Saturday - November 12, 2011

An act of “Christian charity” This ought-ta teach ya some charity should begin at home

Well now ... this is sure a different sort of takeover.
Not squatters, not gypsies.

This one’s about a farm family and some Jehovah’s Witnesses, who a judge has decided can live forever on this property.
Problem is, the old guy being quoted as saying something the widow denies, is graveyard dead. So it’s pretty easy to quote him. How do we know?  Hows the judge know?
Is it logical for someone, even in a charitable way, to allow folks lifetime rent at a price below market, even if the place was ramshackle.  I might be wrong about below market. I guess that would depend on just how ramshackle the place was to begin with.
Interesting problem here.

Take a look.

Battle over farmhouse rented out as ‘an act of charity’

A couple who allowed Jehovah’s Witnesses to live in their farmhouse as an act of “Christian charity” are challenging a court ruling that granted them a lifetime tenancy at a peppercorn rent.

By Richard Alleyne

Iris and John Haselden, staunch Anglicans, said they believed they were performing an act of kindness, for which they would be rewarded in Heaven, when they let Richard Hardy and his wife Pauline, move into a tumbledown farmhouse they owned.
But they claim the arrangement which involved a peppercorn rent of £50-a-week was only temporary and that the Hardys would leave when they got back on their feet.

However 11 years later the tenants were still in the three-bedroom farm, set in 60 acres of land, and won a court order saying they could stay for the rest of their lives.
They also secured an order that the widow pay them £40,000 in damages for the improvement work they had carried out since 1997, plus £25,000 in legal costs.

Now Mrs Haselden, 82, now widowed, is challenging the decision at London’s Appeal Court and demanding they get their property back in two years.
Mrs Haselden’s barrister, Christopher McNall, said the tenancy slashed the value of the farm from £460,000 to just £100,000 in one fell swoop.

He said that the widow, and her daughter, were shocked when shortly before her husband died of a heart attack in 2008, the Hardys won a County Court ruling, granting them a lifetime tenancy of Brock Clough Farm, Rossendale, Lancs, and all 60 acres of the farmland surrounding it – all for a rent of £200-a-month.
He said it also had the effect of “excluding Mrs Haselden and her daughter, the owners, from the whole of Brock Clough Farm for an indeterminate period of time.”

For their part, however, Mr and Mrs Hardy insist that Mr Haselden promised them they could live at the farm “for the rest of their lives” at a £50-a-week rent.
No formal tenancy agreement was signed, but the judge at Preston County Court accepted the Hardys’ plea that an oral or implied agreement was made to that effect.  Mr McNall, told the court: “If there were any tenancy it should have been in writing. the Hardys were not entitled to hold the farm.

“The sum of £50 per week was calculated on the basis that the farmhouse was ramshackle and some work needed to be done to it.
“We have paid for the improvements to our own house, but we are stuck with the discounted rent.
“The order for damages is shot through with errors – it should not have been made at all let alone in the sum that was awarded,” he told the three ruling judges.
Elisabeth Tythcott, for the Hardys, who run a preschool nursery at the farm, described Mrs Haselden’s family as “farming people to whom land means everything”.
“The Hardys are not greedy people,” she said.
“They thought they had an agreement with John Haselden- they kept to their side of the deal. They asked for a written confirmation of that but he fobbed them off.

“From going in there and thinking they could live there forever, they now feel that agreement has been ignored. Their future is in jeopardy and their business has failed virtually,” she added.

Outside court, Mrs Haselden, who lives 12 miles away from the Hardys at New Barn Farm, Hapton, near Burnley, claimed her husband agreed to let the Hardys move onto the farm as a favour after other Jehovans who went to the same church “helped them out with a difficult calving.”
“It was virtually an act of charity,” the widow said.
The Appeal Court judges will give their decision on the case at a later date, yet to be set.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 11/12/2011 at 12:44 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - October 25, 2011

The Usual Lefty BS

A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida’s new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Mary Scriven ruled in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test. The judge said there was a good chance plaintiff Luis Lebron would succeed in his challenge to the law based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from being unfairly searched.

Personally, I’m against drug testing as a hurdle to getting employment, so I guess I should be against it for getting a handout. I am in favor of it in the workplace when there is actual cause. Not sure where I fall for the random on the job tests (probably against) or for it’s use in scholastic athletics (against) or for it’s non-use in professional athletics (for). But it has been a de facto aspect of getting a job for at least 18 years now.

The drug test can reveal a host of private medical facts about the individual, Scriven wrote, adding that she found it “troubling” that the drug tests are not kept confidential like medical records. The results can also be shared with law enforcement officers and a drug abuse hotline.

“This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a `far more substantial’ invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases,” said Scriven, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

The judge also said Florida didn’t show that the drug testing program meets criteria for exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.

The injunction will stay in place until the judge can hold a full hearing on the matter. She didn’t say when that hearing will be scheduled.

More than two-dozen states have also proposed drug-testing recipients of welfare or other government assistance, but Florida was the first state to enact such a law in more than a decade. Should any of those states pass a law and face a court challenge, Scriven’s ultimate ruling would likely serve as a legal precedent.

Ok Florida, don’t be a hoser. Figure out how the corporations get away with it, and follow the same process. Maybe they don’t get the detailed results back from the testing companies, just a Yes or No answer. If that’s the case, then re-write your bill and have just that part - the answer - accessible to police when they have a warrant. Or don’t even bother. It’s not like the police have nothing else to do; busting junkies and pot heads is so far down their list that it comes in lower than investigating bicycle theft.

Earlier this year, Scott also ordered drug testing of new state workers and spot checks of existing state employees under him. But testing was suspended after the American Civil Liberties Union also challenged that policy in a separate lawsuit.

Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren’t required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.

What what what? The ACLU got the testing suspended for government workers? Where the hell were they in 1992 for the rest of us, the bastiges???  And of course most of the positives were for pot. The test - at least the urine test - is pretty flawed because all the really hard stuff flushes out of your system within a couple days. Only reefer leaves a trace that sticks around for months. That’s why they should use the hair test like so many employers do. That one can spot your drug usage going back months. And it would make finding the welfare druggies real easy too. They’d be the people walking around completely hairless, with shaved heads, waxed bodies, and no eyebrows.

Looks like another one of Bush’s compassionate conservatives is either a closet liberal or a strict constitutionalist. I’d like to believe she’s a constitutionalist, but what I’d really like to see is Florida writing a law that can pass muster. Or a federal level decision throwing out all drug testing as an employment/benefits condition. Isn’t there something in that old document about being under duress?

Posted by Drew458     on 10/25/2011 at 08:37 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - September 22, 2011

Better Late Than Never

Georgia executed Troy Davis on Wednesday night for the murder of an off-duty police officer, a crime he denied committing right to the end as supporters around the world mourned and declared that an innocent man was put to death.

...

Davis was declared dead at 11:08 p.m. The lethal injection began about 15 minutes earlier, after the Supreme Court rejected an 11th-hour request for a stay.

“Justice has been served for Officer Mark MacPhail and his family,” state Attorney General Sam Olens said in a statement.

...

Hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions on Davis’ behalf, and prominent supporters included an ex-president and an ex-FBI director, liberals and conservatives. His attorneys said seven of nine key witnesses against him disputed all or parts of their testimony, but state and federal judges repeatedly ruled against him—three times on Wednesday alone.

...

Davis’ supporters staged vigils in the U.S. and Europe, declaring “I am Troy Davis” on signs, T-shirts and the Internet. Some tried increasingly frenzied measures, urging prison workers to stay home and even posting a judge’s phone number online, hoping people will press him to put a stop to the lethal injection. President Barack Obama deflected calls for him to get involved.

“They say death row; we say hell no!” protesters shouted outside the Jackson prison before Davis was executed. In Washington, a crowd outside the Supreme Court yelled the same chant.

I am not familiar with the details of this case at all, but if what Ann Coulter writes about it is even reasonably accurate, they had him dead to rights.

It’s nearly impossible to receive a death sentence these days—unless you do something completely crazy like shoot a cop in full view of dozens of witnesses in a Burger King parking lot, only a few hours after shooting at a passing car while exiting a party.

That’s what Troy Davis did in August 1989. Davis is the media’s current baby seal of death row.

After a two-week trial with 34 witnesses for the state and six witnesses for the defense, the jury of seven blacks and five whites took less than two hours to convict Davis of Officer Mark MacPhail’s murder, as well as various other crimes. Two days later, the jury sentenced Davis to death.

Now, a brisk 22 years after Davis murdered Officer MacPhail, his sentence will finally be administered this week—barring any more of the legal shenanigans that have kept taxpayers on the hook for Davis’ room and board for the past two decades.

It has been claimed—in The New York Times and Time magazine, for example—that there was no “physical evidence” connecting Davis to the crimes that night.

Davis pulled out a gun and shot two strangers in public. What “physical evidence” were they expecting? No houses were broken into, no cars stolen, no rapes or fistfights accompanied the shootings. Where exactly would you look for DNA? And to prove what?

I suppose it would be nice if the shell casings from both shootings that night matched. Oh wait—they did. That’s “physical evidence.”

Now the media claim that seven of the nine witnesses against Davis at trial have recanted.

First of all, the state presented 34 witnesses against Davis—not nine—which should give you some idea of how punctilious the media are about their facts in death penalty cases.

I guess the news story quoted here, from Fox News, is their liberal bias shining through, what with them being all “fair and balanced”. 34 witnesses not 9? Oh, uh huh, “key” witnesses ... more important than the other ones ... and the “key” part is decided by whom? Riiiiiight. Crivens, the guy’s own friends saw him do it and testified as much. And the shell casings from both shootings matched. And Davis himself disallowed the recant testimony of 2 of those waffling witnesses!

I think this may be another case of blacks being above the law because they are black, and therefore allowed to get away with anything (like OJ) because other blacks were mistreated in the past. Therefore even arresting one is raaaaaacist. Um, no, that’s not how it works.  But wait! Hold on a second!

With death penalty opponents so fixated on Davis’ race—he’s black—it ought to be noted that all the above witnesses are themselves African-American. The first man Davis shot in the car that night was African-American.

Now that makes a whole new kettle of fish, doesn’t it? Or does it? Black guy commits a crime against another black guy, a whole passel of black people witness it and testify, and the jury who convicts him is more than half black. Guess we’ve got to put the Race Card back in the deck until next time. Ah, if only it was Oprah Winfrey pointing all this out, instead of lily white fish belly pale Ann Coulter. Then it would all be Ok, right?

Posted by Drew458     on 09/22/2011 at 07:24 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Media-Bias •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - September 15, 2011

Torricelli Option Alive And Well In NJ, via PA

Five months after he declared his candidacy for state Senate, Carl Lewis, the Olympic gold medalist, finally made it onto the November ballot today.

After a legal battle that overshadowed Lewis’s candidacy, a three-judge federal appeals court panel [ in PA ] voted 2-1 to overturn Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno’s April decision that he did not meet the four-year residency requirement for state Senate candidates, and a lower federal court decision upholding it.

In a court order issued about six hours after Lewis made a list-ditch appeal, the panel said the state “failed to demonstrate compelling state interest in the application” of the residency requirement.

The campaign manager for Lewis, Chris Walker, summed it up succinctly: “We won.”

Burlington County Republicans, who initiated the suit, were outraged.

Lewis, 50, grew up in Willingboro but spent most of his adult life in Texas and California. He contends that he returned to New Jersey in 2005, which is when he bought two condominiums, one for himself and another for his mother. Two years later, he bought a home in Medford.

Republicans challenged Lewis’s residency shortly after he announced his candidacy. Although an administrative law judge dismissed the challenge, Guadagno, acting as secretary of state, overturned the decision and ruled that Lewis did not meet the residency requirement, in part because he voted in California as recently as 2009.

Since then, the case has been wending its way through federal courts. Last week, a district judge refused to put Lewis on the ballot.

Judge Thomas Ambro, who wrote the decision, was skeptical of the state’s case, saying the requirement exists to make sure candidates know their districts and voters know the candidates.

“It’s hard to say that this candidate doesn’t know the local issues affecting the 8th Legislative District, and it’s kind of hard to say the voters don’t know who he is,” Ambro said.

If you have plenty of money, you can own homes wherever you want. So owning a home in one state, and paying taxes on it, is no proof of residency. Likewise, you can have bank accounts in whatever state you wish, so they’re no proof. Utility bills and credit card bills may be sent to those other homes in other states, and even paid for by a bank account in that state (easy enough thing to do with a bill paying service or attorney, which rich folks can afford). You may have a license to drive in more than one state? I don’t know - it used to be that way, but by now most states have probably cracked down on that. But you can’t be registered to vote in more than one state. Ever. So when push comes to shove, voter registration is the ultimate trump card, even if you don’t vote. This is the law in this state, and that is the key piece of residency proof for all candidates everywhere.

Just last week Lewis was removed from the ballot by a federal judge who upheld NJ aSoS Guadagno’s decision to deny a previous lower judge’s decision to allow him on the ballot in the first place:

“The plaintiff is a man of great and inspiring achievement, justifiably held in high regard, and possessed of promise for the future,” [federal judge] Hillman wrote in a decision that was filed Tuesday and made public Wednesday.

Still, he wrote, the “residency requirement applies to all, regardless of economic status, race, creed, color, age, gender, and political affiliation.”

“Judge Hillman’s decision said it all,” he said. ”The state’s constitutional residency requirement applies to everyone equally, even celebrities like Carl Lewis. We’ve said from Day One that Mr. Lewis clearly did not meet the legal residency requirement, and that he wasn’t above the law just because his name was Carl Lewis.”

The dealine for preparing ballots for the general election is Sept. 19, but in the past late changes have been made.

In 2002, former U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli dropped his re-election effort a little more than a month before voters were to go to the polls amid ethical questions. The state Supreme Court upheld the 11th-hour switch, which was challenged by Republicans, leading the way for Frank Lautenberg, who had retired from the Senate, to replace Torricelli on the ballot.

And of course the argument from the Dems is specious misdirection: Um, it doesn’t hurt anybody! (well, other than the general moral pain we all suffer when government is corrupt enough to break it’s own laws for the benefit of the rich and famous):

“I think the judge signaled his thoughts on the matter early on and his intent was set forth in the initial opinion,” he [Lewis’ attorney William Tambussi] said. “There is absolutely no demonstration of any harm to the state of New Jersey with Carl Lewis being on the ballot.”

But hey, when you’ve got a bench of 3 where one judge is a Clinton appointee, and the other is an Obama appointee, rules can be whatever you want. Here it is in black and white from the decision: our penumbra trumps your law:

In other words, our idea of what is in the best interest of the state is more important than the laws of that state. Read more on that here, with a link to the decision synopsis, and the even higher court cases that struck down the lower court precedence that this panel of judges based it’s decision on.

Next court up the ladder please!

NJ Lt. Governor and acting Secretary of State Kim Guadagno’s original reasoning from back in April below the fold. Damn, she’s got him by the warm and hairies!

Posted by Drew458     on 09/15/2011 at 01:45 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - September 07, 2011

one judge rules squatters good for public, another rules eviction notice

It’s this kind of thing that makes a person jump up and down and pull out their hair provided they have any, and cause onlookers to think they are viewing a crazy person. 

I can not think of any judge in the USA, perhaps not even the loony tune libtard ones, issuing a statement like this.

At issue btw was a doctor and his very preggers wife who found their home occupied. He offered the squatting vermin the equiv. of almost $1,000 to leave but they wanted more.  I can just see how that’d work out in the USA. 

Anyway …. the doc got his eviction notice approved (a different judge of course) and the scum have 24 hours to go. Which is still way too long.  What’s wrong with 10 minutes?  I mean after all, the property isn’t theirs to begin with. Then as they leave, shoot the bastards dead and eliminate that future threat as they surely will be alive.

There is a positive side to death for some groups of criminals that society is well off without.  Oh right I keep forgetting. ALL life is sacred.  Bullshit!  Some is worthless and wasting space and air and resources.  Child abusers lead the list, but squatters, anarchists and looters deserve no better treatment.

So then here’s one loony tune judicial judgement on the topic of squatting.  You’ll love the insanity on this one.

‘Squatters aren’t criminals and can be GOOD for society’:

Judge orders council to publish list of empty homes in its area

· Camden Council told to hand addresses to squatter website that advises people on how to occupy homes
· Judge dismissed claim that squatting victims suffer high costs as a result of occupation

By STEVE DOUGHTY

Squatters should be encouraged because they bring empty homes back into use, a judge said yesterday.

Fiona Henderson ruled they were not criminals and there was no evidence they carried out more anti-social behaviour than rent-paying tenants.
Her judgment is a blow to the thousands every year who see their homes invaded – and struggle through the courts to win them back.

She ordered a list of empty homes in North London to be made public to the Advisory Service for Squatters, an East London-based organisation known as the ‘estate agency for squatters’.

The group, run by Yiannis Voyias, publishes details of empty homes and a handbook showing how to take full advantage of housing laws.

Judge Henderson’s ruling that squatting is a good thing and not a crime comes as Justice Secretary Ken Clarke considers laws that would finally make squatting a criminal offence.
Proposals include prison sentences for persistent squatters such as Mr Voyias and the repeal of ‘squatters’ rights’ rules that prevent owners using force to take back their properties.

MORE IDIOT RULING BY IDIOT JUDGE

The DM surprised me and published my comment on this story.

Hey people. At long last there is one thing American haters and critics can not say, ‘Only in America’ about, because we would not put up with it to begin with. And NO judge in the USA would make the kind of statement about private property this one did. Oh,,, is it okay to to say, “Only in England” now?

Yiannis Voyias?  Where the hell did a name like that come from? See what I mean about exterminating some ppl?  Eliminate a guy like this and presto. What problem?
Who’d want to risk taking his place if they knew what the price would be?  He’s vermin and it’s just a wee bit of lice removal. Easy.
And just so ya know .... there’s an update to this story HERE which I would strongly advise you see.  There’s a box inside that link along with the update.
Inside that box is a detailed bit about how easy it is to take someone’s home or property and all thanks to a dumb law that has yet to be changed BUT
thanks to this foreign sounding scumbag (Voyias), sells the info. Take a look and you’ll see why I hold the attitude I do.

Posted by peiper     on 09/07/2011 at 02:57 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - August 17, 2011

caste discrimination in Britain? lawyers say you bet and sue

Oh isn’t this wonderful. Just what the public and the victims want to hear from the future King of England. Chinless wimp.

Incredibly, the Prince of Wales put the criminal actions of looters and rioters down to an excess of of youthful ‘energy and natural aggression’. His verdict is bound to cause anger by those hit by marauding swarms of looters last week and people living in areas at the centre of violent gang wars. Charles was visiting a leisure centre in Tottenham, north London, offering shelter and advice to riot victims.

And here’s a new wrinkle to add to the legal system. And leave it to lawyers. Right?  Hey ... UK ...  deep pockets.

Indian couple who lost their law firm jobs due to ‘forbidden love’ at centre of first caste discrimination tribunal

Home Secretary Theresa May considering whether to add the ancient Indian class system to British equality law

By ANDY DOLAN
Last updated at 9:20 PM on 17th August 2011

An Indian couple who met at a legal firm have become the first in Britain to claim ‘caste’ discrimination, saying they were forced from their jobs following their marriage.

An employment tribunal was told that solicitor Amardeep Begraj, 33, was from a higher caste than her husband Vijay, 32, the practice manager.

He belonged to the Dalits, formerly known as the Untouchables because of the nature of their work in roles such as cleaning, pest control or scavenging, and the lowest class of people according to the ancient Indian caste system.

Mrs Begraj has told the tribunal that a senior colleague warned her against marrying Mr Begraj because people of his caste were ‘different creatures’, while he was told his position at the firm was ‘compromised’.

The case throws a spotlight on how the hereditary caste system, for centuries used to categorise people according to occupation or social standing in India, has gained a foothold in a contemporary Britain where five per cent of the population originates from the sub-continent.

more

Notice the words ... “a foothold.” That’s always how it starts. With a foothold.

Posted by peiper     on 08/17/2011 at 03:44 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • UK •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - July 03, 2011

england must screw itself rules foreign court

I think we can be reasonably certain that the average working Brit had no intention of screwing him or her self.  Nevertheless, this country has gotten the shaft big time and all in the name of human rights. 
They have people here with names as impossible to spell and pronounce as it is to deport them.  This island is over run with illegals, failed amnesty seekers and criminals of every stripe.  Unfortunately for the Brits, it might be somewhat easier to deport say a white criminal or illegal immigrant, then it is to deport those of a darker hue. And even then that isn’t always true, again due to the use of a human rights act, enabled by a court in another country. Generally though, the darkies come from countries where torture might be routine and rights just don’t exist, and so lawyers here (with names few can spell or pronounce) are hard at work making sure the scum can stay.  And that isn’t all.  Since these pitiful pissants have zero funds, there’s an agency that sees to it that ALL their legal fees are paid for.  Interesting concept in the western world.  The people who cause the problems get to screw the people who don’t who get to pay the expenses of the folks who do the screwin.’
Once allowed to remain in this country, with no jobs available to them, no guesses as to who has the burden of supporting them.

The bastards are on to a good thing.
And they know it.
Take a look at this.

Human rights farce: meet the serial criminal who cannot be deported

Abdi Sufi, a serial criminal whose legal appeal has prevented Britain deporting hundreds of undesirable immigrants, is already back on the streets.

By Alastair Jamieson

Abdi Sufi 24, has at least 17 convictions for crimes including burglary, fraud and indecent exposure since he entered the UK illegally eight years ago.
But an attempt by the Home Office to send him back to his homeland of Somalia has been thwarted by judges in Strasbourg, who ruled last week that he would face the risk of inhumane treatment if he was returned. He is now living freely in London.

The ruling in the key test case means that more than 200 further Somalis appealing against deportation, most of them convicted criminals, will be able to remain in Britain.
Critics say the ruling illustrates how human rights legislation is being exploited by lawyers and foreign criminals to make a mockery of British justice.

Sufi’s case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights by the AIRE Centre, a legal advice body which has received funding from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the European Commission. Because the Home Office lost, both sides’ costs will be paid by British taxpayers.

Judges considered Sufi’s case together with that of another Somali criminal fighting deportation, Abdiaziz Elmi, a 42-year-old heroin addict with multiple convictions for drug-dealing and robbery who lives with his family in Camberley, Surrey.

The court ruled unanimously that sending either man back to his homeland would breach Article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention, which bans “inhuman or degrading treatment”.
The judges rejected the Home Office’s argument that the men could live safely in parts of Somalia. They ruled that the country as a whole was too dangerous to send the men home to.

“The court reiterated that the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute,” they said. “Consequently, the applicants’ behaviour, however undesirable, could not be taken into account.”
The judgment described it as the “lead case” against the UK, meaning the outcome will set a precedent for 214 pending cases brought by Somalis attempting to avoid deportation, around two-thirds of them criminals.

Sufi arrived in Britain as a 16 year-old in 2003, having paid a trafficking agent for false identity documents to get on a flight from Somalia via Dubai. He sought asylum, claiming that he belonged to a clan persecuted by militia, but his claim was rejected and a tribunal found his account was “not credible”.

Nevertheless, he was placed in the care of social services until he turned 18. In that year, 2005, he was convicted of burglary and dishonestly obtaining goods by deception, and ordered to spent 18 months in Feltham Young Offenders Institution. He later committed further crimes, including indecent exposure, theft and making threats to kill, culminating in a 2009 sentence of 32 months for five counts of burglary.

Following his latest release from an immigration detention centre, Sufi is back on the streets of west London, drifting between bail hostels and a friend’s flat.
Tracked down by The Sunday Telegraph, he said he was not even aware of the European court’s decision in his case, or its implications.
He apologised for his criminal record and said he wanted to start a new, law-abiding life as a bus driver or security guard.
Speaking through an interpreter, he said: “I have not spoken to the lawyer. They got me out of the detention centre so I am very pleased, but I am not celebrating as I still do not have money to eat.”
“I am seeing a psychiatrist for my nightmares and I do not sleep at night. It makes it difficult for me to be normal.
“I want to contribute to society, not to be costing the country money, but I have been unable to get education and skills here because of my status.
“I am full of shame for having to beg or borrow to live and I do not want to be a burden to anybody.

“I understand why people are angry that I committed crimes, I see their point of view and I am sorry. I did not come to Britain to commit crimes.”
His father, a successful clothing shop owner and farmer, was persecuted by the Hawiye militia because his family were from a minority clan, Shanshi.
“Everything we had was stolen or destroyed, and my family was killed,” he said. “My mother contacted relatives and we scraped together enough money to pay people to get me out of the country to be safe.

“I did not choose Britain, it was just where they took me. Later I heard my mother managed to get to Sweden but she died there.”
The court’s judgment said that while it was possible for well-connected individuals to live safely in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, anyone else being returned would face serious harm.

Mahdi Aadam, director of the Pan African Relief and Development Organisation, a refugee support charity based in west London, said: “Mogadishu is worse now than ever.”
He said the rise of the country’s al-Shabaab Islamist insurgency had made the country “deadly”, but added: “It is a civil war, not a religious conflict.”
Mr Sufi said his 2007 conviction for indecent exposure followed an argument with a female warder over laundry at the West Drayton immigrant detention centre in west London.

FARCE SOURCE

So then, here since the age of 16 and still needs an interpreter as his ringlesh just am not quite there yet. 

Posted by peiper     on 07/03/2011 at 10:18 AM   
Filed Under: • Illegal-Aliens and Immigration • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - July 02, 2011

Will We Ever Get There?

A divided federal appeals court [ the 6th Circuit ] on Friday struck down Michigan’s controversial ban on consideration of race and gender in college admissions.

The 2-1 panel at the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded the voter-approved ban on “preferential treatment” at state colleges and universities was unconstitutional, and “alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.”

The issue is likely to renew the national, political and legal debate over affirmative action, which the Supreme Court could be poised to resolve in the coming months.

The affirmative action ban was passed five years ago in a referendum and was added to the state’s constitution, barring publicly funded centers of higher education from granting “preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” That prompted a series of lawsuits and appeals from various groups.

The issue comes after the justices in 2003 ruled that while Michigan universities could use race as a factor in choosing which students to admit, they could not make race the determining factor in deciding whether applicants are accepted.

The appeals court has now said the Michigan law violated the Constitution’s equal protection laws.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said today he will appeal a court ruling that overturned the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which bans the use of race and gender preferences in college admissions and government hiring and contracting.

Schuette said he will make a formal request for a rehearing with the appeals court, a move that will keep the civil rights initiative — known as Proposal 2 — in place at least temporarily.

“MCRI embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law,” Schuette said in a statement. “Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law.”

A federal appeals court today overturned Proposal 2, saying the voter-approved measure harms minorities and is unconstitutional.

The 2006 law forced the University of Michigan and other state schools to revise their admission policies. In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The court in particular objected to the inclusion of the voter-approved ban in the Michigan Constitution in its 59-page ruling.

“Proposal 2 reorders the political process in Michigan to place special burdens on minority interests,” judges R. Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey said.

The ban, passed with 58 percent of the vote nearly five years ago, affected government hiring as well as college admissions.

In 2008, a federal judge in Detroit upheld the law, saying it was race-neutral.

Justices Ransey Cole Jr and Martha “Cissy” Daughtery, both Clinton appointees; Reagan appointed judge Julia Gibbons, dissenting

Jennifer Gratz, who headed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative ballot proposal, said she doesn’t think the ruling is going to stand long term because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled initiatives than ban ran preferences are constitutional.

“To me, this is the epitome of an activist court. These justices held onto this ruling for years and released it the day before the holiday weekend. They were hoping they would catch people off guard and not make the news,” said, Gratz, director of the American Civil Rights Institute, a California-based group that advocates against affirmative action.

Ward Connerly, a former University of California regent who was a major backer of Proposal 2 and California’s similar Proposition 209, said the ruling means the people have no right to govern their own institutions.

“It’s saying the people have no right to insist that everyone be treated equality. It places the ultimate decision in the hands of the university — that they are supreme ones,” Connerly said by phone from California. “It’s a terrible, terrible decision that will not stand.”

Michigan’s ban on affirmative action — covering both government hiring and admission to public colleges and universities — was made part of the State Constitution after a 2006 voter initiative that passed by 58 percent to 42 percent. It was known as Proposal 2 and prohibited public institutions from giving “preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.”

The voter initiative followed the Supreme Court decisions, which found that while the University of Michigan could not set quotas for certain racial groups, or give them extra points, in undergraduate admissions, it could consider race as one factor in the holistic law school admissions process.

The 59 page court decision in .pdf format is here, wherein we find the words of the hateful Prop 2 now found unconstitutional. As you read those hateful words, bear in mind those other words, the ones from the Declaration of Independence as we head into the 4th of July weekend:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...”
Here they are. Surely it takes an activist, living-Constitution, elitely superior liberal mind to see the blatant inequality in that amendment:

Proposal 2 amended the Michigan Constitution by adding the following pertinent
provisions to Article I—titled “Affirmative action”:
(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

(2) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(3) For the purposes of this section “state” includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1.

To unenlightened evil conservative minds like mine, the above is the clearest possible statement of equal protection I think I have ever read. Sorry I is so stupit.



My aunt was a school teacher. She started teaching back in the late 60s in a small town school in almost-rural Georgia. Her students were mostly black kids. They had just about nothing in the way of books or school supplies, and she had to fight the prevailing powers to get them what they needed. That was a very long time ago. 17 years ago I spent the summer at my university, and I was amazed that my little school in the wilderness suddenly was wall to wall black kids when the weather got warm. Yet not one of these kids was in any of my classes. They were all incoming Freshmen, spending the summer beforehand taking remedial courses. The school also provided them mentors and free tutoring. The few who did make it to graduation had first pick of the jobs. In New Jersey we have a thing called Abbot Schools, which are a special kind of gold label inner city schools that get massively larger amounts of funding than another other schools in the state. Guess who attends them?
From kindergarten to grad school, the educational system has turned itself inside out to give blacks every possible leg up. And they still need special laws to get into schools?

I will be the first to say that, yes, once upon a time Affirmative Action was a necessary evil. That was 40 years ago. An entire generation of minorities have been through the educational system since then, and their children as well. 40 years worth. And being a minority is a distinct advantage in the jobs market, especially the corporate one. We even have an Affirmative Action President, elected for no reason other than half his heritage (because the election had nothing to do with race you know).

When is enough ever going to be enough? Our entire society caters to the whims, needs, and sensitivity of black people. They have help in all things from cradle to grave. And yet they’re always the victims, no matter how accepted everyone else tries to make them. We’ve removed all the glass ceilings and lowered all the bars right down into the mud, but that’s not enough. When will they ever be equal again, after being superior for all this time?

My wife is furious about this decision. “If I were black” she says “I’d be &^#+ing insulted! Where the hell is Al, or Jesse, speaking up about this? It’s a slap in the face to every minority in the country: we have to baby you, even by law, because you aren’t good enough.”

Isn’t she the greatest?

Posted by Drew458     on 07/02/2011 at 01:41 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Justice - LACK OF • Racism and race relations •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - June 21, 2011

Huh?

Dear Drew,

I am the director for MesotheliomaSymptoms.com and recently I discovered an article on your site that has a lot of links to our site (http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/gop_vs_epa/).  While I appreciate the mention, I would much rather our links be on sites that are directly related to our audience of people suffering from a terminal cancer. 

Because of this, I would like to ask you to either remove the Mesothelioma links from the article, or remove the article all together.  Please feel free to call me directly if you have any questions about this at xxx-xxx-xxxx or email me.

Best Regards,

Timothy E
Director

------ Reply -----
From: Drew458
To: Tim E
Subject: RE: Request for a removal of a link

Dear Tim,

Let me get this straight. Your website, which is all about distributing information about mesothelioma symptoms, finds it objectionable that you’ve been linked to as a source of mesothelioma symptom information, because someone who might not already have the disease might be interested in it, might wonder about it, and click the link to your website?

So you feel your website is some kind of exclusive insider’s country club? Yet you don’t run the site as a subscription service, nor do you pigeonhole your pages within a relatively closed network like WebMD. No, you are a public site, open to all and sundry. Oh, your subject matter is about a terminal illness. That’s sad, but that doesn’t make you any different than anyone else’s web site.

Your own About Us page states

The web resource MesotheliomaSymptoms.com is sponsored by Seeger Weiss LLP. The site has pulled together as a single resource everything related to asbestos in order to promote education and awareness for victims, their families, and the general public.(emphasis mine)

Well, my blog is about as general public seeking education as it gets.  Yet you find it bothersome that a single hyperlink helps the general public find your pages, while at the very same time your pages encourage readers to follow and befriend you on Facebook and Twitter, which is as open a form of linking as exists. It’s hard for me to follow that chain of logic.

Hang on, it actually turns out that you aren’t really a medical information organization at all, you’re a law firm. Good golly. Not much different than that one on the afternoon TV ad with the gravelly voiced announcer pushing mesothelioma patients to sue.

Let me ask you, since your home page mentions how “as many as 3,000 Americans a year are diagnosed with mesothelioma” and considering that there are likely thousands of websites (Google returns almost 20 million hits on “mesothelioma” - your site does not show up in the first 4 pages; however Google only returns 1.47 million hits on “mesothelioma symptoms” and your site does get the 1st and 2nd non-paid slots) ... how many hits have you received from my blog? How many are you receiving daily? Especially since this particular post is from more than two months ago, and at an average of 4 posts a day, is now utterly buried in the archives at this point.

The whole concept of the internet is the free and open dissemination of information across a massively multiconnected network; getting links from other places is what makes it tick. If you find this kind of open networking distasteful, why are you even online?

You can’t make the argument that our post was at all unsympathetic or derisive to the malady at all. If anything, it was making the point that mesothelioma was deserving of more funding.

So you have left me rather confused. Everyone else on the internet is only too happy to get linked to; there is no bad publicity. But you object to it, even when such a linking is sympathetic to your cause. That makes no sense to me ... unless your whole site really isn’t really about promoting education and awareness, but about promoting more business for your law office.

Oh, and it wasn’t “a lot of links”, it was one. And what makes you think that a vast number of my thousands of readers don’t already have this disease? I’ve never asked them about it.

Drew

Posted by Drew458     on 06/21/2011 at 07:30 PM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Medical •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - June 18, 2011

CONCESSION TO TERRORIST and the crime is we aren’t surprised

From Barking Moonbat to Barking Mad.  Maybe that should be howling mad. Whatever.

From the riots in Canada to the madness of this story, it’s clear that the western world has lost the thread. Brit public not too happy about this BUT, the story is now over, there aren’t any street protests, no riots and nobody even doing as much as with holding taxes. Which of course would only see em in jail.
I don’t understand how the barking-berk of a judge could see things in the way he did.  But perhaps as a lawyer he sees things in twisted ways the average person can not.  And from what some of you have written about some things in the USA, we aren’t too far behind the Brits in legalistic lunacy.

From where I view things, this is totally incomprehensible.  Did this terrorist scum bucket bring things on himself? Or maybe not. It was racism and islamophobia, right? Nothing at all to do with his very own actions, but the Brit public is responsible for his well being and the right to see family and have friends. Something the rat would happily deny anyone not of his pov on the world and religion.  Western democracy seems quite happy to keep the gun pointed at its own head.

Family of terror suspect given free travel tickets to visit him

By STEVE DOUGHTY

Taxpayers must pay train fares and taxi bills so that a terror suspect’s family can visit him after he was banned from the capital, a High Court judge has ordered.

Mr Justice Simon decided that because the Islamic extremist has been barred from London under anti-terror laws, he had lost his family life and had no friends.
To compensate for the breach of his human right to a family life, the Government should provide tickets when his wife and two children go to see him.

His judgment amounts to a further extension of the reach of Article 8 of the European Human Rights convention, which guarantees the right to private and family life.

Under Labour’s Human Rights Act, Article 8 has been used to free criminals, prevent deportations, allow assisted suicide and bring in a privacy law.

The ruling means that the family of the terrorist will get help from the Home Office to pay £40-a-trip coach or railway fares between Tottenham, North London, and the Midlands where he is exiled. Taxpayers must also meet taxi costs at both ends.

The concession to the terrorist, known only as CD, was disclosed by Home Secretary Theresa May in a statement to MPs on terrorist control orders.
The suspect, who has dual British and Nigerian nationality, was exiled under an order taken out in February.

MI5 has stated he is ‘the leading figure in a close group of Islamic extremists based in North London’. He had gone to meetings and a training camp organised by Mohammed Hamid, a terrorist instructor who called himself ‘Osama Bin London’.

The failed bombers who tried to attack the capital on July 21, 2005 were also at the camp in Cumbria. Hamid is now serving an indeterminate jail sentence.
The Security Services told the High Court that CD had three years of ‘extremist training’ in Syria. Back in London, he had made ‘several attempts to procure firearms for potential attack plans’.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 06/18/2011 at 02:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Justice - LACK OF • muslims •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - June 17, 2011

lady cop fails test therefore, “it’s discrimination” says a judge. and sexist

Well now how could I possibly not share this with you.  I got it from one of my favorite writers. Richard Littlejohn, who writes for the Daily Mail.

Diversity squad running riot

A couple of promising entries this week for the Mind How You Go Awards.

In Manchester, a 51-year-old female inspector has brought a sex discrimination case because she failed a fitness test.
For the past 30 years, officers have been required to run 500 yards, wearing full riot gear and carrying shields, in less than two minutes 45 seconds. Inspector Diane Bamber complained it was humiliating and stands to receive £30,000 after a tribunal ruled in her favour.
The time limit has now been raised to three minutes.

Hang on there. With respect to Littlejohn, not certain about the increase to 3 minutes. In fact ....  there’s trouble - a - brewin.’ Take a look That link has the full back up story and it is an eye opener. Also shows how stupid these equality judges are. Read it!

Then there is this. 

Twinned with Bin Laden

When Jack Straw was pandering to his Muslim constituents in Blackburn, I occasionally referred to him as the Hon Member for Islamabad West.
Now we learn that, under an exchange scheme for schools, Blackburn has been twinned with Abbottabad, Pakistan, hiding place until recently of Osama Bin Laden.
You couldn’t make it up.

Maybe they should erect a statue of the deceased Al Qaeda leader outside the Town Hall.
Come to think of it, he’d have been better off hiding out in Blackburn.
If he’d ever been found, he wouldn’t have got a bullet in the brain, he’d have been given legal aid, full welfare benefits, free kidney dialysis on the NHS and a nice couple of council houses knocked together to accommodate his assorted wives and children.

LITTLEJOHN

Posted by peiper     on 06/17/2011 at 10:44 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - June 10, 2011

guy rapes, gets out of jail and … yeah. does it again. law and disorder.

As happens so often here, an article of maddening content comes along and even before I post it with my own take and or anger, one of our regulars posts a comment or two that’s right on the mark, on the subject of crime and punishment. Or as in this case, a total lack of it.

It’s this kind of thing that makes so many people have zero respect for the law and the courts.  In fact, there’s even more proof of that.

Recently, a young burglar broke into the home of an 80 year old woman with health problems.  She was sadly subject to strokes and she had one and died.
Since the criminal couldn’t have been aware of her condition, they didn’t bring manslaughter charges against him, and he was originally sentenced to 6months. So he went on Facebook and bragged about his short prison term.
Here’s what he wrote.

Liam Cunliffe , Is a happy bunni all I can say. DROPPED!! YAA X
The big 1 yaa haha x
Im only looking at 6 months haha bring it on easy! x

He ended up with two years and was quite surprised by the change of his term.

Here’s a comment from our Wardmom that sums up what many feel.

Meanwhile the killers and criminals are running amuck in our society - and then given plea bargains to get out of jail in no time at all. Tell me why at all a paedophile should ever, ever be released back into a society populated with children - or a murderer? Time in jail does nothing to ‘rehabilitate’ them nor make them less of a threat to innocent people. Kill them and free the people to not live in fear or danger. Toss the terrorists into that - and a few politicians - and the world would be a much better place.
Wardmama4

I suspect the majority of law abiding citizens feel the same.  But hell. Who listens to them?  It’s enough of a headache for politicians to keep their election war chests topped up, without having to worry about the petty concerns of those who are most at risk.

So anyway, here’s our latest WTF were they thinking.
Take a look.

Rapist released early attacked new victim within weeks

A rapist who was freed after serving just half his sentence sexually assaulted another woman weeks later.

By Mark Hughes, Crime Correspondent

Fabian Thomas, 23, was released in December last year after serving four years of an eight-year sentence for rape. He struck again in February, attacking a woman in a supermarket car park.

The Home Office is now investigating the case. It comes just weeks after Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, had to apologise following his defence of Government proposals to halve prison sentences for rapists who plead guilty early.

He suggested that some rapes were less serious than others. A Home Office spokesman said a review would be carried out into how Thomas was managed while on probation. But women’s groups and politicians seized on the case last night as an example of the consequences of letting rapists out of prison early.

Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, called on the Government to clarify its position on maximum sentences.

Angie Conroy, of Rape Crisis, said: “Letting him out early was an accident waiting to happen.”

Thomas’s first offence was on New Year’s Day 2006 when he twice raped and threatened to kill a girl, aged 17, in an alley in Taunton, Somerset.

He was sentenced in December 2006 to eight years in a young offenders’ institution. In December 2010 he was released and on Feb 20 he committed his second attack, when he attempted to rape a woman, aged 19, in a supermarket car park while brandishing a hunting knife and wearing a balaclava.

He admitted the attack at Plymouth Crown Court on Monday and will be sentenced at a date yet to be set.

a po’d wiley will carry you to the source and other hair pulling links

Posted by peiper     on 06/10/2011 at 09:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Justice - LACK OF • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - June 03, 2011

can forgery ever be considered merely, simulation? a new legal twist?

Try and get your head around this one.  It could qualify as one of Drew’s puzzles.
If anyone out there understands this, will you please take the time to explain it to me as I often tend to be slow on this sort of thing.
Or ... is it as I think it might be, the usual lunacy for which there is no explanation.
OK I understand they are his kids. Got that. But still.  This is so outrageous it is mind boggling. What even more mind boggling is the claim that a court decided that forgery wasn’t forgery. Oh no. Get this people.  It’s a SIMULATION!

Go figure. 

Take a look.

Woman had two children after secretly taking ex-husband’s frozen sperm

A father was forced to pay his ex-wife £100,000 so she can raise two children she conceived without his consent after secretly taking his frozen sperm.

By Murray Wardrop
Daily Telegraph

The 57-year-old man had stored his sperm at a world famous fertility clinic after being told drug treatment for arthritis could make him infertile.
But two months after they separated, he says his former wife, 51, forged his signature and used her £25,000 divorce settlement to give birth to a son and daughter through IVF at the Bourn Hall Clinic, Cambridge.

The man only found out about the children three years later when his ex-wife’s sister phoned to say his son was critically ill in hospital. By then he had remarried and had two other children.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has had limited access to his children since then and spent almost £200,000 in ongoing legal battles with his ex-wife.

When she fell into debt caring for the youngsters, a judge ordered him to pay her £100,000 to help bring them up.

The father-of-four is now calling for a change in the law to ensure no other parents suffer the same ordeal.
The man said: “I was stunned when I found out she had withdrawn my sperm without my consent because at the time we had split up and were going through a divorce.

“It was a deliberate act to bring two children into this world without a father to look after them. I was never at the clinic and I never signed the documents.
“I love the children and spend money on taking them out and buying them clothes, but it is an expense I shouldn’t really have. The cost of this has been huge.
“It is scary to think how little control I had over it all. I just can’t understand how they believed her. The stress of it all has turned my life upside down.”

The man stored sperm at the clinic in 1999, to ensure that he and the woman, who he married in 1979, could still have children together, should arthritis drug treatment render him infertile.
They divorced in June 2000 but just weeks later she visited the clinic and forged his signature, allowing doctors to create embryos from his frozen sperm and her egg.

She gave birth to their daughter in June 2001 before returning to the clinic and giving birth to their son in September 2003.
The man, who remarried in 2002, was forced to tell his 32-year-old wife, with whom he has two daughters aged eight and seven, about his other children.

He said he first met the children - now aged nine and seven - after his ex-wife contacted him saying their daughter had asked to see her father.
The man said when the children began asking his ex-wife where they had come from, she told them “the freezer”.

Initially, he was only allowed to see the youngsters in a contact centre but fortnightly home visits are now permitted and they enjoy a harmonious relationship with his other children, the man said.
He added: “My new wife has been amazing about it all. She speaks to my ex-wife to do the best for the children but it has put a strain on our relationship.

“This has affected many lives, including the four children, and it is something that will be a strange situation for us for the rest of my life. “
In 2007, the same judge who ruled in their first divorce hearing, ordered the man to pay his ex-wife £100,000, on the grounds that the previous settlement did not take the two children into account.

When asked about her actions, his ex-wife said: “I don’t believe I have done anything wrong. It was getting later and later for me and I wanted to have a child.
“If I had not done it then I would not be blessed with my children. I have no regrets, I would do it again.”

She added that a court ruled it was a simulation rather than a forged signature.
Bourn Hall Clinic, which was founded in 1980 by IVF pioneers Patrick Steptoe and Professor Robert Edwards, declined to comment.

SOURCE OF STORY

This guy has been had. She’s not sorry. Course not. But damn, she should have been made to feel sorry. Like, an acid facial bath might have made her very sorry.  Barbaric?  Yeah maybe. But then I’m not too terribly civilized when reading stuff like this.  She surely deserves a “simulation” that might make her regret her actions. Which she committed 2wice. 

Posted by peiper     on 06/03/2011 at 06:12 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Justice - LACK OF •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - May 28, 2011

LyndonB here at bmews sparked this post with a comment he made

On the subject of immigration and scum like ppl, LyndonB said the following.

The dregs and dross of humanity, all eager to exploit Britains insane welfare and human rights giveaway. I wish we could have shipped them off to Kuala Lumper or even just back to Fwance.
Posted by LyndonB

Reading papers and seeing things like some letters written by anti-Americans with poison pens, or keyboards as the case is. Kinda gets ones dander up, especially when someone writes how dumb Americans are (Friday Telegraph) and how much smarter they are here.  Yeah … really smart.  Wife says I shouldn’t allow jerks to get under my collar but it’s hard to avoid.

And an editor who writes that America doesn’t understand the rule of law and drags up Gitmo yet again.  Like it’s his fraken business.

He should be writing editorials about a man whose job it was to torture people while working for that crooked, thieving. killer creep, Robert Mugabe.

Here’s a guy who really enjoyed his work, which included pulling out his victim’s teeth with pliers.  I’ll get to him (Phillip Machemedze) in another moment or two.

It was announced yesterday that a former Serb general (Ratko Mladic), has been arrested on a warrant by the UN war crimes tribunal. He’s been free now and in hiding for 16 years.  But Serbia dearly wants to become an EU member and so they allowed his capture. They deny this of course and say they’ve been looking all this time, and found him cos he was betrayed.  Fine. I don’t much care. But it occurs to me that killing and torture alone is nothing.  It’s numbers that count.
Killing and torture as practised by Machemedze in small numbers are okay.
Killing on a higher scale as alleged done by Mladic are naughty and won’t be tolerated, and the UN will have you arrested for crimes against humanity.

So then, Mladic will be extradited as per the gas bags and holy men and women of the high court on the UN …. while Machemedze who is ill and is HIV positive, is given asylum here in Britain.  Oh yeah. And medical benefits courtesy of the NHS.
His wife and a kid have asylum and they’re gonna bring in two other kiddies left behind in Zimbabwe, thus adding another family to the burden of tax paying white people Nice.
So, how smart is this?

Mugabe torturer given asylum in Britain… and yes it’s in case he’s tortured back in Zimbabwe
By JACK DOYLE and CHRISTIAN GYSIN

A thug who carried out horrific acts of torture for Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe has been allowed to live in Britain – to protect his human rights.
An immigration tribunal found Phillip Machemedze inflicted terrible injuries on political opponents of the vile Mugabe regime.

But despite ruling he was involved in ‘savage acts of extreme violence’ – including smashing a man’s jaw with a pair of pliers – immigration judges said he could not be deported.

They said the 46-year-old, who is HIV positive, could himself face torture if he was returned home, having turned his back on Mugabe’s Zanu PF regime.
Both he and his wife – who was granted asylum – can stay in Britain indefinitely.

Machemedze worked as a bodyguard to a senior Zanu PF minister, as part of Mugabe’s feared Central Intelligence Organisation.
Court documents exposed the horrendous crimes he committed as a state-sponsored torturer.

The tribunal heard he smashed one victim’s jaw with a pair of pliers, before pulling out a tooth.
Another victim, a farmer accused of supporting the rival Movement for Democratic Change, was shocked with electric cables, slapped, beaten and punched unconscious.

Judge David Archer said: ‘I find the respondent has produced a compelling case that the first appellant has committed crimes against humanity.

‘I reject his claim that he was acting under duress. The first appellant was deeply involved in savage acts of extreme violence.’

He added: ‘I find that the appellant’s protected rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Convention will be breached by returning him to Zimbabwe.

‘Those rights are absolute and whatever crimes he has committed, he cannot be returned to face the highly likely prospect of torture and execution without trial.’

MOUNTING COSTS OF HIV TREATMENT
The cost of treating someone with HIV in the UK is estimated to be around £18,000 per year when they are not showing any symptoms.
This is based on the price of care as well as triple-drug antiretroviral therapy.
However, it costs £21,500 to treat patients who are showing symptoms and £41,000 for those with full-blown AIDS.
Patients who have four drugs cost the NHS between £22,775 and £48,000 per year.

read more here

Why aren’t the acts of ppl like this enough to put them beyond such considerations?

Posted by peiper     on 05/28/2011 at 12:43 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner