Tuesday - March 15, 2005

Bulldozer Lawsuit

It has been brought to our attention in the last few minutes that the family of Rachel Corrie (winner of the 2003 Moonbat Pancake Competition) have today filed a lawsuit against the State Of Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces for flattening their daughter with a bulldozer after the stoopid bitch had the almighty arrogance to stand in front of the son of a bitch as it was working to destroy Palestinian terrorists’ safe houses. Do you believe the unmitigated gall of these asshats? Would someone please put these shit-fer-brains out of my misery?

The family of Rachel Corrie, a pro-Palestinian activist killed by an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer in Rafah two years ago, sued the State of Israel and the IDF for damages in the Haifa District Court on Tuesday.

The 24-year-old Corrie was killed on March 16, 2003 when she tried to block an IDF bulldozer from destroying a Palestinian house near the Philadelphi Route, the strip of land in the Gaza Strip bordering Egypt.

The family has asked for roughly $324 thousand in direct damages, as well as punitive damages. They also said they have yet to receive all of the material from the IDF investigation into the matter.

Memo To Israel: Not so much as one thin dime, dammit! In fact, send these fucktards a damned bill for scraping the shit off the front of the bulldozer, thank you very much. And shoot their damned lawyer while you’re at it.

Major Update: As one of our members (Steel) predicted, these asshat forons have also filed suit against Caterpillar for selling the bulldozer to Israel. DAMN! DAMN! DAMN! STOOPID FORONS!

SEATTLE - The parents of a 23-year-old activist killed while trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home is suing Caterpillar Inc., the company that made the bulldozer that ran over her.

The federal lawsuit, which lawyers said would be filed here Tuesday, alleges that Caterpillar violated international and state law by providing specially designed bulldozers to Israeli Defense Forces that it knew would be used to demolish homes and endanger people.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR......

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/15/2005 at 07:02 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Kill All The Lawyers (Part 2)

Right here in little ole’ Tampa we have another gross miscarriage of justice.

Parents allow their 16 year old jagoff son to stay out all night.  He goes clubbing.  For some reason he’s in this parking garage and an argument breaks out.  He dies.

The parents are no pillars of society themselves.  She’s a mental case and the father (after 5 years, mind you) still wears his SON’S clothes and cologne.

However, a jury awarded them $1.2 MILLION for pain and suffering.  The guilty party?  The garage owner for not having enough lights!!  In some bizarre mathematical calculation the garage was 20% responsible, the club 40%, the mother 25% and the father 15%.  Yet only the garage got sued.  Not the club.

Can anyone guess why?  (hint: follow the money)

This is an absolute abomination!

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/15/2005 at 07:09 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Outrageous • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Who’s Got Some Chlorine?

The human gene variety, that is, because the pool needs cleaning.  I think you’ll agree after reading this.

A man hits the jackpot.  Another man’s son goes to the jackpot winner’s house and parties with the jackpot winner’s grand daughter.  He gets so stoned he dies.

Now, apparently according to the father, all of a sudden it is the jackpot winner’s fault that his dumb ass-wipe of a son died so he is suing.

Why a judge isn’t just throwing this out is beyond me.

Yes, kill all the lawyers.  It is time.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/15/2005 at 06:57 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - March 14, 2005

More Bad News For Atlanta

Last night a DeKalb County policeman arrested a murder suspect, handcuffed him and placed him in the back of the patrol car .... minutes later the suspect had wriggled the cuffs from behind his back to the front and pulled out a concealed gun and started firing. Fortunately, another cop saw the suspect firing at the cop and offed him. Dead, that is. The first officer is under investigation for poor search techniques.

To make matters worse, Tom Dass-hole is joining a law firm there.

It never rains but it pours in Atlanta. Sometimes it seems this city has nothing but bad luck. Why else do you think the Braves play there?

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/14/2005 at 02:17 PM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Politics •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

The Continuing Saga In Atlanta

By now most of you are sick of reading/hearing/seeing reports of that asshole Nichols who shot the judge and four others before being caught.

Now it appears the people watching the video cameras were asleep at the wheel and the cops were looking for a car that was sitting in the court building’s parking lot.

Heads will roll on this, I am sure.

But other than the political correctness that everyone will run to defend---such as a female going into a changing room alone so the prisoner could change clothes or a female escorting said prisoner with no back up or assistance---the solution will be that to fix this Atlanta will say they need lots more cops.  And then hire all women so they can put 4 women on every criminal instead of making police work a man’s job---as it should be.  This crap will happen over and over, without end, until we take serious action, not assigning more women to the situation.

Here’s what I want to know and so far have heard nor read anyone else mention it:  if the reason prisoners change from shackles, cuffs and prison garb to a suit is to keep a jury from being “prejudiced” against that person, then why are they being put into fancy suits and ties if not to try and persuade PREJUDICE the jury into thinking they are “normal, law abiding people who are innocent until proven guilty?”

Why is it prejudicing a jury one way but not the other?

Hmmmmm?!?!?!?!

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/14/2005 at 01:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - March 12, 2005

Blame The Supreme Court

If you want an explanation for the shootings at the courthouse in Atlanta yesterday, look no further than the US Supreme Court. Based on SCOTUS decisions (cited below) a defendent on trial may not be bound, shackled, gagged or even appear in prison clothes as it might prejudice the jury into assuming guilt by seeing them in this condition. Prisoners on trial must be allowed to change into civilian clothes and must not be bound when on trial. This is what caused the deadly shootings in Atlanta yesterday.

The prisoner, Brian Nichols, had just changed his clothes in the changing room and was being led out to the courtroom (with no handcuffs or leg chains) when he overpowered the lone female deputy, took her gun and shot her before storming into the courtroom and shooting the judge and court reporter. It seems to me the courts are determined to be the cause of their own demise. Therefore, I cannot fault the deputy or any of the law enforcement officers in the courthouse yesterday. The real fault lies with a judicial system that pampers the criminals and denies the general public any protection against these felons.

Illinois v. Allen , 397 U.S. 337 (1970) - the Supreme Court decided that defendents on trial may not be shackled or gagged as this imparts a feeling of guilt to jurors.

Trying a defendant for a crime while he sits bound and gagged before the judge and jury would to an extent comply with that part of the Sixth Amendment’s purposes that accords the defendant an opportunity to confront the witnesses at the trial. But even to contemplate such a technique, much less see it, arouses a feeling that no person should be tried while shackled and gagged except as a last resort. Not only is it possible that the sight of shackles and gags might have a significant effect on the jury’s feelings about the defendant, but the use of this technique is itself something of an affront to the very dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold.

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) - the Supreme Court decided that prisoners on trial must not be forced to appear before the court in prison clothes and must be provided civilian clothes as it might prejudice the jury against the defendent.

Identifiable prison garb robs an accused of the respect and dignity accorded other participants in a trial and constitutionally due the accused as an element of the presumption of innocence, and surely tends to brand him in the eyes of the jurors with an unmistakable mark of guilt. Jurors may speculate that the accused’s pretrial incarceration, although often the result of his inability to raise bail, is explained by the fact he poses a danger to the community or has a prior criminal record; a significant danger is thus created of corruption of the factfinding process through mere suspicion. The prejudice may only be subtle and jurors may not even be conscious of its deadly impact, but in a system in which every person is presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the Due Process Clause forbids toleration of the risk. Jurors required by the presumption of innocence to accept the accused as a peer, an individual like themselves who is innocent until proved guilty, may well see in an accused garbed in prison attire an obviously guilty person to be recommitted by them to the place where his clothes clearly show he belongs. It is difficult to conceive of any other situation more fraught with risk to the presumption of innocence and the standard of reasonable doubt.

And even now, in Drope v. Missouri, the Supreme Court is debating whether a prisoner may be shackled or bound during the penalty phase of the trial.

Now you know ....

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/12/2005 at 12:05 PM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - March 09, 2005

A Subject Seldom Touched On

It’s REALLY big news here in Tampa and I assume most of you have heard about it:  Terry Schiavo and the “right-to-die” case.

A quick sum up:

1. She has an accident years ago and goes into a coma/vegetative state
2. Her husband insists she’d told him she would not want to live this way (but has no written proof)
3.  He goes to court to sue for the right to kill her (yes, kill, as she is capable of breathing on her own)
4.  He wants the insurance money
5.  Her parents fight him
6.  He shacks up with another honey and by now has 2 kids with her
7.  Governor Bush intervenes
8.  It goes to Florida Supreme Court and appeals court which says her feeding tube must be removed
9.  Terry’s parents want Michael to divorce her so they can take care of her; Michael refuses.

Remember a few weeks ago where this woman awoke after 20 plus years of a coma?  Terry’s parents are as hopeful.

So you have to ask yourself this: regardless of how you feel about who’s right or who’s wrong, why is Michael so set on KILLING his wife?  What he wants to do is STARVE her to DEATH!!  That’s horrid/abominable/inhumane!!!  Why won’t he just LET GO and allow her parents to take care of her?  They’ve said they would pay all expenses.

So now a bill is in Congress that would address the issue of those who die without express orders as to their disposition in a case like this.

I agree.  How many times have you said something stupid when you were young, forgotten what you’ve said and later remembered and realized how dumb it was?  If Terry did, in fact, tell Michael she did not want life support, then he should have proof.

Fucking dogs get more care and attention than this woman is getting.  She deserves it.

And as the article points out, why can’t people like her at least get the same rights as death row inmates?

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/09/2005 at 06:53 AM   
Filed Under: • Health-Medicine • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (25) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - March 06, 2005

Barking Slime

^{Dick Wright, The Columbus Dispatch, OH}

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/06/2005 at 02:39 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - March 04, 2005

Gaming The System

^{Vic Harville, Little Rock, Arkansas - Stephens Media Group}

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/04/2005 at 09:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - March 03, 2005

How Do You Play Fair?

According to Democrats, when things don’t please them and they are losing there is only one way to play fair:  the other team must stop playing.

In what appears to be exactly this sort of thing going on, freshman Senator Salazar (Dumbass-Colorado) wants President Bush to WITHDRAW all his judicial nominees.

What are his reasons for doing this and what does he think will be accomplished by it?

“The decision to re-nominate these individuals will undoubtedly create the animosity and divisiveness ... that is not helpful to our nation and will sidetrack our collective efforts to work on other crucial matters.”

Now, isn’t that just like the spoiled children you used to know on school playgrounds who whined so much that the teacher had to come out and take away YOUR toys in order for them to be placated?

For a rebuttal, read this. It’s interesting to note how one of the nominees Salazar wants removed from the list is someone he endorsed while Colorado AG.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/03/2005 at 07:14 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Politics •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Almost Unbelievable!!!

obert “KKK” Byrd, in denouncing President Bush’s recent efforts to re-nominate appointees to the judiciary, compared Republicans to Hitler.

Now, he technically did not use those words but read this:

if the GOP were to succeed in preventing Democratic filibusters of Bush’s nominees, the move would “incinerate” the rights of all senators.

Why else would he use the words “incinerate”?  Those are not normal words one would choose to frame an argument.  But given his background as Grand Keagle of the KKK, who, by the way, hate Jews, it is close enough for me.

Byrd also:

“cited Hitler’s 1930s rise to power by, in part, pushing legislation through the German parliament that seemed to legitimize his ascension.

“We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men,” Byrd said. “But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends.”

Byrd then quoted historian Alan Bullock, saying Hitler “turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.”

Byrd added, “That is what the nuclear option seeks to do.”

His spokesman, however, denied it saying:

“the reference to Nazis in a Senate speech on Tuesday was meant to underscore that the past should not be ignored.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are quiet.

What I want is every FUCKING REPUBLICAN SENATOR to stand up and DEMAND this son of a bitch resign.

Remember what Democrats did to Trent Lott?  All he said was:

“we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either,”

if Strom Thurmond had been president.  Democrats automatically assumed Lott meant that Blacks would still be slaves.  They somehow “knew” what Lott meant or intended.

But I guess as conservative republicans we can’t “know” what Byrd meant?

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/03/2005 at 07:09 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - March 02, 2005

SCOTUS Confronts God Today

oday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether or not it is constitutional for the Ten Commandments to be displayed on government property, or if it is a violation of separation of church and state.

Since the founding of our nation the Ten Commandments have been an important part of our judicial system, and they remain so today. If anyone walks past the front of the Supreme Court they see will Moses carved in stone holding the Ten Commandments. When visitors enter the Supreme Court they must walk through two doors which have the Ten Commandments engraved on them. When the Supreme Court is in session above the Justices is a display of the Ten Commandments.

President George W. Bush is joining with the Texas and Kentucky officials to preserve displaying the Ten Commandment on public property.

This is just another example of how important it is that our nation has judges who will uphold the law of the land and will not try to legislate from the bench. These cases have risen to the Supreme Court because judges at the lower level have tried to impose their personal beliefs, rather than the will of the people.

The case before the United States Supreme Court today is McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (Docket No. 03-1693) and here are the closing arguments from each side ....

First, from the lawyers for McCreary County of Kentucky ....

The Foundations Display passes every test enunciated by this Court. Whatever test this Court adopts must recognize that an establishment of religion is far different than governmental acknowledgment of religion. The test should include the relevance of historical meaning and tutelage, should comport with the purpose of the First Amendment and should distinguish shadows from real threats. Whether alone or in a contextual display of law as here, the Ten Commandments are part of our history, have not tended to establish a religion, and are consistent with the First Amendment. It is undeniable that the Ten Commandments influenced American law and government. The Foundations Display, which includes the Decalogue, does not violate the Establishment Clause. This Court should reverse, uphold the Foundations Display, abandon or modify the Lemon test, and fashion an objective test for acknowledgments of religion that respects our heritage.

Second, from the ACLU of Kentucky ....

In Allegheny, Justice Stevens suggested that the frieze depicting Moses holding symbolic Ten Commandments would be constitutional because dozens of other great lawgivers are depicted. Id., 492 U.S. at 652-53 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). But the Counties’ courthouse displays are not displays of lawgivers. They are not a sampling of great moral codes. The only other codes are those establishing the political framework of our republic. Nor do the Counties expose citizens to the teachings of the world’s great cultures and religions, for they display only one Protestant version of the Ten Commandments.

McCreary and Pulaski counties have each posted three different Ten Commandments displays in their courthouses. They initially trumpeted their celebration of Christianity and highlighted the religious components of their displays. They repeatedly have sought to link the Ten Commandments to the formation of America, calling them the precedent legal code, the central historic legal document of the state, the foundation of our legal tradition, and as providing the moral background of the Declaration of Independence. The purpose and effect of the Counties’ actions throughout this litigation, including in posting their third displays, clearly has been to advance religion. For this reason, the third displays violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and this Court should affirm the Sixth Circuit’s judgment.

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/02/2005 at 03:10 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (33) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Couldn’t Hold Off Any Longer

I waited a day to post about this because I wanted to hear more about it but what really frosted my jaws was to hear that our Supreme Court Justices are using International law upon which to base decisions.

Read more here.

What the hell is wrong with these bastards?  International law?  Since when do we toss our own Constitution aside and go looking for precedent outside the country?  Worse yet, according to Rush Limbaugh, the “international aspect” considered by the judges aren’t even laws.  They are just un-ratified treaties!!!

Not only that, what message are we sending criminals?  That if they need to whack someone just use a gang banging kid knowing he’ll never fry for the crime?  How long before our headlines are full of underage murders because the punks know they’ll be taken care of for life and never have to worry about the chair?

For a further twist on the applicability of international law upon our system and how it may affect our sovereignty, read this WSJ piece.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/02/2005 at 06:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (18) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - March 01, 2005

More About Eminent Domain

It’s happening right here in Florida, about 3 hours south.

A guy goes into the boondocks, buys 160 acres, fights off predators and insects; builds his own house, digs his own well, lives there for over 30 years.

Now the state wants it for an everglades restoration project claiming it used to be underwater and it needs to be reverted back.  I agree with the state...................if that were the case.  But the guy says he has huge timber on the land that predates any canal work to block the water and those trees would not have grown is their roots were water bound.

So the state needs to fuck off!!!!

The place was appraised at over $850,000. The state offered about $700,000 in 2002.  Then $1.2 million.  Then $4.5 million.  he won’t sell.

This is what he thinks of the enviro-weenies:

What I’m talking about is sense. We’re up to our armpits in alligators because people are just crazy. They’re fanatics.

“In the paper today, there’s a story about damn red-cockaded woodpeckers and they’re saving them and going through all kind of hell. People are not running around shooting red-cockaded woodpeckers. I haven’t shot one in 20 or 30 years.

“God, spare me from the damn environmentalists, ‘cause they are the cause of me being in the jam I’m in.”

Meanwhile, the enviro-weenies, living in their little bubble of fixed definitions, say he can’t love the land because he’s mining it.

What?  That’s supposed to have some relevance to anything?  Are they attempting to re-define “love?” And what’s wrong with taking the lime-rock out?  Someone’s gotta do it.  And he gets $18 a truck for it with a couple of hundred trucks a day going through his property!!!!  Do the math.  I’d LOVE it, too!

Read about it here.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/01/2005 at 07:40 AM   
Filed Under: • Environment • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• 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 © 2004-2015 Domain Owner