MEMO
FROM: Gov. Steve Beshear
TO: Attorney General Jack Conway
RE: Get Yer Act Together
General,
I bin discussin' this matter of the county clerks who are defahing my order about enforcin' the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage last Friday with my advisors and we are wonderin' over here why yer office hasn't said a werd about it.
Hep' me out here.
Maybe I'm readin' my Constertution wrong, but ain't you the state's chief law enforcement officer? Where've you bin? Why am I having to do yer job for yer?
My daddy used to say that a man that don't do is job is no better then a run-over varmint.
Of course it doesn't hep that last year you did basically the same thang. You got up in front 'a the cameras over here and had yer little cryin' fit and told everyone you had to foller yer conchince and couldn't do whut ya swore you were gonna do when you got e-lected. And now people are dredgin' all that stuff up agin' an pointin' out that the county clerks got conchinces too.
If I hear anything more about conchinces, I'm gonna file a executive order agin' 'em.
In fact, now that I thank about it, I had to pay for a lawyer 'cuz a yer conchince. As soon as this county clerk thang is all over, I'm gonna start takin' it outta yer paycheck. You kin call it a "conchince de-duction."
So now here I am doin' this a second time. Fer one thing, you stand about six foot four and tawk pritty. I stand about five foot four and tawk like the Turtleman. Who you thank's gonna do this better?
So git your hind end in gear and do yer job.
Steve
Showing posts with label Jack Conway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack Conway. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Monday, June 29, 2015
Family Foundation Press Release: State county clerks should not have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 29, 2015
LEXINGTON, KY— "If it was okay for Jack Conway to do it, it should be okay for county clerks," said a spokesman for the group that pushed for Kentucky traditional marriage law that was struck down by Friday's U. S. Supreme Court decision. On Friday Gov. Steve Beshear told county clerks across the state that they were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of Kentucky's Constitution. The Family Foundation said today that county clerks whose conscience would be violated by following the Governor's order should consider their options.
"There are county clerks out there who have a religious objection to same-sex marriage," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with the Family Foundation. "They should be able to do what our own attorney general did last year when he refused to defend Kentucky's marriage law on conscience grounds. County clerks have consciences too."
In fact, said Cothran, county clerks are on more solid ground than Attorney General Conway because they would not have to violate their oath of office to refuse to issue such licenses. "While Jack Conway violated his oath of office in not defending Kentucky voters, county clerks would actually be honoring theirs. County clerks take an oath to both the federal and state constitutions. The U.S. Constitution nowhere says anything about same-sex marriage and the Kentucky Constitution expressly prohibits it. In refusing to issue licenses, they would actually be complying with the constitutions to which they swore their oaths."
"If the Governor is so concerned about public officials doing their duty, why didn't he write the same kind of letter to Jack Conway that he wrote to county clerks?" asked Cothran.
Cothran also pointed out that there is 25-day period following Supreme Court decisions in which a request for rehearing can be filed, a technical fact that could also affect what county clerks can do.
June 29, 2015
LEXINGTON, KY— "If it was okay for Jack Conway to do it, it should be okay for county clerks," said a spokesman for the group that pushed for Kentucky traditional marriage law that was struck down by Friday's U. S. Supreme Court decision. On Friday Gov. Steve Beshear told county clerks across the state that they were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of Kentucky's Constitution. The Family Foundation said today that county clerks whose conscience would be violated by following the Governor's order should consider their options.
"There are county clerks out there who have a religious objection to same-sex marriage," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with the Family Foundation. "They should be able to do what our own attorney general did last year when he refused to defend Kentucky's marriage law on conscience grounds. County clerks have consciences too."
In fact, said Cothran, county clerks are on more solid ground than Attorney General Conway because they would not have to violate their oath of office to refuse to issue such licenses. "While Jack Conway violated his oath of office in not defending Kentucky voters, county clerks would actually be honoring theirs. County clerks take an oath to both the federal and state constitutions. The U.S. Constitution nowhere says anything about same-sex marriage and the Kentucky Constitution expressly prohibits it. In refusing to issue licenses, they would actually be complying with the constitutions to which they swore their oaths."
"If the Governor is so concerned about public officials doing their duty, why didn't he write the same kind of letter to Jack Conway that he wrote to county clerks?" asked Cothran.
Cothran also pointed out that there is 25-day period following Supreme Court decisions in which a request for rehearing can be filed, a technical fact that could also affect what county clerks can do.
###
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
So if Conway can refuse to defend Kentucky's marriage law, then ...
Monday, March 03, 2014
NEWS: AG spokeswoman says Conway should defend voters’ rights on marriage issue
Today's press release from The Family Foundation:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 3, 2014
LEXINGTON, KY—Attorney General Jack Conway's own spokesperson told a prominent national news outlet that Kentucky's chief law enforcement official is obligated to defend Kentucky's marriage law, says a spokesman for the group that helped pass Kentucky’s Marriage Protection Amendment. "So far, the Attorney General has been a no-show in the defense of Kentucky voters on the marriage issue," said Martin Cothran of The Family Foundation.
Allison Martin, spokeswoman for Conway told the Daily Beast on Jan. 24, "The Kentucky Attorney General, by statute and oath, is required to defend the Kentucky Constitution. It would be inappropriate to discuss personal views on issues that are pending before the court.”
"We appreciate Ms. Martin's candor," said Cothran. "We hope Jack Conway appreciates it too." Cothran said Conway has an obligation to defend the voters against liberal judges who want to create rights out of thin air rather than interpret the laws their elected lawmakers pass and to do it no matter what his personal views are.
Conway is currently considering whether to appeal the ruling in Bourke v. Beshear, which struck down part of Kentucky's Marriage Amendment, passed by 75 percent of Kentucky voters in 2004.
"That's his job—the one he was elected to do. The Kentucky Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman. He was elected knowing that and he knew it when he swore an oath to support it. If he can't defend it, then he needs to step down from the attorney general position and let someone else do it."
"Conway should appeal the case, and when he does, he needs to show up." Cothran has been critical of the handling of the case by Conway's office so far, charging last week that Conway was "spiking the case" by offering weak arguments, not signing motions in the case, and not showing up for meetings with the judge.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 3, 2014
LEXINGTON, KY—Attorney General Jack Conway's own spokesperson told a prominent national news outlet that Kentucky's chief law enforcement official is obligated to defend Kentucky's marriage law, says a spokesman for the group that helped pass Kentucky’s Marriage Protection Amendment. "So far, the Attorney General has been a no-show in the defense of Kentucky voters on the marriage issue," said Martin Cothran of The Family Foundation.
Allison Martin, spokeswoman for Conway told the Daily Beast on Jan. 24, "The Kentucky Attorney General, by statute and oath, is required to defend the Kentucky Constitution. It would be inappropriate to discuss personal views on issues that are pending before the court.”
"We appreciate Ms. Martin's candor," said Cothran. "We hope Jack Conway appreciates it too." Cothran said Conway has an obligation to defend the voters against liberal judges who want to create rights out of thin air rather than interpret the laws their elected lawmakers pass and to do it no matter what his personal views are.
Conway is currently considering whether to appeal the ruling in Bourke v. Beshear, which struck down part of Kentucky's Marriage Amendment, passed by 75 percent of Kentucky voters in 2004.
"That's his job—the one he was elected to do. The Kentucky Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman. He was elected knowing that and he knew it when he swore an oath to support it. If he can't defend it, then he needs to step down from the attorney general position and let someone else do it."
"Conway should appeal the case, and when he does, he needs to show up." Cothran has been critical of the handling of the case by Conway's office so far, charging last week that Conway was "spiking the case" by offering weak arguments, not signing motions in the case, and not showing up for meetings with the judge.
###
Friday, February 28, 2014
NEWS: Where has Jack been?
For Immediate Release
February 27, 2014
LEXINGTON, KY — A spokesman for The Family Foundation today called on Attorney General Jack Conway to explain why today's motion for a stay in the same-sex marriage case was the first time he has signed his name to any motion in the case.
"Why has it taken so long for the Attorney General to put his name to a document in this case? And why is it that the only thing he has signed up until now is a motion for a stay? So far, the motions have been signed by Conway's underlings," said Cothran. "Everyone in the Attorney General's office had signed motions but the AG himself. "
"Until today, the only people in the Attorney General's office who hadn't signed a motion in the marriage case are the janitor, the office boy, and Jack Conway."
The Family Foundation has criticized Conway for dragging his feet in the case.
February 27, 2014
LEXINGTON, KY — A spokesman for The Family Foundation today called on Attorney General Jack Conway to explain why today's motion for a stay in the same-sex marriage case was the first time he has signed his name to any motion in the case.
"Why has it taken so long for the Attorney General to put his name to a document in this case? And why is it that the only thing he has signed up until now is a motion for a stay? So far, the motions have been signed by Conway's underlings," said Cothran. "Everyone in the Attorney General's office had signed motions but the AG himself. "
"Until today, the only people in the Attorney General's office who hadn't signed a motion in the marriage case are the janitor, the office boy, and Jack Conway."
The Family Foundation has criticized Conway for dragging his feet in the case.
###
Over 200 national news outlets carry comments on the Conway marriage charade
Below is a list of news outlets that carried my comments on Jack Conway's spiking of the marriage case. They include the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Herald, and USA Today. Duplicates appear to be separately filed stories:
thetimesherald.com
sanluisobispo.com
startribune.com
uk.news.yahoo.com
kentucky.com
kansascity.com
heraldonline.com
beaumontenterprise.com
timesunion.com
hometownlife.com
newsleader.com
wtop.com
usatoday.com
livingstondaily.com
thespectrum.com
thenews-messenger.com
greenfieldreporter.com
thenewsstar.com
thestarpress.com
sfgate.com
mynorthwest.com
greenvilleonline.com
seattletimes.com
wisconsinrapidstribune.com
watermarkonline.com
theadvertiser.com
press-citizen.com
dnj.com
archive.lohud.com
sheboyganpress.com
courierpress.com
miamiherald.com
lgbtqnation.com
wjla.com
whas11.com
nwcn.com
kptv.com
kpho.com
wsvn.com
abc27.com
katv.com
myfoxtampabay.com
nbc29.com
kmov.com
ktvb.com
wcnc.com
wvec.com
krem.com
kens5.com
theolympian.com
therepublic.com
dailyjournal.net
kentucky.com
greenbaypressgazette.com
fresnobee.com
thedailyjournal.com
onenewsnow.com
kait8.com
nbc4i.com
knoe.com
floridatoday.com
talkingpointsmemo.com
wpxi.com
wtsp.com
startribune.com
wwltv.com
omaha.com
postcrescent.com
fdlreporter.com
krmg.com
newstimes.com
stamfordadvocate.com
greenwichtime.com
ktvu.com
seattlepi.com
utsandiego.com
townhall.com
jconline.com
montgomeryadvertiser.com
guampdn.com
marshfieldnewsherald.com
bradenton.com
washingtonpost.com
lasvegassun.com
huffingtonpost.com
myrtlebeachonline.com
nytimes.com
sify.com
wkrn.com
fox5vegas.com
newschannel5.com
khq.com
news9.com
cnsnews.com
wral.com
wowway.net
baynews9.com
mysanantonio.com
newstimes.com
bellinghamherald.com
nbcconnecticut.com
nbcmiami.com
herald-dispatch.com
wsmv.com
walb.com
wtoc.com
wtsp.com
hawaiinewsnow.com
whdh.com
myfoxdetroit.com
huffingtonpost.com
fox19.com
kctv5.com
wnem.com
wsfa.com
foxcarolina.com
fox8live.com
wbtv.com
kcbd.com
14news.com
wfsb.com
nbc12.com
nbcdfw.com
islandpacket.com
ktar.com
mercurynews.com
toledoblade.com
sunherald.com
onlineathens.com
foxnews.com
wftv.com
jacksonville.com
suntimes.com
newstalkflorida.com
wqow.com
kpho.com
fox5vegas.com
wbtv.com
wflx.com
wxow.com
wrcbtv.com
ksdk.com
diario.mx
insidebayarea.com
m.onlineathens.com
wbtw.com
koamtv.com
wsmv.com
wfsb.com
wnem.com
wmctv.com
foxcarolina.com
kfvs12.com
wdam.com
wfla.com
cbs3springfield.com
kptv.com
14news.com
wsfa.com
alabamas13.com
jconline.com
wcsh6.com
wlbz2.com
kltv.com
kctv5.com
cbsatlanta.com
waff.com
turnto10.com
wistv.com
fox19.com
wafb.com
kait8.com
wect.com
walb.com
kplctv.com
tucsonnewsnow.com
wltx.com
santacruzsentinel.com
dispatch.com
njherald.com
arcamax.com
theledger.com
timesfreepress.com
gadsdentimes.com
nationalmemo.com
cleveland.cbslocal.com
coldheartedtruth.blogspot.com
ballstatedaily.com
wandtv.com
fox28.com
abc6.com
11alive.com
dailyindependent.com
msnewsnow.com
wsls.com
fox8live.com
knoe.com
themoreheadnews.com
foxnews.com
timesfreepress.com
topnetupdates.blogspot.com
thecabin.net
lubbockonline.com
uk.news.yahoo.com
stamfordadvocate.com
baynews9.com
wvva.com
jax-cdn.com
wptv.com
wgrz.com
winknews.com
huffingtonpost.com
anodis.com
abcnews.go.com
wbir.com
palmbeachpost.com
springfieldnewssun.com
columbiamissourian.com
journal-news.com
idahostatesman.com
mercedsunstar.com
24allnews.com
theblaze.com
en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com
wbay.com
bostonherald.com
gazette.com
lifesitenews.com
wusa9.com
pjstar.com
delawareonline.com
abcnews.go.com
wkyc.com
forums.corvetteforum.com
in.news.yahoo.com
northwestgeorgianews.com
vidio-vidio-vidio.blogspot.com
richmondregister.com
myfoxphoenix.com
news-register.net
worldnewsheadlinestoday.blogspot.com
Thursday, February 27, 2014
NEWS: Group charges AG with legal malpractice in marriage case
LEXINGTON, KY—"This is a betrayal of Kentucky voters," said a spokesman for the group that spearheaded the fight for the Marriage Protection Amendment in 2004 of Attorney General Jack Conway's conduct in the defense of the Kentucky law. "The only thing missing is the thirty pieces of silver."
Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for the group, charged Attorney General Jack Conway with spiking the state's defense of the Marriage Protection Amendment by failing to use arguments that could have made a difference in the judge’s ruling and by not taking actions he could have taken. "Not only was his brief in the Bourne vs. Beshear case badly argued, but yesterday attorneys for the AG and Gov. Steve Beshear didn't even ask for a stay in the judge's ruling despite being asked by the judge point blank if they wanted one."
"If this were a private case, it would be legal malpractice."
Cothran said Conway should either put real effort into defending Kentucky voters or admit that he is complicit in letting the court disenfranchise them on this issue. "The longer the Attorney General drags his feet on this case, the worse it is for Kentucky voters."
###
Monday, October 25, 2010
What did the Courier-Journal know and when did they know it?
"Don't worry about it. Everything's okay."
Those are the words that an attorney representing Jack Conway's brother in a drug investigation used in a conversation with one of the investigators, assuring him after the detective told the attorney he was scared of losing his job because he had tipped off Matthew Conway, hopelessly compromising the investigation.
But the words could just as easily have been spoken by the Louisville Courier-Journal to U. S. Senate candidate Conway himself after the paper apparently did everything it could to downplay the issue at a crucial time in a close campaign that the whole nation is watching.
Did Jack Conway illegally interfere in the investigation of his brother? It's hard to tell until more information comes out, but what is equally disturbing is the question of whether the state's largest newspaper was trying to minimize the public's attention to the issue.
Just go read at the story, printed on the worst news day of the week (Saturday) when the least number of people would notice it. It is one of the most confused and contorted news stories I have ever read. You have to read it several times even to figure out what is going on, and mentions Jack Conway's involvement mostly at the end and even then it appears to do it reluctantly.
Here are the facts as I have gleaned them from having suffered through about fifteen readings of what has to be one of the worst-written news stories of the year:
According to the story, Matthew Conway (hereinafter, "Conway"), an assistant Commonwealth's attorney, became the target, while serving as a Jefferson County prosecutor, of an investigation on drug use or trafficking. Conway is the brother of the state's chief law enforcement official, Attorney General Jack Conway. Conway was not only tipped off about the investigation, he was allowed by one investigator to read the complain filed against him. He also received a two day heads up that his house would be investigated, and lied, as did one of the detectives, to police about the investigation.
Conway has never been charged.
And what was brother Jack's involvement? Jack found out about it when a supporter was tipped off by one of the detectives in a restaurant. Conway called his brother and said they needed to meet. The next day, there was a meeting in Jack's home with his brother and an attorney. The attorney then called the Louisville Police Chief to "report" the detective.
"Report" him? For what? For tipping them off? That's rather strange. Or was he "reporting" him for investigating Jack's brother?
At some point between the meeting in Jack's home and March 10, brother Matthew's attorney called one of the detectives who had breached secrecy in the case and asked him if he was investigating Jack's brother. According to the detective, Conway's attorney called him back two or three times, at which point the attorney assured the detective, now scared for his job, "Don't worry about it. Everything's okay."
What does that mean? And by what authority could an attorney for the subject of an investigation tell one of the detectives investigating him that "Everything's okay"? Who was the attorney representing in his calls to the detective? Matthew? Or Jack?
In detective novel parlance, the whole thing smells to high heaven. And that's not the only thing that smells.
What is the Courier-Journal's response, given that it now has this information in its possession? To run the story on a Saturday, and to bury the details involving the Democratic candidate for U. S. Senate that it has editorially supported at the tail end of a long and convoluted news story.
I've written plenty of news stories in my time and I know how to write my lead--that's the sentence you start your news story with that includes as many of the most important and interesting facts of your story. The lead on this story was clear: you have a potential scandal involving a Senate candidate in a nationally covered race. And your headline is pretty clear too.
But what did the Courier use as its headline? "LMPD probes detectives who tipped off prosecutor under investigation." Huh? And here's the lead:
You have to wait until the fourth paragraph to find out that there's any relation between the attorney being investigated and the candidate. And you have to read to the end of the story to find out that the candidate is actually involved in some way.
Ask yourself this question: If Rand Paul's name had been associated in some way with activities that appeared to be interfering with a criminal investigation of a sibling and it appeared that his connections had had an influence on the case, how fast do you think it would have taken the Courier-Journal to jump on the story? And how do you think the headline would have looked? Would the lead in the story have mentioned his name? Would you have had to read to the end of the story to find out the nature of Paul's involvement?
Not only is there a story here, but it not only involves Jack Conway. Thanks to its handling of it, the Courier-Journal has now made itself a part of the story. There a few questions they should be asked too:
HT: BluegrassBulletin.com
Those are the words that an attorney representing Jack Conway's brother in a drug investigation used in a conversation with one of the investigators, assuring him after the detective told the attorney he was scared of losing his job because he had tipped off Matthew Conway, hopelessly compromising the investigation.
But the words could just as easily have been spoken by the Louisville Courier-Journal to U. S. Senate candidate Conway himself after the paper apparently did everything it could to downplay the issue at a crucial time in a close campaign that the whole nation is watching.
Did Jack Conway illegally interfere in the investigation of his brother? It's hard to tell until more information comes out, but what is equally disturbing is the question of whether the state's largest newspaper was trying to minimize the public's attention to the issue.
Just go read at the story, printed on the worst news day of the week (Saturday) when the least number of people would notice it. It is one of the most confused and contorted news stories I have ever read. You have to read it several times even to figure out what is going on, and mentions Jack Conway's involvement mostly at the end and even then it appears to do it reluctantly.
Here are the facts as I have gleaned them from having suffered through about fifteen readings of what has to be one of the worst-written news stories of the year:
According to the story, Matthew Conway (hereinafter, "Conway"), an assistant Commonwealth's attorney, became the target, while serving as a Jefferson County prosecutor, of an investigation on drug use or trafficking. Conway is the brother of the state's chief law enforcement official, Attorney General Jack Conway. Conway was not only tipped off about the investigation, he was allowed by one investigator to read the complain filed against him. He also received a two day heads up that his house would be investigated, and lied, as did one of the detectives, to police about the investigation.
Conway has never been charged.
And what was brother Jack's involvement? Jack found out about it when a supporter was tipped off by one of the detectives in a restaurant. Conway called his brother and said they needed to meet. The next day, there was a meeting in Jack's home with his brother and an attorney. The attorney then called the Louisville Police Chief to "report" the detective.
"Report" him? For what? For tipping them off? That's rather strange. Or was he "reporting" him for investigating Jack's brother?
At some point between the meeting in Jack's home and March 10, brother Matthew's attorney called one of the detectives who had breached secrecy in the case and asked him if he was investigating Jack's brother. According to the detective, Conway's attorney called him back two or three times, at which point the attorney assured the detective, now scared for his job, "Don't worry about it. Everything's okay."
What does that mean? And by what authority could an attorney for the subject of an investigation tell one of the detectives investigating him that "Everything's okay"? Who was the attorney representing in his calls to the detective? Matthew? Or Jack?
In detective novel parlance, the whole thing smells to high heaven. And that's not the only thing that smells.
What is the Courier-Journal's response, given that it now has this information in its possession? To run the story on a Saturday, and to bury the details involving the Democratic candidate for U. S. Senate that it has editorially supported at the tail end of a long and convoluted news story.
I've written plenty of news stories in my time and I know how to write my lead--that's the sentence you start your news story with that includes as many of the most important and interesting facts of your story. The lead on this story was clear: you have a potential scandal involving a Senate candidate in a nationally covered race. And your headline is pretty clear too.
But what did the Courier use as its headline? "LMPD probes detectives who tipped off prosecutor under investigation." Huh? And here's the lead:
A Jefferson County prosecutor was tipped off by Louisville narcotics detectives twice in the past two years that he was under investigation for possible drug use or trafficking, according to police records obtained by The Courier-Journal.That's the story? The detectives? Really? You've got people associated with a candidate of one of the nation's most closely watched political races calling detectives investigating his brother on drug charges and telling them "Everything's okay" and the story is about a couple of detectives?
You have to wait until the fourth paragraph to find out that there's any relation between the attorney being investigated and the candidate. And you have to read to the end of the story to find out that the candidate is actually involved in some way.
Ask yourself this question: If Rand Paul's name had been associated in some way with activities that appeared to be interfering with a criminal investigation of a sibling and it appeared that his connections had had an influence on the case, how fast do you think it would have taken the Courier-Journal to jump on the story? And how do you think the headline would have looked? Would the lead in the story have mentioned his name? Would you have had to read to the end of the story to find out the nature of Paul's involvement?
Not only is there a story here, but it not only involves Jack Conway. Thanks to its handling of it, the Courier-Journal has now made itself a part of the story. There a few questions they should be asked too:
- Was the news story intentionally hard to read?
- How long have they known about this story?
- Why did they run it on a Saturday?
- Why did they not include mention of Conway in the headline when it was obviously the most explosive aspect of the story?
- Why did they bury the comments about Conway late in the story?
- How would they have handled this story if it had involved Rand Paul instead of Jack Conway?
HT: BluegrassBulletin.com
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Conway's war on a Christian health ministry
I was quoted today in the Associated Press on Jack Conway's prosecution of a Christian ministry that provides cost sharing for health care expenses for Christian families:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)