How would you like to appear in this Courtroom?

In a land where life has little value...how would you like to be the defense attorney appearing in this Courtroom?  The judges are seated and I am guessing the guy standing in the gray hat is the prosecutor?

Not too different from the way I feel before Judge __________ with AUSA _____________, perhaps a bit more level a playing field.

Now, lets turn our attention to Israel

Congratulations to President Obama on his reelection. Although I believe he was far from what he promised in '08, he still has tried to do the right thing and has some legislative accomplishments.

But, if elections are to mean something...then it is time that our president has a serious sit down with Israeli leadership. Never more overtly than this past election (including Iran with the '79 hostage crisis) has a foreign government tried to interfere with internal United States politics. Nethanyahu stuck his nose where it does not belong, and we should feel no compunctions about being extremely forceful with Israel in the coming years to force a resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli question.

"According to the report published by the Congressional Research Service Israel has received more assistance from the US than 15 European countries did to recover from the devastation caused during World War II. More than 67 billion dollars of the Washington's aid to Israel has been in military, the report said. The astonishing report adds that the US has allocated 3.1 billion dollars, around one-fifth of its defense budget, to Israel this year alone."

Taken with the fact that Israel is now facing a very real threat from Iran in the form of its nuclear program and we have two very large leverage points to exert influence over Israeli policy. I want Israel to survive and exist. I firmly believe that if permitted to continue down the path it has been on in terms of settlements within occupied Palestinian territory and the refusal to permit the establishment of a Palestinian state, Israel will not survive...it will become a pariah and will loose any international support that it still has for its existence.

The cold truth is that eventually oil will run out in the middle east - 50 years, 100 years, 150 years, it doesn't matter. When it happens, the United States will no longer have any interest in expending resources in that area of the world. Once that happens, Israel will be on its own. Today's friend is tomorrows foe. Just ask Saddam Hussein (who received substantial support from the US during the Iran Iraq war) Assad, Mubarak, Marcos, and countless other leaders/countries who have gone from friend to other in our history.

Now is the time for Israel to strike a lasting peace with the Palestinians. It will have to accept terms that it does not want to, but if done correctly, Israel will gain the support of the international community (except Arab states that will never fully recognize it) for its existence within recognized geographic borders. Once that happens, Israel will have international support to defend itself from attacks by terrorist organizations or neighbors. Israel cannot last forever without that support.

Obama should now threaten to pull US aid to Israel absent Israel's willingness to sit down and give real concessions to come to a final resolution acceptable to all parties and ratified by the United Nations.

She is funny

Oye Veh!

I would hope my people could do better than this

Kind of reminds me of a road runner sketch.  If the whole thing wasn't so damn serious, I would have a bunch more to write.

[Updated] - ???????????? - the Man with Blood on His Hands

Today, the first thing I saw on TV was news that 4 Americans were murdered in Libya because of a film that is "disrespectful" to Islam.

Here is the story

Can there be any greater insult to a religion than to murder in its name?  Look at how the crusades, inquisition, holocaust and countless other religiously inspired affronts to humanity are viewed by objective historians - they are anathema.  So too will the killings being carried out by religious zealots in the name of Islam.  But I did not write this to discuss the murderers - I am writing to discuss those to set in motion the murders - they are equally guilty.

Meet Sam Bacile an unknown person who may be using a pseudonym - the man behind the trailer for the "Innocence of Muslims"

From the article:

Sam Bacile, whom The Wall Street Journal Web site identified as a 52-year old Israeli-American real estate developer in California. He told the Web site he had raised $5 million from 100 Jewish donors to make the film. “Islam is a cancer,” Mr. Bacile was quoted as saying.

Apparently the information reported is not accurate - "Sam Bacile" is likely a pseudonym and the actors on the set had no idea they were working on a film about Mohammad.  Instead, they believed they were making a film called "Dessert Warrior."  In addition, the parties responsible may be right wing Christian extremists, not Jews at all.

Here is a link to the trailer -  

I encourage you to watch it for the pure crap that it is.  Sam Bacile somebody yet to be identified raised and spent $5 million dollars from Jews some group or perhaps themselves, in the name of Jews hatred, to make a film that is an open mockery of a religion known to have extremists who react with violence to any perceived insult.  

The Constitution of the United States gives him the right to do so - but it does not relieve him those who produced the film of responsibilities for his their actions.  

The horrible deaths of J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith (father of 2), and two others yet to be named are squarely on the bloodied hands of Sam Bacile and the people who contributed to the making of this film.  

If there is a God, whatever religion, the guilt of this will torment these shameful people the rest of their lives.

Next I will post on how DOJ can bring a prosecution that will not be prohibited by Freedom of Speech.

The Eleventh is OFF ITS ROCKER

"Dortch presents three arguments:

(1) that the district court erred when it submitted an unredacted indictment that contained references to several of his previous convictions to the jury; (2) that the district court constructively amended the indictment when it instructed the jury that it could convict Dortch of the firearm charges if it found that he possessed any firearm instead of the specific firearms named in the indictment; and (3) that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to admit evidence of a judgment of acquittal on related state charges. All of Dortch’s arguments lack merit."

So says Judge Dredd Pryor.

Sounds like a clear cut case...right?

Wrong.

Let's look at the first two issues.

Issue 1

"At trial, the district court refused to admit into evidence five of the felony convictions because they were either too old or too prejudicial. The district court allowed the government to introduce evidence of the three convictions for possession of cocaine from 1995, 2001, and 2003. Dortch stipulated that he was a convicted felon, and the government presented testimony that Dortch had not had his right to carry a firearm restored."

Nevertheless, an unredacted indictment that included specific descriptions of the 5 felonies went back to the jury room.

"Dortch’s reliance on United States v. Coleman, 552 F.3d 853 (D.C. Cir. 2009), is unavailing. In that decision, the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm established plain error where the district court read to the jury venire during voir dire an unredacted
indictment that contained the defendant’s previous conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, the defendant had offered to stipulate that he was a convicted felon, and the evidence against the defendant was weak. As the District of Columbia Circuit explained, the dispute in the evidence regarding possession boiled down to the word of the defendant against the word of a police officer who had changed his story several times. In contrast with the weak case against the defendant in Coleman, the evidence against Dortch was strong."

In other words - in Judge Pryor's mind, an argument presenting an issue that constitutes reversable error in the D.C. Circuit "lacks merit" in the Eleventh.  Holy Shit - does nobody point this out to this judge?

Issue 2

"Dortch argues that the district court constructively amended his indictment because the district court failed to instruct the jury that it could convict Dortch of the charges of possession only if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that Dortch possessed the two specific firearms described in counts one and two of the indictment. The indictment charged Dortch with possessing “firearms, that is, a Taurus, Model pT45. .45 caliber pistol and an Arminius revolver,” and at trial the government introduced evidence about four firearms, the two handguns found inthe front bedroom and the two rifles found elsewhere in the residence. But the district court instructed the jury that it could convict Dortch if it found that he possessed “a firearm.” Dortch argues that a constructive amendment amounts to a per se reversible error."

....

"We need not address whether a constructive amendment amounts to a per se reversible error when the defendant fails to object at trial because, even if we assume that the district court erred, the error was not plain. Under the plain-error standard, we will not correct an error raised for the first time on appeal unless
there is an error, that is plain, that affects substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309, 1325 n.11 (11th Cir. 2011). “For a plain error to have occurred, the error must be one that is obvious and is clear under current law.” United States v. Carruth, 528 F.3d 845, 846 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008). An error is not obvious and clear when “[n]o Supreme Court decision squarely supports” the defendant’s argument, “other circuits . . . are split” regarding the resolution of the defendant’s argument, (3) “we have never resolved the issue.” See United States v. Humphrey, 164 F.3d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1999)."

....

"No Supreme Court precedent or precedent of this Court squarely supports Dortch’s argument. Dortch fails to cite any controlling authority that a district court constructively amends an indictment that alleges possession of particular firearms by instructing the jury that it may convict for possession of any firearm.
And our sister circuits are split regarding whether a district court constructively amends an indictment in this circumstance."

....

"In the absence of any controlling precedent about this issue, “we conclude that the district court’s alleged error is not ‘obvious’ or ‘clear under current law.’” Humphrey, 164 F.3d at 588. “Without a ‘plain’ error, we lack authority to reverse the district court.” Id. (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.
Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993). Dortch’s argument fails."

Now - HOW THE FUCK IS THE ARGUMENT "MERITLESS?"

Say you don't win, not plain error, can't reverse - but Meritless?

Why do we care?

In the "wrong point" column:

Everybody is in a huff over Congressman Kevin Yoder (Kansas) going swimming nude in the Sea of Galile. 

What should really be bothering people is that the lobbying arm of a foreign interest - sorry AIPAC is not about Jews, it is about Israel - is spending $10,000 +/- per person (the congressman and his wife cost 20k) to steer US Policy.

That our foreign policy is for sale is the real story.