Saturday, October 27, 2007


Two federal court cases have just been resolved with the utmost leniency. One case involved the tainting of ground beef with rat poisnon and the other involved the unwanted sexual groping of a female court employee by a federal judge. These cases have turned justice into a joke.

In the rat poison case, Karen Wyndham, 45, was convicted of concealing d-Con rodent poison pellets in three packages of ground beef at a Kmart in North Charleston, South Carolina. Wyndham, who had worked at the store for five years, confessed that she tainted the packages because she was pissed off at her boss for giving her an unwanted job assignment.

No one suffered any ill effects because another Kmart employee discoverd that one of the meat packages had been opened. One other tainted package was discovered in a subsequent search by store employees. A customer returned a third package that had been opened and stuffed with the d-Con pellets.

Wyndham was facing up to three years in federal prison for consumer product tampering when U.S. District Judge David Norton sentenced her to one year of home detention, followed by five years of probation. She was also ordered to pay $4,400 restitution for the tainted meat and the cost of the search by Kmart employees. Judge Norton reasoned that had he sent Wyndham to prison, upon her discharge she would have been put on supervised release for only one year. Thus he opted for the longer probation supervision period.

Her defense attorney argued for leniency because Wyndham had a history of mental health issues. He also contended there was almost no risk to the public because the tampering was so obvious. A history of mental illness? So what! Obvious tampering? Ditto so what!

The tainting could have had tragic consequences. One year of home detention is a mere tap on the wrist. Judge Norton could have given Wyndham five years of probation with the condition that she serve one year in jail. Had he done so, justice would have been served.

In the sexual harassment case, Samuel Kent, 58, the only U.S. District Judge in Galveston, Texas, was accused of groping a female court employee. He was also investigated for allegations of sexual harassment against other court employees, excessive drinking, and showing favoritism in cases he tried. The charges were investigated by the Judicial Council of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The victim told her mother and several friends that against her will "His Honor" had put his hand up under her blouse, pushed her bra up and put his mouth on her bare breast, then forced her head down to his crotch. He did not stop until he heard footsteps approaching down a hallway. Harrassment my ass! That was a sexual assault! Her supervisor had blowbn off a previous incident reported by the victim.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides for up to two years in prison for a person who, on federal property, "knowingly engages in sexual contact with another," and defines sexual contact as "the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing," of another's private parts, specifically including the breast. It sure looks like "His Honor" committed a felony.

Apparently the allegations were found to be true. Judge Kent was reprimanded and suspended for four months with pay. He was also transferred to Houston and ordered to complete unspecified "remedial courses of action." Ostensibly, the transfer was designed to enable other district judges to scrutinize his future behavior.

Holy shit! That punishment is really excessive. Wow! Four months suspension WITH PAY - at an annual salary of $165,200, that would be $55,068. How will poor old Judge Kent ever be able to survive? Have the 5th Circuit judges taken leave of their senses? He committed a felony. They should have asked Judge Kent for his resignation and, barring that, they should have suspended him indefinitely without pay. And, the U.S. Attorney should have filed a sexual assault case against Kent.

All federal judges are appointed for life. The only way they can be removed from the bench is through impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and subsequent conviction by the U.S. Senate. Judge Norton and Judge Kent should be impeached, Norton for his incomprehensible sentencing and Kent for his felonious misconduct. Come to think of it, so should the 5th Circuit judges who were so lenient wih Kent's punishment.


Frank Miller is a dear friend. He and wife Jeannine lost their beloved 19-year-old son Ryan, a Marine Corps hero killed in action in Iraq. Frank forwarded the following piece which I felt compelled to republish in my blog. I came up with the title.

Picture a grave in a cemetery. Whose grave? Sadly, it's the grave of Casey Sheehan.

After three years, and a Dept of Defense payment of $250,000 to the "Peace Mom", Cindy Sheehan has not had the time or bothered to have a headstone placed on this young hero's grave. And, she doesn't even have to pay for one, the Dept of Defense will provide one:

"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) furnishes upon request, at no charge to the applicant, a government headstone or marker for the grave of any deceased eligible veteran in any cemetery around the world. For all deaths occurring before September 11, 2001 , the VA may provide a headstone or marker only for graves that are not marked with a private headstone.

Flat markers in granite, marble, and bronze and upright headstones in granite and marble are available. The style chosen must be consistent with existing monuments at the place of burial. Niche markers are also available to mark columbaria used for interment of cremated remains."

Apparently she can find time to condemn our government on at least 3 continents, get arrested various times, go on vacation in Hawaii, have photo ops with the Marxists in Venezuela, but can't seem to find the time to properly mark her son's grave. Ever wonder what the expression "stuck on stupid" meant? Well here is an example.

The grinning idiot who was pictured clinging to Jesse Jackson is Cindy Sheehan....the sob sister who protested the war at Bush's ranch, who lost her son in the war, the same son she gave up in her divorce when he was 7 years old. And by the way if you wonder why she has so much free time ...she is going through another divorce right now and guess what? She is giving up custody of another son.

CORRECTION (October 28, 2007)

Kay Daly, also a good friend, referred me to so I could see that the above remarks about Cindy Sheehan contained some significant misinformation. I do not ever knowingly want to spread any misinformation and I know Frank Miller well enough to state with certainty that he does not want to do so either.

There is an awful lot of phony baloney going out over the internet, the Cindy Sheehan slander being a good example. This has taught me a lesson. From now on, before I forward or publish any derogatory third party information, I am going to check out its authenticity with

By searching "Cindy Sheehan" on, a very reliable website, I learned that Casey Sheehan's grave has had a headstone since May, 2006. Sheehan explained why it took two years for her son's grave to be marked. Although some of her excuses seem questionable, I believe that the accusation of deliberate neglect is not true. Furthermore, the accusation that she gave Casey up is also untrue because she was still married to his father when their son was killed in Iraq.

I want to apologize to my readers for the misinformation in this blog. However, I still believe that Cindy Sheehan's grief is somewhat phony. In my opinion, she had a far left-wing political agenda before Casey ever met a hero's death and she has used his death to further that agenda.

Sheehan's outrageous public condemnations of our country and its President are inexcusable. Her embrace of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is proof that her's is an anti-American agenda. There are ways to protest against the war without undermining our country and its soldiers. Sheehan has dishonored her heroic son's death big time.

Sunday, October 21, 2007


Professional athletes, with their puffed-up egos, are held up as role models for America's youths, especially for its minority youths. Football players with their showboating endzone antics and undereducated basketball players are held out as beacons of hope for escaping from the ghetto.

Unfortunately, pro-athletes are poor role models even when on their best behavior because the chances of some ghetto youth making it to the pros are slim to none. And rarely does a week pass by without reports of a pro being arrested for the type of misconduct common among many ghetto youths.

Most pros fail to obtain a college degree. That is not because they did not need one with their outrageous salaries, but because they cannot pass freshman English or the required math and science courses. How then do they manage to stay in school for the duration of their playing elegibility?

I can describe the practice of the university from which I graduated and which I suspect is what is done in most colleges and universities. The athletes who could not pass freshman English were enrolled in every available one-credit-hour physical education activity course. Badminton and ping pong are just two examples, and I am not kidding.

By receiving a grade of "A" in each of these courses they maintained the minimum overall grade point average required to remain enrolled in school. In most of these courses, they were not even required to attend classes. The whole practice is nothing but a sham.

All the athletes at my university were white. At that time, black athletes could only attend black schools. Today, many black athletes are poorly prepared academically. This is especially true of black basketball players, most having spent their pre-college days shooting hoops instead of paying attention to their school work. Some of these guys couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the "c" and the "t".

Why do colleges admit these academically deficient athletes? Football and basketball are big-time money makers. The colleges milk these guys for what they're worth for as long as they are eligible to play. Once their playing days are over with, they are tossed out sans a degree. And, most of these guys never make it in the pros.

A role model should be someone who has managed to succeed in the face of adversity such as a severe physical disability. If black kids need a role model, and they surely do, they should not look to a football or basketball player, but to someone like Ralph Green, a black paralympics skier.

Ralph Green grew up in the drug infested and violence plagued Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, New York. He did not get involved with the gangs that were prevalent in his neighborhood. He attended school, made good grades and, at 15, was a promising quarterback on his high school football team.

In 1992, while walking with a friend, Ralph was shot down for no reason on a street corner in his neighborhood. He was severely wounded and remained in a coma for several days. He recovered, but only after his left leg had to amputated.

With the encouragement of his mother, Ralph was determined not to let his handicap get the better of him. His mother told reporters, "As good as he was in football, he'll be even better in something else." And sure enough, he was.

Today, Ralph is one of the best paralympic skiers in the world. Win or lose, he is a real champion. He puts to shame all those purported pro football and basketball role models. Ralph Green is a truly great role model for all youths, no matter the color of their skin.

Saturday, October 20, 2007


According to psychiatric experts and the bleeding hearts among us, some of our most vicious criminals are to be pitied for being victims of an abusive childhood. To these apologists it is obvious that a misbegotten childhood can be responsible for such dastardly deeds as murder and rape. That contention would be laughable were it not for the fact that the courts have bought into that crap.

Take the case of Fernando Garcia. This poor soul, an alleged victim of an abusive childhood, was convicted for the 1987 rape, beating and strangulation in Dallas of 3-year-old Veronica Rodriguez. Garcia was sentenced to death in 1989. Now, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the death sentence because the jury did not adequately consider Garcia's abusive childhood and history of drug use.

Pardon me while I wipe off my tears. Poor old Fernando just couldn't help himself while the 3-year-old was brutally raped by him, bitten 12 times, severely beaten on her head and strangled to death. A sicko psychiatrist testified that Garcia had a long history of drug abouse and claimed to have been sexually abused as a child, factors which could have led him to commit this horrible crime.

The 5th Circuit Court ruled that Garcia's jury was improperly instructed by the trial judge with respect to circumstances which might mitigate against a death sentence. In the court's opinion, "A juror who credited Garcia's evidence of an abused background and believed that his childhood, or his substance abuse, made him less culpable could not . . . have given effective voice to this conclusion through the special (instructions) in this case."

Damn that little girl. If she were still alive today, she should be ashamed of herself for bringing forth Garcia's repressed childhood memories. It was obviously her fault that poor old Fernando raped, bit, beat and strangled the 3-year-old. You appellate judges and psychiatrists must be real proud of yourselves.

Friday, October 19, 2007


The International Court of Justice at The Hague was established to settle legal disputes between the world's nations. This court is commonly referred to as the "World Court" and it is supposed to settle major issues such as border disputes between two countries. When it was established, there was no intent for the court to interfere in any nation's domestic affairs.

Mexico, whose most profitable export is that of its citizens who daily enter the United States illegally, does not have a death penalty. Our southern neighbor is upset with us because we have sentenced a number of its citizens to death for murdering our citizens in cold blood. Almost all of the condemned were illegal aliens. Mexico went to the World Court to claim that the condemned were deprived of their rights under the 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.

According to the Vienna Convention, whenever a citizen of a foreign country is arrested he must be advised of his right to obtain the assistance of his country's consulate. Most of the Mexicans who have been sentenced to death were not advised of their right to consular assistance. Local authorities did not intentionally violate the Vienna Convention - they just did not know anything about that treaty.

The World Court ageed with Mexico and ruled that our state courts must review the death sentences of all Mexicans who were not advised of their right to consular assistance. As a result, Texas is now fighting the Bush administration in the United States Supreme Court over the President's demand that it stay the execution of Jose Medellin and a dozen other Mexican murderers who have been condemned to death.

The President asserts that each of the states are obligated to abide by the Vienna Convention to which the United States is a signatory. Medellin and a dozen other Mexicans on Texas' death row were denied their rights under that treaty because the local police failed to notify them that they were entitled to obatin the assistance of the Mexican consulate. The President's remedy for the treaty violation is to force the state courts to review the convictions and death sentences of more than 50 Mexican murderers.

Appearing before the Supreme Court, the Texas Solicitor General contended that if the Bush administration were to prevail, it would give the President unprecedented power over the courts and the World Court authority over our laws. He told the Justices that no other nation, including Mexico, would allow American citizens in their custody to use their court systems to enforce rulings by the World Court.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide this issue in the coming summer. Antonin Scalia, the court's most conservative member appeared to side against the World Court while its most liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg indicated that our state courts were obligated to abide by that international court's ruling. President Bush, who has managed to alienate much of the world against the United States, is now alienating many of our own states for siding with the World Court.

Overlooked in this whole sordid affair is the object of Mexico's ire - the death sentence of its sterling citizen, Jose Medellin. Poor old Jose was convicted of participating in the brutal gang rape and murder of two Houston teenage girls. There have never been any questions as to Medellin's guilt, only questions about his rights.

During the more than 12 years this "puke" has been sitting on death row, there have already been several appellate court rullings against him on the consular issue. Medellin should have been "topped" (con lingo for executed) years ago. Mr. President, what about Medellin's victims and their loved ones? Justice delayed is justice denied.

Monday, October 15, 2007


The recent intoxication manslaughter trial in Houston of District Court Judge Pat Shelton's daughter highlighted the myth of equal justice for all. Defendants who can afford to hire excellent attorneys can also afford to hire the best expert witnesses that money can buy. Unfortunately though, most defendants cannot afford a good attorney or an expert witness.

The indigent are provided either with a court appointed attorney or with a public defender, depending on which system a jurisdiction employs. Some court appointed attorneys are so inept that, were it not for such appointments, they would not be able to earn a living as lawyers. Except in capital cases, the chances of a poor defendant getting a court appointed attorney who is really competent are slim. And the poor have almost no chance of obtaining expert witness testimony in their behalf.

A public defender's office, which is funded and staffed the same as a district attorney's office, usually provides the indigent with a much better defense than that provided by court appointed attorneys. The public defender's office will have investigators on its staff and will have funds for hiring expert witnesses to rebut the testimony of experts hired by the prosecution.

Expert witnesses have been called "hired guns" because their expertise is for sale. In preparation for both criminal and civil trials, attorneys can obtain published lists of expert witnesses who will testify favorably for one side or the other. Some of these mercenaries will testify for either side, depending on which side offers them the most money.

The published lists include experts in structural engineering, chemistry, physics, income loss, long-term care costs, accident reconstruction, forensic science and for every medical specialty. These experts can command more than $400 per hour for time spent on case preparation and on the witness stand, plus expenses for travel, lodging and meals. Those expenses can add up because these mercenaries will not be staying at Motel 6 or eating at Burger King.

Mental health experts are the showpieces of a corrupt mercenary expert witness system. When Sirhan Sirhan was tried for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, several psychiatrists and psychologists testified for each side. The prosecution's experts claimed the defendant was sane, while the defense's experts testified that he was not sane. Due to the conflicting testimony, the jurors took the unprecedented step of insisting that the trial record reflected their disgust with the psychiatric testimony which they considered to be absolutely worthless.

The Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney cases are excellent examples of psychiatric shenanigans. Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub in their Houston home. Laney bludgeoned her children with a stone, killing two sons and critically injuring a third in their New Chapel Hill home near Tyler, Texas. Both mothers had a long history of psychotic episodes prior to the murders, and both reported the killings by calling 911.

In the Yates case, the prosecution used the testimony of Park Dietz, a California psychiatrist who had not practiced psychiatry for 25 years and who earned his living entirely by testfying as an expert for the state. Dr. Dietz testified that Yates was sane because she knew the differnce between right and wrong. In the Laney case, he testified that the defendant was "crazy" because she could not tell the difference between right and wrong.

Yates claimed that the Devil told her to kill the children. Laney claimed that God had told her to do it. Apparently, Dr. Dietz believes you are sane if the Devil tells you to kill your children, but you are crazy if God tells you to kill them. Dietz was paid a total of $142,000 for his work in the two Yates trials.

In the second Yates trial, the prosecution also relied on Michael Weiner, a New York psychiatrist. Allegedly, Dr. Weiner first approached the defense and offered to testify that Yates was not sane. When the defense did not meet his price, he turned to the prosecution which, unaware of his overtures to the defense, accepted his offer to testify that Yates knew the drownings were wrong and that she was motivated to kill her children for selfish needs. Weiner's consulting group was paid $243,000.

Psycho babblers aside, Judge Shelton's daughter Elizabeth was accused of killing the passenger in her Lexus SUV by crashing into the back of a truck while driving on a freeway with a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. During her trial, an accident reconstruction expert hired by the defense testified that intoxication played no part in the crash because the truck driver caused the collision by drifting over into Shelton's lane. The accident reconstruciton expert hired by the prosecution testified that the truck driver had not moved into her lane.

Is there a way that we can level the playing field between wealthy and poor defendants in the criminal justice system? For the poor, court appointed attorneys would have to be replaced with an adequately funded public defender's office. And then, a radical change would have to be made in the way expert witnesses are selected.

A novel approach would require legislation to establish a state pool of recognized experts who are willing to serve if called upon to testify in a criminal trial. Those experts could come from anywhere in the United States and Canada. They would be chosen by a state commission headed by the Attorney General. The other commissioners could be selected by a committee of the State Bar to include a retired felony trial judge, a District Attorney, and a Public Defender or prominent defense attorney.

The experts in the pool would be paid a generous annual retainer by the state. Their travel, lodging and meal expenses would be paid for by the court in which they testified. They would receive no additional compensation for their work. While neither the prosecustion nor the defense would be permitted to employ their own expert witnesses, they would have the right to cross-examine any court appointed experts.

A selection from the pool will be made during a pre-trial hearing if the trial judge determines that an outside expert is needed to clarify questionable evidential issues, laboratory analyses, or the mental state of the defendant. He would select the appropriate expert or experts, subject to the approval of both the prosecution and the defense. If the judge makes no such determination, either side could request the appointment of an expert witness from the state pool. The trial would not start until the expert was ready to testify as to the issue in question.

The court's selection of a neutral expert from the state pool would free a jury from having to decide which conflicting expert testimony to believe. A jury should not be placed in the position of having to decide the sanity of a defendant based on the contadictory testimony of psychiatrists or psychologists. Nor should a jury of lay persons be subjected to conflicting scientific or technical testimony from experts paid by one side or the other.

There can be no equal justice for all when the poor are deprived of competent cousel and while the availability of expert witnesses remains beyond their reach. To achieve the goal of equal justice, we must start by running the "hired guns" out of the the criminal justice system and by ensuring that each defendant will obtain the services of a good attorney.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007


Rush Limbaugh in now embroiled in a big brouhaha over on-air remarks he made where he allegedly called all anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." A rush to judgement followed with congressional democrats attacking Limbaugh for besmirching heroic soldiers who served their country in Iraq.

If you've read my blogs, you know that I do not admire Limbaugh and I am certainly not one of his dodoheads - oops - I mean dittoheads. I've derisively referred to Rush as "Roach Limburger" and consider him nothing more than a bombastic buffoon who often distorts facts or doesn't even get them right in the first place. Rush is a braggard with a humongous ego. I've described him as a "Texas Blivot" - ten pounds of shit in a two pound bag.

Media Matters, a "progressive" organization dedicated to exposing conservative misinformation, manipulated Limbaugh's remarks to a caller on his radio show so they appeared like Rush condidered ALL anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." There was an immediate rush to judgement which condemned Limbaugh for calling anti-war combat veterans unpatriotic and phony soldiers. Well, I've got to rush to Rush's defense because that was really not what the blowhard did.

Three times a week, I do volunteer work at a nature center. On my way home, I listen to a radio station which broadcasts Limbaugh's program. The only reason I listen to him is that I'm too lazy to change stations. I happened to be listening when a dodohead called in to talk about veterans who speak out against the war. In his "phony soldier" response, Limbaugh was talking only about one particular anti-war veteran, Jesse MacBeth, who claimed to be an Army Ranger, when in fact he was not.

When Limbaugh used the term "phony soldiers" he was referring to outspoken anti-war veterans who falsified their combat experiences like MacBeth, Jimmy Massey, Micah Wright and Amorita Randall. Massey falsely accused his Marine unit of committing mass genocide against Iraqis. Wright claimed to be an Army Ranger, which like MacBeth, he had never been. And Randall, in a New York Times article, claimed being in a Humvee that was blown up in Iraq and being raped twice while in the navy, when she had never served in Iraq.

Clearly, those four, and any other war protesters who falsify their combat experience, are phony soldiers. That did not stop congressional democrats from rushing to condemn Rush on the floor of the House and the Senate. Still smarting from criticism for their reluctance to condemn for its add referring to General Petraeus as General Betray Us, and for the way they, including presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, questioned the general's honesty during congressional committee hearings, democrats pounced on Limbaugh's remarks as proof that they support our troops.

Attacks against Rush on the floor of the Senate took up much of that body's time, time which should have been devoted to dealing with our nation's problems. In long-winded speeches, majority leader Harry Reid and Tom Harkin, among other democratic senators, condemned Limbaugh for calling our soldiers in Iraq "phony" and payed flowing tributes to the patriotism, bravery and sacrifices of our troops. Harkin even suggested Limbaugh may have been high on drugs.

It is interesting to look at the vote on the congressional resolutions condemning the ad. While support for the resolution was nearly unanimous among republicans, the same cannot be said for the democrats. In the House, 79 democrats opposed the resolution, while six chose not to cast a vote. In the Senate, 25 democrats, including Senators Reid, Harkin and Clinton, opposed the resolution, while three, including Senator Obama, chose not to cast a vote.

As much as I dislike him, I must commend Limbaugh for the way he has always backed our troops. Rush has done much more than just mouth his support for the soldiers in Iraq. The congressional democrats, on the other hand, saw the Media Matters manipulation of Rush's remarks as an opportunity for trying to convince us that they really support our troops. However, the congressional attacks against Limbaugh amounted to nothing more than A DISINGENUOUS PHONY EXERCISE in damage control over the alliance between democrats and