An open debate on Caylee's Law

I would like to take this opportunity to make an open rebuttal to the page Get Caylee Justice, in regards to their support of Caylee's Law.

As many readers here know, I am against Caylee's Law for many reasons, including the painfully simple fact that it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Nevertheless, so many folks continue to deny the facts, and come up with any number of illogical reasons why we need this law. Using the lengthy response from this one page as an example of the oft-repeated points by supporters of Caylee's law, I will now refute their position through applied logic and the exposure of their application of the classic 25 Rules of Disinformation. Point by point, in parentheses, I will cite the tactic being applied, so keep the list handy.


Let us begin...

Absolutely amazed with people. I didnt not ban you yet so I can explain a few things to you about Caylee's law and effective parenting.

Right out of the gate, we see the opponent try to goad us (5, 18), while threatening to ban us (25, 6) and then attempt to establish themselves as an authority (8) as if they are the only good parent on the planet, while assuming that we know nothing about good parenting.

One, on average a child who is abducted is killed with in the first six to eight hours. SO to be quite frank, without a doubt, every second counts.

Here the opponent exposes the fallacy of their position, and is "quite frank" about it, establishing a fall-back position (11). While anyone would agree that indeed seconds do count either in an abduction, or even of course in a medical emergency, the proposed Caylee's Law only makes it a felony crime to not report a missing child after 24 hours, not the first six to eight in which the child is actually killed, according to our opponent. Therefore, Caylee's Law is not a practical measure or standard for dealing with a child who may have fallen into harm's way.

Second, to all of your little attempted theories about well what if you didn't know in the first hour or 24 hours, it is after you discover. Sure, a child might go off to a friends house, but I can tell you, my daughter will need to call me whenever she gets to where she is going, and if she leaves that place to go to a new place. A rule every parent in my mind should have into effect. 

In the first sentence they ridicule earlier statements we had made in the course of previous discussion on the issue. as "little attempted theories" (3, 8, 18) rather than seeing the points raised as the legitimate and logical points they were (1, 19). That discussion can be viewed here. Or if they remove the thread/comments, we can add the screenshots later that we took of the conversation.

As to the specifics of the proposed law itself, most versions propose to make it a felony if you fail to not report a missing child within 24 hours, or a child who has died within 60 minutes. Now, in general, a reasonable person should not have to point out how these time constraints may be impractical in the real world for any number of reasons which may not otherwise be considered to be criminal or even immoral.But more to the point, our opponent here specifies that the point of "discovery" is when the clock starts ticking. There is no such provision made in the laws I have seen proposed. If it were, it would again make the law itself pointless. After all, a parent accused of wrongdoing could claim that they didn't know, had not made the discovery for any number of reasons, for any amount of time. Indeed, in the Anthony case itself, Casey never did admit to discovering her deceased child at all, at any time. The only thing that can be factually established is the time of death, not when the parent actually discovered the child was deceased.

Next we see the "MY child" logic (2) so often applied in these discussions. Again in an attempt to establish themselves as the perfect parent with perfect children (8, 11) while simply ignoring (9) the many, many examples of why a child may be out of touch with a parent for more than 24 hours, and why it is not necessary to always have the police micro-manage how you raise your child. Maybe the child simply forgot to call. Maybe because of scheduling between work and school the parent and child fail to connect. Perhaps the child has run away from home in a fit of rebellion against an overbearing and obnoxious parent who fancies themselves perfect and who demands nothing less than perfection from the child. Is it a good idea to set out rules like this for a child to keep in contact and be communicative? Absolutely. But trying to force them to act in this way will only encourage rebellion and leave the parent in situation after situation where they will not in fact be able to find their kid. And more importantly, it should not be a FELONY on the parent if the child breaks this household rule.

Also if you do not report your child after as you say been floating in the pool for twenty hours, you are going to have some serious felonies on your hands anyhow with federal level child negligence and abuse.

Yet again we see the opponent actually make the point for us, that Caylee's Law serves no practical purpose (15), because as the opponent themselves have pointed out, there are already laws on the books which can be applied. Murder, negligence, all of these things are already illegal, and did nothing to save the life of little Caylee, nor was Casey proven to be responsible for her daughter's death. If this law had been on the books already, prosecutors would have had an even more difficult time actually proving that Caylee was even in her care at the time of the baby's death/disappearance.

Third, every law has acception to the rules. Technically if you were to be walking by a man screaming for help while drowning in the river, and you didn't jump in and save him, you can get first degree murder, not even man slaughter, murder. This law was added to be able to charge everybody in a group killing with first degree murder. Now how many people do you know charged with murder because they didn't jump into a save a stranger over something they had nothing to do with? It is an exception to the rule.

This passage is outright false in a number of ways (3, 4, 13, 20, 22) and the opponent is trying to use a "red herring" in order to distract us from the facts. To begin with, no as a matter of fact, laws do not have exceptions to the rules. Nor should they have any.

"The duty we owe our constituents obliges us to be as attentive to the safety of the innocent as we are desirous of punishing the guilty; and we apprehend that a doubtful construction and various execution of criminal law does greatly endanger the safety of innocent men." ~JOUR. HOUSE OF BURGESSES (1773-1776) 

Arbitrary justice is no justice at all.When a particular police officer, prosecutor, or judge can pick and choose who they will and will not prosecute based upon their own personal biases, hunches, political affiliations, etc., rather than on the rule of law applied equally to everyone, you wind up with fiefdoms of absolute dictatorship.

Now again, the example of the man drowning in the river is patently false. There is no such law that requires anyone to risk their own life and limb to save anyone. Even the police are not required to take any such risks. No murder charge, no manslaughter. In fact if you did jump in to save them and failed, then you could actually be opening yourself up to charges and a lawsuit. Same goes for rendering first-aid of any kind, Heimlich maneuver, CPR, etc. The only way you can be charged with murder in a group setting, is if you conspire to and are in the process of carrying out a felony. If you and a friend decide to rob a store at gunpoint, and your friend shoots the clerk, you are going to prison for murder as well, even if you did not know your friend was going to kill the clerk.

So end all be all, the opponent here has failed to establish a rule, and therefore cannot establish an exception to the rule. 

For further information, you might like to watch this video discussing a recent case where people stood by and watched while a teen girl was brutally raped.

As I have read posts on your page, let me explain this to you. Caylee's law was not made to "bring back a dead child" it is infact to bring harsher punishments on things such as this to maybe deter somebody from killing their or anybodies child (if you read the entire law, it isn't just for parents, it is for adult in a caregivers position, like if your kid went over to a friends house and went missing it would be the responsibilty of that adult. Like the Haleigh Cummings incident where she wasn't reported for a few hours.

Again we see that our opponent is trying to put words in our mouth (4). No one ever said anything about bringing back a dead child, though the logic (13) of some opponents in that camp seems to often imply it, or that the law would actually prevent a death. If the threat of execution or life imprisonment on a charge of murder does not deter someone from killing their child, then they certainly are not going to be deterred by Caylee's Law.

Yes, we are aware (8) that the law applies to all caregivers, not just parents. Which actually only complicates matters further. How does one prove who's care the child was actually in when they disappeared or died? This was one enormous gap in proving Casey guilty of murder in the first place, so how will this new law actually help in that regard? It also opens the door to wrongful prosecutions.

I know you think it want stop people from commiting crimes but a lot of people do like to obey the law. There are some people who dont care if they are going to get the death penalty and are going to do things regardless of the punishment. But some of us respect the law. You wouldn't rob somebody for a million dollars if it was completely legal and you werent going to hurt anybody? The law stops you from doing that because you dont want to go to jail. It is to try and stop those who can be stopped.

Again we see circular logic being applied (13) along with assumptions made as to what we would do in a given situation (4). No law ever prevented a crime. If someone is willing to murder their child, then obviously they don't care enough about the law to worry about another few years getting tacked on to their life sentence thatnks to Caylee's Law. And those of us who respect that law, who don't murder and abuse our children, should not go to prison not meeting some arbitrary reporting deadline that fails to take into account the many nuances of modern family life and the many reasons why a parent may not be able to, or may feel it is best not to report to police. 

Also the law was created to try and preserve the evidence so nobody can walk away free because the body was to decomposed.

Which now bring us to the entire crux of the matter. This law is created to destroy YOUR Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Your right to not provide evidence against yourself or to self-incriminate.

But we also see here again the fallacies of our opponents position  (1, 9, 13, 15, 20)  since we all know full well that many people have been successfully prosecuted without a body ever being located at all, or in very poor condition for examination as was the case in the Scott Petersen trial.

And in mind, anybody who is complely opposed to this law, should think twice about becoming a parent.

So then our opponent finally signs off by invoking a whole slew of disinformation tactics in a single sentence. (2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 18)

I expect rules 24 and 25 will follow soon as well. So let me sign off here with a little of the old number 18.

And also be sure to join the Facebook page Say No To Caylee's Law.

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach." -Adolf Hitler

Was Casey Anthony trial propaganda-coup to destroy the Fifth Amendment?

From the start, I wondered why so much attention was given to this one particular case when, sadly, so many children are killed every day in America. Was it simply media profiteering as they do off the misery of others, or was there something more sinister afoot? Has the media been actively engaged in a propaganda campaign to condition Americans to accept, nay, to demand a law that would be tantamount to a repeal of a key right outlined in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America?

Seems far-fetched I suppose on the one hand. But we have to accept that the mainstream media are whores, who do willingly engage in propaganda to shift public opinion on any number if issues, ideas, products, etcetera. We also have to accept that this country has gone to hell in a handbasket these past years. I don't think it is an accident or coincidence.

Now let's pretend for a minute that we lead a group of powerful people, bent on the destruction of liberty and the Constitution in order to establish a fascist oligarchy, or some-such tyrannical form of government. (This is not imaginary, there are powerful people in the world who seek to destroy America, you know this.) The next goal on your agenda is the destruction of the Fifth Amendment clause which bars self-incrimination, which will then open the door to forced confessions and torture of citizens. How would you achieve that goal? You can't do it overtly, because the people would never stand for an open repeal of the Fifth Amendment. So, you will have to do it covertly, conspiring with your allies in government and media. There is a term known as "problem-reaction-solution" which has been employed by the powerful against the interests of the people for longer than you can imagine, which is a sure-fire way of covertly achieving such a goal. Basically, it is a sleight-of-hand magic trick that you can pull on the public. 

Here are some links that detail the method and provide historical documentation of how it has been used far back into ancient history even:

U.S. Pavlovian Conditioning

Diocletian's Problem-Reaction-Solution

The Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm

What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

Problem Reaction Solution Explanation (on Youtube)


Step One, Problem. Our problem, imagining again now that we are the would-be dictators, is that the Fifth Amendment stands in the way of our goals. But we need to create a problem that will attract the attention of the people. In the geo-political scheme and in military operations, the old false-flag attack is often employed as the opening salvo of a problem-reaction-solution campaign. But for our ultimate goal here in destroying the right to not self-incriminate, let us take advantage of a social problem that we have no intention of actually solving. We don't have to create the problem, when we can take advantage of one which already exists. (Or one that we had created earlier through a wide array of socio-economic conditions which spawn criminals in the first place.) The neglect and murder of children in America, always a tug at the heartstrings of decent people everywhere. We will call in support from our friends in the courts, to find the perfect case that will solicit maximum emotional response from the public. Covertly, we will set the stage for a pre-determined outcome. Then our friends in the media will bombard American living rooms and break-room tables with specially selected images and details of this one particular tragedy. The media will sell the story to the public, vilify the defendant in the worst ways possible to garner public support for the government (prosecution), and leave the people believing that there is only one possible outcome for justice to prevail.

Step Two, Reaction. We want the public to be shocked, absolutely outraged, to the point where they will throw all logic out the window. to the point where they themselves would do murder. A completely malleable emotional mob. Frenzied, like a stampede, that with a little nudge, we could drive right off a cliff if we chose to. And how do we solicit this reaction? By denying the public "the only possible outcome." By letting Casey Anthony go free. Maybe we knew she was innocent all along and that the justice system would work just fine to exonerate her. Or maybe, she really was guilty, and our friend the prosecutor deliberately bungled the case. It doesn't matter. Our goal has been achieved. (The lives a few individuals is inconsequential to master manipulators who wipe out hundreds of thousands of innocent people with a simple pen stroke, declaration of war, carpet bombing campaign, etc. So the case is irrelevent other than how it can be used to serve our goals. Which of course, is why this particular case among many thousands of dead children, is being tried in the court of public opinion.)

Step Three, Solution. We wanted to destroy the Fifth Amendment clause which prevents self-incrimination. Now the public, by the millions, demand a law that will do just that. All in the name of one little girl. The public has been tricked into believing that giving up their own rights, that undermining a primary tenet of justice and liberty is somehow a good thing. It satisfies the bloodlust of some who want to see people imprisoned no matter what a court can prove, it satisfies the naive notions of others that such a law might actually save someone's life.

Caylee's Law will not save anyone. Instead, it will open the door to the persecution and torture of innocents. And just because you supported Caylee's Law, will not make you immune from the system coming after you next. After all, it was "We the People" who they were after all along. Our rights. We are the threat to their power. Still sounding far-fetched? Don't believe me that there is a nefarious cabal out to take away our fundamental rights as Americans and as human beings? Well who would you believe? A past President perhaps? Someone loved and adored by the public in his time. A legend? How about JFK?






Caylee Anthony is the poster-child for justice gone awry alright. She is the face of the little girl who convinced Americans to sell themselves out.

But Captain Six, how will Caylee's Law violate the Fifth Amendment, you ask? Well, let me go ahead and pull a quote here from my previous article on the matter.

If Casey Anthony were guilty of any crime whatsoever involving the death of her daughter, requiring her to report her daughter missing to police would be a violation of her Fifth Amendment rights which protect her against self-incrimination. That doesn't mean a self-incrimination of murder either. It could have been something as simple as a misdemeanor charge of unlawfully dealing with human remains, or being high on marijuana at the time of the Caylee's disappearance or death even if she was not present.


Therefore, the only time this proposed law could be applied in accordance with the tenets of the Constitution of the United States, is if you first proved that the parent/guardian was in fact innocent of all other crimes related in any way to the disappearance of the child. And of course then, a person who had done nothing else wrong whatsoever, is the last person you would actually want to send to prison for not reporting their child missing.


Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.com/2011/07/caylees-law-do-we-need-one.html#axzz1RleErvzw

At the end of the day though, it is a conspiracy theory I suppose. I can't say for sure if this was ever an intentional plot against the Constitution. But does it really matter if the end result is the same? If we are left deprived of liberty, and opening the door to police coercion, threats, even torture of suspects?

The writing of a new law is no inconsequential thing. It's impact far exceeds it's immediately stated aims. Law is not a linear "x = y" concept. It is an ongoing chess-match, in which hangs the balance of liberty over tyranny. The rights of mankind over the privilege of the few.

Take something as seemingly simple as traffic law. Think you know traffic law because you read the learner's permit handbook? Think again. These laws far exceed their perceived mandate of public safety, and regulate so many aspects of our modern life, economically, socially, how we interact with the police, and so forth.

Now consider criminal law. Nothing is more defining of a society and yet so personal, defining us not only as a nation, but as a people and as individuals. Indeed, the concept of freedom from self-incrimination has not only been a key tenet of defining us as Americans, but has defined liberty and justice for Western Society since the Magna Carta of 1215 A.D. It is not only a tenet of the Constitution, but a tenet of law itself!

Will all of that be undone because of the bloodlust of the American people for vengeance? For a misplaced sense of justice?  To be replaced by a lynch-mob anarchy bastardization of justice?

"The duty we owe our constituents obliges us to be as attentive to the safety of the innocent as we are desirous of punishing the guilty; and we apprehend that a doubtful construction and various execution of criminal law does greatly endanger the safety of innocent men." ~JOUR. HOUSE OF BURGESSES (1773-1776), p. 22.

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach." -Adolf Hitler

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article contributed by Station.6.Underground, used by permission.

Guilty until proven innocent - Florida to take DNA upon arrest

This is a serious affront to liberty and due process. Media coverage and public apathy are just as offensive.

The Florida legislature has now approved $1.2 million for police to begin collection of DNA samples for all felony arrests. While some may view this as a unique and powerful crime-fighting tool, it is equally true that such sampling will be misused and exploited to nefarious ends by police, government, and corporations.

About this time last year we did a story outlining the preciousness of freedom and the dangers posed by DNA profiling in our article...

L.A. Touts Serial Killer Arrest to Quash Civil Liberty Concerns (UPDATED)

No need to rehash the points of that article here again, but be sure to check out that link of course. In the meantime though, let us have a look at this article from ABC-7 WWSB to expose the classic tactics of disinformation.

To begin, there is...

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

We see that there is no mention of resistance to this new program, no moment of pause, no consideration for the many valid reasons why DNA collection from anyone should be met with the utmost skepticism. And certainly there should be open discourse on taking DNA from citizens who have not been convicted of any crime.

Next we have...

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

...with the article reporting...

"We are very pleased with the decision," said Manatee County Sheriff's Office spokesperson, Dave Bristow.

Of course you are pleased the decision Mister Bristow, and the average Dorito-munching Wheel-watcher on the street will trust the word of the police authority, even if is the police themselves that we should be most afraid of in reality. And we should certainly be concerned about this end-run around the Constitution and due-process as well.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." ~Patrick Henry

Heck, police cannot even force you to take a breathalyzer because it is unconstitutional, but now they are going to be allowed to create a genetic profile of you from a DNA sample? But if the general reader even bothers to think about these things, next up on deck we have the emotional appeal to rhetoric. Invoke mental imagery of a ravaged and murdered little girl and a grieving father with...

Drew Kesse is also pleased with the decision. He has been lobbying for the change for years."The more we can take the scum off the street, that's what we need to do in this world," Kesse said. Kesse's daughter, Jennifer, was abducted from her vehicle at an Orlando area apartment complex in 2006

...which could fall under any of these headings if his authoritarian will were challenged...

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

...Pretty much self explanatory, but of course you would expect him to scream out the "how dare you" appealing to your emotions for his suffering and that of the victim, which then sets the stage for...

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

...With the emotional swirl of an abducted little girl, you can pretty much demand whatever you want from the public. After all, to go against whatever this man wants as a solution to his suffering, you must be "for" horrific crimes against children. Which of course is a fallacy, as is his...

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

...tactic. He jumps right to the conclusion that anyone who is ever arrested is not only guilty before the case ever goes to trial, but that they are also "scum." I for one, do not equate an arrest with a conviction. In this say and age, we have good reason to even take a conviction on a murder charge with a high degree of skepticism.

Take for example, the case of Barry Gibbs, who spent nearly two decades in prison after being framed by two NYPD Detectives. And even in the end, it was not some new DNA evidence that freed him, like so many convictions overturned by the Innocence Project. He just got lucky, the crooked cops were exposed and their cases reviewed.So let's not jump to the erroneous conclusion that DNA testing will prevent any false convictions. Indeed, it even raises the specter of using false DNA evidence to a secure a conviction that could not ever hope to be overturned by the Innocence Project.

The article then goes on to report that 21 states already have such databases. Indeed, it is quite alarming that this trend has been allowed to continue and has not been overturned as being an affront to the liberty of all citizens, whether guilty or innocent, convicted or acquitted. You see, even if you go to trial and are found not-guilty, it's too late. Your sample has already been taken and stored. The United States now has the largest DNA profiling database in the world which is right in line with the fact that we also have the largest prison population. The US has only 5% of the world's population but 25% of world's prisoner population, not including supervision programs such as probation.

Now lastly, the article rounds out with this enigmatic claim...

And to give you an example of the economic success of the database, law enforcement agencies around the state of Indiana were able to save $60 million over the past year with this program.

So there we have a news station, rather then being objective, offering up a financial endorsement without any substantiation or explanation. How does one save $60 million, by spending a few million more? Of course, again, your average brain-dead reader will simply think "oh, it saves money, I'm all for it," and flip to the next page without thinking twice about it.

Meanwhile, that statement could actually fall under any one of these categories...

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.


15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

As well as the aforementioned...

9. Play Dumb.

8. Invoke authority.

...and even...

4. Use a straw man.

...since cost is not really even relevant to infringement on liberty, or for that matter, catching a child-abductor. And finally...

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

...seeing as how they made such a brief little article, chock full of disinformation tactics but reporting little of substance on such an important story for the future of our society and the Republic for which we stand.

And just as one added side-note. With familial DNA mapping, it is not only you who will be genetically mapped if you are arrested, but your family as well.

Freedom declared threat to police

A recent brief on PoliceOne.com, a website for law-enforcement personnel to share information, declares "sovereign citizens threat to cops." What a shame that the police are so far around the bend, that they don't even realize the oath they took to uphold the Constitution was an oath to defend these principals, not to declare the adherents a threat. This is the true face of the police-state today, and a clear example of the perverted justice they uphold.

Government corruption, economic ruin and wanton violence against the people by a paramilitary police-state apparatus, has never been more prevalent or obvious. Yet in propaganda pieces like the segment from 60 Minutes that I will share here, the powers-that-be resort to flawed logic and rhetoric in order to make their case that freedom is bad, and that people who adhere to the founding principals of this nation are a threat to the nation. Yet they will show no proof that the claims of a sovereign are either incorrect or illegal. I'll let you go ahead and watch the clip first, then we'll talk more about it...



Normally I think 60 minutes is a fantastic program. But this time it seems clear that they are being used as a propaganda tool, just like every other mainstream media source. Right off the bat, they try to portray sovereign citizens as some sort of new-fangled organized "movement" when really that is not the truth at all. They are not a society, they are not an organization, they are not a political movement. Tthey are citizens, just like you and I, who adhere to strict interpretations of our Constitution and who seek to legally unbind themselves from a complex web of statutory contract law.

This is a concept that is really not understood by the layman, and I am not about to explain it all here. I do suggest you look more into it yourself though by surfing the web a little and learning about it. But as an example to the reader, let us take a look at your driver's license and all the statutory regulations that go with the "privilege" of driving. The fact is, you have a Constitutionally protected God-given right to freedom of movement by whatever means you so happen to choose. So where do the police get the power to issue you a ticket for driving with s suspended driver's license, or for not paying the state tax to have your car registered? You gave them the power. When you signed on the dotted line to get your state-issued driver's license, you made a contract agreement to abide by the state laws or "codes" of the road. The sovereign refuses to be subject to or bullied into contract agreements that are contradictory to the liberties spelled out in the Constitution. That's it. It has nothing to do with shooting people, has nothing to do with taking control of the government (we are the government, in theory anyway), has nothing to do with recruiting new adherents to a Conservative wet-dream. The sovereign has many different social ideals, economic beliefs, and religious values even if it is no religion at all. That really is the entire point. Freedom.

So now the government has declared folks who take the Constitution literally to be "among the nation's top domestic terror threats" because some have become violent. If we are going to use that criteria, I suggest that perhaps it is the police who are among the nation's top domestic terror threats. When was the last time a sovereign citizen molested your child at the airport? When was the last time a sovereign citizen tore off your wife's clothes because she called for help, and then laughed about it (last second of vid)? When was the last time a sovereign citizen smashed a man's face in for using a video camera in his own front yard? When was the last time a group of sovereign citizens beat up on unarmed women in a restaurant? When was the last time a sovereign citizen got away with murder because of corruption and lies? When was the last time a gang of sovereign citizens broke into a war veteran's home and executed him in front of his wife and child?

And the favorite excuse of the apologists? "Cops are just people too." You're goddamn right they are just people too, which means they have no flipping right to do the crap that they do no matter what some court rules. The courts, no matter what they decide on paper or in collusion, have no damn right to decide that you no longer have your Constitutionally protected God-given rights of free men. They have no right to tell you that you cannot protect yourself against a home-invasion.

Of course, court mandated and approved supra-Constitutional police powers aside,  there are also plenty of cases of police officers committing actual crimes as well, not just abusing the rights of citizens. Blatant criminal acts that sometimes we actually hear about, on that occasion when such acts make it to the light of day through the blue wall of silence and multilayer system of corruption, cronyism, and propagandist white-washing. So if we are going to use the "few bad apples" excuse for police, who we should actually expect to be held to a higher standard with all of their power and authority, not a lower one, couldn't that same "few bad apples" excuse be used for any other group, including citizens?

So let us be clear here. I am not defending the actions of this man and his son who went over the edge and chose to murder two police officers for no obvious reason. That is not freedom, that is not liberty. I do not endorse violence for the sake of violence or to make some bullshit statement. But I will say this. With more and more proud, freedom-loving Americans being shoved around one too many times and left no place to turn, it hardly surprises me to see things like this happen, where folks decide they have had enough, and decide to shove back. Nevertheless, portraying some down on his luck supposed scam artist and his son as the spokespersons for citizens who value the Constitution is like saying that Biggie Smalls spoke for all New Yorkers.

In the first segment of the clip they focus on the actual shooting. I don't see anything in that video that would justify the actions of that man and his son. Of course, there might be something in the editing that I am missing. But really, I am a firm believer in "live to fight another day." I see no reason to kill a police officer unless a police officer is about to kill you, or to kill anyone else for that matter unless your own life (or another innocent) is in danger. As much as I "hate" cops from an ideological standpoint, I hate no cop personally just because of what he does for a living. (I've also met a criminal or two that were actually real good people, if misguided.) So seeing that bit of video, where the chief arrives at the scene, that got me choked up. I can hardly imagine what that must have been like.

Nonetheless, with the two shooters dead 90 minutes later, I wonder if the Chief is looking for someone else to blame. Indeed, even 60 Minutes calls sovereign citizens the Chief's obsession. A natural, psychological, human coping mechanism to try to find someone to blame for such a shocking and tragic loss, but it was not some movement that killed his son and son's partner any more than it was their job that killed them. It was a young gunman and his father, who are now dead. There is no one else that can be blamed.

Next up in the piece we hear from J.J. McNab, a self-employed, self-avowed "expert" on sovereign citizens who's last job was as a financial planner. I see nothing in her resume that says she is lawyer, much less a Constitutional scholar. Yet 60 Minutes interviews her as if she were indeed an authority, when clearly she is not. She begins with an erroneous and inflammatory statement claiming that the sovereign citizen claims they are "above the law" when in fact the exact opposite is true. The sovereign citizen sees that the government, the courts, and the police, are putting themselves above the law. And that of course is my very own interpretation, since the whole point of being a sovereign is that nobody tell you what to think or can tell other people what you think. Maybe she should look up the word sovereign.

She goes on to talk about the sovereigns' "twisted" view of history, yet she is no historian at all by any credential. She claims that people of the 18th century saw themselves as free of all legal constraints, and that sovereign citizens today also believe that and want to "return" to that time. The fact is, that people of the 18th century very much believed in the rule of law, a just law, prescribed by the document they put forth called the Constitution. The core values of what made this nation a nation in the first place, free of tyranny and oppression. The values which inspired a Revolution and set men free to prosper in a nation where one man would never have to bow before another. So then the question really becomes, at what time did the government see fit to deviate from that rule of law, from this promise of liberty?

The segment then goes on to equate sovereigns with anti-government forces. How can the people be anti-government in a true democratic republic when the people are the government? They equate the movement with terrorism, and even racism but then in the same breath say that black actor Wesley Snipes used "sovereign language" in trying to combat the IRS. 

Back again to the self avowed expert who now profiles what to look for in a sovereign citizen. A30-35 year old (white man) in economic dire straits who has probably lost their job and their wife. Many are "paranoid, conspiracy theorists" according to her. Nevermind the fact that she is not a psychologist or in any position at all to judge whether or not someone is paranoid, and nevermind the very relevant questions that so called conspiracy theorists put forth. There was once a time when people who said the world was round, or who believed in the Mafia were conspiracy theorists too. Simply more vilification of any who dares to question the status quo. And of course, nevermind too that profiling disillusioned white men is about as ignorant as saying a nigga from Brooklyn is probably a cop killer.

In the next segment they do a real hack job on the guy trying to explain what sovereignty is all about, so I don't have too much there to comment on, other than to say I don't trust the government any more than he does. Any true patriot will distrust their government.

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~George Washington

But just after that, they go on to talk about different seminars and "scams" that are all over the internet. On that point, I do offer a word of caution. There are indeed many scams out there. Even someone as affluent as Wesley Snipes found out the hard way that trying to pry oneself out of the web of contract law is next to impossible. I do not declare myself a sovereign for that very reason if no other. Not because they are wrong mind you, but because I do not have the time, education, or skill to dedicate myself to the subtle nuances of sovereign law. One slip-up, and you wind up in the penitentiary with Wesley. But it can be done...




...and stuff like that folks, is why the system will degrade you, smear you with propaganda, imprison you, and ultimately murder you if they get half a chance. Because being a sovereign is a direct threat to your God-given rights. One mis-step, and they will come down on you with all the fury Hell hath to offer.

Nonetheless, as I said, it can be done, in more ways than one too. A smart sovereign would never go out and make a spectacle of themselves as a would-be martyr gunned down in some delusional blaze of glory. The true sovereign is the one who knows how to navigate this complex web of deceit, which is more than a century in the making. The true sovereign, and the real threat to the usurpers, are the sort of folks they point out in the next segment. The ones who use the system, against the system. What the 60 Minutes reporter calls "retribution" is completely legal, and some might say, completely justified. In that segment, they actually admit that sovereigns are not the "delusional" sort that JJ McNab tries to portray. While she claims these folks have turned off their "common sense switch," many have used the system's own rules and statutes against gate-keepers. The same sort of loopholes that might leave you stranded by the side of the road after police have impounded your car for a dirty license plate, or being charged with felony assault of a police officer for farting at a cop.

Next segment we have a judge from Queens holding court in Rosendale NY, a small local community I know well, claiming he is scared to death when he learns that some moron in his court over a misdemeanor traffic ticket had "contacts" with the West Memphis shooters. Number one, I would like to know what contacts that actually was. Passed eachother in some chat forum, subscribed to the same newsletter? Second of all, does he really expect us to believe that a judge from Queens who worked 30 years in the penitentiary with the most depraved human beings alive has never felt unsafe in his life before coming up against the "sovereign citizens"? Even in the video segment it appears that the judge himself can't even hold back his laughter.

And did you get a look at those goofballs that are this supreme threat to national security? To this judge to the point that he is sleeping with a gun under his pillow? Newsflash judge, if you are that scared maybe you should start lobbying the state to stop shutting down mental health units. Is the crux of this whole report telling the American people that our entire nation is about to be brought down by the Three Stooges? Seriously? Now Wesley Snipes, I might have bought that one.

Back again now to the brief segment with the man 60 Minutes has labeled as the "sovereign guru." The man is completely reasonable talking about the Second Amendment, and the purpose of the right to bear arms. He is absolutely right, it was never meant to protect our right of suck hunting. It was put into the Constitution to provide a sovereign natural right to resist tyranny, by force if necessary.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." ~Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Quick cut to the police Chief who's son was murdered, who states, "Obviously the guy is crazy, and I think he should be brought up on charges."

There you have it folks, in clear. no uncertain terms, according to the police chief of West Memphis, if you believe in the Constitution, "obviously" you are crazy and should be brought up on charges.

"If they want to come after me, I'm very easy to find. The polic Chief in West Memphis, Arkansas... If they come after me, I have absolutely no problem with it, and might even like it."


"...and might even like it."


"...and might even like it."

Spoken like a true pig there Chief.

Rodney King trial evidence, LAPD radio transmissions, 1:13 a.m. from Powell and Wind to the foot patrol: "I haven't beaten anyone this bad in a long time."

Now don't get me wrong, if someone killed my boy, I might feel the same way. But what the chief fails to recognize, is that no one went after his boy. His boy went after them.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." ~Thomas Paine

Supplemental:

Operation Vampire killer 2000: American Police Action Plan for Stopping World Government Rule



Copyright, November-Blue Enterprise, used by permission

NY overturns Family Court decision to bar level 3 sex offender from his kids

James Colliton was a half-million dollar a year tax attorney with a Manhattan apartment and a home he shared with his wife and children in upstate Poughkeepsie, New York. Today, he is a convicted level-3 sex offender after pleading guilty to rape, among other charges, for patronizing teenage prostitutes who were pimped out by their mother according to prosecutors. Initially he took his family and fled to Canada, was arrested but released in Ontario, before finally being arrested again in Manhattan to face a 43-count indictment. By the time of his 2007 conviction, he had been in jail for 19 months and was sentenced to one year, time-served, in a plea deal that let him off the hook for a potential 30 years in prison. The mother of the teen girls had previously pleaded guilty to charges against her for pimping the girls out to Colliton.

In Plea Deal, Lawyer Admits Having Sex With Teenagers

Seem like a pretty open and shut case of a real creep who probably got off a lot easier than he should have. I mean, just getting a look at this guy's mug is almost enough to convict him. Tell me that doesn't look like the textbook pic of a pedophile.

Since his conviction he has gone from tax attorney to pro se litigant, suing everyone from American Express for revealing account information leading to his arrest, to his former employer for not paying him his bonus, to the Town of Poughkeepsie and Dutchess County for violating his Constitutional rights and rights to privacy while monitoring him as a registered sex offender. Now it appears as though he might have grounds to go after the county's Department of Social Services with the NY State Court of Appeals ruling in his favor against the Family Court and recommendations of DSS which forced him out of his home for the next three years after his conviction. According to the Poughkeepsie Journal...

The Dutchess County Department of Social Services filed neglect petitions against both parents alleging the father was an untreated level-three sex offender, deemed likely to reoffend, whose crimes involved young teens, and that the mother failed to protect the children from the father.

Enough to make your blood boil right? One article I linked above there they called him "the most ridiculous pro se litigant of all time." And I am sure much worse has been said about him. Certainly enough to piss off the average Joe or Jane to see a creep like this using his legal expertise in to start snagging up loopholes in order to sue various parties for hundreds of millions of dollars. You would think he would have been happy with getting such a lucky break at sentencing for his admitted crimes.

Well, if you know me, or as you get to know me, you will see that I like to play the devil's advocate a lot. I am not easily swayed by rhetoric and shock-value reporting. I don't have the same knee-jerk reactions as most people do to words like communist, terrorist, sex offender or pedophile. So I tried to think about this objectively. Should this man have been forced from his house and barred from his children simply because he was guilty of sex with a teenage girl for money?

Of course I understand that these girls were underage and what he did is indeed a crime, but I am not quite seeing the correlation that shows he would actually attack his own children. It's kind of like the assumption that homophobes always make when they find out a guy is queer. All the sudden the straight guys all think the queer guy is going to try to have sex with them. You see that assumption too when it comes to homosexuals interacting with children. Legal or not, homosexuality is still often seen as sexual deviancy, that the homosexual might be more inclined to molest children and therefore should not be allowed to adopt or work with kids. Even if there were data to support such a notion, there is certainly nothing that says all homosexuals are likely to attack children.

So just because he pled guilty to having sex with a minor, does not mean that he is likely to attack any and all minors, especially his own children.  If he had sex with a prostitute that was of legal age, would that be a sign that he was likely to proposition his children for sex when they became legal age of consent? Certainly not, yet that is same sort of logic which was applied to bar this man from his house and his kids.

Applied logic doesn't always pan out though in the real world. My gut was still telling me that this guy is a creep and his kids would be better off without him. I would certainly sleep better at night knowing that this guy was nowhere near kids, his own or otherwise. But then again I am conflicted between what my gut is telling me, and what my morals tell me. And my morals tell me this has nothing to do with how I sleep at night. My morals tell me that this has nothing to do with what my gut tells me "might" happen. My morals tell me that just because a man is guilty of one crime, I have no right to assume he is destined to be guilty of any crime my imagination conjures up.

Therefore, I must conclude that the judges in this case did in fact make the right decision in their ruling. A difficult decision on their part no doubt, and an unpopular ruling it is likely to be in the face of hyperbole and the public's utter contempt for sex offenders. Nonetheless, we see that they had statutory basis for their ruling.

...under New York's Family Court Act, they cited two findings that required them to determine neglect. The first is "proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the child." Second is the danger "must be a consequence of the parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care."


The court noted the statutory test is not best or ideal care for children, but a minimum degree.

So it does appear that the Department of Social Services did wrongfully separate this man from his family, falsely accusing both himself and his wife of neglect. And as much as I hate to admit it, he should be compensated for that. As this story begins to unravel, now we must consider too that perhaps his other lawsuits were not so frivolous as we had assumed. What if this man were not guilty of statutory rape? I think that perhaps me might actually give him more serious consideration. Which we should anyway. Just because someone is the perpetrator of a crime, no matter how heinous, that is no justification for others to commit crimes against him or to deny him his rights, lest one day we too are abused simply because we are not popular.

Digging a little deeper now, I am confronted by articles that paint a very different picture than what has been portrayed by the prosecution and in most media sources reporting on the case. What if this man really is not in fact guilty of the crimes he was convicted of? It would seem incredulous, unthinkable to even suggest such a thing. How dare I even doubt for a second that such a creep is not as guilty as sin. After all, he pled guilty, and so did the mother who pimped out those poor girls.

So let's go ahead and take a second look at that woman, who also pled guilty in a plea arrangement. How could a mother do such a thing to her daughters? Well, the case comes undone a little more as we pull at the loose ends as they begin to fray.

"The one that was prostituting my [now] 15-year-old daughter was my [21-year-old] daughter," the mother said in her sparse apartment in lower Manhattan. "She's the devil's child, period."


The mother said her vengeful child had been out to get her since she called ACS to report her daughter's boyfriend was abusing her granddaughter.

But it also appears the girls weren't just out to get the mother. According to another article, these young girls have lied about an awful lot in this case, even lying under oath to the grand jury. So what can we really believe? The window of reasonable doubt is suddenly wide open it appears, and perhaps James Colliton should never have pled guilty to what may have been false allegations from the start.

The older sister had alleged that her own relationship with Colliton began when she was 15. This is disputed however by a cousin of the sisters, identified only as "Shorty," who states that it was she who introduced the older sister to Colliton and that it had been three years later than claimed, when she was 18, a year older than the legal age for consent in New York State. If that is true, then one of the rape charges against Colliton goes right out the window. Plainly not guilty of statutory rape, even if guilty of patronizing a prostitute.

The younger girl has now admitted that she lied about her mother pimping her out, but maintains that she did in fact have sex with Colliton for money and gifts at the behest of her older sister.But that too must be met with the utmost skepticism at this point, considering how this whole case came about in the first place. The elder sister became pregnant by another man, but then began extorting Colliton until finally he demanded a DNA test be done. This is where the younger sister comes into the picture.

By some accounts, still needing cash, the older sister began offering up her younger sibling to Colliton. At first to clean his apartment in exchange for money, but eventually he is alleged to have begun paying in cash and gifts for sex with the younger girl for the next several months. By her own admission, the younger girl began extorting Colliton, threatening to have him arrested.

"I started threatening him that if he didn't give me money that I'd call the cops on him. I told him to give me whatever he could give me. I didn't want to have sex with him anymore," she said.

Maybe she never had sex with him in the first place. The older sister convinced the younger to report Colliton to ACS Administration for Children's Services) while implicating their mother becasue she was too strict on them. As if the credibility of these two girls was not already in serious doubt, we also have the case of José Mangual, the ex boyfriend of the mother of these two girls, who has come forward stating that he was the subject of false allegations made by these two sisters.

Mangual said he ran afoul of the older sister when he moved into the family's Manhattan home and the mother began paying more attention to him than to her kids.


The older girl, then 17, filed physical-abuse charges against the mother with the Administration for Children Service and allegedly persuaded her younger sister to accuse Mangual of sexual abuse.


Mangual said he was never arrested but hired a lawyer to defend himself in family court. He said that the girls' claim fell apart under questioning and that the case against him was dismissed. He and their mother later broke up.

Considering that Mangual came forward and the testimony of the girls had been all but disproven by their own public statements to press, it is hard to imagine how the charges against either the mother or Colliton still stood at all, much less why they might have elected to plead guilty to those charges. Of course, there are those who will maintain the naive notion that "only a guilty person would plead guilty." But sadly, that just is not the truth in this day and age of the presumption of guilt over innocence. The police and courts are too well trusted, while someone as loathsome as a child molester or an unfit mother will hardly be afforded any reasonable doubt even when only the weakest of evidence is brought against them.

So considering that. Considering the very real possibility that they may spend decades in prison for something they did not do, it is really little surprise that such a fear would get the better of someone. And that they would rather just plead guilty, go home and try to move on, leaving the whole sordid tale behind them the best they can. And that my friends, is a big reason why our system is broken. Because the accused, even with the best lawyers often, know full well that there is no such thing as the presumption of innocence anymore. How did that happen? How do we change that?

This article courtesy Station.6.Underground, used by permission, all rights reserved.

Domestic violence debate still rages nearly a year after murder-suicide

This piece is brought to us by contributing author Rogan Mattock. It is a question-posing rebuttal to a column written by Jaqueline Axt, an advocate of domestic-violence related legal reform and the sister of Linda Riccardulli, who was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in July 2010.


A related article published previously by the MSMR can be viewed here...


Murder-suicide case raises questions about right to bear arms

* * *

It is only appropriate that I begin by expressing my sympathies and offering my condolences to the family and friends of the departed. I am truly saddened by this horrific crime, and was as shocked as any native or local of Dutchess County, New York, where this event took place when I began to hear the news of what had happened.

In the very early hours of a July morning in 2010, Anthony Riccardulli shot his wife Linda several times, killing her, before turning the gun on himself as police stormed the family's Hyde Park home. He was pronounced dead a short time later at a local hospital. One of their children was present in the home at the time of the murder-suicide.

A crime and tragedy the likes of which most people would have trouble comprehending the full gravity of. Which is why it is no surprise that Linda's sister Jackie Axt has become a vocal advocate for changes she hopes will save lives and prevent anything like this from ever happening again. I can't say that I blame her. There is probably no greater feeling of grief and powerlessness as that which is experienced by the loved ones of a person who has been murdered.

Regrettably however, I do not agree with the ideas and changes proposed by her and her fellow advocates, who have begun a new domestic violence initiative in the mid-Hudson Valley region. Which leads me to make this direct, open rebuttal to a column written by Ms. Axt, advisory council member of the newly founded Tri-County Crisis Center. A complete copy of the original column can be found at this blog, a movement against domestic violence.

After a brief introduction she states...

“I'd like to set a few things straight. My sister, Linda Riccardulli, was not helped by Grace Smith House.”

The Grace Smith House is a shelter for battered women. They offer no services for male victims of domestic violence, but do provide shelter and services to women who claim to be fleeing a household where they have been the victim of domestic violence.

Sadly, the mere fact that this is an organization which caters to women alone actually encourages women of little means to falsely accuse men of violence toward them, in order to secure a safe, short-term place to stay rather than a standard homeless shelter or the streets. So right off the bat here, we see a serious financial factor in domestic violence and a motivation for women to lie about domestic violence.

But let's just be clear though, it is plainly obvious that Linda was certainly not making any false claims of domestic violence. She could not claim anything. She was brutally murdered by a husband who was quite obviously deranged. And as far as I'm concerned, murder certainly counts as domestic violence.

So let's cut to the chase here with my first question to Ms. Axt. Did Linda request help from Grace Smith House? What could GSH have offered her? Shelter is one of the primary services that GSH provides, but Linda had shelter. A nice house in the country. How was GSH supposed to know she needed help? What help could they have offered that she would have taken? A crummy converted motel room? I doubt she would have taken it, and I can hardly blame her really. GSH is the end of the line for woman who really have no place to go. Not a service that Linda could have benefited from or would have chosen to use I don't believe.

“She did not get directed to a Domestic Violence Court in Dutchess County.”

To my knowledge, there is no DV court in Dutchess County, no plans for such a court, and frankly, I don't see the need for one. When someone is the victim of an assault, that is a criminal matter. It makes no difference in the eyes of the law, nor should it, if the victim is a one-night stand, a lifelong spouse, a sibling, parent, etc. For other matters which can complicate domestic relationships, we have family courts, divorce courts, and civil courts.

Courts are not advocacy centers, nor should they be twisted to be, at substantial taxpayer expense. Ms. Axt, I don't mean to sound insensitive, but what makes victims of DV more “special” than the victims of any other crime?

Please don't misunderstand, I am not ignorant of the unique problems posed by a domestic assault as compared to, say, a random assault on the street by a total stranger. But those problems are not something that are going to be resolved by a new court system.

The idea sounds good at first look, but at second glance, all I see is another big ball of government red-tape, more tax dollars down the drain, and handing over more power to a government that neither you nor I seem to trust or have much faith in.

“She was not assigned a DV Divorce Lawyer who would have given her appropriate council.”

And who precisely should “assign” a divorce lawyer? I am sure Linda had a phonebook and knew how to use it. Or are you proposing that a woman who claims to be the victim of DV should get a “free” tax-payer subsidized divorce lawyer?

Does the man also get a court appointed divorce lawyer? After all, Anthony had not been convicted of any crime. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20. Anthony obviously turned out to be a killer. A man who, for whatever reason he may have thought he had, murdered his wife. But that is hardly the norm. Most men do not murder their wives, no matter what the problems are in a relationship or the stakes of a divorce.

More importantly, a man or woman in this country is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, with a right to be judged by a jury of peers, and a right to legal counsel. It could hardly be considered justice to deny one spouse access to a subsidized attorney, in favor of the other spouse, simply on the basis of an accusation. Or, for that matter, even based on a history of criminal conduct. If that conduct pertains to a divorce, that should be judged by the court, with both parties being afforded equal opportunity for legal representation.

If you were the victim of a robbery, should you be denied a lawyer to sue the perpetrator because you got arrested for shoplifting once when you were a kid? Should you be denied a lawyer because someone accused you of being a thief even though you had never been convicted of any crime?

At the end of the day, it is not my responsibility to pay for someone else's lawyer in a legal proceeding that decides who gets what in regards to property that is not mine and has nothing to do with me. As empathetic as I may be to folks who cannot afford a good divorce lawyer, it is hardly the responsibility of the taxpayer, regardless of the circumstances,, to manage the affairs of another citizen.

“She and her children were not protected by the "Order of Protection" that was given to them. Her estranged husband who was a danger to himself and others was released from jail and what she was given was 40 minutes notice that he was out. That was the "model" that did not save Linda's life last summer, the same model I keep reading about.”

For readers who are not familiar with this case, Anthony had been accused of a previous violent attack on his wife, a month or so before the morning of the murder. From what I gather, she was not severely injured in that altercation, but the alleged attack was said to be quite violent nonetheless, employing the use of household objects as weapons. It is not known what triggered the reported attack, or if there was a history of violence in the household. Regardless, he spent about a month in the county jail before a large bail was posted, and he was released pending trial, with an order of protection against him ordering that he was not to contact or be in the vicinity of his wife.

Orders of protection are not a magic shield. The only thing such an order ensures, is that if the person violates that order, they will face a separate, additional, felony charge if they violate it, on top of whatever other crime they may be accused of. So really, an order of protection is only a deterrent, just as all other laws are.

No order of protection, and no law will ever protect you from a person intent on doing harm or committing a crime. Sadly, when Anthony appeared at the house that morning with a handgun that was not registered to him, Linda and her daughter were unarmed. That was no accident either. Thanks to pressure and legislation by previous domestic-violence advocates, a judge had ordered that all the guns in the home be removed when Anthony was arrested. The one single tool that was left at Linda's disposal, to protect herself from an armed deranged man coming into her house to kill her, had been taken away by a judge in order to “protect” her.

So now we must really ask ourselves... Did Linda die because the government didn't do enough, or because they did too much?

Ms. Axt complains that her sister was only given 40 minutes notice, yet her killer did not appear at the door until days later. So what good would have 12, even 24 hours of notice have done? A pretty nice gesture on the part of the jail to notify her at all. Most crime victims are not notified when their attacker is released. Would you or I be in any less danger of, let's say, a thug coming to get revenge and silence us after they had robbed us at the store where we worked? Or if a stranger who had burglarized our house had been released on bail? In fact, 40 minutes is actually a pretty good amount of notice. Probably about as much notice as the jail themselves had. When someone comes to post bail for a detainee, they have to release that person as soon as the paperwork and processing is completed. It is not the job of the jail to hamper a release or to otherwise harass a suspect who might in fact be innocent of the charge against them.

That point is important to remember. Anthony had not been convicted of any crime. Nor was he found by any court or mental health professional to be a “danger to himself and others.” So what model do you propose here Ms. Axt? That any person, man or woman, who is accused of getting into a spat with their spouse be locked up for a year or more waiting for a trial in which they might be found to be innocent and of sound mind?

“I can not correlate the military level response to the woman who was being evicted from her home, to the lack of response that Linda encountered in Dutchess County when she brought her multiple OP violations to her lawyers, the DA and Police, and ultimately as she lay bleeding in her home on the night she lost her life.”

That is correct. You cannot correlate the two. Two entirely different incidents. The woman who was being evicted is an accused burglar who pointed a gun at police. I think they were awfully heavy-handed in their response in that matter though, calling in SWAT and tanks to disarm a little old lady armed with a BB gun, but maybe they over-reacted precisely because of the recent string of DV incident in our region.

Moreover, police were actually in the process of mobilizing such a response to save Linda when she was killed. Time ran out in her case, where the other incident dragged on for many hours.

As far as alleged orders of protection violations, I am only aware of one that was reported. When Anthony was released from jail, he reportedly placed a phone call telling Linda that he needed important financial documents. Papers that were necessary for him to get the money that paid for the house and the bills where she was still living with the kids while he was told to stay away and had to find some other place to stay. Allegedly he tried to arrange a meeting at the police station in order to receive those papers and some personal affects.

When Linda reported the call to police, the only evidence she had of the call was a caller ID phone number that came back to Anthony's mother's cellphone. Of course, common sense tells us that it probably was him that called, in violation of the court order, but you cannot prosecute someone in a court of law on “maybe.” You have to have some proof other than someone's mother's telephone number. According to newspaper reports, Linda herself refused to press charges in order to have him arrested for violating the order of protection.

Unless she was willing to make a sworn statement that she had gotten a call from her husband, in violation of the court order, the only thing that the police had as evidence was that a phone call had been placed from his mother's phone to Linda's That is no crime at all, nor a violation of the court order. It was up to her to press charges and swear in a statement that he had contacted her in violation of that court order.

As far as her bringing multiple OOP violations to her “lawyers,” I thought you said she didn't have a lawyer?

“I really cannot fathom the reluctance that the advocates I work with, Maria DiBari and Alyssa Kogon have encountered trying to offer solutions to the problems. Not far fetched solutions or unproven theories. These are solutions that have been proven effective in other places. Ideas that have been dismissed or ignored, and in some instances, many months later, are being touted as their own.

As previously mentioned, the press conference we held in September for "Linda's Laws" was not attended by anyone from any DV assistance group even though they were all invited.”

Again, I don't mean to sound cold ma'am. But you are hurting, and the people you have aligned yourself with are carrying on an axe-grinding agenda. If other DV groups are not standing beside you, there is a reason. And that reason is, your proposals are unreasonable.

On the other hand, I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. As much as I may oppose your ideas, the last thing I want to see is some bum politician or group of cronies taking credit for the things you have worked on. I am also not entirely thick-headed, and might be more amendable to some of our proposals if constructive dialogue could be achieved.

“The latest slap in the face was the Committee hearing on April 7th. You can see for yourself how the discussion of the GPS proposal was mentioned and tabled and the reaction from the Angela Friesland -R who seemed annoyed that it was even being brought up. I wrote a letter to the Legislature/Advisory Committee regarding my feelings from a victims point of view. (letter attached below)

I got three responses (Thank you!) out of 25 people in the Legislature. Most notably , I received no response from Leah Feldman who is the Project Coordinator of the Universal Response to Domestic Violence. The most resounding response I got was the Web Cast taken down the day after my letter was received by the Legislature. Only after complaints from the public, the Webcast was put back up and a letter from the Advisory Committee went out to appease those concerned and angered about the Legislature Meeting.”

I only saw bits and pieces of the hearing, so I cannot comment authoritatively with a solid opinion one way or the other on that. In general though, I have a healthy distrust of government and politicians, hence my reluctance to give them any more power than they have already usurped from our beloved Constitution. We all know though, that government is a lumbering oafish giant, and very little of substance ever happens at all, much less quickly.

On the other hand, those delays are for a reason too. That is the price we pay for democratic government. Your opinion, even as a victim, is not the only opinion to be acknowledged, and Linda's death is not the only fact to be considered.

Specifically to the point of GPS monitoring though. What criteria do you propose that would mandate someone be placed on electronic GPS monitoring? How would that have saved Linda?

On the one hand, I am inclined to say that GPS monitoring of an early-release felon might indeed be helpful in preventing and/or solving other crimes. But at what cost? At what cost financially to an already overtaxed citizenry? A people so overtaxed that it actually induces domestic violence.

And at what cost to liberty? Is anyone who is simply accused of a crime to be tracked and monitored like cattle? Are our public streets to become the new prisons littered with folks being electronically monitored? A very slippery slope there, that gives the government and the powers- that-be a motivating factor to accuse and convict any and all of us on some trumped up charge in order to track our every move. Rather Orwellian don't you think? It's bad enough that we already keep more people in prison than Communist China. The US has less than 5% of the world population but a full 25% of the world's total prison population, not including parole, probation and other monitoring already in place. Has that made us any safer?

I don't want to see domestic violence be exploited as yet another in a long line of “flavors of the day” to bring about even more oppression by an ever-more corrupt and broken government. And I certainly don't want to see DV laws that actually perpetuate more DV.

But let's cut back to the chase again. Would Linda have been saved by a multi-million dollar surveillance apparatus? Probably not. From what I understand, police got the call not long after he arrived at the home. An army of police were already outside when Linda was killed. So in that instance, we can see, that millions of dollars would have been spent and Linda would still be gone, all because she did not have a $300 shotgun in the house or strong enough locks on the doors. Now granted, a shotgun may not have saved her life, but it sure as hell is a better bet than a GPS system and a fistful of court orders.

“Stop using my sister as a political pawn. I am appalled that these groups keep invoking Linda's name when I know first hand that they did not help her before her death, nor have they supported or even acknowledged the family in the wake of her murder.”

I'm sorry, but that sounds rather egotistical. They are trying to push through some slow-moving legislation on behalf of your sister, but you are mad because they didn't make you the captain of the ship. Maybe we should all just stop trying to invoke boutique laws in the name of one person or another, and start applying the laws that are already on the books... along with some good common sense.

"ATTACHMENT LETTER TO LEGISLATURE 4-14-11

County Legislature,

I would like to thank those Legislators in Dutchess County that value saving the lives of domestic violence victims in the community and were willing to speak out, along with the unpaid advocates in the county.

However, I'm sorry that the value of saving lives for some is not as obvious as the value of a free ice machine."

If you want to hold a rally for Linda, then do it. A county legislature meeting is held to conduct business. Everything from considering proposed legislation to prosecute the most heinous criminals, to who is going to install a new ice machine in the county office building. Linda is not the county's only order of business. I get it, you are hurting, your sister did not deserve to die like that, but Ms. Axt, life goes on even after we have lost someone close to us.

“I am shocked and appalled by what occurred in the committee meeting on April 7th. it is unbelievable that the committee was so quick to table the GPS proposal with nothing more than a vague "We're looking into it" from the Advisory Committee Liaison. That Leah Feldman, the Project Coordinator for the Universal Response for Domestic Violence had nothing to say on the matter is baffling.”

What can she say? They are looking into it. You may think they should have just enacted every law you wanted at enormous taxpayer expense and without question, but you are not a dictator, you are not providing funding, or even an articulate plan on how to implement these measures.

“Furthermore, my family and I are offended by the callus comments made by Legislator Angela Flesland as though it was out of line to bring this proposal to the meeting. My sister, Linda Riccardulli, is dead, and other families in addition to my own have been destroyed by homicides related to DV since. The Committee is not working fast enough where domestic violence is concerned. The offenders were all out on bail. Victims go unprotected. The GPS would have saved lives, and as part of a solution deserves discussion, not distain. You must remember we are dealing with lives, not political agendas.”

I don't know what comments were made, but judging by the tone of your piece, and how you became continually more aggressive and frustrated I can see how certain officials may have become exasperated by your impatience and lack of understanding as to how the democratic process happens. Only in a dictatorship does an idea today become a law tomorrow.

Domestic violence is a scourge, granted, but it is not going to be solved by some hip-shot legislation.

And what difference does it make that the offenders were out on bail? You do understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty, do you not? You do understand the purpose of bail?

GPS would not have saved lives, but it would cost taxpayers a fortune in a vain attempt to protect people who choose not to protect themselves. Victims are unprotected thanks to previous DV legislation that take away from them the very best tools they could ever have to protect themselves. You want to feel safe? Get a dog. You want to be safe? Get a gun. If I feel threatened by someone, I would take a Smith&Wesson any day of the week and twice on Sundays over some enhanced bail criteria, a timely phone call from the jail, or a GPS tracking device being monitored by a sleeping fatass in front of a bank of TV monitors.

Your sister's death was a horrific tragedy, there is no disputing that. But nothing in the proposals I have seen would have prevented that tragedy. We must make our own choices, not expect society and government to wave some magic wand to make everything “better” for us. There will always be mistakes, failure, and tragedy. This is the price we pay for living in a free society.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” ~Thomas Jefferson

Devious Censorship at Esteemed Newspaper

The MSMR has just received an email letter which is quite unsettling, but sadly, not surprising at all. It is not necessary to make an entire report, but we will instead publish the letter verbatim, as the author has given us permission to do. Special thanks to that author, "Jackinthebox," for taking the time to bring this to the attention of our readers.

Dear MSMReview:

Something has happened in the past few days that I think may be of some interest to you and your readers. A clear example of censorship on the part of a mainstream and “trusted” publication. Now I understand that in some cases, what is perceived as censorship can really be explained as necessary management of content, in a responsible manner. For example, just because your letter to the editor did not get printed, it is not necessarily deliberate censorship. This event however, is not one of those cases, and completely undermines the integrity and credibility of the publication in question.

Please let me start by introducing myself. I am “Jackinthebox.” an internet personality and avid message-poster across forums, message boards, news outlets, etc. Sometimes my name takes on variations on different forums in order to get through their registration process. For example, at the publication in question here, my member name is “Jaknthebox.” I have been a member there since August of 2009, and a lifelong reader of the print edition.

The publication in question is the Poughkeepsie Journal. A revered publication with a history of more than 220 years, making it the third oldest newspaper in the nation. It could be considered a local paper, but is much more than a backwater “hometown” print, having high readership in the historic Hudson Valley region north of New York City. It is no leap to say that many, many thousands of people read the Poughkeepsie Journal, as their primary source of news. It has been owned by the Gannett Company since 1977.

Because of its prominence, the integrity of such a news source is paramount in a nation built upon principals of liberty and free speech. Even more so in this region rich in history, which was first settled more than a century before the United States even existed. Of course, and in this day and age, any objective reader has to take into account that most stories reported to us are skewed in one way or another, often intentionally. Corporate gain, political bias, even intelligence agency psychological operations have all come to have an oppressive and overbearing influence on the public perception of events. It is one thing though, to report a story with a “slant” as me might expect FOX news, for example, to report from a Right-wing perspective. It is quite another to resort to blatant tactics of deliberate deception and tactics of disinformation. A news source is nothing without integrity.

Which now brings us to the issue at hand. In the time since I activated an account with the Poughkeepsie Journal's online edition, I have been quite active with my commentary. Being a life-long resident of the area, with family roots that go back to the first Dutch settlers who came here in the 1600's, local news stories are of particular interest to me. With an active account, readers may comment on most articles there, and I thoroughly enjoy doing so. Having such an outlet for readers to express their own opinions and perspective on issues related to those stories reported creates vibrant discussion and fosters greater understanding among fellow citizens. It also has the added benefit of “keeping them honest” so to speak, with readers able to critique the elements and veracity of each story.

Rarely though, is there ever much question of the integrity or factual basis of the articles. There have been some irregularities that I, and others have noticed in both print and online editions over the years, but I suppose that a certain amount of this is to be expected. No writer is perfect, and no operation operates flawlessly. Though they should strive to of course. Not all of their stories are original material either, as they share reports from other news sources such as the Associated Press, as most news outlets will do. Therefore, my commentary stayed focused on the issues, rather than getting involved in discussions which called their integrity into question. I also felt a certain sense of loyalty to the paper, and felt it was inappropriate to nitpick or to “attack them in their own house” so to speak. They have chose to personally reward me with a blatant insult which has thoroughly undermined their journalistic integrity and professionalism.

For several days I noticed that no one was checking the “recommend” counter on my comments as readers will do for comments that they enjoy or agree with. Nor was anyone quoting my posts to continue discussion based on what I had said, or to raise counter-points. Perhaps if my ego were larger I would have noticed sooner, but I didn't think much of it for maybe a week or more. That was until last night when I finally learned the truth of the matter. My comments have been removed from each and every article that I have commented on. On occasion they will remove member comments that are inappropriate but will leave a statement in such a comment box, stating that they have done so. “Comment has been removed for violating the terms of service.” Now some might consider that censorship, but I do understand the need to maintain some level of decorum for publicly viewed comments on their pages. My comments have been removed entirely though, as if they had never existed, without notice or explanation. Apparently my latest comments never appeared at all, except to me. But even in older articles where other members did in fact quote me in their own commentary, my original post which was quoted, is gone. I will attach captured screenshots to this letter in order to verify this.

Not only do I take this as a direct and personal insult, but so too should every member I interacted with, and so too should every reader of the Poughkeepsie Journal in the face of such blatantly deceptive censorship, calling into serious question the virtue of their entire operation. At the very lest they have completely disrupted the continuity of the ongoing commentary in many of these stories. I was not notified of any violation of their terms and conditions. I was not asked to modify the conduct of my posting habits in ways which may not have been covered by the T&C. My account remains open, and all of my comments are visible to me when I am logged in. They are not visible to any other members or readers though. My account profile is active when I am logged in, but any other readers will find a notice which states, “This community member's page is currently being reviewed by the editors. Jaknthebox has not made any contributions yet. Check back for updates or leave Jaknthebox a message.”

Clearly, this is censorship on the part of a company who should be doing everything possible to fight against censorship in order to bring information to the public. Moreover, it is being carried out in a highly deceptive and deliberate manner. Sadly, I had expected much more from the Poughkeepsie Journal. I had thought that they were large enough to cover all the current and relevant news, yet small enough to evade some of the more nefarious practices of larger main-stream media outlets who have been undermined by any number of behind-the-scenes groups and agendas.

People need to see that this sort of thing is happening. That this sort of thing is real, not the figment of the over-active imaginations of basement conspiracy-theorists. This is not crime of the century of course, but it is symptomatic of a systematic undermining of truth and fundamental American ideals. It is all too easy to take for granted what is reported as true and factual. All too easy to accept our news sources as the authorities of fact.

It happened to me this time, I'll take my bruises and move on. But I am certainly not alone. What will others do when it is their turn, their spouses turn, their parents turn, to be marginalized and silenced? To be lied to by those we trust? Really what can we do?

I was not sure where or how to air such a grievance. I expect I will make other inquiries into the matter. But in the meantime, I figured that this would be a story of interest for the Mainstream Media Review to take note of. Right up your alley in fact?

Thanks for taking the time to have a read.

Sincerely,

Jack

Please keep us posted Jack if you get anywhere with this.  


Wikipedia - Poughkeepsie
Wikipedia - Poughkeepsie Journal