Florida Supreme Court Helped to Fund ACLU
Posted on August 7, 2005
Round and Round She Goes, Under The Table The Money Flows
The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ has uncovered documents revealing that the Florida Supreme Court is responsible for helping to fund the ACLU of Florida - using interest from legal trust funds generated by unsuspecting home buyers, heirs, and legal awards and settlements. Between 1990 and 1997, the Florida Bar Foundation (FBF), a creation of the Florida Supreme Court, provided more than $600,000 to help pay the salary of the ACLU of Florida’s legal director.
Wow! So what does this mean exactly? Doesn’t this create a conflict of interest? Despite the fact that the Court often issues rulings in cases argued by the ACLU’s legal director, they claim there is no conflict of interest. What a joke!
This is further evidence of the Court’s skewed ideological agenda. In 1956, the Florida Bar Foundation was established by the Florida Supreme Court in order to provide legal assistance to the poor. Sadly, at least in this case, the Court used the funds of unsuspecting Floridians to promote a radical ideological agenda.
In 1981, in an effort to increase the level of funding for the Foundation, the Florida High Court adopted the nation’s first IOTA (interest on trust account) program. Under the IOTA program, all monies that change hands via an attorney (i.e. home purchases, lawsuit awards, probate accounts, divorce settlements, etc.) are to be temporarily deposited in a pooled interest-bearing account. Chances are: If you settled a lawsuit, inherited money, or bought a home during the 1990’s, you probably helped to fund the radical agenda of the ACLU of Florida.
So you Florida residents are giving money to the ACLU and you didn’t even know it. Isn’t that something? In my opinion there is double shame here. Shame on the Court for doing this, and shame on the ACLU for accepting the money. While the orginal reasoning for the fund was to provide legal assistance to the poor, the ACLU of Florida has waged a war on decency and the list is quite long.
The citizens of Florida deserve better. The ACLU of Florida claims that it does “not receive any government funding” and that it is “funded entirely with private donations, foundation grants, court-awarded legal fees and membership dues.”
However, the truth is that the ACLU has used the government (the Florida Supreme Court) to operate a multi-million dollar foundation which strips monies from unsuspecting Floridians so that it can fund legal efforts to oppose common sense legislation passed by the elected representatives of those same unsuspecting citizens.Source
To view the Florida Bar Foundation’s records of grants awarded to the ACLU of Florida, please click here.
It was recently argued by a well distinguished lawyer that the ACLU’s suits were not frivolous. The definition of “frivolous” is “Unworthy of serious attention; trivial.” He would trust the Court in making the decision on whether it was frivolous or not. My question is that in cases like this, where the Court is not only putting citizen’s money in the ACLU’s pocket, but also doing it without these citizens knowledge, how could one trust the Court with any decision pertaining to the ACLU?
Michelle Malkin has other examples of how liberals steal from the not so rich to fund their own agendas.
Thank you Outside The Beltway and Mudville Gazette
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has open trackbacks.
» Filed Under Fundraising
Trackback URL
Comments
26 Responses to “Florida Supreme Court Helped to Fund ACLU”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
IOTA’s are government money?
And what is the “legal director program” ?
You’re going to have a hard time sayign that what the ACLU does is trivial since you care so much about it.
Can’t be trivial if the Court is listening now can it? My question was how we could trust this particular Court in making a decision like that.
Did you read the actual post? IOTAs are defined there. And a legal director of the ACLU is a big leader of the organization.
The court cannot be approving money going to an organization that that court will knowingly have to rule on in the future. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that?
“And a legal director of the ACLU is a big leader of the organization.”
It says “legal director program.” While the guy in charge is the legal director. I’m wondering what the “legal director program” is. Same thing?
IOTA’s are temporary accounts. I don’t see that as government money. Do you?
Yes, I see the Court as part of the government. It is the Court giving them the money…money taken from the citizens who are now unknowingly funding the ACLU. Zaph is on the mark in his comment.
“money taken from the citizens who are now unknowingly funding the ACLU”
Was it their money to begin with? or was it part of the bar association?
Funny, you have no problem with courts spending money on the 10 C’s. Oh, I see, you agree with that, but not this. What is the difference?
As far as I know, the 10 Commandments are not arguing civil rights cases before the court, cl…how can you not see the distinction?
The question was rhetorical. With the 10 C’s present, people possibly could become persuaded and decide cases upon them and not the law. There is no difference between the court giving money to fund cases, which may or may not have an effect on the outcome and the court spending money for the 10 C’s, which also may or may not effect the outcome. What is the difference?
You make no sense, as per usual.
“As far as I know, the 10 Commandments are not arguing civil rights cases before the court, cl…how can you not see the distinction? ”
the other distinction is the one made in the 1st amendment.
I make perfect sense. You choose to not see the light.
Fark and CL, what is your agenda here at this site?
Is it truly that difficult to agree to disagree?
As far as I know, it is bickering that stalls progress.
Oh well, that being said… I hope you get a chance to stop by and see my final post for a while Jay.
I hope that you all can come to some agreement with each other in my abscense.
“Fark and CL, what is your agenda here at this site?”
beating people with hammers and sickles.
“beating people with hammers and sickles.”
We are more than willing to exchange ideas and debate if that is what you want.
It is becoming increasingly clear that you are more interested in disrupting and arguing for the sake of arguing.
So, either start debating intellegently or take your ‘nuance’, ‘PC’, ’spin’ and ‘revisionism’ and go elsewhere. Don’t wait for that gentle shove!
“We are more than willing to exchange ideas and debate if that is what you want.”
Same thing as it says on the title of the website: beating people with hammers and sickles.
Bring it on.
Q: And what is the “legal director program”? , “And a legal director of the ACLU is a big leader of the organization.”
A: The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ has uncovered documents revealing that the Florida Supreme Court is responsible for helping to fund the ACLU of Florida — using interest from legal trust funds generated by unsuspecting home buyers, heirs, and legal awards and settlements. Between 1990 and 1997, the Florida Bar Foundation (FBF), a creation of the Florida Supreme Court, provided more than $600,000 to help pay the salary of the ACLU of Florida’s legal director.
Incredibly, the Florida Supreme Court approved these appropriations, despite the fact that the Court often issues rulings in cases argued by the ACLU’s legal director. One would assume that such funding would create a conflict of interest — but not in the eyes of the Court. In a letter faxed to the Center, the FBF admitted that every instance in which it offered funding to the ACLU of Florida, it was “specifically approved from time to time by the Supreme Court of Florida.”
The Mechanics of IOTA Accounts
This is further evidence of the Court’s skewed ideological agenda. In 1956, the Florida Bar Foundation was established by the Florida Supreme Court in order to provide legal assistance to the poor. Sadly, at least in this case, the Court used the funds of unsuspecting Floridians to promote a radical ideological agenda.
In 1981, in an effort to increase the level of funding for the Foundation, the Florida High Court adopted the nation’s first IOTA (interest on trust account) program. Under the IOTA program, all monies that change hands via an attorney (i.e. home purchases, lawsuit awards, probate accounts, divorce settlements, etc.) are to be temporarily deposited in a pooled interest-bearing account. Chances are: If you settled a lawsuit, inherited money, or bought a home during the 1990’s, you probably helped to fund the radical agenda of the ACLU of Florida.
And this is no petty operation! The 2004 annual report of the Florida Bar Foundation noted that as of June 2004 there were 22,688 accounts worth more than $3.60 billion contributing interest to fund the Florida Bar Foundation. In turn, this publicly funded foundation has distributed more than $175 million to various organizations during the past twenty years.
The Dangerous Agenda of the ACLU of Florida
A portion of this money was used to help the ACLU establish its dangerous and very active legal program in Florida. And rather than helping the poor, the ACLU of Florida has waged a war against common decency, including:
opposing the “Women’s Right to Know Act” requiring abortionists to inform women of abortion risks http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=16850&c=222
opposing the President’s faith-based initiatives
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2002/faith-basedprograms121202.cfm
opposing school choice programs
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2002/voucherruling080502.cfm
opposing a Polk County Ten Commandments display http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2001/tencommandments.cfm
opposing “In God We Trust” posters in public schools http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/02/28/ingodwetrust.signs.ap
opposing prayer in Jacksonville schools http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2000/adlerruling0300.cfm
opposing Bible curriculum in Lee and Dade County schools http://www.aclufl.org/legislature_courts/legal_department/briefs_complaints/lee_complaint.cfm
opposing parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2003/parentalrights071003.cfm
attempting to force Florida taxpayers to fund abortions under Medicaid http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2003/medicaiddcahearing.cfm
and opposing the statewide ban on gay adoption http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=490
The citizens of Florida deserve better. The ACLU of Florida claims that it does “not receive any government funding” and that it is “funded entirely with private donations, foundation grants, court-awarded legal fees and membership dues.”
However, the truth is that the ACLU has used the government (the Florida Supreme Court) to operate a multi-million dollar foundation which strips monies from unsuspecting Floridians so that it can fund legal efforts to oppose common sense legislation passed by the elected representatives of those same unsuspecting citizens.
Building on a Legacy of Deception
This deception is on par with the cumulative legacy of the ACLU. Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, once said, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself.”
Later, in a letter to a friend, Baldwin wrote, “We want to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a lot of flags, talk a great deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country and to show that we are the fellows that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”
This form of deception remains the modus operandi of the modern-day ACLU.
Receipts for ACLU Funding
To view the Florida Bar Foundation’s records of grants awarded to the ACLU of Florida, please click here: http://www.reclaimamerica.org/download/FLBarFndn.pdf
June 27, 1997
$50,000 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Director Program
March 22, 1996
$95,500 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Director Program
March 17, 1995
$85,000 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Director Project
March 18, 1994
$85,000 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Director Project
March 19, 1993
$75,000 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Director Project
March 20, 1992
$95,000 = ACLU of Florida / Staff Counsel Project
November 30, 1990
$105,000 = ACLU of Florida / Staff Counsel Project
March 22, 1990
$10,000 = ACLU of Florida / Institution of Staff Counsel
March 21, 1986
$15,000 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Program
Source List: Florida Bar Foundation 2003-2004 Annual Report
http://www.flabarfndn.org/communication/fbf2004a.pdf
“Enemy of the State,” Townhall, June 29, 2004.
http://soapbox.townhall.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/6/29/215435/697
Q: What is an IOTA
A: The Mechanics of IOTA Accounts:
This is further evidence of the Court’s skewed ideological agenda. In 1956, the Florida Bar Foundation was established by the Florida Supreme Court in order to provide legal assistance to the poor. Sadly, at least in this case, the Court used the funds of unsuspecting Floridians to promote a radical ideological agenda.
In 1981, in an effort to increase the level of funding for the Foundation, the Florida High Court adopted the nation’s first IOTA (interest on trust account) program. Under the IOTA program, all monies that change hands via an attorney (i.e. home purchases, lawsuit awards, probate accounts, divorce settlements, etc.) are to be temporarily deposited in a pooled interest-bearing account. Chances are: If you settled a lawsuit, inherited money, or bought a home during the 1990’s, you probably helped to fund the radical agenda of the ACLU of Florida.
And this is no petty operation! The 2004 annual report of the Florida Bar Foundation noted that as of June 2004 there were 22,688 accounts worth more than $3.60 billion contributing interest to fund the Florida Bar Foundation. In turn, this publicly funded foundation has distributed more than $175 million to various organizations during the past twenty years.
Q: What is the “legal director program”? , “And a legal director of the ACLU is a big leader of the organization.”
A: The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ has uncovered documents revealing that the Florida Supreme Court is responsible for helping to fund the ACLU of Florida — using interest from legal trust funds generated by unsuspecting home buyers, heirs, and legal awards and settlements. Between 1990 and 1997, the Florida Bar Foundation (FBF), a creation of the Florida Supreme Court, provided more than $600,000 to help pay the salary of the ACLU of Florida’s legal director.
Incredibly, the Florida Supreme Court approved these appropriations, despite the fact that the Court often issues rulings in cases argued by the ACLU’s legal director. One would assume that such funding would create a conflict of interest — but not in the eyes of the Court. In a letter faxed to the Center, the FBF admitted that every instance in which it offered funding to the ACLU of Florida, it was “specifically approved from time to time by the Supreme Court of Florida.”
The Dangerous Agenda of the ACLU of Florida
A portion of this money was used to help the ACLU establish its dangerous and very active legal program in Florida. And rather than helping the poor, the ACLU of Florida has waged a war against common decency, including:
opposing the “Women’s Right to Know Act” requiring abortionists to inform women of abortion risks http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=16850&c=222
opposing the President’s faith-based initiatives
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2002/faith-basedprograms121202.cfm
opposing school choice programs
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2002/voucherruling080502.cfm
opposing a Polk County Ten Commandments display http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2001/tencommandments.cfm
opposing “In God We Trust” posters in public schools http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/02/28/ingodwetrust.signs.ap
opposing prayer in Jacksonville schools http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2000/adlerruling0300.cfm
opposing Bible curriculum in Lee and Dade County schools http://www.aclufl.org/legislature_courts/legal_department/briefs_complaints/lee_complaint.cfm
opposing parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2003/parentalrights071003.cfm
attempting to force Florida taxpayers to fund abortions under Medicaid http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2003/medicaiddcahearing.cfm
and opposing the statewide ban on gay adoption http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=490
Receipts for ACLU Funding
To view the Florida Bar Foundation’s records of grants awarded to the ACLU of Florida, please click here: http://www.reclaimamerica.org/download/FLBarFndn.pdf
June 27, 1997
$50,000 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Director Program
March 22, 1996
$95,500 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Director Program
March 17, 1995
$85,000 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Director Project
March 18, 1994
$85,000 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Director Project
March 19, 1993
$75,000 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Director Project
March 20, 1992
$95,000 = ACLU of Florida / Staff Counsel Project
November 30, 1990
$105,000 = ACLU of Florida / Staff Counsel Project
March 22, 1990
$10,000 = ACLU of Florida / Institution of Staff Counsel
March 21, 1986
$15,000 = ACLU of Florida / Legal Program
Does that answer your questions Fark?
I am here to help in any way Fark, ignorance is not a good excuse, so I thought I would help.
I don’t mean that in a bad way, but by definition I am just trying to show you what you may not know.
Does all that info look familiar?
It’s what you have been commenting on.
“Does that answer your questions Fark?”
No, because It does not answer what the “legal director program” is.
“It’s what you have been commenting on. ”
Its unsurprising that it doesn’t answer the question then.
I’d also like to know about hte “uncovering” of documents, of the headline that say this has been happening “under the table.” As far as I can tell they’re basically publically available, as the documents look like they’re a fax from the bar foundation that runs these funds, in reply to an inquiry.
You are the best. Thank you http://www.bignews.com