Siriunsun
- Juli Henry
- In An Age Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Is A Revolutionary Act.......George Orwell
Showing posts with label judicial system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judicial system. Show all posts
Monday, April 18, 2016
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Kansas For Change And Wichita
City Hall 316-268-4331 just say Put it on the Ballot.
Election Office 316-660-7100 see if you registered
Real quick, everyone, the citizens of Wichita Kansas and Kansas For Change would really like to decriminalize marijuana marijuana in Wichita, Kansas. They collected about twice as many signatures as they needed on a petition to get the decriminalization of marijuana on the ballot, so everyone who votes can vote on it. Instead of simply including this item for voters, Wichita is falsely invalidating over half of the signatures, and no matter how many signatures Kansas For Change collects, there always seems to be a reason to disregard the wishes of the people. If you are part of this district, and you also wish to be part of a constructive change, please call the number printed under the picture for City Hall in Wichita, and tell them you want decriminalization of marijuana on the ballot.
*Yours truly does not approve or engage in the use of any recreational drug. She simply hates to see the judicial system waste her tax dollars and everyone else's on selective and insane prosecution.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Listen Up, Midwestern Towns
Small Midwestern towns should really start listening. The morals you push on the children of others do not cut it everywhere. Especially when you consider yourselves more moral than people of other cultures, who do not condone the use of sexuality to define everything from self image to marketability of inanimate objects. Instead of using power to control politics and scare dissidents, small, Midwestern judicial systems should focus on fighting crime.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Federal Conspiracy Charges
Just a short update here, to this post, about His Former Honor, Michael Thornsbury, of Mingo County, West Virginia: he has been charged with three counts of conspiracy. As it turns out, the Supreme Court has a low regard for judges and prosecutors who abuse their positions by charging innocent people with crimes and prosecuting them when no crime was actually committed. Imagine that! It's AGAINST FEDERAL LAW to go to court and file a complaint against another, when that other did no wrong, and it's AGAINST FEDERAL LAW to conspire and make it look as if an innocent person committed a crime when he or she did not. A dim view of such approaches to justice is especially taken when a judge or a prosecuting attorney gets all jealous or angry and misuses criminal court by committing perjury. Thornsbury even insisted that his secretary's husband be arrested several months after an incident during which someone else, unfortunately someone related to the husband, threatened another person with a gun during a dispute. Because the matter had already been disposed, and because Thornsbury's victim was not the defendant in the case, it became a bit of a sticky wicket for Thornsbury in court.
Where's the eye-rolley when I need it? It's almost like paying a random person to take random pictures of houses and scenery on her cell phone, then having the person take her cell phone to police to say that someone else, entirely, took the pictures; then going to court to say the pictures are somehow illegal. The sticky wicket with that, of course, involves the fact that said pictures were never in the possession of "someone else, entirely", but in the cell phone of the person being paid to take them! Right, McFish?
Where's the eye-rolley when I need it? It's almost like paying a random person to take random pictures of houses and scenery on her cell phone, then having the person take her cell phone to police to say that someone else, entirely, took the pictures; then going to court to say the pictures are somehow illegal. The sticky wicket with that, of course, involves the fact that said pictures were never in the possession of "someone else, entirely", but in the cell phone of the person being paid to take them! Right, McFish?
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
To Disagree With The President
Unfortunately, I cannot disagree more with Obama's assertion that America's judicial system follows it's own rules. In this video, Obama states that our government has checks and balances to prevent the abuses of overdone surveillance that has been brought to light by Edward Snowden. Obama also suggests that if Snowden takes advantage of his rights as defendant, as afforded him by our judicial system, everything will be okey-dokey for Snowden. At this point, after the recent and publicized abuses by almost every type of judicial entity from small town police departments to federal courts, I am quite inclined to look at this whole matter from Snowden's standpoint. Even if Snowden did, indeed, commit a crime; or three, as Obama claims, why is this crime a felony? Government agencies purport and publish information and misinformation against individuals all the time, with no penalties and very little oversight. Why is the same action criminalized in the case of a private citizen?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Advice Concerning Police And Civil Rights
This was shared on Facebook this morning. There's a lot here, so I just shared it as a picture. I would only add a few things. If the police stop anyone, not only do you have the right to photograph and document everything you see, you also have the right to video the encounter. Quite a few police officers do not yet understand this. We have a police officer with Marshall County, Kansas who will even grab telephones, both landlines and cell phones, out of the hands of bystanders to stop children from calling parents and to stop neighbors from calling babysitters and relatives when children are left by themselves as the result of an arrest. In addition to not consenting to any warrantless search of your person or possessions, I would advise that you carry as little personal information on your person as possible. Do not carry you social security card in your wallet, but leave it in a safe place at home. You do not have to give your social security number to law enforcement; cops are not loan officers.....they do NOT need that information for anything! Just tell them you do not remember the number. Only carry one form of identification. If you have a passport, drivers' license, and other types of ID, you only need to have one in your wallet at a time. The less information had about you by law enforcement, the safer you will be. Concerning law enforcement and the rest of the current judicial community, it is best to live among them as in surrounded.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
In Case You Slept Through Church This Sunday
No; I am not a doper. But I do hate watching our judicial system waste time and money prosecuting people for smoking pot when there is more serious business at hand.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Another Obscessed Visitor
| Visitor Analysis & System Spec | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Referring URL: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Host Name: | 68-234-126-182.dsl.bluevalley.net | Browser: | IE 9.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| IP Address: | 68.234.126.182 | Operating System: | Win7 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Location: | Marysville, Kansas, United States | Resolution: | 1600x900 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Returning Visits: | 0 | Javascript: | Enabled | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Length: | 21 hours 39 mins 28 secs | ISP: | Blue Valley Tele-communications | |||||||||||||||||||||
Navigation Path
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
The Justice Community Wonders Why It's Not Getting Justice
In light of the recent shooting of a district attorney and spouse in Texas, this article was published on ABC News concerning the recent expressions of disrespect and violence toward law enforcement and prosecutors in the last year or so. Before I say any more, let me state that I do not condone violence, murder, or threats, and that I do not think that violence is an appropriate answer to the misunderstandings that have been mounting, for awhile, between the judicial community and the people they should serve. I think awareness and information are much better tools. That said, I also hope that the families of Mike and Cynthia McClelland will find peace.Since the Declaration of Independance was drafted, the judicial process has been used, not only for seeking actual justice, but for more subtle means of "sending messages" to certain segments of the American population. The American public has seen, tolerated, and wholeheartedly accepted racist laws and policies, laws that have targeted the poor, sexist practices within the justice system, selective uses of prohibition laws to hound otherwise innocent people, and many, many more abuses of authority and justice. The reluctance of many courts to set aside or throw out guilty verdicts that are contradicted by forensic evidence that becomes available after trial dates is also disturbing. When the population at large begins to take note of criminals with more money and better lawyers experiencing favor in the courtroom, while poorer criminals, and sometimes innocent people, do not get proper legal counsel and are often found guilty of felonies, what do judges and cops expect everyone to think? Not that we haven't always had a certain amount of corruption within government agencies, we have; but since the dubious "election" of Bush Jr. in 2000, the judicial "war on the poor" seems to have become more fervent. Along with that, the economy has gotton less stable, and the number of citizens who have found themselves targeted by law enforcement for no reason and shafted by the courts with no recourse to competent legal counsel has increased. Also, has anyone noticed the number of misdemeanors that have turned into felony crimes lately? Not only does this put certain minorities in prison to serve longer sentences, it strips the targeted minorities of voting rights. Hence, the Fair Sentencing Act. When an entire population becomes legally disenfranchised, and everyday exchanges become criminal acts, the judicial and law enforcement communties should not be surprised at a certain amount of hostility.
Recently, I witnessed an exchange between two people, which; unfortunately, resulted in an arrest. While I witnessed most of the incident, I did not see a crime committed by either party. One of the "officers" involved insisted that I had seen a criminal act, and when I continued to tell him what actually happened, he became agitated and told me what my statement should be, informing me that I was about to "find out how powerful police in Marshall County, Kansas are" if I did not "cooperate". Verbatim quote, folks. He also threatened to go inside my house, wake up all my children, and take them away from me if I did not begin to make statements that coincided with the report he so much desired to write. Because I am stubborn and truthful, I stuck to my guns (no pun intended) and stuck to the truth. He got off his high horse when he ran out of threats, went back to the police station in his shiny police car, and wrote a statement that basically and unbasically isn't true. He even referred to yours truly as a "liar' several times. Lots of impartiality he expects from the court, I guess.
Later on, the district attorney, still lacking a written statement of events from yours truly, contacted me to tell me what I needed to say. I interrupted to her to remind her that the truth is more meaningful than her expectations of a guilty plea and the fines she was hoping to collect from the defendant. She became quite disturbed, and told me that she would contact social services and have them remove my children from my home if I did not "cooperate" with her..........! So; not only would I discover how "powerful" the police are when someone confuses them with the facts, I might also discover the consequences of refusing to read a "script" written by a crooked district attorney, rather than offering true testimony!
As it happens, I have been threatened by smarter, more powerful, and sexier individuals than this district attorney, so I promised her that I would be honest and never back away from what I know to be moral and honest. And social services has apparently been too busy with things that are real to come and visit me. But suppose I had taken the bait and drunk the koolaide? "We're gonna have your children taken away from you if you do not testify according to our script that we write for you in advance." "We're gonna take your children away if you don't say the right things to get your neighbor/friend/family members put in jail." That's a loaded threat. If this kind of crooked game is becoming commonplace across the country, it's no big surprise that prosecutors and law enforcement are having problems maintaining their own safety in their communities. Here's another example of the Marshall County Kansas district attorney's tactics, this time with a defendant. The woman was coerced into a guilty plea via threats to her children by the district attorney. According to the Marysville Advocate: "During court proceedings, Baynton’s motion claims, Kraushaar assured her she could file for a departure from the prescribed sentence for the crime she was pleading to, but after she entered her plea she said the attorney told her no departure would be allowed and that she must agree to consecutive maximum sentences. She also states that the state "repeatedly used the issue of the custody of the defendant's children to coerce her plea of guilty." The motion says her attorney "should have blocked this coercion and did not."
The defendant in the above case has already been granted a new public defender. If the court grants her motion to change her plea, that will indicate a lot of judicial and personal waste and aggravation just because the prosecuter is ungifted enough in courtroom strategy to threaten the children of witnesses and defendants whenever possible so as to avoid any real show of litigation skills, or as in this prosecutor's case, lack thereof. If law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys have actually turned a corner in legal strategies and decided that using the children of defendants, witnesses, and others involved in cases is the new forte in courtroom finesse, we can probably expect more anger turned toward the judicial and law enforcement communities.
Chance Hartner
"hey adkins how about i kill you if you get on my computer again"
......Excerpt from Facebook page of the youthful police officer who enjoys telling older women that they are going to "find out how powerful" he and police force are. In a lot of places, law enforcement is expected to be more mature and set a better example than this. It's also the kind of response law enforcement wants the rest of us to believe they don't want in their everyday lives. Why, then, do they exhibit it and force everyone else to live with it?
......Excerpt from Facebook page of the youthful police officer who enjoys telling older women that they are going to "find out how powerful" he and police force are. In a lot of places, law enforcement is expected to be more mature and set a better example than this. It's also the kind of response law enforcement wants the rest of us to believe they don't want in their everyday lives. Why, then, do they exhibit it and force everyone else to live with it?
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Anonymous Has A Message Concerning Aaron Swartz
That said, Westboro Baptist Church wisely resisted the urge to stand outside today, in Chicago, where the funeral was held, with stupid signs. That is good, but here is one very disturbing question about all this: why was Aaron Swartz facing more prison time than murderers?
More: Anyone with intel on the activities or plans of Westboro Baptist Church is invited to share it with Anonymous at OpAngel@hushmail.com
Anyone in Northeast Kansas up to that?
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Omit Mitt Instead Of Getting Rid Of Teachers
Instead of getting rid of teachers, suppose Mitt Romney proposed eliminating some of the positions and legal vehicles that truly don't have an historic track record of providing any actual assisitance or value to the comunity or the population at large? Say, perhaps, those probation officers or DWI monitors that get paid to monitor cases after offenders have been paroled, or in some cases, when they have been given probation in instead of jail time? So many offenders reoffend; why not stop paying the salaries of those who do not prevent this, and find some other way to discourage recidivism? If we did not have high rates of recidivism, we would not need probation officers, so it does not really help to keep a probation officer employed if he maintains a good track record. In the probation officer's case, productivity is counterproductive. While discussing the blissful elimination of ineffective probation officers, why not eliminate an entire legal vehicle, such as prohibition laws? We should probably continue the prohibition of drugs that are truly dangerous, such as certain prescription medicines, and we should certainly never allow drunk driving, but why is marijuana illegal? Since 1937, when it became illegal, whose life has been enhanced by keeping it unlawful? Hmmm? This prohibition law has not aided the average citizen in any way. It has, however; made gangs and drug cartels quite rich. Prohibition laws have also helped make the Mafia powerful. Oh....lets not forget, it also helps keep those ineffective probation officers employed.
The abolishment of prohibition laws would also free up our judicial system and allow it to be an actual judicial system, instead of a babysitting service for wayward adults. Taxpayors spend lots and lots of money on judicial stupidity every year on nonsense that involves..........drum roll..........marijuana. If we could save all this money and spend it on teachers, instead of doing what Mitt Romney wants to do; specifically, get rid of teachers, firefighters, and policemen, we would be investing in ourselves and our own communities. Bishop Romney wants to tell us that we cannot have those assets, and that we cannot use our own resources to invest in ourselves, and in our children. What would he do with our money? He hasn't told us. He is a bishop in his church, so it isn't really a big stretch to wonder if our money would probably bolster his church a lot more than it would bolster our nation.
If Mitt really wants to help America's economy, why not change the pay scale for elected positions? Do some of our elected officials make more than we, the people, can afford to pay them? Why isn't Mitt looking at that, instead of eyeing our schools from the standpoint of a vulture? Perhaps the position of president can even be served on a volunteer basis. We wouldn't have so many career politicians! The bishop really needs to start looking at ways to invest in the middle classes, rather than ways to eliminate the middle classes.
Here's a serious question: if Mitt really wants to cut the number of policemen, yet keep victimless crimes on our books, who is going to carry out the resulting and ongoing arrests? The FBI? The Coast Guard? His own elite bunch of Mormon goons? And, if he becomes president, will he serve the American people? Or does he see us all as potential employees or parishoners? Oh...wait a minute...certain minorities cannot become Bishop Romney's parishoners, can they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)