Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion.
|
"News that's not known, or not known enough." Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion. |
|
|
| 
|
|
|
#
AK on Saturday —
Garzon has a track record of going after bad guys other courts don't have much interest in, and he had scheduled hearings looking into the illegal acts of several Bush-Cheney administration war criminals. But I'm sure that's just coincidental, as the Spanish officials seem to be much more concerned about his hearings about people who were disappeared seventy years ago. #
churrero87 on Saturday —
Shooting somebody in the back used to be seen as the ultimate in cowardice, but this guy will probably be hailed as a hero. His victim is paralyzed for life. #
Renegade Gargler on Friday — #
wlgriffi on Friday — #
Mick Caffeine on Friday —
Oh, those Evil Bastards... As I have been counseled repeatedly all my life: "Are you going to spend good money on that just because it is on sale?" Those Evil Bastards... #
Emma Ibbers on Thursday —
EK: Why? JG: What is the nature of the danger? The only possible answer is that this larger deficit would cause a rise in the interest rate. Well, if the markets thought that was a serious risk, the rate on 20-year treasury bonds wouldn't be 4 percent and change now. If the markets thought that the interest rate would be forced up by funding difficulties 10 year from now, it would show up in the 20-year rate. That rate has actually been coming down in the wake of the European crisis. So there are two possibilities here. One is the theory is wrong. The other is that the market isn't rational. And if the market isn't rational, there's no point in designing policy to accommodate the markets because you can't accommodate an irrational entity. A) The purchasing power of the dollar is the major risk people are worried about. B) Factors keeping interest rates down now include foreign buyers, esp. China, as well as Federal Reserve buying to manipulate the markets. "The market" is not external to the government. Next he says "there's no point in designing policy to accommodate the markets because you can't accommodate an irrational entity." Galbraith here is totally missing the larger context, which is geopolitical. We don't *want* to accomodate, we need to compete, to do battle economically, and to prevail. China has accumulated more than $2 trillion worth of foreign exchange reserves with a "mercantilist" strategy which simultaneously bleeds our financial resources and works over time to eliminate our industrial base. We've lost an entire generation of skilled workers and professionals in the industrial sector by pursuing a "service-based" economy. So China's strategy isn't irrational in the larger context, to which Galbraith is blind. They may continue to purchase our government bonds, keeping interest rates down, but only until their strategy achieves fruition. I believe we've reached the point now where merely raising taxes on upper income taxpayers is almost irrelevant. Dramatic structural changes to our economy and government will be needed, and though higher taxes are certainly in our future equally dramatic spending decreases are as well. Unthinkable (now) changes will occur.
Human 'improvements' usually add up to 'unexpected consequences.' So nothing anyone does with serious intent to improve or hamper will have a desired effect. Depending on who desires what... And most of 'we' are not going to like the consequences. #
The Blue Rajah on Thursday —
I don't understand. But I loves ya. #
The Canadian on Wednesday —
You think Obama couldn't get America into a hot war in Pakistan without an incompetent bombing attempt in Manhattan? Surely you have some evidence to present, 'cuz without evidence the "false flag" notion just sounds a little silly.
Of course I have only 3rd party information, but what seems so unusual is the sheer amature nature of the whole operation. Too many easy coincidences that leave too easy a trail to follow. The Times Square bomber is supposed to be a trained and yet, the amonium nitrate in the car is not soaked in diesel fuel. The clock looks like a toy. The gasoline containers were left unopened so the highly volatile vapours could not escape. The propane tanks valves were closed. The wiring was not set to in a cascading fashion and, in fact, did not actually work. Cripes, even Timothy McVeigh knew how to create an effective fertilizer bomb! This is almost as stupid as the Xmas airbomber trying to light plastic explosives where they are inert. It takes a small explosion to make the chemical compound highly volatile. I will address other information I have read in a later email. We are left withg 2 choices to consider: 1. These people and their supporters are unsophisticated amatures, or 2. They were set up to fail.
No, there's nothing remotely unusual about the sheer amateur nature of this event. A schmuck tried to do something that was far beyond his level of competence. This is very, very usual. It happens billions of times daily, and at least several times daily it happens to me. Without evidence that the Taliban, Al Qaida, the Pentagon, the Bilderberg Club, or some other nefarious actors are involved, such embroidery can be shaved away with Occam's razor. Unless you have some evidence.
Unless I have some evidence, indeed. But Unknownnews is full of people just thinking about things; is it not? I don't have proof. I am just surmising. As such, your opinion and thoughts are equally valid. Of course, as you state Pres. Obama could get into a hot war in Pakistan if he chose to do so. But, this is a moot point as he has already. I suggest the difference required is scale and assets on the ground. (e.g. troops). The Taliban's major supply routes are though Pakistan's Borders with Afganistan. Drones will not plug supply routes. Soldiers do. If Pres Obama wanted to put boots on the ground in Pakistan, this would entail a serious change of military strategy. I suggest it would be somewhat difficult to have a war-weary US population back such a move without a good reason. Do you not find it the least bit suspect that all this is occuring only now, even after 7 years of conflict, but just before a large strategic military asault is about to begin in Afganistan and which will involve the Tribal Waziri frontiers? The Talibs can create sophisticated IEDs, but they screw up a simple car bomb? There is historical precedent for such manipulated events to occur? Such high-profile alleged events include, but is not limited to: Gulf of Tonkin Iraqi WMDs But on this subject specifically, no I have no proof. Occam's razor is pure logic; unfortunately humans are not logical.
Obviously.
I thought you might be interested in reading this article on the subject. The author has no proof either, but the article posted today, May 15th, leans in the same direction as my thinking. America's War on Pakistan US Warns Pakistan of “Severe Consequences” #
Theo Lipschitz on Wednesday — #
The Blue Rajah on Wednesday —
As usual, you're right. The world will get along just fine with America hobbled. My optimism comes from embracing death — I won't be around to see the ruins, and the coming glorious century for Chinese domination and low-level totalitarianism (sub-totalitarianism?). And eventually that regime too will bring itself down or be toppled from within, que sera sera.
Well, we'll all doe so embracing life is embracing death. We homo saps are obsessed w/ the idea that we can make sense of life and, even more, control it. I say: cowabunga.
Not sure I understand. "We're all doe"?
If, by "doe", you mean sheeplike, I say, sort of. Mostly, I say we're too easily distracted by things that appeal to our basic instincts. For example, the instinct to acquire.Materialismk is usually presented as a moral failure. I;ve come to see it as not a moral failure but an unconscious behavior. Our genes build us to crave acquisition. A consumer culture keeps even smart, wise, moral people in hock to their eyeballs and thus too busy to run their lives or be informed citizens. I've come to see that as our failing as a civilized species. #
Ellen H. on Wednesday —
Instead of the page you cited, which drives me nuts on all levels, I suggest the page cited in one of the comments: LINK I just hate that m Perfect Storm metaphor, which is as empty of meaning as those CBO 'charts' -- only nature does anything perfectly, and then not always, leaving room for improvement. Humans never do anything perfectly, other than immense errors (see BP history...). Human 'improvements' usually add up to 'unexpected consequences.' Gold and The Central Banks: The Game Theory Also, if the 'right persons' were taxed, we would not see this huge debt, but in fact it is in fact to the benefit of those 'right persons' to have a huge debt and they buy politicians in order not to pay taxes. I wish I could remember the Latin phrase that applies to this conundrum... #
wlgriffi on Wednesday —
I'm not sure there's any single company that's done more to ruin the American economy, so yeah, it's not terribly impressive that Wal-Mart had decided to "give back" to the communities it's pillaged. #
Man on Flute on Wednesday —
Excellent. I hear good things about Iceland, and if I was young enough to daydream that li'l country would be a focal point for my plans. # Siskiyousis on Wednesday — Well, legally, after they paid for new laws, and that is not the same thing; I still see it as looting, on a much larger scale than Iceland, which has always been a Legend Unto Itself. Precedents work well in systems that observe them; and ours has not. Not for a long time. #
Lon Garm on Tuesday —
Light or no punishment for crooked cops — outrageous and ordinary. #
The Blue Rajah on Tuesday —
Seems an accurate assessment. #
wlgriffi on Tuesday —
Freelance terrorism. Expect more of it, since every drone attack manufactures a few more. And expect that future car bombers might be competent, unlike this schmuck. #
J.S. Magruder at Eat the Blog on Tuesday —
You might have save a life writing this if the right reader finds it, and you sure as hell opened my eyes wider than they were. I'm still shaking my head five minutes later. The only way we'll ever see regulations requiring that cribs be safe is if some billionaire's baby gets killed by a crib. #
Angry Annie on Tuesday — #
Ernie M. on Tuesday —
The article doesn't seem worth reading, but your rebuttal certainly is. You write like I like to imagine I would if I had the time... :)
This is a serious matter and I don't feel that most people fully realize how poorly the politicians have managed the affairs of the United States. They have ruined everything to the point that the Chinese Communist Party is widely seen as more effective at running a nation. This criticism applies as much to the Democrats as it does to Republicans.
In China they punish graft with speedy executions, which probably helps hold down graft, and they punish complainers with execution, which probably protects their reputation for efficiency. I wouldn't want to live there even if I spoke the language. But I take your point, definitely. For at least decades, America's leadership has argued ferociously — Democrats vs Republicans in an eternal smackdown — but arguing only about the minor details of a whole lot of seriously retarded precepts that they've unanimously agreed are sacrosanct and never to be questioned. You know the drill as well or better than I do. Democrats and Republicans argue about gays in the military but cheerfully agree on foreign policy based on war and threat of war. Democrats and Republicans argue about a few weeks of meager unemployment extensions but agree on industrial policy that seems designed to encourage the dismantling of industry. Democrats and Republicans argue about whether pot smokers and cokeheads should get long prison terms or mandated, heavy-handed counseling, but they all agree on drug policies that put utterly harmless or even entrepreneurial Americans in prison. Democrats and Republicans argue about walls and round-ups and draconian civil rights violations to snag illegal immigrants but agree to never seriously fund enforcement of laws that might punish the employers of illegal immigrants. Democrats and Republicans argue about the imagined economic repercussions of raising the minimum wage by a dime but agree about the wondrous goodness of "free trade" and foreign outsourcing and utterly fake derivatives and other economic policies that any fool can see are ruinous. Yeah, Democrats and Republicans argue about everything except the things they all agree on, all this and more, much, much more. I could spend all day typing such conundrums but I have to get to my job mopping floors. I'm not sure I speak the language here any more... Ah, but ain't that America for you and me, ain't that America something to see ... #
David H. on Monday —
The gusher (I'm still seeing clueless media accounts that call it a "spill" or a "leak") might yet be miraculously capped, fingers crossed and saints preserve us, but it's a hell of a tragedy. It will obliterate complex ecosystems that most people don't care about and rupture or ruin the lives of millions of people in the American South, who will continue voting for exactly the kind of politicians who delivered this oil to their doorsteps. I low-key agree on the food thing. Over the past few years we've gently morphed our menu from fake food from a box to much more real food from farms, after reading Fast Food Nation and seeing the movie Food Inc. In addition to losing some weight and just generally feeling better, I'm noticing that my food seems to taste better — even staples that haven't changed, like rice or bread and butter. A side effect of de-McDonaldification. You're a sweetheart and we love ya and I hope it's clear that we're not Democrats. You can't have a political dialogue without hearing at least two perspectives, and three or four would be wonderful, but more and more the actual difference between "Democrat" and "Republican" seems a matter of attitude and nuance instead of actual disagreement. I yearn for the contributions Republicans used to make to the national debate, guys like Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole, before their party platform was entirely lie-based as it is now. #
Smokestack on Monday —
You don't seem to think or express yourself clearly, you can't type, can't spell, and you live in the world of lies. You're of no interest to me. Ta-ta. #
Barrymore on Monday — #
wlgriffi on Monday —
She was a classy dame indeed, and so she remains. #
Siskiyousis on Monday — #
J.S. Magruder at Eat the Blog on Sunday —
Yeah, I think there's a style sheet, figuratively if not literally, that demands such journalism. A long list of questions not to be asked, stories not to be reported, and it all goes without saying. Reporters who ask a forbidden question are reassigned, and reporters who ask too many forbidden questions are no longer reporters. #
Helen & Harry on Sunday — #
Tiny Earl on Sunday — # Charisse S. on Saturday — One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.It appears to me that the US "defense" spending is the largest bubble yet, and "they" are still expanding it in spite of the fact that budget deficits have gone parabolic. Astute finance observers know that a nearly vertical parabolic ascent foretells a vertical descent which is unstoppable, completely unavoidable, and totally shocking in speed -- the only question being how long people continue to drink the intoxicating, poisonous Kool-Aid ... No one in power ever admits to believing in the bubbles, instead they declare a new "paradigm", that this time it is different. when American creditors refuse to ship additional goods to the U.S. unless they are paid in some currency other than the dollar -- preferably gold, oil, drugs or real estate titles -- then the Empire will crumble like it was dipped in liquid nitrogen and tapped with a ball peen hammer... Look Out, Obama Seems to Be Planning for a Lot More War Judging by the Barack Obama administration's reports, pronouncements and actions in recent months point to even greater war-making across the planet. [...] Of the QDR's many priorities three stand out. # The first priority is to "prevail in today's wars" in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and wherever else Washington's post-9/11 military intrusions penetrate in coming years. Introducing the report February 1, Bush-Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued this significant statement: "Success in wars to come will depend on success in these wars in progress." The "wars to come" were not identified. Further, the QDR states that military victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is "only the first step toward achieving our strategic objectives". # Second, while in the past the US concentrated on the ability to fight two big wars simultaneously, the QDR suggests that's not enough. Now, the Obama administration posits the "need for a robust force capable of protecting US interests against a multiplicity of threats, including two capable nation-state aggressors." Now it's two-plus wars - the plus being the obligation to "conduct large-scale counter-insurgency, stability and counter-terrorism operations in a wide range of environments", mainly in small, poor countries like Afghanistan. Other "plus" targets include "non-state actors" such as al-Qaeda, "failed states" such as Somali, and medium-size but well-defended states that do not bend the knee to Uncle Sam, such as Iran or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and some day perhaps Venezuela. # Third, it's fairly obvious from the QDR, though not acknowledged, that the Obama government believes China and Russia are the two possible "nation-state aggressors" against which Washington must prepare to "defend" itself. Neither Beijing nor Moscow has taken any action to justify the Pentagon's assumption that they will ever be suicidal enough to attack the far more powerful United States. After all, the US, with 4.54% of the world's population, invests more on war and war preparations than the rest of the world combined. Obama's 2010 Pentagon budget is US$680 billion, but the real total is double that when all Washington's national security expenditures in other departmental budgets are also included, such as the cost of nuclear weapons, the 16 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security and interest on war debts, among other programs Annual war-related expenditures are well over $1 trillion. In calling for a discretionary freeze on government programs in January's state of the union address, Obama specifically exempted Pentagon/national security expenditures from the freeze. Obama is a big war spender. His $708 billion Pentagon allotment for fiscal 2011 (not counting a pending $33 billion Congress will approve for the Afghan "surge") exceeds Bush's highest budget of $651 billion for fiscal 2009. [...] Evidently, the Pentagon is planning to engage in numerous future wars interrupted by brief periods of peace while preparing for the next war. Given that the only entity expressing an interest in attacking the United States is al-Qaeda - a non-government paramilitary organization of extreme religious fanatics with about a thousand reliable active members around the world - it is obvious that America's unprecedented military might is actually intended for another purpose. In our view that "other purpose" is geopolitical - to strengthen even further the Pentagon's military machine to assure that the United States retains its position as the dominant global hegemon at a time of acute indebtedness, the severe erosion of its manufacturing base, near gridlock in domestic politics, and the swift rise to global prominence of several other nations and blocs. [...]
The war machine is the only sliver of government where nobody in power ever seriously talks about belt-tightening and budget cuts. The President has a commission looking into cutting Social Security, I think it's called the Committee to Increase Human Consumption of Cat Food, and he's going to seriously consider whatever screwed up advice they come up with, but to talk about real cuts to the Defense budget you have to turn to Dennis Kucinich. More wars? Makes me sick but hell yeah, you know it's coming. War is the only thing America exports, wars and weapons and movies, and it's the cornerstone of American Power and Corruption. #
John H. Mallory on Saturday — #
Jim Grimes on Saturday —
The News Sentinel ^ | 25 October, 2008 | Kevin Leininger It's been nearly two years since a jury of his peers acquitted Jim Grimes of threatening other people with his Smith & Wesson 9 mm automatic pistol. So why can't he get his gun — or the license to carry it — back? To the 50-year-old former Navy engineer, the issue is black and white. He's been victimized twice: first by the habitually reckless driver who rear-ended his pickup in rural Noble County on April 27, 2006, and again by overzealous authorities who prosecuted the wrong man. But to those same county and state officials, it isn't that simple at all. Grimes may not be legally guilty of misusing a deadly weapon, they say — but that doesn't make him fit to carry one. It all started innocently enough. It was nearly 2 p.m., and Grimes was driving his 71-year-old mother, Donna, on County Road 900W from their home near Kimmel to visit his sister in Ligonier. Suddenly, his 1997 Silverado was hit from behind twice by a speeding car driven by 19-year-old Dustin Swartzlander, who lived and worked nearby. According to Grimes, Swartzlander grabbed something from his front seat — Grimes thought it looked like an explosive device — and ran. Rather than allow Swartzlander to flee the scene of an accident with a possible weapon, Grimes pulled his gun and fired a single shot into the air. Not surprisingly, Swartzlander stopped and Grimes held him at gunpoint until a passerby called 911 and Ligonier and Noble County police began arriving minutes later. But instead of arresting Swartzlander — who lacked both a driver's license and insurance as required by law — Grimes was handcuffed, put on the ground, taken to the Noble County Jail and later tried on two counts of "pointing a firearm," a Class D felony. A Noble Superior Court jury acquitted him 10 months later, after which foreman Phillip Sensibaugh wrote a 13-page letter of concern to Judge Robert Kirsch. Jurors agreed Grimes had shown poor judgment, but were not convinced he had pointed his gun at anyone. "(And we) believed that the police rushed to judgment and arrested the wrong person in their zest to go after the man with a gun who was posing no immediate threat, rather than disarming (Grimes) and finding out why the firearm was produced in the first place . . . "The accident would never have occurred if (Swartzlander) had been obeying the law and not been operating a motor vehicle illegally." According to state law, "if a (firearm) license is suspended or revoked based solely on an arrest . . . the license shall be reinstated upon the acquittal of the defendant." But neither his weapon nor license was returned after Grimes' trial and, after a hearing in Indianapolis in October 2007, a state administrative law judge rescinded Grimes' license for a completely different reason: He had been declared "not a proper person to be licensed to carry a handgun." But how could Grimes — who was licensed to carry a gun for 28 years before the accident — be punished after having been declared innocent of a crime? That's where this story becomes either more critical of state and local officials or more sympathetic, depending on your point of view. Sensibaugh and the other jurors didn't know it at the time — because Prosecutor Steven Clouse wasn't allowed to introduce it as evidence — that Grimes had been involved in a similar incident once before. According to a Noble County Sheriff's report, Grimes was driving on County Road 400S on Jan. 17, 2004 when he was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Carl Liggett. "Grimes advised that Liggett was instigating a fight," the report stated. "Grimes advised that he did have a gun in his hand which he removed from the glove box. Grimes advised that he did not point the gun at Liggett." Grimes insists he acted legally and rationally on both occasions: In 2004 he was prepared to protect himself against possible violence. Two years later, "I was jailed for trying to stop a crime." Clouse, Sheriff Gary Leatherman and Indiana State Police attorney Maj. Jerome Ezell interpret Grimes' willingness to pull a gun quite differently: as a sign of a potential threat to public safety they are sworn to prevent if possible. "I filed charges (against Grimes) because I'm opposed to vigilante justice and took an oath to uphold the law," Clouse said. Added Leatherman: "As sheriff, one of my responsibilities to the citizens of Noble County is to forward to the State Police Section any information that could bring into question a person's privilege of being issued an unlimited license. I'm all for the Second Amendment. But the burden rests on the person who carries a gun to meet all the requirements." But that's just the point, according to Grimes and Fort Wayne attorney Robert Vegeler, who represented him in the hearing before Administrative Law Judge Douglas Shelton: To Vegeler, Grimes' acquittal means he does meet all legal requirements, and should get both his gun and license back. What's more, Grimes said, he was not even charged with a crime in connection with the 2004 accident — and police wouldn't know he had pulled his gun at all if he hadn't volunteered the information. None of that matters, said Ezell, who presented the state's case before Shelton. "It's like the O.J. Simpson case," he said, alluding to a civil judgment against Simpson after his acquittal on murder charges. "The prosecutor has one burden (guilt beyond reasonable doubt), and administrative law has another — is something more likely than not?" Using that standard, Shelton ruled on Oct. 30, 2007, that Grimes is not a "reasonable person" to have a license to carry a firearm — something state law also seems to allow under certain conditions. In this case, Shelton concluded, Grimes was not justified to fire his weapon, "displayed an inappropriate suspicion of others" and had "demonstrated a propensity for violence and emotionally unstable conduct." Even in today's terror-conscious climate, you and I might have responded to either accident by drawing a weapon or suspect the presence of a bomb in rural Indiana. But the actions of officials should be subject to at least equal scrutiny. During Grimes' license hearing, Swartzlander acknowledged he couldn't really tell if Grimes was pointing a weapon in his direction. Swartzlander also admitted to having been involved in four cases of driving with a suspended license and that he was moving an estimated 65 miles per hour — "cooking" — on a two-lane country road when he collided with Grimes. He also admitted to having been charged with possession of a false license and driving uninsured, meaning he could not pay for the $7,000 in damages done to Grimes' truck or the medical bills for Grimes' mother, who suffered a neck injury and a bump to the head. And yet, as recently as this month, both Clouse and Leatherman seemed relatively uninformed and unconcerned about Swartzlander's driving record. "Did he have a suspended license? I don't remember," said Clouse. "And Grimes couldn't have known that, anyway." Maybe not, but that would have been — or should have been — one of the first things responding officers discovered. Noble County officials should be commended for trying to protect the public from improper use of handguns, so long as that is done within the law. But Grimes, whose legal bills are $20,000 and rising, makes a good point: Aren't reckless, unlicensed drivers a threat, too? Prior to this incident, my entire criminal record consisted of one count each of Minor Entering a Tavern and Minor Consuming Alcohol, both from the same incident in 1978. My driving record is clean. I haven't had a chargeable accident since 1985, and I've only had one ticket in the same time period (56 in a 50 in 1998). After I was acquitted of these charges in February, 2007, the foreman of my jury sent a fourteen-page letter of complaint to the judge, requesting an investigation. The court refused. The jury foreman stated that the entire jury believed the wrong man had been arrested, and pointed out that the police failed to investigate the accident. The cops wouldn't allow me to give a statement at the scene of the crash. When I tried to tell them what had happened, I was told, "Shut your mouth!" As the officer was cuffing me, he told me that I was NOT being arrested (the cuffs, apparently, were for my protection). The next thing I knew, I was being processed as an inmate into the Noble County jail. They wouldn't tell me what I was being charged with (I didn't learn that I had been charged with two counts of Felony Pointing a Firearm until I was arraigned), and I was denied bail. Every lawyer I've spoken with has told me, "In Indiana, the police don't have to tell a suspect he's under arrest; they're not required to inform a suspect of the charges against him, and they have no obligation to tell a suspect he's under arrest (I was expected to know that by virtue of the handcuffs I was wearing)." My truck was searched; the other driver's vehicle was not searched. I was subjected to a Breathalyzer test; the other driver, the man who rear-ended me TWICE, was not. I was handcuffed at the very moment the police arrived on the scene; the other driver was not handcuffed, despite the fact that he was currently ON PROBATION for Driving While Suspended for having caused previous accidents. The cops on the scene told him, "We're not going to violate your probation because we feel you've been through enough for one day." So they took me to jail and tried to send me to prison for six years. During my trial, the prosecutor suppressed the other driver's criminal record, introduced manufactured evidence and suborned perjury. The DOJ web site says he'll be disbarred for those offenses but, for some reason, they won't investigate this case, either. The cops who testified against me lied through their teeth on the witness stand AND in their depositions, and they're actually very proud of being able to do that. They look me right in the eye and tell me, "There's nothing you can do about it." Apparently, they're correct, because no one, including my State Representative (Matt Bell), my Congressman (Mark Souder) and my Attorney General (then Steve Carter) is willing to help me remove these vermin from public office. The NRA refused to help me until AFTER I had secured my acquittal (they turned my case down FOUR TIMES). Then, they sent me a check and posted my story on their web site, saying they were "instrumental in my defense." When the State Police called the prosecutor "to find out WHY I had been acquitted," in order to take my license and deprive me of my rights, the NRA said they couldn't help me because they "don't have any attorneys licensed to practice in Indiana!" The State Police have used falsified evidence to take my license, and they even embellished my own testimony to include statements I did NOT make (I have the transcripts). Everything I've read says they can't do this to someone, but when I called the FBI, the agent I spoke with (who refused to give me his name) laughed at me and asked, "How stupid do you have to be to believe we'd go after one of our own?" I had carried the same gun for twenty-eight years without incident before this happened. and I've attended at least fourteen different firearms safety and training courses, both as a civilian and during my years in the Navy. I have NEVER produced my weapon in anger nor threatened anyone with it. Unfortunately, my case is not unique. This prosecutor routinely suppresses evidence and suborns perjury. Noble County deputies have developed a habit of planting evidence (two deputies were recently fired for this but, naturally, faced no criminal charges) and committing perjury, and the sheriff himself keeps inmates on the books for weeks after they've been released (in order to pocket more meal money from the state). I need an attorney who's willing to file a 1983 "Color of Law" action against these corrupt bastards in federal court. I've spoken to no less than 41 lawyers in Indiana, and they always tell me the same thing: "We can't file this case, because the State House can make it very difficult for us to make a living." I have black-and-white evidence to prove EVERYTHING I've stated here. I would be grateful for any advice or suggestions. However, if you're going to advise me to let it go, save yourself some time. That's the ONE thing I'm NOT willing to do. This prosecutor is planning to run for a judge's position next year, and I can't allow that to happen. I'm committed to doing everything in my power, provided it doesn't violate the law, to keep him from becoming a judge. If he's willing to break the very laws he's charged with enforcing as a prosecutor, I can't imagine the Constitutional damage he can and WILL do as a sitting judge in this county. There MUST be SOMEONE out there who can help me ...
Reading the newspaper account, the question in my head is whether Mr Swartzlander had friends on the police force, or whether it was just dumb luck that the cops decided you were the bad guy. Either way, when cops start thinking "bad guy" it's damned unlikely that they'll ever change their minds. It's infuriating and not at all uncommon. Fairness, open-mindedness, in my experience, is not a trait that leads one to police work. But I have no advice, suggestions, or help we can offer. You've been snagged by the ever present whirling mechanisms of authority and abuse of authority, and once that contraption has you, guilt or innocence doesn't matter much and it takes a miracle to escape that damned thing. You're lucky to have gotten out of the bloody machinery with your body and life, and now you're stubborn enough to go back for your possessions and your rights? Sir, I would never poo-poo that kind of stubbornness. I'm not going to tell you to let it go. Certainly not. It's a good thing that you won't let it go. You have a right to own and carry a gun, it's in the Bill of Rights, and rights are rights. Letting rights go without a struggle is kicking freedom in the nuts, so I say thank you for not kicking freedom in the nuts. We're rooting for you, and we'll publish your note on the long chance someone reading it has some good advice or a lawyer to share.
Funny you should mention that. As it turns out, Swartzlander's stepfather knew every cop on the scene that day (all NINE of them). After hitting me the second time, Swartzlander tried to flee by driving into a farmer's field adjacent to the road. His front wheels sank in the soft earth, though, and he was unable to drive away. The officer who interviewed him later told Swartzlander that, if he didn't say what they told him to say in court and at my State Police admin hearing, they WOULD violate his probation and send HIM to jail if I wasn't convicted. I went to high school with Officer Hutsell, and I can state with a high degree of certainty that he's not smart enough to have come up with this on his own; this had to come from the prosecutor. Now, Swartzlander faces charges of stealing a motorcycle. I looked into this case and discovered that the motorcycle had been given to Swartzlander by the person who actually stole it (I interviewed two witnesses to this transaction when I was trying to locate Swartzlander after he disappeared following my trial). The person who gave the vehicle to Swartzlander is not being charged, but I contacted Swartzlander's attorney and offered to testify. Ironically, Swartzlander's extensive criminal record was included in his attorney's discovery packet, but was noticeably absent during my own criminal proceedings. I ran three separate searches in 2008 (two on the State Police database and one from SearchUSA), and all three yielded the same result: "No Records Found." The Noble County prosecutor had sealed Swartzlander's records immediately after I was taken into custody (this has become his habit) but, now that they've finished with him, they're ready to make good on their promise to send him to prison. While I don't feel sorry for Swartzlander, it's more important to me to take another wrongful conviction away from this idiot of a prosecutor than to see Swartzlander go to jail. I want Clouse (the prosecutor) to KNOW I'm looking over his shoulder, and that I'm scrutinizing his cases for misconduct and criminal acts. As confident as he is that he will never be held accountable, I'm fairly certain he'll make a fatal error sooner or later. What he did to me is EXACTLY what Mike Nifong was disbarred for in the North Carolina Duke University rape case. I can think of no viable reason that the illustrious Mr. Clouse shouldn't suffer the same fate. Thanks for your interest in my story, and thanks for posting it. I'm hoping my account will be read by an out-of-state attorney who hates public corruption and crooked cops as much as I do. More importantly, thanks for the work you're doing. I fully realize I'm not the only sap in the country going through something like this, and your web site helps to give us a voice we wouldn't have otherwise. The News-Sentinel was the ONLY paper willing to print this story, but I suspect that's because their paper isn't sold in Noble County (the fact that Kevin Leininger is a friend of mine might have helped as well). Thanks again for all you do, and thanks for writing back with your comments.
I do wish your story was a lot more unusual than it is, but the only thing that's really out of the ordinary is your refusal to fold. # wlgriffi on Monday — The constant reference to the "right to bear arms" leaves me cold. In the case discussed in the comment you have a mixed apples and oranges problem. Apples : the accident & arrest issue. Here, not really knowing the scene of the incident it is a case of he said / he said. The jury found for the defendant. all fine and good. However,Oranges : the issue of returning the confiscated gun licence is an entirely different issue despite arising out of the arrest and subsequent trial finding. Now in the interest of fairness I must state I'm not a fervent champion of the gun right clamor. In my view the "right to bear arms" amendment's intent was for the states to maintain a militia not a citizenry of vigilantes. But I digress. In view of the somewhat hazy record of the what appears to be a reckless waving of the gun by the person here would in my view justify the refusal to return the gun and the license. In any case I can see the logic of two different arguments in this issue and I have difficulty in finding error in either finding. #
Parsippany28 on Friday — #
wlgriffi on Friday — #
Cassandra on Friday —
I trust the American Academy of Pediatrics will receive a flood of protest, and I've already sent mine...
The only positive thing is that, having grown up in a time when males were routinely circumcised at birth (and being *very* confused when I went to a nude beach in Europe as a teenager), I wasn't really sure what the fuss was about. Sometimes things just need to be flipped to make perfect sense.
Or perfect nonsense. And hours later I still can't believe the American Academy of Pediatrics is on board with this offensive rubbish. If I had kids I'd ask our pediatrician whether he/she was a member of AAP and switch docs if the answer was yes. #
Mick Caffeine on Friday —
All of this world-wide mind-boggling graft, black ops and major theft might have been a bit more easy to grasp emotionally if we had not been raised in Catholic elementary school settings; and especially now the depth of the Papal mess. We knew about the corrupt Popes of the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, but to have it revealed that none of it was ever resolved is a bit depressing. No, it is a Lot depressing. In order to tear my attention away from the Gulf Gusher, I have to find a really compelling novel to dive into... if I have one. |
|
© Helen & Harry Highwater and the individual authors. Big howdy No nuts, please Our privacy policies Bill of Rights Declaration of Independence |
|
