Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - no special class in this country, uh uh.

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - no special class in this country, uh uh. (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/128007-no-special-class-country-uh-uh.html)

no special class in this country, uh uh.

Woman 'forgets' loaded gun in purse, found by TSA screeners, won't be charged because no proof exists that there was 'intent' to bring gun on plane.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...=2007711270342

Man forgets loaded gun in fanny pack, packed in carry on bag, jury selection for federal trial began yesterday.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=7407616&nav=4QcS

The difference between the two people? besides gender? oh yeah, the woman is a district judge. :rolleyes:

Glad I live in a country where everyone has equal protection under the laws.

Do you (as an individual citizen) feel that it's quite alright that 'equal protection under the laws' is applied in this way? with special circumstances being applied depending upon your station in society?

This does not surprise me a bit.

Members of Law Enforcement, the judiciary, and the political classes are essentially immune from following the law. Either through the legislation they pass, the rulings they make or the unwritten code they adhere to.

Equal protection means only that they are equally protected from responsibility .

imho,

-bear

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

This does not surprise me a bit.

<h3>Members of Law Enforcement, the judiciary, and the political classes are essentially immune from following the law.</h3> Either through the legislation they pass, the rulings they make or the unwritten code they adhere to.

Equal protection means only that they are equally protected from responsibility .

imho,

-bear

Not all of them are...certainly not an "outsider" from Arkansas:

Quote:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/03...e_inves_1.html
Intel
3/15/07
6:15 PM
Bush-Cousin Judge Won't Be Investigated for Car Crash That Killed New Haven Cop

A federal judge who is George W. Bush's cousin killed a New Haven, Connecticut, police officer in a traffic accident in October, and this afternoon New Haven police decided not to pursue criminal charges. Judge John Mercer Walker Jr., a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, is first cousin to former President George H.W. Bush — they share a grandfather, George Herbert Walker — and first cousin once removed to the current president. On October 17, in what a New Haven police spokeswoman termed "difficult weather conditions," the 66-year-old Walker was driving an SUV that struck 38-year-old Officer Daniel Picagli, a seventeen-year veteran of the New Haven police department.

Picagli was working extra duty, directing traffic at a road construction site in the Wooster Square section of the city, and died October 21 from injuries sustained in the accident. Picagli was wearing a black rain coat and a reflective vest when the accident happened, the Associated Press reported. Visibility was poor where the accident happened, the New Haven Register said. Walker was not tested for drugs or alcohol at the scene....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-officer_x.htm
Officer struck by Bush's cousin dies
Updated 10/22/2006 10:05 PM ET

....The SUV was driven by John M. Walker Jr., a senior judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, who maintains court chambers in New Haven. He was leaving work when the accident happened, police said.

No charges have been filed.

Police Chief Francisco Ortiz said the accident remained under investigation, but officers did not feel it was necessary to test Walker for drugs or alcohol.

Walker, 65, voluntarily stepped down this month as chief judge of the court. He was appointed to the court in 1989 by President George H.W. Bush, who is a cousin of the judge......

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/ny...=1&oref=slogin
Officer Is Struck by S.U.V. Driven by a Federal Judge, the Police Say

By ALAN FEUER
Published: October 20, 2006

.....Officer Picagli, 38, remained under the care of doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital, Ms. Winchester said. He was standing on a dimly lighted stretch of Chapel Street in a black police raincoat and a yellow reflective vest when Judge Walker’s black Ford Escape sport utility vehicle struck him.

The judge stopped immediately after the accident, Ms. Winchester said, and officers at the scene determined that there was no reason to administer a field alcohol and drug test.

“He’s been very cooperative and very disturbed,” Ms. Winchester said. She added that Judge Walker had, in fact, called the department several times to check on Officer Picagli’s condition.......

On page #3, and reported six days after it happened:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...46190-2003Oct5
Bush Family Babysitter Killed in Fairfax

<h3>Sunday</h3>, October 5, 2003; <h3>Page C03</h3>

A babysitter for the family of Marvin Bush <h3>was found dead Monday night</h3> outside the family's Fairfax County home, and police said that she had been crushed when her car rolled into her, pinning her between the vehicle and an outbuilding on the property.

Fairfax County police said Bertha Champagne, 62, had worked for several years for Marvin Bush, President Bush's brother, and lived at the family home on Fort Hunt Road in the Alexandria section of Fairfax.

Officer Courtney Young, a police spokeswoman, said Champagne had gone outside the house about 9 p.m. Monday, reportedly to retrieve something from her car.

The vehicle had been in gear, police said, and appeared to have rolled in her direction when Champagne was in front of it.

After pinning Champagne, Young said, the car continued rolling toward Fort Hunt Road, near the intersection of Edgehill Drive.

Champagne was taken to an area hospital and declared dead that evening. Young said she did not know the cause of death.

S.O.S....no? One set of rules for the Bush family, and a harsher set for the rest of us:

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harken_Energy_Scandal
Debt Swap Transaction

In 1990, the US energy company Harken Energy entered into a business partnership called Harken Anadarko Partnership (HAP) with Harvard University which ultimately became the vehicle by which Harken Energy could transfer $20 million in debt to Harvard.

Harvard contributed $64.5 million worth of property. Harken contributed drilling operations valued at $26.1 million, which also carried $20 million of bank debt and liabilities. Harken held a 16% interest in the Harken Anadarko Partnership (HAP); Harvard owned the remaining 84%. The actual operation remained under Harken’s control, however. From 1990 until 1993 the Harvard-run HAP paid Harken about $1 million per year to operate the partnership's oil and gas.

Though made public, investors did not directly equate the transferred debt as a decrease in equity, allowing the share value of Harken stock to rise, and senior Harken managers liquidated their shares. See market liquidity.

Harvard Management, an independent fund that manages the university's endowment, invested heavily (almost $30 million) in Harken beginning in 1986 around the same time Bush was made director, at one point giving the fund one-third control of Harken. Bush, a graduate of Harvard Business School, could well have been what made Harken (a relatively little oil company in Texas) so attractive to Harvard Management.

Bush's Stock Sale

During the early 1990s Harken continued to suffer cash flow problems. On May 20, 1990 an internal Harken memo warned that its financial position was such that it may not be able to meet the June 15 payroll.

On June 8, 1990, Ralph Smith, a trader for Sutro & Co., called Bush on behalf of an institutional client interested in buying a large block of Harken stock. Smith asked Bush if he was interested in selling. Bush said no, but added that he might be interested in about two weeks.

On June 15, 1990, lawyers from the firm of Haynes & Boone, which worked for Harken, sent a warning about selling on insider information. The memo to Harken staffers had the subject line Liability for insider trading and short swing profits.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers' Warning
SEC Closed Probe Before Receiving Letter From Harken's Outside Attorneys

By Peter Behr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 1, 2002; Page A04

A week before George W. Bush's 1990 sale of stock in Harken Energy Co., the firm's outside lawyers cautioned Bush and other directors against selling shares if they had significant negative information about the company's prospects.

The sale came a few months before Harken reported significant losses, leading to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.....

A week later, Bush contacted Smith, and sold 212,140 Harken shares for $4 per share, netting $848,560. Despite having been put on notice by the company lawyer of the importance of filing timely insider reports only a few months before, Bush waited eight months before filing the required forms on the sale with the SEC. Bush used the money to repay a loan used to acquire his interest in the Texas Rangers, a baseball franchise.

Bush says he was unaware of the company's financial condition, despite sitting on Harken's audit board. Bush was investigated for insider trading by the SEC, but no charges were brought against him.

Things got even worse when the company announced on August 20, 1990 that it had a huge, unexpected loss of $23.2 million for the second quarter and it's stock tanked 20% that day.
[edit]

SEC Investigation

According to SEC documents, investigators concluded that neither Bush nor the rest of the company's hierarchy were aware of the magnitude of the loss at the time Bush sold his stock. The investigation was criticized on several grounds, <h3>including the fact that the subject of the inquiry, Bush, was never interviewed by the SEC.

A pertinent point here is that the SEC Commissioner had been appointed by President George Bush Sr., and its counsel had worked for Bush Jr. negotiating the purchase of the Texas Rangers.</h3>

On Oct. 18, 1993, an SEC memo declared the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and that, at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him. The letter also stated that the investigation's termination must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the investigation. [citation needed]<b>comment by host: Here is the "citation":

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...bush073099.htm
....Dated Oct. 18, 1993, three weeks before Bush announced his candidacy for governor, the carefully worded letter was addressed to Jordan and said that "the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and that, at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him."

Bush took that as vindication. "The SEC fully investigated the stock deal," he said in October 1994. "I was exonerated." Supporting Bush, the head of the SEC's enforcement division, William McLucas, went beyond the letter and stated publicly that "there was no case there."

Hiler, however, was more cautious. His statement said it <h3>"must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation.".....</h3>

...and...if you ain't a Bush:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
Appointment in Whitewater Turns Into a Partisan Battle

By DAVID JOHNSTON,
Published: August 13, 1994

Criticism of the appointment of Kenneth W. Starr as the Whitewater independent prosecutor intensified into a partisan furor today as Democratic senators demanded a public accounting of Mr. Starr's recent political activities and challenged the impartiality of the head of the three-judge panel that picked him.

<h3>Some senators expressed shock at the news</h3> that Judge David B. Sentelle, the head of the three-judge appellate panel that named Mr. Starr, had lunch on July 14 with Senator Lauch Faircloth, a conservative Republican of North Carolina, while the panel was still considering its choice. Mr. Faircloth was a leader of efforts to oust Robert B. Fiske Jr. as the Whitewater prosecutor....

....Past appointments of independent counsels have sometimes caused grumbling, but rarely has an appointment produced so much protest about the partisan loyalties of the prosecutor. Nor has the impartiality of the judges who made the selection ever come under such scrutiny.

Judge Sentelle and Senator Faircloth today acknowledged the lunch, which was first reported by The Washington Post. Also in attendance was Jesse Helms, the other Senator from North Carolina, who is a mutual friend and a Republican. Judge Sentelle has long been involved in Republican politics in the state. President Ronald Reagan appointed him to the Federal bench in 1987.

Judge Sentelle said there had been no discussion of Whitewater or the independent counsel at the lunch. In a letter to a Post reporter that he distributed today through the clerk of the Appeals Court, Judge Sentelle said, "Senator Faircloth is an old friend and we lunch together from time to time." He added, "To the best of my recollection nothing in these discussions concerned independent counsel matters." ....

....Friends say that Mr. Helms is the link between Judge Sentelle and Mr. Faircloth. Mr. Helms and Mr. Faircloth have similar conservative Republican voting records. In legal circles, Judge Sentelle is also regarded as a conservative, but with a more moderate voice than the other two.

In 1987, when a vacancy occurred on the Court of Appeals here, Mr. Helms, who had considerable influence at the White House in the Reagan years, backed Judge Sentelle for the seat. Private Doubts ......

....Privately, some judges said senators are often friendly with Federal judges because the lawmakers frequently provide the names of judicial candidates in their home states to the White House, often proposing political supporters or associates.

But some judges questioned whether Judge Sentelle should have had any contact with a leading critic of Mr. Fiske while the Judge was considering whether to replace Mr. Fiske with another prosecutor. They suggested Judge Sentelle should have been more attuned to appearances, particularly in light of the grounds the court cited for passing over Mr. Fiske......

Host, are there any threads that you don't manage to tie Bush into? Btw the Clinton random death connection list is no quick read.

In regards to the original post, I agree there is a huge double standard for government employees. It's almost like they are just another mob organization, except they have the consent of the governered which makes them more dangerous than the mob.

Man, I wish there was a huge double-standard for low end government employees... ya know, like enlisted DOD personnel.

Such things don't exist. It isn't government people, it is rich white government people.

Hey Host do the fucking Kennedy's ring a friggen bell? The whole dam lot get away with capitial crimes.

I get the message of your posts, you hate Bush, the rich should give their money to lazy, nonmotivated, feable folk, the media is nothing but a right wing mouth piece, and if we all dont vote Democrat in '08 the Republicans are going to turn all of us into drones to work for the rich.

Did I miss anything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The difference between the two people? besides gender? oh yeah, the woman is a district judge. :rolleyes:

Glad I live in a country where everyone has equal protection under the laws.

Do you (as an individual citizen) feel that it's quite alright that 'equal protection under the laws' is applied in this way? with special circumstances being applied depending upon your station in society?

Wow, this is a huge leap. I think we should take into consideration other factors, such as the individual circumstances, the actions and judgement of the investigators, and the fact that we don't know the outcome of the man's trial.

To jump to a conclusion that there is a special class in the United States based on what you've presented here is almost completely unconvincing. You've presented circumstantial evidence, and little else...no further arguments, observations, or criticisms. Until you do, I don't see any prospects for a valuable discussion of your idea of a privileged class. What else can you add to this to make it happen?

I would like to point out, however, that it would be interesting (and maybe frightening) to know what would happen to a Muslim man if the same thing happened to him.

But to answer your question, I think that those held to the responsibility to uphold and/or interpret the laws should be held to the responsibility to abide by them as well. But where it gets difficult is when you consider intent and motive, especially in the context of this judge. She carries a gun because she gets death threats. What do you think a judge heading to an attorneys' conference wanted to do with a gun on a plane? Hijack it? Let's be realistic here. All this judge probably avoided was a $1,000 fine for having a legally owned gun in an airport. Big deal. It appeared to be a mistake on her part. At least, that's what the investigators determined.

As far as the man is concerned, I hope he gets a fair trial. But I'm not convinced that he is being unfairly treated by virtue of his going to court. As I said, each of these cases have their own circumstances.

If you can present more evidence or arguments for this special class treatment you mention, I'd be interested to see it.

Well, we can surely generalize with one special class: rich white people.

You meant rich white men, right?

anyone in their right mind knows its all about "the good ol boy system."

its not what you know its who you know.

i see this everyday.. it disgusts me.

i mean i treat people differently when i know them, but i stick to the whole, "it's not personal, its business."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

In case you haven't been paying attention to my posts over the last two years, i've posted dozens of examples where judges, cops, prosecutors, and politicians are NOT held to the same standards of the laws that we mere subjects are. If THAT isn't enough evidence for you, then maybe YOU need to be the one facing a felony trial over the very same charge that a state district judge just got a pass on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

You meant rich white men, right?

Wait, what? We have genitals?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Fair enough, but your juxtaposition in this particular thread still doesn't have a strong correlation as you seem to imply. This is what I wanted you to discuss. If you've written about this over the past two years, why not summarize in this thread so that we can go merrily forward?

If I was facing a felony trial, the last thing I would be thinking about is another's experience of it. Judge or no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

odd, that's the first thing I'd be screaming about, and not the experience of it, but the LACK of it. and what juxtaposition? The only thing I've ever been more consistent in is the unconstitutionality of gun laws. Have you had your coffee this morning?

People who have never faced the horrifying experience of the judicial system as the accused, need to do so just once. Experiencing the power to destroy a life that the prosecutor has at his/her availability, with unlimited public resources, both financially and emotionally, is incredible. The huge amount of dollars it takes to defend oneself in court has destroyed thousands of lives and to blithely ignore the blatant bias in who is prosecuted and who isn't is actually support for this type of two-tiered class system.

i just wonder if a muslim ..male or female..happens to 'forget' a gun in their bag...

oh the furore...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Um, the juxtaposition of the two cases you presented in your OP. And I'm about to have some coffee; thanks for asking.

Okay, so this is about your views on the unconstitutionality of gun laws. Now we're getting some where. Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

People who have never faced the horrifying experience of the judicial system as the accused, need to do so just once. Experiencing the power to destroy a life that the prosecutor has at his/her availability, with unlimited public resources, both financially and emotionally, is incredible. The huge amount of dollars it takes to defend oneself in court has destroyed thousands of lives and to blithely ignore the blatant bias in who is prosecuted and who isn't is actually support for this type of two-tiered class system.

I will bring up a small point that I already did, and one that dlishsguy just mentioned is this: If you want to see a real contrast between classes, picture a Muslim or a Black man getting caught in the same situation. I'm not concerned about the special class of the economic or political elite; I'm concerned about the poor treatment of second-class citizens.

How does that fit into your view of gun laws, and other things?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The difference between the two people? besides gender? oh yeah, the woman is a district judge. :rolleyes:

Close, but not quite. The difference between the two? Michigan and Vermont. Two different prosecutors, two different judicial systems. You cannot hold the lawyer who rightfully prosecuted the guy with a gun responsible for the stupidity of another lawyer halfway across the country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I'm not sure where I see the difference.

By definition if the judge got special treatment because she was a judge, anyone who wouldn't get said treatment would be a second class citizen.

Assuming the other man going to trial is white, and I'm only assuming, how would a change in his race change him going to trial at this point?

I'm not sure why you are playing the race card beyond saying 'well it would in my opinion be worse for another race' when in fact we have no example of that.

There is a difference between second-class citizen and being given a fair trial, or avoiding trial all together.

But, fair enough. My initial point is that the juxtaposition here doesn't work. The judge didn't go to trial for certain reasons; some of which are related to being a judge, maybe, but as the article implies, the investigators couldn't adequately establish any reason why she would have intentionally brought the gun into the airport. So, she avoided a $1,000 fine. On the other hand, this family man with the fanny pack is going to trial. This is a normal enough circumstance, isn't it? The trial will hopefully find him innocent of malicious intent; hopefully, the worst thing he'll face is a $1,000 fine.

You can't juxtapose the two and say the judge was given special treatment above and beyond this man because the circumstances were different. All I'm saying, really, is that this thread, as it is set up, is a bit of a stretch. I want to see more before I see a real discussion.

I'm willing to believe that there is special treatment for people of privilege, but the way this thread is set up isn't very convincing. I want to see this opened up or we'll all fall into a pit of ignorance.

Too bad that this lady isn't a judge.

http://www.wftv.com/news/14808302/detail.html?1

63 year old grandmother forgets handgun in purse at disneyland. not a judge? concealed weapons charge. justice for all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Just think if she were black or arab? :)

Seriously anyone thinking the one wasn't let off easy because she was a judge is fooling themselves a bit.

dk...you ignore one critical fact.

The elderly lady judge had a concealed weapon permit....the disney grandma did not have any permit to carry.