Viet-Justice

The ACLU of Pennsylvania has launched a legal strike against some clueless District Attorney in Wyoming County for attempting to shake down parents and students in his district. The skinny (no pun intended) here is that a few teenage girls took had some provocative photos of themselves distributed. Great, so the DA seems to think that is distribution of child pornography, and he’s trying to extort money out of everyone involved.

According to Ars Technica, DA George Skumanick decided to protect young people by threatening to charge them with child pornography unless they submitted to reeducation programs and go on probation. So basically he’s attempting to shake down people and make money for his district by collecting probation fees and by charging $100 to attend a reeducation program. He’s also attempting to copy the Vietnamese by ripping off our reeducation camps. Sorry but nobody does reeducation like Charlie.

What is silly about the whole thing is these girls took pictures of themselves in their underwear. No full frontal nudity at all.

But the parents of Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly were less than scandalized when they saw the snapshot for which their daughters had posed: both were shown wearing opaque white bras no more revealing than a bikini top—one on the phone, the other flashing a peace sign. Skumanick averred that it was nevertheless child pornography because the girls were posed “provocatively.” The pseudonymous Nancy Roe was a bit more exposed in her photo, which showed her fresh from the shower with a towel wrapped around her torso, below her breasts. But her mother doubted whether a bit of nudity was all it took to make a picture “pornographic.”

From the ACLU complaint filed in court excerpt from the INTRODUCTION

One photo shows Marissa and Grace, from the waist up, lying side by side in their bras, with one talking on a telephone and the other making a peace sign. The other photo shows Nancy Doe standing upright, just emerged from the shower, with a white towel wrapped tightly around her body just below the breasts. The two photographs, which depict no sexual activity or display of pubic area, are not illegal under Pennsylvania’s crimes code and, indeed, are images protected by the First Amendment.

Skumanick nevertheless persists in threatening to prosecute the girls because he has deemed the photos “provocative.” Since there is no basis to prosecute the girls for posing in photographs that plainly are not child pornography, in terms of content or production, Skumanick’s threat to prosecute the girls must be considered retaliation against the plaintiffs for asserting their constitutional rights – the parents’ right to direct their children’s upbringing and the girls’ rights both to free expression and against compelled speech – in refusing Skumanick’s demands. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin Skumanick from bringing the retaliatory criminal charges against plaintiffs based on their refusal to accede to his demand that they submit to probation and participate in the re-education program.

It gets even more interesting on page 8 where the ACLU alleges that Skumanick did not pursue those who distributed the photographs, but only those who were in the pictures or who possessed them. That’s like saying it’s ok to traffic cocaine, but you can’t produce it or consume it. Way to go idiot Skumanick. To show what an asshat this guy really is check out page 10.

29. One parent stood up during the meeting and asked how Skumanick could be prosecuting his daughter because, according to him, she was in the photograph wearing a bathing suit. Skumanick told the assembled crowd that she was posed “provocatively,” which made her subject to a childpornography charge.

30. In response to Skumanick’s comment, Marissa’s father stood up and asked who was deciding what was provocative. Skumanick replied that he was not going to argue and that he could charge all of the minors there that night but was instead offering them a plea deal. Skumanick also told Mr. Miller

This jerk is a real winner. He doesn’t have to provide any reason or justification beyond “because I said so”. He apparently has the mentality of a 5-year old. He also rubbed it in their faces that minors are not eligible for jury trial. I would assume that the juvenile judge is a good golf buddy of his would be the sole juror, judge, and executioner in such a situation.

Does the ACLU have a good case against this guy?

48. The three plaintiff minors have committed no crime by simply having allowed themselves to be photographed, either in their underwear or topless.

49. The provisions of 18 P.S. § 6312 prohibit depicting, possessing or disseminating images of “sexual intercourse…., masturbation, sadism, masochism, bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the genitals or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation orgratification of any person who might view such depiction.”

50. The images of plaintiffs do not fall within the definition of the materials prohibited by § 6312.

It seems to be pretty straight forward to me. I wonder how he could have messed that up. Oh, wait. We had come to the conclusion based on evidence at hand that he has the mentality of a 5-year old. Silly us!

The other nice thing the ACLU went on to say is that :

55. Moreover, Skumanick’s decision to prosecute the subjects of the photographs, the three plaintiff minors, is unprecedented and stands anti-child-pornography laws on their head. Anti-child-pornography laws are intended to protect the children shown in the photos and videos, and plaintiffs’ counsel has found no published Pennsylvania or federal court decision sustaining such a prosecution against minors shown in such pictures.

In case you missed it earlier, Skumanick has done nothing to find out who took the pictures and who distributed them. Yes, that’s right. Based on everything in the media and the court papers I can find nothing that shows he expended any effort at all. At least the ACLU has some logic here. How can you be a perp and a victim at the same time? I guess if you appear to have the mentality of a 5-year old you don’t have logic as evidenced by Judge Munley’s smack down on Attorney Hailstone who is representing Skumanick

“It seems like the children seemed to be the victims and the perpetrators here,” the judge, James M. Munley, told a lawyer for the district attorney, George P. Skumanick of Wyoming County. “How does that make sense?”

The lawyer, A. James Hailstone, said state law “doesn’t distinguish between who took the picture and who was in it.”

Hats off to Judge Munley for detecting use of the Chewbacca Defense.  I guess this explains even more. Apparently Skumanick is a mindless automaton who only knows how to follow literal directions. So in fact our assumption that he has the mental capabilities of a 5-year old was vastly out of bounds.

Skumanick must also have some problem against free speech, swimming pools, cameras, and swimwear.

57. Skumanick’s threatened prosecution chills Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right of expression, causing them concern about whether they may photograph their daughters, or whether the girls may allow themselves to be photographed, wearing a two-piece bathing suit.

58. The plaintiff minors will in the near future want to be photographed in their bathing suits, for instance during the summer when they go to a swimming pool or the beach, to which the respective parents have no objection. They are, however, chilled in their ability to take such photographs because of concern whether Skumanick will find them “provocative.”

Mr. Skumanick is now our personal nanny. YAY! I’m sure he’s going to go far under John Ashcroft with the Bush Administration’s PATRIOT ACT to help him. Oh wait!

60. Skumanick’s demand that the girls participate in the re-education program, which requires them to write a homework paper explaining “how [their] actions were wrong,” violates the plaintiff minors’ right to be free from compelled speech.

65. Skumanick’s threat to file felony charges against the plaintiff minors, charges for which there is absolutely no evidence or cause, unless the girls participate in a program that requires them to write a paper explaining “how [their] actions were wrong,” constitutes retaliation against the girls for exercising their right to be free from compelled speech, a right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Can’t argue with any of the First Amendment points the ACLU is making here. But it gets even better

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (RETALIATION AGAINST PLAINTIFF PARENTS FOR EXERCISING THEIR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHT AS PARENTS TO DIRECT THEIR CHILDREN’S UPBRINGING)

66. Skumanick’s illegitimate use of government authority to coerce the plaintiff parents to send their daughters to a re-education course that, among other things, would direct the girls to “[g]ain an understanding of how [their] actions were wrong,” “gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today’s society,” and “[i]dentify non-traditional societal and job roles,”
infringes on the plaintiff parents’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to direct and control their children’s upbringing.

Skumanick must have some strange male inferiority issues, which makes him a prime candidate for a job with the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Afghanistan. From reading the entire ACLU complaint this guy seems to have a problem with freedom and liberty and he abuses his authority in a way that allows him to become moral dictator.

From the not so bright department comes this statement from Skumanick

On the other hand, Skumanick stated he will fight the lawsuit. He said, “Frankly, we just wanted to protect these kids, and say, ‘Doing this is not right.’ We wanted to offer this course to educate them, and make them understand the long-term ramifications of having photos like this out there.”

And another

Skumanick, however, remains unfazed. The New York Times quotes the campaigning crusader as saying: “I’m simply giving them an option. We’re not forcing anybody to do anything. Frankly, it’s sad to me that their parents don’t realize this is wrong and they should be encouraging them to take the classes.”

Much like the idiot PIG in Dallas Texas who killed Ryan Moats mother this moron believes that putting teenage girls in jail for 20 years on child pornography unless they agree to be coerced into a reeducation camp is the right thing to do. If his intentions were genuine he would have made attendance at the reeducation camp an option rather than forcing it at the point of a gun.

According to the records from Wyoming County this idiot makes $157,127.88 a year. The detective makes $39,862 and the Assistant DA makes $71,294.28. The parts that don’t look right are the fact that the line item titled Secretaries is $30,667 and Paralegal is $22770.00. Since I could only turn up one Assistant DA on the website, one would assume that you only need one secretary and one paralegal. So why is the secretary making more money than the paralegal? The second largest item is Ins. Fraud Tsk. Force (REIMB) at $92,000. What expenses does the Insurance Fraud Task Force have that need reimbursing that costs more than the Assistant DA’s salary? His entire budget is $467,253.22. He doesn’t have a lot to spend on prosecuting violent criminals so he’s aiming for low hanging fruit by targeting teenagers. This brings into question what is really going on in the Wyoming County DA’s Office and since he was going to pawn off 3 girls to the prison system for a minimum of 20 years each at an estimated $50,000 per year that comes to $3,000,000 that he would inflict on the taxpayers because he wants to make a point. All things considered I would think he has failed in his fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania.

The good news is that he has opposition in the 2009 election. So head on over to Deborah Albert-Heise’s website and make a campaign contribution. I have chipped in to make sure this ass hat doesn’t have a job and to make sure that Paralegals get fair pay in the future.

I’m not really sure what is up with Texas, but Brother Grim really hits it on the head. MSNBC covered the story where a PIG decided he was going to murder NFL star Ryan Moats mother. Dallas PD Officer Robert Powell made a routine traffic stop and then detained the people in the parking lot of the hospital while preventing them from entering the emergency room.

“I can screw you over,” he said at one point in the videotaped incident. When another officer came with word that Moats’ mother-in-law was indeed dying, Powell’s response was: “All right. I’m almost done.”

Even after another COP (notice that good policemen are COPS and bad ones are PIGS) pointed out that there was a problem, the retarded PIG continued to write a ticket while this woman was dying.

In a statement to the press DPD Chief Knuckle demonstrated his ability in understatement

“When we at the command staff reviewed the tape, we were embarrassed, disappointed,” Kunkle said. “It’s hard to find the right word and still be professional in my role as the police chief. But the behavior was not appropriate.”

“His behavior, in my opinion, did not exhibit the common sense, the discretion, the compassion that we expect our officers to exhibit,” Kunkle said.

Not appropriate? Lack of common sense? When you have a dying woman in the car you tell the driver,

“Shut your mouth,” the officer said. “You can either settle down and cooperate or I can just take you to jail for running a red light.”

When the exchange was at its most contentious, Powell said he could tow Moats’ SUV if he didn’t have insurance and that he could arrest him for fleeing because he didn’t immediately stop when Powell turned on his sirens. The pursuit lasted a little more than a minute.

That’s just bull that a case like this would be considered fleeing.  This guy obviously forgot his training where people are allowed to not stop until they get to a safe location.  Maybe he also likes to help rapists out as well as kill innocent mothers.

The scary thing to keep in mind is this excerpt from the article.

Police officials said Powell told his commanders he believed he was doing his job,

That’s right ladies and gentlemen. This PIG thought that murdering a woman was part of his job. This PIG believed that revenue was more important than a person’s life. Do you really want these people protecting you? For the record I am using the word murder since he continued to deny the dying woman medical care after a real police officer, who is sworn to tell the truth, informed him that the woman was dying. If it didn’t cross the line from negligence into premeditated murder before that point it certainly did after.

This isn’t the first time a Texas PIG has caused the death of a loved family member through detaining a driver seeking medical care.

After some other fuck ups where cops break into people’s home and shoot family members in the back and then realize they got the wrong address, I believe it’s time to correct this problem with some serious legislation. I’m calling for the death penalty for any police officer who willingly allows his gun and badge to extend his inadequate manhood where it results in the death of a person or harm to any member of their family. This may be a burden on good COPS, but we need some serious weeding out of the undesirables. The collateral damage from creating a shortage of police officers and the risk to good COPS is far more than acceptable. It is needed to only have people who put their lives on the line for others wearing that badge. If you don’t want to do that, then you really don’t understand what it is to be a police officer or a firefighter.

Right now everyone is having a field day with AIG and their $165M bonus.  Well I say suck it up America.  First of all those bonuses were contractual obligations.  The first thing you learn about business is you honor contracts.   If AIG had been allowed to fail and go into bankruptcy then a judge could have wiped out all those contracts, but both the Bush and Obama administration have decided to keep feeding the parasite.  That money was destined to go to whomever it did, so no crying about it.

Now the brilliant people on FoxNews are saying that, hey “we” own 80% of them and don’t we get a say?  Well, did the Federal Government call a board meeting to say “We’re the new owners and the new policy is no bonuses or stock options until we say so”?  No, they didn’t.  Though to be slightly fair I bet they didn’t think they needed to call an emergency board meeting to get that point across.

The other dilemma that the people at FoxNews are facing is that the Board has a fiduciary duty to perform.  I doubt it would be legal for any Board of Directors of a public company to simply say, we’re not paying our contractual obligations in terms of bonuses or to foreign creditors (German and French banks) that we owe money to because it’s the American people who own this joint now.  The new stock holders (the government) should have proactively gone to all of the banks that AIG owes money to in order to get a better rate or defer payment until things stabilize.  It’s too late for that now, but Geitner should have a great To Do list.

The other rant I have is about all the Las Vegas parties that the financial industry haven’t canceled.  I’m not up to date on Nevada law, but in Georgia you are not entitled to a refund if you pay in advance.  If you pay your gym membership up front, you get a form that tells you under state law you have no recourse if the other party fails to perform because you are paying in advance and that the seller will not issue refunds for any reason even if the business closes.  You are entering into a 1-year or 2-year contract with payment in full in advance after all.  If I’m running a resort and I have some big wall street types, or small business types or a wedding party, wanting to rent the place out, you can sure bet I’m going to stick them with the non-refundable contract under state law.  They can either cancel their party and I keep their money, or they can throw the party and I can keep their money.  So, don’t be mad at Wall Street for continuing to party.  They’re just doing business with ordinary people who have a facility to rent.

The ND Legislature has voted to give a fertalized egg the rights of a person.

The bill declares that “any organism with the genome of homo sapiens” is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

The bill passed 51-41 and is sponsored  Republican Dan Ruby.  Like many Republicans he attempts to get votes from “the core” of the party, unfortunately he has opened up a can of worms that doesn’t help out the Republican party.

“Human embryo” means all human beings from the beginning of the
embryonic period of their biological development through eight weeks,
irrespective of age, health, function, physical dependency, or method of
reproduction, whether in vivo or in vitro.

So harming a “human embryo” is the same as harming a person according to this clown.  This effectively means that birth control is off the menu in North Dakota since you are bringing harm to the embryo by net letting it implant in the uterus.  It would also ban fertility treatments since some of the fertalized eggs are discarded or simply fail to implant.  The creation of a “human embryo” with the knowledge that you may not have a successful implantation may be harming that embryo.

The state shall naturalize all preborn persons and shall afford to them all the
privileges and immunities of state citizenship guaranteed in section 21 of article I of
the Constitution of North Dakota, except that the state is not required to include
preborn children in state and local censuses

Rep. Ruby should be glad North Dakota does not border Mexico.  Mention of the word “citizenship” for the preborn would bring thousands of illegals across the border who don’t get the meaning of what is being accomplished here.

The people over at Office of Strategic Influence had an interesting thought.  Since an embryo is a person, does that mean that uploading your ultrasound to Facebook to share with all your friends is Child Pornography?  You are taking a picture of a nude “person” under the age of 18 and distributing it on the Internet.  Unintended consequences and as idiotic as some prosecutors are expect someone to make a name for themselves by charging people for distribution of child pornography.

The right to life is the paramount right of a person. The right to life is a more
fundamental right of a preborn child than the mother’s right to liberty or pursuit
of happiness, which does not include the right to kill other people. In no way
does a child’s right to life interfere with a mother’s right to life.

Whoa! Here come the Christian Taliban!  The right to life of a preborn child is greater than the mother’s right to liberty or pursuit of happiness.  There is no logic in this piece of legislation.  The pursuit of liberty and happiness is paramount.  Being stuck with a parasite for 9 months then a leech for 18 years interferes with both.  Logically speaking, you can always make another which means the woman has higher priority than any preborn.  She can always make another and we would assume that she is currently contributing to society, whereas a preborn has at least 15 years before they begin doing anything useful due to silly laws.  At least we Asians start contributing at an earlier age in our home countries.

This is clearly in line with something the Taliban would say, therefore we must oppose any legislation that puts our government on a sympathetic track with the terrorists we are fighting against.  Women fought a long time for rights in this country and anything that reduces the importance of women, or those of us that are already here for that matter, is sympathizing with Islamic terrorist philosophy which treats women as less than goats.  The idea that a state representative would commit to writing the idea that freedom and the pursuit of happiness is secondary is frightening and a sign that our elected officials do not have the interests of the American people in mind.  People being those of us that contribute to society and pay the politicians salary.