Tuesday, June 5, 2012

A Blasphemy Conviction in Kansas



Taking a bold stand against a non-existent threat, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a measure that would ban judges in that state from making rulings derived from “Islamic Shariah law.” Presumably this would protect residents of the Jayhawk State from the prospect of being punished for committing blasphemy against Mohammed. However, the measure leaves judges free to inflict draconian punishments for other forms of public impiety. Witness the case of Michael Gaines.

In July 2008, Mr. Gaines – who looks and sounds like practically every character ever played by Samuel L. Jackson -- was sentenced to thirteen years in prison. This was ostensibly for “Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer” during what was described as a “scuffle” in the Sedgwick County Jail. 

At the time, Gaines was awaiting trial for the actual crime of robbery. His alleged act of battery did not involve punching, kicking, or otherwise striking a jail guard, nor did it involve a weapon of any kind. Instead, the deputies claimed that he had spit on them – and that because Gaines was HIV-positive, this act made them fear for their lives.

HIV cannot be transmitted through spitting, a fact acknowledged by the prosecutor and by Rebecca Pilshaw, who at the time was a District Judge. Furthermore, the only “evidence” presented against Gaines consisted of the accusations by the supposed victims, who – as law enforcement officers – were trained to lie and belong to a professional cohort that is given official permission to do so

Gaines was convicted of battery because his accusers were state-licensed practitioners of aggressive violence – a fact he pointed out during his sentencing hearing before Pilshaw.


 “You’re not respecting my authority,” lectured Pilshaw.

“You’re not respecting me,” Gaines replied without losing his composure. “Respect goes both ways. You’re just a woman with a robe on – just a woman, a human being just like I am.” 

At that point, Gaines’s decorum slipped, giving Pilshaw the opportunity to reproach him for daring to “cuss” in such supposedly hallowed surroundings.

How dare the infidel defile a room consecrated to the administration of State coercion! 

Gaines compounded his blasphemy by uttering a barnyard expletive when Pilshaw insisted that “All the evidence” demonstrated that he “deliberately” assaulted the deputies when he “hocked up saliva.”

“I didn’t hock up no saliva … and you’re going to believe those lies,” Gaines said, his voice heavy with weary disgust. “You’re going to believe their lies, because they’re wearing uniforms.”

As Pilshaw taunted him from the bench, Gaines referred to an actual act of felonious assault – the beating, on the previous February 15, of an inmate named Richards, who was so severely injured that he was left on life support in a nearby hospital. 

As Gaines looked contemptuously in the direction of an officer he described as a “rogue-ass deputy,” Pilshaw snapped at him: “Here! Look at me! I’m part of this!”

“You ain’t got to scream at me, b*tch!” Gaines retorted, causing the judge to gasp in offended surprise. 

I must confess that this gratuitous act of verbal abuse provoked a similar reaction from me. No matter what injustice had been done to Michael Gaines, there was no reason to insult an innocent canine by comparing her to Rebecca Pilshaw.

Actually, Gaines was trying to make a point:

“You gonna raise your voice at me? I’m gonna raise my voice at you. You’re just a b*tch in a robe.”

At that point Assistant D.A. Kevin O’Connor – who was at least as deserving of the epithet as Pilshaw – decided to join in the fun.

“I appreciate Mr. Gaines making my point for me,” whined O’Connor from the sidelines in a transparent effort to goad the detainee. This had the predictable effect of provoking Gaines into a foul-mouthed tirade.

As the shackled detainee was flanked by armed deputies and dragged off to a cell, O’Connor – displaying the giddy viciousness of a playground bully tormenting a helpless and outnumbered kid – indulged in some risk-free tough guy posturing.

“Anytime, Mr. Gaines,” sneered O’Connor to the handcuffed prisoner’s back as he was led out of the room.



“I couldn’t believe it,” commented Pilshaw in her personal blog the following day. “Here he was being accused of disrespecting authority and he starts in with the cussing and the insults.”

This statement can be considered a confession against interest: Although Pilshaw insisted that the 13-year prison sentence was justified by the “severity” of Gaines’s supposed attack on the detention deputies, she characterized his offense as “disrespecting authority.” 

Whatever actual crimes Michael Haines may have committed, he never stole thirteen years from the life of another human being. 

A few months after Pilshaw sent Gaines to prison, Sedgwick County voters  wisely threw her off the bench. By the time her career came to an inglorious end, Pilshaw had been given three reprimands for ethics violations and judicial misconduct. She had also earned a reputation as an ill-tempered, self-dramatizing, frequently abusive figure. As one profile observed, Pilshaw wielded a “heavy gavel…. [S]he was known for pushing sentencing guidelines to their limits to give the most prison time to the toughest offenders.”

When dealing with offenders in uniform, Pilshaw wielded a gavel made of balsa wood.  

During her years as a judge, Pilshaw – like most people in that disreputable profession – displayed a tribal attachment to prosecutors, police, and others who are part of the government’s punitive apparatus. Ten years ago, she presided over a suppression hearing dealing with the Wichita PD’s disagreeably named SCAT (Special Community Action Team) unit, which carried out federally subsidized narcotics operations. 

In 1999, SCAT operators arrested a local man named Terry Marck on drug charges after conducting an illegal search of his home. Merck’s defense attorney was able to obtain a Wichita PD internal affairs memo documenting that SCAT had engaged in what was called “a pattern of unlawful searches, arrests, intimidation, and other abusive practices.”

On August 16, 2002, Pilshaw – acknowledging that at least half of the SCAT-produced cases she examined involved constitutional violations and serious misconduct -- grudgingly threw out Marck’s conviction. As she did so, however, she lauded the offending officers, praising one for his “fine police instinct” and describing another as “a rising star” within the department.

Even though SCAT was an armed menace to the community, Pilshaw praised it for “getting the baddest of the bad guys off the street” – meaning, in this instance, “bad guys” who acted without government sanction. 

In announcing her decision, Pilshaw insisted that she and the police were “on the same team” and that regardless of the crimes the police commit under the color of their supposed authority, “Mr. Marck is the bad guy here.” 

During her disgraceful 15-year career on the bench, cases tried in Rebecca Pilshaw’s court were frequently reversed on appeal. One particularly egregious example was provided by the 2008 case of Luther Kemble, who was convicted of sexual assault on a minor and given a sentence of 25 years to life. 

In September 2010, the Kansas State Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that during the alleged victim’s testimony, Pilshaw had coached and guided the witness. The trial transcript disclosed several instances in which the girl, when questioned by the prosecution, had explicitly recanted the accusation, or said that she “couldn’t remember” details of the alleged abuse. 

Clearly regarding those answers to be unsuitable, Pilshaw – in the words of the State Supreme Court – acted as “an advocate for the prosecution,” overtly encouraging the girl to change her testimony. At one point she obliquely threatened the witness with a perjury charge.

After extracting the desired accusation that Kemble had improperly touched the teenager, Pilshaw commended her – in nauseatingly condescending terms -- for conforming to the desired script: “I’m glad that you finally decided to answer like a big girl and I appreciate it very much.”

Kemble was set free. Michael Gaines disappeared into the labyrinthine prison system. 

Gaines wasn’t sentenced to more than a decade in a cage because he had stolen something from another person, or committed a legitimate act of assault. He was given a sentence worthy of a Shariah law court (at least as such tribunals are commonly perceived in this country) because of his defiant refusal to play the assigned role of penitent in a State-scripted ritual. His tongue had peeled away the pretense that Rebecca Pilshaw was anything other than an officious, self-absorbed woman in a cheap robe, or that the deputies who testified against him were anything other than armed men in unsightly costumes. 






Dum spiro, pugno!

34 comments:

PJL said...

Thank you for the article. I will tell you I am not surprised by the actions of the judge. My case was one of the first few for a new judge on a Superior Court bench. Her qualifications for such a role? She had 15 years experience as a lawyer - all of it in real estate law. Yet now she was qualified to hear cases involving felony charges? She made numerous errors including allowing the prosecutor to steal and review my complete trial strategy from my computer - something the pre-trial judge specifically ordered him not to do! The case eventually was taken up by my state's Supreme Court and the conviction was reversed. The bottom line was that the judge was not qualified to be on the bench. The position was granted her because of her political connections within the state.

willb said...

The debate on how to place judges
on the bench is ongoing.
Elect them? Appoint them? How?

More and more the bench is being
removed from the people's reach;
becoming less a shield from and more of
a sword for the legislature and
executive.

Mr. Grigg makes an apt point that
such a system is more likened to
Sharia Law than Common Law.

The People have been evicted from
all 3 estates. Politically, we are homeless.

"Ten soldiers and Nixon's coming,
we're finally on our own."
-Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young

(I do opine however that Mr. Gains
was deserving of a contempt charge.)

MoT said...

Sorry, WillB, but Gaines was dead right. Why should you "respect" what is disreputable? That's the mindset of a slave. Why do you even call them "judge" when they are simply, as Gaines rightly pointed out, only a human being in a robe. Where's my title? Respect indeed is a two way street and she like all tax sucking parasites feels that it only flows one way... to THEM. I also believe Will, whether intentional or not, make a clear distinction about what kind of predator she sided with.

snip!

...Pilshaw insisted that she and the police were “on the same team"

And snip again

Pilshaw snapped at him: “Here! Look at me! I’m part of this!”

Oh, yeah! She's part of it.

Anonymous said...

Technically Mr. Gaines may have been guilty of contempt. However, when the system is so completely broken how can anyone treat it with anything but contempt?

jk

Anonymous said...

Fake Justice
Fake Republic
Fake Freedom

As my nostrils pick up the odiferous scents of our national flowers, my eyes search around for the casket.

-H.L. Mencken Jr.

Chris Mallory said...

During the times I have been before a judge, I make it a point to never stand when they enter the room. I never address them as "sir". I always speak directly to them, not using any honorific at all.

It is time we started rolling back the power these thugs have at all levels. Cops, judges, and other government employees all need to be leashed and back under the control of citizens. No more "contempt of court" for speaking your mind. No more government thugs assaulting citizens.

End the requirement that judges be members of the Bar. Personally I would not allow lawyers to be judges. If a citizen with a high school diploma cannot understand and judge the law, then the law is too complicated and should be repealed.

Bob Robertson said...

I can't remember what movie it's from, but the "defendant" responds to the judge's accusation that the defendant is treating the court with contempt,

"No, I hold this court in the highest respect. It is you I hold in contempt." referring to the judge.

The answer for how to deal with the state being its own judge, prosecution and enforcement, is insoluble so long as government runs the judicial system. No matter what, the govt will always tend to rule in its own favor. Justice cannot be done while judges are chosen almost exclusively from the ranks of government prosecutors.

The monopoly must be broken for anything like "justice" to exist. It is just such realizations that lead me down the path from Constitutionalist, to Minarchist, to Anarchist. I refer interested individuals to the works of Roderick Long, for his expositions on "private law".

willb said...

MoT:

How then to administrate a system of jurisprudence?
From a vending machine?

Even a classic Libertarian such as myself
concedes the need to enforce such laws as we need, and
the only way to do it is with people.

Going into court with a 'tude and calling
the judge a "bitch" is no political statement but simply a rant.

Give me a King-Priest any day, but 'till
then my only alternative is the law.

I wonder, when Gaines comes up for his robbery trial
will he tell his jury that they are all
a bunch of "maggot motherfuckers" and insist
they respect him?

It's his choice, but his lawyer should
advise him to STFU.

Inalienable Rights said...

Great article as usual Will. Thanks again.

Is there a sane soul standing that has any respect at all for the criminal gang in costumes that pretend to be legitimate? I have long been part of the choir, largely because I been at the receiving end of our injustice system - but it's articles like this that will hopefully wake up some of the zombies.

MamaLiberty said...

I'm an ordinary old woman. I treat others as I'd wish to be treated, and then some. I practice no aggression, but stand firm to defend myself and others at need. I have already had to shoot a man to save my life, so this isn't a rhetorical statement.

And I've had a dream... recurring:

I stand in a courtroom and the "judge" has just threatened to charge me with "contempt of court."

I say, "There are no words adequate to express my contempt for this court."

And then I wake up. :)

willb said...

Mr. Robertson:

Who was it that said, "The only problem with
anarchy is enforcing it." ?

So, now you are right back where you started, with people.

What to do with a chicken-thief?

Anonymous said...

chicken thieves...

thieves, robbers, kidnappers, rapists, murderers, and looters MUST ALL BE PERMANENTLY DISPATCHED BY THE VICTIM AND/OR PROPERTY OWNER...

thievery is the gateway to rape, robbery, kidnapping, and murder...

Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY!

Inalienable Rights said...

willb a lack of a monopoly on the use of force (anarchy) does not imply in any way shape or form that there will not be consequences for actions. That I can guarantee you. As that is the way my life operates... i.e. I do not involve the police when I am transgressed against.

In a voluntary society the free market will create the (voluntary) institutions that are needed. Do some research on the "Icelandic free state" that stood for over 300 years if you want a picture of what a voluntary state could look like.

Our Western states were pretty much free from the force of the state for a long period, and the free market produced a very safe environment from aggression from other citizens unlike what Hollywood portrays the old west as.

Lack of state monopoly will work. In fact it would be hard to envision it getting as bad as it is under "government". Can you envision a gang that stole 50% of what everyone made, or putting deadly poisons into the water supply of everyone without what we call government?

willb said...

Anonymous,

Your new law sounds simple but any
chicken-thief worth his feathers
could poke more holes in it than
a Christmas turkey.

Inalienable Rights said...

willb in a system of true justice your hypothetical chicken thief that as you say "poked holes" in justice would not be alive very long unlike the system hat twe have today where peaceful people are caged. and criminals are turned loose to victimize us.

willb said...

Inalienable Rights:

I agree wholeheartedly, but you are still stuck
with forming an objective standard, voluntary or not.
And who sets the objective standard, the accused?
The accuser?
A third party?

Is every man a law unto himself or do
we set a standard and hold each other
accountable?

Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Gains was angry, but I can only judge
his comments as necessarily being a
part of his defense, nothing more.

willb said...

Inalienable Rights:

OK, might makes right.

You win . . . but lose.

Inalienable Rights said...

Willb all I know is that monopolies on power create evil and injustice on a grand subsidized scale. Monopolies on power have failed each and every time throughout recorded history. Perhaps it is time to try something else and let the market sort things out. Do we really have ANYTHING to lose?

Sure you will still have injustice, but surely not on the scale we do today.

Can you answer this question proposed by Rober Lefevre?

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

MoT said...

WillB, I understand where you're coming from. Still, taking your stance you're simply "submitting" to your self serving and self aggrandizing masters. Nothing changes then. They'll continue to abuse you and you'll continue to bemoan the situation. Take for example the founding of this nation. If, as I've heard so many times from fellow Libertarians, the Founders had said "This is generational. And we need to educate people" Well, it would never have happened. Because life simply gets in the way. Action, even violent action, is what occurred to bring about change. Now I don't advocate it but I see it as being inevitable in the future. The powers that be will not willingly change unless physically threatened. That's the nature of these vermin: never apologize, never pay restitution out of their own purse, never turn a cheek. That's the sociopath who endeavors to rule over other mens lives. That's government.

Inalienable Rights said...

willb says in a tongue and cheek manner that "might makes right". Yet he seems to support the greatest "might makes right" system ever invented.... the monopoly on the use of force... government.

In addition he seems to offer no solutions .... only criticism.

WillB you don't really seem to have much to offer to this discussion as far as I can see.

What we need is for the might to be in the hands of the people. And then if and only if you have a moral people will be majority of might be used for right.

Education about liberty, freedom, and rights is critical. And we are way way behind in that department.

willb said...

You want to yank power from whom?
And give it to whom?

Any socio-eco-political theory will have to grapple with jurisprudence.
You want to shoot your neighbor?
I think your other neighbors might have something to say about it.

You want respect in the courtroom? Then conduct yourself respectfully.

You want revolution? Serve on a jury.

Kudos to Mr. Grigg who keeps us vigilant.

Anonymous said...

willb wrote, "his lawyer should advise him to STFU."

Hmm, I see. As if the outcome would have been any different? Psft.

willb asked, "You want to yank power from whom?
And give it to whom?

Any socio-eco-political theory will have to grapple with jurisprudence.
You want to shoot your neighbor?
I think your other neighbors might have something to say about it."

You might be interested in this bit which answers your questions:

The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo195.html

willb wrote, "You want respect in the courtroom? Then conduct yourself respectfully."

I think maybe you missed the point of this article, entirely. Have you ever read any of William L. Anderson's stuff?:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson-arch.html

If you do you might see how that last statement of yours is flat out ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Fake Justice
Fake Republic
Fake Freedom

I'v been thinking about this off and on all day, Anonymous, and you're darn tootin' right about that!

Whatever downfalls Michael Gaines might have, he seems quite respectable - even admiral - compared to today's "justice" system and those who enforce it:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/113305.html

- clark

Bill said...

Willb, you clearly have NOT done any research into anarchy or what a voluntary society would be like. Reading your comments tells me you are speaking from ignorance and simply regurgitating MSM talking points. Please do some research and you will see that a voluntary society is quite feasible.

willb said...

The charge and sentence was for assault, not contempt.

Though the judge characterized the assault as "disrespect," she was referring
to the guards, not herself. Gaines' behavior in the courtroom only went to
substantiate the original assault charge providing grist to the prosecution.

If you are charged with attempted murder, appear in court, assert your
innocence but then proceed to attempt to murder the judge, do you think the
court will take that into consideration as regarding the original charge?

Yup. You bet, Bubba.

As posted above, Gaines' attorney should have (and probably did) advise him to STFU.

Whether or not the 18yr sentence is just will no doubt be reviewed by
an appellate court. If Gaines gets a new trial do you think he'll keep
his mouth shut or tell his jury that they are all a bunch of "maggot motherfuckers?"

Just curious.

willb said...

Bill,

A voluntary society must agree, voluntarily, on the objective weight of the law.

If we all agree to act together, voluntarily, but insist on our own subjective
beliefs which supersede or contradict the law, how can we administer contracts,
private property,criminal justice, etc.?

In short, we can't. We all have to agree, like minded, on what constitutes the
law and jurisprudence we are going to hold each other accountable to, especially
if the penalty is the price of life, liberty or property.

You can't have a society, any society, where we all live subjectively and
according to our own set of rules. OK, let's just rely on each other to have
good will but that is a utopia we know cannot exist in this world.

So, this "objective" requirement obviously exists in our courts today as of
necessity as the base line of expectations we impose on each other. To show
contempt for that base line is to show contempt not just for the court but for
the entirety of our society and the goodwill we expect from each other.

Of course there is decay and abuse, but vigilance is the price of our privilege
to have such a system and once again thank Mr. Grigg for his service in such regard.

That is all there is to it. People can go off on tangential arguments and
speak of altruistic theory, but the fact is that we have to live together and
someone, somewhere, is gonna steal a chicken from his neighbor either by accident
or on purpose. As for me, I will hold my neighbor accountable in a court of law
rather than just shoot him because I could be wrong about his motives or
circumstance, and if I have a neighbor who shoots first and asks questions later
I will likewise hold him accountable in a court of law.

Upon appearing, if that neighbor shows nothing but contempt for that court rather
than disgorge the facts and circumstances then I am all to happy to put his
ass in jail.

Thanks for the debate.
That is all.

willb said...

Oh, and BTW (last post, promise,)

The main thrust of this article, as I saw it,
concerned the issue of judge appointments to the bench.

An overreacting judge, if that overreaction is beyond
their judicial discretion, is harmful to say the least.
There is an appeal process to check this, but it is
slow and costly. The best solution is to find the best
way to appoint competent judges.

The debate is ongoing: appoint them? elect them? combination?

The court system is constantly debating this issue and
watching the several states diverse approaches, but
perhaps the best approach is to just keep trying?

Vigilance is the price of liberty.

Thanks again, Mr. Grigg.

Inalienable Rights said...

Bill said...
"Willb, you clearly have NOT done any research into anarchy or what a voluntary society would be like. Reading your comments tells me you are speaking from ignorance and simply regurgitating MSM talking points. Please do some research and you will see that a voluntary society is quite feasible."

Bill I think it would be more accurate to say "could be like".
All forms of government (I include anarchy) are limited by the goodness and education of the people. For instance a so called democracy can not and will not work in Iraq or Afghanistan. The people there have no understanding of liberty.

I also doubt if a Constitutional Republic would work in Canada or Europe. The people there just don't get freedom.

For that matter a Constitutional Republic is not working in the United States precisely because Americans do not understand our system at all. It follows that a voluntary society would have a rough go of it, considering the uneducated state of the masses. Even so I think it has a better chance here than the Republic that we have lost.

Inalienable Rights said...

Anonymous willb said...

"Bill,
A voluntary society must agree, voluntarily, on the objective weight of the law.

If we all agree to act together, voluntarily, but insist on our own subjectivebeliefs which supersede or contradict the law, how can we administer contracts,private property,criminal justice, etc.?

In short, we can't."
========================
You are dead wrong willB we can and do. Most decent men agree that violating the rights of others is wrong. i.e. Murder, theft, and fraud. And if you don't agree. Well we have a few of those even with government so nothing would change.

I can see that you have not educated yourself as mentioned earlier as to what a voluntary society society could be.

willB you are not going to educate us or change our minds until you do lot of legwork my friend. You are are like Thomas Jefferson tying to arguing that the automobile could never work.

willb said...

Inalienable Rights,

Why bother educating my self on what a voluntary society
"could" be like. Sounds pretty dull, and not just unachievable.

I'd rather educate myself what a voluntary nudist colony
"could" be like. That would be much more interesting.
"Most" decent men doesn't include the standout that thinks
he has a right to your wife.

Meanwhile, I think I'll just keep my head in the real world.

Next time you're in court, tell it to the judge.

Inalienable Rights said...

willb Your rambling non sequitors are not worth addressing. Put some thought into something and perhaps I will respond.

Anonymous said...

willb asked, "If Gaines gets a new trial do you think he'll keep his mouth shut or tell his jury that they are all a bunch of "maggot m...?""

Again, As if the outcome would have been any different? Psft.

You don't read much non-main stream media, do you, willb? Or for that matter, courtroom outcomes. Look at the bigger picture.

willb wrote, "Gaines' behavior in the courtroom only went to substantiate the original assault charge"

Yeah, yeah, failure to submit and obey is all he was substantiating.

Did ya read the link I posted?
You should.
Why remain ignorant of its contents?
I see you're using loaded terms like, "utopia" so I guess you didn't read it.

History is not theory.

And it's funny how you resort to saying, "I will hold my neighbor accountable in a court of law
rather than just shoot him" ... As If there are no other alternatives? Yeesh.

Also, The Law is Dead.
In case you didn't know.

You reveal more than you know when you write, "I am all to happy to put his ass in jail."

It's not "you" putting anyone in jail, but you sure do pay for it.

And, what good does that do?

I do hope you spend a bit of time at that William Anderson URL I gave you.

Your second to last final words were grandstanding and exactly the nation as a whole, "but perhaps the best approach is to just keep trying?" ... Like beating your head against a wall, again and again and again?

I agree with Inalienable Rights [I am wasting my time replying.] seems like you're like most American Nationalist these days, your head is everywhere Except in the real world.

- clark

liberranter said...

“I couldn’t believe it,” commented Pilshaw in her personal blog the following day.

If you have some life-minutes to waste, check out this blog and take a gander at Becky's excuses for her unprofessional and disgraceful behavior. A fair number of the commentors have taken her to task for her behavior in the Gaines incident, although I strongly suspect that she has declined to publish the most severe and hard-hitting of the crop.

Yossarian said...

I also read Pilshaw’s blog entry. What an idiot. She wrote that even though AIDS can’t be transmitted by spitting, the deputies Gaines spit on had open sores and wounds and that his action was “somewhat akin to a robber holding an empty gun on a gas station cashier. The risk is minor but the victim’s fear is very real.” Someone posted that it was “…more akin to someone thinking a robber pointing his unveiled thumb and fore finger might result in a bullet in his head and you sentencing the man as though he were armed.”

I don’t believe Mr. Gaines spit on anybody.

I should have realized before looking it up that the fear of Shariah and foreign law is a problem only for the Blood Red States and the neocon conservative religious right jingoist fear-mongers who rule those states. A typical comment: “We have our own laws that we all live by, if people come here and don’t like our laws, Go back where you came from, your in America, Conform to our laws or leave! Not one islamic nation on earth would ever consider our law to be used in their nation, We wont stand for it here.”

I was a neocon for most of my life and, before they kicked me out for spying, supported the religious right and joined them at the abortion clinics every weekend. But now I say there is no more anti-human, hateful people on the face of the earth than them. Their motto is “Israel Uber Alles and Imprison Everybody Else, Amen.”

Anonymous said...

When the judge sits as a prosecutor as did this vindictive female judge, her decisions should be rendered moot, she should be removed from the bench and jailed immediately. She intentionally antagonized the defendant and then used his natural frustration against him and imposed an unreasonable sentence on him. No cop should be allowed to claim assault against a citizen unless it can be backed up with actual photo's because they are given the right to lie by the courts and that should also be disallowed.