Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Mocking the First Amendment in Ohio

The founding fathers of the United States of America clearly and unequivocally intended that there be at least some situations in everyday life where the force of the law and the government may simply not go.
That’s why they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, including the First Amendment which guarantees the right of free expression as number one on the list. Government may not punish a person’s expression of thoughts, i.e. expressive speech, even if that speech is mean spirited, unkind, unpopular or cruel.
Mockery – the right to mock and revile others -- has traditionally been part of the right to freedom of speech and expression in America. In point of fact, any law which would presume to punish mockery would per force become a mockery of the Constitution and the First Amendment.
But don’t try to explain that fundamental principle to the legal authorities in Canton Ohio.  
They just finished sentencing a man to 30 days in jail for the manufactured “crime” of mockery.
Now, please don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending this idiot. I’m simply defending his constitutional right to express himself as an idiot.
He and his 9-year-old son were filmed in front of a school bus imitating the limping gait of a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy. The two reportedly made a habit of imitating the girl’s limp at the school bus stop in full view of she and her classmates.
Yes, they were cruelly mocking her.
Apparently there is some sort of ongoing feud between the two families involving their children. The disabled girl’s family members it seems were in the habit of calling the man’s 9-year-old son, who suffers from seizures and ADHD, a ‘retard.’
Their response was to mock the little girl’s disability, humiliating her and causing her to cry. "They just kept calling my little boy (names) and I reacted badly. You have to defend your son, your children." said the man.
The little girl’s grandmother filmed the incident and then called the police.
The man, William Bailey, 43, pleaded no contest to reduced misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing at a municipal court in Canton, Ohio. The judge gave the man the maximum sentence for his “crime.” His son won’t face any charges because of his young age and because prosecutors thought he was acting under the influence of his father.
Am I missing something here? Imitating someone’s limp is disorderly conduct? Mockery of this sort is aggravated menacing? If that is so, surely the cast and crew of Saturday Night Live are going to have to turn themselves in.
And we’re talking about reduced charges here. What were the original charges? I’m still racking my brain. This deserves the maximum sentence? What planet do this prosecutor and judge live on? Have they ever even heard of the First Amendment? Is Canton Ohio located within the United States of America?
What attorney would allow his client to plead guilty to disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing for imitating someone’s limp? What prosecutor would have the nerve to bring these charges? What judge in his right mind would throw a man in jail over this?
Limping is not a crime. Imitating a limp is not a crime. This guy was not thrown in jail for limping. He was jailed for his thoughts! He was convicted for expressing his mind! He was persecuted for exercising his rights of free speech!
As despicable as the man’s speech was, and I agree it was loathsome, it was the prosecutor and the judge who committed the crime here.
They’re guilty of mocking the First Amendment in Ohio.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Commit Manslaughter in Oklahoma: Go Directly to Church

“The Lord works in many ways,” declared 14 year veteran Oklahoma District Court Judge Mike Norman, 69, after sentencing a teenager in his courtroom convicted of manslaughter to ten years of church attendance instead of any time in jail.
After completing his sentence, the kid will have the charges removed from his record. It will be just as though the incident never happened.
Of course, the dead boy will still be dead.  
The judge’s pastor was in the courtroom at the time.
To Hell with the law Judge Norman reckons.
Why follow the law when he can follow Jesus?
Not only had he handed down such a sentence before, but he’d required one man to bring the church program back with him when he reported to court.
This renegade judge, who has sworn a solemn oath to uphold the law and the Constitution, actually fancies himself as an unabashed instrument of the lord. “I’ve done a little bit of this kind of thing before, but never on such a serious charge,” he told reporters.
He thinks it’s his job as a judge to lead the hapless captives before him to Jesus. “I told my preacher I thought I led more people to Jesus than he had but, then again, more of my people have amnesia. They soon forget once they get out of jail.”
Sixteen-year-old Tyler Alred, after engaging in a bout of underage drinking and driving, crashed his Chevrolet pickup truck into a tree ejecting and killing his friend and passenger instantly. Later he pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter, a serious felony.
In the courtroom, an emotional scene between the victim’s family and the defendant played out after statements from the dead boy’s mother, father and two sisters were read during the sentencing hearing. The victim’s father and defendant stood up in court, turned toward each other and embraced.
“At that moment, it sure became a reality to me that I would sentence this boy to church”  to help set him on the right path, Norman, a member of First Baptist Church in Muskogee, said. “There’s nothing I can do to make this up to the family.”
“Only time will tell if we’ve saved Tyler Alred’s life,” said Norman.
“It’s not going to be automatic, I guarantee you,” Norman said of the church sentence on future manslaughter charges.
That’s for sure. You can bet that if the defendant were a non-believer or someone else the judge didn’t like he’d be rotting away in prison right now.
“I usually represent outlaws and criminals,” defense attorney Donn Baker told reporters. “This is a kid that made a mistake. I think he’s worth saving.”
Others don’t make mistakes? Someone else is not worth saving?
You see, that’s just one of the many problems with a sentence like this. It’s unauthorized. It’s arbitrary. It’s unlawful. It’s unconstitutional.
A little Christian boy gets a break while others will have the full force of the law thrown at them, especially those who might not share this judge’s religious belief.
A judge is not supposed to represent the interests of the defendant, or the family of the victim, or to do what he thinks is right outside of the law. His duty is to represent the people of his jurisdiction by following the dictates of the law. That’s what the people elected him to do.
“There are a lot of people who say I can’t do what I did. They’re telling me I can’t legally sentence someone to church,” Judge Norman admits.
But what does he care about what the law and the Constitution say he can or can’t do? He’s not judging for the benefit of the law or the people.
He’s not observing his oath of office.
He’s judging for Jesus.
"One gentleman from Missouri left a message on my phone,” said Judge Norman. “He said judges can't order people to go to church. People are calling from all around the country. I live in the Bible Belt, though. The Bible is still alive down here; churches are still open. I'm sure those people are right, but they're going to have to do what they want to do."
Oh, I see. He lives in the Bible Belt. That entitles him to disregard the law.
And Norman is standing by his sentence as the right thing to do -- even if it may not have been the constitutional thing to do. He flat out admits that this sentence would not pass a legal challenge -- but he doesn't believe either side will seek an appeal.
He knows that what he has done is not legal but he just doesn’t care.
He also admits that this is something he has done in the past, especially in child support cases. He does it when he feels like it; when the spirit of the lord moves him; when he wants to impose his religion.
"Both families were satisfied with the decision," Norman said in an interview. "I talked to the district attorney before I passed sentence. I did what I felt like I needed to do."
"It's my understanding that this judge has recommended church in previous sentences, and I believe that goes too far," said Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the ACLU. "This, however, actually making it a condition of a sentence, is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
"The Constitution is not exercised at your discretion," he added. "You take an oath to uphold it all the time, not just sometimes."
The Rev. Bruce Prescott, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he is sure the sentence doesn't pass constitutional muster, but he is equally worried about the spiritual ramifications.
"I'm a minister," Prescott said. "I want people to go to church, but it's not helpful for a judge to sentence someone to church. What will the judge do if the young man changes his affiliation in the next few years? Will he be allowed to switch to a mosque or become an atheist? Religion is not a tool of the state, and it's certainly not for the state to use as a tool of rehabilitation."
Judge Norman ought to be brought before the Oklahoma State Judicial Tenure Commission and stripped of his judicial office. He is unfit and unqualified to be a jurist. In my opinion he is just as much a criminal as any defendant he has ever sentenced to prison, or church for that matter. He should be serving time.
Let him practice religion at his church – not from the bench.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Nativity Nitwits

Christmas time is near again and the government property Nativity Scene nitwits are crying foul over the fact that the city of Santa Monica California has decided to no longer allow any unattended holiday season displays on public land.
Some Christians just can’t understand the part of the First Amendment that prohibits government from establishing, promoting or sponsoring any religion, including Christianity, the religion of the majority in America. So we have these fights about Nativity Scenes on government property every year. The city is simply fed up with the quarrelling.
Santa Monica has ended a tradition that began in 1953 allowing huge displays of Christian Nativity Scenes in Palisades Park, earning one of the cities nicknames: the City of the Christmas Story.
But in recent years non-religious groups have objected to the constitutional violation prompting the city to declare the display area a public forum allowing displays by atheists and other religions. Public forums of this type are constitutional because the government is not promoting any particular point of view.
So three years ago atheists displayed a simple sign in one display area that quoted Thomas Jefferson: "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies." The other side read: "Happy Solstice."
Then this year a coalition of atheists groups were able to obtain 18 of the 21 display areas available at auction, leaving only two slots left for the Christians and one for a Jewish display.
"In recent years, the tactic of many in the atheist community has been, if you can't beat them, join them," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center and director of the Newseum's Religious Freedom Education Project in Washington. "If these church groups insist that these public spaces are going to be dominated by a Christian message, we'll just get in the game — and that changes everything."
The atheists used half their spaces, displaying signs such as one that showed pictures of Poseidon, Jesus, Santa Claus and the devil and said: "37 million Americans know myths when they see them. What myths do you see?"
That got the Christians hopping mad. Most of the atheist signs were vandalized and in the ensuing uproar, the city decided to end the public forum once and for all. Private, unattended displays are now banned at the park.
So the Christian churches that have set up a 14-scene Christian diorama Nativity Scene for decades sued the city claiming First Amendment freedom of speech violations.
You see, the Christians insist on displaying their religious messages while at the same time objecting to and vandalizing the other non-Christian messages in the public forum. They want it both ways. It was their own protests and conduct which led to the ban and now they’re protesting the ban. The atheists are satisfied either way.
"It's a sad, sad commentary on the attitudes of the day that a nearly 60-year-old Christmas tradition is now having to hunt for a home, something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested," said Hunter Jameson, head of the nonprofit Santa Monica Nativity Scene Committee.
A federal judge on Monday denied the Christian group’s bid for a preliminary injunction to force Santa Monica to allow the display of a Nativity Scene prompting the nitwits to start howling about an imagined potential threat to religious liberty.
William Becker, the attorney for the Christian group, told reporters that it was an “extraordinary ruling.”“The next step will be for them to stop any religious speech at all in a public park — whether it’s singing hymns or merely handing out leaflets or merely discussing religion,” he whined. “One day it will all be banned.”
The atheists won’t have their unattended displays any longer either but they understand the First Amendment Establishment clause. The city can choose to set up a public forum or not at its discretion, but it cannot promote any one point of view to the exclusion of all others.
There is clearly no threat to religious liberty in Santa Monica.
The city doesn't prohibit churches from caroling in the park, handing out literature or even staging a play about the birth of Jesus and churches can always set up a nativity on private land, said Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney.
The Nativity Scene nitwits will never understand.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

American Tax Slaves

There is more than one way to make a slave out of a human being. They can be forced to work and produce valuables for their masters, or they can be allowed a modicum of liberty to produce their own valuables which may then be taxed by their masters.
The modern parasitical political class in America has figured out exactly how to obtain the maximum of values from their human slaves by taxing them to the absolute limits all the while allowing them to believe that they are free. In this manner the parasites gain far more valuables from each slave than any plantation slave owner in the old south ever dreamed of.
Since the United States of America was founded in the late 18th century the parasites have taxed the population more and more until today the slaves are chocking upon their ever more insatiable demands.
The more the government parasites tax the more they spend, much of it on themselves, but now they can’t even collect enough taxes to cover the huge spending frenzy. As a result America is more than $16 trillion in debt with no end in sight. The national debt is expected to top $20 trillion by the time President Obama leaves office in just four more years.
And now President Obama, fresh from his landslide democratic victory is certain that Americans must start to pay even more in taxes. The average working stiff taxpaying slave – not just the rich people – will be paying as much as half their paychecks to various governmental entities in the year 2013.
“I think everybody out there understood that was an important debate and the majority of voters agreed with me,” says the president. “By the way, more voters agreed with me on this issue than voted for me! So we've got a clear majority of the American people who recognize if we're gonna be serious about deficit reduction we gotta do it in a balanced way."
That means more taxes from the slaves -- not only federal income taxes, but every other kind of tax imaginable. Payroll taxes; social security and Medicare taxes; state income taxes; local income taxes; real estate taxes; personal property taxes; sales taxes; gasoline taxes; excise taxes; capital gains taxes, etc.
The typical middle class taxpayer slave now pays 25% percent in income taxes to the federal parasites. Add to that the Federal Social Security and Medicare payroll tax of 13.3% which brings the total to 38.3%. Federal Income taxes alone would spike up to 28% for the typical middle income slave next year as the Bush tax cuts expire. Total: 41.3%.
The average state's income tax rate on the middle class is 4.82%; some states more; some less. That brings the total to 46.12%. Add in the rest of the tax categories mentioned above and the total will exceed 50%.
The United States government is poised to take half the income of every taxpaying slave. Even the poor slaves who don’t pay any income taxes will be paying as much as 25% of their income to the parasites depending upon whether they own their own homes and what else they purchase.
This situation is not going to end without an all out tax revolt.
All of us are going to remain American tax slaves.

Saturday, November 17, 2012


Boy Scouts of America (BSA), founded 102 years ago in 1910, chartered by the United States Congress, and for many decades afterwards considered a much beloved apple pie American cultural Icon, illustrated nostalgically in Norman Rockwell paintings, has sadly become an ugly shrunken shell of its former glory entirely because of religious extremists who hijacked the organization during the 1980’s.
Before that happened BSA entered into annual chartered-partner-sponsorship agreements with virtually every public elementary school in the United States, offering school aged boys and their parents exciting wholesome character building extracurricular educational activities.
The program was a public accommodation, primarily secular in nature, open to all, and its mission was to give each and every boy the opportunity to participate in scouting and outdoor adventures.
The honorary president of Boy Scouts of America has traditionally been the President of the United States. BSA has enjoyed the sponsorship promotion and financial support of federal state and local governments everywhere for many decades. It was a public organization – not a private club for almost 90 years.
But I suppose that all good things must eventually come to an end. It gradually came to pass that many of BSA’s chartered-partner-sponsors were not just public schools but thousands of churches and other religious organizations of every persuasion and denomination.
Soon the religious leaders from these churches, particularly the Mormon Church of the LDS, assumed most of the positions of leadership and control of the BSA. They slowly changed the purpose and focus of a wonderful public accommodation open to everyone into a religiously oriented and discriminatory private club.
BSA now requires all of its members without exception to willingly swear oaths affirming belief in and a duty to God, and to formally subscribe to the BSA Declaration of Religious Principle which specifies their religious obligations in detail.
The change came to a head in the year 2000 when an Eagle Scout who happened to be gay was kicked out of the BSA. He sued the organization for violation of his civil rights. The case wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
By this time BSA was claiming that it was not open to the public but was instead a private invitation only club. The Supreme Court took BSA at its word holding that as a private club it enjoys a First Amendment right of expressive association, therefore is not subject to civil rights laws and can exclude anyone for any reason. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S. Ct. 2446 (2000).
So BSA, as a private religiously oriented fraternity, won the right according to the highest court in the land to exclude gays, non-religious and anyone else it chooses, all of which has made their leadership very pleased indeed.
But after that the organization wanted it both ways. On the one hand they wanted to be considered a public accommodation when it came to continuing its longstanding chartered-partner-sponsorships with public schools and other government entities, while on the other hand it wants to retain its coveted status as a private religiously oriented club for the purpose of excluding gays, non-religious boys and others.
In short, BSA today wants to be public and private – religious and secular -- at the same time depending upon which interest suits it, a position which makes a mockery of the United States Constitution, federal and state Civil Rights laws.
The primary purpose and mission of Boy Scouts of America today is to promote religion among school-aged boys, and to exclude as members those persons who are unwilling to swear oaths to a duty to God, and subscribe to the BSA Declaration of Religious Principle.
It is precisely this new private purpose and mission which has resulted in the decline and fall from grace of the BSA in America. The organization is now facing the reality that it cannot have it both ways.
Had it remained public, it could have continued the chartered-partner-sponsorships with public schools and other government agencies, but could not exclude boys for ideological religious reasons. Since it is private, it can exclude boys, but can no longer enjoy the same chartered-partner-sponsorships.
As a result, during just the last few years, BSA has lost the support of many thousands of public schools and community organizations all across the United States. It can no longer recruit boys in their classrooms during regular school hours and associate its discriminatory activities with the schools.
The Boy Scouts said this summer it was sticking with the divisive, long-standing policy of excluding openly gay youth and adults as members and leaders. All of this has proved to be a tremendous blow to BSA. It is no longer considered a beloved apple pie American cultural Icon by mainstream Americans.
United Parcel Service (UPS) gave $167,000 to the Boy Scouts in 2010, but decided to stop providing funding to BSA last week because of its discrimination policies after an online petition protesting its annual grants to the Boy Scouts attracted more than 80,000 signatures.
Santa Clara, Calif.-based chip maker Intel has done the same after donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to BSA over the years.
UPS spokeswoman Kristen Petrella said groups applying for the foundation grants will have to adhere to the same standards UPS does by not discriminating against anyone based on race, religion, disability or sexual orientation. "We promote an environment of diversity and inclusion," she said. "UPS is a company that does the right things for the right reasons."
UPS and Intel changed course after Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout and founder of the group Scouts for Equality, began online petitions calling for corporations to end their financial support of the Boy Scouts.
"Corporate America gets it better than most: policies that discriminate aren't simply wrong, they're bad for business and they're hurting the scouting community," Wahls said. "You would think that after all the Boy Scouts have lost as a result of this policy, they would understand that."
“As one of more than 2,000 Eagle Scouts who are part of Scouts for Equality, it pains me to watch the Boy Scouts of America undermine all of the incredible work it has done to build America’s future leaders,” he added.
“We join UPS in encouraging the BSA to adopt an inclusive membership policy and look forward to the full restoration of corporate support as soon as this policy is over.” “Until the Boy Scouts of America ends this hurtful policy, they do not deserve the financial backing of companies that strive for workplace equality.”
Adding insult to injury, Eagle Scouts of all ages are relinquishing their membership in the organization following the Boy Scouts’ announcement on July 17 that it would maintain the ban on gay members. The Scouts' national spokesman, Deron Smith, called it "absolutely the best policy".
“The Scouts have taken their stand… They’re pretty clear that they are going to stick with this policy and I think we need to cut our ties and not associate with an organization that believes in discrimination and practices it," explained Burke Stansbury, who founded a blog called Eagle Scouts Returning Our Badges.
The policy of excluding gays has also come under increased scrutiny within the last month, as thousands of confidential files released as part of a lawsuit show top Boy Scout leaders for decades carefully tracked thousands of scoutmasters and volunteers who sexually abused boys in their care but routinely failed to report those individuals to law enforcement.
How’s that for a moral and ethical contradiction? The Boy Scouts go out of their way to exclude gay and non-religious members from their organization but cover up for decades the predatory pedophile activities of thousands of scoutmasters and volunteers.
To that I say it deserves to die.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Anthem Angst & Other Hysteria American Style

Far too many Americans tend to get upset, lose their tempers and be quick to complain loudly and bitterly over the least significant of things, especially if their delicate sense of national patriotism or cultural equanimity is offended.
They take these matters a bit too seriously in my opinion.
Tempers, for example, have flared in Pennsylvania recently when the commissioner of the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Hockey League advised 200 high school hockey teams to eliminate the national anthem before games because it takes too much time to perform and costs too much money.
“We are recommending the national anthem not be played or sung or whatever it is,” Commissioner Ed Sam, told reporters. “It has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism at all. That’s the furthest thing from the truth.”
He said teams are only allotted a certain amount of time to play matches. “Ice is very, very hard to get and it’s not cheap,” he added, noting that it costs upwards of $300 per hour for schools to rent ice rinks.
Not surprisingly, the decision has been met with fierce opposition by hysterical “patriots” who insist that the national anthem ritual continue before every game.
“I go back to the 1960’s with high school hockey and it’s always been a part of it,” whined one of them. “A part of our history and it should be a part of the game.”
Really – the national anthem is part of our history at high school sporting events? Not playing or singing it at every game would be unpatriotic?
Yes, many Americans apparently think so. They feel threatened when they can no longer force the rest of us to endure their patriotic ritual again and again on the most insignificant of occasions.
Last week an Arizona woman was so upset over the outcome of the presidential election that she ran over her husband with the family Jeep SUV because he didn't vote. For failing to participate in what she thought was his civic duty she pinned him between the underside of the SUV and the curb when he tried to run for help.
Witnesses told police that the woman followed her husband in her car through a parking lot while screaming at him. He hid behind a light pole to protect himself while she circled several times. She struck him as he tried to make a break for the main road. He remains in critical condition.
Only in America can one find stories like this because only in America are people that hysterical about such small matters. Denying him sex for his omission I could understand, but running him over …? I didn’t vote either as a matter of principle. Please don’t tell anyone.  
Meanwhile, Victoria's Secret has apologized profusely for putting a Native American-style headdress on a model for its annual fashion show, after the outfit was criticized as a display of ignorance toward tribal culture and history.
"We sincerely apologize as we absolutely had no intention to offend anyone," the company said. The model also posted on Twitter that she was "deeply sorry if what I wore during the VS Show offended anyone."
"We have gone through the atrocities to survive and ensure our way of life continues," Navajo Nation spokesman Erny Zah said in an interview Monday. "Any mockery, whether it's Halloween, Victoria's Secret -- they are spitting on us. They are spitting on our culture, and it's upsetting."
Abaki Beck, a 19-year-old member of the Blackfeet Nation of Montana, said she wanted more than a short apology from Victoria's Secret instead of what she said sounded like an automated response. "But perhaps that is an unrealistic hope," she admitted, "It is all about business, after all."
"We are people; we're not a fashion statement," Jennie Luna, a Chicana and Caxcan, said. "We are people who are facing serious issues, and for them to further perpetuate the type of stereotypes and disregard for a community's way of life is unacceptable."
Gee, I used to play cowboys and Indians with my little pals as a kid. I suppose that’s no longer acceptable to these recently manufactured hysterical types, who, incidentally still refer to themselves as “Indians” living in “Indian” country and practicing “Indian” culture.
No more kids wearing Indian costumes on Halloween, I suppose. They can wear Civil War uniforms or dress like Leprechauns or drunken Irishmen, but no more cowboys and Indians.  It’s a crying shame.
It’s just more national anthem angst and other hysteria American style.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Law of Lies

Lying and the law go together like hand in glove in America. By the time a case arrives in the courtroom for trial it is generally a stinking mixture consisting of half truth and fifty percent lies. The judge and jury then have the odious job of sorting it out. It should come as no surprise that they often get it wrong.
That’s what a courtroom trial is. It’s an antiquated mechanism for separating truth from lies.  
It’s called a legal advocacy system. Every case involves at least one accuser and one accused. Each of those sides is allowed to advocate their own versions of the “truth,” which more often than not are diametrically opposed. So, most of the time, at least one side is advocating lies.
Criminal cases normally begin with the prosecutor or district attorney charging the accused with a written information or indictment setting forth the relevant facts constituting the elements of the crime. If the accused defendant is in actuality innocent then that written indictment is probably full of lies. If the defendant is actually guilty but pleads not guilty then the plea is a lie. If the same accused stands mute the court will enter a plea of not guilty which is also a lie.
Civil cases normally begin with the Plaintiff’s attorney filing a written complaint with the court setting forth the facts which prove that the Defendant committed wrongdoing subject to liability in money damages. If the Defendant actually committed no wrongdoing then the complaint is probably full of lies. If the complaint charges the Defendant accurately then the answer to it will be full of lies.
When a criminal or civil trial is finally held, after often years of costly and cumbersome preliminary proceedings, only one side will actually be advocating the truth. The opposite side will be advocating lies.  
That has been my dismal and depressing experience throughout the four decades now of my civil law courtroom practice. Since I’ve always represented only Plaintiffs, and had the luxury of choice in selecting only cases which I honestly believed were meritorious, I can proudly say that I have never knowingly brought an untruth into the courtroom or ever advocated a lie.
There were occasions, however, when clients lied to me. In those instances they were advised to seek other counsel. Never-the-less the practice for an honest attorney at law involves constantly grappling with lies. It’s nothing to be upset about, I suppose, as that’s the way it is with politics and life in general.
Civil defense attorneys for the Defendant, Moraga School District in Moraga, California have filed with the court a formal Answer to a Complaint saying that the 12-year-old girl Plaintiff rape victim, who suffered prolonged sexual abuse at the hands of two different middle school teachers in the 1990s, was “negligent,” “careless” and “was herself responsible for the acts and damages of which she claims.”
The lawsuit is against the school district, its retired Intermediate School principal, retired assistant principal and retired superintendent, claiming that they repeatedly ignored reports of sexual abuse.
Former Joaquin Moraga physical education teacher Julie Correa had already pleaded guilty to rape and sexual battery on this little girl over a four-year period beginning in 1996, when she was an eighth grader.
So the School District and its defense attorney knew perfectly well when formulating the sworn Answer that its teacher employee in actual fact raped this little girl, a minor child below the age of consent.
The Complaint further claims that this same little girl turned to her science teacher, Daniel Witters, to report the abuse but instead of helping her, he molested and abused her as well.
Witters committed suicide after the allegations against him surfaced. All these facts were known to the Defendant and its attorney BEFORE filing their sworn answer with the court.
So the Defendant’s sworn Answer to the Plaintiff’s Complaint in a court of law is obviously a complete and total package of lies.
The same school district is also facing another $15 million lawsuit from two more women who alleged abuse from Witters. They’re in legal trouble up to their eyeballs.
Their defense attorney, Louis Leone, excuses their Answer to the Complaint by saying that the school must employ “every potential defense” in such a lawsuit.
You see, that is what civil defense attorney’s do when faced with the flat out truth and the facts in cases against their clients. Every potential defense means every denial, falsehood and lie they can think of to put on paper and then swear under oath.
William Grimm, a senior attorney with Oakland-based National Center for Youth Law, declared: “I think it is reprehensible to place the blame on the young girl who was victimized… The district’s defense has to be plausible … and this doesn’t even pass the smell test, in my opinion.”
The school district issued a statement, saying, “We certainly empathize with [Plaintiff] Ms. Cunnane and did not intend to cause her further distress in filing our formal Answer to her Complaint. However, this is a significant case that could have serious consequences for our school district. She is demanding several million dollars in damages. As a result, at this point in the proceedings we have an obligation not to waive any potential legal lines of defense. … Ms. Cunnane and the media have seized on only one of the nine potential areas and over-exaggerated its importance.”
Again, we see that as far as Defendant’s and their defense attorney’s are concerned, if the case against them is meritorious and has serious potential consequences for them, that justifies lying under oath to the court and the jury.
The Plaintiff, Kristen Cunnane, now 30, told reporters:  “It felt like I got punched in the stomach, and I stood up and thought about how young I was when I was 12 to 13 years old at the school.” She feels that the School District Answer tells rape victims everywhere that they are the ones to blame.
Yes. She’s simply discovered, as I have, that in the United States of America, she has to grapple not only with rapists, but with school districts and their attorneys who rely upon the law of lies.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

GOP Losers: Why?

It’s over. The lesser of the two evils lost the presidential election. The race, which was predicted by the pundits all along during the campaign season as a very close contest, turned out to be a Democratic rout. It wasn’t close. It was a landslide against Republicanism.  
Not only did the GOP fail to win control of the senate, it actually lost ground there. This was a huge defeat for the GOP. Mitt Romney lost in every projected battleground swing state, including Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia. As I write this he’s behind in Florida. That would give Obama 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206.
Obama won not only the big population states with many electoral delegates, such as New York and California, but more states overall than Romney, including rural states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota – even Michigan, Romney’s home state.
Mitt Romney and the GOP are losers.
Aside from the libertarians Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, in my opinion, Mitt Romney was the best Republican candidate to survive the primary process. He’s a free market capitalist; intelligent, experienced, personable, clean cut, competent, capable, energetic and presidential in appearance and demeanor. He enjoys a history of accomplishment and success at everything he has tried.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, while certainly a likable fellow, has been a lousy president. He’s ruining the country.  He’s lazy, incompetent, dishonest and corrupt.  On top of all that he’s a socialist at the political core. Under his four year administration the economy is still stagnant; unemployment remains unacceptably high; debt and deficits are soaring and he’s been spending money like a drunken sailor.
Most voters still think that the country is on the wrong track. So by all accounts the GOP and Mitt Romney should have won this election. It should have turned out just like Ronald Reagan’s victory over the incompetent Jimmy Carter in 1980. It should have been easy.
So why were they such pathetic losers?
On the face of it, it just doesn’t make any sense.
Romney clearly and decisively won the first debate. Even Obama and the Democrat establishment were quick to admit that fact. He looked good. He scored points. He had the President on the ropes. And his stock correspondingly rose with the voting public. He was now a credible candidate.
But after that victory he lost the following two debates by narrow margins because he was trying to be Mr. Nice Guy. He had a golden opportunity to nail his opponent to the wall with the Libya scandal but he let it pass. He wanted to appear as a non-confrontational gentleman to the ladies.
Had Romney won those last two debates I believe he would have won the presidency. Hurricane Sandy stalled his momentum for a few days but had he gone for the jugular like a fighter during the last days of the campaign he probably would have prevailed.
Two huge impediments to his candidacy, however, I think ultimately doomed his campaign to defeat just as I predicted multiple times in these pages.
The first and most important of those impediments was the ghost of the recently departed Republican George W. Bush, a menacing specter who still looms large in the minds of American voters after four years since his retirement.
George W. Bush was without any doubt the worst president in the history of the republic. He’s the one who almost single handedly caused the horrible economic and political mess Americans found themselves in before Barack Obama took office.  
There was a damn good reason why GWB didn’t show his face or otherwise contribute in any way to the 2012 GOP campaign like former successful President Bill Clinton did for the Democrats. He drags on the Republicans political prospects like a concrete anchor. He makes Barack Obama by comparison look like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson – both great presidents.
The hard fact is that many voters equate Republicans and Republicanism with George W. Bush, and that had to have hurt Mitt Romney’s candidacy a great deal.
The second huge impediment was religion. By that I mean the extreme ultra-right-wing conservative Christian evangelical religion which George W. Bush and the Republican Party have embraced so fervently in recent decades as the core of the GOP’s principles and platform.  
If this election reveals anything it’s that a substantial majority of American voters soundly reject the mixing of politics with that kind of ultra-right-wing conservatism and evangelical religion. That has been rejected. It’s on the wane. It’s dying in America. The GOP had better take that fact to heart.
Republicans have become the Party that scares voters with its extreme politics, especially women voters who went for Obama 55% to 44% this time. Witness the fact that two extremely religiously oriented anti-abortion GOP senate candidates, Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock, were defeated in states that Romney won and in which Republican senate seats were once considered safe seats.
Consider the large number of religious extremists competing in the Republican presidential primary this time -- Rick Santourm, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. Those folks scare the daylights out of average American voters who just don’t want to be governed by their religion.  
Consider the many other prominent and notable Republicans who turn the average voter off; goof balls like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. People are rightly equating these figures with Republicans and Republicanism and its hurting the Party. I believe it hurt Mitt Romney, the closest candidate to a moderate in the mix.  
Republicans are associated with religiously oriented political extremists. They’ve been preaching the wrong message to average Americans. They must begin to rethink their core principles or face the prospect of becoming irrelevant in future elections.
I say that if the extreme religionists in the GOP won’t back off on their unreasonable demands let them form their own party – The Christian Evangelical Party -- and become marginalized as they should be marginalized in our modern secular society.
They’ve ruined the GOP, and this election proves it. America doesn’t belong to them. The GOP doesn’t belong to them. They are welcome as far as I’m concerned to stay in the Party but with far less influence and far less control over the political process. What will they do if put in their place? Would they go to the Democrats? I don’t think so.
The GOP needs to get real on social issues. The American political tide is changing on social issues. Republicans are losing the battle against gay rights and abortion. Either they give it up or they will keep losing elections and keep turning off voters.
In this election, for example, Maryland, Washington State and Maine voters voted for freedom to marry for same-sex couples. Minnesota rejected a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only involving one man and one woman. Gay rights are here to stay.
Florida voters rejected a so-called “religious freedom” measure that would have drastically blurred the lines between church and state, and a ballot initiative that would have severely limited access to abortion. Washington state and Colorado set up a showdown with federal authorities by legalizing recreational use of marijuana.
Nonreligious Americans now make up 20% of the population, and the media is beginning to figure out just how politically powerful they are. They should expect in the near future to be courted by candidates for elected office in the same manner that many religious voters are now. Kyrsten Sinema, a self-identifying bisexual non-theist, for example, won a Congressional election in Arizona in this election.  
Hispanics went for Obama at the astonishing rate of 71% this time. The average American voter, especially every minority – Blacks, Latinos, Asians, gays, non-religious, and the rest of them -- feel absolutely no reasons to support Republicans.
Add up all these minorities and the numbers become huge. Then add the labor vote, the union vote, the academics and young professionals’ vote, women and young people -- why can’t the GOP attract more of these people? If they can’t then they will lose more elections.
Republicans like to complain about the Democrats enjoying the support of the mainstream media. Why do the democrats have the mainstream media? Because they have the support of the mainstream of Americans, that’s why.
Mainstream Americans are sick tired of militarism, wars, and unlimited military spending. Yet the GOP and Mitt Romney promised even more of the same. Americans have, with this election, rejected those ideas. If politicians have to spend money then it should be spent on Americans. That’s what the voters are telling the GOP.
It was shameful the way the GOP treated Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and the libertarian wing of the Party while kowtowing to the extremist Christian evangelical wing. That hurt the Party. The GOP needs the libertarians. In my opinion there should be more libertarian and less evangelical ideas in the Republican Party. They need more of Gary Johnson and Ron Paul and less of Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.
Republicans must start showing more appeal to the average voter, the common man, and create a larger tent where more people feel welcome. They should start advocating liberty instead of the statism which both the major parties now stand for. They should promote free markets and honest capitalism instead of crony capitalism.
The Republican Party should become the Party of liberty and welcome with open arms all members of the Libertarian Party together with independents and free market inclined Democrats.
Then perhaps the Grand Old Party will cease being: GOP losers.  

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Liberty? What Liberty?

What would you think if the federal, state and local governments in the United States of America started passing laws requiring every American citizen between the ages of 18 and 65 to provide a month of their personal services on an involuntary basis every year to the public collective?
Medical doctors might be required to provide medical services at government hospitals or clinics. Lawyers might be ordered to provide legal services to the poor; accountants accounting services; teachers educational services; housewives housekeeping services; manual laborers their labor, and so on down the line.  
What if a majority of the American population whole heatedly approved, believing that compulsory involuntary servitude is exactly what our democratic republic needs? What if they started enthusiastically voting for the politicians passing those laws?
The statist politicians of many nations on planet Earth are doing it right now and their enslaved populations are going along.
But the government in the United States of America most certainly can’t do that, can it? We can’t put involuntary servitude to a vote, can we? That would make a mockery of the Bill of Rights.
Such an Orwellian scheme would clearly be unconstitutional right? It would obviously constitute a substantial deprivation of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment, right? It would also violate the First Amendment in many respects and the Fourth and Sixth Amendments as well, not to mention the Thirteenth Amendment, wouldn’t it.
Well … actually maybe not.
Maybe it’s in the future for the United States of America, a nation once considered as the land of liberty and a beacon of individual freedom to the rest of the world.
But that was more than 235 years ago. An awful lot has changed since then.
Military conscription has been practiced in America since colonial times. All 13 colonies employed a militia system for defense which continued after the War of Independence and the foundation of the United States. All able-bodied men were required to enroll in a militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and serve in times of war or emergency.
The U.S. employed national conscription laws in both the North and South during the Civil War. President Woodrow Wilson decided to rely primarily on conscription during WWI. Compulsory military service was required during WWII, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War. The military draft was discontinued in 1973 but the Selective Service System remains law requiring all men between the ages of 18 and 25 to register.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld military conscription laws even though it clearly mandates involuntary servitude.
In 1889 Congress ordered the Selective Service System to put in place a system capable of drafting "persons qualified for practice or employment in a health care and professional occupation", if such a special-skills draft should be ordered by Congress.
So you see a legal requirement for involuntary servitude is already in the pipeline for medical and other professionals and no constitutional amendment was necessary.
Compulsory education has been the rule in every state of our nation since the mid-nineteenth century and the constitutionality of these schemes has been upheld by the courts. As a general rule every person between the ages of 5 years to 16 years old is required by law to attend a school which meets the educational requirements of the government.
So the liberty of every American may be denied without due process of law or any other safeguard afforded by the United States Constitution during at least ten of their most formative years. It’s involuntary servitude yet no constitutional amendment was necessary.
Most Americans are obligated by the force of law every year on April the 15th to file a detailed report to the federal, state, and often local governments, disclosing some of the most private and intimate details of our lives, including most importantly our monetary income exactly right down to the very last penny. For that, a constitutional amendment was required and there is no way around it.
Your liberty is substantially curtailed by the tax laws and the U.S census laws. The government is entitled to know all kinds of information about you, especially what you are worth. It has access to your financial accounts, your employment records, and your investment portfolio. It knows everything it wants to know about you and you are required to provide that information upon penalties prescribed by law.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed just this year your legal obligation under the Omamacare law to purchase health insurance even if you don’t want to do it, and if you don’t do it as the government requires, you will be subject to financial penalties.
Yes, now it is financial penalties, tomorrow it might be prison.
A Texas man has been sent to jail recently for trying to avoid government mandated involuntary servitude, i.e. jury duty.
"He tried to get disqualified by stating he was a felon—that got denied," Jury Bailiff Paula Morales told a local Dallas-Fort Worth affiliate. "He tried to get excused by claiming he was the caretaker of an invalid. We couldn't substantiate that, so that was denied."
"I called him… his phone wasn't accepting phone messages. I sent him an email, told him it was imperative that he contact me immediately, and we never heard back from him," Morales said. "So then I was forced to take it to the judge."
The next day the man stood handcuffed in front of a judge who held him in contempt of court. "The judge told him he wasn't taking his jury duty seriously, considering his history. So he sentenced him to five days in the county jail," Morales added. "I mean, we've tried and tried and he just kept shirking it and shirking it and it wasn't going anywhere. So we didn't have a choice."
No notice; no hearing; no trial; no attorney; no due process of law whatsoever; just 5 days in the county jail; a total deprivation of his liberty for the “crime” of trying to avoid government imposed involuntary servitude in the United States of America.
So we see in the final analysis that there really is no such thing as individual liberty in America. We enjoy only that license which the government sees fit to allow us and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights might just as well be a roll of toilet paper.
The government may revoke that license almost at will.
To that I say:
Liberty? What Liberty?