Friday, August 20, 2004
WW III ?
Read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again?
In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979................that alarm has been ringing for years!
U.S. Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida.
Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why the action we are taking now is so necessary and critical for our future as a free society.
AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!
That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.
It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political
upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 23 years.
America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism America's military had been decimated
and downsized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.
Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.
In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.
Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main; 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.
Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.
The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder. The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war?
The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.
A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.
They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep!
The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and rollover and go back to sleep.
In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.
Our President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now.
America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "...it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.
Support Our Troops and support President Bush for having the courage, political or militarily, to address what so many who preceded him didn't have the backbone to do, both Democrat and Republican.
This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year; this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children and grandchildren in years to come.
Please forward this, especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Re: Overwhelmingly corrupt police, prosecutors, judges, courts, attorneys,
District Attorneys, Attorney Generals, politicians, jails, prisons, pardon and
parole boards all over this country.
Wouldn't it be amazing and near inconceivable, if someday someone
out there had enough guts and courage enough to tell, prove, and publish
the real truth about the overwhelmingly corrupt legal and judicial systems,
police, prosecutors, judges, courts, alleged defense attorneys, and
politicians, all over this country. That have been forever living off the public,
and lying to and deceiving the public, since the beginning of time.
Well, that someday is now: And that someone is me: Franklin D.
Vipperman, Author of the three recently published book series, The Deal
Makers, The Cesspool, and Hell Hole. Three extremely hard hitting books
which are the first of their kind in history that indisputably brings it all to
light, and overwhelmingly proves it all to be true: He names them all,
and proves it all with court records, incorporated into his books.
Vipperman tells how he took down his original alleged defense attorney,
Harry Eugene Claiborne, who had became a Federal Judge. And obtained
his conviction, imprisonment, and impeachment by the US Senate.
Vipperman can further be credited for causing the prosecutor that framed
him, Earl Gripentrog, to be imprisoned. And the despicable trial judge
Carl J. Christensen that railroaded him to be removed from the bench.
And through his books and writings, managed to get his alleged trial/appeal
counsel, Jeffrey D. Sobel, who had since became a district court judge to
be removed from the bench in recent elections.
Franklin D. Vipperman, Author of the series of three recently
published hard hitting powerful true books attacking the overwhelmingly
corrupt legal and judicial systems. The only books of their kind in history,
wherein it is [all] proven far beyond doubt. And unequivocally substantiated
with authentic photographs, documents, court transcripts, and testimonies.
Must reads for all those who truly care about their freedoms, and the
freedoms and futures of their children, family, and loved ones,
In their order as written and can be found for free previews and
purchases, click on the below links or go to sites:
The Deal Makers at http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/4376
International Standard Book Number (ISBN) 1-58721-956-5
The Cesspool at http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/5470
Hell Hole at http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/7550
The books can also be ordered through Barnes & Noble, Borders, Amazon, and almost all computer on line book sites and book stores.
Vipperman retains all rights to his books:
Please: Read, learn from, post and forward this information to everyone
possible. This entire country needs to know the real [truth] about the horrors
of the overwhelmingly corrupt legal and judicial systems that surround them
every moment of every day. And is constantly and continually illegally and
unconstitutionally denying and depriving you and yours of your liberties,
freedoms, properties and possessions, and birth given Constitutional Rights.
Thursday, October 02, 2003
INSIDE REPORT FROM OUR NATIONS LAW SCHOOLS
By Lawrence Agee, - Lcagee@aol.com
I am now in my 3rd year of law school. I landed here because I was swindled out of large sums of money by crooked lawyers on several occasions. Today, I learned more disturbing facts about our legal system.
After sitting through several lectures on white collar crime, I asked my instructor what the victim of white collar crime is supposed to do. I related a case of mail fraud that was inflicted upon me that resulted in an $8,300 swindle.
I remember going to the police and getting brushed off. They wouldn't listen to me. I didn't know what to do. I was forced to hire a lawyer. He charged me $20,000 and lost. Not only did the con get away with $8,300 (aided and abetted by a lawyer), I had to pay "my" lawyer $20,000 for the privilege of being robbed.
Then, the judge told me I had to pay the person who swindled me $2,500 because I "lost." My lawyer, who dumped me off on another lawyer the day before trial, must have laughed all the way to the bank. When I told him I wanted to appeal, he brushed me off. I went to find an appellate lawyer who said he could take my case, but needed a $25,000 retainer.
I did it myself. I worked on it for one year. When I got to court, there were 30-40 appeals on the docket that morning. One minute into my oral argument, I was cut off. The judgment was "affirmed" and I was out $50,000. (I later saw on the JAIL website the judge who heard my case was sued for Racketeering for throwing cases).
I asked my instructor why the DA or the US Attorney wouldn't prosecute this. He said it was "too small of a case." Then I asked what the "threshold" level was where the US Attorney will begin to listen. He said, somewhere in the $70,000 and up range. He said this with a straight face.
I pondered this answer, and I am really quite upset. What he is saying is that we (i.e. the US government) will prosecute a crime only when the US Attorney wants to, and will act only if you were defrauded out of $70,000 or more.
I realized that all of us poor suckers who actually believed in "equal protection under the law" have been duped. We only get equal protection when we get cheated out of a large enough sum of money to hit the "threshold."
In other words, for the experienced con artist, they realize they have a blank check to rob us, so long as they keep the amounts under $70,000. They know that the US Attorneys and DAs are simply too lazy to act. In other words, if you are rich, then the government will protect you. If not, they won't. I find this double standard offensive.
Monday, September 15, 2003
The Wench Before The Bench
By Attorney Hardy M. Parkerson, email@example.com
The judge ascends his lofty bench,
Calls first case, a lowly wench.
The whore just winks, begins to smile;
She thinks she knows him; it's been a while.
"Why, you're a judge!" the whore exclaims;
"It's been a while ... forgot your name."
The D.A. struggles to choose his terms;
The courtroom giggles, the judge just squirms.
"Order! Order! in this court!"
Cries the judge who sits and snorts.
His face is red, his ears like embers;
That night in the motel he still remembers.
The judge exclaims, "You are confused!"
"No, no, Judge, it was you!
How well I remember the night we met.
Why, Judge, how could I ever forget?"
"Quiet! Quiet! Young lady, if you will;
Mr. Prosecutor, please now read the bill!"
"Judge, I shall, if you insist;
But first please take a look at this."
The judge's head begins to shake.
"A short recess this court will take.
You're free to go, Jury Members.
Defendant will please meet His Honor in Chambers!"
Court resumes, case dismissed.
Defendant blows the judge a kiss.
And whispers, "Mr. D.A., I think we've met."
The D.A. just wipes his brow of sweat.
Throughout the morning the docket moves;
The thief goes to jail, the truant to school.
High from the bench above us all
Such fine men dispense the law.
Attorney Hardy M. Parkerson
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Jim Loose - Texas Justice Press
FORT WORTH -- In a development with stunning implications, a lawyer in Tarrant County, Texas, filed a request for a temporary injunction this week against an individual in a post-divorce child custody action and asked the court to hold the person in contempt of court if Texas Justice Press does not cease publishing his story.
"I don't understand how they can do this," said Brady Sweetland, whose story "A Father's Hell" first appeared in Texas Justice Press in January, 2003. "It seems like they're just going to keep pushing me, no matter how far they have to go. This is an attempt to suppress my freedom of speech and TJP's freedom of the press, isn't it?"
Attorneys for Texas Justice Press answered Mr. Sweetland's question that, yes, they believe it is the most blatant attempt to violate the first amendment since the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 18th century briefly made it a crime to publish true stories that were critical of the government.
Texas Justice Press has obtained copies of the Motion filed by the Law Offices of Robert T. Stites against Mr. Sweetland (the "Respondent") in Texas' Tarrant County 325th District Court. Here, taken directly from the motion filed by attorney John T. Eck from the Law Offices of Robert T. Stites, are the orders the court is requested to make regarding a temporary injunction. Where it deems appropriate TJP will make editorial comments below the requested order.
Order Respondent to direct Texas Justice Press Internet website to immediately remove the posting attached as Exhibit "A." (TJP Comment: Mr. Sweetland is not the owner of TJP and cannot direct TJP to do anything. Mr. Sweetland's story is owned by TJP and has been published as part of TJP's mission to inform the public.)
Enjoin Respondent from posting on the Internet the name and/or picture of the child at issue on any website. (TJP Comment: TJP is not Mr. Sweetland's attorney but it would seem to TJP's editors that a minimum regard for the U.S. Constitution and prevailing law would require that Mr. Sweetland be equally protected under the law. Therefore, for the court to make the requested order, it would likewise have to order that every other adult in America likewise not post on the Internet the name and/or picture of their children. And where in the requested court orders is a similar request that Mr. Sweetland's former spouse be treated the same regarding their child?)
Enjoin Respondent from posting on the Internet the name and/or picture of the Petitioner. (TJP Comment: See above.)
Hold Respondent in contempt if Respondent authorizes the removal and the Texas Justice Press Intenet website does not remove the posting as directed. (TJP Comment: This is worse than unconstitutional, it's blatantly fascistic. No American citizen can be held in contempt for the actions of a third party whom that American does not control. Further, as laid out under the first item above, Mr. Sweetland cannot "authorize" TJP to do anything. The editors of TJP control its content -- not Mr. Sweetland, or the court hearing Mr. Sweetland's case.)
Enjoin Respondent from posting, or allowing someone to post, facts about his case and/or parties on the Internet. (TJP Comment: Again, this is worse than unconstitutional, it's blatantly fascistic. No American can be enjoined from "allowing someone" [a third party] "to post facts about" anything of interest to a third party, especially when that third party is the press. This is a direct request that the court suppress freedom of the press.)
Enjoin Respondent from posting, or allowing someone to post the names and identities of the parties in this case on the Internet. (TJP Comment: See just above.)
Enjoin Respondent from discussing the facts of the case with the news media. (TJP Comment: More naked fascism. Fortunately, the court is bound to be familiar with the abundant case law protecting the right of news organizations to receive and disseminate information. This right of news organizations has been held to trump iffy so-called gag orders in domestic relations cases.)
TJP will continue to follow the case of Mr. Sweetland, who has been interviewed by the Dallas affiliate of ABC, WFAA-TV, for an upcoming news broadcast by the station. The editors of TJP wonder if a similar attempt to suppress freedom of the press will be made against WFAA.
A final note: The request for temporary injunction filed against Mr. Sweetland requests that he pay the attorney fees of John T. Eck and Robert T. Stites. If the readers of Texas Justice Press think it's a bad idea that a fellow citizen such as Mr. Sweetland can be required to defend against an attack on his most fundamental constitutional rights -- and to face the possibility of paying attorney fees for the privilege of fighting the suppression of his rights -- please pass this story along to other people you know. This must stop.
Saturday, June 07, 2003
Subject: My story of injustice with the San Bernardino County Courts
My case began in April 2001. My husband was told that we would be relocating to WI to a new duty station(military). I contacted my ex-husband and asked him for a meeting to work out a solution to the visitation change. After an unsuccessful attempt at working it out with my ex-husband (Hector Antonio del Real JR) I contacted my then attorney (Donna Travis) and had her file the necessary paperwork to request permission to move away (case # SFL 09909).
We were heard before Comm Bobby Vincent on April 2001. We were referred to mediation, which recommended that our son move with me. My ex-husband and his attorney (Matthew Ferguson) then requested a 730 psychiatric evaluation to be done with Dr Bruce Suitor but it was ordered with Dr. Anita Lampel. Dr. Lampels evaluation would not be complete before our scheduled move so my son was allowed to move pending further order of the court.
We moved June 2001. My son flew back to CA in July 2001 for his summer visitation with his father and then returned to me in August to begin school. He completed the school year and did very well. He spent half of the Christmas vacation (1-week) with his father and they maintained at least weekly phone calls, when the father did call. We returned to court for Dr. Lampels recommendation August 2001. Her recommendation found that the child should remain with me in our new home out of state. Father did not like this recommendation and insisted on a trial. We were scheduled for a trial setting conference Sept 5, which was continued several times into April 2002.
In March 2002, my husband (after applying for a promotion) was told that once he got the promotion into this new unit he would be relocating every 1.5 years. I contacted Dad and opposing counsel to advise but told them that we were trying to get out of the situation and would let them know as we knew. I offered Mr. del Real primary physical custody if we could not get out of the order. Mr. Ferguson stated that he would run it by his client but he saw no problem. He asked me to write the offer up and fax it to him so that he could show it to his client and also use it to file with a signed declaration. He informed me that he would write up the contract and forward it to me to sign if needed. This could be notarized and mailed back and he would file it with the court saving me a trip to CA to sign and file it. I agreed. He drew up the paperwork, it was revised two times and the final draft was sent to me to keep. He assured me that since we were still on calendar (which had been continued to await the outcome of our situation) that we would remain on calendar so that we would not have to ask for a new trial date if the situation warranted going ahead with the court hearing. I agreed. We agreed to draw the paperwork to coincide with child's ordered summer visitation with dad so it was drawn up for June 10, 2002.
On said date, Mr. del Real drove to WI and picked up our son for summer break. I informed him that if Steven did indeed end up moving with him, I would forward his things to him at that time. He agreed. We also agreed that Steven would start the first three weeks of the school year in CA so that if he did indeed move with his father, he would have not missed the start of the school year. It was only a three-week session as it was the first track of the year round school year. Steven completed the three weeks and returned to me in July 2002 for the upcoming year, pending further notice.
At the end of July 2002, my husband was informed that we could indeed get out of the unit but he would have to join the open unit that wanted him, in his job class, which was in San Antonio, TX. He would have a permanent station and would be on reserve status (inactive), in addition to being close to family in Texas and being closer to CA to allow for more frequent visitation with dad. So we thought it would be a great thing for us in every aspect. I informed dad, (as I had the entire time regarding our situation) and I also left a message for opposing counsel notifying him of the change, our new location to come, the dates and also the new school info for Steven. I kept a copy of this phone bill to show my call since I reached an answering machine. (I also kept emails of the contact between dad and I regarding our situation and Steven's schooling etc) But I left all of the necessary info on the machine as well as telling him I would write a formal letter for the record describing everything as soon as I arrived in Texas and that we would be continuing with the Sept hearing, which I faxed to him. Steven started school with his cousins in the same school and grade as well as soccer with them. Everyone had settled in nicely and Steven was once again doing great in his studies at school.
I arrived in to court Sept 5, 2002 with no attorney, as I really couldn't afford to keep Donna Travis or retain new counsel. Opposing counsel was being quite helpful and I was under the impression that we were on the same page so to speak. Once I arrived, Mr. Ferguson approached me and handed me ex-parte paperwork for a hearing the next day. In the paper he stated that since we had been in negotiations for an exchange in custody, the fact that I let dad take Steven on June 10 (for the court ordered summer visits) that it constituted a de nova change in custody making me the noncustodial parent and I was keeping child from his custodial parent. He further stated that I had acted in bad faith, had not told either him or dad that it was a proposed agreement and that I had led them to believe that it was a definite change. And that I unilaterally changed his school without discussing it with dad. He failed to recall the emails that dad and I had exchanged, which I kept, proving that dad knew everything and agreed.
Once in the courtroom, I was ordered into chambers against my will with the judge, dad and his attorney. No court reporter present. Mr. Ferguson began to tell his side of the story to the judge, or rather commissioner, whom we had never seen before and never agreed to hear the case. After he was done telling his side of the story, Commissioner Kathleen Bryan began to interrogate me as to why I unilaterally enrolled Steven in school in Texas. And informed me that as a military family, that we cold not provide a good family life for my son. That military life was horrible for children. I tried to speak to at least inform her that we were only reserve military and it was completely different from active military. But I was not allowed to speak. Instead, I was told that in her opinion, I acted disgracefully and that my son should be returned to his proper custodial parent, his father, as I had given up that right verbally and by letting dad take him in the summer.
It was then that the judge decided to appoint minors counsel (Yolanda Garza) and insisted that Ms Garza speak with child that day. I informed Ms Garza that the child was not there, that he was at home in school staying with his grandparents. She was shocked that I had not brought Steven to court, even though I have never been ordered to except for mediation. As matter of fact, we were told not to bring him unless ordered. So I could not understand why she was so surprised that I did not rip him out of school to bring him 2,000 miles to sit with a babysitter on the offchance that I may have to drive 2 hours to pick him up to bring him back to court. She decided to try to reach him by phone at school even though I had informed her that at that time, he would be on his way home on the bus. After finally getting the same answer from the school, she decided to go ahead and make her recommendation anyhow. We were also seen in mediation, again, to receive yet another recommendation that child should stay with me.
We returned back into chambers at 1:30 the next day Sept 6, this time no one was in the courtroom except the parties involved. My husband, my ex-husband and his wife. Not even a court reporter. I was again ordered into chambers against my will, to speak this time with dad's attorney, minors counsel and judge. At that point, minors counsel recommended child stay in Texas with me pending further hearing as did mediator. Commissioner Bryan at that point said that she did not want to make an ex-parte decision until minor's counsel interviewed child although if she had to, she would order child to move to ca with dad. At that point she asked me to have child there Monday at 1:30pm. I informed her that I was flying home late Sunday evening and that not only due to time constraints but especially budget, it would be impossible for me to have him there that quickly. She asked what the soonest day I could have him be there would be. I told her Thursday Sept 12. She then said and I quote "then we will reconvene as soon as the child can get here" I said" it will be hard and I probably will just have to send him out by himself (and she broke in and said that's ok, Iam sure dad can pick him up and you can appear telephonically). I said, ok, I would have him there Thursday. And she said ok, we would reconvene then. We were dismissed and I left although the other members of the meeting remained in the judge's chambers.
I flew home Sunday and started calling new attorneys to hire on Monday. I found one whom I had liked and so on Tuesday had decided to go ahead and retain her. Before I retained her, she wanted to know something about the case so she called the court to ask. In doing so, she found out that orders had been made ex-parte on Monday Sept 9th and since my son was not there, the commissioner awarded sole legal and physical custody to dad and that I was to return child ASAP as I was being brought up on child abduction charges. When the attorney conveyed this info to me, I was mortified. Dad emailed me a copy of the order as well as left a voice message a few days later. On Sept 21, I sent child to CA per the court order. I was not served with the orders until Sept 30, 2002.
We were scheduled for trial setting conference Oct 17, 2002, which was continued to allow me to prepare new counsel (Julie Page). The hearing was set for Dec 12, 2002. We attended the hearing and refused to stipulate to the commissioner Kathleen Bryan as my attorney felt she was prejudiced towards father and prejudiced against military families and against me. We felt she prejudiced the case when she held the hearing and made orders in chambers with an unrepresented person, and no court reporter. We felt that she took advantage of an unrepresented and uninformed person and therefore refused to stipulate to her hearing the case. Despite Mr. Ferguson's lies insisting that we had seen this judge several times in the past, which was proved to be wrong in the court file obviously, we were allowed to be removed from that courtroom.
Unfortunately, we were told that no other judge was available to hear our case that day so we would be continued to Feb, the earliest date on calendar. We stipulated to this and drew up the paperwork to protect my rights of getting visitation in writing for two weeks starting that weekend and continuing through Christmas. I picked Steven up and had him through the weekend and then I returned him Sunday so that he could fly out to us on Monday.
This brings us to the Feb 2003 trial setting conference. We arrived Feb 20 with counsel and a motion to quash the previous order. We were seen this time in dept s-11 before Judge Cynthia Ledwigsen. This judge refused to allow the motion, decided the stipulation we signed in Dec to continue the case to Feb and continue with the orders so that I would be allowed visitation, set forth a new order. So she heard from Yolanda Garza who once again proclaimed her side of being with dad since child was "settled in'. Although he was "settled in" here at home with us (and for the last 11 years with me for that matter) but that didn't seem to matter. When questioned on the date of ex-parte issue, both minors counsel and opposing counsel conveniently agreed that they understood the date of being Sept 9, not 12 as I had agreed to. All of which was irrelevant at this point since the motion was denied. Consequently we were scheduled for another trial setting conference (lord only knows why we have been scheduled so many times none of which have actually happened. Just a ploy to get more fees I think) for June 26, for attorneys to be present and trial for July 3 I think it is. Although I have gotten two letters from opposing counsel stating July 10 so Iam not sure what is going on there. He has a habit of sending me notices of wrong dates, times and departments which I have copies of. I will have to check with the court on the date for sure as it always seems to be getting changed.
So that is where it stands. My last attorney, Julie Page, quit on the day of the last hearing Feb 20. She states she can't continue to represent me in a court that is so corrupt, prejudicial and in the good old boy buddy ring. So I am now unrepresented again, with funds dwindling after paying all of these retainers, fees, travel expenses etc. I don't think that I have been treated fairly or within the bounds of judicial laws. I feel my rights have been violated and I have been denied my due process rights. I was ordered into chambers, against my will, unrepresented without a court reporter, on two occasions. I was denied an Order to Show Cause on the ex-parte. I was denied a meeting with minor's counsel although dad was allowed to meet with her. I have had no evidentiary hearing. I had custody ripped away from me on an ex parte basis with no proof of emergency circumstances. And I had custody ripped away from me without proof of a change in circumstances constituting the necessity for a change.
The courts have failed my son. He is entitled to a decision based on his best interest. They have ripped him out of his school, his home and away from the only family he has known since he was 2. He has been taken away from his siblings, his friends, his family, his extracurricular activities, to be placed with a man he only recently started to form a relationship with. A man who only decided to start involving himself in his child's life when he found out I was moving. Then he took every visitation possible and visited his family members every chance he got and went everywhere he could within those few months period. He saw his family more in those few months than he had in years. All to be able to say they had such a close relationship. Iam sorry but I don't think three month of playing dad makes up for years of neglectful behavior. He is a man who is an admitted drug user and dealer. A man who took this child with him to sell his drugs. A man who frequently neglected him. I have a signed affidavit that was submitted to the court detailing incidents of drug use in the home, with Steven present, times Steven came up missing etc. not to mention the three times the police were involved in returning Steven to me after his father disappeared with him with no permission. This man was accused of molesting his stepsister Louisa del Real and I suspect he had something to do with my son being terrified of anyone going near his genitals when he was age 3, after a two week visit with his father and then girlfriend.
My son's grades have dropped dramatically. He has gone from an "A" honor roll student to a "C" student. I also have found out that he has been absent 9 days this last session because his father took him with him on work-related errands and trips instead of sending him to school. He suffers from ADHD (which ripping him away from his stable family just makes inability to handle change worse in his condition) and since he has been with his father, has suffered an increase in restlessness and inability to concentrate to the point that his medication had to be changed to not only an extended release form but also has had his dose raised.
When I speak with him on the phone, he sounds sad and quiet. As if he is afraid to talk. His father and stepmother sit within earshot and feed him what to say. Or they have him call while he is in the car so they can all hear. He can not talk to me in private and we can't exchange private emails as his stepmother reads them first and decides which one he gets. He calls at 8 PM and says he has not eaten dinner yet. In our home, dinner and homework is done before 6, as his bedtime is 9. He frequently tells me how late he stays out and that he is left home alone a lot while his dad and stepmother work. I on the other hand am a stay at home mom and have never left him alone. He is not very mature at his age and I do not feel he is ready to stay at home alone. Especially for an extended period such as a whole day. I am allowed to speak with him at his father's discretion even though we agreed to Tuesday Thursday and Sunday. Yet he frequently misses his calls and when I try to call, I get no answer, no machine, no nothing. Although his father swears that they have the machine always on and their calls always forwarded to their cellular.
My son was in hysterics the day he left me from his last visit last month. He said that he was not happy at his Dad's and did not want to go back. That he is not allowed to ride bikes or skates etc outside due to the complex rules. That he does not see his grandparents and relatives often as his father claims. That his father and stepmother control his communication with me. That he does not receive some of the things that I send him. And that some of the things he has gotten from me have disappeared. He wanted to know how old he had to be to tell them that he want's to come home. He said he was scared of what his father may do to him if he found out he did not want to live with him. That he would become angry and yell at him, punish him. Everytime we talk, he is so sad and cries because he misses home so much. He is not happy. When I spoke with him last night, he told me that he talked with his therapist and asked her to help him. She responded that she could not address the court with what is going on without telling his father. That terrified him, as he does not want to face his father about this. He says he has told his father that he does not want to live with him and his Dad makes him feel guilty. That he gets angry with him. His father is not interested that his needs are destroying our son, emotionally. He is alienating his son from the only life he has ever known. He is attempting to alienate me from our son and the courts are allowing him to do so.
When I try to bring issues up to the courts, I am not allowed to talk. Or my attorney is talked over by the judge. No one will listen to what we have to say. Everyone seems to be buddy buddy and refuses to listen to us. I was ordered by minor's counsel not to tell my son that I miss him or keep him informed of our families activities and lives. That I am not to discuss anything with my child or ask him how things are going at his fathers. How am I to know if he is being mistreated, abused, or if something is wrong? This is still my child and no matter what the court orders, I still have a responsibility to my child to keep him safe and be informed as to what is going on in his life. Iam not allowed to talk with his teachers or have conferences. I don't even know his teacher's name, let alone be involved in his psychiatric treatment.
There is definitely parental alienation going on on the part of Mr. del Real. I have to ask his father to have a visit with him and his attorney has told me the reason he advises his client to allow me visitation is because it looks better for him in court. So does that mean once court is over, he will never let me see my child? A child I have never harmed or put in danger. A child I have never neglected. A child I have always taken care of and raised to be the wonderful young man that he is. A child I have never been away from for more than 5 weeks since the day I gave birth to him. A child I had to comfort because his father wanted nothing to do with him. What kind of justice is this? I feel that something needs to be done about the actions and corruption inside the San Bernardino family courts. These judges are playing god with people's lives and making decisions that are definitely not in the best interest of the children. This needs to stop before any more innocent families and children are hurt. How many children have to be caught in the crossfire, suffer from emotional problems, be molested or killed before someone sees what is going on?
Please feel free to pass on my story to anyone you may think could help me. Also feel free to contact me.
4435 Stapper Rd
St Hedwig, TX 78152
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
As reported by Jail4judges ...
IN THE COURTS
In November and December 1998, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published a landmark 10-part series by veteran investigative reporter Bill Moushey on prosecutorial misconduct and corruption. The investigative report alleges that Federal agents and prosecutors across the U.S. repeatedly break the law in pursuit of convictions (Bill Moushey, "Win at all Costs: Government misconduct in the name of expedient justice," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reprint of articles from November 22, 23, 24, 29, and December 1, 6, 7, 8 and 13, 1998).
The two-year investigation by Post-Gazette reporter Bill Moushey found numerous examples of prosecutors lying, concealing evidence, distorting the facts, engaging in cover-ups, paying for perjured testimony, and prosecuting innocent people to win guilty pleas and convictions. In addition, the paper reported that Federal officials were rarely punished for their misconduct. The misconduct caused victims to lose their jobs, their assets and even their families, according to the paper.
The U.S. Justice Department denied the allegations. "Our prosecutors live by strict, comprehensive and effective ethical rules," said spokesperson Myron Marlin.
However, the Justice Department is aggressively seeking the repeal of the Citizens Protection Act (P.L. 105-277, Section 801), passed last year in the Omnibus Spending bill, which requires Federal prosecutors to abide by the bar ethics rule in the states in which they work. The measure is scheduled to take effect in April. The Justice Department argues that the new law would deny them important prosecutorial tactics, such as using wiretaps, informants or other undercover techniques against certain types of suspects (Eric Lichtblau, "Justice Dept. Contends Law Would Handcuff Prosecutors," Los Angeles Times (National Edition), February 2, 1999, p. A3).
CHICAGO TRIBUNE FINDS PROSECUTORS BREAKING RULES AND SUBVERTING JUSTICE
A similar 6-part series in the Chicago Tribune found that overzealous prosecutors across the U.S. are skirting ethical rules and subverting justice. The Tribune reviewed thousands of court records and appellate court decisions across the U.S. and found that since 1963 at least 381 defendants have had a homicide conviction dismissed because prosecutors either concealed exculpatory evidence or presented evidence that was untrue. Sixty-seven of those defendants were sentenced to die. None of the prosecutors involved were convicted of criminal charges or banned from practicing law, according to the paper (Ken Armstrong and Maurice Possley, "The verdict: Dishonor," Chicago Tribune, January 8, 1999; Ken Armstrong, "'True patriot' not quite a shining star," Chicago Tribune, January 9, 1999; Maurice Possley and Ken Armstrong, "The flip side of a fair trial," Chicago Tribune, January 11, 1999; Maurice Possley and Ken Armstrong, "Prosecution on trial in DuPage," Chicago Tribune, January 12, 1999; Ken Armstrong and Maurice Possley, "Reversal of fortune," Chicago Tribune, January 13, 1999; Ken Armstrong and Maurice Possley, "Break rules, be promoted," Chicago Tribune, January 14, 1999).
In an editorial, the Dallas Morning News wrote: "Considering the tens of thousands of cases tried nationwide since 1963, the 381 convictions may seem inconsequential. They aren't. Homicide cases account for only a fraction of all criminal cases. No one knows how many aggravated assault, rape and armed robbery trials may have been tainted by unethical conduct." (Editorial, "Wrongful convictions," Dallas Morning News, January 14, 1999).
[Considering that drug cases are the largest category of cases in the criminal justice system (there were 1.5 million drug arrest in 1996, for example) and that 400,000 prisoners are serving sentences for drug convictions, it is probable that many thousands of such cases were "tainted by unethical conduct." Certainly, the cases examined by PBS's Frontline documentary "Snitch" were so tainted. -- RCT]
Thursday, May 01, 2003
Crazy Babies Need Psychiatric Care
Mental Illness Strikes Babies, Too
HealthScout - April 16, 2003
WEDNESDAY, April 16 (HealthScoutNews) -- Babies and toddlers are too young to take Prozac or complain about their childhoods, but psychologists are finding their tender age doesn't protect them from mental illness.
Children under the age of 3 can suffer from symptoms of depression, including disruptions in eating and sleep. In recent years, researchers have discovered the youngest humans can even suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, once thought to be only an illness of adults.
"The picture has totally changed," says Alicia Lieberman, director of the Child Trauma Research Project at San Francisco General Hospital.
Although much of psychology is built upon the influences of childhood, psychologists haven't always paid much attention to the earliest years of a child's life. Only in the late 1960s and 1970s did researchers begin to understand the importance of the relationships between infants and those who take care of them, says Alice Sterling Honig, professor emerita of child development at Syracuse University.
Researchers watched how infants reacted when their parents went to the hospital and found signs of trouble. "First, the little babies would protest enormously and search around frantically," Honig says. "But after a while, they'd go into a despair and withdraw and look listless, with dull eyes, as if they gave up looking for their special person."
Parents who continually fail to create a bond of trust with their babies may doom them to lives of insecurity, Honig adds: "You're not going to have this feeling of trusting that someone is really for you. There's a lot of continuity from infancy all the way to people who [grow up] and ask: 'Do you love me?' 'How come you didn't call me yesterday?' And 'I saw you looking at that woman!'"
Psychologists, of course, can't ask infants how they feel. "We don't put babies on couches," Lieberman says. Instead, they rely on instinct and a guide to symptoms of mental health problems among children up to age 3. The guide, by the infant advocacy group Zero to Three, is similar to the popular DSM-IV, a handbook of psychological disorders among older children and adults.
Even without a guide, many psychologists can detect problems in a baby by just looking at him or her, Lieberman says. Stressed-out babies look "sad, withdrawn, frightened and disorganized."
As young as 4 months, mentally ill babies won't smile or laugh, she says, and they may show signs of stress seen in much older people -- digestive problems and weight loss.
As they get older, toddlers who have been exposed to severe stress reveal the after-effects through "post-traumatic play," Lieberman explains. "Their play is rigid and repetitious. They'll repeat the same thing again and again, going over and over it, and there is no emerging. The child cannot get out of it. He's trying, but he cannot."
While experts think they're getting a better handle on diagnosing mental problems facing very young children, treatment remains a challenge. Without the benefit of drugs or psychotherapy, counselors can only change the lives of infants by convincing their caregivers to do things differently.
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
email for today ...
Subject: The Judge's Mother
My Father was a successful trial attorney. I helped my Mother care for him
for fifteen years. He had a heart condition. His cardiologist was a four hour
drive from where we live. My parents and I traveled many miles together. We
became very close.
My Mom was independent. She took care of her own home and finances with very
little help from me. I was there for her everyday. My sister and three
brothers always appreciated it, until now.
To make a long story short, my sister, who lives in Kansas, kept trying to
put Mom in mental wards. She took Mom to Kansas and admitted Her to a
hospital up there. She tried to tell me that Mom had dementia and I needed to
put her in a nursing home.
I drove to Shawnee Mission Kansas and picked up my Mom. I took my Mom to
Dad's hospital in Columbia Missouri. It is one of the best in the state. The
physicians there ruled out dementia. Mom had acute delirium from the drugs my
sister thought She needed to be taking. It was in Her best clinical interest
to discontinue these drugs. I took Mom home. Her condition improved. After
thirty-three days, She was herself again.
My sister was furious. She petitioned for an ex-parte order of protection, to
keep me from seeing my Mom. Mom's Durable Power of Attorney was revoked
without a hearing. The public administrator was appointed to be Mom's
My oldest brother is the circuit judge and presiding judge where we live.
Associate judges who work in his judicial district signed the orders and then
recused. I cannot find an attorney. I have been told: "it is a railroad job,
it is political, if anyone can do something about this, it is your brother."
The guardian changed my Mother's healthcare. She is back to taking eight to
ten psychotropic drugs a day. They are changed around frequently.
I have certified medical records that prove my Mom does not have dementia.
These records were ignored. My Mom did not have a trial, She did not have an
attorney, She did not have any evidence presented on Her behalf. She did not
have a chance. She is still being treated for a condition that She does not
I have contacted Adult Protective Service in Missouri. They have four open
reports on my Mom. They said that a family member is stopping their
investigations. The county social worker said that they use the court system
to remedy their problems, this time the court system is the problem.
My family is the talk of the town. People tell me to hire an attorney from
northern Missouri. I have tried. I cannot afford anymore.
The public administrator is selling Mom's home for less than market value.
The inventory was two to three million under what it should be. She is
selling stocks. My Mom and Dad lived off of the dividends of these stocks.
I have been allowed to see Mom twice per week, two hours at a time, with one
of my brothers. This brother is waiting for an organ transplant so I hardly
ever get to see Her.
In December, Mom's feet were wrapped in a towel. She was so drugged, all She
would say is: "God help Me." The caregiver said that She had poor
circulation. I removed the towel. She had open sores on Her feet. The
caregiver said that they were from Her shoes being too tight. This put Mom in
a wheelchair, and into the nursing home. Mom told all of us to never put Her
in a nursing home. This is one example of the abuse my Mom has suffered
Dad left Her with more than enough money to live the rest of Her life, any
way She chose to. My brother has taken this away.
I know that your organization is full of members like myself. My brother
sends people to prison every day that would not do this to their own Mother.
I want to know if anyone has a story on a judge that is worse than this one.
Thursday, April 24, 2003
At the height of a political corruption trial, the prosecuting attorney attacked a witness. "Isn't it true," he bellowed, "that you accepted five thousand dollars to compromise this case?"
The witness stared out the window as though he hadn't hear the question.
"Isn't it true that you accepted five thousand dollars to compromise this case?" the lawyer repeated.
The witness still did not respond.
Finally, the judge leaned over and said, "Sir, please answer the question."
"Oh," the startled witness said, "I thought he was talking to you."
To: "Citizens for Legal Responsibility (CLR)"
Subject: Arrest of Brooklyn Judge Is Expected
Gerald Garson said to have exchanged favorable matrimonial rulings for money
By Tom Perrotta
New York Law Journal
A Brooklyn Supreme Court justice is expected to be arrested and arraigned as early as today on charges that he accepted money and gifts in exchange for favorable rulings in matrimonial disputes, court sources said Wednesday.
The imminent indictment of Justice Gerald P. Garson, 70, is tied to an eight-month investigation by the office of Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, one source said.
Justice Garson, a Democrat who was elected to the bench in 1997, would become the second sitting Brooklyn judge in a year to be accused of criminal acts. Last summer, Justice Victor I. Barron pleaded guilty to demanding a bribe in excess of $100,000 and was sentenced to 3 to 9 years in prison, the longest prison sentence ever for an active New York judge.
The investigation into Justice Garson, inspired by a tip from an unidentified citizen in a matrimonial case, uncovered a scheme to steer cases to the judge for payoffs, the source said.
"If you had the right lawyer, you could get [Justice Garson]," the source said. "They stunk up the courthouse."
The extent of the alleged scheme and the amount of money it entailed was unclear Wednesday, though the source said "it seems that was the way business was done in that courtroom."
Sources said as many as seven others, including an unidentified attorney and several court clerks, would likely be arrested in connection with scheme.
Justice Garson will not be charged with bribery, but with "receiving an award for official misconduct," a Class E felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison, sources said.
"I don't think they have an actual bribery case," one source said.
The indictment could lead to the investigation of a large number of Justice Garson's past matrimonial cases for possible misconduct, the source said.
The Brooklyn District Attorney's Office declined to comment. A call to Justice Garson's courtroom went unanswered, and he could not otherwise be reached for comment.
David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration (OCA), said Justice Garson, who is certificated, had been away from court for the last month, taking two weeks of vacation and another two weeks of sick leave.
"By and large his cases have been adjourned," Bookstaver said. He declined to comment further.
Before Justice Garson began serving as a judge in January 1998, he was a partner in Gerber & Garson, a politically connected law firm on Court Street in Brooklyn now known as Gerber & Gerber. The firm developed expertise in handling cases for the city's taxi and limousine industry.
Justice Garson's wife, Robin S. Garson, 49, won a seat as a Civil Court judge last November and began serving in January. His cousin, Michael J. Garson, 53, is also a Supreme Court justice in Brooklyn, sitting in Civil Supreme Court. Sources said Wednesday that neither Justice Garson's wife nor his cousin were believed to be involved in the judge's alleged misconduct.
In the last three years, the Brooklyn judiciary has been beset by various scandals and has drawn stinging criticism from numerous newspaper editorials.
In late 2000, OCA appointed a special inspector general to investigate favoritism by judges who appointed fiduciaries for incompetent or incapacitated persons, leading to recently enacted training requirements for appointees and limits on appointments for former judges and high-level court officials.
A month before Justice Barron pleaded guilty to bribery charges last summer, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Reynold N. Mason was removed from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for ethical breaches. In January 2002, one judge was admonished and another, Justice Richard D. Huttner, was censured for using the prestige and influence of his office in litigation involving the co-op board of his apartment building.
OCA responded to some of those events in February 2002, when it named Ann T. Pfau, a statewide deputy administrative judge, administrative judge for the Brooklyn Supreme Court.
The last time a matrimonial court in New York became tainted by scandal was in 1999, when Steven Singer, then chief clerk for uncontested matrimonial cases in Manhattan Supreme Court, was indicted for taking bribes.
Singer eventually pleaded guilty to accepting bribes over seven years in exchange for speeding cases along and other favors. Two attorneys were also indicted in the scheme but they were not punished, despite Singer's role as a witness against them.
Another service from
Citizens for Legal Responsibility
P.O. Box 232
Morton Grove, IL 60053-0232
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
Although, I rarely see justice carried out in the courts amongst citizens of this country, I heartily praise the ruling delivered by Justice Young ...
THE JUDGE'S SENTENCING OF THE SHOE BOMBER.. Ruling by Judge William Young
U.S. District Court Judge William Young made the following statement in sentencing "shoe bomber" Richard Reid to prison. It is noteworthy, and deserves to be remembered far longer than he predicts. I commend it to you and to anyone you might wish to forward it to.
January 30, 2003 United States vs. Reid. Judge Young: Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.
On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General.
On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other. That's 80 years.
On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed.
The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million.
The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.
The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.
The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.
This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.
We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.
Here in this court , where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice, you are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.
And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.
So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.
In a very real sense Trooper Santigo had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and he said you're no big deal. You're no big deal.
What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you. But as I search this entire record it comes as close to understanding as I know.
It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.
Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.
It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We are about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden, pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.
Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.
The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.
See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. You know it always will.
Custody Mr. Officer. Stand him down.
How much of this Judge's comments did you hear on our TV sets? Please pass this around. Everyone needs to hear what the judge had to say.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Supposedly an official announcement.
The makers of French's Mustard made the following recent statement:
"We at the French's Company wish to put an end to
statements that our product is manufactured in
France. There is no relationship, nor has there ever
been a relationship, between our mustard and the
country of France. Indeed, our mustard is
manufactured in Rochester, NY. The only thing we
have in common is that we are both yellow.
Friday, April 11, 2003
Relative to the war ... A quick story.
An Elite Athlete. By Tom Demerly.
It is dark and Mike Smith's clothing is wet. Mike Smith is an athlete, an elite athlete in fact. He is a triathlete, has done Ironman several times, a couple adventure races and even run the Marathon Des Sables in Morocco- a 152 mile running race through the Sahara done in stages.
Mike has some college, is gifted in foreign languages, reads a lot and has an amazing memory for details. He enjoys travel. He is a quiet guy but a very good athlete. Mike's friends say he has a natural toughness. He can't spend as much time training for triathlons as he'd like to because his job keeps him busy. Especially now. This is Mike's busy season. But he still seems very fit. Even without much training Mike has managed some impressive performances in endurance events.
It's a big night for Mike. He's at work tonight. As I mentioned his clothing is wet, partially from dew, partially from perspiration. He and his four co-workers, Dan, Larry, Pete and Maurice are working on a rooftop at the corner of Jamia St. and Khulafa St. across from Omar Bin Yasir.
Mike is looking through the viewfinder of a British made Pilkington LF25 laser designator. The crosshairs are centered on a ventilation shaft. The shaft is on the roof of The Republican Guard Palace in downtown Baghdad across the Tigris River.
Saddam Hussein is inside, seven floors below, three floors below ground level, attending a crisis meeting.
Mike's co-worker Pete (also an Ironman finisher, Lake Placid, 2000) keys some information into a small laptop computer and hits "burst transmit". The DMDG (Digital Message Device Group) uplinks data to another of Mike's co-workers (this time a man he's never met, but they both work for their Uncle, "Sam") and a fellow athlete, at 21'500 feet above Iraq 15 miles from downtown Baghdad. This man's office is the cockpit of an F-117 stealth fighter. When Mike and Pete's signal is received the man in the airplane leaves his orbit outside Baghdad, turns left, and heads downtown.
Mike has 40 seconds to complete his work for tonight, then he can go for a run.
Mike squeezes the trigger of his LF25 and a dot appears on the ventilator shaft five city blocks and across the river away from him and his co- workers. Mike speaks softly into his microphone; "Target illuminated. Danger close. Danger Close. Danger close. Over."
Seconds later two GBU-24B two thousand pound laser guided, hardened case, delayed fuse "bunker buster" bombs fall free from the F-117. The bombs enter "the funnel" and begin finding their way to the tiny dot projected by Mike's LF25. They glide approximately three miles across the ground and fall four miles on the way to the spot marked by Mike and his friends.
When they reach the ventilator shaft marked by Mike and his friends the two bunker busters enter the roof in a puff of dust and debris. They plow through the first four floors of the building like a two-ton steel telephone pole traveling over 400 m.p.h., tossing desks, ceiling tiles, computers and chairs out the shattering windows. Then they hit the six-foot thick reinforced concrete roof of the bunker. They burrow four more feet and detonate.
The shock wave is transparent but reverberates through the ground to the river where a Doppler wave appears on the surface of the Tigris. When the seismic shock reaches the building Mike is on he levitates an inch off the roof from the concussion.
Then the sound hits. The two explosions are like a simultaneous crack of thunder as the building's walls seem to swell momentarily, then burst apart on an expanding fireball that slowly, eerily, boils above Baghdad casting rotating shadows as the fire climbs into the night. Debris begins to rain; structural steel, chunks of concrete, shards of glass, flaming fabrics and papers.
On the tail of the two laser guided bombs a procession of BGM-109G/TLAM Block IV Enhanced Tomahawks begin their terminal plunge. The laser-guided bombs performed the incision, the GPS and computer guided TLAM Tomahawks complete the operation. In rapid-fire succession the missiles find their mark and riddle the Palace with massive explosions, finishing the job. The earth heaves in a final death convulsion.
Mike's job is done for tonight. Now all he has to do is get home.
Mike and his friends drive an old Mercedes through the streets of Baghdad as the sirens start. They take Jamia to Al Kut, cross Al Kut and go right
(South) on the Expressway out of town. An unsuspecting remote CNN camera mounted on the balcony of the Al Rashid Hotel picks up their vehicle headed out of town. Viewers at home wonder what a car is doing on the street during the beginning of a war. They don't know it is packed with five members of the U.S. Army's SFOD-D, Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta. Delta Force.
Six miles out of town they park their Mercedes on the shoulder, pull their gear out of the trunk and begin to run into the desert night. The moon is nearly full. Instinctively they fan out, on line, in a "lazy 'W'". They run five miles at a brisk pace, good training for this evening, especially with 27 lb. packs on their back. Behind them there is fire on the horizon. Mike and his fellow athletes have a meeting to catch, and they can't be late.
Twenty seven miles out a huge gray 92 foot long insect hurtles 40 feet above the desert at 140 m.p.h. The MH-53J Pave Low III is piloted by another athlete, also a triathlete, named Jim, from Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He is flying to meet Mike.
After running five miles into the desert Mike uses his GPS to confirm his position. He is in the right place at the right time. He removes an infra-red strobe light from his pack and pushes the red button on the bottom of it. It blinks invisibly in the dark. He and his friends form a wide 360 degree circle while waiting for their ride home.
Two miles out Jim in the Pave Low sees Mike's strobe through his night vision goggles. He gently moves the control stick and pulls back on the collective to line up on Mike's infra-red strobe. Mike's ride home is here.
The big Pave Low helicopter flares for landing over the desert and quickly touches down in a swirling tempest of dust. Mike and his friends run up the ramp after their identity is confirmed. Mike counts them up the ramp of the helicopter over the scream of the engines. When he shows the crew chief five fingers the helicopter lifts off and the ramp comes up. The dark gray Pave Low spins in its own length and picks up speed going back the way it came, changing course slightly to avoid detection.
The men and women in our armed forces, especially Special Operations, are often well trained, gifted athletes. All of them, including Mike, would rather be sleeping the night away in anticipation of a long training ride rather than laying on a damp roof in an unfriendly neighborhood guiding bombs to their mark or doing other things we'll never hear about.
Regardless of your opinions about the war, the sacrifices these people are making and the risks they are taking are extraordinary. They believe they are making them on our behalf. Their skills, daring and accomplishments almost always go unspoken. They are truly Elite Athletes.
This arrived in my April 11 email .... It appears to be a growing trend.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
Guest Column: (Legal) corruption in high places
By Barbara Wells
It is disappointing, but not unexpected, to hear that Winnebago County Stateís Attorney Paul Logli suggests that private citizens seek justice by filing civil suits against those accused of violating the law. This pattern repeats itself in federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice. In response to numerous complaints of extortion and embezzlement committed by bankruptcy trustees, the Department of Justice advises victims to hire private attorneys to file civil lawsuits against parties accused of committing federal crimes. Of course, it is impossible to pursue justice in civil court against certain parties, when attorneys refuse cases as a conflict of interest. In addition, lawyers taking civil cases look for the amount of damages. Some white-collar criminals know how to nickel and dime their way into riches by violating numerous victims. This makes it impossible for individual victims to pursue justice through the civil court, because the monetary damage in one case is not enough for an attorney to benefit from one-third of the award.
Our state and federal law enforcement heads are attorneys. They know that civil law seeks monetary damages, and not criminal convictions. They want citizens to think of justice in terms of dollars. This new wave of relinquishing responsibility and passing it to private citizens obstructs justice.
I personally met with an employee of the Attorney Generalís Office for Illinois and mentioned the report of how some obtain their positions through appointment, and then run in elections unopposed due to agreements between the Republican and Democratic parties. The employee for the highest law enforcement office in the state of Illinois replied that such agreements are not illegal. My opinion is that in a nation where citizens have the right to vote, to deny them a choice of candidates is unconstitutional. Itís a legal way of establishing, and retaining, a monarchy.
From the FBI and Department of Justice field office in Rockford, that in my opinion refuses to recognize hate and white-collar crimes, to the Stateís Attorney Office of Winnebago County, we must rememberóthe real dimension of corruption is measured by the number of people and institutions that turn a blind eye and refuse to investigate or correct corruption.
Barbara Wells is an independent researcher investigating judicial corruption.
Copyright 2002 - The Rock River Times
Sunday, April 06, 2003
A man and his ten-year-old son walk into an open air market. The child is amusing himself by
flipping a quarter into the air and catching it in his teeth.
Another patron in the market bumped into the boy and the quarter went right into his mouth and
down his throat where it lodged. The boy immediately began to choke and wheeze. As his face
gets darker, his father tries vainly to pound him on the back to dislodge the quarter. Others
come over to help or offer advice. There is quite a ruckus.
At the coffee bar in the market, there is a very collected looking woman in a dark blue
business suit. Hearing the commotion, she puts her unfinished coffee cup down, folds her
newspaper neatly and lays it on the counter.
Then she gets up, walks unhurriedly to the crowd around the boy, and grips him by the
testicles. She gradually increases the firmness of her grip until she is squeezing quite hard.
Suddenly, the boy coughs up the quarter, which she catches deftly with her other hand. She then
hands the quarter to the father, and walks calmly back to the counter, opens her newspaper and
proceeds to finish her coffee.
The father, after making sure his son is all right, comes over to her and offers profuse
thanks. "I've never seen anyone do anything like that before," he says, "are you a doctor?"
"No," she replies, "a divorce attorney."