Donald Trump Says Sexual Harrassment Is Okay

Surprise, surprise. After it became public knowledge that Fox News settled some sexual harassment lawsuits on behalf of Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump took time out of his busy, presidential schedule to publicly comment that O'Reilly should not have to be accountable for his bad behavior, and that behaviors that include sexual harassment should not garner consequences. But then, is anyone really surprised that Trump would opine in such a way? For that matter, is anyone surprised that Trump cannot, as president of the United States, find other, more important things to do?

Should A President Understand The Law?

Bill Maher has already forced Donald Trump to produce his birth certificate. He also gave Trump an education on the first amendment. I, for one, will miss having a president who knows the law and understands the Constitution.

The Six Million Dollar Man

Some new case law is now setting a precedent in the United States. Prior to the disposition of any of the cases filed against the officers charged with the murder of Freddie Gray, of Baltimore, Maryland, the government has agreed to settle with Freddie Gray's family to the tune of 6.4 million for wrongful death. It appears that immunity has been replaced by accountability. While not as much as might be won by going to court, rather than settling, it still looks to be a suggestion of culpability on the part of the state.

The Last Turd In The Punch Bowl; Vermont Schools

Addison Rutland Supervisory Union, a Vermont school district, learned an important lesson last week about violating the civil rights of parents. A $147,000 lesson, to be exact. The school thought that a teacher who whined and complained about a concerned father was more important than the community, which included the father, so they barred him from attending any meetings about his child or any functions. They cited teacher fear as the reason, and the behavior they listed was simply the father's normal speaking voice, which apparently was not musically sweet enough for them, and his failure to achieve agreement with whatever silly-assed thingies had become all encompassing to the teachers and the school at the time. This is what a lot of public schools do when they perceive turds is their punch bowls......or, "koolaide" bowls, as the case may be!

A federal judge, on the other hand, determined that the school district was, (drum roll) wrong, and that the school had discriminated against Marcel Cyr. He was NOT required to belong to a protected minority, either; his rights as a member of the community and as a parent had been violated. His position as a parent was determined to be more important than a teachers desire for guaranteed and continued parental agreement. Since the ruling came from  federal judge, this is a bummer for public school teachers everywhere, not just in Vermont!

There was a principal in Northeast Kansas who tried something similar when a parent disagreed with one of his teachers. The parent, a mother this time, found herself in a state of disagreement with a teacher who dropped a female high school freshman off by herself on a highway and left her there; the only occupied house being the dwelling of a sex offender. When the parent discovered the latter, she dropped by the school to ask what protections are afforded children in the presence of sex offenders. She took a copy of the pertinent Kansas sex offender registry page with her. The principal, upon looking at the information, crumpled it, tossed it, and told her that the man was not really an offender! Seriously? The parent had only lived there for about a year, not long enough to peruse the criminal cases of individuals she had not even met, so she felt obliged to take the word of a Kansas jury or the plea of the defendant, himself, as the actual upshot, here. The principal ended his rant by leaning over the counter in the office, index finger extended, nearly taking a slice out of the mother's right eye! Not only did she disagree on many levels, she called the police.

Mr. Northeast Kansas principal ( also called Dean Dalinghaus) got a visit from an officer, who not only wanted to know why he had been so violent, but wanted to know what children were doing, unsupervised, so close to sex offenders and why a child had been lost for the better part of a day with no missing persons report. A whole slew of unanswered questions about school policy ensued, and it was perceived that there may be a "turd in the punch bowl". Since the koolaide previously served by the school to the community involved the lie that there was never any crime, nor any potential for the same, and no dangers that are not necessarily to crime: implementation of child safety standards used by the rest of the nation would never work out in this part of Kansas. So the mother was banned from school. But guess what? The principal's boss decided otherwise, he made the principal apologize! He not only cleaned out the punch bowl of the real turd, rather than the perceived turd, but he also dumped out as much of the koolaide as the local school board would allow. From the looks of things, he may have also saved USD 380 $147,000!

The superintendent of the school district in Vermont decided that if he could not discriminate against dissenting parents anymore, he would just have to take more money away from the children and education to hire an off-duty police officer to stand guard at meetings and other school events. Not only did he throw away the award of the lawsuit, he is willing to continue to throw away childrens' education dollars, over pettiness and perceived turds in the punch bowl.

We Now Need Kobach's Permission To Drop Out Of An Election

Kris Kobach, a major co-author of the Arizona "papers please" laws, now not only wants sole power to tell us who can and cannot vote in our elections here in America.........one must obtain his approval in order to drop out of a race! That's right, Chad Taylor decided to end his run for a seat in the Kansas senate race, and now Kris Kobach has filed suit against him! At first glance, this appears insanely funny. We have a politician who thinks he is an emperor actually demanding legal action against someone who has changed his mind about running for political office and demanding that the former candidate run for office despite the change of heart, against his will! This is something your blogger would expect to find in a Monty Python skit, but no....she has found it in Kansas!

Aside from the ludicrous aspect of Kobach's demand, there are three very serious problems with
refusing to allow a candidate to drop out of a political race. First, the very notion that another elected official can control who runs, or does not run, in an election is completely undemocratic. If Kobach wants to go this route and take Taylor's choice away from him, he should at least appeal to the Kansas Democratic Party to take a vote on the matter and to nominate someone else. But even then, many candidates, especially at local levels, run unopposed. One person should not have the power to determine the choices of voters in an election. Second, if Kobach wins this nonsensical lawsuit and forces Taylor to run, Kansas will, in the event of Taylor's victory, have a senator whose desire was to do something other than represent Kansas in the Senate. Kobach has no right to impose such a paradigm. Third, an elected official can always resign. If Taylor were to win and resign, a lot of time and money would be wasted. Not to mention the money taxpayers will spend on the lawsuit and on Chad Taylor's defense.

It's bad enough that Kris Kobach wants to stop minorities from voting and marginalize any American who does not appear to descend from Anglo Saxon ancestry, but now he wants to tell us who can run, thereby controlling elections from both ends. Hopefully, Kansas will just dismiss this frivolous lawsuit.

Greg Orman, the Independent candidate who actually stands a chance of beating  Pat Roberts for Senate in Kansas.

In Case You Weren't In Church This Sunday

If you missed church this Sunday, don't worry; you can still be in Oklahoma City on September 21 for a planned event hosted by the Angra Mainyu Satanic Temple in the civic building. As the autumnal equinox is a Sabbat, this is no big surprise. While the choice of the civic building is interesting, no complaint or issue should arise as long as the congregation meets all of it's obligations to the city, connected to the use of the building. No problem, right? Wrong! Many of the Christian folks in Oklahoma, the ones who want Neil Degrasse Tyson's show banned from Oklahoma's airwaves, would like to ban this church from conducting it's services. Fortunately, Oklahoma City remembered that it is part of America, and told the nice Christian morons to find something else to do if they were not involved in ritual on September 21. Apparently, that advice was not good enough for them, because a narcissistic  Catholic priest who thinks the world revolves around him and his religion decided to file suit against Angra Mainyu. Since the lawsuit, by itself, had no merit, the reverend made up an untrue story about the church being in possession of stolen property. The court went ahead and accepted this, but refused to deny the Angra Mainyu congregation it's civil right to gather in the civic building, which is what the reverend really wanted. In order to pacify the archdiocese and the crybaby reverend, some wafers that had been ordered by the Angra Mainyu from the internet were delivered to the archdiocese. Now the lawsuit has been either dropped or dismissed, and hopefully, the Sabbat ritual will proceed with no further headaches.

While it is beautiful that any church can practice it's beliefs and teachings in Oklahoma, as per our nation's Constitution, it is disturbing that the Angra Mainyu were required to give what amounts to a de facto payment to a bunch of Christian thugs in order to practice their religion in peace.

Unexplored Anonymous Tip In Kendrick Johnson's Death

Now that the investigation into Kendrick Johnson's untimely death has been closed, and Lowndes County sheriff, Stryde Jones, is insisting that some anonymous testimony that was sent to his office via email is "not credible", Kendrick's parents have filed suit against the Lowndes County Board Of Education in Georgia for wrongful death. This is appropriate, although it would have been more appropriate to conduct a thorough investigation. The tip was anonymous, but that does not mean that probable cause for searches, more interviews, and analysis of DNA and fingerprint evidence does not exist. In fact, this death is speculated to be the result of a white assailant against Kendrick, who was black. We all know that if it was the other way around, the sheriff and the court would have conducted a real investigation and answers would have resulted.

Here is a question about Stryde Jones and his statement that the anonymous tip "isn't credible": just how the hell does Stryde KNOW the tip isn't credible? How does he KNOW that he does not have to pursue this tip, the same way other law enforcement agencies pursue tips? There really is only one way this sheriff would know these things, and that is if he already knows who killed Kendrick Johnson. Which begs the question, who is Sheriff Stryde Jones, of Lowndes County Georgia, protecting?

More on this in a day or two.

Creativity, Hobby Lobby Style

What a double edged debate Hobby Lobby has provided for the nation! Two things retailers almost never cared to provide for their employees, back in the day, were insurance and lenience in when families required lots of an employee's time. Health insurance has been a highly debated issue for at least two years, and Obamacare has become law. Private insurance companies are running amok with ideas of their own on how to do business, and Hobby Lobby is apparently a Christian corporation. Not that corporations can be Christian, as if they were human, but it has been said that corporations are people, too. 

Because Hobby Lobby is Christian, it's love for it's imaginary icon is expressed by opposing abortion. Not that the bible addresses abortion specifically, among all the instructions to go ahead and kill, bully, and traffic humans, (yeah, slavery is human trafficking and America's economy got strong because of it) but because political lobbies (not to be confused with Hobby Lobby) such as the Moral Majority purport that contraception and birth control are the same as abortion, and as such, are murder. One must wonder what all the good christian corporations and people were doing before Buck v. Bell was abandoned, but NOT overturned, in the United States. One must also wonder why the Catholic Church did not excommunicate Adolf Hitler, who strongly supported abortion, eugenics, and murder.

Back to insurance and leniency in balancing children and work schedules: Hobby Lobby has refused to allow their employee health insurance providers to cover any type of contraceptives. This seems unusual, since most employers would rather not work with pregnant employees or the needs of pregnant employees. Indeed, a birth is a lot more expensive than contraceptives. So is a maternity leave. In fact, it was not until 1993 that an American woman had any guarantee of returning to her job, through the Family Medical Leave Act, after giving birth. Thankyou, Bill Clinton. 

And now, after a woman's maternity leave is over, what is Hobby Lobby going to do about her need for childcare when she returns to work? Retailers traditionally do not care much about the children of their employees, and will often pressure employees not only to neglect their own health needs, but to neglect their children. Sometimes, a retailer will even threaten to fire the employee who refuses to leave his or her children home alone when a choice has to be made. After saying "no" to birth control, will Hobby Lobby be the "creative center" it calls itself in the above picture and provide daycare for all those employees to whom contraceptives were not readily available? At the end of the day, it seems as if it might be more cost effective and simple to just enlist health insurance policies that provide contraceptives.

Caleb Stewart's Case After Eighteen Months

How long does Kansas take to investigate a complaint about a daycare? How many reports of abuse, injury, or untimely death do they need in order to justify the expenses involved in gathering information and making a quality decision about who gets a license to operate a daycare, and who does not? According to the latest information, brought to us by WIBW, the death of a child will bring an investigation and a decision in about a year and a half. That's how long it took Child Protective Services in Kansas to substantiate the charges, concerning a wrongful death, finally brought against Tara Johnson, the home daycare provider; and Destiny McClusky, a random friend of Tara's who had no real business in Tara's workplace.

In February of 2013, five month old Caleb Stewart was dropped off at daycare by his mom, Misty Durham. Later that day, he died. Tara Johnson was not on the premises, which she should have been, and her boyfriend, Russel Morris and the aforementioned friend, Destiny McClusky, were watching the children. Anywhere besides Kansas, this would lead to charges and a lawsuit. As is stands, Johnson, Morris, and McClusky probably do not have the assets to settle a lawsuit for wrongful death, and since Kansas was allowing this daycare to operate without a license and failing to substantiate the complaints that led to the situation that cost Caleb his life, Johnson's daycare was not covered by insurance, either. But then, about ninety-five percent of public schools in Kansas did not have insurance when school started in 2013, either.

Chad Taylor, the prosecutor in Topeka, Kansas, has declined to press any charges at all in this case. He presses charges when the children of richer, better connected parents die in daycares, but not Caleb Stewart's death. Taylor even retaliated against Misty Durham by having her arrested for an old traffic violation when she called his office to ask about the status of the case! Does he think that forcing different social classes to exist in Kansas and denying justice to people he simply doesn't like are going to get him elected again? And is child protective services in Kansas really attempting to protect children? Or do they only respond when they find children who are alive and marketable, and whose parents don't know their rights and cannot afford legal representation?  How many other children have been in harm's way during the eighteen months it took them to glance at Caleb Stewart's case?

Judge Straightens Out Teen Who Sues Parents

In a completely unmerited and absurd case, a New Jersey young adult has moved away from home and taken her parents to court in a silly-assed attempt to sue for tuition for private school, car insurance, and....of all things.....allowance. Where is the eye-rolley when I need it? This young woman reached the age of eighteen in October, yet is still in high school. Because her parents impose a curfew and insist that she do chores, she moved away. Not wanting to play games with their daughter, the parents decided that since the car is not garaged at their home (sound familiar, Laura?) and since their daughter is not living with them, her car insurance and tuition are her responsibility; and they have duly stopped paying. They also stopped giving her an allowance.

Bravo to the judge for taking a common sense stand on this nonsense! Laura McNish, county attorney of Marshall County, Kansas should really pay attention here. Insistence upon respect from one's children for laws and policies concerning automobile insurance is not child abuse, and neither is the imposition of curfews and the requirement of chores. Parents also do not owe their children cell phones and Ipads, McNish. Restricting the use of such devices may make human trafficking more difficult for predators, but it is not child abuse. Conversely, unrestricted use of motor vehicles granted by negligent parents to unlicensed drivers does not, in any way, equal love.....Laura!

At least in Kansas, there is a case in Marshall County, styled State of Kansas v. Keith Lynn Henry, setting a precedent in cases involving these elements. Anyone in Kansas who is accused of child abuse for not giving a child a cell phone or an allowance, or for establishing curfews and rules; should refer to this case.

How did this case even moot court? Has the entire nation gone completely insane?

Frivolous Threats

"Hello? Clerk of the Circuit Court? I got away with a serious crime against a child several years ago. I did it at the school, where I work. All my friends covered for me, and I still have my job, but the child's mother still hates my guts and won't stop advocating for student safety in Kansas public schools and calling me names! Can I sure her?"

Does that sound totally ridicules to the reader? It seems, kinda, sorta ridicules to the writer, too. It relates to a threat that was sent anonymously to yours truly concerning the initial police reports, complaints to the school board and superintendent of the Vermillion school district of USD 380, all of the letters and correspondence to and from various organizations specializing in child safety in schools, and letters to and from the NCMEC that were drafted after a guidance counselor/cross country coach at Frankfort High School in Kansas "lost" a female freshman student during cross country practice and went home and forgot about her. Most people who read the story understand why it was very, very unsafe for a teacher to remove students from the school and transport them to a rural location with no supervision and leave them to their own devices. Most people who read about the incident are also completely shocked that a teacher would fail to alert a child's parents and law enforcement after losing a child this way. But not Frankfort, Kansas. The good, Christian frankfurters of the teeming metropolis of Frankfort think that the young girl who was abandoned by the teacher was actually at fault for the abuse she suffered, and have rallied around the abuser! Now, in the wake of the revelation that Hailey Owens was kidnapped, ironically by an athletic coach in her Missouri school district, the frankfurters are out in force to try to discourage any discussion of their own dangerously blundering guidance counselor/cross country coach. Here's a recent dumbass comment made by someone desperately in need of a cranial/rectal realignment:

"Let's be clear here, if anyone is in a position to be sued, it is you. For slander. Most of this post is a lie. Your daughter wasn't running alone. The cross country kids have always been dropped off in a group. She at least started with the other kids. She wasn't on some desolate road. Tom has always dropped the kids off in the same area, and there are TONS of houses along the way."

Slander has a very specific legal definition, and making a police report and subsequent complaint to the appropriate organizations upon finding one's self or one's child the victim of a crime does not fall within it's definition. When I first opened my mouth, I was looking for a missing child. The reason my child was missing happened to be the terrible conduct of a teacher I had falsely been led to trust. After she was found, I complained to the superintendent. Then I did research on the subject of missing children, wrote to some very educated experts, and brought the information to a school board meeting. While all this makes the frankfurter guidance counselor/cross country coach look very bad indeed, it is not slander. Somewhere during this course of events, our bumbling coach admitted default. This was related to yours truly by the superintendent, who also related that the coach was "disciplined" for his actions. This admission of default makes a case of slander very difficult for an irresponsible coach to prove. Especially when I still have every letter, document, and piece of correspondence in my possession. Since the "discipline" received by the coach did not include the loss of his job, he incurred no damages over his negligence or my discussion of the same, which brings me to the other part of slander; losses. Unless the creep in question loses something tangible as a result of my reaction to this incident, he has no case against me. I also never signed any agreement guaranteeing my silence, so it is my right to discuss this matter anywhere I choose.

What do you suppose would happen if Coach Dumbass actually tried to take me to court? Do you think I would simply say, "Yes, your honor! I talked about the good coach! I know it's wrong to warn students to be careful, but I love children, so I did it anyways! I know my daughter shouldn't matter more to me than Frankfort's silly-assed little game of politics, but I can't get over loving her as much I loved her when I lived in other places, and when she was born! I concede! I concede!" If you really think I am not going to put on a defense if someone attacks me that way, think again. Seriously. The jury would probably want to know why I am so very pissed off at the school. The court would very likely skip the formality of asking Coach Dumbass if he really did as I've alleged, because he already admitted that he has, and there are witnesses, including, but not limited to my daughter. The fact that everything happened pretty much as I have stated, except that when I initially attempted to map out where my child was abandoned and where the people she and I didn't know found her, I was fuzzy on the details because I was unfamiliar with the area. That's acceptable, and I explained it to everyone involved at the time. Everything I have stated here is true.

How would a jury, and everyone involved in court proceedings feel about hearing that a child had been lost, and Frankfort High School had no personnel willing to make appropriate efforts to find her? (Driving around in one's personal vehicle does NOT constitute appropriate efforts, either, frankfurter!) There may be people within earshot who are mandated reporters of child abuse, and this was certainly abuse. Frankfort School may be sent scrambling, once again, to hide all documents related to this incident while social workers question Coach Dumbass's fitness to be responsible for children. Yippee.

People who have never heard about the whole thing would also hear about it. We all know how important it is for frankfurters to appear wonderful in the eyes of other frankfurters. The coach would have to admit that while he hates the fact that I am pissed off at him and call him names, he has given me ample reason. And this brings me to the last point I am going to make in this post: Tom's only complaint about me is that I am pissed off at him and I call him names. He hasn't lost a damn thing because of anything I have said or done, and therefore; has no case against me. No judge is going to want to listen to a whine from someone like Coach Dumbass that boils down to a desire to make a pissed off parent stop being pissed off at him and calling him names. This would be a classic example of a...........drum roll...........frivolous lawsuit. And if you take a frivolous lawsuit to court in Kansas, you end up responsible for court costs and everyone's legal fees. Just ask Laura McNish.

I'll go ahead and post in the future about some things that should have happened after I made my initial complaints that are not, and never were, slander. I will also delve into some discussion about the claim that there are "tons of houses" in rural Northeast Kansas. Keep in mind that parents who love their children generally do not like schools that employ guidance counselors who "lose" children in unspecified places. It's considered dangerous and uncool. Definitely not the avant-garde among educational professionals.

A Little Friendly Terrorism?

Terry Loewen not only had an effect on criminal law in Kansas when he attempted to bomb an airport in Wichita this past December; he also changed civil law. As a result of his antics, the House Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee will hear a bill that will, if it becomes law, allow victims to sue convicted terrorists for damages in civil court. It will enable victims to recover up to three times their losses, or ten thousand dollars, whichever is greater. The definition of "terrorism" still appears to be a bit vague, however. It's a word that gets thrown around a lot, these days.

The mother of a boy at Frankfort High School, in Kansas, got very angry with yours truly, once upon a time, for refusing to allow her sons to spend time alone with my daughters in a bedroom of their house. The Pagan discipline followed by my family

embraces the making of careful choices in sexual relationships and contrasts rather sharply with the Midwestern Christian open acceptance of sexual exploitation among high school students. The mother rightfully felt ashamed of the way she had brought up her sons, yet she could not bring herself to simply admit it. Instead, she waited until she had a moment alone with my oldest daughter, (this took place at the school.....a conversation with an adult that should NOT have taken place at school with my daughter) and told her that I am a "terrorist", because she "felt terrorized" when I informed her of what local young people do in her house behind her back. The conversation she and I had did not take place at either of our homes, and was caught on surveillance, so my daughter was able to see that I did not "terrorize" anyone, and was actually quite subdued about the whole exchange, given the matter at hand. The faithful member of Annunciation Catholic Church in Frankfort Kansas was merely attempting to harm the relationship between my daughter and myself. How very Christian.

A few months later, those very boys drove an SUV on my lawn, grazed my porch, and proceeded into the neighbor's lawn, almost driving through her picture window into her living room. They did this multiple times. Law enforcement was unconcerned until they nearly hit two small children. Each time, my lawn was where the vandalism was focused. It finally resulted in a formal "no trespass" order for these two Christian young men; they will be arrested if they return. The use of a vehicle to scare my family and tear up lawns and porches was definitely meant to frighten and "terrorize". Would this be the intent recognized by the local court? Probably not, as police almost didn't bother with the problem. Yet, when the mother of these two monsters "felt terrorized" after a simple conversation, she howled and cried about it to my daughter, and a whole town is supposed to feel sorry for her because she was "terrorized" by someone who is not a Christian!

Meanwhile, lawns, gardens, trees, bushes, windows, bricks, siding, doors, ect., can all add up, monetarily. Ten thousand dollars may only be a mere drop in a bucket. The suit for "terrorism damages" would probably have to be filed separately from the suit for all the other damages. The damage done to my children by this woman's unfortunate mouth cannot be tallied, sadly, as cannot the loss of human life, should the Catholic Christian mother never get around to teaching her sons not to terrorize others.

Stuff That Gets Downplayed In The News

Did anyone know that signaling other drivers by flashing one's headlights to warn of cops hiding with radar guns is protected speech, covered by the first amendment? In November of 2012, Michael Elli of Missouri decided to fight a ticket in court for doing just that, instead of paying the $1000.00 fine. When the local court realized he was going to fight the ticket, arguing first amendment rights and freedom of speech, the case was dropped. But Elli had already filed suit, and the ACLU had already gotten behind him, so the lawsuit went forward. On February 3, a federal judge ruled in favor of Elli. This means that any police officer who tickets a person for flashing car headlights to warn other drivers of a speed trap is interfering with constitutional rights.

While this does not seem monumental, it has huge impact on the entire nation, because this case sets a precedent. It is a very important statement, and a decisive victory for speech and freedom of expression protected by the first amendment. A federal court has, in effect, just told the entire nation's police departments to back off and leave the people alone. Isn't it interesting that none of the local or national media have spoken more on the subject? Why might that be?

The case is styled Elli v. Ellisville, and can be perused, copied, and quoted. Personally, I can't wait to see more people stand up for their rights. Anyone who does not stand up for his or her rights is also failing to stand up for the Constitution. Reporting on the outcomes of cases such as this should not be a problem for the media, either.

Private Message Public Notice

I am back in Hood River, Oregon and watching both the leaves and the rain fall. Looking forward to Black Friday...yeah, buddy! Anyone else going to buy an important item that day?

The above quote was intercepted from some social media of someone who is homeless by choice and refuses to work or find permanent housing in order to better her situation. Instead, she sponges off of anyone she can, and spends her ninety-some odd dollars a month in food stamps on fast food. It is usually gone within a couple of days. She also thinks she should buy electronic equipment, such as computers, before she secures her own housing. Housing opportunities have, indeed, presented themselves to her over the last couple of years, yet she refuses. The rest of us deal with the pros and cons of various business and personal relationships with others, such as landlord/tenant; while this person will not do that. She opts, instead, to use everyone in her acquaintance. If a smelly, overweight, homeless female hitchhiker pontificates to you about morals, religion, and matters spiritual while using truly vulgar language and entertaining a sense of entitlement that would make a two year old proud, you may have met this person! She knows who she is........and here is my "cryptic" message to her! Here goes:

The only thing you need to buy on Black Friday, or any day, is your own food with your own government assistance; that is, until they find out you are not really looking for a job. And your own housing. You see, lots of shelters probably prioritize people who do not have incomes ahead of people who do. Your dishonestly obtained disability counts as an income, and you do not care for children, so you are LAST! Everywhere you go. Stop taking stuff to which you are not entitled, and maybe that will change.

The assistance you get from Kansas is more than enough to feed one person, if the one person happens to live somewhere with a stove. You have enough money to buy staples, such as beans and rice. You can also buy Mason jars, and preserve your own food. You are also allowed, in some states, to buy seeds with your assistance dollars and grow some of your food. That would involve a level of responsibility which would enable a landlord/tenant relationship, though. When Kansas extended government sponsored charity to you, caseworkers expected you to get a job and find permanent housing. And it IS charity, in your case......you've wolfed down more food than one person, even a Sumo wrestler, would ever claim and you've done it much longer than any state allows. Your habit of hopping from state to state, grabbing resources from other states when the state from which you currently sponge decides to put you on a diet and a job-hunting program, really needs more public attention. Not all homeless people do this, but you are a prime example of why some members of the general public hate the homeless and will not help them.

How do you sleep at night, knowing that every time you sleep on a bad for which your own finances did not pay, a child or an honestly desperate person is sleeping outside? Why do you take food, money, and resources from children, anyway?

Note: Anyone who knows what this post is about should be warned about one thing prior to picking this person up while she hitchhikes. While this did not happen to me, I was naïve enough to open my home to her, and it was my distinct impression that she was "shopping" (there's that Black Friday reference again!) for a place to either fake or stage an injury in order to file a lawsuit and grab some quick cash. When I didn't want to be vulnerable to this and play the game with her, she moved on to richer and less protected individuals. Also, money not only mysteriously disappeared from my wallet, but from my daughter's wallet, while this woman stayed in my home.

 

Mom And Dad Fight Back

This video features Russian immigrant parents who live in California, and have a sick baby, who has had heart surgery. The mother was concerned about her baby's care, and transferred him to a different hospital. Then, after the baby was discharged from the second hospital, the first hospital sent child protective services to visit the parents! Child protective services took a bunch of arrogant cops along, and one of them even began to pull his gun out of the holster when the mother asked to see a warrant for the visit. Then  they proceeded to grab the baby and take him to an undisclosed location, telling the mother that it was "irrational" for her to want to know where! Now a lawsuit has been filed against child protective services and the hospital.

Meanwhile, back in Northeast Kansas, a young couple who happen to be the parents of two active toddlers recently got a knock on their door from child protective services. The couple told child protective services that they wanted to see the warrant before they came inside the house. The social worker did not have a warrant, but pretended to call someone, to get a warrant. Unfortunately, the couple fell for the bluff, and it most certainly WAS a bluff; no judge in his right mind would actually grant a warrant for the reason child protective services visited this family. It seems that someone had called child protective services on these parents because their children often go about barefoot!

What really happened in the "case of the barefoot children" was that someone felt like picking on the childrens' parents and called child protective services. Child protective services knew that this couple is not rich, and as they are both very young, possibly did not know their rights. Also, the family is white, and many perspective adoptive parents ask specifically for white babies and toddlers. Had Kansas gone ahead and snatched those children, their parents may never have seen them again. It's a big moneymaker in Kansas. And that's why certain teachers and school administrators should really stop calling child protective services every time they decide they do not like a parent. Since Affirmative Action is almost meaningless in Kansas, most of the chronic CPS callers are white, and have white children. And since white children are exactly for whom most perspective adoptive parents in Kansas place orders, guess who could also be targeted......? That's right; the next time a fair skinned blond child belonging to a chronic CPS caller gets a sunburn, or plays in the park or in the street unattended, as per the habit of Northeast Kansas, the parents of the barefoot toddlers may pick up their phone! After all, if it works for one vindictive jerk, it can work for another. Income, age, education, and experience with life may or may not make a difference if you enrage innocent parents enough by attempting to engage child protective services because the parents change health care providers or allow their children to go barefoot. It's only a phone call.

 

Kyron Horman's Mom Drops Lawsuit

Desiree Young, mother of Kyron Horman, has dropped her lawsuit against Terri Horman, sometime stepmother of same. Kyron, now ten years old, has been missing since June 4, 2010, when he disappeared from his school in Portland Oregon. Young's lawyer, Eldon Rosenthal, stated that in order to proceed with the case against Terri Horman, his office would need access to evidence from the open criminal investigation. Also, it has been rumored that a formerly uncooperative witness is now cooperating. While reporters are speculating that this witness is DeDe Spicher, friend of Terri Horman, there are enough loose ends and possible accessories after the fact, in this case, for the unnamed witness to be anyone connected to Kyron's family, Kyron's school, or to Kyron. Because another lawsuit can be filed later, after the investigation is closed, it would be in everyone's best interest for Kyron to be returned to his family unharmed.
 

 

Kansas Sued By Federal Government

For environmental "indiscretions" dating back to 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency is suing the State of Kansas for polluting waterways on US69, near Lawrence; US59, near Pleasanton, and US18, near Manhattan. Because KDOT failed to prevent erosion of silt into waterways, the lawsuit seeks $32,500 a day for problems dating to 2004, and $37,000 a day for problems dating to 2009.

 

 

 

Social Services Grabbed A Newborn For What?

In April of 2013, Elizabeth Mort, of Pennsylvania, ate a bagel that was made with poppy seeds. Then she went to the hospital and gave birth to a baby girl. The staff at Jameson Hospital in Lawrence County is lucky, because when I go into labor, I always stop at Taco Bell en route, and eat as many seven layer burritos as I can before arriving at the hospital; yet when they did their wonderful drug tests on Mort, with their wonderfully inflated prices for the insurance company to cover, they used a standard of 300 nanograms per milliliter as a guideline of THC, and of otherwise being a doper, rather than the federally accepted 2000 nanograms per milliliter. This allowed the residue from the poppyseed bagel to appear in the test results.

Three days later, while Mort was at home with her new daughter, social services stormed her house and took her baby away. The hospital had telephoned social services with news of a positive drug test, with no mention of the comparison of the results of said drug test to federal standards, and had thus made a false report. While it only took five days for Mort to get her daughter back, it took three years to settle the lawsuit, which was finally settled this past week. The ACLU got involved on Mort's behalf.

Why would a child be taken from a parent over a lab result that was not even current information? Why would a child be taken from a parent over a violation of a prohibition law? After all, we do not routinely remove children from the homes of people who get cited for DWI. Why is marijuana so much more important? If there was no indication of fetal distress because of drugs, why did the hospital order a test for drugs? Why did the hospital order the test without the patient's knowledge? When the test came back flagged as a false positive, why didn't the hospital discuss it with the patient immediately? Was the hospital more interested in snagging a newborn and helping the state to sell it, rather then finding out if the patient had a substance abuse problem? These are all questions that anyone of either gender planning on becoming a parent should want answered before choosing an hospital for the birth.

The ACLU insisted that Jameson Hospital and Pennsylvania come into compliance and stop harassing families, but what about your state? It's clearly time to rethink the importance of family, legalize marijuana, (no, I am NOT a cannabis indulger) or do both.

 

 

For Kyron Horman, Supporting New Talent

Someone shared the video below on Facebook today, concerning the parents of Terri Horman, sometime step parent of missing Kyron Horman, the Portland, Oregon, seven year old who disappeared from his school in June of 2010, during a science fair. Terri Horman was the last person to see Kyron, and has refused to testify or cooperate with law enforcement in any way, and has also failed two polygraphs. While she looks quite guilty because of those circumstances, her parents, Carol and Larry Moulton, were also present at the school when Kyron disappeared. The media has certainly not focused on their possible involvement or their responsibility to testify truthfully and help find Kyron, and they have not done a single thing to help. They have not even been willing to print and pass out flyers with Kyron's missing persons' information. What they were willing to do was hire an attorney for Terri, and what they are willing to do is take down any flyers with Kyron's picture and contact information for Multnomah County law enforcement and the FBI. That inspired the creative talent of a budding artist who did not wish to give her name but who did give me a green light to share this video, which has some excellent and amusing poetry. We will all enjoy it more when Kyron is found, hopefully alive and safe.
 

Note: Carol and Larry Moulton will not be seeing their grandchild, Kiara Horman, any time soon. The pending divorce between Kyron's dad and their daughter was postponed, yet again; this time until August of this year, which, interestingly, is when a lawsuit filed against Terri Horman by Kyron's mother, for custodial interferance, is scheduled to continue. August 1 was the given date for both trials. Terri Horman will only have to buy one outfit for court.

Updated note: The Social Media Police have apparently taken action against the First Amendment rights of the owner of the formerly published video. I await a reproduction of it under different auspices. Nothing threatening was contained therein, and no losses occured to any involved party as a result of the content of this video; it is my strong suspicion that a guilty person watched it, didn't like it, and made a big fuss.

 

True Nelson Says What?

Usaully, the writer of the blog, True At True, offers an intelligent, commonsense opinion about his chosen topics. I enjoy reading his commentaries. But his most recent post, written on January 18, about the Kyron Horman case, surprised me. Somehow, he is putting forth an idea that Desiree Young, Kyron's mother, moved the court requesting that the civil lawsuit she filed against Terri Horman, her son's stepmother, be abated. Here's a quote:

"It is my understanding that concurrent with Desiree Young requesting ‘abatement’ in said civil case there were three additional factors in play: DeDe Spicher was scheduled to testify before the Judge regarding her (DeDe’s) refusal to fully cooperate during her deposition – citing the Fifth Amendment; Desiree and her husband Tony, as well as Kaine Horman, were scheduled to be deposed; and Desiree had requested (through her attorney) a protective order regarding mental health records."

While the lawsuit has been delayed by a few months, Desiree Young certainly did not make that request of the court. In fact, the motion was filed by an outside party, specifically the office of the Multnomah County District Attorney. As for the suggestions that the reason for the delay was the information contained in medical records, mental health information in particular, Young's team fought for that information to be revealed in court, and is in no way attempting to block it. The reference to the testimony of DeDe Spicher was also a bit misleading, since no information at all about her testimony, other than her comments while answering questions, was ever analyzed for the public. The judge who permitted the delay spoke of protecting witnesses, but did not name anyone.

Here's more, explaining an imaginary role played by Steve Houze, Terri Horman's criminal attorney:

"If you were Attorney Houze, how would you attempt to defuse Desiree Young’s civil suit? Why not dig up anything and everything you can about Desiree or Kaine? What if information was developed on one or both of them that would not only cause them embarrassment, but additionally cast suspicion on them?"

Steve Houze will undoubtedly attempt to do some of those things if and when Terri Horman finds herself in criminal court, as a defendant. But he is not representing Terri Horman in this lawsuit. Why is this blogger imagining that Steve Houze is trying to "cast suspicion" on Kaine Horman, Desiree Young, or Tony Young? Not only has this already been done, time and time again, as Kyron has been missing for over two years, it also doesn't matter what "suspicions" can be cast on them. They happen to be the three adults in Kyron's life who love him and want him home. Because of that, they are at cross purposes with Houze's client, who does not love Kyron and apparently does not want Kyron home. Who cares about how, or in what ways, any of them might not be perfect? Why should any of them care, also, about any muckraking or character assasinations Houze might do? Every time I listen to Desiree Young talk about Kyron, I only hear a mother who wants her missing son found. I don't think she cares what any lawyer digs up about her.