Sunday, December 23, 2012

No Arrest of Baby Ayla's Killer and Cohorts

Is there a dispute between police investigators and prosecutors in the case of Baby Ayla Reynolds?

I have another question as well.

Question:  What would have happened to the Baby Lisa case had the state of Missouri hired Joe Tacopina to prosecute Deborah Bradley in the death of her daughter rather than have him as Bradley's defense attorney?

A decade ago,  I was told that state (government) attorneys in Maine are often an artificial  caste all unto themselves, with their own, weird sense of hierarchy, looking up to some, while looking down upon others.  The differences were often measured in tiny dollar amounts, so it was not a tangible economic caste demarcation.   It was something I did not understand, initially, but through experience, I have found it to be a generalization that has some merit to it.

I have found, in general, the private attorneys to speak differently than state attorneys; with many of them  of a strong and lively intellect, and once committed to a case, are often highly determined to see the case through to the end. (I don't have contact with corporate or tax attorneys).

Attorneys who study Statement Analysis or hire an analyst  have a distinct advantage in seeking the truth.

Attorneys, like politicians, particularly when defending the guilty, leave us much sample for analysis.  Detecting deception, or guilt of the client, is not a challenge.

Regarding Dennis Dechaine case, he claimed to have never met or seen his victim, Sarah Cherry.  New DNA testing was done and while awaiting the results, his attorney said, "I know this could backfire on us, too..." not realizing that he, like all of us, has given himself away with his words.

I have also worked with journalists around the country.  I have much in common with investigative journalists, as this profession is another that benefits from studying Statement Analysis.  I have found them also highly determined in their work, yet, admittedly, there is a much different culture here in Maine in the journalistic world. 

Journalists are very limited in their work here and have expressed frustration at the 'short leash' they are kept upon.

 They do not park outside a building and hold microphones to get answers.  They do not ask tough questions even to the point, like papparazzi, embarrassing a politician, for example, by throwing out an obviously sensitive question. 

It just isn't done.

Florida journalists got a double dose of this when they scoped out a home in Maine and were screamed at, and actually threatened with arrest, caught on video, in the case of the drug dealing fireman from Florida who was murdered in Maine.

Perhaps this is due to the fact that in each city in Maine, people personally know each other far more than in states of greater population.  Therapists have said that clients often travel from one city to another for therapy for this very reason.  At times, it feels like "everyone knows everyone."

I once filed a complaint against someone and was called into chambers.  The person I filed a complaint against warmly greeted the judge and was asked about her family.  They hadn't had dinner in quite some time and really needed to get together again, soon.

I knew I wasn't in Kansas anymore. 

                                                      Understanding the "State"


Readers here know how terribly opposed to socialism and communism I am.  I believe in a constitutionally based country, and in individual freedoms.  These freedoms come with responsibilities, and it is sometimes frightening to see someone abuse their freedom, especially with the emotional reaction that follows; "there ought to be a law!" that becomes so vocal shortly after abuse, but the "state" is not the answer for safety that people readily seek.

The "state" I am referring to is the government; that is, anyone who has the authority to impose their will, at the end of a gun, and enforce a law or opinion.  It is a necessary authority that our forefathers had the wisdom to limit; knowing that it was best suited in criminal and civil defense; but little beyond.

They did not want to see someone criticize the king, for example, and lose his ability to earn a living, just because he publicly spoke against the king of England, even if it was in poor taste, or disrespectful.  We used to hear, "I disagree with you, but will defend your right to speak your mind."  No longer, however.

Recently, a college football player was angered that TV interrupted a game with the President, and expressed his anger on Tweeter.  Due to the use of a single word, his career is derailed and he has been thrown off the team.  Had he been of a different race, yet still a citizen of the country, it would not have impacted his status on the team.  No matter how distasteful what he said, we once believed in the right of someone to speak his mind.

We were, once upon a time, very protective of our freedom of speech.

There is nothing more reprehensible than to picture the self glorifying baptist 'church' that goes to funerals to protest (My apologies to those of you who are "Baptist" or who go to a "church", as these self-glorifying haters soil the very words I have used here) showing up in Connecticut where parents' hearts are ripped out and bleeding.  Just the thought of this makes me want to make an exception to our precious freedom of speech, yet I know that as soon as we begin down this slippery path, eventually something we all hold dear, may come under the politically correct 'ban' and we will regret it deeply.

Better the wind of an idiot to blow, then the silencing of freedom.

When the "state" issues opinions, no matter what it is on, it is different than you or I having an opinion:  the state opinion can be reinforced through fines, limiting one's ability to provide for his family, and even imprisonment when fines are unmet.  We've got politicians ("the state") banning certain foods, or even spices added to food, and controlling size proportions of food and drink.  To this, there is no end.  Once the door was opened, it has become difficult to shut.

Having survived in childhood without a bicycle helmet, I can only chuckle when the paid men and women yelled, "Who will save the children?" causing the politicians to make a law regulating a parent's choice to buy a helmet or not, all the while the helmet companies made money, hand over fist.  You may agree with the helmet law, but wait long enough, and you'll eventually find a law that limits your right as a parent, that you do not agree with.

The state controls a human, from the time he is born, and has its opinion on everything from baby seats to food imposed upon the new parents. This will continue, until the child is aged, and the state will continue to control the life, including "medicare, social security" and on to nursing homes and "quality of life" decisions that they have no right being involved in.  If the state is going to pay for someone's medical care, they are going to ban cigarettes, reducing costs, but they'll soon ban anything else they see fit.  Even as science sometimes changes, declaring a certain food "evil" only to later have a study telling them something different, it is the state, the government bureaucrat, that is making all sorts of decisions that directly impact your life.

This leads to a very important question:

 Who are these "state (or government) workers" who's opinions trump even those of parents?

If a bureaucracy does, by necessity, lose the best and brightest to the private sector, who is left?

a.  Not the best and brightest.
b.  A very large voting block who must be courted by politicians.

Did you ever wonder how it is that someone who's only job is to stick his hand out a window, and count change of a dollar at a toll booth, can actually make more than hard working professionals?

                                                       "Who will feed the hungry?"

The state sets out to feed the hungry, it does so by forcibly taxing workers, and then giving out "food stamps", in whatever form.  What most do not understand is that the "state" was not originally designed by our forefathers to become entangled in such matters, (feeding the hungry, entangling themselves into the social lives of its citizens), as the government was to be limited.

The nature of a bureaucracy is such that for every $10 taken in by tax dollars, most all of it goes to state workers' salaries, and not to food.  If a single dollar goes to food, it would be a lot.  The $9 goes to salaries, paperwork, supervisors, quality assurance, advertising, administration, printing, and so on.  It is a colossal waste.

I don't know anyone who would not help their hungry neighbor.

The nature of bureaucracy is to protect itself and keep  itself in existence; not to turn a profit and certainly not to feed others.

This is what most people do not understand.  A bureaucracy  does not work to make a profit.  It works to exist, nothing else.

It is a huge voting block (union) which politicians pander to in order to get voted in.

                                                         Promotions

In a bureaucracy, management will often promote those who pose the least threat to their own positions of security.

Since a bureaucracy does not work to produce a profit, the "best and the brightest" are often not only overlooked, but driven out, while those who pose the least threat are promoted.  Over time, this becomes an atmosphere, and over years, it becomes a culture of mediocrity.  How dangerous is this?

These people are the same who often make life changing decisions in citizens' lives, including removing children from their home.

Recently, there was an article in a large Maine paper which said that the State government workers lose the best and brightest to the private sector because that is where the money is.  The article even claimed that people get a State job, get State training, and using the training, they leave for greener pastures.

State training?

     Some trainings are conducted by State trainers with zero hours of training.

When this is challenged, managers become nervous and often tag the ambitious as troublesome.  They must, first and foremost, keep a need for their own jobs, and do what is called "make work" in order to justify their own existence. This is the nature of a bureaucratic system, not just in Maine, but everywhere.  It is what Greece is seeing.  It is how Greece operates but eventually, it will run out of money.

I have often wished that part of a promotion within state government would be an IQ test, with a standard of "no promotion" unless a certain number is met.   This might lessen the promotion of the least threatening mentality that is common in bureaucracies.  The military  that has non-tested promotions puts lives in danger.  Yet, they 'satisfy' quotas for gender or race, rather than promote the best and brightest, based upon merit.

This is what is going on in state governments around the country.

This means that the decision makers in your lives are often those who would not "make it in the real world"; that is, they would not survive in the private sector, where companies (including social service companies) who do not turn a profit, would go out of business.  For the bureaucracy, "make work" means job security.  They hold a position of authority in state government, whereas if they worked for a company, they would hold a much lower status. This is why a government worker can be nasty to you on the phone whereas someone in the private sector who is nasty will find out quickly what it means to be unemployed.

In a business, it makes sense to promote the best and brightest, without regard to opinion, because the company exists to succeed and the company needs to promote success in order to improve the bottom line.  In the state, a manager will deliberately choose someone who will only say "yes" and will never pose a threat of taking away the manager's position, due to talent or intellect.  It is a self perpetuation inherent in a bureaucracy.

    What does this have to do with Baby Ayla and the lack of prosecution?

In law enforcement, the 'best and brightest' do not have anywhere else to turn, perhaps other than insurance investigations or private investigations, where there is not a great deal of upside. In New England, insurance investigators make, on average, 20% more than law enforcement.  Many in law enforcement "live" their jobs; they often grew up wanting to be in law enforcement and love their jobs.  There is not much of a "brain drain" in law enforcement, though many local smaller police departments sometimes lose "the best and brightest" to larger departments or state police.

In practicing law, however, the difference in money between a "state" or government attorney and the private practice is substantial.  Instead of a 20% gap as in law enforcement,  there is often often a 200% salary gap and more.

Lawyers often join State "service" out of law school.  They are given a great sounding title, but within a few years, those with talent move on to the private sector, where the money is.  They may go from a salary of $55,000 to $125,000 quickly, with the opportunity to progress further, based upon talent and hard work and not upon unions, or cost of living increases.  

Those remain are those who have often seen "the best and brightest" leave state government and move on to greener pastures.  Although they have prestigious titles such as  "ADA's" or AAG's (Assistant District Attorney; Assistant Attorney General), they often find themselves pitted up against their former peers, who who have left and gone on to where the money is.

Once, they held authority over the younger attorney, but now the private attorney represents a client that the state attorneys wish to prosecute.

Hmmm.

It makes for an interesting dual.

Of course there are those who remain in state service due to a sense of duty to society, who, like many in law enforcement, like to put away the bad guy and protect society from the evil.  This "restraint of evil" or "bearing the sword" was something our founding fathers believed was vital to government and that each of us should properly pay taxes to pay their salaries. There are many professionals who have remained on as assistant prosecutors even though they had the talent to make it in the competitive world of defense attorneys.

Besides the dedicated civil servant, there are also those who would have gone on to greener pastures, but who lacked ability to do so.  A good defense attorney, for example, must be quick on his or her feet, and have a strong, persuasive personality; that is, they must be talented.  It is a tough job, especially for one who wishes to remain honest and protect the accused from malicious prosecution.  

Yet, when all is said and done, and the best and brightest have left. those that remain are often not only the "not the best and brightest" but have things about them hindering them from being tigers in court: personality issues and raging insecurities and fear of going up against the private, high powered attorneys. This is where the 'caste' system, first told to me many years ago, becomes evident.

We're getting closer to some of the cases that puzzle us:  Why no arrest in the case of Ayla Reynolds?

                                                                   Baby Lisa.

This was not a difficult case, and the lies were transparent.  It was obvious to investigators that some unintended death, along with substance abuse, took place which was followed by the panic cover up.

It appeared to me that an arrest was imminent when suddenly,  Joe Tacopina, the $700 per hour attorney showed up from New York, and soon enough, the case went "cold" as Tacopina brutally out talked journalists and took his case to the media, holes and all, and for those of us who listened carefully:

the bravado talk from the police captain who angrily took to the microphone a few weeks prior, disappeared.

Just like that.

The story slowly disappeared from the public eye, and Tacopina disappeared with it, once he found that there was no Made-for-TV movie coming out.  

The prosecutors in the Baby Lisa case did not issue arrest warrants.   

Lawyers in low level government service often wear their insecurity on their sleeves, and feel that they are smarter than others, and become embittered towards their private counterparts.

                   The greater the insecurity, the greater the arrogance.

Imagine what it must have been like for an assistant district attorney working under Alex Hunter?  How about the prosecutor in the college Lacrosse rape case?  These are people paid to protect us by seeking justice.

Instead of boldy taking a case to trial, they often sit on a case until the public outrage fades, and when challenged, they blame police for not doing a good enough job.

As they sit on a case and blame investigators that they need "more" more proof" and as time passes, the criminal grows emboldened.

Why no arrests in the case of Ayla?

What to present to a Grand Jury?

1.  History of abuse, including the broken arm and failure to seek timely medical intervention.
2.  Testimony from the mother and others about other injuries to Ayla.
3.  The Life Insurance Policy.
4.  Text messages about Ayla going "missing" sent from the father to the mother.
5.  The implausibility of the story.
6.  The DNA evidence.
7.   Behavioral Analysis.
8.  Public statements made.

Unless we have regressed to the point of the Casey Anthony jury, it is difficult to imagine a common citizen voting against an indictment.

Once an indictment is handed down, the private attorneys can play "Let's Make a Deal" and if all three wish to stick to their story, let all three suffer the consequences.  I am reasonably certain that two of them, with children, may want to give up the truth and testify under oath, than risk losing custody of their own.

It is this cowardice that in cases such as Baby Ayla, Baby Lisa and Isabel Celis that the public is left scratching its collective head, wondering why no arrests.

What of the case of Hailey Dunn?

Even the town manager was able to do the math.

Drugs, violence, sexual perversion, along with the lies of the mother and boyfriend, and there was no debate left.  This could have been prosecuted with out a body.

Yet?

109,000 deviant images.  Ray Guidice said that they could have dished this off to federal prosecutors who have a great record dealing with child pornography, rather than bickering over juristiction and who had access to which computer.

I am reasonably certain that Shawn Adkins would have given up the truth had he been forced to consider any significant time behind bars while being known as a pedophile.  I understand that pedophiles generally don't run for Cellmate President, or Cell Block Person of the Year quite often.

It may take a bit of courage for an assistant district attorney, or an assistant attorney general go up against former co-workers who have left to go on to lucrative private jobs as defense attorneys, but being a state worker is not supposed to be a job to simply unpack one's bags and kick back until retirement.

It is, by nature, a fight.

They must have the courage, in the name of the people, to prosecute wrong doers, including those who have done harm to:

Baby Lisa.  I get it that it was Tacopina and not Deborah Bradley that they were up against, but there still should have been a fight.

Baby Ayla.

Isabel Celis.  (Did Sergio really get away with this, even with the 911 call that is cartoon like with deception and scripting?)

Kyron Horman.

Hailey Dunn...and so many others.

Ignorance and arrogance are a terrible combination.

At least in the case of Haleigh Cummings, prosecution went after the guilty parties for their periphial crimes.  In the case of Hailey Dunn, they had child pornography gift wrapped for them, and had they had the humility to pass it off to federal prosecutors (more money), they would have made a real dent in this case, and may have possibly gotten confessions.

Who to trust?

This is the problem.

Americans continue to sing songs about freedom while having no reference point.  We are not free.  We cannot speak our minds unless we are 'politically correct.'

Americans do not consider who it is that they are placing their trust in.  In one sense, it is like the worship of government, the almighty, all knowing, and all powerful government, which will take care of us all, from the cradle to the grave, and can never run out of money.

In another sense, much smaller, people do not realize who they are who are making life altering decisions for them:  It is not always the best and brightest rising to the surface to help us procure justice for Ayla Reynolds. 

This is why people do not understand how dangerous it is to give the "government" authority beyond what our forefathers intended.  If they only knew how the best and brightest often flee government,  move on, away from the bureaucracy onto places where hard work and intelligence is rewarded. Sometimes what is left is Alex Hunter, quaking before the Ramsey attorneys.

Sometimes it is no-name attorneys blaming police investigators, refusing to go forward unless they are certain they can win.

The Baby Ayla case is simple and arrests should have been effected a few weeks after she was reported missing.

The case had a history of abuse, an implausible story, easily discerned lies and DNA evidence. Tag on a life insurance policy taken out against the child, by an unemployed or chronically unemployed single father (who had another child who did not have a policy taken out against him) who publicly challenged Nancy Grace, only to hide beneath the apron strings of his friend's mommy, refusing to answer the door bell, and come on the show to speak up for Ayla.

                                                              Grasping at Straws

The recent noise about Ayla's 12 hours sleeping, for example, wasn't a stretch, for many abusive and neglectful parents use Nyquil like products to keep the child asleep, so they won't have to be bothered by them.

 A doctor in Maine had his license threatened because he so feared some abusive parents' actions against their children, that he gave them cough syrup to keep the children asleep.  (He no longer practices medicine).  He explained his position saying that he felt it was the only way to keep the child safe because he knew how selfish and explosive certain parents were, who, if awakened at 2AM, might take out their anger and frustration upon the child.  I do not agree with his choice, but I shared his frustration.  What is the answer?  Put the child in parenting classes?

Question One:  Who teaches the parenting classes?

Would you be stunned to learn that some in state government have had positions of authority over parent/child lives who have had no experience as a parent?

In government, some people are promoted who do not pose a threat to someone's established position, and it perpetuates weakness.  These people have incredible control over the lives of citizens, including the power to remove children, or prosecute crime. Sometimes they are clueless as to what to do.  It is no different than a state "trainer" who has had no formal training, actually training others.  It is goofy; so goofy that people will struggle to believe it.

In some cases, police have pulled their hair out in frustration, having worked a case, and finished the conclusion, only to have a prosecutor say, "it isn't enough."  This was the case of Jonbenet Ramsey where the prosecutor feared going up against the high powered attorneys of the Ramseys.

This was probably the most perfect example of how a state attorney feared private counterparts, and how money bought off justice.  The Ramseys could afford the talent and the state prosecutor so feared them, that he derided his own police department, those he was paid to represent.  The more publicity, the more he tore into the police, which eventually led to resignations.

Jonbenet died within the house, and the parents lied.

The prosecutor so feared the private, hire powered attorneys, that he even attacked the police department and maligned them due to his own insecurities.

Better to not bring a case than to bring a losing case?  Says who?  At least with Jonbenet, he could have tried to give her justice.  He didn't even try.  She died in her home and no justice was seen here on earth.

Jonbenet died in her home and her parents stonewalled the police.

Ayla died in her house and her father lied.

Baby Lisa died in her house and her mother lied. 

The police have done a good job on the Baby Ayla case.  They have put together a sound case and know, essentially,  what happened to her, but cannot find her body.  Even if they find the body, unless it gives strong evidence, will prosecutors go forward?

What if it were your child?

If the state attorneys make 60K and  the private attorneys make 200K, which would you rather hire if you were on the line?

The talent goes where the money is.

I was recently told by a mother of a special needs child that  her doctor told her that the next time her son explodes in anger, she should call the government crisis team to come out and deal with her son.

I thought about this for a bit. I advised the young mother to ask the doctor if she had ever met the state crisis team.  "Ask her if she would trust her own child to someone she has never met, herself, nor knew of the worker's credentials or abilities."

It caused quite a silence.

Yet, this is the non-thinking mentality today:  Utter trust in government.

When a politician talks about smaller government, he or she is often quickly shot down as being "radical" and "unloving" as if just being "government" means quality and ability.

It does not.

Those who believe in freedom and personal responsibility, small government and protestant work ethic are shouted down as "judgmental", "uncaring" and pandering to the rich.  

If America  only knew a few of the ignorant and arrogant personalities that make decisions over their lives, they'd tremble.  

Our founding fathers prized freedom, including freedom of speech. The more we surrender to the "state" (any form of government), the more things will get worse.  We take $10 of tax money for food stamps and all it does is give someone $1 of food, while keeping government workers happy.  They get raises from politicians who get elected on promises of courting their powerful union.

It goes on and on.

Total trust means blindness.  Politicians promise transparency, but once with the authority, the transparency issue is no longer raised.

                                                         Print more money. 

People who believe the government is responsible for us, from the cradle to the grave, demand answers when things go wrong.  If a hurricane is destructive, or a plane crashes, we spend lots of money to make sure it does not happen again, arrogantly believing that the government is all sovereign and we gleefully submit, for, after all, 'it is good for us to save the children.'

                    We don't see how, little by little, our freedoms have eroded.  

Can you imagine a minister being arrested in the middle of the night for not publicly praying in church for a politician?  It sounds like something from another country.

Can you imagine journalists being arrested for writing articles that did not favor the elected official?

Do you read history?

Do you read American history?

Do you think this only happened in foreign countries?

We have put total faith in our government, not realizing the inherent dangers of a bureaucratic system.

Had Joe Tacopina been the prosecutor, Baby Lisa would have already received justice. This does not make me a fan, nor will I stop "deception indicated"; it is only an observation and an opinion.

                                                 We need a change.

We need prosecutors who have the courage to fight for justice, even when there is risk involved.  Or, we need the state to be able to hire talented attorneys to plrosecuture

I believe, simply from what we know through media (Statement Analysis notwithstanding) that there is enough to convict The Waterville Three on homicide charges, in the least, and, perhaps, a host of other charges they could face, including child endangerment.

Yet, a year has passed with nothing.

We put our faith in the government.  We worship the state, in whatever form it takes.

It mattered not that Europe is going broke, we want the government controlling healthcare, even while we don't even know what is in the new laws.

It has been said many times that if the government was put in charge of sand, the Sahara Desert would run out.

Why has there been no arrests in the case of Ayla Reynolds?

I don't know.

From reading the newspapers, it appears that police investigators have done a good job and have told me that the Waterville Three are withholding information.

Yet, two of them are mothers and still, to my knowledge, have custody of their own children even though their willful withholding of information has meant that Ayla is not found.

How is that not Jeopardy to the other two children?

It would be up to the State to decide if the other two children were at risk and apparently, no action was taken.

It is up to state prosecutors to decide to press charges against the Waterville Three in the name of the people, and of Ayla.

Thus far, a year has passed and nothing has been accomplished.

Is it fair to assume that those who wish for justice for Ayla are losing faith in those who are paid to see it come to pass?

It happened with Jonbenet Ramsey case.

Is it the same in the Baby Ayla case?

26 comments:

mountain mama said...

What can we, the public do to see that Ayla receives justice? Who can we write to? How can we make our voices heard Peter? My heart is broken, my soul weeps, and I am filled with righteous anger.

Hobnob said...

When things are going good, the sun is shining, the dicky birds are tweeting and life is looking up, society and this includes me takes the credit, it is natural to say i am successful because i studied hard, i worked hard, i did i, i, i.
We seek out credit when it is there, we sek out plaudits and compliments, these make us feel better and want to work harder to reap the benefits.

However, as soon as things go bosom up, society distances itself from any responsibilty, it is always someone else's fault, another family member, a neighbor, a friend, the county, the state, government heck even which ever deity you believe in.

Kids can't read, that the teachers fault, the education department, schools are biased by race, nationality, gender, ability,
teachers either dumb the class down so everyone works to the lowest denominater which bores the high achievers, the other way the high achievers are made to work and succeed the dumber ones get left behind and go nowhere yet if anyone suggests streaming or heaven forbid special schools parents and society protests.
No one wins and we wonder why illiteracy and numeracy are plummeting and we are being overtaken by asian countries .
Often parents refuse to spend time reading to their kids, teaching them, getting them interested in the world around them, for some it is due to time constraints, for others it is because they themselves have probles with reading writing and 'rithmatic.
Being smart is frowned on, why study when we can get rich through sport, tv and movies, reality tv programmes or sleeping with a celeb and selling the story.
They forget that to succeed in sport or the media you have to be able to read stuff like scripts and contracts, have to know why every action has an equal and opposite reaction, kick or hit a ball this way and it will move that way.
Everything must be handed on a plate and not earned.
We are raising kids with a huge sense of entitlement and no sense of responsibilty. "It's not my fault i am black/white/male/female poor/have some vague new trendy disease/ single parent family and so on.
Alway excuses as to why they can't do something rather than saying i can do this despite...

As adults today instead of pushing our kids to make something of themselves, to take pride in their achievements, we penalise those who work hard, we restrict them so they don't show up other kids, a level playing field for all there must be no winners or losers, everyone is equal.
Then when they get into the real world comes the shock of their lives, they have to work hard or get fired, if you want the b big bux you have to earn them, Winners and losers are the norm and if all else fails they or their parents will sue either the employes or the schools or anyone else they can think off to get easy money.
They even resort to faking disabilities and illnesses with letters and fancy explanations in order to get unearned money and will sue anyone that says hang on a minute...

Hobnob said...

Socialism and communism take away all incentive to succeed, why work hard, why make an effort when you will get everything you need anyway.

However, even in socialist and communist societies there will always be the few that live a capitalist life, getting the finest of everything even whilst their nation starves.

What happens if everyone says i am going to stop working hard, running a successful business because i am so penalised it is not worth my time and effort. Why work when i can get everything paid for by the state?
Income from taxes and exports plummet so less and less people and paying in to support a growing nations of skivers.
Society collapses and eventually it reverts to the smart ones working to make extra income , generating jobs and paying taxes whilst the deadbeats end up dead since they are incapable of doing anything except eat sleep and boink.
Natures way of culling the population.

~rant over goes off to eat a couple mince pies

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
I have often wished that part of a promotion within state government would be an IQ test, with a standard of "no promotion" unless a certain number is met

I have often wished this too; it seems like common sense.

JustSpouting said...

Well said Peter. And all that is still only a drop in the bucket when arguing the dangers of big government. I don't

understand why is isn't blatantly obvious to most people. But I guess the divide and conquer approach works well. Make

everyone part of a special interest group and lobby from and for your own selfish position. I refuse to be part of the AARP

for that reason. I don't want anyone lobbying in my name. I prefer my own choice, opinion, voice and vote, small though they

are.

We have the elitists, celebrities, Presidents, politicians demanding that other peoples' money be redistributed. How can they

live so well but expect people in lower tax brackets to carry the burden. I don't see politicians offering to limit their own

salaries. To the contrary they vote themselves raises all the time. I don't see them forfeiting their benefits or voluntarily

overpaying their taxes. I don't know of a single star or politician giving all they have to the poor. How many houses,

vehicles, vacations does one person need before they are considerered greedy? How can they be so vocal about sharing the

wealth and yet hold onto so much themselves? If they gives thousands away but retain the vast majority and still live better

than most in the world, how can they justify demanding that others who live less extravagantly give a higher percentage? As

long as they have a good tax accountant they can live guilt free? Give all your money away if you like. Who's to stop you?

Just stop voting away other peoples' money while retaining whatever amount you deem to be your fair share. Who should decide

that? Us personally, the government, celebrities? Would any 2 individuals agree what is need and what is greed?

All the shrill voices demanding more for the needy can find a charitable organization of their choice and give as much, or as

little as they choose. Any organization is bound to be better overseen and held to a higher standard than our government that

embezzles and mismanages our money with impunity. The same government that redirects the social security fund and prints

money which deflates the value of the dollar and so on, sees no hypocrisy in exposing and prosecuting businesses and

organizations for mishandling or misappropriation of money.

Doesn't it make more sense to trust a much smaller private charitable organization with our money or even give directly to

the needy. More money gets to the recipient and you have a choice in where and how it is spent. There isn't a law prohibiting

us from being as generous as we choose. Oh wait. Unless you try to feed the hungry in Orlando, or feed the parking meter of a

stranger in Denver or pass out bottled water and coffee in New Orleans of open a Koolaid stand in Iowa without the

governments permission. Nevertheless, if you can find a covert way to do it I'm sure you can find someone who could use some

help in a big or small way.

Never mind. All this thinking hurts my head. Please give me more government so I don't have to do that any more. The less I

have to think about or do for myself and others personally, thanks to my all-knowing, all powerful, all-loving government,

the more time I have to get creative in finding new demands and inequalities. I've seen the light! All praise Big Brother!



p.s. In all seriousness, to any who think that government is the answer, if you've never read 1984 please consider reading

it. Don't let the title fool you. It is very relevant to today.

Anonymous said...

I am a relatively frequent commenter here Peter not anonymous. I went to what some consider the best college in the country and a top five law school. I was in big law for 6 years and left for a federal clerkship in the appellate courts, because big law was boring. I am now applying to be a prosecutor despite the low pay because I think it will be more interesting and rewarding (I also have other income sources). Alyhough on the whole you are correct, there are people who want to do this work to serve the people.

John P said...

I too want to know what we the public can do to correct this travesty of justice, literally. When did our society start placing the value of the dollar above the rights and the justice and most importantly the safety of our CHILDREN?

Trigger said...

Well written, Peter.

I also love what Hobnob expressed.

You have stated your thoughts with clarity and reason.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Why no arrests in the case of Ayla?
What to present to a Grand Jury?
1. History of abuse, including …the large amount of drugs found in the apartment where Ayla was living before JD moved.

Mainah said...

Excellent read, Peter. Thank you. It's evident how much work and thoughtfulness you put into this piece. Very admirable.

It all comes down to truth vs. deception, once again. Too many people base their "beliefs" on things they wish were true, not on truth itself.

I wish "The War on Drugs" worked, but the truth is it hasn't worked. I'm 48, when I was about 7, the gov't began spending money to prevent me (and y'll) from getting drugs. To date, the gov't has spent over a trillion dollars; yet, I know I could leave my house with a hundred dollar bill and have pretty much whatever illegal drug (if) I wanted, in a fairly short amount of time. And not just the LSD, pot, speed and stuff we had 40 years ago! Now there's even more, weirder things available for us to choose from. Prohibition is so gross.

Knowledge can only come from truths and is what should justify a belief. I can't wish the sky pink if it's truly blue. I can't wish my kid, boyfriend, or brother is not a murderer, if he truly is.

I catch myself and others around me living a lie in some way or form, every minute of everyday it seems. Many people choose it as a way of life; I couldn't. I can't. It feels undignified; dishonesty is awkward, painful, uncomfortable, disingenuous, wrong, not nice...

I once pointed out a scam to someone and I was called rude (but I told the truth?) but, apparently, my sister feels if something may be embarrassing to someone, like getting duped in a scam, then, you shouldn't tell them the truth, especially after the fact when it's too late to change anything anyway. (rollin' my eyes).

Once again, Peter, great read, and thanks for providing a forum and platform for truth. It's much needed. People are warped with deception.

Anonymous said...

Why would state prosecutors be afraid to go to trial against Steve Bourget? I realize I don't know much about the local political structure, but really?

Anonymous said...

This explains everything.

They must tremble in their boots worse than ever after seeing the jury ignore the excellent case prosecutors built against Casey Anthony. But, they should remind themselves that prosecutors brought this on themselves by choosing to bring the death penalty. It frightened the jurors to hold that much responsibility and they fled from it.

anon said...

steve bourget?

Mainah said...

Steve Bourget is reported to be Phoebe and Elisha DiPietro's attorney...he's not exactly the best and brightest Maine has to offer for a private criminal defense attorney but, perhaps cheaper and more willing to deceive and protect a criminal from accountability than other local attorneys. He had a bit of a problem abiding by the law himself-domestically speaking.

Lance, Justin and Elisha's have 3 different daddys and there were locals who said one of them is in jail for drugs and his lawyer was Steve Bourget, that info was speculative, not confirmed. Either way....

I've been enjoying SA here with Peter, Heather and all the folks who comment, for a year now and it just struck my that in that time we've discussed dozens of cases, yet I can only recall one parent charged for their child's death, and comparatively, quickly. One black man; charged, arrested, convicted to life, within a year of the child's disappearence. No body recovered, no witnesses, just a guy, like Justin, with a fake abduction story. see http://newsok.com/life-in-prison-for-detroit-dad-in-daughters-death/article/feed/470523

What about justice for Ayla, Lisa, Hailey, Caylee, Maddie, Isabel, Kyron...and the list goes on...I'm so so sad for these children and their families who loved and miss them.

Mainah said...

Peter, Hobs, Just Spouting, and all: I just want to add to the "Big Gov't" conversation...pointing out that Libs (Dems) and Cons (Rep) are very close on the Authoritarian Rule chart. Both want to have control over our lives in a very perverse way. There is very little, and insignificant (IMO) differences. And, I agree w/ Spouting, this barely scratches the surface of the evils of man and big gov.

I've read recently more about Henry David Thoreau, Ayn Rand, HL Mencken, Von Mises (their bios, not fiction)and I'm staying with the Libertarians. I know (some) people find it insanely radical, but that's how I have felt for over 30 years about the Dem and Rep -they are insanely radically intrusive, power-hungry, socialist, both of them.

I really believe the Reps and Dems keep us distracted with "hot topic" items like gun control, abortion, drugs, social sec., welfare, etc. and it's worked very well to divide us, thus far. But they haven't "fixed" anything and their compromised "reforms" is slowly reminiscent of 1917 Russian Reform.

As long as we're fighting over things like gun control, we're not focused on the Representative's "truth" - that is a goal of personal and professional enrichment. Let's keep our eyes on the (truth) ball.

I hope with this being the "information age" people will smarten up, seek truth, take the scales from their eyes.

Merry Christmas everyone and I hope we all have a peaceful and prosperous new year.

Amaleen6 said...

I would add to the list of evidence for the grand jury in Ayla Bell's case:

9. The third 911 call....The one they won't release, won't let Trista listen to. There's something in there pointing to the Waterville 3's (or 4's, 5's?) definitive guilt in Ayla's disappearance.

Jeff said...

Excellent treatise, Peter. Thanks for trying to open some eyes. I know how difficult it can be to persuade today's American mindset that our freedom has been slowly and purposely removed for the benefit (and income), of those making the laws. I, too, remember days of greater freedom, and when there existed an appreciable standard of living for our middle class. America continues to decline, as have other supposedly almighty civilizations in history, and will never be the same again. When I speak of these things to friends or coworkers, they look at incredulously, as if there is something wrong with me. Have a great holiday season.

Seamus O Riley said...

Thank you Jeff, and the others, for your kind comments.

I often disagree with others, but respect their right to their own opinion. As years go by, I sometimes change my views to the ones I disagreed with. It was one of the elements that made our country great.

I fear we have lost so much of it, through subtle pressure, that has infected us with an expectation. If you do not speak like me, you could be kicked off your team, out of school, out of your job, and so on.

It is frightening to think we have thought police, food police, and cannot even own a pet without getting approval from the government.

Peter

Justme said...

I agree with Mainah. I have no party loyalty. I don't care who is in power if they have too much power. The less power the government has, the more we have as it was meant to be.

Merry Christmas all!

Just1morething said...

I can't believe this is still there. Since '09,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through CASUAL CONVERSATION. Since we can't keep TRACK of all of them here at the White House we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, SENT IT to flag@whitehouse.gov."

FLAG???@whitehouse.gov

It doesn't say to send people to the site to get the "facts" about "health care reform". It asks for help tracking and flagging email, web sites and casual conversation.

john said...

George Orwell 1984..

rob said...

Some people in this country still see gov't as their savior, or their mama.
In these cases like baby Ayla or Lisa, these big shot lawyers should have to be totally pro bono, or the client should have to take a public defender.
If seeking the death penalty was what got all of Casey Anthony's attorneys and experts paid, then that was a big mistake.
If it was my child missing, I would perfer to go to court and try, than to just let these known killers live free and worry free.

Anonymous said...

I agree with many points made in this stumpin' article. And, the conclusion made me think the author wants the reader to act in ways many have in other countries in the past:take away the children-or use them if you will-to gain a conviction against another person. Basically holding something over their heads until they are forced to lie in order to have the other person incarcerated...destroying many more people-children included-in order to retalitate against a single indidual who is guilty of wrong doing.

This is neither a biblical principal nor a political pricipal but one that reeks with social terrorism much like that which is administered via the Westboro protesting church group and the loud Harley sounds of the modern day cowboy ghost ridin' defenders of freedom.

Makes no sense. Makes cents for advertisers, though.

Stace said...

I haven't commented anything on Ayla'a case in a long time. I googled her name every day for months hoping and praying she would be found. I have ideas of what could have happened to her, but the sad truth is that we will probably never know. Now my hope and prayer is that those responsible will be brought to justice wheter she is found or not.

Anonymous said...

Yοu've made some good points there. I looked on the net for More Information about the issue and found most people will go along with your views on this website.

Anonymous said...

This piecе of writіng presents clear іԁеа in faνoг
of the neω users of blogging, that genuіnely hoω
tο ԁο bloggіng.

Fеel frее to visіt mу page http://web1.lkmunmorah-h.schools.nsw.edu.au