novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts in Justice

You can read all that happy horsecrap where he was the best; how he changed everything for the better; how transparent and truthful and trusting and unbiased he was. Read this as a starter and then read any other articles you want. I personally lived it. I hope the guy never gets another job that can hurt the American citizens. I also hope that he is indicted for crimes of corruption, abuse of power, violation of the Constitution, lying and just being a nasty, mean spirited, racist individual. I also hope I win the lottery and, as with this, know how that will turn out. Best that can happen is there is no AG approved before the mid-term elections or we will end up with more corruption and destruction.

This topic has been weighing on my mind for some time. Even now, I am reluctant to write about it. But it is important.

Early in the swim season, one of our young instructors was accused by a parent of “inappropriately touching” her daughter while teaching her how to swim. The police investigator asked the boy and his mother to come in for an interview. During the “interview” (interrogation is a better word), the interrogator “mislead” (lied) about evidence saying, “We had a nurse specialist perform an examination of the girl. What if I told you we had DNA evidence?” (See? The interrogator didn’t say they DID have DNA evidence, only “what if….” In fact, the examination showed no evidence of assault.) The interrogator implied that there were other accusations. There were not. The interrogator implied that there would be leniency if he just admitted to the crime, when in fact she just wanted him to incriminate himself enough for her to file charges. He did, finally saying he had done it “once or twice” during backstroke, when he was holding her level so her bottom didn’t sink. The interrogator charged him with sexual assault.

Then came the court case. They got the interrogator, on the stand, to admit that she lied to get the “confession.” (From that point on, anything the interrogator says is immediately suspect. If she will lie to get a confession, why would she not lie to get a conviction?) She admitted that the accused and his mother had not been informed of his Miranda rights, nor was he or his mother told that the interrogation was being recorded.) Then, the accuser herself took the stand. She said the alleged assault came every day while she was doing breast stroke. Then she was asked whether the person who had done that was in the courtroom. She took a minute to look at everyone in the room, and said, “No.” The defense attorney, obviously, saw no point to cross-examining.

So them the girl’s mom took the stand. First, she lied and said she was at every practice. Then, she recanted on that. She then said she had not see any other swim instructors that day, when one was sitting in the courtroom (and the woman had walked by her three times already) and two more were sitting outside! Apparently, she knew the name of the accused boy’s mother, knew he was one of the instructors, found a three-year-old facebook picture, and accused him!

My suspicion is that this was a girl who was not a good swimmer (thus she needed help staying afloat during the backstroke) and didn’t want to go to practice anymore. “Well, WHY don’t you want to go?” “I don’t like it.” “But WHY don’t you like it? Did something happen?” “Yes.” “What? Did someone do something you didn’t like?” “Yes” “What?” “Nothing, really.” “What do you mean, NOTHING? Did someone touch you?” And it just degenerates from there. Mom with the leading questions, and the girl going along because she hates swimming. (Which doesn’t look good because her mom is on the Board for that pool. It was not the accused’s home pool.)

What kind of an effed-up justice system do we have that an boy can be accused of such a crime, which would result in his being barred from ever working with children again — not in swimming, not in Scouts, never — with ZERO evidence and a bullied confession given with false promises of leniency? This “investigator,” who did not actual investigation at all, should be fired and charged with misconduct. The mother should be charged with making false accusations, and at a minimum, should be required to pay the accused’s legal fees.

For years, there has been a poster here, sending out the alarm about Muslim extremists living among us and how the intent was to turn America towards Islam. It has been happening in Europe for many years now and the troubles have compounded to the breaking point. This poster was scoffed at and dismissed as a “nutjob”. I know the detractors would never apologize for not giving her legitimacy, but I would hope that you may start to re-think the warning and heed the current signs.

So what is going on? Seems that ISIS has created some type of allure to weak minded/non-directed individuals. So they decide to upturn their “normal” lives and go to help the cause. This probably could have been achieved with stricter parenting but that would just be a guess.

But what causes the individuals to make drastic changes in their lives this way? Well, reading this may give you an idea.

Governments are becoming aware and thinking of drastic measures before it gets out of hand. Drastic measures ALWAYS seem to relate to loss of freedoms in America. Would you allow it? Do we need it? Could it be different if we didn’t have a spineless jellyfish (jellyfish don’t have spines anyway) in the WH? Questions you may want to answer and have your Congress critters also answer. For me, if we get bombers over here I hope they start small…..say, with using exploding golf balls. I don’t play golf.

 

10603455_861874225785_3677841006410681136_n

Nice quote above from my good friend William Adama…

This article (click here to read it), written by a retired Lt Colonel whose son was killed by police, makes a good case on why we really need to rethink how law enforcement engages the public. They have a useful and necessary job to do, but the author points out that LE has simply become too militarized. He writes:

Our country is simply not paying enough attention to the terrible lack of accountability of police departments and the way it affects all of us—regardless of race or ethnicity. Because if a blond-haired, blue-eyed boy — that was my son, Michael — can be shot in the head under a street light with his hands cuffed behind his back, in front of five eyewitnesses (including his mother and sister), and his father was a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who flew in three wars for his country — that’s me — and I still couldn’t get anything done about it, then Joe the plumber and Javier the roofer aren’t going to be able to do anything about it either.

While we certainly do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water on this, many of us believe that it is time to re-evaluate law enforcement as it interacts with free society. This should certainly not be viewed as an indictment against all police officers – the vast majority of them are fine and honorable community servants. But like any career, it must be evaluated and changed in keeping with our times. (As a side note, perhaps it would help a bit if our elected ‘elite’ would stop passing so many laws that need to be “enforced”)

I personally do not want to see law enforcement officers with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on turrets and other military hardware rolling on our streets. We only need to see these types of weapons in our communities if we are under attack by some outside invasion force. As we continue our unfortunate descent into a low trust society I fear that we will only see the polar opposite of my wishes.

I recognize that law enforcement is a very stressful job, but those who chose it did so willingly. And just as we expect teachers, doctors, pilots and others to do their jobs in a professional manner at all times, we should have the same expectation of law enforcement. Law enforcement keeps the law just like we’re supposed to do. Law enforcement does not rule the people.

Read the Lt Colonel’s entire article here.

 

As can be read here, the Ebola virus comes in five known strains. It is nasty and it is deadly…..up to 90% rate of fatality. Good thing it stays on the African continent where it sprang from, right? Not so much. Because the world is getting smaller, with more people and more use of transportation, nothing is off the table. Here is a story on the recent outbreak. And with the previous article you will note that it is being transmitted by animals but not causing outbreak in humans. It leaves “antibodies” in the victim. ANY virus can come back to life in a human under the correct conditions.

Unfortunately, many diseases seem to thrive and survive in areas where there are poor conditions of human life, like third world countries. And, although many good Samaritans are working in those areas to uplift that lifestyle, sometimes the best that can be done is to keep things in check–no better and no worse. With that in mind, as well the “benign” looking symptoms that Ebola starts with, think about people coming to this country unchecked medically. Think of the diseases which have been eradicated here making a comeback from people entering our borders……checked and unchecked. We live in an environment today with people and an administration that carry a laissez faire attitude about illegals entering our country. The stew is being made right under our noses.

Oh, yes, the time is long overdue to have term limits on Congress and judges. Why would we only limit the Executive Branch without having the same constraints on the Legislative and Judicial branches? Why indeed. It appears that the need of limits is really making its case known in these modern times. You see, politics is a “scratch your back, you scratch mine” type of forum. Unfortunately, bias does not belong in any of these branches and when the party trumps the people, the system is surely broken. Case in point is the recent decision on subsidies for ObamaCare sign-ups.

It appears that two conflicting court decisions are at issue: the U.S. District Court (just below the Supreme Court) where a 2-1 decision was handed down stating that subsidies could only be given through state exchanges. By the way; this court had 4 Obama judge appointments placed after Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option in the Senate. The other court, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ( which is supposedly equal to the District Court ) held that the subsides could be granted by HealthCare.gov. What the 4th based there opinion (why would they have an opinion and not a sound ruling?) on is that Congress (read Dems ONLY) had the INTENT to make subsides available for all. Unfortunately, that is not what the law READS.

Here is my beef. We are no longer a nation ruled BY LAW. We have become a nation ruled by the intent of someone’s opinion of how they interpret the meaning of someone else’s thought. Words use to have meaning but, if you read this site enough, you will realize that Dems/liberals don’t use definitive definitions but, rather, however something should be interpreted at the time (which seems to change as constantly as wind direction). So it appears that all branches of government have been corrupted and no longer seem to function as their assigned duties prescribe. An old joke: “What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?” Answer: “A good start!” Don’t get me wrong; lawyers were a needed and noble profession once. Anymore it is a stepping stone for self glorification. It has become corrupted in too many ways and lawyers are ever mindful of side-stepping the rule of law and perverting it. This isn’t the entire profession but a good portion of it. It seems that those same lawyers become judges…..with political ideology and leanings, where law is NOW being made instead of interpreted AS WRITTEN. There is no separation of powers anymore because we no longer have checks and balances as established by the Constitution. Since lawyers won’t clean up their own house, term limits, review boards for misconduct and dismissals are our next line of defense.

Yes, the left is going bonkers for Ginsberg’s “blistering” dissent from the Supreme Court majority’s ruling in Burwell v Hobby Lobby.

Let’s take those “8 Best Lines” seriatim:

Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, “in a decision of startling breadth,” would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find “incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The first thing to note is that Dana Liebelson does not consider Justice Breyer male. Interesting. Maybe she knows something we don’t.

But be that as it may, if such laws are incompatible with sincerely held religious beliefs, then they are clearly in violation of the First Amendment unless they protect the rights of others, and should be overturned by the Court. But then, the requirement from which Hobby Lobby and Conestoga won relief is NOT A LAW. It is merely a REGULATION written by a nameless bureaucrat. Also, the regulation does not protect anyone’s rights — the employees of these companies can still obtain the abortifacients they desire.

The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage.

Those women obviously have jobs, or this would not be an issue. Therefore, they can pay for them themselves.

Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.

Irrelevant — they can go work for someone else if they do not like their employer’s benefits package.

Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.

In which case, it should be her autonomous PAYMENT, too. If you want to choose the tune, you can choose to pay the piper.

It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.

No, it really doesn’t “bear note”. If one cannot afford an IUD, one can choose to use other forms of birth control. Or, choose not to have vaginal sex.

Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

Sure. Why not? Again — if you don’t like it, get another job.

Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.

Well, that’s easy — just approve them all. Duh.

The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.

No — it is the legislature (in passing the law in the first place) that planted the mines, and the executive branch (in writing such heinous regulations) that is going for a stroll therein. They deserve to have it blow up in their faces.