Anatomy of a Shakedown

As the post title suggests, I intend to walk you through the process by which activist groups who are hostile to religion change the behavior of communities to conform to their worldview one city at a time, and make money doing it. On Tuesday, October 25th, the Brevard County (Florida) School Board issued a press release stating that it would no longer allow graduation ceremonies to take place in venues where a cross is visible. The vote of the school board was unanimous.

How did this happen? Why did Brevard County decide to stop using low-cost, spacious, air-conditioned and indoor venues that happen to be in churches, as they had in the past? It was a lawsuit, naturally. This time it was not the ACLU, but rather People United for the Separation of Church and State who brought the lawsuit. To explain to you how easy it was for that activist organization to get crosses (in their words "iconography") outlawed at graduation ceremonies in that county, and make money doing it, let me give you some background and walk you through the process.

It could be that the plaintiffs found the activist group, or it might be the other way around. Either way, the first thing is to identify any individual person who may be invited to attend an event at which a cross (iconography) is present, and who does not like the presence of the cross. It does not matter that a student graduating from high school is not forced to attend and is merely invited; the point is that no one should have to face having to decide between attending a voluntary event and seeing a cross, or staying away. I suggest that is an extraordinarily low threshold to find that such a situation constitutes a governmental establishment of religion, but I digress.

Once the disgruntled student/and/or/parent is identified, file a lawsuit. Don't worry about whether or not your plaintiffs would actually suffer harm, because it doesn't matter. No one will ever even ask you to present your evidence.

Next, (if you are the activist group) show up at an emergency hearing and ask a federal judge to stop the graduation ceremonies and declare them unconstitutional. Don't bring any witnesses or exhibits or evidence with you to the hearing. You won't need them.

After the friendly judge admonishes the school board's lawyers for "engaging in conduct that is questionable at best", enter the next phase of litigation and inform the county about your attorneys' fees. Since the school board, no doubt, is aware of 42 USC section 1988 of the federal code, they will unanimously vote to ban future graduation ceremonies in venues where crosses (iconography) are present, and also vote to pay you a bunch of money for having sued them.

That's how it works. You never hear of a Christian family suing their county because a cross is not present at a school event, but town-by-town and county-by-county, activist groups are getting judges to change plans, traditions, and behaviors so that others can dictate what can and cannot be visible at school events. And then they get paid for doing it.

Having outlined the process, let me give you a bit more background in this particular case. When the issue first came before a federal judge in May of 2005, I was interested, both because of the petition I'd written to take away the built-in incentive to file such lawsuits, and also because I myself (a long time ago) had graduated from a Brevard County school. My commencement ceremony took place in a Jai-Alai arena. That is, it took place in a gambling venue. The betting windows were visible and everything. No one sued.

Since I was interested, I attended the hearing in the gallery of the federal courthouse. Even though I am an attorney, it was an education in the astonishing ease at which the activist groups get favorable rulings in Establishment Clause cases. I wrote about it at the time as legal correspondent for Free Market News in an article called "Of Crosses and Air Conditioning", but unfortunately the archived link is no longer available. My initial reporting is available, however at the CourtZero message board. Here are some excerpts:

The primary attorney for the plaintiffs, working for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, appeared by telephone. Neither of the named plaintiffs were present, nor were the parents of the plaintiffs. No testimony was taken by the Court, and no items were entered into evidence. The entire hearing consisted of argument of lawyers and comments by the Judge.

What is interesting about watching the proceedings today firsthand is that the burden was immediately placed upon the defendant school board, once it was established that a building contained a cross. The judge essentially stated that it was the defendant, and not the plaintiffs (who appeared with no witnesses or evidence), who had the burden of proof, specifically saying that the school board had to “justify itself” for having scheduled an event in a building that had a cross in it...Judge Presnell said that “When you hold a school exercise in a church it is almost self-evident that you are violating the Establishment Clause, and are expressing a preference for a particular religion.”

That was pretty much the way it went. The People United attorney, over speaker phone, pointed out that there would be a cross at the place where the graduation ceremonies were to be held, and that was the end of the story. Except for this, after this week's vote of the school board:

Hope for good weather if you're graduating from a public high school in south Brevard County next spring.

Now that's funny. I wonder if the reporter didn't consider the irony of instead writing "Pray for good weather..." But here is the true heart of the matter:
According to the agreement, Narciso and David Musgrove, who respectively are current and former parents at Palm Bay High, agreed not to seek monetary damages.

In return [for dismissal of the case], the school board agreed to:

1. Not hold graduation ceremonies in churches or other institutions where religious iconography is visible inside or outside the building.

2. Pay $26,500 in attorney fees to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the Palm Bay families.

It's that easy. Do you need a quick $26,500? Sue your town. You won't need evidence or testimony, just a desire to change the behavior of thousands of people and a predisposition to being offended by "iconography".

Free book, free audiobook, free, free, free

One more time. If you want a good book about judicial activism, click here. Download the chapters, and yes, go ahead and upload them on P2P file sharing programs. Read, enjoy, and share.

I want you to.

Ideas on ending the oligarchy

On another blog I like to visit, a friend posted a quote from Thomas Jefferson and posed a question about term-limits for judges. Respectfully, I have to say that I don't necessarily think that term limits would solve the problems of a malfunctioning judiciary, but I do like the idea of having a debate about the idea.

I have some other ideas about how candidates for elected office should approach the courts in the next elections. Click here to see what I mean.

If you do, you will find one perspective on things that elected leaders and candidates can embrace as goals. Here is a summary:

1. Remove financial incentives to attack the Constitution (this goes hand-in-hand with our legendary petition found here.

2. Codify Judicial Review. This idea is the most complicated of the four points, but I am fascinated by the notion of actually setting rules for judicial review. Click here only if you are a card-carrying legal egghead.

3. Reform guardianship law. Yes, this is a response to the judicial failures in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case (and similar ones as well. Sun Hudson comes to mind, for one). I'm still passionate about the issue. In criminal law, the courts are held to a very high evidentiary and legal standard when imposing a sentence of death. Civil law needs to tighten up a bit on one judge's ability to decide that someone will die when the matter is disputed.

4. Display courage against rogue judges. Judges simply don't get impeached. It hardly ever happens. I'm not calling for mass impeachments, only for the courage to try when the facts warrant it.

So, what do you think?

Global Death Cult update: Chalotte Wyatt

Some of us posted about the case of Charlotte Wyatt in the UK some time ago. The latest is that the girl's medical condition is improving, and that some judges are thinking that their earlier decision not to treat her should a medical emergency arise might need to be revisited (although the article is very confusing, I think that is what happened):

Quote:

Darren and Debbie Wyatt, from Portsmouth, Hampshire, lost their bid to persuade three Court of Appeal judges to overturn the order in August. But the judges said the case should be reviewed as soon as possible in light of two-year-old Charlotte's progress. The case will go back to the High Court on Thursday.

Quote:

He added: "We entertain the hope that at the forthcoming review the judge will be able to approve an agreed treatment plan, but if he cannot, he will decide the issues before him applying the law relating to Charlotte's best interests, as he has found it to be."

I don't like judges deciding on treatment plans in the first place, but at least they are willing to at least acknowledge that the child has refused to die since their earlier order.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4333354.stm

More from another source:

Quote:

A high court judge today criticised the parents at the centre of the Charlotte Wyatt right-to-life case for behaviour which was "less than helpful". Lord Justice Wall said: "The strains on Charlotte's parents have been substantial, but it has to be said that their conduct in the past has been less than helpful. "Reporting the doctors in this case to the police achieves nothing. Everybody sympathises with the parents of a disabled child, but there are limits to that sympathy when parental conduct ceases to bear any relation to the child's welfare."

I have a hard time squaring these two statements from the same article:

Quote:

The Wyatts, who have been told by the hospital treating their daughter, who will be two on October 21, that she has made "remarkable progress", have spoken recently of their desire to take her home.

Quote:

Lord Justice Wall said: "We are entirely satisfied [that]...doctors and nurses...did not invoke the court's jurisdiction lightly, but did so because it thought it contrary to Charlotte's best interests to subject her to what it believed, and continues to believe, would be increased suffering for no commensurate benefit."

I guess actually getting better is not a "commensurate benefit".

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,8363,1590442,00.html?gusrc=rss

Miers nomination is not about Evangelicals vs. the rest of the GOP

I continue to read much of the punditry over the Miers nomination to SCOTUS. The talking points, or the accepted lines, seem to be gelling somewhat (like Magellan). I keep reading in influential blogs things that I can paraphrase thus:

Opposition to Miers among some Republicans is because of:

1. sexism
2. elitism
3. lack of trust in the President
4. distrust/dislike of evangelicals

--and--

Support of Miers among some Republicans is because of:

1. the rank-and-file GOPers support her
2. evangelicals want one of their own on the high court
3. trust of the President
4. Miers' record
5. trusted and accomplished evangelicals/conservatives like Jay Sekulow are enthusiastic over her

I can comment on both the for and against list, speaking only for myself, thusly:

I am not a woman, but couldn't care less about the sex of a justice. I admire and support some female judges, and some male judges. I don't understand the weird use of the word sexist coming from some on the right to describe others on the right who are great supporters and admirers of Rice, Owens, Thatcher, and many others.

I am a lawyer who did not graduate from an Ivy League university. While I'm not nominating myself for the Supreme Court, I do have opinions about constitutional law, and am not afraid to express those opinions at CourtZero. I think a fellow alumnus of Florida State University College of Law could make a truly great justice. The elitist label is a weird sort of double-slap at those of us who are not elite who are not happy with Miers.

I, and most of the people in my circles who are Republicans, have supported and indeed worked for the President, and are not predisposed to distrust him. This is a matter of the personal judgments of informed Americans, however, and not a matter of trust.

As for the evangelical thing: I am one. I respect and have benefitted from the work of, for instance, Dobson and Sekulow, and yet I both instinctively and after reflection and more information do not want to see Miers on the bench. I still hope that I am wrong about that, but any desire I have to see "one of my own" on the court is meaningless next to an informed desire to seat a powerful and tested voice for upholding the Constitution (and as a conservative, I can't quite wrap my arms around the expectation that I will find a sudden reverence for that sort of affirmative action).

As for the rank-and-file thing, I am that as well. And yet, somehow, inexplicably perhaps, I'm not on board.

So that's me. Not sexist, not elitist (nor elite), not inside the beltway, not known nor noted nor influental. I am rank-and-file Republican, I am evangelical and have been all my life, and a supporter of the President who campaigned for him (twice).

And yet I still think that Miers should be withdrawn or defeated in the Senate.

One last thing, and I find this might bolster my point that this isn't a "religious right for Miers and the elitists against Miers thing" (beside being entirely too simplistic an analysis): I sometimes listen to Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ on the radio. He has been inviting his listeners, who are likely to be largely very conservative, if not "openly evangelical" to come to his website, where he praises the Miers nomination as an "excellent" choice (the quotes on the word are the website's, not mine).

As of this evening, here are the results from the presumably evangelical voters:

Did President Bush make a good choice in selecting Harriet Miers as nominee for Supreme Court?

YES (42.7%)

NO (57.3%)

That speaks volumes to me.

More on the Miers nomination

I think I've finally put my finger on the reason that I remain unhappy with the Miers nomination for the Supreme Court. In my earlier post, I attempted to make the point that there are so many hardened and ready judges out there who have braved the slings and arrows for years with their originalist judicial philosophies both intact and obvious, that there was no reason to present a nominee to the public who would be an unknown quantity.

Today, however, I've identified the thing that bugged me about the Miers nomination, deep down, and which I've not been able to articulate until now. It's the Bar leadership thing. I do not see it as a plus that Harriet Miers led the Dallas Bar and the Texas Bar Association, as well as serving on the house of delegates of the American Bar Association (as an aside, I find it curious that Ms. Miers' leadership role in the ABA is not mentioned at all on her official White House bio site).

In my personal experience I've not personally met a lot of state and national bar leaders, but I've met some, and I am exposed to their thoughts and actions through my membership in my state bar and through the professional publications I receive and meetings I attend. I have to say that the typical bar leader is someone who elevates the legal profession, someone who lives and breathes the notion (whether they set out to or not) that the members of the profession of law are more enlightened than everyone else. I'll grant, as an attorney, that a JD often means that one is more educated on the law and the Constitution, but that doesn't necessarily mean "more enlightened".

Just as an example, after the Terri-Schindler Schiavo case ended earlier this year, the overwhelming theme broadcast by both my state and the national bar was that it was our duty as attorneys to strengthen the judiciary, which I interpret from context to mean that we are expected to protect judges from criticism and dissent.

I find that to be unhealthy attitude, and one that seems to fit much of the leadership of the various bars. Every member of the bar represents the law (or should), but leadership of the bar represents the profession, and that is why I don't find Ms. Mier's resume as one that lends itself to judicial reform. That's just my gut feeling.

Well there you go

In the previous post, I said:

The activist base of the political left will not embrace the nominee; if anything, they will view the failure to nominate another Scalia or Thomas as decisive proof of presidential weakness.

And I just found this at the Daily Kos:

More immediately, this is the sort of pick that can have real-world repercussions in 2006, with a demoralized Republican Right refusing to do the heavy lifting needed to stem big losses. That Bush went this route rather than throwing his base the red meat they craved is nothing less than a sign of weakness. For whatever reason, Rove and Co. decided they weren't in position to wage a filibuster fight with Democrats on a Supreme Court justice and instead sold out their base.

But my early sense is that this is already a victory -- both politically and judicially -- for Democrats. In fact, it should be great fun watching conservatives go after Bush. He may actually break that 39-40 floor in the polls, given he's just pissed off the very people who have propped up his failed presidency.

The Miers nomination ignores a roomful of Pattons

President Bush has nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat to be vacated by retiring Justice Sandra O’Connor. I’ve read some things about Ms. Miers that are encouraging, and have read some positive comments from people with whom I personally share social and judicial philosophy. None of that makes me happy about this nomination, however.

The nomination of Ms. Miers is not necessarily bad news, and I don’t mean to seem critical of an obviously accomplished lawyer about whom I know next to nothing. The problem is that very few interested people, in my opinion, will find this nomination encouraging. The activist base of the political left will not embrace the nominee; if anything, they will view the failure to nominate another Scalia or Thomas as decisive proof of presidential weakness.

What about everyone else? For those who believe that the trend in American courts has been increasingly in favor of the power of government and increasingly dismissive of the plain meanings of the provisions in the Bill of Rights, the Miers nomination is not good news. For those who are social conservatives and constitutional originalists, who have been on defense for more than three decades, the Miers nomination is not good news. For libertarians and others alarmed at the willingness of federal courts to overrule the will of the people, putting the true meaning of representative government at risk, the Miers nomination is not good news. Again, it’s not necessarily bad news, but it isn’t good news either. We as a nation are going to have to wait quite a while to find out what Ms. Mier’s legacy will be with regard to the health of our Constitution. I’m just not comfortable guessing what that legacy will be.

If you agree with me that the Constitution has taken a beating lately, you might share my unease. Here’s one very recent example. The McConnel decision from December of 2003 rendered the First Amendment meaningless at worst and fungible at best, placing the right to broadcast facts and opinions about those in power squarely under the control of the FEC. Here’s another example, even more recent. Just this past June the Kelo decision rewrote the meaning of the words “public use” in the eminent domain clause and stripped absolutely everyone of any real right of ownership of private property. I could list many more relevant examples of destructive Supreme Court jurisprudence, but those two examples should be enough: without solid and healthy rights to political speech and private property, I suggest that we would have no rights worth speaking of.

This situation, in the minds of many Americans, is a crisis. I would compare this moment in history, if you will indulge me a quick analogy, to the Battle of the Bulge. With the forces of freedom either defeated or thrown off the continent, and Europe under the umbrella of fascism, the Allies finally got off of strategic defense and finally went on strategic offense with the D-Day landings. Five months later, the enemy struck back with enormous fury, and the Allies were threatened with defeat in the Battle of the Bulge.

Imagine now that Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower was choosing what combat leader to send to rescue the beleaguered 101^st Airborne at Bastogne. Who should he send to smash the enemy lines and get back on the course to victory? Eisenhower had at his disposal battle-tested generals, senior soldiers who had a track record of reliability; he had giants like “Blood and Guts” Patton, Omar Bradley, and the British Field Marshal Montgomery, just to name the most well known.

If the current judicial crisis is akin to the Battle of the Bulge, and President Bush’s choice of Supreme Court nominee can be compared to Eisenhower’s decision, then what we just got in the nomination of Ms. Miers is as if General Eisenhower forgot all about his supply of tested and hardened generals and instead named 1^st Lieutenant McSlappy, his staff officer in charge of scheduling, to lead the 3^rd Army into Bastogne.

I mean no disrespect to either the President or to Ms. Miers. Time will tell, and I stand by to be proven wrong.

So much for the Kelo backlash

The city of Riviera Beach, Florida, intends to use the powers granted by the Supreme Court's Kelo decision to displace 6,000 people in an old, established, racially mixed part of town.

A search of googlenews today shows very little reporting on it. The MSNBC story mentions the develpment, but not a word about the use of eminent domain or the people to be displaced. The Washington Times, however, does tell more of the story:

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.

Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.

So much for the backlash

It's time to revisit Sun Hudson

Given the previous post of another kid put down for the crime of being both sick and poor, I want to repost links to my earlier commentary on Sun Hudson, which appeared not only on this tiny blog, but also at the CourtZero message board and at FreeMarketNews.

First link: Sentenced to Death without a Trial (contained original reporting by PiratePundit)

Second link: Sun Hudson and Terri Schiavo. I'm not going to let the issue of euthanizing children against the wishes of parents go.

Damnit, I missed this entirely

Another Sun Hudson kind of case in Texas. And this time, I don't see any good testimony or evidence that the child was in pain. And this time, hospital spokespeople are up front that the child had a 5% chance of survival with treatment.

Not good enough. Treatment stopped. Child dies. One more giant step for the Global Death Cult.

This isn't political (Pirate readers know that I'm right of center). This isn't racial (Pirate readers know that I went to great lengths to call people and report on the Sun Hudson story, as well as the Terri Schindler-Schiavo story). It's about getting used to an American version of the Groningen Protocols. It is about elevating monetary considerations over the wishes of parents of ill children. That is wrong, and will never be right.

HOUSTON -- A 5-month-old girl suffering from leukemia and a flesh-eating bacteria will be taken off life support in 10 days, doctors at a Houston hospital announced Friday. A representative for Memorial Hermann Hospital told Local 2 that a committee of four doctors, three nurses and a medical ethicist have decided to stop treating Knya Dismuke on May 8 after they determined nothing could be done to save her life.

Geena Davis and Commander in Chief

OK, so I did it. I watched the "encore presentation" of Commander-in-Chief last night.

All I can say is that I am baffled. I mean it. If ABC meant to create a dramatic arguement for keeping a woman out of the presidency, they did it. The reason for my bafflement is that I'm fairly certain that the goal was the exact opposite.

In the TV show, here is what happens: the President has a stroke. He regains consciousness, becomes momentarily lucid, and calls for the Vice President (Geena Davis' character, "Mac"). He asks her to resign, which would mean that the Speaker of the House (of Representatives, that is) would become president. She ("Mac") agrees. She understands where the President is coming from and is ready to go through with her promise to resign.

THEN, the Speaker of the House (Donald Sutherland, the perfect actor to portray a Republican) shows up and offends her. He makes a sexist remark. He says that it is unwise to invade a central African country in order to extract one woman who is about to executed under sharia law for commiting adultery. The Speaker uses the term "couldn't keep her legs together" to describe the Nigerian woman, and that's all it takes. "Mac" has her feminine sensibilities offended, and on that basis breaks her word to the President, and changes her mind. ABC TV show message on whether we are ready for a woman president: it is a woman's prerogative to change her mind. How they thought they should throw such a stereotype in our faces and expect it to resonate with us, I can't guess.

THEN, "Mac" is ready to be sworn in. There are no Bibles available to administer the oath in the traditional manner. Fortunately, the eeeeeeeeeevil and sexist Republican Speaker of the House just happens to have brought his copy with him to the White House meeting, and here it is, sitting over here in the corner of the room where he'd set it down. Stupid TV. Stupid writing. Stupid storytelling.

THEN, the newly sworn-in President Mac meets with the grieving former first-lady. For a moment, it seems as if the former first-lady is upset with Mac for breaking her word to her husband, but then they break into a little "we women have to stick together, and that's what's important" moment. Her husband's political legacy and dying words pale in comparison to being able to see a feisty woman stick it to those yucky men. You know, the ones who "just don't get it." Again, if this TV show is meant to break away from stereotypes and sway me, they went in completely the wrong direction.

THEN, President Mac calls the Nigerian ambassador into a meeting. We know that she is tough and capable because she tricks him into thinking that it would be a regular meeting but then ushers him before the joint chiefs of staff, in which President Mac instructs the generals to tell the Nigerian ambassador exactly how, down to the nomenclature and number of helicopters and forces to be used, the US was about to invade his country.

To make clear that she is making her decisions on pure emotion, she states to the ambassador that "no woman under my watch will be killed for having sex" in the same breath as stating that "the loss of life will be minimal" in the operation to invade a country and kill at least a few people to extract the woman who has had sex. Perhaps those implementing sharia law will be killed, but that's not the point. Perhaps prison guards or just people who happen to be in the area will be killed, but that's not the point. American servicemen might lose their lives, but that's not the point. That President Mac is offended at the sentence of one woman half a world away is what counts, and carrier battle groups will be sent to remedy how offended she is. Loss of life, however, will be "minimal".

If this is ABC's way, in a time of actual real war against proponents of sharia law, to convince us that it's time for a woman, I have to say they wrote the script on drugs.

And I MIGHT watch the next episode. Maybe. But no more than that. I swear.

Audio of my commentary on Able Danger

As I explained in more detail in the earlier post (a new twist on the Able Danger story), there are still some serious questions about why intelligence gathered in the Able Danger program was destroyed or at least not passed on as actionable intelligence.

If you've read that post, this audio link is mostly redundant. This is the audio of my commentary on the matter for Free Market News. Click here to listen to my portion.

MOM3

I attended "Meeting of the Mouths 3" in Orlando Friday evening. All in all it was enjoyable, but some things about it bothered me.

The event opened with radio guy Rusty Humphries providing some entertainment through song parody, and then the main event began. The panel consisted of Neil Cavuto moderating, with Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, James Carville, and Clark Howard.

The panel debated (I use the term loosely) various topics, from gasoline prices to the rebuilding of New Orleans to the President and the War in Iraq. I could comment on all sorts of things, but I'll keep it to what struck me the most.

While the conservatives on the panel, Sean Hannity in particular, voiced support for Operation Iraqi Freedom while lamenting that the President has not articulated the need for the Operation and its future implications well enough. I agree with him on both points, but note that none of those on the panel, after more than three years (if you count the debate before the operation) of talking about it, could do much better than reminding everyone that the enemy is determined to kill us.

This disappoints me. If communications professionals - ones who are wildly successful in their trade - can't do better than that after all this time, it worries me. I came to the conclusion that there are not enough people with military education and experience in talk radio and the larger media world.

Concepts like "catastrophic success", and the fact that we are now in Phase Three of the War in Iraq, are not really all that difficult to articulate and to understand. I wish that the big radio talkers could do more of that.

One bomb could be a suicide; so what is two bombs?

Odd. Very odd.

[quote]NORMAN, Okla. (AP) — One person was killed in an explosion near a packed football stadium at the University of Oklahoma on Saturday night in what authorities said appeared to be a suicide.

The blast, in a traffic circle about 100 yards from Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, could be heard by some in the crowd of 84,000, but university President David Boren said no one inside the stadium was ever in danger.

"We are apparently dealing with an individual suicide, which is under full investigation," Boren said in a statement. There was no information about the person who was killed, and no reports of any other injuries.[/quote]

OK, if the authorities are certain it is an "individual suicide", then so be it. But what about this?

[quote]Per update from KWTV-9, authorities on the scene say it was a bomb, and that a second device was also found and has been "taken care of". Occurred outside the stadium around halftime. [/quote]

What's that all about? Where was the second bomb found? On the body of the guy who blew himself up with the first one, or somewhere else? News reports don't say.

This is posted in various places, but here is what looks like a good summary:

http://floppingaces.blogspot.com/2005/10/oklahoma-bombing.html