Friday, May 17, 2013
One Year Ago
One year ago, today, I took a giant step in my journey to hold Brett Kimberlin accountable for his latest crimes. I published my epic post entitled “How Brett Kimberlin Tried To Frame Me for a Crime (And How You Can Help!).” This is the summary/preview post that will lead you to the epic post, or the version that is broken up in eight parts (more easily handled by most computers). In it I showed with documentary and video evidence how Brett Kimberlin attempted to frame me for a crime. Essentially he claimed I beat him up in a Maryland courthouse. And of course, I have the security footage that proved this to be a fantasy.



In that year since, I have had my First Amendment rights unlawfully taken away from me and when they were restored I was SWATted in retaliation. My wife has been stalked. I have been defamed continually by Kimberlin and various goons he has hired. I have even been jew-baited by a holocaust denier despite the fact I am not Jewish by ancestry or faith.

In some cases friends and associates have disappointed me in not standing by my side, though most have. My wife in particular has strong at my side, giving me needed strength. And in other cases, complete strangers have reached out to help me even knowing what Kimberlin had done to me for helping another person. And many of those persons, previously total strangers, I can now call friends.

Today another chapter in the story will occur as Mr. Hoge goes to court on the appeal of Hoge v. Kimberlin. It is, fyi, a de novo appeal. That means it is a brand new trial.

And for some reason, Kimberlin’s attorney Mr. Kim is no longer representing Mr. Kimberlin. Indeed, Kimberlin filed a failed motion to consolidate his case with Mr. Schmalfeldt in what appeared to be a transparent attempt by Kimberlin to play lawyer for his employee. This seems to be a strange decision given that Mr. Kim had won every round before then. Is Kimberlin getting arrogant in these victories? Or here is the other possibility: maybe Mr. Kim finally figured out what a pathological liar Kimberlin was and became concerned of involving himself in an ethically murky situation. Or is it possible that Kimberlin is running out of money? Perhaps time will tell.

Whatever happens in the hearing, I can say this. One year later, I’m still standing. Kimberlin has done his level best to cow or silence me, and has failed.
Do you think maybe he regrets what he has done? Not out of guilt—guilt requires compassion and morality—but because of what it has done to his public reputation... I suspect he does.

Summary/Preview of my Post “How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime (And How You Can Help!)”

Update: All thank you's for the links will be listed and will be updated without a separate announcement. Thanks to Point of Law, Patterico, the Other McCain (who focuses on Rauhauser's involvement in all of this), Overlawyered (amazingly, they side with the lawyer on this one), long time internet ally Blazing Catfur, The American Catholic, The Lonely Conservative and Dan Collins for the linkage. Also Robert Stacy McCain uncovers further connections to big democratic hitters, particularly through Matthew Vadum's research showed how the Tides Foundation, Barbara Streisand and John Kerry's wife support this convicted terrorist and perjurer. And Donald Douglas at American Power has a nice write up and discusses his similar experiences, and Five Feet of Fury discuss the similarity between that and some thuggery in Canada.


Update (II): Several readers complained that the big post was too long, that it was straining their computers. So I created another version breaking it down into eight pieces, here. Feedback is important and appreciated, so thanks to those readers for point it out to me.

Regular readers of this site know that for some time the convicted domestic terrorist known as Brett Kimberlin has been harassing me. He did this because I dared to offer a bit of light, free legal help to a man he was suing named Seth Allen and then as he came after me, I told the truth about his deplorable criminal background and the fact he lied under oath in a hearing on November 14, 2011 and recommended that he be charged with perjury. (If you didn’t know, you can catch up on the story, by using this link.) And for a while I have been silent about the saga, so that maybe you thought he had moved on and had chosen to leave me alone. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Starting on January 9, 2012, Brett Kimberlin actually attempted to frame me for a crime. He falsely accused me of essentially beating him up inside the courthouse for the Montgomery County Circuit Court, in Rockville, Maryland. He has claimed at different times that I decked him, that I struck him three times, that I wrestled with him, that I pushed him, that courtroom staff separated us, that the sheriff’s deputies separated us, and that even after the deputies arrived that I kept coming at him repeatedly and had to be restrained.

What didn’t occur to him was that there was a security camera that captured what really happened in the courthouse that day. I have the footage and I have included it in a long post that tells the whole story of how I came to be there that day and what really happened. You will read with your own eyes the transcripts and documents in which he claimed I beat him up, and then you will see the footage that proves that this was a fabrication. I have even created a video comparing his description of what happened to the video footage, piece-by-piece. In other words, you won’t have to believe my word on this. You will only have to believe your eyes.

But the post will also tell you the harrowing story of the damage this man has done to my life. He did more than just lie about what happened. This convicted document-forger produced fake photographs of his supposed injuries and even fake medical records. And using that falsified evidence and his lies, he convinced the Montgomery County State’s Attorney to maintain second degree assault charges against me for over two months—with a punishment of up to ten years in prison, if convicted—taking it so close to trial that I was forced to take the time and expense of preparing much of my defense. He has cost me and my wife our jobs because our workplace was frightened that this violent bomber might show up at work. After all, he had published my home address and work address in court filings, for no reason other than to harass me. He has obtained a peace order (similar to a restraining order) against me in part for supposed “harassment” for having told the truth about him on this blog. And you will learn that after the video emerged, the charges were dropped and the peace order was dismissed on appeal.

And you will learn that once I had the video, I came to the State’s Attorney’s office for Montgomery County, Maryland. I showed them, as I am about to show you, how Kimberlin lied repeatedly under oath in his attempt to frame me. I documented it meticulously, as I will for you. And I demanded justice. And they refused to provide it for me; they blew me off.

And you will learn how you can help me correct this injustice.

So please read the larger post. It is long, but there is a lot to tell and I really could use your help.
And you will finally learn my real name. So there is that!

MSNBC is propping up its story with a blatantly edited video. In fact, Heslin was not heckled. Gun rights advocates in the audience indeed voiced their support for the Second Amendment — after he asked
why anyone would need “assault-style weapons or high-capacity clips.”
You’d never know based on the MSNBC version, which completely cut out
the footage of Heslin’s question.

Transcript:

“I ask if there’s anybody in this room
that can give me one reason or challenge this question … why anybody in
this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military
weapons or high-capacity clips. [Pause, waiting for response.]  Not one
person can answer that question.”

Audience members:  ”[Unintelligible] Second Amendment shall not be infringed”

Public official: “Please no comments while Mr. Heslin is speaking. Or we’ll clear the room. Mr. Heslin please continue.”

Heslin waited for a response. And when he got that response, it wasn’t Heslin who registered outrage — it was the media.

Let’s be clear: this wasn’t about having compassion for a man who
tragically lost his son; this was strictly about pushing a political
agenda. Out of more than 17 minutes of footage, the kneejerk media
focused exclusively on the non-existent “heckling.” Not on Heslin’s plea
for a change in gun control policy. Not on his sorrow over never being
able to spend another moment with his beloved son and “best friend.” To
the media, this was nothing more than a chance to exploit one man’s raw
emotions in order to gin up outrage.

And it’s utterly despicable.

• Elected officials used to be able to work together to solve our nation’s most pressing issues

• But today, Washington’s hyper-partisan environment makes it hard for leaders to work across the aisle

• No Labels is working to build a group of elected officials willing to work together to solve problems

• The congressional problem solvers are a group of House and Senate members who will meet regularly to build trust across the aisle.

• In re Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 184 B.R. 910 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1995), vacated 220 B.R. 909 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1998). This was a tragic case, involving a plane crash that killed four people. The NTSB and a jury found that the aircraft manufacturer was not at fault. Elizabeth got involved to try to protect hundreds of jobs at the company after new investors had saved it from closing its doors and laying off its workers. In the end, the company survived and 1,000 people had jobs because of it. The bankruptcy court initially ruled against Elizabeth’s position but later vacated that decision.

• Elizabeth Warren’s implausible Dow Chemical claim
• Elizabeth Warren held asbestos workers hostage to inter-corporate fight
• Elizabeth Warren represented large utility seeking to liquidate rural electric cooperative

In 2003 and 2004, Travelers entered into three settlement agreements pursuant to which it agreed to pay $360 million to the Statutory Direct Action Plaintiffs, $70 million to the Common Law Direct Action Plaintiffs, and $15 million to the Hawaii Direct Action Plaintiffs (“the Settlement Agreements”)…. The Settlement Agreements provided that Travelers would make payments into funds designed to pay direct action claimants, who would be required to sign a general release of claims against Travelers to gain access to the appropriate fund….
The Settlement Agreements were each contingent upon the satisfaction of several conditions precedent. The two conditions precedent disputed on this appeal are as follows. First, the Settlement Agreements required entry by the Bankruptcy Court of a Settlement Approval Order and a Clarifying Order “containing prohibitions against Claims at least as broad as those contained in Exhibit A[,]” which Orders were required to “become a Final Order(s).” ….Exhibit A consisted of a proposed order stating, among other provisions, that all claims against Travelers “of any kind or nature whatsoever” “arising from or relating to” Travelers’ handling of asbestos claims, as well as “any claims for contribution or indemnity relating in any way” to the same, “are covered by the Confirmation Order and permanently enjoined as against Travelers, which were released therefrom under the Confirmation Order.”

FN. 26.  Travelers asserts that if any portion of the bankruptcy court’s clarifying order is vacated then all of the relevant settlements will terminate.  We offer no opinion on this matter and leave it to the parties, with the aid of the bankruptcy court, to determine the status of their settlements.

Thus, Travelers was willing to pay the Direct Action claimants and their counsel upwards of half a billion dollars to settle lawsuits that it claimed were already barred by the 1986 Injunctions. But there was a catch. Travelers would pay the money, but only if Travelers could tie the settlement to a mechanism for cutting off any further Direct Action claims against it and any potential indemnity or contribution claims from its insurer co-defendants in the Direct Action Suits. Thus, each of the Direct Action Settlement Agreements was conditioned upon the entry of an order by the Bankruptcy Court “interpret[ing]” and “clarify[ing]” that the Direct Actions always had been prohibited by the 1986 Injunctions.

The issue of whether the other insurers were bound, and the precondition to payment met, was not before the Supreme Court for decision, 557 U.S. 137, 155, although the Supreme Court took note of Chubb’s position and the possibility that later litigation might undermine the settlement:

Our holding is narrow.  We do not resolve whether a bankruptcy court, in 1986 or today, could properly enjoin claims against nondebtor insurers that are not derivative of the debtor’s wrongdoing…. Nor do we decide whether any particular respondent is bound by the 1986 Orders.  We have assumed that respondents are bound, but the Court of Appeals did not consider this question…. On remand, the Court of Appeals can take up this objection and any others that respondents have preserved.

The matter is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, which determined that the bankruptcy court’s 1986 orders in Manville’s Chapter 11 proceedings-“whether or not proper exercises of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and power”-are not subject to collateral attack by either the parties to the 1986 proceedings or those in privity with them. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, — U.S. —-, 129 S.Ct. 2195, 2205, 2207, 174 L.Ed.2d 99 (2009). The Court directed us to address the parties’ remaining, properly preserved arguments. See id. at 2207. As the Bailey Court suggested, the primary current contention is the argument of Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company (“Chubb”) that “it was not given constitutionally sufficient notice of the 1986 Orders, so that due process absolves it from following them, whatever their scope.” Id. In our view, Chubb is correct.

Because a condition precedent in the settlement agreements was not satisfied, it was error to require Travelers to make the settlement payments…. Moreover, there is nothing unfair about not requiring Travelers to make the payments under the Settlement Agreements if it is not contractually bound to do so. To the extent the Bankruptcy Court invoked “its equitable powers to ensure that substantial justice is achieved” in an effort to ameliorate the effect of the conditions precedent, …  New York law is clear that subjective notions of fairness or equity are not a permissible basis for a court to rewrite a contract or to excuse compliance with conditions precedent…. Because the conditions precedent to payment were not satisfied here, there is no legal basis to require Travelers to perform its obligations under the Settlement Agreements.

Nor can §1334( have been intended to authorize non-debtor releases of independent causes of action on the basis that public good is achieved by confirming a chapter 11 plan providing distributions to thousands of injured persons. Indeed, the recovery by those injured by Manville would be enhanced if the independent claims against Travelers are not extinguished….

In the present case, because Travelers was financially sound, the fund available to satisfy the claimants’ independent causes of action against it was not “limited.” Section 1334( should not be construed to confer bankruptcy jurisdiction to extinguish independent claims against a non-debtor which can be satisfied from an unlimited fund.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137 (2009). In this case, Elizabeth worked to protect a $500 million settlement for victims of asbestos poisoning that another insurance company sought to invalidate. The Boston Globe has reported that most asbestos victims were on her side during the case, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of her position.

But despite Brown’s contention that Warren fought victims, the Globe reported that the attorneys who were represented most of the victims supported Warren’s efforts to grant Travelers immunity from asbestos-related lawsuits in exchange for the company setting up a $500 million trust, to be divided among current and future claimants.

Travelers won the immunity. But after a series of legal twists, the company avoided paying the $500 million settlement. Warren was no longer involved at that point, but Brown argues she should have foreseen that potential result. Brown’s ad, citing a line from the Globe story, correctly notes: “The case has turned out disastrous for victims.”

Bruce Carter, an Ohio attorney whose firm has worked on behalf of over 19,000 claimants in the case, told us Brown has simply mischaracterized Warren’s role. The idea that Warren was working against the interests of the victims, he said, is ”not true.”
“During the period she worked with Travelers, the claimants (the victims) and Travelers were working together to do what was necessary to get these funds approved and established,” Carter said. “We were all working together for the benefit of the victims. We were working together toward a common goal.”
The trust established through a settlement with Travelers avoided further legal wrangling that “could have taken many, many more years, if ever, to succeed,” Carter said. In other words, he said, the trust provided a mechanism for victims to actually get paid.
In an interview with the Globe in May, Warren said, “The issue I was focused on like a laser was the constitutionality of preserving the trust, because the trust is a critical tool for making sure that people who’ve been hurt have a fair shot at compensation. Without it, millions of people who’ve already been injured will get nothing, and millions more in the future will get nothing.”
How close was the relationship between Travelers and victims? Before the Supreme Court, the attorneys representing the victims gave Travelers’ attorneys their time so they could provide a more complete argument in favor of the settlement agreement, Carter said.
“That tells you, we worked together toward a common goal,” Carter said. “We gave them our time to argue to the panel.”
It was only after Warren left the case, he said, that Travelers “tried to back out of the deal and try to get something for nothing.”
Another lawyer representing victims in the case, Edwin L. Wallace with the law firm Thornton & Naumes in Boston, echoed Carter’s assessment.
“She was working for the victims,” Wallace said.

• Social Security Retirees,
• Military Retirees,
• Social Security Disability
• Federal Retirees.
• He did not threaten to stop payments to illegal aliens.
• He did not threaten to take frivolous benefits such as Internet access away from violent inmates.
• He did not offer to cut some of the thousands of unnecessary federal employees (czars and staffs) that he hired.
• He did not offer to cut down on his or his wife’s expensive and frivolous gallivanting around (on world shopping trips in Air Force One and other military aircraft).
• He did not threaten to not pay or cut pay of any of his staff or the senators and representatives and their staffs.
• He did not threaten to reduce or take benefits away from welfare recipients.
• He did not threaten the food stamp programs.
• He did not threaten to discontinue debt-laden bail-out programs for his pet tax dollar wasteful and national debt-threatening ventures.
• He did not threaten to not pay foreign aid.
• He did not threaten to cut back on anything that involves his base voters.

Access to court documents costs $0.10 per page.  The cost to access a single document is capped at $3.00, the equivalent of 30 pages.  The cap does not apply to name searches, reports that are not case-specific and transcripts of federal court proceedings.
By Judicial Conference policy, if your usage does not exceed $15 in a quarter, fees for that quarter are waived,  effectively making the service free for most users.

All of our research is made public and is shared with the courts, the Office of the United States Trustee and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. We do not use PACER for any purpose other than academic research. We do not use PACER for the practice of law for clients or use PACER for any other fee-generating purposes.
Our collective and individual research has been published in several law review articles, including the Cornell Law Review, California (Berkeley) Law Review, Harvard Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, and Stanford Law Review, as well as professional journals in medicine and sociology. We have also integrated the research into several books. Without access to these data, this work might never have been completed. Everyone associated with the project is very grateful to the judges who have made it possible….
I would like to request a waiver, on precisely the same terms as that granted in other courts.
PACER access will be used only for academic research; it will not be used in connection with the representation of clients or for other fee-generating purposes.  I would also like to request that the fee waiver be applicable for all data collection through 2007 and, if possible, beyond.

“But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press - they hated the press - but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press.  That was the job - so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances.
“We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances.  The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling-somehow allowing-people to have the truth.  That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time. It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.”

Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin was suspended from school in October in an incident in which he was found in possession of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that a schools security staffer described as a “burglary tool,” The Miami Herald has learned.
Trayvon, who claimed that an unnamed friend had given him the jewelry, was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one, in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it, the boy’s family’s attorney has confirmed. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”
The suspension was the third for the teen. On Monday, the family also acknowledged Trayvon had earlier been suspended for tardiness and truancy.

Sharpton said he warned the family from the start that anything negative about Trayvon would be dragged out in an effort to make him out to be a “junkie and a thief.” He knew that would happen, he said, because it’s occurred in every similar case he has ever been involved in.

She is expected to appear Tuesday before House Democrats in Congress in a quest to have Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law examined. She also hopes to address certification for neighborhood watch volunteers, Crump said.

And notice how the picture is STILL the darling 10 yr old one...

Each Chevy Volt sold thus far may have as much as $250,000 in state and federal dollars in incentives behind it – a total of $3 billion altogether, according to an analysis by James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Hohman looked at total state and federal assistance offered for the development and production of the Chevy Volt, General Motors’ plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. His analysis included 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits. The amount of government assistance does not include the fact that General Motors is currently 26 percent owned by the federal government.

Rockford, IL – (ProLifeCorner.com) – 6-15-2012 – by Rockford Pro-Life Initiative – A large school bus, owned by Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Academy, that is well known throughout Rockford for its beautiful pro-life pictures and words asking people to “pray to end abortion”,  was fire bombed on Friday night.  The damage was extensive to the bus as windows were broken in on both sides and fire bombs were thrown inside to cause maximum damage.It has been speculated that this bombing of a pro-life Christian school bus is in retaliation for the closing of the Rockford abortion mill that is located not far from where the school bus was attacked.

It’s interesting that abortion supporters in Rockford not only kill children in the womb but may well have destroyed a school bus used by children as an act of revenge for the closing of their child killing center.

ANTI-CHRISTIAN / ANTI-PRO-LIFE BIGOTRY AGAIN FROM THE REGISTER STAR?

On the day this pro-life school bus was viciously attacked, the Rockford Register Star ran a story about an attack against a building made by a pro-lifer TWELVE YEARS AGO!

They brought up again the story of Fr. John Earl who damaged the Rockford abortion mill in 2000.  Fr. Earl paid his debt to society and has been a model citizen ever since for over a decade, but the Register Star brings up that 12 YEAR OLD STORY again, using Father Earl’s reassignment to a new parish as an opportunity to rehash what should now be a thing of the past  and yet they ignored a current attack- the firebombing of a pro-life school bus.

The Register Star did run a story about another vehicle that was fire bombed in Rockford at approximately the same time the hate crime occurred against pro-life Christians  http://www.rrstar.co...il-found-nearby .  Thus it is obvious that fire bombings are newsworthy stories.  It is speculated by some that the non-bus bombing was nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up for the bombing of a Christian school bus.  The pro-aborts will more than likely say there is a mad bomber loose in Rockford.  It will be interesting to hear their spin.

The Register Star again shows it may have a deep and firmly held bigotry towards Christians and pro-lifers by bringing up incidents from 12 years ago and disregarding current acts of terrorism against Christian citizens.   To this day the Register Star has never reported on the many documented hate crimes committed by the Rockford abortion mill and its supporters.   At the time this article is being written, they have completely ignored a hate crime against Christian pro-lifers and an act of violence (firebombing) and arson against school children, yet they want to continue to regurgitate an incident by a pro-lifer 12 YEARS AGO!

Greek disabled groups are angry at a government decision to expand a list of state-recognized disability categories to include pedophiles, exhibitionists and kleptomaniacs.
The National Confederation of Disabled People called the action "incomprehensible," and said pedophiles are now awarded a higher government disability pay than some people who have received organ transplants.
But the Labor Ministry on Monday said categories added to the expanded list — that also includes pyromaniacs, compulsive gamblers, fetishists and sadomasochists — were included for purposes of medical assessment and used as a gauge for allocating financial assistance.

This is truly telling and horrifying. Am quoiting from the original source first then the Breitbart article second.
 

I haven’t spoken with Rev. Al Sharpton in a few months.  But if we were still speaking and he were to ask me what to do with the mother of Trayvon Martin, my answer would be very simple:

 

Get her off the stage right now.

 

Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, appeared on “The Today Show” this week and actually said that she thinks that George Zimmerman, 28, shot her son by accident.
 

One of the things that I still believe in, a person should apologize when they are actually remorseful for what they’ve done. I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn’t turn the clock back. I would ask him, did he know that that was a minor, that that was a teenager, and that he did not have a weapon?”

 

 

 

When I heard these words, I froze in my tracks.  I couldn’t believe that Trayvon’s mother would make a statement that was in such stark contradiction to the charges being brought forth by the prosecutor.  In fact, there’s a big part of me that wonders why she was on the show at all.

According to Findlaw.com, second-degree manslaughter is defined as:

1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion” or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life

 

There is nothing about the word “accident” that implies intent, which is why it’s called an “accident.”  Although Sybrina’s attorneys have worked hard to clean up after her mistake, the truth is that she can’t argue that Zimmerman “accidentally” thought that Trayvon looked suspicious or that he “accidentally” chased him down.  The only part of this interaction where the word “accident” readily applies is in the actual shooting itself.  If I were George Zimmerman’s brother, I would send Syrbrina’s attorney a thank-you card.

 

God bless Sybrina for being honest (if that is what she meant to say), but there are some things better left unsaid.  For the mother of the victim to make a statement in national media that directly contradicts the efforts of the prosecution is nothing short of disastrous.

“George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood,” Sybrina later said to MSNBC in another interview, retracting her earlier statement.

 

My question at this point is this:  Why was there another interview in the first place?  I am not a lawyer myself, but I presume that there’s a reason that attorneys tell their clients to be quiet.  All of the cleansing in the world will never take away the fact that Sybrina’s comments have had a remarkably negative impact on the ability of the special prosecutor to do her work.

 

Sybrina’s words have opened the door for millions of people to understand when George Zimmerman is let off the hook with either an acquittal or a plea bargain for a lesser charge.  This remark also undermines her credibility as she seeks to have Zimmerman convicted of second degree murder.  Why would I tell someone to punish you for deliberately doing something that I believe to be accidental?

 

Trayvon’s parents have done their work and they’ve done it well.  They’ve achieved the first steps toward justice for their son, and now it’s time for them to try to rebuild their lives in private.  Rev. Sharpton has done a wonderful job of highlighting the racial dimensions of this highly unfortunate incident.  At this point, the conversation about black men in the justice system must grow beyond Trayvon Martin, and the prosecution should be allowed to do its work.  The family, as well all associated racial advocates, need to strategize in private, listen to the evidence and just stop talking.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Professor at Syracuse University and founder of the Your Black World Coalition.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/04/14/black-activist-to-trayvon-martin-parents-get-off-the-stage
 

 

Dr. Watkin’s stark admonishment, “Get her off the stage right now,“ came in a recent blog post that shows the goal of the politicization of the Martin shooting is not truth or justice.

Who is Dr. Boyce Watkins? He’s a professor at Syracuse University and his website shows that he’s been a frequent guest on cable news shows, including CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. He is also a frequent speaker on black issues, and his site shows his speeches have earned high praise from well-known leaders of the resentment-driven civil rights movement, including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Michael Eric Dyson.

In his bluntly-titled article, Note to Trayvon’s Mother: It’s Time for You to Step to the Side, Dr. Watkins referred to the recent Today Show appearance by Trayvon Masrtin’s mother where she said:

One of the things that I still believe in, a person should apologize when they are actually remorseful for what they’ve done. I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn’t turn the clock back. I would ask him, did he know that that was a minor, that that was a teenager, and that he did not have a weapon?”

Dr. Watkin’s reaction is pretty stunning:

When I heard these words, I froze in my tracks.  I couldn’t believe that Trayvon’s mother would make a statement that was in such stark contradiction to the charges being brought forth by the prosecutor.  In fact, there’s a big part of me that wonders why she was on the show at all.

Note that Dr. Watkins is not concerned with the veracity of the statement but rather how the statement affects the politically motivated prosecution of George Zimmerman. In fact, later in the article Dr. Watkins explicitly says that even if the assessment of the shooting as an accident was honest, it should not of been said.

God bless Sybrina for being honest (if that is what she meant to say), but there are some things better left unsaid.  For the mother of the victim to make a statement in national media that directly contradicts the efforts of the prosecution is nothing short of disastrous.

Which begs the question: disastrous to what? Being honest and telling the truth is certainly not disastrous to the goal of actual justice. However, justice is clearly not the goal of men like Sharpton and Watkins. In fact, as Watkins admits in the final paragraph of this piece, this really isn’t about Trayvon Martin at all. He says:

Trayvon’s parents have done their work and they’ve done it well.  They’ve achieved the first steps toward justice for their son, and now it’s time for them to try to rebuild their lives in private.  Rev. Sharpton has done a wonderful job of highlighting the racial dimensions of this highly unfortunate incident.  At this point, the conversation about black men in the justice system must grow beyond Trayvon Martin, and the prosecution should be allowed to do its work.  The family, as well all associated racial advocates, need to strategize in private, listen to the evidence and just stop talking.

In other words, thanks for letting the professional race-baiters like Al Sharpton use your son, but his death has now served our purpose, so please shut up.

 

Really?
If Warren released her college and law school applications, that would be news to me.  As closely as I have followed Warren’s bobbing and weaving explanations, I’ve yet to see and am unable to find her college and law school applications.

This is What Patriarchy Looks Like:
The H.EAT. conference is a conference of pigs and their nonprofit lackeys to increase the harassment, imprisonment, marginalization and criminalization of sex workers. Fronting as a conference against “child trafficking,” this conference brings pigs and nonprofits together to develop policing strategies that line their pockets while leaving sex workers exploited and disempowered. Pigs and nonprofits hide behind lies about “safety” and “protection” while they profit off the incarceration and “reformation” of sex workers. These pigs and nonprofits neurotically plug their ears to the fact they themselves are exactly the reason sex work can exist. Sex work, like all forms of work, can only exist within a society based on hierarchical economic systems like capitalism, which are protected by the police and patronizing reformist organizations that keep exploited people from revolting. The pigs are the enemies of sex workers, and of all workers.
Let’s shut this f#$ker down!!!!!

Whores get revenge
On Wednesday, June 13th, 2012, queers and hookers and other bad bitches f#$ked up the H.E.A.T. Watch conference. H.E.A.T. Watch is an ongoing campaign facilitated by the Alameda County District Attorney, The City of Oakland, the OPD, and a few select piece-of-sh*t non-profits.
We set out with the intentions of shutting the f#$ker down and started the event with the distribution of some dope literature, some inflammatory speeches, the harassment of mainstream media and of course, the all-out taunting of the police. It got taken a step further when the crowd attempted to enter the lobby of the Marriott Convention Center. This all resulted in a rumble with the pigs, the vandalized facade of the convention center entrance with eggs and paint, and a march to and from Oscar Grant Plaza. We would say that this was a nice way to spend an afternoon and, for a brief moment, fulfilled our goal of shutting the f#$ker down.
…
To our enemies the DA Nancy O’Malley, the christian scum bag Linda Smith and all the pigs and other such trash attending the conference: this is only a small taste of what some pissed off hoes are capable of. We acknowledge your invitation of war against sex workers and all those subjugated by the continued existence of capital. Bring it on motherf#$kers.
…
Against exploitation,
Bitches who will F.U. up.

Karen Geronimo, a member of the Mescalero Apache tribe in town for the Democratic convention, knows what she wants from Elizabeth Warren, the Senate candidate from Massachusetts: a blood sample.
“Someone needs to make her take a DNA test,” said Ms. Geronimo, whose husband, Harlyn Geronimo, is the great-grandson of the legendary warrior Geronimo.
The still-simmering controversy over Ms. Warren’s self-proclaimed American Indian heritage has chased her from the campaign trail in Massachusetts to the convention hall, resonating with a small but vocal constituency: American Indian Democrats….
“If you’re going to be Native, don’t just be Native on paper,” said Lexie LaMere, a Nebraska delegate and member of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. “What’s troubling is that she’s shown nothing in her history of being involved in Native American issues.”
Mr. Geronimo, wearing a “Native Americans for Obama” button, said he was disappointed when he first heard of Ms. Warren’s claim.
“She needed leverage to further her career and started digging,” he said. Ms. Warren brushed aside reporters who asked about the concerns on Wednesday, saying: “I’ve answered those questions. I’m here to talk about what’s happening to America’s working-class families. That’s my job. It’s my full-time job.”

OBAMA TO SHARE SECRETS
President Obama signaled Congress this week that he is prepared to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia.
In the president's signing statement issued Saturday in passing into law the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill, Mr. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on U.S. Standard Missile-3 velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority.
As first disclosed in this space several weeks ago, U.S. officials are planning to provide Moscow with the SM-3 data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. The weapons are considered some of the most effective high-speed interceptors in the U.S. missile defense arsenal.
There are also concerns that Russia could share the secret data with China and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to help their missile programs defeat U.S. missile defenses.
Officials from the State Department and Missile Defense Agency have discussed the idea of providing the SM-3 data to the Russians as part of the so-far fruitless missile-defense talks with Moscow, headed in part of by Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, who defense officials say is a critic of U.S. missile defenses.
Their thinking is that if the Russians know the technical data, it will help allay Moscow's fears that the planned missile defenses in Europe would be used against Russian ICBMs. Officials said current SM-3s are not fast enough to catch long-range Russian missiles, but a future variant may have some anti-ICBM capabilities.
Ms. Tauscher has repeatedly denied that her talks with the Russians are secret. However, the administration has provided almost no briefings about the talks to Congress, which prompted critics of the talks to include language in the new defense spending law limiting data-sharing.
Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology, as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they would be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.
The president also must certify to Congress that Russia will not share the secrets with other states and that it will not help Russia "to develop countermeasures" to U.S. defenses.
The certification also must show whether Russia is providing equal access to its missile defense technologies, which are mainly nuclear-tipped anti-missile interceptors.
Mr. Obama said in the signing statement that he would treat the legal restrictions as "non-binding."
"While my administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the president's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications," Mr. Obama said, incorrectly identifying the section of the law containing the restrictions.