California State University students have asked a San Francisco judge to reverse fee hikes implemented last month after students had paid for the upcoming fall term.

The suit, filed Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court, closely resembles a successful action against the University of California that resulted in UC paying back about $42 million to former students. The same law firms that represented UC students are involved in the Cal State case.

“I believe it’s exactly the same thing that happened” at UC, said Danielle Leonard, an attorney with the students’ San Francisco firm, Altshuler Berzon. “This option should not have even been on the table.”

The class-action suit accuses the 440,000-student state university system of unfairly raising undergraduate and graduate fees in July, the second time in three months fees were hiked. Students at some campuses had as little as a week to pay the additional money to avoid having their accounts frozen, Leonard said.

“Being asked to pay $300 in a week is a lot,” she said. “They’re scrambling to come up with this money.”

Students were given as much notice about the second fee hike as possible, said Cal State spokeswoman Clara Potes-Fellow. The late cuts by the Legislature forced the university to take the action, she said.

Cal State attorneys were aware of the UC court case before the university raised the fees, she said.

“But we’re not making decisions based on a court case with UC,” Potes-Fellow said. “Every case has its nuances.”

The pair of increases — prompted by $584 million in budget cuts — boosted Cal State fees by at least 32 percent. The University of California also implemented new fees for some graduate students.

In the UC case, judges ruled that the university had failed to give some students enough notice when it raised fees in 2003. A state appeals court affirmed the judgment.

From http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_13055768

The Cal State students on Thursday asked a judge for an injunction to temporarily block the increases. That motion is scheduled for a hearing Monday in San Francisco.

There’s an anti-abortion terrorist movement in the United States that operates relatively openly.  They advocate and their members commit acts of violence including murder against Americans who are not breaking the law, who are engaged in protected legal activity on  American soil.  These acts of violence are politically motivated.  They are designed to change American policies and to terrorize Americans.

They have succeeded in making providing abortion services to American women so dangerous, so intimidating, that there are only a handful of doctors in the entire country who provide late-term abortions, as Dr. Tiller did, abortions late in pregnancy.

In other words, this terrorism…is working.  Violence as a political strategy is working to make abortion so unsafe for doctors, that they are unwilling to bear the risk of performing it….so women can’t actually get one, regardless of whether or not it’s legal.

It’s the same outcome if abortion had been outlawed. They’re winning.  What’s the strategy to stop them?

See full commentary at Rachel Maddow website

Here is a video interview/biography in which she reflects on her professional duties as well as her family, background, and educational experiences.

–From “Believe and Achieve: Latinos in the Law” (You must have Adobe Flash player – get it here)

Michelle stands boldly in a White House where she is mistress, not slave. Her body is for her own pleasure, her own adornment, her own vanity. She is not reduced to the mule. Her labor will not enrich white folks, it will supply her family. She is not reduced to a breeder. Her children belong to her and she is free to love and protect them. It is an act of resistance for a black woman to demand that her body belong to herself for her pleasure, her adornment, even her vanity, because in the United Sates black women’s bodies have only been valued to the extent that they produce wealth and pleasure for others.

from THE KITCHEN TABLE.

The government subsidizes various agricultural industries, creating overproduction in commodities such as beef, pork and dairy. This overproduction depresses prices, endangering the vitality of producers. The U.S. government purchases the overproduction it has stimulated and then disposes of the excess by giving it to schools. In return for the government donation, the schools have to ensure that the lunches reach basic nutritional requirements as set by the government.

In 2003, U.S.D.A. spent $939.5 million dollars buying surplus commodities for School Lunch. Two-thirds of that bought meat and dairy, with little more than one quarter going to vegetables that were mostly frozen; and we should not forget that potatoes are the top selling vegetable in our country. The problem that arose is that between 80 and 85 percent of schools fail the basic government standards for the percentage of fat in the lunches due to the food it supplies schools.

Continues at New York Times