Back HomeAboutContactLinksSearch this SiteSue Bob's Diary
June 27, 2007

Dr. William Anderson writes about a man being Nifonged in Narragansett. The ATTORNEY GENERAL of Rhode Island, Patrick C. Lynch, pulling manipulative prosecutor’s tricks out of his hat, has brought a ham sandwich indictment against a man because a woman alleges that he raped her 32 years ago when they were teenagers. Get this, the basis of her accusation is “recovered memories”. In other words, she walked around for 32 years “not realizing” that she was raped–much less by this poor man.

The mendacious AG circumvented having to show the evidence by obtaining an indictment before bringing charges–so that this nutjob accuser didn’t have to give testimony about it during a preliminary examination. Moreover, the indictment doesn’t specify when this supposed rape took place–denying the accused an opportunity to be fully apprised of the charges. As William Anderson says:

Second, these “recovered memories” are selective. No doubt, she is forthcoming in all sorts of details about this “rape,” but cannot remember when it was, whether it was in the spring, summer, or fall, a seven-month time frame. Granted, the prosecutor has done that so that Mr. Allen cannot possibly line up an alibi defense, since if he says he was out of town on Day X, then the prosecution then will claim that the rape happened on Day Y, and when he finds evidence for what he did on Day Y, then the timeline will be moved to Day Z, and so on.

Hopefully, Bill Anderson will stay on this case. If ever a prosecutor needed to be watched–it’s this one.

By: Sue Bob @ 8:05 pm in: Rogue Prosecutors | Discussion (0)

The senator complained that some of his constituents have attempted to “intimidate” him by saying they would oppose his re-election if he voted for the bill.

“You do not intimidate George Voinovich,” he said. “During my 40 years in this business, I have always looked at the pros and cons of each piece of legislation and made a determination. If people don’t like my decision, they can express their will during the next election.”

I happened to listen to Sean Hannity’s radio show while madly rushing home to move my sailboat trailer out of the dry sail area before the Hill Country floods swept it away. For the first time ever, I thought that Hannity did a good job cross-examining a guest. Hannity was interviewing Sen. George Voinovich, who it appears, supports the ridiculous amnesty bill.

Despite the fact that the man can’t answer the simplest questions about the bill, he condescends to his constituency and snivels about intimidation. Though he claims HE can’t be intimidated–he cowardly runs away from Hannity’s persistent–though reasonable–questions.

World Net Daily has the whole story complete with sound clips. You have got to listen to it.

Voinovich’s disrespect for his constituents reinforces my opinion that the 17th amendment should be repealed and selection of U.S. Senators placed back on the State Legislatures. Direct election dilutes the power of the electorate over Senators–especially in the face of six year terms. For instance, Voinivich is not up for reelection until 2010. By then, the damage will be wrought.

Tom Dilorenzo wrote a wonderful column in support of repealing the 17th Amendment. He describes how it used to work:

State legislatures did not hesitate to instruct U.S. senators on how to vote. In fact, the very first instruction that was given to them was to meet in public! The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 (see William Watkins, Reclaiming the American Revolution) were the work of state legislatures that instructed their senators to oppose the Sedition Act, which essentially made it illegal to criticize the federal government.

State legislatures were instrumental in Andrew Jackson’s famous battle with the Bank of the United States (BUS), which ended with the Bank being de-funded and replaced by the Independent Treasury System and the era of “free banking” (1842–1862). State legislatures throughout the U.S. instructed their senators to oppose the BUS in the senate. Senator Pelog Sprague of Maine was forced to resign in 1835 after ignoring his legislature’s instructions to vote against the Bank. The U.S. Senate voted to censure President Andrew Jackson for opposing the BUS, but the states responded by forcing seven other senators to resign for taking part in that vote. (It seems that it’s not only twenty-first century Republicans who run for office by calling Washington, D.C. a cesspool, and then thinking of it as more like a hot tub once they get there).

I’ve been hearing stories about how the U.S. Senators have been turning off their fax machines and telephones in the face of overwhelming constituent protest of the amnesty bill. If State Legislatures could kick these overweening, high-hatted fops out on their duffs, do you think they would be forcing this bill down our throats? Your State Legislator is up for reelection a lot sooner than a Voinovich–and I doubt that he or she would be able to ignore constituents–considering that he or she lives there right in the neighborhood instead of Washington.

The U.S. Senate is filled with would-be potentates who are really nincompoops needing to be taken down a peg or two. A diffuse electorate can’t really do that. A State Legislature could take a Senator to the woodshed for a little dose of humility.

Voinovich should be first in line. McCain should be second.

By: Sue Bob @ 6:30 pm in: Asshats | Discussion (0)

By: Sue Bob @ 11:53 am in: Ron Paul for President | Discussion (0)

June 26, 2007

During a long period of apparent delusion, I suffered from the mistaken belief that Neil Cavuto was in favor of limited government, free markets and economic liberty. My eyes have been opened by his interview of Rep. Ron Paul today:

(HT Lew Rockwell Blog)

Despite Cavuto’s “dripping with contempt” demeanor and questions which reveal him to be a true statist, Dr. Paul took him to the shed in my opinion. Pay particular attention to the part where Dr. Paul corrects Cavuto on a basic point that one would expect a so-called conservative commentator on economic issues to know.

While discussing Dr. Paul’s position on abolishing the income tax, Cavuto plaintively asks how we would fund such things as the Capitol building (which was built prior to 1916, by the way) Appalled at Cavuto’s ignorance, Dr. Paul introduces a bit of reality. Namely, that the Capitol was built in the usual fashion of governments–through borrowed money–not tax revenues.

Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan writes about the Stupid Party’s rage at truth coming out of the mouth of Dr. Paul. Personally, I can’t wait until I get a call from the RNC or some like organization. I have my speech planned out and it isn’t pretty.

By: Sue Bob @ 7:46 pm in: Ron Paul for President | Discussion (0)

June 25, 2007

By: Sue Bob @ 10:14 pm in: Rogue Prosecutors | Discussion (0)

June 24, 2007

But it has always been that way for Dr. Ron Paul:


“History Has Never Been Dominated By Majorities, But Only by Dedicated Minorities Who Stand Unconditionally on Their Faith”

R.J. Rushdoony

By: Sue Bob @ 4:30 pm in: Ron Paul for President | Discussion (0)

June 22, 2007

A few days ago, I wrote about the wife of the prosecutor who was so “outraged” that the Sheriff allowed Paris Hilton the option of home confinement. As I recounted, that prosecutor’s wife has a few problems with the law herself. Apparently, she has a few more than I knew back then, including a nine year old arrest warrant. Delgadillo also has a few ethics issues.

Now William Anderson, a prolific writer on the Duke lacrosse case hoax, has weighed in. Like me, his outrage is about favoritism to a worker of the State, and he draws parallels with the Duke prosecutor’s criminal acts:

No, there truly are Two Americas, the one of government employees and politicians who are protected even while engaging in the worst kind of lawbreaking, and the other being the America in which the rest of us live. Now, I really could not care less if Paris Hilton is driving her blue Bentley around Beverly Hills when the government says she cannot do so.

However, I do care when prosecutors’ wives are permitted to flaunt the law and receive a free pass, and when prosecutors themselves can commit felony after felony and be treated as though they are “protecting” the people. The state of affairs to which Edwards points is imaginary, in my opinion.

Go read the whole thing.

By: Sue Bob @ 7:11 am in: Rogue Prosecutors | Discussion (0)

June 18, 2007

In James Webb’s book Born Fighting; How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, he describes his Appalachian aunt’s reaction when he came home on break from law school. “Have they taught you how to lie, yet?”, she asked.

Here’s a reason why people think that about lawyers, parts of a video-taped seminar designed to help corporations adhere to federal immigration law through pure pretense. Note when the lawyer says this:

“And our goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker. And you know in a sense that sounds funny, but it’s what we’re trying to do here. We are complying with the law fully, but ah, our objective is to get this person a green card, and get through the labor certification process. So certainly we are not going to try to find a place [at which to advertise the job] where the applicants are the most numerous. We’re going to try to find a place where we can comply with the law, and hoping, and likely, not to find qualified and interested worker applicants.”

(HT FreeRepublic)

By: Sue Bob @ 7:39 pm in: Asshats,Immigration | Discussion (0)

June 12, 2007

The Gun Owners of America, along with others, have filed an Amicus brief in the case which can be found here. It focuses particularly on the Counts regarding the discharge of weapons–which were apparently wrongly articulated in the indictment and jury charge. The defense attorneys apparently didn’t bring up the points in this brief.

When I read it, I think that the errors brought up are very damning to the prosecutors. I see a Federal Judge whose criminal experience I wonder about–and I question how prepared on the legal points the defense attorneys were.

Although the charge to the jury is given by the Judge, it is written by the attorneys. They submit a proposed charge and instructions to the Judge. Then, the attorneys argue to the Judge about what should be submitted–using case law.

I also see missed opportunities on the part of the defense attorneys. I also see possible Nifong-like behavior on the part of the prosecutors. From the brief:

However, for the reasons set out below, the subsection which Ramos and Compean
are charged with violating — 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) — does not define
a crime, but contains only a sentencing factor to be addressed by the court after
conviction of a crime, the elements of which are set out in the first paragraph of 18
U.S.C. section 924(c)(1)(A). See Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 552 (2002).
Why the prosecution avoided using one or more of the Congressionally-fashioned
actus reus words of “use,” “carry” or “possess” a firearm contained in that first
paragraph — contrary to the Government’s normal practice in charging a Section
924(c)(1)(A) offense1 — choosing instead to substitute the sentencing factor
“discharge” of a firearm is not immediately apparent. However, as demonstrated
below, crafting the two counts in this peculiar way had the demonstrable effect of
misfocusing the defendants, counsel, and jury on a non-existent crime of unlawful
discharge of a firearm in a case where Defendants, both United States Border Patrol
Agents, were authorized to possess, carry and use a firearm in the normal course of
their employment.

It may not be immediately apparent why the charging was done in an erroneous manner, but I can speculate.

Going on:

In disregard of these definitive rulings, the prosecution in this case obtained
from the Grand Jury an indictment setting forth Counts Four and Five, which charged
Defendants with the crime of having “knowingly discharged a firearm … during and
in relation to a crime of violence….” Document No. 66, p. 3, 1R-119-126 (emphasis
added). Having misstated the crime defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A),
Counts Four and Five failed to charge either Defendant with any criminal offense
whatsoever. See McGilberry, 480 F.3d at 329 and Barton, 257 F.3d at 443.


June 10, 2007

Especially if they are related to someone in civil government.

It appears that the wife of the City Attorney of Los Angelos (Me: the one so bent out of shape when the Sheriff’s Department reassigned Paris Hilton to home confinement for longer than she would serve in jail), was also ticketed for driving with a suspended license.

Michelle Delgadillo, 36, was ticketed two years ago for failing to obey a turn-only sign, but was not cited by the ticketing officer for the license suspension.

Her license had been suspended the previous year after she was involved in an accident and could not show that she had insurance, as required by state law.

The city attorney’s office was not involved in Michelle Delgadillo’s case, which went through the usual traffic court channels.

“Once Rocky learned of this, he urged his wife to remedy the situation, and she did,” Velasquez said. “Michelle regrets driving with a suspended license and takes full responsibility for her mistake.”

Michelle Delgadillo’s license was suspended for “driving without proof of insurance and causing an accident,” said Mike Miller, a spokesman for the state Department of Motor Vehicles.

Michelle Delgadillo did not file a copy of the accident report with the DMV, Miller said, but the other driver involved in the accident did. Reports are required whenever an accident involves injury or more than $750 in damage. When she failed to provide proof of insurance, the DMV suspended her license from July 25, 2004, through March 6, 2007, Miller said.

On Sept. 13, 2005, Delgadillo was issued a ticket by a Los Angeles Police Department officer from West Traffic Division at 6th Street and Fairfax Place. She was driving the family’s personal vehicle, a Ford Expedition, according to the ticket.

The ticketing officer wrote “none” in the place on the ticket where it asks for evidence of financial responsibility.

So, the City Attorney’s wife, unlike Paris, actually caused an accident–which resulted in property damage and/or injury. She drove without proof of insurance. She ALSO failed to file a required report–the victim filed it. As a result, her license is suspended. Since, a year later, her license was still suspended, she either failed to furnish proof of insurance or to satisfy a judgment against her for the damage she caused–or both. It appears that she still had no insurance at the time of her second brush with the law. Isn’t that a bit strange?

Yet, she then drives the family vehicle anyway–and breaks the law by failing to turn in a “turn only” lane. Who did she endanger with that move? She is not ticketed for driving with a suspended license. Why? Did she tell the officer who she is?

What is the punishment for that? It appears to be jail time or a fine. She didn’t even get a ticket. Would you or I be ticketed for that–or even arrested?

It is true that she was not on probation for DUI, as was Paris, but she exhibited every bit as much arrogance and disregard for the law which governs us lessor mortals as did Paris. Moreover, she actually harmed someone.

Delgadillo claims through his mouthpiece:

Once Rocky learned of this, he urged his wife to remedy the situation, and she did…

How? By convincing his wife to accept punishment as he wishes to force Paris? It appears that his wife had neglected for a year to either provide proof of insurance or to satisfy a judgment arising from the accident she caused. Did he convince her to resolve that? Even if she did, where is the consequence for driving while her license was suspended?

Some really are more equal than others–especially when the person’s spouse is the City Attorney, and even when she has actually damaged someone else and then failed to rectify the situation. All Paris Hilton did was to disobey edicts of the state causing no harm to anyone but herself.

Which woman’s action was worse?

June 9, 2007

“History Has Never Been Dominated By Majorities, But Only by Dedicated Minorities Who Stand Unconditionally on Their Faith”

R.J. Rushdoony

(HT Lew Rockwell Blog)

By: Sue Bob @ 11:34 am in: Ron Paul for President | Discussion (0)


See Update Below.

Remember that scene in Monty Python’s The Holy Grail? A mob brings a woman before the local magistrate claiming that she’s a witch. The mob wants to dispense with due process and to burn her immediately. Due Process, of a satirically dubious sort, is administered and she’s pronounced a witch.

My thoughts go back to that scene as I take in the Paris Hilton story. My interest was piqued when I heard a caller to the Michael Savage Show talk about his experience in the same jail.

It seems that he was a low level offender like Paris. He, too, was offered the home confinement, bracelet option. He turned it down. Why? Because there is another option offered to low level offenders. That is to serve 10% of their time behind bars and then to be released.

In other words, the bracelet option means confinement for a whole lot longer time then actual incarceration under the policies and procedures of the Sheriff’s Office for low level offenders.

Paris served 5 days. More than 10% of her 45 day sentence–or the 23 days given for good behavior. On top of that, she was going to spend the ENTIRE remainder of her sentence (I’m not sure whether it was the 45 or 23 days) confined to home and monitored.

In the frenzy to portray this as a provocation for class warfare, the feckless media fails to give us the facts. One radio host from L.A. confirms the policies and procedures. He writes at the Huffington Report, and I assume that he is a liberal.

According to Sheriff Lee Baca, Hilton has “severe issues.” Also, according to Baca, she is a “low level offender, who typically spend about 10% of their time due to overcrowding.” Stop me if I’m wrong but five days is about 10% of 45. And in comparison while Hilton was being dragged through the mud, right across the hall was another trial, this one for Jason Wahler, one of the stars of “Laguna Beach.” He was there for, guess what, a parole violation stemming from being arrested for criminal trespassing and assault in Seattle earlier this year, which violated his probation from a September 2006 battery arrest in Los Angeles. The 20 year old, who was admonished by the judge not to drink any more, must continue attending AA meetings and 36 more hours of anger management classes. He will also have to continue with intensive rehab counseling at least four days a week. Wahler attended another rehab earlier in the year to avoid a 60-day sentence in L.A. County Jail.

Go read the comments to his post. They are envious, self-righteous, vitriolic statements more concerned with punishment of a rich girl than justice. Equally disturbing is the palpable enjoyment of the spectacle of a judge behaving in a vindictive, juvenile manner on the bench.

Judge Sauer had ordered the hearing for 9 a.m. When Ms. Hilton did not appear, apparently believing that she could participate by telephone, he sent sheriff’s deputies to escort her from her home.

When she arrived and the hearing began, the judge said he had received a call on Wednesday from an undersheriff informing him that Ms. Hilton had a medical condition and that the sheriff’s office would submit papers to the judge to consider releasing her early. The judge said the papers describing a “psychological” problem had not arrived, and he interrupted Friday’s court session every few minutes to state the time and note that the papers had still not shown up.

Angry at the Sheriff for applying his policies and procedures and utilizing what appears to be his authority as an elected official to Paris in the same manner he does to other low level offenders, the judge takes it out on Paris. This is a fight between two minions of the state, and the judge ensures that Paris is going to “get it”. I’d like to know if the judge even has the authority to do what he has done. After all, the Sheriff’s Department is headed by an elected official, and I would assume that there are statutes in place allowing the aforementioned policies and procedures regarding low level offenders.

And, if the judge has this power, how many other low level offenders has he plucked back from home confinement to make a spectacle of?

This story doesn’t just involve the individual situation in which Paris Hilton finds herself. It involves a judicial system which tolerates and encourages and fails to rein in intemperate behavior by judges and prosecutors. As to the latter, if it is true that low level offenders are routinely offered home confinement, then the prosecutor in this case is lying to the public:

The city attorney whose office prosecuted Ms. Hilton’s case, Rocky Delgadillo, said preferential treatment had led to her being sent home with an ankle bracelet. In the original order sentencing Ms. Hilton to jail, the judge had stated that Ms. Hilton would not be allowed a work furlough, work release or an electronic monitoring device in lieu of jail time. “We cannot tolerate a two-tiered jail system where the rich and powerful receive special treatment,” Mr. Delgadillo said after learning of the release.

Conservatives (who should really know better than to add weight to class warfare) and liberals both are proclaiming Paris Hilton to be a witch deserving of punishment which appears to be far beyond what others get who are similarly situated–because she is rich and pampered and failed to bow sufficiently, in their opinion, before the state.

I know that conservatives know better. Look at the reaction to the wholly unjustified sentence imposed upon Libby. Conservatives are, justifiably, up in arms about it. Like the Martha Stewart case, this was a put up job by the FBI and the prosecutor. A situation where investigators interrogate with the intention of tripping up a suspect–against whom they have no objective evidence of a crime–in order to create one out of trip-ups or mis-recollections by the interrogated.

And, in the Libby case, we have an equally intemperate judge involved. One who writes orders–not weighted by discretion or tempered with objectivity and justice–but, instead, laden with sarcasm:

Ms. Hilton was not the only high-profile defendant whose celebrity prompted a raised eyebrow from a judge this week. Also on Friday, the judge who sentenced I. Lewis Libby Jr. to prison this week issued an order dripping with sarcasm after receiving a supporting brief from a dozen prominent legal scholars, including Alan M. Dershowitz of Harvard and Robert H. Bork, the former Supreme Court nominee.

The judge, Reggie B. Walton of Federal District Court in Washington, said he would be pleased to see similar efforts for defendants less famous than Mr. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

“The court trusts,” Judge Walton wrote, in a footnote longer than the order itself, that the brief for Mr. Libby “is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step up to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions.”

“The court,” he added, “will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries.”

How silly and arrogant. The judge, indulging in petulance, misleads the public into the belief that arguments urging proper application of the law in Libby’s case, will not affect the cases of defendants with less celebrity.


Apparently, she was going to serve all 40 remaining days confined and supervised:

Also, some in the media do seem to be looking at the details beyond the hysteria now. Here is a good Q&A which includes information on the practices of the Sheriff’s Department. Here is a good article tracing the authority of the Department back to a Federal Court order.

June 7, 2007

Will Grigg covers a story of a soldier about to be deployed back to Iraq who was beaten and tasered in the Las Vegas Airport while just standing there asking the officer questions. Go read the story and look at the videos below. Notice a third officer imitating the soldier with sadistic glee:

St. England was angry and smartassy and showed it to sadistic government minions–but no way does that deserves a beating and tasering–and any “conservative” who says differently has no concept of true American values and should immediately absent themselves to Communist China or Cuba. We’ve had enough damage done by those who reflexively accept this kind of behavior from the cops–thinking they would never be a target. After all, who would think that a war hero could be a target?

Speaking of sadists, look at this story out of Waxahachie, Texas. A couple made a 911 call for medical help for the boyfriend who was having diabetic seizures. Instead, they got police invading the house tasing the boyfriend as he lay in bed–and then trying to pull out the barbs until stopped by the paramedics–laughing like maniacs the entire time.

The 52-year-old partially disabled man – who also suffers from rheumatoid arthritis – was having a diabetic seizure during the early morning hours of April 28 when his girlfriend, Josie Edwards, called 911 to request paramedics.

“I respect the law and police but on this day I was a shooting target for them when I needed help,” Nelms said in his May 3 written complaint to the police department.

The couple’s statements indicate an officer came to the residence on Perry Avenue and inquired as to what was going on – and then called for backup.

Nelms told the Daily Light that he was in his bed in the couple’s bedroom when officers burst in with their guns drawn and yelling at him to get on the floor.

He said he told them he needed medical help, not the police, but officers continued yelling at him to get on the floor. He said he went to roll over to his right, with photographs indicating he was struck by Taser barbs on his left side, his back and his shoulder. He said he was handcuffed, with paramedics intervening when the officers began trying to yank the Taser barbs from his skin.

Paramedics removed the Taser barbs and then checked his blood sugar, with officers then releasing him from the handcuffs.

In her statement, Edwards, who has Lou Gehrig’s disease and is on oxygen, said an officer came to the door and asked her what was the matter before calling for backup and the paramedics.

She said about six or seven police officers kicked the front door in and stormed the back bedroom where she said she could hear one telling Nelms to get on the floor.

“Allen was shouting, ‘Please don’t do me like this. I just need help.’ Next thing I heard some ‘zing’ noise and Allen was shouting,” she wrote in her statement. “I asked what were they doing to him. One policeman replied, ‘We just took care of him.’

“After they did their shooting and laughing, they came out (of) the rooms. The paramedics had to pull out the Tasers,” she said.

I think that Tasers are more of a curse than a blessing. Cops seem to have no compunction about using them in contravention of policy and good sense. They don’t leave evidence. People say that they are better than using deadly force. But, look at the Derek Hale case. He was tasered into paralysis and then shot in the chest, anyway.

By: Sue Bob @ 9:00 pm in: Stupid Civil Government | Discussion (1)

June 3, 2007

I make my living representing clients against government regulators. I know how disgustingly stupid they are. I also know that they don’t give a rat’s behind about protecting citizens against the corporations they regulate. Witness what these fools have done to Hollinger International–in the name of the stockholders. They’ve gutted the company in order to pay a parasite who makes his living through “corporate governance”. The man is a hyena feeding on a corpse created by the federal government. From Mark Steyn:

Mr. Breeden was formerly and famously the chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Today he presides over the half-billion-dollar corporate governance hedge fund at Breeden Capital Management of Greenwich, Conn., which is registered as an investment adviser to Breeden Partners Ltd. of the Cayman Islands. Breeden Partners has approximately $1 billion in assets. The Cayman Islands is in the British West Indies and thus beyond the jurisdiction of Mr. Breeden’s successor at the SEC.

I hasten to add I have nothing against Richard Breeden. And I certainly have no desire to attract his attention in any way whatsoever. But it is striking that all the phrases that set off alarm bells in relation to Conrad Black — “excessive compensation” Cayman Islands,” “lavish personal tastes” — apply to Mr. Breeden equally and then some. And Mr. Breeden doesn’t create any goods, doesn’t publish any daily newspapers, doesn’t produce anything except internal memos. It’s four years since Hollinger put him on the payroll at 800 bucks an hour. That seems an awful lot to pay for a few sharp lines about Barbara Amiel expensing her tips to the doorman at Bergdorf Goodman. The tip was $20. Mr. Breeden earned that in the first minute-and-a-half of his labours for Hollinger.

So, besides sopping up money, what has been accomplished by the federal government on behalf of the “victim” shareholders?

But beyond the losses to investors in two countries and readers on three continents are more basic questions. What has been done to Hollinger International is astonishing, and has very worrying implications for anyone with a public company in the United States: Hollinger International was not an Enron or WorldCom — a failing business of worthless properties fleecing its employees’ retirement plans. The most that can be said against it was that it had a sluggish stock price. Yet, on that basis, courts and regulators have removed a company from its lawful controlling shareholders and delivered it into the hands of a small group of usurpers with no equity in the business, who sidelined the owners and proceeded to gut the enterprise, sell off the assets and even change the corporate name, all the while compensating themselves on as lavish a scale as the allegedly profligate regime the courts and regulators used to justify the usurpation. If this is “corporate governance,” let’s cut to the chase and adopt relatively straightforward Afro-Marxist confiscation.


By: Sue Bob @ 11:05 am in: Stupid Civil Government | Discussion (0)

We need to ask the media and government minions why they aren’t telling us the whole story about this plot to “blow up the pipelines” at JFK airport. You know, like, how possible is it to do such a thing?

My father is a retired petroleum engineer who drilled many a well in West Texas. He wrote me an e-mail this morning which says the following:

Looks like the FBI, through that old mother hen clucking in the yard, is intentionally or otherwise trying to create a big “look what I stopped” news event. Just about every day, somewhere in America, you can read in the daily paper where a backhoe operator has broken through a buried pipeline that transports gas, or oil, or gasoline, or water, or whatever. On occasion, there might be a fire.

But, just remember Elementary School Class number one — oxygen supports combustion. That means, ya gotta’ have air present to create a fire — out of anything. And — that means — for a fire to blossum anywhere along that line, there has to be an opening to the air (cuz there ain’t nothin’ in that line except the stuff it transports — which can’t burn until — ?? — what ?? — you add oxygen.

So, unless you build a sophisticated self propelled pipeline pig and can get it in the line somehow, all those houses and airport facilities are in almost no danger from an attack, such as those idiots (that were arrested), had envisioned. Remember, you have to dig up the line buried, (I don’t know how deep), rip a hole in it and light the stuff that comes spurting out. Even if you get that nearly impossible task accomplished, the only fire you’ll have is where you’re at, cuz that fire can only burn the fuel as it comes out — and — the fire ain’t gonna’ travel along the line more than a few inches cuz — ? what — ? there ain’t no supportive oxygen present in the line.

Now — we do have some very creative drunk drivers in this country who, repeatedly, create amazingly chaotic disasters — but we’re safe, they can never tell anyone how they did it and, can’t remember how to do it again (even if they are drunk Muslims). Maybe we should post a few drunk FBI types along all our pipelines to study this situation.

He writes like this when he’s disgusted.

By: Sue Bob @ 9:04 am in: Stupid Civil Government | Discussion (0)