Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - DLove

Article Here
Man Who Offered Lift To Teen Girls Says He's Victim Of 'Good Deed Gone Wrong'

March 16, 2012 11:31 PM
Rodney Peterson says he shouldn't have been charged for offering a ride to two teen girls during a snowstorm. (CBS)

BARRINGTON, Ill. (CBS) - Two 13-year-old suburban girls are being credited with helping police catch a man who offered them a ride home.
Barrington police say the teens were alarmed and disturbed by the offer and took down the man's license plate. But as CBS 2′s Mai Martinez reports, the man says he was only trying to help the girls, not harm them.
"This is a good deed gone wrong," Rodney Peterson says.
During a March 2 snowstorm, he saw two teen girls leave a Shell station while he was pumping gas.
"I just noticed these girls, that they had no umbrella, no coats or hood or something of that nature and I just felt like I should help," Peterson says.
When he drove off, he saw them a short distance away on Prospect Avenue near Waverly.
"I just pulled up and said 'How far do you have to walk?' And one of the girls just replied, 'We're OK,' and waved me on."
Peterson says he drove off and thought nothing of it until Barrington police showed up at his home three days later.
The married father of three, who has a fourth child due in June, listened in disbelief as police told him the girls reported the encounter and he was being charged with disorderly conduct.
His explanation did not assuage the police. Peterson's wife of nearly 12 years can't believe it.
"It really was a good deed, just misinterpreted," she says.
Despite his being charged, the Petersons don't blame the girls, their families or even police for following up.
"The question comes into why I was charged," Rodney Peterson says.
Peterson is due in court on Monday. He's facing a maximum $750 fine.
Barrington's police chief said the girls in this case were "alarmed and disturbed" by Peterson's actions. He said the right thing to do in a situation like that is to call police and tell them that the teens need a ride.

Since it was a man - imagine the worst possibility regardless of good intent. How a female feelings warrant fine/arrest is beyond me but this should serve as a warning to all men of days to come.

Main / The Noose Begins to Tighten
Aug 03, 2011, 09:39 PM;siu-container

How the new 'Protecting Children' bill puts you at risk
By Violet Blue
August 1, 2011, 11:37pm PDT

Summary: A bill now makes the online activity of every American available to authorities upon request under the guise of protecting children from pornography.

Last Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives' judiciary committee passed a bill that makes the online activity of every American available to police and attorneys upon request under the guise of protecting children from pornography.

The Republican-majority sponsored bill is called the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.

It has nothing to do with pornography, and was opposed by over 30 civil liberties and consumer advocacy organizations, as well as one brave indie ISP that is urging its customers to do everything they can to protest the invasion of privacy.
"Protecting Children" forces ISPs to retain customer names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and dynamic IP addresses.
It's like having your wallet plus the web sites you visit tracked and handed over on request. These logs are now going to be retained for the scope of one and a half years.
(I have to wonder if ISPs can sell this data, too.)

This has nothing to do with porn. In case you're like the Reps that passed this nightmare and you've forgotten: pornography is legal in the United States.
It is pedophilia that is illegal. But for the sake of harnessing hysteria to get a bill passed, clearly these particular Republicans find it convenient to conflate "pornographers" as pedophiles. Last time I checked in on the matter, pedophiles did not operate within the laws surrounding adult pornography.

Personally, I'm insulted as a porn-loving American girl to be included by way of consumer participation in this disgusting and misleading characterization. And that my privacy has just been sold for something that doesn't actually help the children.
I don't feel confident that treating us all like the criminals our system can't catch is going to protect any children, especially when the people who passed the bill can't - or won't - distinguish the difference between legal adult pornography and pedophilia.
CNET's Declan McCullagh reminds us that "the mandatory logs would be accessible to police investigating any crime and perhaps attorneys litigating civil disputes in divorce, insurance fraud, and other cases as well." CNET reported that mandatory data retention was being fast-tracked in January, 2011.

The fact that civil litigants could subpoena your internet activity and the contents of your wallet has nothing to do with the labeled and stated purpose of this bill.
"The bill is mislabeled," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel. "This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes."

However, this bill has a provision stating that a court does not need to approve administrative subpoenas used by U.S. Marshals who might use it to 'track down unregistered sex offenders.' This received strong arguments against giving Marshals too much power.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation spearheaded consumer and privacy groups' opposition to the bill and hosted a one-click letter-writing campaign. This included the ACLU, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Patient Privacy Rights and many more.
Because of the way the bill requires information to be collected and stored, the EFF called the bill "ripe for abuse by law enforcement officials" and said that because the laws designed to protect the private data of consumers from government access are insufficient and out-of-date, it creates "a perfect storm for government abuse."

While consumer groups opposed it and tech news outlets I trust are spelling out concerns, it was when my own ISP made a blog post that it was clear that this bill isn't just a problem for privacy proponents.'s CEO Dane Jasper personally posted Help us, protect your privacy online.
Today we retain most IP allocation logs for just two weeks; we don't need them beyond that period, so they are deleted. Storing logs longer presents an attractive nuisance, and would potentially make our customers the target of invasions of privacy.
Any lawyer can simply file a Doe lawsuit, draft up a subpoena and request a customer's identity. It's far too easy.

Do the wheels of justice - or investigation - move too slowly, and should data be retained for a long time to allow for legitimate investigation? No, there are already tools in place that law enforcement can easily use to ask ISPs to preserve log information of real online criminals.

The 1996 Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act allows law enforcement to require an ISP to keep data for 90 days upon law enforcement request, giving time for a legitimate search warrant to be reviewed by a judge and issued.
The CEO points out that because the bill applies to commercial providers, naturally it won't catch people pursuing criminal activity, who can simply use public Wi-Fi.
Or 4G wireless, such as through a cell carrier.

One nice feature of the PCFIPA of 2011 bill is that it doesn't include cellular data, so if you've thought about switching to 4G wireless data at home you'll soon have another reason.

That's right: wireless carriers are exempt from having to store all your data and provide it on notice. This is likely because unlike small ISPs such as Sonic, wireless carriers lobbied the bill authors to get out of it.The Department of Justice fought against the mobile exemption. Obviously if someone is going to distribute pedophilia they could do it over a 4G wireless card just as easily as their DSL account, so in a certain context, the wireless carriers have lobbied their way out of the cost burden.

That also makes this bill anti-small business, because smaller ISPs like Sonic have to bear the costs, while Verizon and friends, don't.

I think that ultimately, the ones bearing the true costs will be us.
And don't give me that 'if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry' line. It's as ripe as Congressman Weiner's old line, 'my account was hacked.'

Republicans & Democrats two sides of the same coin and the sooner we see it and start to do more than we are doing now, the better off some of us will be cuz, you had better believe there's more poo poo coming down the road . What appears to be going on all around us is a whole lot of misdirect, lies, obfuscation, greed and thievery as the sheeple are willingly led into bondage. Not unlike a chess master playing a game against a novice, I'm just saying..... seems like things keep getting worse.

Main / Mosley loses title belts in divorce
Jul 15, 2011, 12:04 PM

Mosley loses title belts in divorce

Not only has Shane Mosley been on the losing end of his latest boxing matches, he is also losing the fight in the courtroom as well. Per TMZ Sports, Mosley's ex-wife Jin Mosley will be awarded 3 championship belts as part of their divorce settlement. Ouch. Here are some details:

The settlement provides that ex-wife Jin "shall maintain custody and control of three championship belts for each of the respective parties' three minor children."  Each of the kids get a belt when they turn 18.
And Jin will get half of Sugar Shane's cut of profits from videotapes and DVDs of his big fights, including bouts with Oscar De La Hoya, Miguel Cotto and Fernando Vargas.

Since the divorce was filed in California and community property rules apply, Jin gets half of Sugar Shane's fight purses during their marriage.

Shane Mosley won't have to split the $3mil he pocketed for his sparring match fight with Manny Pacquiao as the fight took place after the 2009 split, so there's a small silver lining to an overall disappointing judgment. Not to mention the 21-year-old bombshell Bella Gonzalez that Shane has bagged, so I think Shane is sleeping well. Or not at all, depending on how you look at it.


In his prime HE was one of the best fighters in his weight class. Yet it is SHE who never entered the ring to earn 1¢ gets to take half of what HE earned in those fights. Why....well because SHE like all women are considered entitled to the fruits/sweat of a man's labor if she considers divorcing him. As most can see this gives potential carte blanche gold digging powers to all women for that which they could never earn or deserve. This is the single most important reason why men should never marry. There is no incentive/downside to prevent her at any time from taking the money, kids and house she is entitled to and kicking him to the curb.



Tuesday, July 05, 2011 A.D.

Exclusive: Court Subpoena for Obama's Original Birth Certificate Served to Hawaii Health Department.


by Sharon Rondeau

The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued and served a subpoena on July 5, 2011 to the director of the Hawaii Health Department for Obama's original birth certificate

(Jul. 5, 2011) -- A process server has delivered a Hawaii court-issued subpoena to Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, commanding her "to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying testing, or sampling of the material:" original 1961 typewritten birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, III [sic] issued 08.08.1961, signed by Dr. David Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the State of HI from 08081961 until now.

The subpoena allows Fuddy until August 8, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to produce the document.

The designated place of production is noted as:

Health Department
State of HI
1250 Punchbowl str. room 325
Honolulu, HI  96813

Above the date, the following text appears:

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.

The subpoena is signed by a deputy clerk as evidenced by an underline appearing beneath that term under the signature line.  It is dated "0705.2011″ just above the signature.

A second page titled "Proof of Service" reads:

This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) Loretta Fuddy
was received by me on (date) 0705.2011

A box is checked and the following preprinted text states:

I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:

and the lines are completed with the following:

by certified mail return receipt sent to Attorney General of HI, 485 South King str, room 200, Honolulu, HI 96813 on (date) 07.05.2011; or

The checkbox and line below are blank.

Zeroes appearing on lines with dollar signs indicate that there are no fees charged for the service.

A final statement reads:

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:  07.05.2011

The server's signature appears in cursive writing and is printed on the line below.  It is stamped with the following below the process server's signature and printed name:

Law Offices of Orly Taitz, Esq.
29639 Santa Margarita Pkwy. Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA  92688

Proof of Service of the Subpoena from the U.S. District Court in Hawaii to the Health Department Director and the Hawaii Attorney General

Envelope in which Dr. Orly Taitz received a copy of the subpoena and its second page, which is the Proof of Service document

Loretta Fuddy and Dr. Alvin Onaka, Registrar of the Hawaii Department of Health, had previously refused Taitz's request to release Obama's original birth certificate, citing  concerns for "privacy."  Taitz responded to Onaka's refusal with a letter copied to several congressmen, putative Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, and the statement:

...we have an individual with a forged birth certificate and an invalid Social Security number usurping the position of the US president and Commander in Chief of the whole US military. Your and Ms. Fuddy's refusal to provide access to the original birth certificate can be viewed as aiding and abetting to uttering of a forged document and elections fraud. Based on all of the above, I am respectfully requesting an administrative review of my appeal and granting access to the original document in question. If the appeal is not granted within 30 days, I will be taking further action.

On April 27, 2011, the White House released what it claimed was a certified copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate on television and the internet.  However, numerous document examiners, typesetting experts, and graphics consultants have come forward to state in formal presentations and reports that the image presented to the public is a poor forgery.

© 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Rocky,  Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat....first let me button up my sleeve..........

Is Taitz's issuing her own subpoena?


Obama's Economists: 'Stimulus' Has Cost $278,000 per Job

The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.

12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it's clearly not trying to draw attention to the report's contents. Sure enough, the "Seventh Quarterly Report" on the economic impact of the "stimulus," released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama's economic "stimulus" did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House's Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the "stimulus" in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using "mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus" (which it describes as a "natural way to estimate the effects of" the legislation), the "stimulus" has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs -- whether private or public -- at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That's a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the "stimulus," and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.
Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the "stimulus" had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs -- or 288,000 more than it has now.  In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the "stimulus" than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the "stimulus" has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama's own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it's quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama's "stimulus" has actually undermined the economy's recovery -- while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

The actual employment numbers from the administration's own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the "stimulus" was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It's now $14.467 trillion -- and counting.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers -- and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn't passed the "stimulus."

And this guy wants to be re-elected? Brings back memories of Reagan's theme, " Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"



Strauss-Kahn Case Seen as in Jeopardy

The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on the verge of collapse as investigators have uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May, according to two well-placed law enforcement officials.

Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself.

Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said.

Senior prosecutors met with lawyers for Mr. Strauss-Kahn on Thursday and provided details about their findings, and the parties are discussing whether to dismiss the felony charges. Among the discoveries, one of the officials said, are issues involving the asylum application of the 32-year-old housekeeper, who is Guinean, and possible links to criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers will return to State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Friday morning, when Justice Michael J. Obus is expected to consider easing the extraordinary bail conditions that he imposed on Mr. Strauss-Kahn in the days after he was charged.

Indeed, Mr. Strauss-Kahn could be released on his own recognizance, and freed from house arrest, reflecting the likelihood that the serious charges against him will not be sustained. The district attorney's office may try to require Mr. Strauss-Kahn to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but his lawyers are likely to contest such a move.

The revelations are a stunning change of fortune for Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, who was considered a strong contender for the French presidency before being accused of sexually assaulting the woman who went to clean his luxury suite at the Sofitel New York.

Prosecutors from the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., who initially were emphatic about the strength of the case and the account of the victim, plan to tell the judge on Friday that they "have problems with the case" based on what their investigators have discovered, and will disclose more of their findings to the defense. The woman still maintains that she was attacked, the officials said.

"It is a mess, a mess on both sides," one official said.

According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.

That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman's bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.

The investigators also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies. The woman had insisted she had only one phone and said she knew nothing about the deposits except that they were made by a man she described as her fiancé and his friends.

In addition, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application.

A lawyer for the woman, Kenneth Thompson, could not be immediately reached for comment on Thursday evening.

In recent weeks, Mr. Strauss-Kahn's lawyers, Benjamin Brafman and William W. Taylor III, have made it clear that they would make the credibility of the woman a focus of their case. In a May 25 letter, they said they had uncovered information that would "gravely undermine the credibility" of the accuser.

Still, it was the prosecutor's investigators who found the information about the woman.

The case involving Mr. Strauss-Kahn has made international headlines and renewed attention on accusations that he had inappropriate behavior toward women in the past, while, more broadly, prompting soul-searching among the French about the treatment of women.

The revelations about the investigators' findings are likely to buttress the view of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's supporters, who complained that the American authorities had rushed to judgment in the case.

Some of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's allies even contended that he had been set up by his political rivals, an assertion that law enforcement authorities said there was no evidence to support.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn resigned from his post as managing director of the International Monetary Fund in the wake of the housekeeper's accusations and was required to post $1 million bail and a $5 million bond.

He also agreed to remain under 24-hour home confinement while wearing an ankle monitor and providing a security team and an armed guard at the entrance and exit of the building where he was living. The conditions are costing Mr. Strauss-Kahn $250,000 a month.

Prosecutors had sought the restrictive conditions in part by arguing that the case against Mr. Strauss-Kahn was a strong one, citing a number of factors, including the credibility of his accuser, with one prosecutor saying her story was "compelling and unwavering."

In the weeks after making her accusations, the woman, who arrived in the United States from Guinea in 2002, was described by relatives and friends as an unassuming and hard-working immigrant with a teenage daughter. She had no criminal record, and had been a housekeeper at the Sofitel for a few years, they said.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn was such a pariah in the initial days after the arrest that neighbors of an Upper East Side apartment building objected when he and his wife tried to rent a unit there. He eventually rented a three-story town house on Franklin Street in TriBeCa.

Under the relaxed conditions of bail to be requested on Friday, the district attorney's office would retain Mr. Strauss-Kahn's passport but he would be permitted to travel within the United States.

The woman told the authorities that she had gone to Mr. Strauss-Kahn's suite to clean it and that he emerged naked from the bathroom and attacked her. The formal charges accused him of ripping her pantyhose, trying to rape her and forcing her to perform oral sex; his lawyers say there is no evidence of force and have suggested that any sex was consensual.

After the indictment was filed, Mr. Vance spoke briefly on the courthouse steps addressing hundreds of local and foreign reporters who had been camped out in front of the imposing stone edifice. He characterized the charges as "extremely serious" and said the "evidence supports the commission of nonconsensual forced sexual acts."

Mr. Strauss-Kahn's lawyers, Mr. Brafman and Mr. Taylor, declined to comment on Thursday evening.

The case was not scheduled to return to court until July 18.

This is scary on two fronts. On the one hand we of the MRM know that any man can be jailed and vilified in the media with an uncorroborated accusation from any woman no matter his social status and on the other hand, could it be possible that there are those (world elite) who are so powerful that they can manufacture evidence to create reasonable doubt?

For as long as the notion of individual rights has existed, one of them has been the notion that one's home is sacrosanct. As of Thursday, that's no longer true in Indiana.

   People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

   The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said. "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson strongly dissented, saying the ruling runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, The Times of Munster reported. "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said.

Both dissenting justices suggested they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its scope to stripping the right to resist officers who enter homes illegally in cases where they suspect domestic violence is being committed. But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

The court's decision stemmed from a Vanderburgh County case in which a man yelled at police and blocked them from entering his apartment to investigate a domestic disturbance. The man shoved a police officer who entered anyway and was shocked with a stun gun and arrested.

Valparaiso University School of Law professor Ivan Bodensteiner told The Times that the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence. "It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Thursday's decision was the court's second ruling this week involving police entry into a home. On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Previously, police serving a warrant had to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking. (Court: Police serving warrant may enter without knocking if circumstances justify it)

Also this from U.S. Supreme Court

Police Enter Wrong House, U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Warrantless Search

In U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kentucky v. Hollis Deshaun King (No. 09-1272. Argued January 12, 2011-Decided May 16, 2011), the court upheld a warrantless search based on exigent circumstances.

In Kentucky v. Hollis Deshaun King, police officers were involved in a controlled drug buy for crack cocaine near an apartment complex. After the transaction, the suspect left on foot and entered the apartment complex.

The suspect entered an apartment unit, but officers did not know which apartment unit the suspect entered. There were two doors, one on the right, and one on the left. Officers smelled marijuana smoke coming from the unit on the left, and knocked on the door, while announcing their presence. Officers heard people moving inside of the apartment, but no one answered the door.

Officers kicked in the door of the apartment, and entered. Officers found drugs inside, and King was charged trafficking in marijuana, first degree trafficking of a controlled substance, and second degree persistent felony offender status. Officers entered the wrong unit. The suspect from the controlled drug buy was later apprehended in the apartment on the right.

Typically, prior to searching a home, officers must have a warrant. One exception to the warrant requirement is if exigent circumstances exist. Prior cases have found that exigent circumstances are those that involve an imminent risk of death or serious injury, or danger that evidence would be destroyed, or that a person may escape. In this case, prior to the knocking, the occupants of the unit on the left were probably unaware of the officer's presence. In fact, they were smoking marijuana with officers standing outside of the front door. Officers could have obtained a warrant prior to entering the unit.

The opinion was an 8-1 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the only justice to dissent. Justice Ginsberg wrote, "How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?"

Maybe if we were good, hardworking and humble slaves and said "please", massa would give us back our 4th Amendment liberties (the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures). Please, someone tell me that there is another way out besides organized resistance and bloodshed


Poll: Majority in US back same-sex marriage

Gallup shows 53 percent say it should be legal, up from 44 percent last year.

Blah blah blah, gay marriage ok... Blah, blah, blah....  Most people in U.S. favor  Blah, blah, blah..  ... Younger people more tolerant Blah, blah, blah ..... Shift to progressive thinking Blah blah blah, .........Same sex marriage = equal rights Blah, blah, blah..... Don't ask, Don't tell Blah, blah, blah..... Change constitution Blah, blah, blah... Homophobic  Blah, blah, blah

[font=Verdana]The results are based on telephone interviews conducted May 5-8, 2011, with a random sample of 1,018 adults, ages 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The results were weighted for various factors to give nationally representative numbers.[/font]

Hmmmmm....  How can you statistically take a random sample of 1,018 and extrapolate the views of 308,000,000?

Main / Laugh / Smile for the day
May 18, 2011, 09:41 AM
Female pension campaigners to march on Parliament

The article basically reports on a proposal to escalate the timetable of a new retirement age law by two years (2018 vs 2020)  which will equalize the retirement age for men (n=65yr) and women (n=60yr), then both to be further increased by 1 year to age 66.

Now for the laugh - brought to us by a female commenting on this :

"Why are rich privileged men, many of whom are Tory MPs, so misogynistic? Do they feel betrayed and unloved by mothers who handed them over to dominating nannies, then packed them off to be bullied at public schools as soon as they could get rid of them? Their policies punish many women who brought up their own children with love and devotion, not their idle uncaring mothers. They are targeting the wrong women with their hatred: women who raise families, hold down jobs and frequently care for sick and ageing relatives who would otherwise cost the state a great deal of money to support. The earlier retirement age for women recognised the many contributions women make to society. It was a mark of a civilised society which is fast disappearing."

Feminism = Gender Equality...... Clearly some pigs are better and more deserving  than others.

This is a very important case affecting mostly men, who for whatever reason are unable to pay C$ which results in automatic jail time.


On Wednesday, March 23, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Michael D. Turner v. Rebecca L. Rogers, et al., a South Carolina child support case wherein the defendant, Michael Turner, spent a year in jail for failure to pay back child support.  He was not convicted of a crime; the year in jail was not a punishment, per se.  Michael was being held in contempt of court, and the jail time was a means to induce the payment of six thousand dollars in past-due child support.

According to Mr. Turner, the problem was that he just didn't have the money to pay.  Further, because he did not have a lawyer at his contempt hearing, he was unable to prove it.  He likens his situation to debtors' prison because he went to jail to force him to comply with a debt he could not pay.  The mother of his children and her supporters, including the two U.S. Senators from South Carolina, argue that granting civil contempt defendants the right to counsel would actually lead to inequality in the system for custodial parents, who do not have such a right.  SCOTUS must now decide whether defendants like Mr. Turner, facing long or even indefinite stints in jail to induce payment of child support, have the same right to representation at a civil contempt hearing as criminal defendants do.

"Contempt of court" is a common idea in U.S. law.  While standards and definitions differ somewhat between jurisdictions, a finding of contempt basically means that a party has willfully disobeyed a court order or rule.  The court can then impose a consequence, usually fines or jail time, to induce compliance.  Parties seeking payment of child support often ask courts, through motions for civil contempt, to send the defendant to jail unless he or she comes up with the cash.  In most jurisdictions, defendants facing jail time for any type of contempt are entitled to an attorney who can help prove that the defendant's disobedience was not willful, i.e., that the defendant could just not afford to pay child support.  If a defendant's behavior was not willful (in other words, if the defendant could not actually comply with the order) he or she should not be sent to jail in order to induce payments.  But five states - South Carolina among them - do not appoint attorneys to indigent child support defendants, who often go unrepresented because they do not have the funds to hire a private attorney.

The crux of the argument before SCOTUS today is whether jail time issued for a finding of "civil contempt," which is meant to coerce compliance with a court order, is substantially the same as jail time issued as punishment, as with a finding of "criminal contempt."  If the Court finds that the criminal and civil contempt situations are so similar as to be indistinguishable, they must find that defendants in civil contempt cases have a constitutional right to representation just like criminal contempt defendants.  While civil contempt can be "purged" by compliance with the court order - in this case, jail time ended by payment of back child support - there is no way to purge such contempt for a defendant without financial resources.

Because the defendant "holds the keys to his own jail cell" in a civil contempt case, with the ability to end the jail time by complying with the order, it has historically been considered differently than a jail sentence of a specified term for criminal contempt.  Jail stints for civil contempt can be short -- but not always.  In an extraordinary case of civil contempt, a man was held in Chicago's infamous Cook County Jail for ten years because he refused to tell the court what happened to his young daughter, who disappeared while visiting him. He was eventually released after the mother died and the civil case was dismissed.  The daughter was never found.

Most cases of civil contempt, particularly in the family law setting, are far less complicated, and often only speak to the payment of back child support.  In both states where I practice, Illinois and Louisiana, child support petitioners can choose to hire private attorneys to seek child support.  However, it is most often the State's responsibility to seek child support through its prosecutors.  Whole units in county prosecutors' offices are specifically devoted to seeking and collecting child support.  Sometimes the State even seeks child support for itself - the law allows prosecutors to seek child support in cases where the custodial parent has received welfare money, in essence, to reimburse the state.  That's what happened in Turner v. Rogers when the mother signed over her collection rights to the South Carolina's Department of Social Services.  According to briefs in the case, over 70% of defendants in such cases around the country have an annual income of less than $10,000.  These defendants are unlikely to have the resources to purge themselves of contempt for years of past-due support, much less the resources to hire an attorney.

As a family law practitioner, I can sympathize with both sides of the argument.  I have represented numerous child support petitioners in Illinois divorce and custody cases.  Some defendants - most often fathers, though not always - somehow develop a belief that their financial (and, sadly, emotional) obligations to their children ended when their relationship with the children's mother did.  Still others withhold child support in order to punish or control their ex-spouses.  I'll never forget the defendant in one of my cases who was so anxious to get out of paying child support that he claimed he had no income because he sold his taxi medallion, which at the time was worth about eighty thousand dollars in the Chicago market.  His lawyer even produced the bill of sale to me right before the child support hearing.  As I inspected it, I noticed something odd.  The buyer was the defendant's sister.  The sale price was listed as ten dollars.  (The judge then awarded the full amount of child support based upon his estimated income from the continued ownership of the taxi.)  For defendants like this, sometimes the threat of jail - followed up by actual jail time, so as not to make the threat an empty one - is the only way to get them to comply.

On the other hand, I have also had to manage clients' expectations where their indigent former spouses are concerned.  Both sides in Turner v. Rogers cite an article, Deadbeats and Turnips in Child Support Reform, that differentiates between "deadbeats," parents who can pay but won't, and "turnips," from whom you cannot squeeze "blood" (or child support).  Unlike Mr. I Sold The Taxi I Swear, I found that many of my child support defendants in my legal aid practice were turnips from whom no one - not me, not my clients, and most certainly not the state - could squeeze one penny.  The article finds that the majority of those who end up in jail are turnips - low-income defendants who cannot afford to purge themselves of contempt.  Ultimately, it costs all of us far more to hold indigent child support defendants in jail for a year than it would to solve the problem by other means, for example, supplying such defendants with a public defender who can prove that jail time for civil contempt would be fruitless.

According to Michael Turner's legal team, the turnips of the world are those who most often end up in jail, which both needlessly deprives them of freedom (and the ability to find a job) and fails to achieve the state's goal of inspiring compliance with child support.  I agree.  In my opinion, anyone facing significant jail time should have the right to representation.  When I went up against turnips, they were almost always unrepresented.  The deadbeats - the Taxi Hiders of the world - somehow always seem to scrounge up the cash to hire a private attorney, even as their own children go without.  It's fairly obvious to me that neither deadbeats nor turnips can be cured by continued lack of representation.  When indigent defendants who face significant time in jail go without attorneys, justice is not served.
I know I have said in the past that I don't watch TV and haven't own one for 9 years. (Got to find another way to say that cuz is really smacks of elitism and I don't mean it that way) In fact it's even very seldom that I read the printed sensational and gory news reported online by the main stream media that's seems to be meant to titillate and arouse emotions inside most of us, emotions not unlike the lookey-loo rubber necking stares when driving by a car accident on the freeway. But here I am minding my own business and fly by this article written by CNN and based on  Anderson Cooper 360 which I gather is some kind of carnival like exposé TV journalism for the too lazy to do your own fact finding viewer with more time on their hands than brains. Anyhow  reading this article about halfway down the page I ran across this tidbit on Joshua Komisarjevsky who is awaiting trial and most likely will be convicted of murder one as was his accomplice Steven Hayes and sentenced to death just last week.

The author Randi Kaye quotes:

In letters to McDonald, Komisarjevsky blamed one central experience in his youth for causing his "restless inner torment," an alleged rape by a male foster child who his family took in.

I immediately stopped reading and pondered if I read that right and proceeded re-read it again....the use of the word "alleged" followed by the word rape. Quickly checking the header I see this article is written by a woman and though I am not quite as dumb as an ox, my thoughts were not about the obvious guilt of this insane person who along with his partner committed not only a senseless and heinous act that reviles a horror movie but exposed us all to the undeniable fact of the existence of true evil. No, my thoughts were of the reporters' use of the word "alleged". Whether it was because it was a man making the claim or an evil male murderer, I couldn't help but mentally check off the list of countless times I have seen  or read in the media a reporter whether they be male or female, report on a rape allegation and use the word "alleged". Sorry but I'm drawing a blank here because not even when decades have passed since the reported allegation occurred does this happen. Just to be clear...I'm getting a little smarter now.... if a woman alleges rape it then can be reported as a rape but if a man reports being raped even as a young child the word "alleged" is inserted before word rape. Hmmm.....needed to close my mouth cuz I was looking like Mr. Bill begging not to be hit with a hammer..... again.

Now - I am not suggesting that this man should or has a chance in hell of using the victim card that any women can potentially use for any and every trauma they have experienced in their lifetime as a get out of jail free card or the very least a reduced judicial sentence for the po widdle  uncorroborated victim, only  pointing out here to the choir  another example slick, blatant, manipulative sexual misrepresentation. What is good for the goose is good for the gander - unless the goose is getting cooked.

Confused?? Well so am I. While PC demands acceptance any and all self proclaimed identity definitions, but here is  where it gets a little weird. A transgendered female on a female team wants to be identified as a (he) male and not (she) female and has the support of the regular chorus of accommodating confusionist. Proud to be the first male on an all female NCAA squad! Now does that mean it is possible for a transgendered male to play on an all male squad and be called the first female to play on an all male NCAA squad?

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Comin' for to carry me home...


First transgender athlete to play in NCAA basketball

George Washington University junior Kye Allums will play women's basketball again this year. But he will now play the role of a brother, not a sister, to his teammates.

Everything will be the same when he takes to the court in the university's season opener later this month. Just that Allums, 21, will be identified as a man, becoming the first openly transgender player in NCAA Division I basketball.

"This means a lot," Allums said in a statement. "I didn't choose to be born in this body and feel the way I do."

The 5 foot 11 inch guard from Hugo, Minnesota, said the university has been supportive of his decision. But he will not be permitted to undergo testosterone therapy as long as he is competing.

A report last month from the National Center on Lesbian Rights and the Women's Sports Foundation provided guidance on the matter, saying that transgender student athletes "should be allowed to participate in any gender-segregated sports activity so long as that athlete's use of hormone therapy, if any, is consistent with the national governing body's existing policies on banned medications."

Robert Chernak, senior vice provost at George Washington, said the university is fully accepting of Allums decision to live as a male student.

"Kye has informed the university that he will not begin any medical or drug protocols while a student-athlete," Chernak said. "Kye will continue to be a member of the women's basketball team.

"Kye has informed his teammates, and the university, with Kye's consent, has informed athletics staff and others, as appropriate."

Allums grew up as a tomboy and later tried behaving and dressing the way teenage girls do, according to an interview with Outsports, an online gay sports site.

"I decided to transition, that is change my name and pronouns because it bothered me to hide who I am, and I am trying to help myself and others to be who they are," Allums said in his statement.

In his sophomore year, he began telling people he was a man trapped in a woman's body.

"I told my teammates first, and they, including my coaches, have supported me," he said. "My teammates have embraced me as the big brother of the team. They have been my family, and I love them all."

Main / Men's Matters - Express Fm 93.7
Nov 03, 2010, 01:17 PM

For those of you that have not heard of Men's Matters on Express FM in the UK above is a link to the radio show (select men's matter). Finally a radio show with balls enough to say over the air what MRA's have been saying for years.

My introduction into the movement was alongside the solo voice of Glen Sack's radio show whose views back then, though controversial were certainly heavily censured and still are today for a more moderate audience. Well then let's call Men's Matters 'Gen Sacks 2.0' as the movement reaches a wider, more virulent audience and the gloves come off. Speaking the truth over the airways. Anyhow, during the show an example is given how feminist attempt to rewrite history performed by men, in this case by claiming (little to our knowledge) women in the 1800's played major roles aboard ships as "powder monkeys",  the heavy gun reloaders on battle ships, even though it is a known fact  women were not allowed on such ships until the late 20th century. Hearsay is  proof of their claims, no collaboration needed here either folks.

Well to coincide with this piece I recently found this lovely gem headlining  the pages of wikipedia I'd like to share for an OT smirk.

Timeline of women in medieval warfare

Warfare throughout history has mainly been a matter for men, but women have also played a role, often a leading one. The following list of prominent women in war and their exploits from about 500 C.E. up to about 1500 C.E.

Could barely contain my laughter as I read and research the proof that women OFTEN played a major role in war and in battle. The reinterpretation of sometimes meaningless acts, as if including them in a footnote is makes them just as important as the men who die on the battlefield. 
Again the misdirection is in plain view for all to see, proof that women have had a far greater role in civilization building than what has been reported in patriarchal history books.

Main / Another Family Court Tragedy
Aug 30, 2010, 11:15 AM
Take away a man's children and then flaunt the new lover/father-figure in his face. Given the courts' bias against fathers, I'm surprised we don't see this deadly outcome more often. Tragic.,0,4520856.story

Ex-boyfriend suspected in murder-suicide; 6 dead

Brian Diez allegedly killed his estranged girlfriend and four others in Lake Havasu City before abducting his two young children and shooting himself in Rancho Cucamonga.

A manhunt for a gunman who allegedly killed five people at a birthday party hosted by his estranged girlfriend ended in Rancho Cucamonga on Sunday, when the suspect apparently shot himself.

The apparent suicide came after he dropped off his two young children, whom he had abducted from the shooting scene in Lake Havasu City in Arizona, according to authorities.

One of the victims, identified as the mother of the children, had obtained a restraining order against the alleged gunman, Brian Diez, earlier this year, according to Sgt. Joe Harrold of the Lake Havasu City Police.

Diez, 26, was prohibited from contacting Deborah Langstaff, 23, and their two young children, Harrold said. A misdemeanor domestic violence charge was also pending against Diez in connection with an alleged slapping incident involving his infant son, Harrold said. Diez had pleaded not guilty.

The bloodshed began shortly before midnight Saturday. Diez allegedly burst into Langstaff's home in the 300 block of Opossum Drive in Lake Havasu City, where she was holding a birthday party for her new boyfriend, police said.

Diez allegedly killed Langstaff and three others at the home and wounded two partygoers, one of whom later died at the hospital. Diez then fled with his two children, a 13-month-old boy and 4-year-old girl, and drove to a relative's home in Rancho Cucamonga. He left the children there before apparently shooting himself, officials said.

Langstaff, a nursing unit manager at Havasu Regional Medical Center, and Diez had separated, Langstaff's grandfather told The Times in a brief phone conversation.

Neighbors in the tract of single-story desert homes with rock gardens said it appeared Diez moved out at least a month ago. The couple had lived in the home about a year and mostly kept to themselves, and there had been no outward signs of strife, the neighbors said.

"I don't understand this," said neighbor Teresa Williams, whose bedroom faces the Langstaff residence. "There's never been any chaos ... never been a sign that anything was amiss."

Langstaff had invited friends to celebrate the 24th birthday of her boyfriend, Primo Verdone, police said. Verdone was among the victims pronounced dead at the scene along with Langstaff, Ashley Nyland, 20, and Russell Nyland, 42.

Two others, Brock Kelson, 20, and Deborah Nyland, 44, were taken to Sunrise Medical Center in Las Vegas, where Kelson died. Deborah Nyland was in intensive care with a good prognosis, Harrold said.

After issuing an Amber Alert early Sunday for a child abduction, authorities located Diez's vehicle at a residence in the 11900 block of Rue Way in Rancho Cucamonga, said Charlie Cassens, a Lake Havasu City spokesman. The circumstances of Diez's apparent suicide were unclear Sunday night. Relatives and neighbors declined to comment.

The two children, Kaia and Cole, were found safe at the Rue Way residence, Cassens said.

Public records show Diez had an address in Glendora and held jobs in Lake Havasu City, including operating Redline Speed & Marine, a retail business that sells boat parts and accessories.

A man at the Glendora address who identified himself as Diez's father declined to comment Sunday.

At the Lake Havasu City hospital where Langstaff worked, colleagues were trying to cope with the deaths. She had worked at the medical center about four years and had been on duty Friday, said Sheena Benson, a hospital spokesperson.

"She was well liked. She was very, very professional," she said. "And definitely seemed like a very happy person."

I am still amazed how people not involved can believe a man would resort to this type of violence .....unprovoked not that killing another human being is warranted but just how far can you push and shove someone before they respond with the rage of incivility alleviating the pain and anger once and for all.

Main / Rape charge anonymity pledge dropped
Jul 29, 2010, 04:57 PM
       I'm sure many of you here at SYG were following via the British proposal that would have changed the current status of naming those accused of rape until after conviction. Since I haven't seen any re post here, I thought I'd post what has been a complete government fiasco. BBC News - Rape defendants to be granted anonymity I like most was hoping finally, at last  some help for those that are falsely accused and if it could be done there (England) perhaps it could be done in this country as well. It would seem that a case can be made for any person who is accused and charged with any crime to remain anonymous until convicted. This would especially protect individuals that are accused falsely or where there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. However, in the case of sex crimes be it child molestation or rape accusation and even extended to charges of domestic violence there is undeniably real irrevocable harm that is done to victims that are accused and their case never reaches a trial court. Villanized in the media and subjected to psychological trauma of which most don't ever recover even when found to be not guilty or charges dropped or worse - which we are seeing a measurable increase, admitted false confession by the accuser. Jobs, family, social status, trust and to forever remain under the suspicion claim "where there is smoke there must be fire" are all on the table for those who names are needlessly slung through the media mud of public opinion.  

I still had some hope that the British government would do the right thing when Mr. Cameron back tracked on the original proposal and offered " limited anonymity" but was truly dumbfounded when the government, in the face of opposition recanted the entire idea and so like the rest of the Western world remains with its head in the sand as to the plight of those that are falsely accused of raped. Government officials don't care the injustice that's done to them, whats done instead is to increase the conviction rate by watering down due process so more of those accused (falsely) will be convicted, civil rights protection be dammed. Lyrics from the Limbo Rock song, "How low can you go?"

Rape charge anonymity pledge dropped

Plans to change the law to grant anonymity to men charged with rape in England and Wales have apparently been dropped by the Ministry of Justice. The ministry said it had not ruled out anonymity between arrest and charge. But Justice Minister Crispin Blunt has said he would rather put pressure on the media not to name suspects than bring in a new law.

Labour welcomed the apparent U-turn but said the government's handling of the issue had been "lamentable". The plan to grant anonymity to rape suspects was a surprise inclusion in the government's coalition agreement in May. It is really lamentable that they could think of something as important as prosecuting rape, that they should just do a proposal on the back of an envelope."

It had not been in the Conservative or Liberal Democrat election manifestos, although it had been Lib Dem policy since 2006. The coalition agreement pledged to "extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants", with ministers stressing the need to "protect anyone who may be wrongly accused from harmful stigma". But Prime Minister David Cameron appeared to bow to pressure from campaigners last month when he said he favoured a "limited extension" to the law to cover the period between arrest and charge.

After it emerged that ministers preferred not to change the law and to put pressure on the media instead, acting Labour leader Harriet Harman attacked its whole approach to the issue. "It is really lamentable that they could think of something as important as prosecuting rape, that they should just do a proposal on the back of an envelope," she told the BBC. "It is a very serious offence and they should not just dream up a proposal and bring it forward without thinking about it. Rape is too serious for that."

Shadow Home Secretary Alan Johnson, speaking in the Commons, said he welcomed the government's "U-turn" on the issue. In the House of Commons last week, Mr Blunt said the government wanted to find a "non-statutory solution" to extending anonymity. Since giving anonymity was not in either party manifesto many have puzzled where this controversial idea came from.

"Given that we had 21 criminal justice acts passed over the 13 years of the last administration, I am sure that Labour [MPs] will understand why we are loath to find even more statutes to put on the statute book," he said. He suggested Press Complaints Commission guidance recommending the media do not identify people before they are charged with rape might be strengthened.

The Ministry of Justice played down Mr Blunt's remarks, insisting it had not entirely ruled out legislation to provide anonymity between arrest and charge and was still carrying out an analysis of evidence and research on the subject. The results of this were due to be published before the summer recess but will not now appear until the autumn.

A spokesman said: "We want to make sure a thorough assessment of all of the available evidence is produced to inform the debate on this very important issue. It is right that we take the time to get it right, and have therefore decided to publish the report when Parliament returns in September."

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) said it would be "happy" to discuss the issue with ministers but said "as yet they haven't approached us". The PCC is in charge of enforcing editorial standards for newspaper journalists but does not draw up its own guidelines - that is done by a committee of editors. The guidelines are set out in the Editor's Code of Practice but they are not legally binding.

Campaign group Women Against Rape said they were "glad the government has been forced to back down". A spokeswoman said: "Why should men accused of rape have special protection not offered to those facing charges of murder, terrorism or child abuse? "People are no more likely to be falsely accused of rape than of other crimes. Why this attempt to further discredit and discriminate against rape survivors?"

Labour MPs have criticised the proposal to grant anonymity to rape suspects consistently in Parliament, while Conservative MP Louise Bagshawe told The Observer that by "singling out rape in this way, ministers are sending a negative signal about women and those who accuse men of rape".

The anonymity proposal became Lib Dem party policy in 2006 after a number of cases in which celebrities were named in newspapers over allegations of sexual assault, even though in some cases they were not charged and the complainant was found to be malicious. The 1976 Labour government introduced anonymity for defendants - only for the measure to be repealed 12 years later under the Tories. A review of the law earlier this year warned there needed to be a proper examination of the wider issues.

There is no anonymity for defendants in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Tiger-Elin divorce has gotten 'extremely testy':

May 21, 2010 ι POST STAFF REPORT

Divorce talks between Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren have gotten ugly.
Nordegren has ramped up her financial demands, requesting that the golf great pony up an estimated $750 million, The Chicago Sun-Times reported today.
After starting out fairly civil, the divorce negotiations "have turned extremely testy," the newspaper reported.
Nordegren also refuses to sign a lifetime "confidentiality clause" that would prevent her from writing a book or doing any interviews related to the collapse of the couple's marriage.
She also wants full custody of their two kids, the newspaper reported, even though it was first believed that they were going to agree to joint custody.
Nordegren has spent a lot of time away from her hubby in recent months.
"Elin started to build her own life and once she did she grew distant from him," a source told RadarOnline earlier this month.
She went to Arizona alone for nearly a week recently and took the kids to Sweden while Woods played golf.
RadarOnline reported that Nordegren is currently renting a house about a mile away from the Florida home she once shared with Tiger. The kids get to sleep over at Tiger's house.
"Elin wants to share custody, she wants Tiger to be a big part of the children's lives," the source said. "And both have done a great job trying to keep their problems away from the kids."
Woods, meanwhile, has thrown himself into golf after announcing earlier this week that he was adding the British Open to his summer schedule.
Woods has a chance to become the first player in the 150-year history of the British Open to win three times at St. Andrews, where golf's oldest championship will be held July 15-18.

Women claiming 1/2 of the their husband money after only a few years of marriage will always remind me of Eddie Murphy's stand up comedy clip.

  Eddie Murphy Raw Johnny Carson Skit
Main / Another female petafile arrested
May 20, 2010, 12:15 PM
Seems like every week we find on the internet but not in the MSM an increase number of female teachers poking the young boys in their care. "There must be a reason why I don't know - WAR - Nappy head".

Arizona cheer coach accused of sex with student

May. 19, 2010 10:09 AM
Associated Press

TUCSON - A southern Arizona teacher is accused of having a sexual relationship with a student.
Tucson police arrested cheerleading coach Christie Elliot. The 25-year-old Elliot is being held in the Pima County Jail on one count each of luring a minor for sexual exploitation and sexual conduct with a minor.

Tucson police spokeswoman Sgt. Diana Lopez said a parent of the alleged victim checked his cell phone and found inappropriate messages.
Police say the parent believed those messages were coming from the Empire High School English teacher.
Vail School District Superintendent Calvin Baker told KOLD-TV in Tucson the parent of the 15-year-old boy called the principal.
The principal investigated and determined the teacher needed to be sent home.

Read more:
       The boiling that each individual reaches that makes him topple over the edge and commit a heinous act often will not reach the mentality of most of the population but suffice to say as more and more MEN perceive whether true or not that the government has an agenda to suppress their individual liberties, freedom and quality of life for greed eventually an ever-increasing number of them will resort to acts that will seem inconceivable to a large majority of the population. But hear this my friends, we all will at some time or another if things keep going as they are, reach a point were taking a fukitol pill will not help just as in 1776 and what we now call patriots reacted rather harshly ( to put it mildly) when they had enough of King George stepping on their necks. The 4 pillars of our democratic or republic system, executive, legislative, judicial and the once free press are conspiring and it don't look good.

   In the article below I don't condone what the man did. Federal employees did die. BUT not enough information is given to accurately say what actually cause this man to break. Too easy to lay it upon a SS supplemental rule available in California but not in Nevada. That is hocus pocus. What is clear is the smear of unsubstantiated claims that are heaped upon this man by a press more concerned with sensationalism than gathering FACTS. Why should it matter if a law abiding citizen is arrested but NEVER CONVICTED. Ba-humbug! It is important because as we approach the end game all four pillars must rely on the media to produce doubts in the average citizens mind when individuals or groups begin to lash out (heck you still got people saying global warming is real and serious threat). Any and everything you might have said or done in the past whether whispered to a once friend or public record will be twisted, and regurgitated to portray you as a sick degenerate person not worthy of respect, equal treatment under the law and worse of all less than deranged animal that needs to be put down and we will all just shake our heads in disbelief and agony that a once civilized person could resort such chaos.

Johnny Lee Wicks, who on Monday killed one person and wounded another at a federal courthouse, had had numerous run-ins with the law, including a Tennessee murder arrest in the 1970s.

The 66-year-old disgruntled retiree who killed one person and wounded another at a federal courthouse in Las Vegas on Monday had an extensive criminal history dating to a Tennessee murder arrest in the 1970s, authorities said today.

It's unclear how that murder case -- or other criminal cases against Johnny Lee Wicks -- were resolved, but authorities released some details showing that he had had numerous run-ins with the law. In the 1990s, Wicks was arrested on suspicion of sexual assault, robbery and domestic violence in California.

On Monday, Wicks set fire to his apartment at approximately 5:05 a.m. and then, clad in a black trench coat, walked three miles to the Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse and opened fire around 8 a.m.

At a news conference today in Las Vegas, investigators said Wicks had been upset over losing a lawsuit related to his Social Security benefits and was angry with the government.

Wicks fired rounds from a Mossberg shotgun before fleeing the scene, said Kevin Favreau, the special agent in charge of the FBI's Las Vegas Division. Security guards gave chase and Wicks was shot in the stomach and fatally wounded in the head in front of the Historic Fifth Street School.

Officials shot a total of 81 rounds in the minutes-long gun battle, Favreau said. Wicks fire five rounds from his shotgun.

Stanley Cooper, a 72-year-old court security officer, was killed in the incident, and a 48-year-old deputy U.S. marshal was wounded and hospitalized. The marshal, whose name was not released, has since been released.

Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney for Nevada, described Cooper as a man who was "one of those wonderful people who could touch your life."
Main / Naked guy in own house convicted
Dec 18, 2009, 04:15 PM
Naked Guy convicted -- but he is appealing
The Trial of the Morning raised the burning legal question: If you are standing naked in your own house and someone sees you from outside, are you indecently exposing yourself?
Judge Ian O'Flaherty ruled yes, in the context of the Oct. 19 case of Erick Williamson. But Williamson said the whole thing was outrageous, and he promptly filed an appeal to Fairfax Circuit Court.

The new information to emerge today is that the alleged exposure by Williamson, on Arley Drive in the Springfield area, apparently occurred over several hours, not just in a one-time flash to a woman and her 7-year-old son at 8:40 a.m.
The first episode happened at 6:35 a.m., according to Joyce Giuliani, a neighbor who was driving to work. She said as she drove past Williamson's rented house on Arley Drive, someone with long hair was standing in the front window, in the altogether. She couldn't identify Williamson specifically.

Though it didn't come out at trial today, Williamson's lawyer, Dickson Young, said Giuliani called the police about the naked man. Young said the police came and didn't find anything. He said that will be raised in the next trial.

So two hours later that morning, Yvette Dean came walking by with her son on a trail running past the side of Williamson's house, Dean testified. She said she heard a rattling noise standing in the doorway of his house, holding the screen door open.
"How was he dressed?" Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Marc Birnbaum asked.
"He wasn't," Dean answered.
Dean said she threw her coat over her son's head, they reached the sidewalk and headed toward nearby Hunt Valley Elementary School. But when she looked at the house again, Williamson had now moved to the front, and was once again in all his glory in a large window.
"Was he completely naked?" Birnbaum asked.
"I could see from the belt up," Dean said.
"Could you see below the belt?" Birnbaum followed up.
"Yes, but not to the floor. I was able to see the whole 'area,'" Dean said, making clear that the area was slightly below the belt.
On cross-examination, Young asked why she looked at the house again after her first, horrified response.
"To see if, 'Did I just see that?'" she said.
Finally, The Naked Guy testified.
He said he was in the process of moving out of the house, where he had lived with four other guys. They all left for work at 5:10 a.m., so he came downstairs in 5:15, and had the house to himself.

"Personal freedom," Williamson said, explaining his nakedness. "It's liberating." He said he was packing, making coffee, cleaning up, making breakfast, for several hours. There were curtains on the window, but they were open.
At no time, Williamson said, did he stand in the open doorway or the front window. He said he had no intent to expose himself, and "it didn't occur to me" that passersby might see him inside his lighted house.

In his closing argument, Young said that "nudity in one's home is not a crime. Under the circumstances of this case, a person who is careless, who should have drawn the blinds and didn't, that is not criminal behavior. If you're in a private place and take your clothes off, you have not committed a crime."
O'Flaherty responded, "What if you're in a private place and standing in front of a big plate glass window?"
Young: "That doesn't help in terms of making it intentional, and you have to do it in an obscene fashion."
O'Flaherty said Williamson was "intentionally naked, but is he intentionally exposing himself? I'm certain John Dillinger thought he was doing nothing wrong when he walked into banks and shot them up."

The judge then issued his ruling. "I believe from the evidence here," O'Flaherty said, "that the gentleman obviously was intentionally naked in the house. I find that the windows were completely uncovered. That fact that it went on for so long indicates an obscene display and I find the gentleman guilty."

Prosecutor Birnbaum then asked for jail time for Williamson. "When there is an exposure, no one deserves to see it, but especially not a 7-year-old child."
Young pointed out that Williamson has no criminal record. O'Flaherty sentenced him to 180 days in jail, all suspended for a period of one year. No fine, just court costs of approximately $72, which he didn't have to pay since he appealed.

Williamson said the publicity from his arrest cost him a job as a commercial diver.
"Naked in my house?" he said after the conviction. "I'm the victim. They're looking in my house." He noted that police showed up sometime after 10 a.m. while he was sleeping, awoke him in his bed and took him away.
Williamson has moved from Fairfax County, but will be back for the rematch on Feb. 1 in Circuit Court.

Just a little suspicious why the first woman who saw him was not reported in the original media report as well as the police investigating his home at that earlier time. Why wasn't he awaken then?  Also not mentioned was the fact that the woman with the child was married to a police officer and all of the door to door efforts of the PD to collect any kind of evidence against this man. Why should we or the courts believe anything this woman  says and then make a determination based solely on her testimony that he was purposely trying to expose himself? But as most men know these days anything a woman say is to believed. Perfect example of a fascist  govt. 


Woman confesses to lying about rape story that sent man to prison
All this because she wasn't getting enough sympathy from her pals.

Biurny Peguero Gonzalez concocted an elaborate story in 2005, claiming that a Bronx man held her at knifepoint as he and two pals raped her on a deserted street. She lied to friends, doctors, police, prosecutors, grand jurors and jurors about how William McCaffrey and his friends kidnapped her from her parked car when she was blind drunk and attacked her.

But Gonzalez, now 27, had an astounding "facile ability to look one in the eye and offer up a falsehood," Manhattan prosecutors wrote in sensational papers released today.

Based almost solely on her testimony
, McCaffrey was given 20 years in prison and spent the past three years serving time.

But Gonzalez lied -- driven by anger at her friends for not believing what likely really happened that night. She had gotten into a car with McCaffrey and his two friends and kissed him -- but grew afraid after she blew off his further advances and he erupted in anger, cursing at her and threatening to dump her out on the street, the papers said.
Yesterday, she turned herself in to Manhattan prosecutors and pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury for lying about the rape.

But according to the prosecutors' documents, the reason she lied in the first place was because of her friends' reaction to her tale of drunken abduction.
When the men drove her back to her friends, Gonzalez's pals started arguing with her about her leaving them. The women all started slapping one another, the papers said.
Gonzalez was both furious at her pals and still hysterical about the incident in the car, according to the document. At one point, when one of her friends asked whether she had been raped, "she replied that she had, because she wanted the group to feel badly.
"She specifically said that she was upset with [one friend] after the fight because [the friend] was angry and did not seem to care about her," the papers said.
"[Gonzalez] said that once she stated she had been raped and more people became involved, the lie became too big for her to back out of."

It didn't help that McCaffrey -- who has a long rap sheet of drug and violence arrests -- claimed that absolutely nothing happened in the car, because an argument did erupt, although there wasn't a sexual assault or rape, law-enforcement sources said.
In an interview with The Post today, McCaffrey -- who was released from prison Sept. 1 -- again denied there was any fight between him and Gonzalez in the car.
"That's a total lie," he said. "I'm just happy to be home," said the 33-year-old construction worker, who was visiting his girlfriend. He praised Gonzalez, saying, "It was courageous of her to come forward and finally tell the truth." But he said he believed that she came forward only because DNA evidence was about to clear him anyway.

Gonzalez, now married and with a new baby, declined comment today outside Manhattan Criminal Court, where she entered her guilty plea.

She confessed her sin to a Catholic priest in the spring, and the clergyman persuaded her to talk to the lawyer, who then went to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.
Gonzalez faces two to seven years on each count: lying to a grand jury and then again during the trial.

The ability based on her word alone for ANY woman to send a man to prison for rape has given (All) women a weapon they can use to destroy ANY man at ANY time. (Sorry Dr. E for the use of ALL Women but in this case I think I have used it appropriately)