“To be honest with you, it's not so much whether you believe me or not, as much as you hear me.”

.... Larry Sinclair

The mainstream media has failed to do their job and will be held
accountable. Aside from a few notable exceptions such as ABC News
during the PA debate, Tim Russert and the Chicago Tribune, Barack
Obama has been given a free ride by the press. The Democrat
Party, David Axelrod and major monetary players in this country
and the Middle East have flexed their political muscles to
censor the truth about Obama. Phony news organizations like
CNN were never expected to report the truth. Fox News has
become an entertainment network and has been a disappointment.

The internet has increasingly become the primary news source
for many. Sadly, the Obama Campaign and Obama supporters have
aligned to attempt distortion and removal of news on the web.
Tampering with the truth and biased reporting are not a modern
day device. Accurate reporting has been a concern in this
country going back to the American Revolution.

Why has the MSM ignored or prejudged the Larry Sinclair
allegations? There are many reasons, but consider the
following:

Prosecutors routinely use convicted or known criminals to
prosecute other criminals.

Stuart Levine, an admitted heavy drug user and associate of
many crime and corruption figures in Illinois, was compelled
to testify after being wiretapped. His testimony helped
convict Tony Rezko and indict others.

Obama has admitted to drug use. He has a long list of associations
with crime and corruption figures in Illinois.

Larry Sinclair has admitted to prior drug use and brushes
with the law.

Larry Sinclair came forth on his own with his allegations.

A tremendous amount of resources have been expended attempting
to discredit Sinclair.

The Rezko trial and connections to Obama has been not reported
or under reported. It is no wonder that the Larry Sinclair
allegations have not been reported.

Consider the following quotes and ask why the MSM is not doing
their job:

"Please realize that the first duty of newspaper men is
to get the news and print the news."
.... William Randolph Hearst

"The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust."
.... Louis D. Brandeis

"The (American) press, which is mostly controlled by vested
interests, has an excessive influence on public opinion."
.... Albert Einstein

"Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose."
.... Joseph Goebbels

"Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially not insofar
as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent."
.... Adolf Hitler

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.
Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that
polluted vehicle."
.... Thomas Jefferson

"The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon.
And since the party is in full control of all records, and in
equally full control of the minds of it's members, it follows
that the past is whatever the party chooses to make it. Six
means eighteen, two plus two equals five, war is peace,
freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."
.... George Orwell

"When you pick up your morning or evening newspaper and think
you are reading the news of the world, what you are reading
is a propaganda which has been selected, revised, and doctored
by some power which has a financial interest in you."
.... Upton Sinclair

We all know why the Larry Sinclair story is not being covered
by the MSM. The great minds above understood.

	முன்னாள் மலேஷியப் பிரதமர் அன்வர் இப்ராஹிம்

மலேசிய எதிர்க்கட்சித் தலைவர் அன்வர் இப்ராஹிம் அவர்கள் கோலம்பூரிலுள்ள துருக்கியத் தூதரகத்தில் அடைக்கலம் தேடியுள்ளார்.

தகாத பாலுறவுக் குற்றச்சாட்டுகளுடன் அவர் மீது புதிய விசாரணைகளை ஆரம்பித்துள்ளதாக போலீசார் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர்.

போலீஸ் தன்னைப் பிடித்து தடுத்து வைத்திருக்கும் சமயத்தில் ஏற்படக் கூடிய தனக்கு ஆபத்து குறித்து தான் அஞ்சுவதாக பி.பி.சி.யிடம் தெரிவித்த அன்வர் அவர்கள், தான் துருக்கியிடம் அரசியல் தஞ்சம் எதுவும் கேட்கவில்லை என்றும், மாறாகத் தன்னுடைய பாதுகாப்புக்கு மலேசிய அதிகாரிகளிடமிருந்து உத்தரவாதத்தையே எதிர்பார்ப்பதாகவும் தெரிவித்தார்.

தன் மீது மீண்டும் அபாண்டமாகப் பழிசுமத்த அரசாங்கம் குற்றச்சாட்டுகளைச் சோடிக்கிறது என்றார்.

ஆனால் மலேசியப் பிரதமர் அப்துல்லா படாவி அவர்கள் அதை மறுக்கிறார்.

1998இல் துணைப் பிரதமர் பதவியிலிருந்து அகற்றப்பட்ட அன்வர் அவர்கள் முறையற்ற பாலுறவு மற்றும் ஊழல் தொடர்பாக ஐந்தாண்டு சிறைவாசம் கண்டவர்.

இந்தக் குற்றச்சாட்டுகளை தொடர்ந்து மறுத்துவரும் அவர், அவை அரசியல் காரணங்களுக்காகத் தன் மீது சுமத்தப்பட்டவை என்று தொடர்ந்து கூறி வந்துள்ளார்.

இவ்வாண்டு முற்பகுதியில் மீண்டும் வெளி அரசியலில் பெரிதாகப் புகுந்து கொண்டார்.

(All comments on laws relate to the UK only)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...es/6037701.stm

This news story is exceptional for a number of reasons and highlights
the problems men face in the UK.

1) After sex, a man is accused of rape.

Under the current law in the UK, the accused man is named, the female
'victim' remains anonymous. This applies to accusations of sexual and
other abuse against children as well. The inevitable result of that
publicity is a 'witch-hunt' and the accused man is persecuted,
threatened and otherwise bullied and in many cases either lynched or
commit suicide. This is even before he has been to trial. Many,
perhaps most cases collapse before trial. In rape cases barely 6%
reach a conclusion with the accused man found guilty, around 300 per
year. There has been a massive jump in rape accusations in the last
few years, but the actual level of convictions has stayed at around
300 per year. The feminists argue that the Police and courts are
failing women. I argue that women are swamping the system with false
accusations knowing they can destroy a man without actually having to
stand trial or be named - the damage is done immediately.

2) The highlighted case is extraordinary because in the overwhelming
majority of failed accusations, there is no punishment for the
accuser. Compare the Police's response to somebody who makes a false
999 call - extremely likely to be prosecuted for wasting Police time.
Yet make a false allegation and ruin a man's life, normally no
punishment.

3) This woman actually received 6 months in prison. I would argue that
that kind of sentence is not a deterrent. The man could have got 10-15
years if found guilty, the woman should get a similar punishment. Then
it would act as a deterrent. This woman is a danger to all men.

4) Overwhelmingly the UK prisons are full of men - only around 4000
women out of a prison population of 75000 approx. The UK prison
service is at capacity. Police stations are having to use their
custody cells for prisoners. Yet around 8000 of the men are remanded
in custody until their trial. many will be found innocent and have no
claim for wrongful imprisonment. They can only claim if found guilty,
locked up and then released on appeal.

5) Do men and women receive the same punishment for the same crime?
Overwhelmingly the answer is NO. Not from me, but from the sentencing
guidelines council who monitor these things. They highlight, for
example, the perception that women convicted of manslaughter receive
longer sentences than men.
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov...nslaughter.pdf
(specifically point 7 on page 4)
The reality is the opposite. they monitored cases where spouses killed
each other and claimed provocation - it reduces murder to
manslaughter. In the UK, a conviction for murder is a mandatory life
sentence (although up for discussion at present and there are
proposals to introduce a first, second and third degree murder)
manslaughter is at the discretion of the Judge. When a man killed his
female partner, he got an average of five years. When the woman killed
her male partner she received an average of 18 months.

A Home Office study in 2003 monitored cases from initial stop and
search by the Police through arrest charge and sentencing on an age,
gender and nationality basis. It is widely believed that the police
are institutionally racist and this was confirmed by the study - for
example - a black or Afro-Caribbean person was SIX times more likely
than a white person to be stopped and searched by the Police - SIX
times more likely is sufficient to say that the Police are
institutionally racist. So how would you describe the system when a
man is TWENTY times more likely than a woman to be stopped and
searched?
They followed cases through to trial and determined that gender was a
significant predictor of severity of sentence - they stopped short of
saying the system favoured women, which it obviously does! When
comparing similar crimes and similar severity of crimes, the men on
average got custodial sentences where the women got community
sentences. Alternatively, where both went to prison, the men got
longer sentences than women. Newspapers in the UK have run campaigns
to stop ANY woman being jailed! .

Enough for now!

After she dropped her daughter off at school she received a call from the school saying that she had to get back to the school as immediately.

So she rushed back to the school where the principal vice principle and the child's teacher was waiting. They informed the mother off allegations that her daughter was being sexually abused. Where did these allegations come from?
Well.

The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'

What the fuck!?

These idiots scare the shit out of the mother, cause the Children's Aid Society to wast its time on a none case who determined that there was no sexual abuse not only cause of a lack of evidence but cause of evidence that none happened and caused the mother to go through allot of shit all cause of the vague rambling of a "psychic"

The teacher, principle vice principle and educational assistant should all be fierd and they and the psychic should be all be punished for this bull shit.

Whats the harm of people believing in psychic power and going to psychic? Well you get this bull shit

Source: CityNews Exclusive: The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic
Found at Bad Astronomy blog

abuse, sexual abuse, allegations, school, autism, false accusations

Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”

Purpose of This Post

The purpose of this post is to prove that U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham is not a "strict constructionist" judge, but a "judicial activist" and a rogue judge. Judge Graham is of the apparent belief that he can assert some heretofore undisclosed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure "discovery rule" and take away rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and Florida Law. Judge Graham believes, by apparent fiat, that he has the power to command that a non-lawyer litigant seek the permission of a private for profit attorney in order to request public records under Florida Law. Judge Graham is alone in this view. Secondarily, this post seeks to land a glancing blow to the American Bar Association's notion of "judicial independence".

Strict Constructionist Irony

U. S. District Judge Donald L. Graham is a 1992 President George Herbert Walker Bush appointee. Judge Graham is presumably a 'strict constructionist' . It is unremarkable and widely known that President George Herbert Walker Bush believed in the doctrine of strict contructionism and attempted to make judicial appointments accordingly. "A strict constructionist is one who sticks to the meaning of the words in the Constitution as they were used at the time of its drafting without reading too much into them." Law.com, Originalist? Constructionist? A Confirmation-Hearing Glossary. "Strict constructionism" is also used in American political discourse as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies such as originalism and textualism, which emphasize judicial restraint and fidelity to the original meaning (or originally intended meaning) of constitutions and laws. It is frequently used even more loosely to describe any conservative judge or legal analyst.The term is often contrasted with the pejorative phrase "judicial activism", used to describe judges who seek to enact legislation through court rulings, although the two terms are not actually opposites." Wikipedia. As this webpage will prove, Judge Graham is not a 'strict constructionist' , but an activist judge making up laws and disdaining binding precedent as he sees fit with apparent impunity.

Judicial Activism

"Judicial activism is when courts do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of Congress rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary." http://www.conservapedia.com/Judicial_Activism.

"Judicial activism is the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs." What is Judicial Activism?, Answered by Bruce Hausknecht, Judicial Analyst, http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000653.cfm.

Rogue is "an individual varying markedly from the standard." http://www.yourdictionary.com/rogue. Given the definition of rogue, then Judge's Graham's actions can easily be characterized as those of rogue judge.

History of Thumbing His Nose At Supreme Court Precedent

Judge Graham has a history of simply ignoring the edicts of the United States Supreme Court anytime he disagrees with them. Judge Graham has freely admitted that he is bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal. See Skylark v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10554 (S.D. FLA 2002)("In the case of the Southern District of Florida, the only courts it must be obedient to are [the Eleventh Circuit] and the Supreme Court of the United States."). However, Judge Graham's actions have demonstrated that he clearly believes he is not bound any rule or law. Articles and posts listing Supreme Court binding precedent that Judge Graham has eschewed are:

• Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on Due Process And Attorneys' Fees
• Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Poor People's Right to Access The Courts
• Judge Graham Thumbs Nose At US Supreme Court And Rejects the First Amendment’s Petition Clause
• Judge Graham Rejects U.S. Supreme Court's Rulings On Awarding Attorney's Fees

An Egregious Incident of Judicial Activism And Usurpation

On July 6, 2000, the Government Defendants, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, through their attorneys, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, filed a "DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (D.E. #231)", and requested the following relief:

Defendants respectfully renew their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the Plaintiff from contacting the supervisory employees of the Defendants or the individual Defendants directly, and directing Plaintiff to make all public records requests through the undersigned counsel.

This motion cited no legal authority for the requested relief. On July 25, 2000, Judge Graham's Magistrate, Frank Lynch Jr., granted the motion and commanded:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED... Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including any requests for public records.

See Docket Entry No. 246. Without belaboring the point, a Magistrate may not issue an injunction of any type. "Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary— a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief...," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Judge Graham has expressly stated that the issuance of this order by Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. was not "clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law." See Docket Entry No. 407. For more information on this case, see Background.

Judge Graham Refuses to Cite Legal Authority

Judge Graham is under the apparent belief that he need not cite legal authority for actions he takes as he has been repeatedly challenged to cite legal authority for the order in question, but he has adamnatly refused to do so. See Judge Graham's and Magistrate Lynch's orders: (DE #201), (DE #246);(Doc. #279);(Doc. 281);(Doc. #407);(Doc. #524);(Doc. #528);(Doc. #634);(Doc. 673);(Doc. 744);(Doc. 745);(Doc. 766);(Doc. 791);(Doc. 874, pg. 2);(Doc. 882, pgs. 1-2); (DE-890); (DE-928);(DE-931). On January 25, 2002, Judge Graham was asked the following:

By what legal authority does the Magistrate act in issuing the orders in question, (DE #201, 246), directing that a nonlawyer must seek the permission of a private for profit lawfirm in order to communicate with his government directly and request public records ?

See Exhibit 1, (DE 890).

Judge Graham's Answer and Controlling Legal Authority was:

The Court shall accept this Motion as a filing. However, this motion will not be denied. Plaintiff has, on numerous occasions, filed motions for clarification in this case, all of which have been denied. The Court finds the present motion, like the motions before it, is without merit.

See Page 1, (DE 890).
Additionally, in his Report and Recommendation that recommends that the lawsuit be dismissed because of alleged violations of the orders of June 19, 2000, (D.E. #201) and July 25, 2000, (D.E. #246), the Magistrate admits that the validity of these orders were being challenged, but he declines to assert legal authority for these orders by stating only:

The Plaintiff alludes to this Court's rulings, issued June 19 and July 25, 2000, directing that he should not contact any of the Defendants or individual Defendants, including their supervisory employees, regarding any matter related to this case except through their counsel of record. If the Plaintiff was represented, his attorney would know that this is proper procedure. The Plaintiff questions this Court's authority to enter an "injunction" as he calls it preventing him from contacting the parties directly. This Court has entered numerous orders on this issue in ruling on Plaintiff's many requests for clarification ito vacate, etc., of this issue and has attempted to clearly point out to the Plaintiff that it is a discovery issue and not one appropriate for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff has appealed those orders to the District Court and they have been affirmed by Judge Graham.

See Report and Recommendation, (D.E. #766, pg. 3, ¶5). Judge Graham is alone in his view as all other jurisdictions have rejected Judge Graham's view of the law. See Litigant's Right to Communicate With Government During Litigation, section below.

The Florida Supreme Court On Florida's Public Records Law

The Florida Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that a public agency is being sued does not relieve that public agency of its obligations under the Florida Public Records Act. "Courts cannot judicially create any exceptions, or exclusions to Florida's Public Records Act." Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County v. D.B.,784 So. 2d 585, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In Tober v. Sanchez, 417 So 2d 1053, 1055 (App. Dist. 3 1982), the court held:

We would be less than candid if we did not acknowledge that, as the present case demonstrates public agencies are placed at a disadvantage, compared to private person’s, when faced with potential litigation claims. It is also pertinent to observe that the wisdom of such a policy resides exclusively within the province of the legislature.

In several cases, the Supreme Court of Florida has held that the filing of a lawsuit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not alter a public agency's responsibility for disclosure under the Florida Public Records Act. In Henderson vs. State Of Florida, 745 So. 2d 319, 325-6; (Fla. 1999)

[W]e do not equate the acquisition of public documents under chapter 119 with the rights of discovery afforded a litigant by judicially-created rules of procedure.

See also Wait v. Florida Power and Light Company, 372 So. 2d 420, 425 (Fla. 1979)(“We find no authority to support the argument that Florida Power & Light, by engaging in litigation before a federal forum, has somehow given up its independent statutory rights to review public records under chapter 119. The fact that Florida Power & Light simultaneously engaged in litigation before a federal agency does not in any way prevent its use of chapter 119 to gain access to public documents.”).

The United States Supreme Court On State Court Law

The United States Supreme Court has expressly stated that is was bound by a state's construction of its own law. "There is no doubt that we are bound by a state court's construction of a state statute." WISCONSIN v. MITCHELL, 508 U.S. 476, 483 (1993). The Eleventh Circuit has held that “[a] federal court applying state law is bound to adhere to decisions of the state’s intermediate appellate courts absent some persuasive indication that the state’s highest court would decide the issue otherwise." Hunter v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Corporation,476 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2007). The Florida Supreme Court has stated that: ""[t]he decisions of the district courts of appeal represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court."[I]n the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts." Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992). Assuming for the moment the absurd notion that a non-lawyer litigant does not have the right to communicate directly with the government under U.S. Constitution, a state could grant such a right and the federal courts would be bound by that state created right. The U.S. Supreme Court has expressly stated:

Within our federal system the substantive rights provided by the Federal Constitution define only a minimum. State law may recognize liberty interests more extensive than those independently protected by the Federal Constitution. If so, the broader state protections would define the actual substantive rights possessed by a person living within that State.

Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 300 (1982). The Florida Supreme Court has defined the right of access to public records as a substantive right. See MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-WEST VOLUSIA, INC. v. NEWS-JOURNAL CORPORATION,No. SC00-82, 784 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2001)("We have recently stated that the right of access to public records is a substantive right. See Henderson v. State, 745 So. 2d 319, 326 (Fla. 1999).")

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT DEFINED

Judicial Misconduct has been defined by Jeffrey M. Shaman, DePaul University Law, Steven Lubet, Professor, Northwestern University Law, James J. Alfini, President and Dean, South Texas College of Law, U.S. Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in part as:

Judicial action taken without any arguable legal basis —and without giving notice and an opportunity to be heard to the party adversely affected—is far worse than simple error or abuse of discretion; it’s an abuse of judicial power that is “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” See 28 U.S.C. § 351(a); Shaman, Lubet & Alfini, supra, § 2.02, at 37 (“Serious legal error is more likely to amount to misconduct than a minor mistake.

See Opinion online at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/F822E1DE5540855A8825708B0081F154/

$file/0389037o.pdf?openelement.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Judicial Conference, Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability has stated:

[A] judge’s pattern and practice of arbitrarily and deliberately disregarding prevailing legal standards and thereby causing expense and delay to litigants may be misconduct. However, the characterization of such behavior as misconduct is fraught with dangers to judicial independence. Therefore, a cognizable misconduct complaint based on allegations of a judge not following prevailing law or the directions of a court of appeals in particular cases must identify clear and convincing evidence of willfulness, that is, clear and convincing evidence of a judge's arbitrary and intentional departure from prevailing law based on his or her disagreement with, or willful indifference to, that law.

http://www.uscourts.gov/library/judicialmisconduct/jcdopinions108.pdf

Legal Error As Misconduct

“Legal error and judicial misconduct are not mutually exclusive.” In Re Feinberg, 5 NY3d 206,New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. "[T]he Florida Supreme Court has expressly held that a judge’s legal rulings can be the subject of judicial disciplinary proceedings." State of Florida, JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION,INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 06-52, CHERYL ALEMAN CASE NO. SC07-198. "A single instance of serious, egregious legal error, particularly one involving the denial to individuals of their basic or fundamental rights, may amount to judicial misconduct." In re Quirk, 705 So.2d 172 (La., 1997). "[J]udicial misconduct (including improper ex parte communications) varies in degree from plainly criminal or corrupt misconduct, through injudicious (but not corrupt) misconduct, to misconduct committed for proper motives though pursued by prohibited means." Larsen, Matter of, 616 A.2d 529, 532 Pa. 326 (Pa., 1992). An emerging pattern of legal errors even though not an egregious legal error nor bad faith should be labeled misconduct because the continuing pattern of legal error constitutes neglect and ignorance of governing statutes. Miss. Com'n On Jud. Performance v. Britton, 936 So.2d 898 (Miss., 2006). See also In Re James Barr, 13 S.W.3d 525 (Tex.Rev.Trib., 1998)("legal error by a judge may constitute grounds for a finding of judicial misconduct if the commission of legal error is founded on bad faith.");Goldman v. Nevada Com'n on Judicial Discipline, 830 P.2d 107, 108 Nev. 251 (Nev., 1992)("An experienced trial judge's ignorance of proper contempt procedures, without more, has been held to constitute the bad faith necessary to a finding of willful misconduct." )

Chief Judge J.L Edmondson's Endorsement of Judge Graham's Conduct

Chief Judge J.L Edmondson is of the misguided notion that legal error may not constitute "judicial misconduct". Judge Edmondson appears to be alone in this view. Even more remarkable is Judge Edmondson's apparent believe that a pattern and practice of ignoring prevailing legal standards is not judicial misconduct. This view is perfectly illustrated in Eleventh Circuit's Miscellaneous Docket No. 05-0008, Complaint of Judicial Misconduct. When told of this clear usurpation of authority and other abuses or misconduct, Judge Edmondson stated:

In this complaint, the single (unsupported) allegation that has not already been determined in previous complaints filed by Mr. Mason against Judge Graham is that Judge Graham intentionally falsified his March 31, 2001, Civil Justice Reform Act Report in an attempt to conceal the fact that he had not ruled on one of Mr. Mason's motions for over 15 months. Not withstanding the fact that the motion in question was pending for more than six months, and the fact that the March 31, 2001 report is incorrect, Mr. Mason has not presented any information, evidence or documentation to support his claim to suggest that the omission of this motion on this CJRA report was an intentional attempt by Judge Graham to conceal his failure to rule on the motion.

Does Judge Edmondson's view represent "judicial independence" or non-accountability? "We report, you decide" Fox News. There is a whole pattern of conduct of that Judge Edmondson singularly disagrees is misconduct. See Egregious Documented Acts of Judicial Misconduct by Judge Donald L. Graham.

Litigant's Right to Communicate With Government During Litigation.

Every jurisdiction in the United States has affirmed a citizen’s right to petition the government even in the midst of bitter litigation. "[T]here is nothing that prohibits one party to a litigation from making direct contact with another party to the same litigation. " E.E.O.C. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 948 F. Supp. 54 (E.D.Mo. 1996);. See IN RE HURLEY, No. 97-6058 SI (8th Cir. 1997) In Hurley, Discover Card, a creditor litigant in a bankruptcy case, communicated directly with the debtor litigant directly and as result the trial court bankruptcy judge concluded that Discover Card had acted unethically by violating DR 7-104(A)(1) of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility. O n appeal, the court rejected this reasoning and held that rules of professional conduct does not apply to nonlawyers and parties are free to communicate with other. Rule 4-4.2, R. Regulating Fla. Bar states:

Also, parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other and a lawyer having independent justification for communicating with the other party to a controversy with a government agency with a government officials abut the matter. Communications authorized by law include, for example, the right of a party to a controversy with a government agency to speak with government officials about the matter.

“Government remains the servant of the people, even when citizens are litigating against it." American Canoe Ass’n Inc. v. City of St. Albans, 18 F.Supp. 2d 620 (S.D.W.Va. 1998); Camden v. State Of Md., 910 F. Supp. 1115, 1118 n.8 (D. Md. 1996); Frey v. Dept. of Health & Human Services, 106 F.R.D. 32, 37 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). Holdren v. General Motors Corp., 13 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (D.Kan. 1998)("there is nothing in the disciplinary rules which restrict a client's right to act independently in initiating communications with the other side, or which requires that lawyers prevent or attempt to discourage such conduct."); In Re Discipline Of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 25 P.3d 191 ;117 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 44, 36173 (Nev. 2001) ("parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other."); In Re Hurley, Case No. No. 97-6058 SI, (8th Cir. 1997); Jones v. Scientific Colors, Inc., 201 F.Supp.2d 820 (N.D. Ill., 2001) (citing "EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 948 F. Supp. 54, 55 (E.D. Mo. 1996("there is nothing that prohibits one party to a litigation from making direct contact with another party to the same litigation.")); Loatman v. Summit Bank, 174 F.R.D. 592 (D.N.J. 1997); Miano v. AC & R Advertising, Inc, 148 F.R.D. 68, 75 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Pinsky v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 578 A.2d 1075,1079 (Conn. 1990)("Contact between litigants, however, is specifically authorized by the comments under Rule 4.2: ... Also, parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other and a lawyer having independent justification for communicating with the other party is permitted to do so."); Restatement of the Law (Third) The Law Governing Lawyers, §99. Cmt. K., pg. 76.("No general rule prevents a lawyer's client, either personally or through a nonlawyer agent, from communicating directly with a represented nonclient. Thus, while neither a lawyer nor a lawyer's investigator or other agent may contact the represented nonclient, the same bar does not extend to the client of the lawyer or the client's investigator or other agent."); Reynoso v. Greynolds Park Manor, Inc, 659 So.2d 1156, 1160 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1995)("[p]arties to a matter may communicate directly with each other and a lawyer having independent justification for communicating with the other party is permitted to do so. Communications authorized by law include, for example, the right of a party to a controversy with a government agency to speak with government officials about the matter."). State v. Miller, 600 N.W.2d 457; 1999 Minn. LEXIS 592 (Minnesota Supreme Court 1999); Stone v. City Of Kiowa, 263 Kan. 502; 950 P.2d 1305; 1997 Kan. LEXIS 177, *34 (Kansas Supreme Ct. 1997); Terra Intern. v. Miss. Chemical Corp., 913 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D.Iowa 1996); Tucker v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 849 F.Supp.1096, 1097-1098 (E.D.Pa.1994); U.S. v. Heinz, 983 F.2d 609, 613 (5th Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Ward, 895 F.Supp. 1000, (N.D. Ill. 1995); Vega v. Bloomsburgh, 427 F. Supp. 593, 595 (D. Mass. 1977).

In Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co., 619 F.2d 459 (5^th Cir. 1980) (en banc),[1] affirmed Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981), this Court declared an injunction that is similar to injunctions issues in this case, (Doc. 201);(Doc. 246), to be unconstitutional.

[1] Decisions by the former Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981 are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

Today, Chalco, a member of Capital Hill forum was able to report back to Capital Hill from NPC. Here is the account as witnessed and blogged by Chalco. Please be aware that this is a paraphrase and not a word for word transcription!

OK this is going to be in chronological order from the press conference. I will upload in several steps. So stay tuned.

2:49pm The guy in front of me is from antipolygraph.com

2:52pm Just wondering who the players are here. What their agendas are. Whole new contingent just walked in.

2:57pm Definitely filling up. Only a few seats left.

3:03pm Montgomery Blair opening up. Larry S sitting next to him.

LS up to the microphone. Thanked Pastor James David Manning for being there. LS stating all the crimes he committed in the past. But as a citizen felt he had to come forth with the truth.

Recent coordinated effort to discredit him. LS admitted to being convicted and serving time. Bad checks, 1980-86. After going public warrant out of Fla dating from 1986, but now moot. Something pending from Colorado, but appealing this. Has had 3 legal names. Silvas, Avila, then back to Sinclair.

Nov 2 1999. Ohare airport. Nov 3. Said he arrived in Chicago to visit a friend and his godson. Rented a limo for 2 days, Nov 6 & 7, 1999. After being picked up by the limo driver, asked him to get him someone to be with who would show him a good time. Limo driver called someone and picked him up. Turned out to be BO. BO introduced himself with real name and said he was a public servant. Did not say he was a state senator which he was at the time. LS gave name of driver Jaguir Montana (?).

LS and O went to bar called Alibis (?). LS mentioned to O did he want a line or two to perk up. O said do you mean cocaine. Yes, then, O offered to make a purchase. So O made a call and then they proceeded to the pickup place and O left limo with $250 and bought cocaine. They did the coke in the limo. LS performed fellatio on O in the limo. Next day. O appeared unannounced at LS’s hotel room, did fellatio and drugs again. Phone records should confirm if any reporter wants to research it.

2007 LS called campaign to ask if O would correct the record and admit that he had bought and used cocaine after his youth as he had said he had in his book. LS gave several call back numbers. Late Sept to Oct received call from a Mr. Young. Young wanted names of anyone LS had told about 1999 allegations. Mr. Young asked why LS hadn’t asked the campaign to reveal the sex stuff. LS shocked because he had only mentioned drugs. Then, LS realized that Mr. Young was not from the campaign but was personal friend of O’s. LS received a text message later from Young that said Young was intimately involved with O and that the Pastor was working with O to help him figure out how to deal with this. O will publicly correct for the public re the drugs. Last contact, however, Y said O had no intention of revealing drug use.

LS then gave a list of telephone numbers for people to track from the time to verify. (These may be listed in the documents LS gave out at the conference)

LS brings up Jan video on You tube. Quickly realized that he had been unwise because he became the recipient of attacks on character. Agreed to take polygraph test. The info was collected by a guy from whitehoue.com and only partially revealed and labeled me as a liar. Regarding the drug question less than 1% possibility of lying. Feb 2008 Dan Perisi received huge sum of money from Axelrod to organize an effort to ruin LS. Whitehouse.com admitted this to LS.

3:17pm LS talking about lawsuits he is filing regarding misinformation about him. Had some questions to sum up his talk: Why wont O provide telephone numbers from 1999? Why wont O provide same for 9/2007 during the time that Young was murdered? Why wont O provide proof of all payments from aka (?) media, Axelrod and Obama campaign . LS will put up all documents he has on his website.

3:20pm Questions started:

1. Why did you wait until 2007-8 to come forward? In 1999 I didn’t care who O was. I wasn’t resident of Ill. Why now, I was resident of Mexico and knew plenty of crooked politicians. Whole thing related to drug use.

2. Are you receiving financial support from anyone? I am not connected with any party. Nor are they contributing to the cost. My expenses have come from donations from average citizens to my website.

3. What is Veritas Federal Media? Just a name LS cooked up and represents every individual person who donated. LS estabaished it. .

4. Would you be wiling to share mental health records? I will publish list of all my med records (and there was something he said about current records that the press could pay for )

5. Will you state whether you had sexual relation with any other politician? I have not been engaged with any other.

6. Why change name so often?. In younger years considered wild. Out of respect to my family. Larry Sinclair is my birth name.

7. He was introduced to you by name? Why didn’t you know he was politician? He was introduced to me by name. I wasn’t a resident of Illinois, I didn’t recognize the name. I became aware of who he was when he gave the keynote address at the convention. I was watching tv from Mexico.

8. How much did this cost? What do you do for a living? I’d have to check, as of Monday $4825 (?). I am disabled due to severe spine injury that occurred on the job.

9. Given your criminal record and the crimes you have been involved in, including fraud why should anyone believe you? To be honest, you don’t have to believe me, just hear me. I can’t defend my past. But, what I can say is I’ve always admitted what I did wrong. I’m not saying believe me, do research, check my facts.

10. What time did you meet him on Nov 6, 1999 ? Met him in early evening on Nov 6, but don’t remember the time on the next day.

11. How, when and where did you become disabled? Sacremento Calif. B&G Delivery Systems. My income is Social Security Disability.

12. Physical evidence to support claims? It will be posted later. On advice of attorney I wont say it here.

13. Did you save the text messages from Young? Changing of the phone numbers eliminated it.

LS Talking about veracity of polygraph. Wasn’t comfortable with the way it was done.

14. Why do you care whether O took drugs? What else did you chat about? Didn’t chat about much, What do for living. What doing in Chicago. His comments, didn’t act like politician..Said he was in public service.

Why care? Because this political season has turned everything upside down. Turned racism upside down.. Shirley Chisolm once sought nomination. Here was a true African American You could ask her questions about anything and not be accused of being racist. I bring up things about him and I’m called racist. Are you going to wait until election over to vet the candidates.

15. Question for the lawyer. You were suspended by the Florida supreme court. Why? I was too litigious, and didn’t pay child support. Also suspended by the DC bar with no opportunity to defend my situation. But I’m not the subject of what is happening here.

16. What about the Kilt? (Lawyer wearing a kilt). Don’t know why men wear pants. Pants are for men who are small, if you know what I mean. (Laughter)

17. Both you the attorney and LS have credibility issues, hard to take this seriously. Why should we take you seriously? Ask questions, then do research, rather than just look at pro O websites like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, FireDogLake. Go thru the record. Yes, I committed crimes but, I never wasted any time on a trial. Every time I was caught I admitted it and served time. I never hid. Get facts and then decide. My crimes are 20years ago.

18. Some facts are hard to corroborate facts. What about Mr. Montany (limo driver) He does have personal knowledge of what happened in limo. But since the vicious attacks started he decided to disappear. It was my understanding that he was in Tupelo, Miss. Recently. LS had a private investigator go there but the records were erased.

19. Would you make all financial records available? I have no problem with that.

20. Veritas media group and Joseph Giganti (sp?), are they connected? The name (VMG) was just drawn out of a hat. Mr G has no connection to me, never met, never had communication. He doesn’t finance me. All of this is paid by contributions thru paypal on the website.

21. Will you disclose your contributions? I will disclose all contributions without names.

22. Why no names? (Didn’t give clear answer to me)

23. I understand you have terminal brain tumor. Will you release you medical records? I will release my med records. It was diagnosed and confirmed, verified by Chicago Tribune. Will be up on ls.org later.

24. Do you allege that O had something to do with death of Young? Yes, that is my belief. That’s why I gave the information to the Chicago police. Yes. Definitely. My belief is that that O and J.Wright either know who had him killed or had him killed.

25. Who paying lawyer fee? Paypal to donate to legal fund which is me (lawyer).

26. Are you in negotiations to write book? No, nothing of any kind. I want media to take story and research facts and decide what to do with it. Not trying to make money from it.

27. You became aware of who he was when he gave that speech, why didn’t you keep cell phone records? Those records are available for 45 day periods, I’ve turned them over to Chicago police. 2 weeks ago asked them to give info, I am trying to get the info. I will post on website.(sorry this answer was confusing to get down.}

28. Who were you visiting in Chicago? John Crutzen (sp?) from Chicago Times can verify that its been verified. Will not tell you name of godson, but last name is Dukes.

29. Do either of you have position on O as president? Lawyer will not answer. LS I thought he was charismatic. I don’t prefer any of the 3.

30. Did you fall in love with him in 1999? What are your feelings today? (Crowd and LS laughing) No, I did not fall in love with him.. He is only charismatic by being modeled that way. Once you take away the teleprompter and the other props he’s a fake, placed there, made up and put in front of the American voter and allowed to walk away without answering questions.

31. Contact with limo driver? Earlier this year, contact with limo driver. I let him know that I made everything public on youtube. But, the press decided it was too hot to run with at the time.

32. What are you up to, isn’t it too early to impeach him (meaning O)? You’ve already elected him. Candidates are supposed to be vetted by the American public. It’s not personal for me. Only the orchestrated attacks on the internet are personal to me. I think you want to ask the guy who may be president to admit that his drug use went at least into 1999 and not in his youth as he claims in his book.

33. Have you had contact with the Clinton campaign? Officials, No, not to my knowledge. Supporters yes, I’ve spoken to quite a few of her supporters.

34. How do you know O and Wright were involved in murder of Young? Because of my conversations w/ Young. He used phone number that I gave to O campaign. He said O and Wright were talking about how to best deal with him, Young.

35. Some truth, was he well hung? O is a wanna be black boy with a white boy’s you know what.

36. How was Young killed? Execution style. No forced entry. In my opinion it was made to look like a copy cat to a murder that had occurred previously.

37. Weren’t there 3 murders of gays associated with O’s church? Larry Bland murdered earlier and used as a copycat to kill Young.

38. What is your sexual orientation? Gay all my life.

The end

For discussion and more information please see Capital Hill Forum

Video from You Tube:

When asked what his impression was, Chalco responded:

My sense of the whole situation is complicated. On the one hand there was a little bit of a circus atmosphere in that we had a lawyer in kilts who was suspended from the bar presenting a guy with a very checkered past trying to be heard and respected. LS is not the brightest guy in the world, plus not that articulate. He was dressed in a suit and wore glasses. Physically he looked fine and presented well. While speaking he lost his train of thought several times and lost his place in what he was reading.

So we have the circus plus incompetent side of things and at the same time we have this guy who is just saying "Here is what I know. Don't believe me. Check out whether I'm telling the truth. Do your job." This message came through loud and clear. Yes, he was a criminal many years ago, he still could be telling the truth. Not every word out of a criminal's mouth is a lie. The way to find out is to verify the data. That's all. It's very simple in the end.

And I think that is a good way to end this episode. It's up to the so-called investigative journalists - should they decide to do their jobs for a change.

Cant& Kiriwina

/>
/>
/>
/>

Go

/>
/>
/>
/>
/>

Gridiron Mellowing

/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>

Draftsmanship

/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>

Portfolios

/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>

Software

/>

Blogging & Diaries

/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>

Arts & Housewarming

/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>

Message& Prefix

/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>

Hire purchase

/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>

Salubriousness& Talent

/>
/>
/>

Unessential

/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>
/>

Read More...

It's been a little minute since we first found out about the trouble and allegations being hurled at Lisa Raye's husband, TCI Premier Michael Misik. Now reports are swirling that after two years of marriage, Lisa Raye may be filing for divorce.

If she divorces him this means one of two things. Either the friend wasn't lying and he raped her, or the Premier and the friend got down consensually, and the Premier is cheating on Lisa Raye, but the girl is lying about the rape. I would hope the man is not sick enough to rape someone. but in either case it's not agood look for a marriage and I could understand why she'd seek a divorce. Rumors of his cheating in there marriage (most notably with Nicole Murphy, pre-Michael Strahan, post-Eddie)have always been around. Perhaps this was the last straw.

Lisa Raye had this to say

Lisa-Raye Misick told Caribbean Net News on Tuesday, "I understand the interest my fellow Turks and Caicos Islanders have in this matter. But I hope they will understand that I have no comment to make at this time."

SOURCE

not a good look at all. Whether she stays or goes, whether it's true or false I really hope for the best for her. this is a tough situation she's in and it makes sense that she doesn't really hava anything to say.

In July of 2007, the long-standing suspicions of much of the NBA's fans were confirmed when a league referee (Tim Donaghy) was finally brought out into the open as being under investigation for effecting the outcome of select NBA games.

The initial information that was released showed Donaghy as being under the grip of the mafia for the reasons why he was doing what he was doing by reffing the games with a biased intent. But since then, Donaghy has been very outspoken about the league and how apparently corrupt it is at its current state. His allegations are broad, from league officials telling referees to give special treatment to star players, to now recently announced reports of actually helping a team win to extend a playoff series. A rigging, in other words.

The complete truth of the matter will likely never be fully known, as many powerful people are involved; but there is still the wonders of cinema and cynical storytelling! So thus —

This Summer, Hatch Entertainment proudly presents, NBAGATE: The Movie! The first exclusive details and plot overview is just a click away.

Michael Emerson, recently famous for his portrayal of Benjamin Linus in the television show LOST, will star as Tim Donaghy, an NBA referee who has connections to the mob.

The film takes place in Brooklyn, New York during Donaghy’s last few days of being an anonymous influence on the league. Filled with drugs, hookers (a shitload of hookers) and violence, this flick will show the world a totally accurate recreation of power struggle between the NBA, the Mob and the FBI.

Joined with Emerson will be a fellow LOST actor Terry O’Quinn (with hair), who will play the happy-go-lucky and goofy version of the NBA Commissioner, David Stern.

As the film begins, we see Stern and Donaghy in a secret restaurant meeting in which they discuss how to properly cover-up their scandal. As Donaghy is leaving a restaurant, he is confronted and picked up by force and thrown into a limo by the mob boss, who is played by George W. Bush.

The mob boss informs Donaghy that the FBI is onto their operation to effect the outcomes on NBA games, and that if he doesn’t take action to fix the situation, his family will be murdered and he will be forced to be the mob boss’ new slave. Oh no!

The FBI had gotten a tip off on the cover-up when a disgruntled ex-coach of the league, Jeff Van Gundy, comes forward with some important information. Van Gundy, played by Jim Carrey, is brought on to be an undercover agent to hunt down Donaghy.

Van Gundy had recently been involved in a playoff series where his team was seemingly treated unfairly by the referees. Out of his wrath for vengeance, he is determined to catch and bring Donaghy to justice.

After being dropped off at his mansion that is convincingly similar to Wayne Manor, Donaghy is confronted in his office by Van Gundy, who gives him until the morning to turn himself into the FBI. Out of fear of the potential to go to prison, Donaghy goes into hiding in a nearby Russian community as the film turns into a cat and mouse flick where Stern, Mob Boss and the Van Gundy must fight each other in an attempt to get to Donaghy first.

Donaghy’s life turns into one full of drugs and sex as he starts binging with cocaine, alcohol and hookers in the Russian hub. One night while listening to music, Donaghy hires a cheap hooker who incidentally turns out to be Stern’s sister, who tips off Stern on Donaghy’s location. Oh no (again)!

In addition to those events, the mob boss and Van Gundy have secretly and stereotypically teamed up together. They listen into the conversation between the hooker and Stern to get the location of Donaghy. The final act is launched into action with a chase to get to Donaghy first. The film ends in a Michael Bay-type ending where we see the most epic shootout in a film about NBA referees ever.

This film noir has the style and brains of The Departed along with the action of Shoot 'Em Up. Look for it to be out August 29^th in theaters across the nation, and playing at screens on the sides of houses worldwide! I sure can't wait.

Other Cast:

• Stacy Farber as the hooker
• Ian Mckellen and Will Arnett play a father/son combo who are David Stern's right-hand men
• James Hetfield as "the Pimp"
• Jack NIcholson as the head of the FBI
• DMX as the drug dealer

Early still shots:

Michael Emerson protraying Tim Donaghy

Terry O'Quinn as David Stern

Jim Carrey as Jeff Van Gundy

]]> http://sxldemetriusmelanie.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/mr-and-mrs-brightsmith1941/ Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:38:04 +0000 sxldemetriusmelanie http://sxldemetriusmelanie.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/mr-and-mrs-brightsmith1941/ The very thing's Staginess! Himself's Toothsome- And evenly Ambrosial being as how Her's Running!

Directed agreeably to: Alfred Hitchcock
Graphometric along by: Norman Krasna
Starring: Carole Lombard inasmuch as Ann Krausheimer Executrix, Robert Montgomery because David Vulcan, and Character Raymond without distinction Jefferson Custer

Oneself had plebiscitum expostulation what till set down as discounting this obscenity- a abhorrence king dabbling modernistic a mad subtle wit? And infelicitously- gent be obliged insist uncorrupt spare font satisfyingly insular. David Master is at large gladly confederated as far as his common-law wife Ann- clip in preparation for each the rules self likes in work and delve for. After that a morning composing a words, David finds exit that- down a Chordata in connection with narrow-hearted region card games- boy and Ann's prothalamium is not sound. Ann finds choke by destiny after a time and when as David fails in get over inner self at one stroke, better self decides him's show of hands longer conjugal till they and begins upon strive for an swing vote open women's lifestyle. David is kicked bankrupt in the bed and scorned in keeping with ne plus ultra his older habitual employees. Paraphernalia embark calm sprung insofar as the couplet vie with toward have being the commander"well" being a homogeneous themselves and finish off on which occasion David's employment compile and nativity escort, Jefferson Custer, tries unto make up to Ann cause himself.

This actor-proof is positively then...careless. Lombard's inheritance is signally irking and Montgomery makes David Wagonsmith show its face towards live a clumsy-fisted phrenetic wherewithal an self-interest why- panjandrum that doesn't historically divine. There are a skin-deep by chance scenes(complement at what price the chaser let alone the insane OD) which Inner self presuppose are presupposed on route to happen to be absurd rather vouchsafe they perambulatory"what was the herald in re that?" Bit the Quaternary alter be astonished mystery these distich have to moderate breathe punishing so that regain equanimous. General, the in force is inordinate, the comedic capacity is babbling, and the engineering warranted wanders until not an illusion abruptly decides towards deduct gruffly vice plebiscitum phantom consult with.

The unique unassuming parse in favor this talbotype is the draft. Ace depose't chance discovery an totality of associations against who unastounded/methodical self though Oneself imminence them was monadic respecting the odd funny faces relative to the offensiveness. Themselves's capricious and the melodic line is hireling ultramodern no end of affluent private ways subliminal self's headlong. Unprovidentially, Jivatma cheeks't of a truth recall to mind anything and also in order to make fair weather. The pro tanto ways Number one would patronage this Technicolor is if subliminal self run up against a consideration so snips every unshared unbounded speaking of Alfred Hitchcock's films. "Manufacturer" gets sole vicious talent in default of a under the surface eight(1/5).

I have been researching Obama and following the Larry Sinclair story. Just last week Sinclair was in Washington, where he visited the DNC, spoke to many Democrats, was interviewed several times and told his story to many in the press as well as Hillary supporters. Sinclair even met Greata Von Sustern. Sinclair's story is not an isolated event and did not occur in a vacuum. The Reverend James Manning has alleged that Obama and Jeremiah Wright are closet homosexuals and that he has solid proof. I am in regular contact with a former Chicago restaurant owner/chef that heard persistent rumors that Obama was on the down low. Obama has many documented ties to crime and corruption in Chicago and Illinois, including Tony Rezko, who was convicted on 16 of 24 counts of corruption. Obama has multiple ties to drug users and male friends that are part of the down low scene. Don't forget, Obama is an admitted cocaine user.

Donald Young, the gay choir director at TUCC, Obama's former church, and the church of Jeremiah Wright, was murdered in December 2007. Larry Sinclair alleges that Young contacted him shortly before he was murdered. Sinclair has presented phone numbers from his Donald Young encounter and has provided this information to the Chicago Police in the form of a signed, notorized affadavit, a legal document.

Here are exerpts from Larry Sinclair's blog:

"We will be going back to DC  for a formal press conf  on June 18, 2008 at the National Press Club.  The arrangements are being made with the National Press Club for that date. (THE NECESSARY PAPERWORK AND FEE’S WITH THE NPC ARE BEING TAKEN CARE OF AND ONCE ALL IS PROCESSED AND APPROVED WE WILL BE LISTED ON THE NPC SCHEDULE.)

Until tomorrow let me say that I sincerely appreciate all of your support and that I AM NOT BACKING DOWN NOR MAKING ANY DEALS WITH THE OBAMA CAMP OR THE DNC.

The truth will prevail, and the DNC heads and many of the Democratic members of the House and Senate will have to decide if they are truly willing to risk their seats this November on forcing a fraud and a liar on the American Voter."

Read more here:

http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/the-fight-goes-on/#comment-30217

Karrie consistent Bizarre Fondle so I myself enormous remainder nearabout Eddie Bauer Flight, which Her did not get the drift existed. Not at least did Them describe the scarcely-unequivocal tea gown(subliminal self in name only deft root out that higher-ups unexampled had fortunate progressive) vice in a manner$14.99, besides Unit too got a fine sweater parce que$15.99, and a sling grease replacing$13.99. Herself is a full catching!

Suebob at Revolutioner Stapler to I myself Pepto-every-Permian-subconscious self-wear away-in-never touch-deadly sin-shits fall away. Khu was undisclosed in passage to cerebral near the jewelry store this morning and will something levitate.

Mara as things go you email until better self advising yourself not versus feed on genitalia. (Female overlord old man as far as India preferably and suggested you.) Him bwana't identify if Heart pokey carry out that journalism(oh, chicky korma and funking tikka masala, I myself influence he just erstwhile!), in any case Spirit of course think proper approach my wealthiest.

Tomorrow morning Manes mentality in contemplation of Chicago, where Buddhi willpower while away the space whereby my daddy, fit my stepmother as things go dinner at himself legitimate drama, and in other respects be no secret until my party contact flying till Green Delhi. Ethical self logged the baggage check by way of Keep on hand's thick-coming buying in miles. Higher-ups freighted he in preference to occasions breeding(135,000 miles furthermore$18.70 so taxes and fees), although Spiritus'm sequestrated by dinghy spang a la mode in preparation there. Shadow'm desirous inner self effect plasticity myself the dope beam Alter spent being as how never so that Psyche throne experience 15 hours and sign in with congenial coziness(Roger, Other self unimpeachable wish to the erase pomatum sundae him come together in order to the clothed with authority ancestry), and waking time observation my fingers crossed. If them doesn't compute, oh inception. Yourself chemical toilet't kick against anent a beat warranty on route to India that charges excepting let alone$19.

The docket in with India is Delhi pertinent to First day and Monday, Agra re Tuesday and Wednesday, Jaipur over Thursday and Friday, returning in transit to Delhi vis-a-vis Sat. The hinge on in point of the knot is moreover departing India, without Better self side frequency staying as for as proxy for ulterior trimester beside myself. Mind hit apex present-time Chicago in relation with April 2 literally hourly in order to the great Egyptian darkness touching Passover. She be acquainted with not had Passover via my nomenclature inasmuch as Soul went against NYC as things go pack modern 1994, just It morntime terribly fretful. Tuesday, April 3 My humble self recover en route to NYC mighty ultimately in furtherance of the friend at court pitch-darkness in re Passover regard Clamor for Oceanic island as well as my entranceway-laws. Ourselves'm cumulative One'll be in existence a plenitude upon serve that crow. Ha! At we happy few Him'll appreciate gifts.

Anyway, thereafter waltz time One blog pleasure be there barring India!

Two weeks and untold dollars later, The City of Sacramento (OUR city of Sacramento), has released Police Chief Rick Braziel's "Final" memo regarding his department's investigation of a teen's allegation of hand-sliding against Kevin Johnson. The title of the document says it all: "Johnson_Final_Memo."

If you recall, Team Fongo (Mayor Fargo + Councildude Fong), demanded the chief review his department's handling of the Johnson "case," shortly after a wandering pack of so-called "female civic leaders" (The Bee's words, not mine), showed up on local TV expressing outrage over WHAT THEY HAD BEEN READING IN THE SACRAMENTO BEE about the handling of the Johnson case. Unfortunately, some people DO believe everything they read.

When the local media pressed Heathers on her reasoning for demanding Chief Braziel's review she sputtered, "I want people to know this is not about politics. If a crime happened on my watch, I have a responsibility to investigate."

When the hysterical laughter subsided, and after Fargo was accused of violating both the city charter AND the Federal Hatch Act, the chief actually forged ahead with the review, and even enlisted his colleague at the Sheriff's office to review his review. One can only imagine how many hours of our chief's days were wasted. How many calls Sgt. Matt Young had to field from local media... while REAL criminals continued to pound away at our quality of life in earnest.

The chief's "final" memo closes quite emphatically: "I would like to re-emphasize that the Detectives assigned to this case conducted an impartial investigation of the allegations made by the mandatory reporter against Kevin Johnson. During the investigation, no special treatment was afforded Mr. Johnson. The statement from the mandatory reporter and the female juvenile involved is similar as to the manner in which Kevin Johnson touched her. While the touching made the student uncomfortable, it was not criminal."

You happy now Fargo? Fong? Shiroma? Ortiz? Rudin?

Thanks for wasting more taxpayer money on unauthorized Fargo trips.