Petition to Florida Governor
Don't use taxpayer money to pay for your wrongdoing
Gov. Rick Scott was caught violating Florida public disclosure rules and now wants to use taxpayer money to pay for his malfeasance. Scott once said that he stood for fiscal and personal responsibility, but where is that sense of responsibility now that he has to pay $1.3 million to settle a lawsuit in order to avoid court? He has played fast and loose with the rules, using private emails to conduct public business, but now that he got caught he, he wants taxpayers to foot the bill. Mr. Scott has decided to take the entire settlement amount out of the state budget, further punishing taxpayers and state employees after he has spent years cutting back on salaries, budgets and benefits. As the eighth richest politician in the entire United States, with a whopping $147 million dollar net worth, it is shameful and hypocritical that he has now abandoned his principles of fiscal and personal responsibility and is making Florida citizens pay for his mistake. Join me in telling Gov. Rick Scott to do the honorable thing and take the $1.3 MILLION that he owes for violating state law out of his own pocket. The latest settlement is his third legal defeat in recent months, and it’s the second time he has used public funds to clean up his mess. He has said he stands for responsibility, but why does he think his constituents should be responsible for what are clearly his mistakes? Let’s ask Gov. Scott to stand by his stated principles of fiscal and personal responsibility. Let’s demand that he use his personal funds to pay the settlement. Taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for his mistake.
Petition to Utah State House, Utah State Senate
Impeach Judge Scott N. Johansen
If Judge Johansen wants to act like Judge Judy, then he should get a reality TV show. In the meantime, his past and present conduct is unbecoming of a judicial officer. On November 11th, Judge Johansen ordered that a child be removed from the home of a married lesbian couple, claiming that the child would be better off in the home of a heterosexual couple over the objection of the foster parents, the Utah Division of Child and Family Services and the Guardian Ad Litem Office assigned to represent the child. After public outcry, Judge Johansen partially reversed his Order. Judge Johansen has previously come under attack for his tactics. In 1997, Judge Johansen was reprimanded by the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission for "demeaning the judicial office" after slapping a 16-year-old boy during a 1995 meeting at the Price courthouse. In 2007, Judge Johansen was criticized for threatening to take a homeschooling mom’s children away if she failed to enroll them in public school and insure that they were in attendance every day. Johansen was also criticized in 2012 for ordering a woman to cut her 13-year-old daughter's ponytail as punishment for the teen cutting the hair off a 3-year-old girl at a restaurant. It is not enough to simply refer to the Judge’s conduct as ‘puzzling’ and suggest that he must follow the law. Judge Johansen should be impeached and removed from office.
Petition to New York Governor
Sign the Bill for NY Women’s Suffrage Centennial!
Create a Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission In 2017, it will be 100 years since New York State signed woman suffrage into law, three years before the US passed the 19th Amendment. Don’t let 2017 pass us by leaving yet another anniversary unfunded by the State. Instead, let us seize the opportunity to celebrate grandly, with robust opportunities for heritage tourism, education, and community conversations all across our state. The New York Council for the Humanities, a trusted provider of grants and services for the state’s cultural sector, stands ready to launch NY's commemoration. The Women's Rights Movement Legacy: 1917-2017 New York State was home to the leaders of the movement as well as many lesser-known figures whose stories deserve to be told too. From Seneca Falls and the Susan B. Anthony House in Rochester to countless heritage sites across the state, let's celebrate our state and nation's legacy of women's rights and progress! Urge Governor Cuomo to Take Action A bill establishing a Commission passed unanimously by both the NYS Assembly and Senate (A01019A/S02388-A). It’s time for the Governor to make it law! We are so close—join us in urging Governor Cuomo to sign the bill today.
Petition to North Carolina State House
Allowing Magistrates to File and Process Protective and Restraining Orders.
Objective: To raise awareness for laws that need to be revised under Chapter 50B pertaining to domestic violence and laws restricting magistrates to file Domestic Violence Protective Orders (known as DVPO) by creating an online petition to be presented to the state once enough signatures are obtained. This petition is requesting a sponsor to be an advocate of the law change that will be summarized below for your review. No monies will be requested, just the support to list as a sponsor for this cause. Request will be for Promise Place of New Bern, North Carolina. Summary of petition: Just as magistrates can process charges on someone for domestic violence, stalking, harassment and the like, they should be given the power to process protective orders for a temporary time. The bill to be created (to be advised as needed) would be to give them the power to process the paper work without the need to wait to go before a judge. Listed out in this way: Victim reports to magistrate’s office with a need to file a DVPO. Just as the victim would present evidence for charges against someone (ie; bruises, cuts, text messages, voicemails, phone call records etc) they would be required to present evidence for the DVPO for the magistrate to evaluate. If the magistrate deemed it necessary to file a DVPO (or charges) he could do so without directing them to the clerk of court or Women’s Shelter for assistance. The DVPO would be listed out as follows: Temporary DVPO for 30 days with a court date for the defendant or persons accused; Defendant will be served the DVPO in the same fashion a subpoena would; Defendant would be told when served that he will not be arrested (unless charges were filed) but would be required to appear in court to present why he/she is innocent; The victim will be given a court date to go before a judge before the defendant to present the case of why the DVPO is needed; The victim will not have to be afraid to go before the person they are filing against to prevent them from backing out or dropping charges/order; Once the defendant has been heard after the victim’s case, the judge can decide whether or not an extended DVPO (6 months – 1 year) is needed for the victim and all necessary stipulations to the DVPO will be explained before the defendant and to be signed by the defendant (as are charges and negotiations for paying court costs etc..) Once they have reached the end of the order, it can be re-evaluated if an extension on the order is needed. What a victim should have to present to the magistrate and how the magistrate should deter those that are falsifying documents out of anger: Victims should have proof for the order to be given (ie; text messages, voicemails, phone call records, witness reports of stalking or harassment) to show that there is an imminent need for protection through our law enforcement. Victims should be rehearsed in the same fashion the defendant will about having no contact with the opposite party and to also be told that if it is found the victim has falsified the statement given in any way, will be charged upon the decision of the judge for falsifying such order. This will be told to the victim before the order is processed, just like a warrant. This will prevent those that are acting out of anger or being vindictive against a partner or other party.