Awesome Mom Wants Federal Investigation Into Gay Son’s Bashing

Dylan Beard’s “friends” are definitely awful people — they lured the 17-year-old to a skate park and then beat him up while shouting gay slurs. Making matters worse, the local police were like “eh,” and haven’t really don’t much about it.

But the good news is that his family is completely awesome.

His mom, Jennifer Beard has hired an attorney and now they’re demanding action from the Department of Justice. They want the attack investigated as a hate crime. Texas is one of the states that identifies sexual orientation as a category for hate crimes (but not gender expression).

And Dylan’s uncle, Tom Plunkett, is furious too. “As a military veteran it kind of disappoints me, a country I defended,” he said. It sucks that Dylan endured this attack, but bless his family for being so supportive.

Dylan is home-schooled, and doesn’t really know his attackers that well. It’s totally mysterious why they would decide to coordinate an attack on him.

According to his mom, police didn’t care that the attackers bragged about it on social media. In fact, the police told reporters that they didn’t know about the bragging at all — but that’s how Jennifer found out about the beating in the first place. (Her son’s black eye and broken nose might also have been a good clue.)

A few months ago, Austin rallied around a victim of a hate crime. A local dentist did reconstructive surgery to fix the nine (!) teeth that were beaten out of a victim’s mouth.

DOJ: Losing Losers At NOM Deserve No Legal Fees For Their Losing Lawsuit

The Department of Justice has issued a blisteringly scornful response to NOM's demand for nearly $700K in attorneys' fees for their lawsuit over the accidental release of their tax return. Enjoy:

Despite losing all the significant issues in this case and settling a damages claim of hundreds of thousands of dollars for $50,000, the National Organization for Marriage, Inc. (“NOM”) now seeks over $691,000 in attorneys’ fees. The Court should deny NOM’s motion in its entirety. The Court need not delve into NOM’s massive bills and complex algorithms to determine a reasonable attorney fee, because NOM is not the “prevailing party” — either with respect to the amount in controversy or the most significant issue pled. Regarding the amount in controversy, NOM has cherry picked the actual damages it was claiming during the course of this suit and, in fact, received less than half of what it was claiming when all amounts are properly considered. Also, NOM’s view of the most significant issue is belied by the face of its sworn Verified Complaint. Under both analyses, therefore, NOM is not a prevailing party. The Court’s analysis should end there — NOM is not entitled to any attorneys’ fees. 

But even assuming, arguendo, that the Court were to determine that (a) NOM was the prevailing party, and (b) the United States was not substantially justified in defending this suit, NOM’s fee request is deficient in several respects. First, NOM incorrectly uses the Vienna Metro Matrix to determine a reasonable hourly fee for its seven timekeepers; federal law provides for a statutory cap on an attorneys’ hourly rate in such suits against the government. Second, the very request for over $691,000 in fees in order to collect a $50,000 settlement is facially unreasonable. There are also other deficiencies in NOM’s request, including the fact that counsel spent over a year preparing for, researching and drafting its Verified Complaint. Thus, if the Court were to even reach the issue of whether NOM’s fee request is reasonable, which it should not, the Court should significantly reduce NOM’s request and award it minimal fees.

Department of Justice Urges States To Drop HIV Criminalization

The Civil Rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice is strongly urging legislators across the country to strike down laws that currently criminalize HIV-positive people who, often unknowingly, “certain behaviors before disclosing known HIV-positive status.”

HIV criminalization laws sprang up across the country in the early days of the AIDS epidemic when diagnoses and death were swift and sometimes unexpected. In a time when the exact means of transmission were misunderstood and means of treating those infected were scant, the laws were a desperate attempt to curtail the spread of the virus. More robust public health funding was provided to the states in 1990 provided that the states criminalized HIV transmission.

Unfortunately, most of the laws regarding HIV positive individuals and their conduct haven’t managed to keep pace with the development of treatments. Put simply, the laws just don’t work. Last year the United Nations HIV/AIDS prevention task force found that in criminalizing HIV transmission these laws discouraged people from finding out their HIV statuses.

“Generally the best practice would be for states to reform these laws to eliminate HIV-specific criminal penalties except in two distinct circumstances.”

The DoJ’s guide reads:

First, states may wish to retain criminal liability when a person who knows he/she is HIV positive commits a (non-HIV specific) sex crime where there is a risk of transmission (e.g., rape or other sexual assault). The second circumstance is where the individual knows he/she is HIV positive and the evidence clearly demonstrates the individual’s intent was to transmit the virus and that the behavior engaged in had a significant risk of transmission, whether or not transmission actually occurred.

GOP Killed Bill That Would Have Stopped DOJ From Taking AP Phone Records

Congressional Republicans, among them, Congressman Darrell Issa, helped kill the very bill, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, that would have prevented the Department of Justice from being able to take the phone records of the Associated Press.

As the media today continue to focus on the news that the Department of Justice (DOJ) subpoenaed and retrieved phone records from 20 of the Associated Press’ phone lines — which members of the media as well as Democrats and Republicans have roundly condemned — it’s important to note that Republican Representative Darrell Issa, among the most powerful in Congress, voted against a media shield bill that would have protected the AP and others from this very action. Issa is now grandstanding about how “above the law” he believes the administration acts, when Republicans literally decided to not pass the law the administration would supposedly have been above. 

‘House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa issued a statement slamming the administration,” Buzzfeed reports:

“This is obviously disturbing,” Issa said. “Americans should take notice that top Obama Administration officials increasingly see themselves as above the law and emboldened by the belief that they don’t have to answer to anyone. I will work with my fellow House Chairmen on an appropriate response to Obama Administration officials.”