radical Muslim CAIR and U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange. OK-LA-H-O-M-A is not bowing to foreign laws including Sharia if they contradict the State and Federal Constitution.

 

JRH 8/22/13

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Oklahoma: American Laws for American Courts protects constitutional rights against foreign laws

 

By Stephen Gele

Sent: August 19, 2013 2:28 PM

Sent From: American Public Policy Alliance

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For more information contact:

Stephen M. Gelé, American Public Policy Alliance

admin@publicpolicyalliance.org

(800)968-4211

 

Oklahoma: American Laws for American Courts protects constitutional rights against foreign laws

 

On Thursday, 15 August, US District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange struck down an Oklahoma state constitutional amendment (known as SQ755) that forbade Oklahoma’s courts from considering Islamic law (Shariah) in judicial decisions.

 

SQ755 had overwhelmingly passed a vote of the people in Oklahoma in November 2010.

 

This decision was not a surprise and echoed an earlier ruling by the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2010. As detailed in this article, SQ755 contained several flaws which rendered it counterproductive:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/american_laws_for_american_courts.html

 

Fortunately, there is an effective and constitutional alternative to measures such as SQ755 and Oklahoma joined a host of other states this spring in passing it into law. That law is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).

 

Authored by Representative Sally Kern and Senator Gary Stanislawski of Oklahoma, ALAC passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives 85-7 and the Oklahoma Senate 40-3. The bill was signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin on 22 April, 2013.

 

Versions of ALAC have now been signed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, and Oklahoma. A version of ALAC passed the Alabama legislature overwhelmingly as a constitutional amendment and goes to a vote of the people on the ballot in the next statewide election. A version of ALAC also passed both houses of the Missouri legislature but was vetoed by the governor; an override session is scheduled for September. Most recently, a version of ALAC passed the North Carolina Senate and House by a wide, bi-partisan margin and is awaiting the governor’s signature there.

 

ALAC remedies the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, and in many ways takes a diametrically opposite approach to SQ 755:

 

• ALAC is facially neutral.  In an honest debate, it cannot be accused of discriminating against any religion or protected class.

 

• ALAC is based on a completely different legal premise from SQ 755’s. Rather than seeking a ban on foreign or international law, ALAC seeks to preserve the constitutional rights and state public policy protections of American citizens and legal residents, in cases involving foreign laws in the particular dispute being adjudicated.  If a case arises in which a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine is involved in a dispute in a state court, ALAC prevents the use of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process.  This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws.

 

• ALAC is not vague.  It provides specific guidance for judges on complex legal issues involving comity, choice of law, choice of forum, conflict of laws and forum non conveniens, protecting fundamental constitutional rights.

 

Because of the careful planning and thought behind ALAC’s wording, in contrast to SQ 755, from a practical standpoint, it is effective in preventing the enforcement of any foreign law — including in many cases, shariah law — that would violate U.S. and state constitutional liberties or state public policy.

 

And the need for an effective law preserving constitutional rights against the enforcement of unconstitutional foreign law is both real and urgent: an independent study conducted by the Center for Security Policy found fifty cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including many appellate and trial court cases where the judges ruled for shariah law over U.S. law.  Most victims of foreign laws in these cases had come to America for freedom and individual liberty – including American Muslims seeking to escape shariah laws.

________________________

Oklahoma Prepared for SQ755 Unconstitutional Judicial Ruling

John R. Houk

© August 22, 2013

_______________________

Oklahoma: American Laws for American Courts protects constitutional rights against foreign laws

 

The American Public Policy Alliance (APPA), a non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to government transparency, government accountability and the constitutionality of U.S. and state laws and policies, is working with legislators nationwide on policies and initiatives. Along with allied organizations, APPA is working to defend free speech, preserve and promote human rights, maintain the strength of our U.S. and state constitutions, and aid and promote public safety.

 

One of the greatest threats to American values and liberties today comes from foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines which have been influencing our legal system at the municipal, state and federal levels. This phenomenon is known as “transnationalism” and includes the increasingly frequent appearance of Islamic Shariah law. APPA focuses largely on combating this process across a broad variety of issues.


For more information visit
http://www.publicpolicyalliance.org