Recent Posts
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
OK, lets play the Zimmerman game, lol Zimmerman's "A Night at the Park" raises over $200,000 Zimmerman Recognized as Entrepreneur Of The Year 2012 George Zimmerman has not committed or has he been charged with perjury. (Jun 15, 2012 | post #16430)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
Sanford has a crime index of 3 with 100 being the safest, so that means that 97% of the other cities in the United States have less crime than Sanford , Florida. Chance of becoming a victim of violent crime in Sanford Florida is 1 in 150 and the average for Florida as a state is 1 in 184 Chance of becoming a victim of property crime in Sanford Florida is 1 in 15 and for the state as a whole is 1 in 28 Crimes in Sanford per sq mile is 59 and the national median is 39.3 Yeah sounds like a real nice place, NOT, lol. But this is to be expected where ever you find more then the average numbers of the Black Clan cohabiting. Looks like Zimmerman had good reason to be carrying a fireman yet the Black clan would have us believe that this is Martha's Vineyard of something, lol (Jun 14, 2012 | post #16373)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
Little Richard put away your coloring book and pay attention, lol With regard to the Trayvon Martin case, the notion that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law prohibited the prosecution of George Zimmerman is fundamentally false. “Stand Your Ground” in no way prevents a prosecution from being initiated against an accused. Prior to forming Hussein & Webber, P.L., I served as an Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the circuit governing Sanford, Florida. During that time, the State Attorney’s Office for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit routinely prosecuted defendants in the face of “Stand Your Ground” Motions. In those cases, the prosecutor would file charges, and, at an appropriate stage, defense counsel would file a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal. The matter was then heard at an evidentiary hearing, where the defense had to show its entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. If successful, immunity was granted and the case dismissed. If unsuccessful, the prosecution resumed and the case resolved by way of plea or trial. Nothing about the Trayvon Martin case prevents these procedures from being followed. Now that the State has decided to pursue charges, George Zimmerman, acting through his attorneys, may file a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal. This will occur, if at all, once the parties are satisfied that they have sufficient discovery to conduct an evidentiary hearing. If the Motion succeeds, the case will be dismissed. If the Motion fails, the case will likely proceed to trial, where the application of self-defense principles under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law will be decided by a jury. http://www.hussein andwebber.com/stan d-your-ground-moti on-immunity.html The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the “Stand Your Ground” law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision. The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a “true immunity” and not merely an affirmative defense. The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist. NOTE: In Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 460 (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the First District decision in Petersen, resolving a previous conflict that existed between the First and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. Petersen is now binding law on all Florida courts. We haven't even gotten through discovery yet, Stand Your Ground Hearings can be filed for anytime before the actual hearing begins which is not before next year you clown, lol (Jun 14, 2012 | post #16372)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
Eric Holder debates definition of ‘lying’ with congressman Wisconsin Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner and Attorney General Eric Holder had a sharp back-and-forth on whether or not officials in the Department of Justice lied to Congress. The questioning was during Thursday morning’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on Operation Fast and Furious. “First let me make something very clear, in response to an assertion you made, or hinted at: Nobody in the Justice Department has lied,” Holder said in response to accusations that he or his confidantes lied to Congress. “Nobody has lied.” “Then why was the letter withdrawn?,” Sensenbrenner retorted, referring to a factually inaccurate letter one of Holder’s deputies, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, sent to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley on February 4. In that letter, Weich claimed that guns were never allowed to walk. Holder and one of his other deputies, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, have both admitted that statement was false in recent Senate hearings. “The letter was withdrawn because there was information in there that was inaccurate,” Holder replied to Sensenbrenner’s question. Still unsatisfied, Sensenbrenner followed up again. “Tell me what the difference is between lying and misleading Congress in this context?,” he asked Holder. Fast and Furious was a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives program overseen by the Justice Department. The operation facilitated the sale of thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels via straw purchasers. Straw purchasers are people who can legally purchase guns in the United States with the intention of illegally trafficking them into Mexico. At least 300 people in Mexico were killed with Fast and Furious weapons, as was U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. (Jun 14, 2012 | post #16346)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
Shooting and killing Trayvon Martin in self defence was not a crime or a mistake but speaking to the police about it without a attorney present five times was, lol "anything you say can/ will be used against you" ; nothing you say can/ will be used to help you. " Speaking to the police without a attorney can only hurt you and never help you. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=6wXkI 4t7nuc (Jun 14, 2012 | post #16338)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
Well that's some pre ejaculate drivel, The ladies must love you. Know you know why they never call back for that second date, lol Their has not been a Stand Your Ground Hearing yet so we do not know if Zimmerman will be found immune or not, lol (Jun 14, 2012 | post #16323)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
This is all O'Mara's Fault. In order for perjury to be charged a person has to make a knowingly false statement and the court needs to recognize that the person made a false statement before they redact it but if the person redacts their testimony before the court has a chance to allege a perjury then no charges can be brought. Mr, O'Mara notified the court 5 days after Zimmerman's release on bond about the couples possession of the money. That is essentially a redaction of the "potted plant" analogy that Judge Lester charged Zimmerman with. As a matter of fact Zimmerman never did commit perjury but even the weak "Potted Plant" charge is moot since O'Mara notified the court before allegations were brought against Zimmerman O'Mara knew that the Zimmerman's had the money and should of had HIS other WITNESSES testimony redacted and corrected. Seriously this O'Mara clown looks more and more like a hick everyday. We know Corey is as ruthless as Satan himself but what Judge Lester has engaged in is extremely troubling. Judge Lester's bond revocation order contains a revisionist view of what he ruled on April 20. Judge Lester seems to be making a finding now that he didn't make at the April 20 hearing -- that the state met its burden under the Arthur standard of establishing that the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great. Judge Lester made no such finding in April (you can watch the video of closing arguments and his ruling here), and the State never presented evidence other than its affidavit to meet that burden. The state said at the hearing it was not going to present evidence and try the case at the bond hearing. Judge Lester never said the state met its burden, he said the defendant's motion for bond was well-taken. He also never issued a written order after the April 20 bond hearing finding the state met its burden or detailing any other findings. Yesterday's order, on his June 1 ruling revoking bond is the first written order addressing his findings at the April hearing. Since a judge only has discretion under the pre-trial release statute to deny bond in a life felony case when the state has met its burden, and Judge Lester now says he granted bail in April as a matter of discretion, he is saying for the first time that the state met its burden in April. How can he say that now when he didn't say it then? This is and always has been a Racist Judicial Lynching. Wake up non Black America you could be the next George Zimmerman. First the Blacks came for the Asians, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Asian; Then the Blacks came for the Hispanics, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Hispanic; Then the Blacks came for the White Hispanics, and I did not speak out - because I was not a White Hispanic; Then the Blacks came for the Jewish White Hispanics, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jewish White Hispanic; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me. (Jun 13, 2012 | post #16220)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
It has been clear from day one that this was a Racist Witch Hunt. Stop Feeding into the notion of Black Entitlement and White Guilt. I understand that it is human nature for kind good people to feel sorry for those who are less fortunate then themselves or for people who are unable to stand on their own two feet. It is the nature of good people to help but you must Stop and Now. The savages have proven time and time again that they will strike if given the opportunity. They are incapable of competing based upon merit so they must repress and persecute their competition. Fleeing From South Africa No one should be surprised to read that Zimbabwe has suffered massive emigration in recent years, especially among its white minority. But much less expected is the fact that next-door South Africa, the continent's wealthiest and most developed country, is suffering a brain drain of its own (if on a smaller scale). The global financial crisis has caused emigration from most other countries to slow, a number of recent independent studies show that mass departures from South Africa are ongoing and are sapping the nation of its skilled and best-educated young citizens. The most dramatic figures can be found among South African whites, who are leaving at a pace consistent with the advent of "widespread disease, mass natural disasters or large-scale civil conflict," according to a report by the South African Institute on Race Relations. "We are now seeing a new tipping point for an exodus," warned a report from Future Fact The primary driver for emigration among whites is fear of crime. With more than 50 killings a day, South Africa has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world. The same goes for rape—ranking the country alongside conflict zones such as Sierra Leone, Colombia and Afghanistan. Future Fact polling indicates that more than 95 percent of those eager to leave South Africa rate violent crime as the single most important factor affecting their thinking. Lynette Chen, the ethnic-Chinese CEO of Nepad Business Group, is the only member of her family left in South Africa. Her parents departed in 2002 after being carjacked—twice. Her brother, also a victim of crime, followed suit shortly thereafter. "They're always getting homesick," she says. "But they won't come back unless the crime is reduced." Another largely unnoticed problem is the growing number of attacks on South Africa's white farmers. As in neighboring Zimbabwe, most of the attacks appear to be racially motivated. The result is that white farmers' numbers continue to decrease, leading to fears that despite the government's good intentions, a Zimbabwe-style crisis—where the flight of skilled farmers led to an agricultural collapse—is possible here too. Then there's the problem of affirmative action, which many whites feel limits their opportunities for advancement and which keeps many émigrés from returning. "You can attract people home, but there are still the same concerns when they get here," Chen says. "Crime and lack of job opportunities if you're not the right color." Still another factor driving out citizens is the country's political crisis. The likely next president, Jacob Zuma, faces a battery of serious corruption charges and accusations of autocratic behavior. The Best and Brightest are Leaving South Africa, skilled labor is still quite onerous—meaning that as more and more trained workers leave, there are fewer and fewer replacements. Could this be our future? We let unskilled labor cross our boarders daily while we persecute the best and the brightest in the name of equality. (Jun 13, 2012 | post #16180)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
Shortly after receiving the email from Hauck, Katyal forward it to Kagan, saying: “I am happy to do this if you are ok with it.” Kagan quickly responded, assigning her top deputy to work on the anticipate lawsuits against Obamacare. “You should do it,” she said. A couple of hours later, Katyal emailed back to Hauck. “Brian,” he wrote, “Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of the Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues. I will handle this myself, along with an Assistant from my office [name redacted] and will bring in Elena as needed.” On March 16, 2010, as Sessions pointed out in his questions to Holder, Kagan herself sent an email to David Barron, then acting-assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counel. In this email, written five days before Obamacare passed the House, Obama’s solicitor general asked the lawyer running DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel if he had seen former federal appellate judge Michael McConnell’s recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. The op-ed in question argued that the so-called Slaughter Rule was unconstitutional. This was the procedure—named for then-House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter, and under consideration by the House leadership at the time--that would have allowed the House to “deem” Obamacare passed without directly voting on it. Barron responded to Kagan: “YES—HE IS GETTING IT STARTED.” In his "questions for the record" to Holder, Sessions also drew the attorney general’s attention to an email chain that indicates that Kagan was brought into the loop when the Justice Department was considering how to handle a lawsuit against Obamacare, predicated on the unconstitutionalit y of the Slaughter Rule, that Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation was vowing to file if the law was enacted using the rule. In this email chain, created on March 18, 2010 (three days before Obamacare passed the House), Kagan’s deputy, Katyal, alerted Associate Attorney General Perelli on the urgency of dealing with Landmark’s threatened suit. Katyal copied Kagan on the email and mentioned her in it. “Tom, I was just looking at the draft complaint by Landmark Legal Foundation,” Katyal wrote. “It is clearly written to be filed when the House approves the reconciliation bill and before the President signs it.” “As such, we could be in court very soon,” Kaytal said in the email copied to Kagan. “In light of this, for what it is worth, my advice (I haven’t discussed this with Elena, but am cc’ing her here) would be that we start assembling a response, [redacted text] so that we have it ready to go,” Katyal wrote. “They obviously have their piece ready to go, and I think it’d be great if we are ahead of the ball game here.” Sessions also cited for Holder an email exchange between Kagan and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then working for the Justice Department. This exchange took place on March 21, 2010, the day the House approved Obamacare. Tribe sent Kagan an email with the subject line: “fingers and toes crossed today!” Kagan emailed back, saying: “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.” He responded to her: “So health care is basically done! Remarkable. And with the Stupak group accepting the magic of what amounts to a signing statement on steroids!” That same day, as Sessions noted for Holder, Katyal received an email from Associate Attorney General Perrelli inviting him to a meeting to be held at the White House the next day to plan for the litigation against Obamacare. Katyal forwarded the email to Kagan. “This is the first I’ve heard of this,” Katyal told her. “I think you should go, no? I will, regardless, but feel like this is litigation of singular importance.” Kagan emailed him back: “What’s your phone number?” When the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the lawsuits against Obamacare earlier this year, Kagan participated in the cases. The court is expected to decide them by the end of this month. (Jun 13, 2012 | post #16177)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
In his July 6, 2011 letter to Holder requesting additional documents and interviews with DOJ personnel relating to Kagan’s involvement in Obamacare, House Judiciary Chairman Smith said: “Yet, documents released by the Department in response to recent Freedom of Information Act requests raise questions about that unequivocal denial.” Responding to Sen. Sessions in his Feb. 24 letter, Assistant Attorney General Weich said: “As we told Chairman Smith, we believe that the rigorous confirmation process was the appropriate forum to explore any concerns about the nominee’s role in the legislative process relating to this statute, and, in fact, then-Solicitor General Kagan responded to questions about this matter during the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation proceedings. “Moreover, there is an established legal process for parties to pending litigation to raise their concerns about possible conflicts of interest that may bear on a Justice’s decision to recuse,” Weich wrote Sessions. “Under these circumstances, we have respectfully declined to respond to further congressional inquiries into the pre-confirmation activities of a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court, which we believe pose an unacceptable risk of inappropriate encroachment on the judicial branch. For these same reasons, we must respectfully decline your request for information about this matter.” On June 7, in finally officially responding to the "questions for the record" for the Judiciary Committee's Nov. 8, 2011 hearing, Holder answered each and every question about Kagan by simply referring the committee to Weich's Feb. 24 letter to Sessions. For example, to the question of whether he was aware of then-Solicitor General Kagan being present during any conversation or meeting in which the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and/or litigation related to it were discussed, Holder said: “Please see the attached letter sent to Senator Sessions on February 24, 2012.” A federal law, 28 USC 455, says that a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.” In the questionnaire she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation process, Kagan said she would be guided by the “letter and spirit” of this law. Sen. Sessions prefaced his "questions for the record" to Holder by citing several of the internal DOJ emails (that had been released under FOIA to CNSNews.com) that mention Kagan in the context of discussing the pending health-care legislation and the anticipated lawsuits against it. For example, Sessions drew Holder's attention to an Oct. 13, 2009 email that Kagan’s top deputy, Neal Katyal, sent her, saying “we got [Sen. Olympia] Snowe on health care.” This referred to the fact that Snowe, a Republican from Maine, was voting for Obamacare in the Senate Finance Committee. Sessions also drew Holder’s attention to an email chain created on Jan. 8, 2010, two weeks after the Senate passed Obamacare. This chain starts with Brian Hauck, senior counsel to Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, sending an email to Katyal, Kagan’s top deputy, to let him know that the associate attorney general planned “to put together a group to get thinking about how to defend against the inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.” Katyal responded: “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them. I’ll speak to Elena and designate someone.” Continued.... (Jun 13, 2012 | post #16176)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
DOJ did not release any of the emails in question until after the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, filed a lawsuit in November 2010, seeking DOJ's compliance with the FOIA request. The first set of emails released on March 15, 2011, showed, among other things, that on Jan. 8, 2010, Kagan had personally assigned her top deputy to handle the expected litigation against Obamacare. That was four months before Obama nominated Kagan to the court. Assistant Attorney General Weich’s Feb. 24, 2012 letter to Sen. Session informing him that DOJ would not answer his written questions to Holder pointed to a similar request for information about Kagan's involvement in Obamacare that House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R.-Texas) had first sent to Holder in a July 6, 2011 letter. Weich indicated that the Justice Department not only was declining to respond to the questions Sessions had submitted as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee but also that it was declining to provide Smith with the information he had requested as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Weich noted that the Justice Department had released documents relating to Kagan and Obamacare in response to FOIA requests (filed by CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch) and that it would not release any further information. “During the past year, the Justice Department has responded to several requests from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith for documents and other information relating to Justice Kagan’s activities while she served as Solicitor General, with particular reference to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” Weich wrote Sessions. “The Department has disclosed documents relating to that topic in response to requests pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act; we have offered copies of those documents to the House Judiciary Committee and would be pleased to provide them to you as well if you wish,” Weich wrote. “Beyond that, we have serious concerns about a congressional inquiry regarding this matter. Enclosed are copies of our letters to Chairman Smith on this subject.” Weich told Sessions the topic of Kagan’s involvement in Obamacare would have been appropriately explored during her Supreme Court confirmation process. In fact, during that confirmation process, Sessions and other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee did ask Kagan a series of written questions about her involvement in Obamacare. When they asked Kagan whether she had ever been present at a meeting where Florida’s lawsuit against Obamacare was discussed, she said: “I attended at least one meeting where the existence of the litigation was briefly mentioned, but none where any substantive discussion of the litigation occurred.” When they asked her whether she had ever been asked her “opinion regarding the merits of or the underlying legal issues” in Florida’s lawsuit against Obamacare, she said: “No.” When they asked more generally whether she had ever been asked her opinion “regarding any other legal issue that may arise” from Obamcare, she said: “No.” The Republican senators also asked Kagan whether she had ever been asked her opinion “regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation,” including but not limited to Obamacare, “or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?” She said: “No.” Kagan also said "no" when the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans asked her if she had ever “offered any views or comments” regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation or litigation arising from such legislation. Continued .... (Jun 13, 2012 | post #16175)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
Shelly Zimmerman could be facing a possible Maximum sentence of 1-15 years depending on sentencing guidelines and as we now Angela Corey is all about over kill. Yet Holder Refuses to Provide Testimony on Kagan’s Involvement in Obama care and he possible perjury before congress. Looks like if your a player or supporter for team Black Racist you are immune from the laws that persecute a White woman like Shelly Zimmerman. Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to provide written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to "questions for the record" submitted to him by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.) that focus on Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's involvement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--AKA Obamacare--while she was President Barack Obama's solicitor general. Question: “Are you aware of any instances during Justice Kagan’s tenure as Solicitor General of the United States in which information related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and/or litigation related thereto was relayed or provided to her?” Question: “When did your staff begin ‘removing’ Solicitor General Kagan from meetings in this matter? On what basis did you take this action? In what other matters was such action taken?” Question: “Did you ever have a conversation with Justice Kagan regarding her recusal from matters before the Supreme Court related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? If so, please describe the circumstances and substance of those conversations.” These are three of the eight questions that Sessions submitted to Holder on Nov. 15, 2011 to be included as part of the official record of Holder’s testimony in an oversight hearing that the Senate Judiciary Committee held on Nov. 8, 2011. Sessions is a senior member of the committee. Holder did not provide the committee with a formal response to Session's questions until June 7, 2012—seven months after Sessions submitted them. When he finally did officially respond, Holder did not answer any of the questions. Instead, in responding to each, he simply referred the Judiciary Committee to a letter Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich had sent to Sessions on Feb. 24. This letter, in turn, responded to a letter Sessions had sent to Holder on Jan. 31 noting that Holder had not yet answered the questions that Session had submitted in November. Weich’s February letter informed Sessions directly that the Justice Department would decline to answer his questions to Holder about Kagan’s involvement in Obamacare. Back in March 2010, on the same day that President Obama signed his health care law, Florida and Virginia sued the administration challenging the law in federal court. At that time, Elena Kagan was Obama’s solicitor general, and her job was to defend his administration’s position in federal court disputes. Obama did not nominate Kagan to the Supreme Court until May 10, 2010--seven weeks after he had signed the health care law and Florida and Virginia had filed their suits against it. Kagan did not recuse herself from her duties as solicitor general until after Obama nominated her to the court. On two occasions last year—March 15 and Nov. 9 (the day after Holder appeared in the Senate Judiciary Committee)—the Department of Justice released internal department emails in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that CNSNews.com had originally filed on May 25, 2010--a month before Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings. That FOIA had sought documents and records connecting Kagan to Obamacare, litigation arising from Obamacare, and discussion of when she should recuse herself from a case as solicitor general because they might later come before her if she were confirmed to a federal court Continued .... (Jun 13, 2012 | post #16174)
Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid
you racist monster!!!! (Jun 12, 2012 | post #16140)
Copyright ©2013 Topix LLC
