RE off topic but important

July 25, 2005

But then they have the last laugh when they fine you $100 for contempt of

court.

GG

> It's always enjoyable to see a look on the judges face when you ask 'em

> where the ropes are.

>

> Re: RE off topic but important

> >>

> >> Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags

> >> accidently

> >> caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car

> >> owned

> >> by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that

> >> setting a

> >> fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any

> >> damage?

> >> The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured.

> >>

July 25, 2005

I could be Boss Hogg. 8^)

Barry

July 25, 2005

Yeah Barry,

I forgot about you. You have the bald head, the fat belly, and the

gimpy leg (since he use to walk around with a cane some); you like to

frequent beer joints like the old " Boar's Nest " . Lord knows you have

the diabolical thoughts like he did, and you too work in HAZZARD

County!!

> I could be Boss Hogg. 8^)

>

> Barry

>

July 25, 2005

Yeah, yeah..... You blankey blank attorneys are always playing DEVIL'S advocate.

They must program that into you in Law School.

I seem to know another one on this list that tends to stir the pot

frequently....... Where is Gene anyway?

Tater

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which attorney can

persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty to believe....

No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult.

-Wes

Re: RE off topic but important

I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I was being flip

again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it down a bit.

You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple times (I

think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All of the flags

were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, but I think it

can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the effort to

gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that evidence would

need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set

(accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence collected

from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he intent to

burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire under an

object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were on a jury,

that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on purpose. I do

understand that the person might be incompatent in some way (age, mental

issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a leagal

statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up a crack

pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can a

reasonable person light a fire under something and expect nothing to get

damaged.

Re: RE off topic but important

Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags accidently

caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car owned

by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that setting a

fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any damage?

The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured.

July 25, 2005

Unfortunately, the so called " smart people " getting out of jury duty is 80% of

the problem with our court system now. Of course, I can never be seated given

my background..... (think about that one and wonder........) >

My opinion,

Tater

Mike wrote:

I have jury duty on the 8th! I can't wait.

" Your honor, does failing to signal lane change carry the death

penalty? Can it? Oh, and what's jury nullification? "

Mike

> Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which attorney can

persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty to believe....

>

> No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult.

>

> -Wes

>

> Re: RE off topic but important

>

> I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I was being flip

> again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it down a bit.

> You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple times (I

> think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All of the flags

> were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, but I think it

> can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the effort to

> gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that evidence would

> need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set

> (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence collected

> from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he intent to

> burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire under an

> object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were on a jury,

> that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on purpose. I do

> understand that the person might be incompatent in some way (age, mental

> issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a leagal

> statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up a crack

> pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can a

> reasonable person light a fire under something and expect nothing to get

> damaged.

>

> Re: RE off topic but important

>

> Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags accidently

> caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car owned

> by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that setting a

> fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any damage?

> The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured.

>

July 25, 2005

I'm sorry . I'm going to challenge this one. It sounds like a

Snopes.com case.

People are so ready to bash our legal system for supposed failures, but most

of these stories are urban legends.

I've been a lawyer for 40 years this year, and I have yet to learn about a

single case where that happened.

It's very tempting to bash our legal system. And it should be, because we

live in a country where you have the freedom of speech to do it. But just try

it in another country. If you love America, stop and think about the things

you love about it. One is the freedom we have and the fairness of our legal

processes.

And I invite all of you to do some research about most of the legal systems

in the other countries of the world where, if you're charged with a crime, you

must prove your innocence instead of the state having to prove your guilt, and

you can never sue anybody and win, because the rules are set against you.

Use some critical thinking before you fall for urban legends about our legal

system.

Gene G.

> Actual case from my hometown of Corpus Christi. Burglar breaking

> into a high income house, trips over a lamp cord and falls, breaking

> his pelvis and arm. He laid there until the homeowners came home to

> find him and called 911. He sued for personal injury and loss of

> livelihood..........He won the suit for all current and future

> medical bills, pain and suffering in the amount of $8,000,000....and

> loss of livelihood based on what he averaged a month from fencing

> his stolen wares............I want to say this happened in like 1992

> or so. Nothing like a south texas Jurry!

>

> > > > > Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which

> > > > attorney can persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of

> jury

> > > > duty to believe....

> > > > >

> > > > > No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult.

> > > > >

> > > > > -Wes

> > > > >

> > > > > Re: RE off topic but important

> > > > >

> > > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I

> > > was

> > > > being flip

> > > > > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break

> it

> > > > down a bit.

> > > > > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing

> multiple

> > > > times (I

> > > > > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft.

> All

> > > of

> > > > the flags

> > > > > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir,

> > > but

> > > > I think it

> > > > > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the

> > > > effort to

> > > > > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that

> > > evidence

> > > > would

> > > > > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally

> set

> > > > > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any

> evidence

> > > > collected

> > > > > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is

> with he

> > > > intent to

> > > > > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire

> > > under

> > > > an

> > > > > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I

> were

> > > on

> > > > a jury,

> > > > > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on

> > > > purpose. I do

> > > > > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way

> > > (age,

> > > > mental

> > > > > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not

> be a

> > > > leagal

> > > > > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't

> light up

> > > a

> > > > crack

> > > > > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how

> can

> > > a

> > > > > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect

> > > nothing

> > > > to get

> > > > > damaged.

> > > > >

> > > > > Re: RE off topic but important

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the

> flags

> > > > accidently

> > > > > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath

> > > the

> > > > car owned

> > > > > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps

> > > that

> > > > setting a

> > > > > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage

> cause

> > > > any damage?

> > > > > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious

> combustion

> > > > ocoured.

> > > > >

July 25, 2005

What do those morons in DC know anyway? It's about time for Texas to secede

anyway.....

Kidding, but some aren't..... check out http://www.republic-of-texas.net/ They

have some rather " interesting " arguments and ideas.

Tater

Ince wrote:

Mr. Ogilvie

I did not intend to say that you agreed with burning the flag. If that is how

you understood it, then my apologies. However i do point out that it is still

against the law in Texas. While Texas has stricken several laws in the last

year that were ruled unconstitutional by the US supreme court, This law was not

removed and still stands. The situation caused by enforcing this law might

deter an officer from action but it would be a lawful arrest. As for an arson

charge, it is ultimately up to the jury and as any officer knows juries are

quite often biased from the beginning for one side or the other. I believe an

arson charge would easily make it past the grand jury in my county and probably

end up with a guilty conviction. It would be hard for someone to prove in the

negative that they did not intentionally or knowingly set the vehicle on fire by

their actions. Why place the flags under the vehicle if you did not want the

vehicle to burn? My personal opinion is don't bother

with the court but introduce the suspect to the soldier's brothers in arms and

close the door. Problem solved without lawyers.

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

Mr. Ince --

I have never AGREED with burning the flag. Rather, I am pointing out established

constitutional precedent as enacted by the United States Supreme Court.

I'd refer you to Texas v. , 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of criminal appeals' decision

when the Court found that petitioner's interest in preventing breaches of the

peace did not support respondent's conviction because his conduct did not

threaten to disturb peace; petitioner's interest in preserving the flag as a

symbol of nationhood did not justify a criminal conviction for engaging in

political expression.

Part of honoring our country and its heritage is to respect the law and our

institutions. One of those institutions founded in law is our Supreme Court. Our

laws and Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law.

Until the Supreme Court revisits the case or an amendment to the

Constitution is passed by a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate, then ratified

by 3/4 of the state legislatures, the right to burn a flag, while despicable, is

protected under law.

-Wes Ogilvie

damned lawyer

Re: RE off topic but important

Public service is all well and good for minor crimes, but arson is a more

serious charge, and the crime that was comitted. A similar crime (minus the

flag and dead soldier issue) happened in the neighborhood my mother lives

in. The person was caught and convicted of arson and served time. Perhaps

jail time for arson, and probation and public service for the lesser

charges.

Re: RE off topic but important

>

>> What is justice for this incident, in your opinion?

>>

>> Mike

>>

>>> I hope the law in that part of the country do not rest until justice is

>>> done

>>

July 25, 2005

Can I? Can I? Can I?

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

Tater

" Wallace Blum, EMT-Paramedic " wrote:

Mike,

We are hedging on starting to throw names about like calling you

Roscose P. Coletrain, Mr. Ince...Enis, and Wes.....Boss Hogg.....We

just have to find out who them damn Duke Boys are gonna be now.....

LOL

CB

Just curious -- are you a peace officer or a

lawyer?

> >

> > -Wes

>

> What explains your ignorace?

>

> Mike

July 25, 2005

I dunno... I saw several possible Daisy's at the last EMS Conference... heck I

can nominate one or two from the medic crews in this area.......

Tater

" Wallace Blum, EMT-Paramedic " wrote:

This whole Daisy Duke thing has got me wondering on who to name as

Daisy...........No offense, but Jane and Maxine are too old to be

Daisy (no offense meant), Meris wouldn't probably be caught dead in a

pair of Daisy Dukes, and no men on here qualify. No, not even you

Louis! The more I think about Mike's satement, those of us that KNOW

Wes, the Roscoe P. Coletrain thing fits him much better,

Mike.......you can't be Enis because you are way too big and he was a

little weasel, pluse you need to be a cop anyway.........what was that

other one that replaced Enis that was Boss Hogg's nephew or

something? He had a big belly! That leaves a Boss Hogg

and .......Gene can be Uncle and Bledsoe Cooter.

CB

July 25, 2005

I hereby volunteer to interview potential Daisy's. Pictures welcome...

I'll get Walsh to help me build a daisy-rating web site

(daisy-or-not?)... we'll all have fun!

Mike

> I dunno... I saw several possible Daisy's at the last EMS Conference... heck I

can nominate one or two from the medic crews in this area.......

>

> Tater

>

> " Wallace Blum, EMT-Paramedic " wrote:

> This whole Daisy Duke thing has got me wondering on who to name as

> Daisy...........No offense, but Jane and Maxine are too old to be

> Daisy (no offense meant), Meris wouldn't probably be caught dead in a

> pair of Daisy Dukes, and no men on here qualify. No, not even you

> Louis! The more I think about Mike's satement, those of us that KNOW

> Wes, the Roscoe P. Coletrain thing fits him much better,

> Mike.......you can't be Enis because you are way too big and he was a

> little weasel, pluse you need to be a cop anyway.........what was that

> other one that replaced Enis that was Boss Hogg's nephew or

> something? He had a big belly! That leaves a Boss Hogg

> and .......Gene can be Uncle and Bledsoe Cooter.

>

> CB

>

July 25, 2005

So,

Wjince@swbell, net,

Don't take this personally. I'm just going to point out some flaws in your

logic, as I see it. I could be wrong, and I'm not bashing you personally.

You seem to be in favor of lynching. I don't think you really mean that.

I too would like to have these idiots thrown into the middle of a platoon of

Marines, but that's not how our country works.

There can be big problems of proof in a criminal case. What seems to you to

be a slam-dunk may not be after all.

I lost a murder case I thought was a slam dunk, and it happened because I was

too stupid to see that I really didn't have the evidence to prove all the

elements of the case. I had the emotional wave going for me, but when a

skilled

and wise defense attorney asked the jury to consider the evidence in light of

the judge's instructions, the tide turned. So a killer went free because I

and the law enforcement folks failed to put on a case that would stand up.

Emotion is a shaky platform upon which to build your house.

Some suggest that prosecutors just take cases to trial willy-nilly and hope

for the best. Well, that's not the way it works.

And your statement that " Texas has stricken several laws in the last year

that were ruled unconstitutional by the US supreme court " is factually

incorrect.

I know of no legislation that struck any such laws from the books.

Now, as to your reference to what the grand jury might do, understand that a

grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells it to. So

that's a throw away. The grand jury has no role in determining the guilt or

innocence of any person. It only decides that there is probable cause to

charge.

Next, your statement that, " It would be hard for someone to prove in the

negative that they did not intentionally or knowingly set the vehicle on fire

by their actions " ignores the fundamental tenet of American law that the burden

of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant. The defendant doesn't

have to prove anything. In North Korea, yes, he does, but not in America.

The prosecution has the burden of proving intent, and believe me, it can be

hard to do. There are laws of evidence going back to 15th century England

that govern what is admissible and what is not, and the lawyers are bound by

those rules of evidence. They have been worked out to afford the fairest

process

for all.

It's quite fashionable to bash lawyers and our legal system. Running off

with pitchforks and torches is fun, and immediate " justice " may be gratifying,

but ultimately such conduct demeans us as a nation and as individuals.

Justice ought to be carried out in the cold light of day, with slow and

deliberate actions and adequate time for all parties to calm down and think

about

what they're doing.

That's why trials in cases where the conduct of the defendant was

inflammatory or particularly egregious and despicable are delayed until the

collective

blood pressure returns to normal. Facts are facts, and if the facts warrant

conviction, they'll prevail when cool heads consider them.

When we become enraged by someone's conduct, that's the worst time to begin

to talk about criminal charges and punishment. Let the rage subside, then

think critically about all facets of the case. That's what a good prosecutor

and a good cop will do.

Too much. Sorry.

Gene G.

> Mr. Ogilvie

>

> I did not intend to say that you agreed with burning the flag. If that is

> how you understood it, then my apologies. However i do point out that it is

> still against the law in Texas. While Texas has stricken several laws in the

> last year that were ruled unconstitutional by the US supreme court, This law

> was not removed and still stands. The situation caused by enforcing this law

> might deter an officer from action but it would be a lawful arrest. As for

> an arson charge, it is ultimately up to the jury and as any officer knows

> juries are quite often biased from the beginning for one side or the other. I

> believe an arson charge would easily make it past the grand jury in my county

> and probably end up with a guilty conviction. It would be hard for someone

> to prove in the negative that they did not intentionally or knowingly set the

> vehicle on fire by their actions. Why place the flags under the vehicle if

> you did not want the vehicle to burn? My personal opinion is don't bother

> with the court but introduce the suspect to the soldier's brothers in arms

> and close the door. Problem solved without lawyers.

>

> ExLngHrn@... wrote:

> Mr. Ince --

>

> I have never AGREED with burning the flag. Rather, I am pointing out

> established constitutional precedent as enacted by the United States Supreme

Court.

>

> I'd refer you to Texas v. , 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

>

> In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of criminal appeals'

> decision when the Court found that petitioner's interest in preventing

breaches

> of the peace did not support respondent's conviction because his conduct did

> not threaten to disturb peace; petitioner's interest in preserving the flag as

> a symbol of nationhood did not justify a criminal conviction for engaging in

> political expression.

>

> Part of honoring our country and its heritage is to respect the law and our

> institutions. One of those institutions founded in law is our Supreme Court.

> Our laws and Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the

> law. Until the Supreme Court revisits the case or an amendment to the

> Constitution is passed by a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate, then

> ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, the right to burn a flag, while

> despicable, is protected under law.

>

> -Wes Ogilvie

> damned lawyer

> Re: RE off topic but important

>

> Public service is all well and good for minor crimes, but arson is a more

> serious charge, and the crime that was comitted. A similar crime (minus the

> flag and dead soldier issue) happened in the neighborhood my mother lives

> in. The person was caught and convicted of arson and served time. Perhaps

> jail time for arson, and probation and public service for the lesser

> charges.

>

> Re: RE off topic but important

> >

> >> What is justice for this incident, in your opinion?

> >>

> >> Mike

> >>

> >>> I hope the law in that part of the country do not rest until justice is

> >>> done

> >>

July 25, 2005

-- Mike wrote:

I hereby volunteer to interview potential Daisy's. Pictures welcome...

Well Mike, your altruism shows up! How magnanimous of you to volunteer for this

grueling, thankless task.

Just remember - no patdowns allowed! (lol)

" Service is love made visible. Friendship is love made personal. Kindness is

love made tangible. Giving is love made believable " - Anonymous

Larry in Houston

July 25, 2005

Mr. wjince@...:

No, it is not a valid arrest in the State of Texas. The Penal Code is the

law, as interpreted by the Court, not the law enforcement officer. You may

take a subject for the ride, but if you're wrong, then you'll pay for the ride,

and sometimes the cost is your certification and a judgment that rests against

you for the rest of your life.

Wise up, son. And, BTW, sign your name. Wjince@... is hard to

pronounce.

GG.

>

> Regardless of the court ruling all i am saying is that it is still a valid

> arrest in the state of Texas. The Penal Code is the law for law enforcement

> officers, not the court. You may be beat the rap, but you won't beat the

> ride.

>

> ExLngHrn@... wrote:

> There are several laws in multiple states that are declared

> unconstitutional, but remain on the books. While the courts may declare a law

> unconstitutional, only the legislature can repeal the actual statute.

>

> -Wes

>

> Re: RE off topic but important

>

> Public service is all well and good for minor crimes, but arson is a more

> serious charge, and the crime that was comitted. A similar crime (minus the

> flag and dead soldier issue) happened in the neighborhood my mother lives

> in. The person was caught and convicted of arson and served time. Perhaps

> jail time for arson, and probation and public service for the lesser

> charges.

>

> Re: RE off topic but important

> >

> >> What is justice for this incident, in your opinion?

> >>

> >> Mike

> >>

> >>> I hope the law in that part of the country do not rest until justice is

> >>> done

> >>

July 25, 2005

Now, , that's a story I'll buy.

Look at the homestead laws some time. You'll find that we're all entitled

to a certain number of horses, cows, chickens, guineas, wagons, and other

ancient stuff.

GG.

> There is always that obscure law that lurks out there until some

> jail house lawyer finds it and uses it to his advantage. Several

> years back a Texas inmate found an old law that said upon discharge

> from prison, each prisoner should be given a horse, saddle, long

> rifle with X amount of ammunition for it, and $20.00. He pushed and

> pushed, and they agreed to do it. He was arrested before he was off

> prison grounds for being a convicted felon in posession of a firearm

> & posession of a firearm on prison grounds. He was booked, tried,

> convicted, and got 10 more years in the same prison. He was smart

> wasn't he? LOL

>

> > >>> I hope the law in that part of the country do not rest until

> justice is

> > >>> done

> > >>

July 25, 2005

Oh Shit. I can't remember what Uncle wore. Am I condemned to bib

overalls or is that somebody else? Actually I like bib overalls, but they

don't go over well in court.

Gene

> Bledsoe's belly fits more with Uncle , but Gene fit's the mold

> better. That's a hard one. Bledsoe does look a little like Cooter

> though, and I definitely don't want to see YOU in Daisy Dukes.

>

> Just curious -- are you a peace officer

> or a

> > > lawyer?

> > > > >

> > > > > -Wes

> > > >

> > > > What explains your ignorace?

> > > >

> > > > Mike

> > >

July 25, 2005

I'll be Uncle or Cooter, but y'all have got to tell me what to wear.

See, I wuz watchin Mason all that time and never saw them Dukes.

GG

> This whole Daisy Duke thing has got me wondering on who to name as

> Daisy...........No offense, but Jane and Maxine are too old to be

> Daisy (no offense meant), Meris wouldn't probably be caught dead in a

> pair of Daisy Dukes, and no men on here qualify. No, not even you

> Louis! The more I think about Mike's satement, those of us that KNOW

> Wes, the Roscoe P. Coletrain thing fits him much better,

> Mike.......you can't be Enis because you are way too big and he was a

> little weasel, pluse you need to be a cop anyway.........what was that

> other one that replaced Enis that was Boss Hogg's nephew or

> something? He had a big belly! That leaves a Boss Hogg

> and .......Gene can be Uncle and Bledsoe Cooter.

>

> CB

>

July 25, 2005

No offense taken. Heck, even if I wasn't too old I

still wouldn't qualify!

Maxine

---- Original message ----

Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:22:58 -0000

From: " Wallace Blum, EMT-Paramedic "

Subject: Re: RE off topic but

important

To:

>This whole Daisy Duke thing has got me wondering

on who to name as

>Daisy...........No offense, but Jane and Maxine

are too old to be

>Daisy (no offense meant),

July 25, 2005

The Corby case is an egregious example of governmental excess. However, ask

why that government has its policies. You'll find that we are behind it.

The anti-drug industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and if drugs were

suddenly declared legal, it would collapse, along with the jobs of a zillion

cops who spend their days playing games that do nothing to solve the problems of

society.

Our drug enforcement policy has been a failure for decades, but we refuse to

recognize it. We delude ourselves that we're making a difference, but we're

not. Every single illicit drug is more available today than ever before.

Our prisons are bursting at the seams with folks put there for minor drug

offenses. We have more people in prison than any other country in the free

world.

(We don't really know about China or North Korea.) And our " drug problem "

is no better today than it was in 1940.

We're a nation that refuses to recognize truth. We experimented with

Prohibition in the 1930's and it led to the largest expansion of organized crime

in

our history at the time, while nobody who wanted to drink was deprived of

booze.

We finally realized the stupidity of that policy. But we never have

recognized the stupidity of our drug policy. For one thing, we constantly

delude

ourselves about the impact on society of what we call " drugs. " Well, my

friends, ETOH is the second worst drug, after nicotine. The social costs of

both

of those drugs far outdistance the costs of all the heroin, marijuana, and the

other drugs that are abused.

The only drug that should be looked at for prohibition is meth. It's the

most devastating drug around, and I would think about ways to limit its

production and use. But enforcement hasn't worked, and it won't work.

GG.

E.(Gene) Gandy

POB 1651

Albany, TX 76430

wegandy1938@...

July 26, 2005

-- wegandy1938@... wrote:

" It's very tempting to bash our legal system. ...And I invite all of you to do

some research about most of the legal systems in the other countries of the

world where, if you're charged with a crime, you

must prove your innocence instead of the state having to prove your guilt.. "

Amen, Brother Gene.

A great recent example is the Corby case, that continues to evolve. Corby is an

Australian woman who has been charged with drug smuggling into Indonesia (where

the maximum sentence is death) that would make chain of custody and reasonable

doubt aficianado's hair stand on end.

Google 'Corby' and 'Marijuana' to get a good source, especially the Sydney

Morning Herald.

" Service is love made visible. Friendship is love made personal. Kindness is

love made tangible. Giving is love made believable " - Anonymous

Larry in Houston

July 26, 2005

I get that classy white suit, Stetson, and boot, Gene. I just wish I had a

reliable source of Cuban cigars.

Barry

July 26, 2005

Agreed, Gene. The county where I work seems to be the Meth Lab capitol of

Texas. It seems every time they bust a lab, two or mor spring up to replace

it.

Barry McClung, EMT-P

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of wegandy1938@...

Sent: Tuesday, 26 July, 2005 03:07

To: lanelson1@...;

Subject: Re: Re: RE off topic but important

The only drug that should be looked at for prohibition is meth. It's the

most devastating drug around, and I would think about ways to limit its

production and use. But enforcement hasn't worked, and it won't work.

GG.

July 26, 2005

Here's the best group photo I could come up with.

https://www.transactionserver1.com/_images/Group.jpg

Tater

wegandy1938@... wrote:

I'll be Uncle or Cooter, but y'all have got to tell me what to wear.

See, I wuz watchin Mason all that time and never saw them Dukes.

GG

> This whole Daisy Duke thing has got me wondering on who to name as

> Daisy...........No offense, but Jane and Maxine are too old to be

> Daisy (no offense meant), Meris wouldn't probably be caught dead in a

> pair of Daisy Dukes, and no men on here qualify. No, not even you

> Louis! The more I think about Mike's satement, those of us that KNOW

> Wes, the Roscoe P. Coletrain thing fits him much better,

> Mike.......you can't be Enis because you are way too big and he was a

> little weasel, pluse you need to be a cop anyway.........what was that

> other one that replaced Enis that was Boss Hogg's nephew or

> something? He had a big belly! That leaves a Boss Hogg

> and .......Gene can be Uncle and Bledsoe Cooter.

>

> CB

>

July 26, 2005

Yep, there he goes stirring the pot (no pun intended) again!

I have to agree with Gene on this one. We've LOST the drug war, and for what?

Our prisons are busting at the seams. We rank #1 in overall crime rate

(reported) and are almost 4 times higher than the #2 country (Germany). We also

rank #1 in total adults prosecuted, assaults, burglaries, car thefts, females

prosecuted, prisoners, prisoners per capita, rapes, and software piracy losses.

We’re #1 in the number of average years of schooling for adults, but we rank

47th (of 130) in educational spending per student. We’re last for Educational

attainment - Junior secondary level (Percentage of adult population (aged 25-64)

educated till junior secondary level), and for Literacy – Adult males with at

least moderate literacy. We’re second to last in public healthcare spending,

only being outdone by our amigos to the south.

Go to http://www.nationmaster.com/ and look into countries that have different

views on the so called “drug war”. You’ll be surprised to find those countries

with lower crime rates, fewer prisons, and more spent on education and

healthcare.

Why can’t we as Americans realize that drugs are not the real enemy? Our

wasteful spending on the “drug war” is the real enemy. If we could redirect

that wasted money toward education and healthcare … think of the possibilities.

Tater

wegandy1938@... wrote:

The Corby case is an egregious example of governmental excess. However, ask

why that government has its policies. You'll find that we are behind it.

The anti-drug industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and if drugs were

suddenly declared legal, it would collapse, along with the jobs of a zillion

cops who spend their days playing games that do nothing to solve the problems of

society.

Our drug enforcement policy has been a failure for decades, but we refuse to

recognize it. We delude ourselves that we're making a difference, but we're

not. Every single illicit drug is more available today than ever before.

Our prisons are bursting at the seams with folks put there for minor drug

offenses. We have more people in prison than any other country in the free

world.

(We don't really know about China or North Korea.) And our " drug problem "

is no better today than it was in 1940.

We're a nation that refuses to recognize truth. We experimented with

Prohibition in the 1930's and it led to the largest expansion of organized crime

in

our history at the time, while nobody who wanted to drink was deprived of

booze.

We finally realized the stupidity of that policy. But we never have

recognized the stupidity of our drug policy. For one thing, we constantly

delude

ourselves about the impact on society of what we call " drugs. " Well, my

friends, ETOH is the second worst drug, after nicotine. The social costs of

both

of those drugs far outdistance the costs of all the heroin, marijuana, and the

other drugs that are abused.

The only drug that should be looked at for prohibition is meth. It's the

most devastating drug around, and I would think about ways to limit its

production and use. But enforcement hasn't worked, and it won't work.

GG.

E.(Gene) Gandy

POB 1651

Albany, TX 76430

wegandy1938@...

July 27, 2005

As long as the drug lords make kazillions of dollars and the governments is

only spending billions, guess who is going to win the war.

Lee

Re: Re: RE off topic but important

The Corby case is an egregious example of governmental excess. However,

ask

why that government has its policies. You'll find that we are behind it.

The anti-drug industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and if drugs were

suddenly declared legal, it would collapse, along with the jobs of a zillion

cops who spend their days playing games that do nothing to solve the

problems of

society.

Our drug enforcement policy has been a failure for decades, but we refuse to

recognize it. We delude ourselves that we're making a difference, but

we're

not. Every single illicit drug is more available today than ever before.

Our prisons are bursting at the seams with folks put there for minor drug

offenses. We have more people in prison than any other country in the free

world.

(We don't really know about China or North Korea.) And our " drug

problem "

is no better today than it was in 1940.

We're a nation that refuses to recognize truth. We experimented with

Prohibition in the 1930's and it led to the largest expansion of organized

crime in

our history at the time, while nobody who wanted to drink was deprived of

booze.

We finally realized the stupidity of that policy. But we never have

recognized the stupidity of our drug policy. For one thing, we constantly

delude

ourselves about the impact on society of what we call " drugs. " Well, my

friends, ETOH is the second worst drug, after nicotine. The social costs

of both

of those drugs far outdistance the costs of all the heroin, marijuana, and

the

other drugs that are abused.

The only drug that should be looked at for prohibition is meth. It's the

most devastating drug around, and I would think about ways to limit its

production and use. But enforcement hasn't worked, and it won't work.

GG.

E.(Gene) Gandy

POB 1651

Albany, TX 76430

wegandy1938@...

July 28, 2005

The war on drugs can never be won. Drugs have been a part of society's

recreation for thousands of years.

People will always use substances that make them feel good at the moment.

There's no way to stop it.

Sin laws never work. Prostitution has flourished since the beginning of

time, and no matter how many vice cops are assigned to control it, it is never

controlled.

Alcohol was outlawed during Prohibition, which resulted in the most

devastating growth of organized crime in our country's history up until that

time.

Finally we say that it didn't work and repealed it.

Now we have drug cartels with vastly more power and influence than the Mafia

ever had.

The only thing that works is to take the profit out of drugs. When there is

no profit to be made, the drug cartels will switch to something else.

Our problem is that we have built a substrate of law enforcement officers who

depend upon the drug trade for their very existence. God forbid that they

would ever eradicate the drug traffic because they would instantly be out of

work. There is a symbiotic relationship between the drug traffickers and the

drug enforcers. And too often, there is crossover.

We do a fairly good job of brainwashing our law enforcement officers to

believe that they're essential to the survival of our society. They are true

believers, as are their dogs. Yet, ask any one of them who has an ounce of

honesty and enough experience to have seen how things go from year to year, and

they will tell you that we're not only not winning the war, but we're making it

worse.

Very few LE people will agree with this. They love their jobs, which are

exciting and give them power.

People lust for power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts

absolutely.

If we took a fraction of the money we spend on drug enforcers, dogs,

vehicles, planes, radar, and all the other toys that drug enforcement uses and

applied

it to education, beginning at the preschool level, we might make a

difference. That's where it has to start. Fear is not a deterrent for drug

use, any

more than it is for homicide.

No market for your drugs? No profits.

The countries that have decriminalized drug usage are always blasted by our

right-wing fanatics who will never, ever, admit the truth, because if they did

it would totally and completely undermine their credibility and demolish the

sand upon which their houses are built. They thrive on lies. Some of them

actually believe what they spout, but others are less honest.

Many of us want simple answers to complex questions. They don't exist.

In fact, we have the most people in prisons for minor drug use/possession of

any country in the world. We spend more money on incarceration of these

folks than any other country in the world. We spend the most money on drug

interdiction. And yet, drugs are just as available now as they were 40 years

ago.

We are a nation of fools. We ignore facts. We glory in the embrace of

fictions that make us feel good. We spout our redneck philosophies while

violating them personally all the time. Our politicians pound their chests and

spout lies and we say, " Yessir, Whatever you say, Sir. "

We are a nation of hypocrites. Let's get tough on DWI offenders, but when I

get stopped for DWI, Lord let me have one of those mean lawyers who can fix

it.

Same with drugs.

Most of us rednecks hate to be confronted with facts. We believe what we

believe and don't frigging confuse us with the truth. And so we condemn drug

users, but drug users are US. We use ETOH to excess, and we justify it

because it is " the drug of choice. " We eagerly condemn marihuana users as

being

dopeheads in spite of all research that has shown much less danger from its use

than ETOH. All while we're sucking on a joint.

We smoke cigarettes and use snuff and chewing tobacco when all the studies

say it is a devastating habit. We justify it because it, like ETOH, is legal.

But we have selected which bad drugs are going to be legal and which are

not. And we have done that because the booze and tobacco lobbies have bought

votes in Congress to continue the status quo.

Before 1937, marihuana was sold freely in this country. It was sold in drug

stores as a remedy for lots of things, and there was no regulation of it.

But the liquor lobby, after Prohibition, seized upon marihuana as a threat to

its existence and lobbied Congress to do away with it as a legal drug. Many

bribes took place, and finally marihuana was criminalized. There was no

scientific basis for that then, and there is no scientific basis for it now.

The continued criminalization of marihuana is supported by the liquor lobby

together with the right wing religious fanatics who think that anything that

makes people happy is bad. But they excuse ETOH, because it is, after all,

legal.

There are some drugs that do affect society in a negative way, and

methamphetamines are guilty. We must eradicate the production of meth. But

we cannot

do that while we are spending our time chasing marihuana growers and sellers.

Some of you will blast me for what I have said, saying that I am making

distinctions that are unwarranted, and so forth. Well, show me the evidence.

Show me the studies on marihuana that prove that it is as detrimental as ETOH,

and I'll think about them. Neither of these substances are exactly great

for you, but which is worse? Look at the social cost of ETOH and nicotine vs.

marihuana. The differences are astronomical.

How many bad wrecks have you worked that were caused by ETOH vs. marihuana?

Be honest, now.

Look the facts before you reply. You may be surprised. Of course, if

you're one of those " don't confuse me with the facts " people, then there's no

hope

for you, and please don't worry me with your reply.

So we believe what we want to believe.

The " drug war " was lost many years ago, and the only folks it benefits are

the cops. We need a totally new and different approach, which would take the

profit out of drug sales, put enforcement money into education and treatment,

and get a handle on who is addicted and how to handle their addictions. Unless

we do that, we'll just spend more and more money making the drug dealers

richer and richer.

We confiscate tons of smuggled drugs and incarcerate the " mules, " but we

never get to the drug lords, and we never will.

Flame on. I don't care.

Gene Gandy.

> As long as the drug lords make kazillions of dollars and the governments is

> only spending billions, guess who is going to win the war.

>

> Lee

>

> Re: Re: RE off topic but important

>

> The Corby case is an egregious example of governmental excess. However,

> ask

> why that government has its policies. You'll find that we are behind it.

>

> The anti-drug industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and if drugs were

> suddenly declared legal, it would collapse, along with the jobs of a zillion

>

> cops who spend their days playing games that do nothing to solve the

> problems of

> society.

>

> Our drug enforcement policy has been a failure for decades, but we refuse to

>

> recognize it. We delude ourselves that we're making a difference, but

> we're

> not. Every single illicit drug is more available today than ever before.

>

> Our prisons are bursting at the seams with folks put there for minor drug

> offenses. We have more people in prison than any other country in the free

> world.

> (We don't really know about China or North Korea.) And our " drug

> problem "

> is no better today than it was in 1940.

>

> We're a nation that refuses to recognize truth. We experimented with

> Prohibition in the 1930's and it led to the largest expansion of organized

> crime in

> our history at the time, while nobody who wanted to drink was deprived of

> booze.

>

> We finally realized the stupidity of that policy. But we never have

> recognized the stupidity of our drug policy. For one thing, we constantly

> delude

> ourselves about the impact on society of what we call " drugs. " Well, my

> friends, ETOH is the second worst drug, after nicotine. The social costs

> of both

> of those drugs far outdistance the costs of all the heroin, marijuana, and

> the

> other drugs that are abused.

>

> The only drug that should be looked at for prohibition is meth. It's the

> most devastating drug around, and I would think about ways to limit its

> production and use. But enforcement hasn't worked, and it won't work.

>

> GG.

>

> E.(Gene) Gandy

> POB 1651

> Albany, TX 76430

> wegandy1938@...

>

Sign In

RE off topic but important

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest