Life is a great big canvas, and you should throw as much paint on it as you can!
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP! -Winston Churchill
ARE YOU KIDDING ME……..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please pay attention to the part in red.
THE INTERVIEW BELOW WAS CIRCULATED WHEN "O" HAD NOT YET BEEN ELECTED!
IT DID NOT GAIN ATTENTION THEN. NOW IT ALL FALLS INTO PLACE.
IN VIEW OF HIS YEAR IN OFFICE HIS 'PROPHECY' IS RAPIDLY BECOMING REALITY !
The president of this great country openly states his beliefs such as those expressed below:
The following is a narrative taken from Sunday Morning's 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST,
Televised "Meet the Press".The author is employed by none other than the Washington Post!!
THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.
General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when
the National Anthem is played.
The General also stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36,
Chapter 10, Sec. 171...
During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least,
"Stand and Face It".
Senator Obama replied:
"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides". "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression ."
"The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."
ARE YOU READY FOR THIS???
Obama said: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose.
I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention , if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves as the nations of Islamwhere peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ."
When I become President, I will seek a pact oragreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice which is WHY my Wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past".
"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside . I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path . My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America "
WHAAAAAAAT the Hell is that!!!
Yes, you read it right.
I, for one, am speechless!!!
Dale Lindsborg,
Washington Post
Monday, March 29, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
un wanted
03/27/2010
Alone and unwanted, unneeded, unnecessary, unrelized dreams is all that is left of me. Like an old man in a home for old unwanted un needed un loved is the reminder of the life of me. My chances I had My chances I blew. The magic wand of youth petered away is stupid pursuit of things I thought grand and good. Now in the prison of alone and un wanted un needed for the final song I pray the death song of me.Synpthy give me not .My actions and reactions my choices no excuses I am told I did it all guilty as all hell. For surely those successful still tale the tale of IF I had but made other choices reacted in other ways held when I should have held rushed when I should have rushed the end of this story different would be.Sucessful and wealthy would I be, My fault I know it be, because my mother, my daughter, my son, y friend say all the same. Say they those in the ditch those without those lazy slothful stupid son of bitches deserve their fate, the fate they themselves made for it was poor planning poor choices, ill use of there money. These wise people say there is no Ice Berg that sinks the Titanic was stupidly on the part of those in control why the great end up in the bottom of the ocean we call life. Says My mother and not alone I heard from High school principle the story of the man the people found homeless in the gutter they took him cleaned educated him gave him clothing and a house too then found a job kept tabs on this man in but a few months he was where they found him again nasty filthy and in the ditch, Mother is Church of Christ, The principle was too Church of Christ his son Hershel talked me from being baptized at 13. See the mistake I made see the proof of why I should be as I am pariah of god of man of woman.
Alone and unwanted, unneeded, unnecessary, unrelized dreams is all that is left of me. Like an old man in a home for old unwanted un needed un loved is the reminder of the life of me. My chances I had My chances I blew. The magic wand of youth petered away is stupid pursuit of things I thought grand and good. Now in the prison of alone and un wanted un needed for the final song I pray the death song of me.Synpthy give me not .My actions and reactions my choices no excuses I am told I did it all guilty as all hell. For surely those successful still tale the tale of IF I had but made other choices reacted in other ways held when I should have held rushed when I should have rushed the end of this story different would be.Sucessful and wealthy would I be, My fault I know it be, because my mother, my daughter, my son, y friend say all the same. Say they those in the ditch those without those lazy slothful stupid son of bitches deserve their fate, the fate they themselves made for it was poor planning poor choices, ill use of there money. These wise people say there is no Ice Berg that sinks the Titanic was stupidly on the part of those in control why the great end up in the bottom of the ocean we call life. Says My mother and not alone I heard from High school principle the story of the man the people found homeless in the gutter they took him cleaned educated him gave him clothing and a house too then found a job kept tabs on this man in but a few months he was where they found him again nasty filthy and in the ditch, Mother is Church of Christ, The principle was too Church of Christ his son Hershel talked me from being baptized at 13. See the mistake I made see the proof of why I should be as I am pariah of god of man of woman.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
busybodies
3/25/2010 Busybodies.
I was looking on the internet for people having sex in public. I found on YouTube a video vigilante who took his camera and followed people in Oklahoma City Oklahoma picking up prostates and filming them and calling the police to have them arrested. I know people of the ilk of John Walsh will applaud this behavior. I wonder why we don’t just legalize prostitution and allow people to do it where they wish in certain parts of the cities away from children and leave the people involved alone. If I am going to be carted off to jail on account of a busy body there will be charges other than being a john as they call them. I live in the country so I can do what I wish and not be bothered by people. Busy bodies’s like this man would get a ladder and film you and your wife nude in your private swimming pool in your back yard, why because he thinks everyone should live to his standards of he will shove his standards on you. He is probably a church going person that pays no attention to Jesus example everyone is so interested in preaching the word that they forget that Jesus has a example he showed and it was basically this I tell you what will happen when, I do not force you to do as I say or as I do but you know from my words what is coming. MR video vigilante has no business in my humble opinion forcing things on people that he will not stop if he gets everyone in Oklahoma City arrested. The one film I watched was a Lowes truck driver picked his lady up and took her to a restraint parking lot got in the back of his truck and shut the door so no one could see and if Mr. Vigilante had not been following and thinking of Mr. Vigilante’s business he would not know. The next one I watched a old man picked a lady up and he followed him to a hotel and gave him 30 seconds to leave or he would call the cops,so legalize the act of prostitution so my Vigilante has something productive to do like take care of his children. If he were playing ball with his children in his back yard he will not have time to chase wood be criminals down and his children would have a father for longer because someone will hurt him as always happens. He will run into someone that thinks he should be left alone and will punch this man in the nose.
I was looking on the internet for people having sex in public. I found on YouTube a video vigilante who took his camera and followed people in Oklahoma City Oklahoma picking up prostates and filming them and calling the police to have them arrested. I know people of the ilk of John Walsh will applaud this behavior. I wonder why we don’t just legalize prostitution and allow people to do it where they wish in certain parts of the cities away from children and leave the people involved alone. If I am going to be carted off to jail on account of a busy body there will be charges other than being a john as they call them. I live in the country so I can do what I wish and not be bothered by people. Busy bodies’s like this man would get a ladder and film you and your wife nude in your private swimming pool in your back yard, why because he thinks everyone should live to his standards of he will shove his standards on you. He is probably a church going person that pays no attention to Jesus example everyone is so interested in preaching the word that they forget that Jesus has a example he showed and it was basically this I tell you what will happen when, I do not force you to do as I say or as I do but you know from my words what is coming. MR video vigilante has no business in my humble opinion forcing things on people that he will not stop if he gets everyone in Oklahoma City arrested. The one film I watched was a Lowes truck driver picked his lady up and took her to a restraint parking lot got in the back of his truck and shut the door so no one could see and if Mr. Vigilante had not been following and thinking of Mr. Vigilante’s business he would not know. The next one I watched a old man picked a lady up and he followed him to a hotel and gave him 30 seconds to leave or he would call the cops,so legalize the act of prostitution so my Vigilante has something productive to do like take care of his children. If he were playing ball with his children in his back yard he will not have time to chase wood be criminals down and his children would have a father for longer because someone will hurt him as always happens. He will run into someone that thinks he should be left alone and will punch this man in the nose.
Friday, March 19, 2010
jury nullification
Jury Nullification
Why you should know what it is
By Russ Emal (with a little assistance from the Internet)
Is it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your own conscience. "True", you say, but then why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision?
In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities.
But judges rarely "fully inform" jurors of their rights, especially their power to judge the law itself and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Instead, they end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who will admit to knowing about this right, starting with anyone who also admits having qualms with any specific law.
In fact, if you have doubts about the fairness of a law, you have the right and obligation to find someone innocent even though they have actually broken the law! John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
It was normal procedure in the early days of our country to inform juries of their right to judge the law and the defendant. And if the judge didn't tell them, the defense attorney very often would. The nation's Founders understood that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed of their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its proper role as the servant, not the master, of the people.
It was our Constitution that gave us the foundation that enables us to remain a democracy. The Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power Ñ representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury. Before a law gains the power to punish that law must first pass the test of each constitutionally guaranteed authority.
"Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those patriots intended that the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass through before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Our constitutional designers saw to it that each enactment of law must pass the scrutiny of these tribunals before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate any written law. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
Four decades before Jefferson spoke these words, a jury had established freedom of the press in the colonies by finding John Peter Zenger not guilty of seditious libel. He had been arrested and charged for printing critical Ñ but true Ñ news stories about the Governor of New York Colony. "Truth is no defense", the court told the jury! But the jury decided to reject bad law, and acquitted.
Why? Because defense attorney Andrew Hamilton informed the jury of its rights: he related the story of William Penn's trial Ñ of the courageous London jury which refused to find him guilty of preaching Quaker religious doctrine (at that time an illegal religion). His jurors stood by their verdict even though held without food, water, or toilet facilities for four days. The jurors were fined and imprisoned for refusing to convict William Penn Ñ until England's highest court acknowledged their right to reject both law and fact and to find a verdict according to conscience. It was exercise of that right in Penn's trial which eventually led to recognition of free speech, freedom of religion, and of peaceable assembly as individual rights.
American colonial juries regularly thwarted bad law sent over from mother England. Britain then retaliated by restricting both trial by jury and other rights which juries had won or protected. Result? The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution!
Afterwards, to forever protect all the individual rights they'd fought for from future attacks by government, the Founders of these United States in three places included trial by jury Ñ meaning tough, fully informed juries Ñ in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"Bad law" Ñ special-interest legislation which tramples our rights Ñ is no longer sent here from Britain. But our own legislatures keep us well supplied...That is why today, more than ever, we need juries to protect us!
Even though it was once the written law, would you vote to convict an escaped slave from the south, return him to his "Master" and to then be punished, maybe by inflecting torture and disfigurement to that escaped slave? Your answer is hopefully "NO!" But, at one time that was the law. How about burning a witch? Once too that was the law, a bad law and one that should not to be acted upon by our juries. If these laws were again passed today, how should you vote if on that trial's jury?
"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)
Despite the courts' refusal to inform jurors of their historical veto power, jury nullification in liquor law trials was a major contributing factor in ending alcohol prohibition. (Today in Kentucky jurors often refuse to convict under the marijuana prohibition laws.)
Fewer incidence of jury veto actions occurred as time increased after the courts began concealing jurors' rights from American citizens and falsely instructing them that they may consider only the facts as admitted by the court. Researchers in 1966 found that jury nullification occurred only 8.8 percent of the time between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that "one reason why the jury exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is officially told it has none." (California's charge to the jury in criminal cases is typical: "It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you ... You are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial and the law as stated to you by me.") Today no officer of the court is allowed to tell the jury of their veto power.
To better explain to prospective jurors their rights, an explanation that is not forthcoming from our courts judges, an organization called the Fully Informed Jury Association has been established. "FIJA" is a national jury-education organization which both educates juries and promotes laws to require that judges resume telling trial jurors "the whole truth" about their rights, or at least to allow lawyers to tell them. FIJA believes "liberty and justice for all" won't return to America until the citizens are again fully informed of their power as jurors, and routinely put it to good use.
About 18 months ago, armed with a number of pamphlets explaining the importance to each of us in having the courts fully inform juries of their rights, I stood in the Mendocino County Courthouse. I had been talking about this issue, with courthouse visitors when I was "invited" into Judge James Luther's courtroom by two of his bailiffs. Judge Luther, showed me how in general our courts have eroded. I was told to stop talking to my fellow citizens about their constitutional rights. Their right to understand a jury's role in the court procedure. I was told to stop or be arrested for jury tampering.
We can only speculate on why there is a general distrust by judges. A distrust of our citizen jurys to decide on the fairness of laws that are often enacted by self-serving legislators? Disrespect for the idea of government "of, by, and for the people"? Unwillingness to part with their power? Ignorance of all the rights and powers that trial jurors necessarily acquire upon assuming the responsibility of judging a case? Actual concern that trial jurors might "misuse" their power if told about it? How can people get fair trials if the jurors are told they can't use their consciences?
If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts", their job could be done by computer. It is precisely because people have feelings, opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that we depend upon jurors, not upon machines, to judge court cases.
Why is so little known about what is now called "jury nullification"? In the late 1800's, a number of powerful special-interest groups (not unlike many we have with us today) inspired a series of judicial decisions which tried to limit jury rights. While no court has yet dared to deny that juries can "nullify" or "veto" a law, or can bring in a "general verdict", they have held that jurors need not be told about these rights!
However, jury veto power is still recognized. In 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law (473F 2dl 113)
Today thousands of harmless citizens are in prison only because their trial juries were not fully informed, and the U.S. now leads the world in percent of population behind bars! More prisons are being built than ever before for those whose "crime" effects no one but themselves.
We need to be wary and/or critical of any proposals to "streamline" the jury system, or to create jurisdictions or regulations which "do not require" trial by jury (two of the means by which your power as a juror is stolen!) We now hear about plans to allow a court to find a person guilty of a crime with less then a 12-0 vote.
To find out more about jury nullification and FIJA call 800-TEL-JURY and record your name and address. Or call FIJA National at (406) 793-5550.
Why you should know what it is
By Russ Emal (with a little assistance from the Internet)
Is it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your own conscience. "True", you say, but then why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision?
In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities.
But judges rarely "fully inform" jurors of their rights, especially their power to judge the law itself and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Instead, they end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who will admit to knowing about this right, starting with anyone who also admits having qualms with any specific law.
In fact, if you have doubts about the fairness of a law, you have the right and obligation to find someone innocent even though they have actually broken the law! John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
It was normal procedure in the early days of our country to inform juries of their right to judge the law and the defendant. And if the judge didn't tell them, the defense attorney very often would. The nation's Founders understood that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed of their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its proper role as the servant, not the master, of the people.
It was our Constitution that gave us the foundation that enables us to remain a democracy. The Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power Ñ representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury. Before a law gains the power to punish that law must first pass the test of each constitutionally guaranteed authority.
"Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those patriots intended that the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass through before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Our constitutional designers saw to it that each enactment of law must pass the scrutiny of these tribunals before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate any written law. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
Four decades before Jefferson spoke these words, a jury had established freedom of the press in the colonies by finding John Peter Zenger not guilty of seditious libel. He had been arrested and charged for printing critical Ñ but true Ñ news stories about the Governor of New York Colony. "Truth is no defense", the court told the jury! But the jury decided to reject bad law, and acquitted.
Why? Because defense attorney Andrew Hamilton informed the jury of its rights: he related the story of William Penn's trial Ñ of the courageous London jury which refused to find him guilty of preaching Quaker religious doctrine (at that time an illegal religion). His jurors stood by their verdict even though held without food, water, or toilet facilities for four days. The jurors were fined and imprisoned for refusing to convict William Penn Ñ until England's highest court acknowledged their right to reject both law and fact and to find a verdict according to conscience. It was exercise of that right in Penn's trial which eventually led to recognition of free speech, freedom of religion, and of peaceable assembly as individual rights.
American colonial juries regularly thwarted bad law sent over from mother England. Britain then retaliated by restricting both trial by jury and other rights which juries had won or protected. Result? The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution!
Afterwards, to forever protect all the individual rights they'd fought for from future attacks by government, the Founders of these United States in three places included trial by jury Ñ meaning tough, fully informed juries Ñ in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"Bad law" Ñ special-interest legislation which tramples our rights Ñ is no longer sent here from Britain. But our own legislatures keep us well supplied...That is why today, more than ever, we need juries to protect us!
Even though it was once the written law, would you vote to convict an escaped slave from the south, return him to his "Master" and to then be punished, maybe by inflecting torture and disfigurement to that escaped slave? Your answer is hopefully "NO!" But, at one time that was the law. How about burning a witch? Once too that was the law, a bad law and one that should not to be acted upon by our juries. If these laws were again passed today, how should you vote if on that trial's jury?
"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)
Despite the courts' refusal to inform jurors of their historical veto power, jury nullification in liquor law trials was a major contributing factor in ending alcohol prohibition. (Today in Kentucky jurors often refuse to convict under the marijuana prohibition laws.)
Fewer incidence of jury veto actions occurred as time increased after the courts began concealing jurors' rights from American citizens and falsely instructing them that they may consider only the facts as admitted by the court. Researchers in 1966 found that jury nullification occurred only 8.8 percent of the time between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that "one reason why the jury exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is officially told it has none." (California's charge to the jury in criminal cases is typical: "It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you ... You are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial and the law as stated to you by me.") Today no officer of the court is allowed to tell the jury of their veto power.
To better explain to prospective jurors their rights, an explanation that is not forthcoming from our courts judges, an organization called the Fully Informed Jury Association has been established. "FIJA" is a national jury-education organization which both educates juries and promotes laws to require that judges resume telling trial jurors "the whole truth" about their rights, or at least to allow lawyers to tell them. FIJA believes "liberty and justice for all" won't return to America until the citizens are again fully informed of their power as jurors, and routinely put it to good use.
About 18 months ago, armed with a number of pamphlets explaining the importance to each of us in having the courts fully inform juries of their rights, I stood in the Mendocino County Courthouse. I had been talking about this issue, with courthouse visitors when I was "invited" into Judge James Luther's courtroom by two of his bailiffs. Judge Luther, showed me how in general our courts have eroded. I was told to stop talking to my fellow citizens about their constitutional rights. Their right to understand a jury's role in the court procedure. I was told to stop or be arrested for jury tampering.
We can only speculate on why there is a general distrust by judges. A distrust of our citizen jurys to decide on the fairness of laws that are often enacted by self-serving legislators? Disrespect for the idea of government "of, by, and for the people"? Unwillingness to part with their power? Ignorance of all the rights and powers that trial jurors necessarily acquire upon assuming the responsibility of judging a case? Actual concern that trial jurors might "misuse" their power if told about it? How can people get fair trials if the jurors are told they can't use their consciences?
If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts", their job could be done by computer. It is precisely because people have feelings, opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that we depend upon jurors, not upon machines, to judge court cases.
Why is so little known about what is now called "jury nullification"? In the late 1800's, a number of powerful special-interest groups (not unlike many we have with us today) inspired a series of judicial decisions which tried to limit jury rights. While no court has yet dared to deny that juries can "nullify" or "veto" a law, or can bring in a "general verdict", they have held that jurors need not be told about these rights!
However, jury veto power is still recognized. In 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law (473F 2dl 113)
Today thousands of harmless citizens are in prison only because their trial juries were not fully informed, and the U.S. now leads the world in percent of population behind bars! More prisons are being built than ever before for those whose "crime" effects no one but themselves.
We need to be wary and/or critical of any proposals to "streamline" the jury system, or to create jurisdictions or regulations which "do not require" trial by jury (two of the means by which your power as a juror is stolen!) We now hear about plans to allow a court to find a person guilty of a crime with less then a 12-0 vote.
To find out more about jury nullification and FIJA call 800-TEL-JURY and record your name and address. Or call FIJA National at (406) 793-5550.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
rule of law
3/17/201
When I was arrested on 5/19/2009 and taken to the Jones County Texas jail, the next morning when the “Judge” as he was called came to set my bond. So I could get out. This Judge was the justice of the peace he is crippled and uses crutches to walk. He has in fact married me once so I recognized him for his position. The deputy that arrested me lied to me to get me to come out of the house and again a Jones County official would lie to me the judge said you can’t get a jury trial on a mistomener crime!! The Lawyers I spoke with both said this was a lie. HOW can our president either one Bush or Obama say we have rule of law when the judges and cops lie???
When I was arrested on 5/19/2009 and taken to the Jones County Texas jail, the next morning when the “Judge” as he was called came to set my bond. So I could get out. This Judge was the justice of the peace he is crippled and uses crutches to walk. He has in fact married me once so I recognized him for his position. The deputy that arrested me lied to me to get me to come out of the house and again a Jones County official would lie to me the judge said you can’t get a jury trial on a mistomener crime!! The Lawyers I spoke with both said this was a lie. HOW can our president either one Bush or Obama say we have rule of law when the judges and cops lie???
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
reactionaries
03/16/10
I posted on Facebook a piece I got off of the internet about how Pornography has reduced the number of rapes in ur country. A women posted the comment ewe how wrong or something. Well this is called a reaction being against the real truth: facts to hold onto ones beliefs. Now I posted my comment that if allowingchild ppornography to be viewed would stop or lower the incendence of kidnapping and murder of children would this not be a good thing? Knowing the Giant NO from John Walsh,police,tons of other people. See they will hold to this belief that allowing a sick pedophilee to view pictures andfantasyy films mabey made like James Cameron's Avatar is so bad that allowing children to bekidnappedd and killed by these same child molesters is Better behavior. I think these people are accessories to these crimes if as on other types of sexual crimes viewing porn reduces the happening of it.
I posted on Facebook a piece I got off of the internet about how Pornography has reduced the number of rapes in ur country. A women posted the comment ewe how wrong or something. Well this is called a reaction being against the real truth: facts to hold onto ones beliefs. Now I posted my comment that if allowingchild ppornography to be viewed would stop or lower the incendence of kidnapping and murder of children would this not be a good thing? Knowing the Giant NO from John Walsh,police,tons of other people. See they will hold to this belief that allowing a sick pedophilee to view pictures andfantasyy films mabey made like James Cameron's Avatar is so bad that allowing children to bekidnappedd and killed by these same child molesters is Better behavior. I think these people are accessories to these crimes if as on other types of sexual crimes viewing porn reduces the happening of it.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
porn the bad stuff for you
poronoghpy
Sat, March 13, 2010 6:31:36 AMFrom: jesse green View Contact
To: saddlebronk7@yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
numerous studies done on this subject. And, reports The Scientist, it appears that there are links between sex crimes and pornography. Just not the sort of links many of us might have expected. Instead of causing sex crimes, porn might actually contribute to reducing their incidence.
Ads by Google
Unique Folding Boats - They Fold to 4 inches (11cm) Flat! For Fishing, Camping or Sailing - www.Porta-Bote.com
Here is what The Scientist reports on the matter:
Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged “obscene”) and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.
While that is far from a ringing endorsement, it does at least seem to indicate that pornography isn't contributing to sex crimes. While some naysayers may point out that most offenders in prison have been exposed to porn, the fact of the matter is that nearly every male -- and a good number of females -- is exposed to pornography at some point. It stands to reason that most offenders have viewed porn. But other studies found that being punished for porn use might contribute to someone becoming a rapist, and not the porn use itself. Indeed, continues The Scientist, a repressive religious upbringing might be more of a factor in rape than porn:
Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than nonrapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated nonrapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing. Richard Green too has reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of “normal” males.
This sort of assertion is bound to raise a few eyebrows and even cause a little controversy. Especially when taken alongside studies that seem to indicate that porn doesn't result in feelings of misogyny. Additionally, while there is anecdotal evidence that porn users are abusive toward their female partners, there is no evidence that pornography use is the cause of these actions. Perhaps there are other factors, such as alcoholism or violent tendencies, that are bigger influences.
In any case, while such studies do not prove that porn is actively good for society, they do seem to imply that pornography isn't actively bad for us.
More information: Milton Diamond, "Porn: Good for us?", The Scientist. Available online.
Sat, March 13, 2010 6:31:36 AMFrom: jesse green
To: saddlebronk7@yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
numerous studies done on this subject. And, reports The Scientist, it appears that there are links between sex crimes and pornography. Just not the sort of links many of us might have expected. Instead of causing sex crimes, porn might actually contribute to reducing their incidence.
Ads by Google
Unique Folding Boats - They Fold to 4 inches (11cm) Flat! For Fishing, Camping or Sailing - www.Porta-Bote.com
Here is what The Scientist reports on the matter:
Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged “obscene”) and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.
While that is far from a ringing endorsement, it does at least seem to indicate that pornography isn't contributing to sex crimes. While some naysayers may point out that most offenders in prison have been exposed to porn, the fact of the matter is that nearly every male -- and a good number of females -- is exposed to pornography at some point. It stands to reason that most offenders have viewed porn. But other studies found that being punished for porn use might contribute to someone becoming a rapist, and not the porn use itself. Indeed, continues The Scientist, a repressive religious upbringing might be more of a factor in rape than porn:
Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than nonrapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated nonrapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing. Richard Green too has reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of “normal” males.
This sort of assertion is bound to raise a few eyebrows and even cause a little controversy. Especially when taken alongside studies that seem to indicate that porn doesn't result in feelings of misogyny. Additionally, while there is anecdotal evidence that porn users are abusive toward their female partners, there is no evidence that pornography use is the cause of these actions. Perhaps there are other factors, such as alcoholism or violent tendencies, that are bigger influences.
In any case, while such studies do not prove that porn is actively good for society, they do seem to imply that pornography isn't actively bad for us.
More information: Milton Diamond, "Porn: Good for us?", The Scientist. Available online.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
there is no law in texas from where the sun stands now I will vote no more
03/11/10
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am Jesse Lee Green living in Jones county Texas. On 5/19/2009 a Jones county Deputy Sheriff and a Anson police officer showed up at my house at 1:30 am and rousted me from a sound sleep. The deputy said and I quote “Mr Green you need to come out ere and talk about a complaint” I walked into the truth about our country and its laws, I was handcuffed put in the back of a sheriffs pickup then he proceed to beat on my door to try and get the lady that I was sleeping by to come out as he said so he could check her for injuries. She would not leave the house on his lie like I did. I am inclosing a copy of the letter from Chad Cowan Jones county attorney dated 1/6/2010 stating that there was no complaint filed. When I called Larry Moore the Sheriff on 5/20/2009 to tell him of the deputies actions he said and I quote “He can't do that” to which I said Larry he did. When I called Larry to file a complaint on said officer with the dismissal letter in my hand Larry Moore Said “He was just doing his job”.When Joe Heflin called me he informed me of our tough system and said I must get a lawyer to enforce any legalities that this deputy may have broken.
If I the citizen must pay more of the money I do not have to get some form of justice then this Constitution of Texas and the Constitution of these United States may as well be tolett paper. This being the case I will no longer vote for any person for any office as they will be more of the problem, and all of this talk of rule of law applies to only the poor bastard that the police decide to go after.
The Abilene Reporter News ran a story of a man posthumously being cleared of a rape he did not co mitt costing Texas 80,000 per year of the time he was locked up. Not one cop C.S.I. Not one judge not one district attorney will face any kind of fine jail time loss of listens and this is over a mans life. What if said deputy had of said He (me) had a gun I shot him would there have been anything done accept Larry Moore Sheriff of Jones county Texas saying “He was just doing his job”.!!
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am Jesse Lee Green living in Jones county Texas. On 5/19/2009 a Jones county Deputy Sheriff and a Anson police officer showed up at my house at 1:30 am and rousted me from a sound sleep. The deputy said and I quote “Mr Green you need to come out ere and talk about a complaint” I walked into the truth about our country and its laws, I was handcuffed put in the back of a sheriffs pickup then he proceed to beat on my door to try and get the lady that I was sleeping by to come out as he said so he could check her for injuries. She would not leave the house on his lie like I did. I am inclosing a copy of the letter from Chad Cowan Jones county attorney dated 1/6/2010 stating that there was no complaint filed. When I called Larry Moore the Sheriff on 5/20/2009 to tell him of the deputies actions he said and I quote “He can't do that” to which I said Larry he did. When I called Larry to file a complaint on said officer with the dismissal letter in my hand Larry Moore Said “He was just doing his job”.When Joe Heflin called me he informed me of our tough system and said I must get a lawyer to enforce any legalities that this deputy may have broken.
If I the citizen must pay more of the money I do not have to get some form of justice then this Constitution of Texas and the Constitution of these United States may as well be tolett paper. This being the case I will no longer vote for any person for any office as they will be more of the problem, and all of this talk of rule of law applies to only the poor bastard that the police decide to go after.
The Abilene Reporter News ran a story of a man posthumously being cleared of a rape he did not co mitt costing Texas 80,000 per year of the time he was locked up. Not one cop C.S.I. Not one judge not one district attorney will face any kind of fine jail time loss of listens and this is over a mans life. What if said deputy had of said He (me) had a gun I shot him would there have been anything done accept Larry Moore Sheriff of Jones county Texas saying “He was just doing his job”.!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
