Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sante Fe Police Confront Man For Legally Open Carrying And Lie Their Asses Off
For those that have never, or rarely ever get into confrontations with the police this is a textbook case of what they will do to obtain information. They lie repeatedly to try and get this man to answer their questions. Thankfully because this man kept his head, and was ARMED the incident never got out of control.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Helen Thomas On Her One Question for Obama
By Real News
DC's most experienced journalist says Obama lost credibility when he dodged question on Israeli nukes
In part one of his interview with Helen Thomas, longest-serving member of the White House Press Corps, Paul Jay asks her about her first question for President Obama. The question, asking President Obama to name all the countries in the Middle-East that have nuclear weapons, was avoided by the President, who claimed to not want to "speculate". Thomas claims that knowledge of Israeli nukes is very public in DC and Obama's answer shows a lack of credibility. She explains the importance of this question for U.S. policy in the region. Finally, she confides that she has not been called on by the President since that day, but that if she does, she will ask him whether or not he has found any more information about nukes in the Middle-East since their last encounter.
Helen Thomas is an American news reporter, member of the White House Press Corps and author She was the first female officer of the National Press Club and the first female member and president of the White House Correspondents Association. Her latest book, co-authored with Craig Crawford is Listen Up, Mr President: Everything you Always Wanted Your President To Know and Do.
DC's most experienced journalist says Obama lost credibility when he dodged question on Israeli nukes
In part one of his interview with Helen Thomas, longest-serving member of the White House Press Corps, Paul Jay asks her about her first question for President Obama. The question, asking President Obama to name all the countries in the Middle-East that have nuclear weapons, was avoided by the President, who claimed to not want to "speculate". Thomas claims that knowledge of Israeli nukes is very public in DC and Obama's answer shows a lack of credibility. She explains the importance of this question for U.S. policy in the region. Finally, she confides that she has not been called on by the President since that day, but that if she does, she will ask him whether or not he has found any more information about nukes in the Middle-East since their last encounter.
Helen Thomas is an American news reporter, member of the White House Press Corps and author She was the first female officer of the National Press Club and the first female member and president of the White House Correspondents Association. Her latest book, co-authored with Craig Crawford is Listen Up, Mr President: Everything you Always Wanted Your President To Know and Do.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Obama Breaks Another Campaign Promise
Source
(CNSNews.com) – As many as a dozen taxes in the new health care law violate President Barack Obama’s campaign pledge not to raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 and on individuals earning less than $200,000.
At least seven of these taxes directly affect health consumers regardless of income, such as the individual mandate to buy insurance, the employer mandate, the tanning tax, and limits and penalties on health savings accounts. In addition, Republicans argue that the tax impact of the law should include indirect taxes, such as the annual taxes on the health care sector that will be passed on to consumers.
On many occasions during the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama pledged that, if elected, he would ensure that Americans earning less than $250,000 a year would not see a federal tax increase of any kind.
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increases,” the Illinois senator told a crowd in Dover, N.H. on Sept. 12, 2008. “Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
As president, Obama repeated the pledge during his Feb. 24, 2009 address to a joint session of Congress.
“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not a single dime,” the president said.
The bulk of the $500 billion in tax increases in the new health care law targets households earning $250,000 and individuals earning $200,000 -- for example, the increase in the Medicare payroll tax. But many of the taxes hit the general public at large.
The individual mandate, for example, will require all legal U.S. residents to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan beginning in 2014. Once the reconciliation bill is voted on in the Senate to amend the law signed by Obama this week, the individual mandate will require a single person to pay 2.5 percent of their income or $695 if they do not purchase health insurance.
Generally, a single person making $30,000 or more will have to pay a 2.5 percent penalty if they do not carry health insurance. A person making less than $30,000 will have to pay $695. This penalty/tax is found in Section 1501 of the bill for “requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
The government will also mandate that employers provide health insurance for their employees. This mandate would include small businesses with revenues below $250,000 per year. If the employer does not provide health insurance, the business will have to pay a tax of $750 for each full-time employee. For the employer who requires a waiting period of 30-to-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee and $600 per employee if the business takes longer than 60 days to comply. This is found in Section 1513 of the bill for “shared responsibility for employers.”
“Small businesses are particularly hard hit,” said Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), a doctor and member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes tax laws. “They may end up with revenue below $250,000 and will have less take-home pay.”
Under the new law, Americans would not be able to use pre-tax dollars from health savings accounts (HSA), flexible spending accounts (FSA), or health reimbursements accounts (HRA) to buy over-the-counter non-prescription medicines. This measure takes effect in 2011 and is supposed to bring in $5 billion dollars. This is found in Section 9003 of the law, under “Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.”
“Many of us expected the president would violate his pledge,” Boustany told CNSNews.com. “HSAs and FSAs are a prime example. There are other adjustments we will find as we dig into this law. The more the American people see, the more they will find how the amount of tax increases affects them personally.”
Further, the law increases the tax from 10 percent to 20 percent for non-medical early withdrawals from a health savings account for those under the age of 65. This measure takes effect in 2011 and is estimated to increase revenues by $1.3 billion. This is under Section 9004, “Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.”
Beginning in 2011, the government will impose a cap of $2,500 on FSAs, which are now unlimited, as a means of raising $14 billion in revenue. This is under Section 9005, “Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans.”
Those seeking a tan without catching natural rays will find a new 10-percent excise tax on using indoor tanning salons. The tax, estimated to raise $2.7 billion, will take effect in July. This is under Section 10907, “Excise tax on indoor tanning services in lieu of elective cosmetic medical procedures.”
Now, medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of a person’s adjusted gross income can be deducted for tax purposes. But the new law raises that deduction threshold to 10 percent of adjusted gross income, meaning fewer tax deductions for someone with high medical costs. This provision starts in 2013 and is supposed to raise $15.2 billion in revenue. This is under Section 9013, “Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses.”
The law also imposes a 40-percent tax on high-cost insurance plans reaching $10,200, but exempts union members unless the cost of their plan reaches $27,500. This is called the “Cadillac tax.” This tax is actually on the insurer. This goes into effect in 2018 and is estimated to raise $32 billion in revenue.
There is also a tax on insured and self-insured health plans for a patient-centered outcomes research trust fund. Boustany called this a slush fund for the Department of Health and Human Services to dole out grants.
The government estimates it will bring in $107 billion in revenue from new taxes on insurance companies, drug manufacturers and medical device manufacturers. These are three separate indirect taxes that will be passed on to consumers, Republicans contend.
“The annual tax on drug manufacturers and device makers will all be passed along to the consumer,” Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) told CNSNews.com. “The high-cost plan will encourage some employees to join a union to get a 40-percent discount.”
But Americans for Tax Reform, a libertarian taxpayer-advocacy group, does not believe it is necessary to consider indirect taxes.
“Frankly, you can say any tax is going to affect consumers. We didn’t need to really stretch to include too many other things,” ATR tax policy analyst Ryan Ellis told CNSNews.com. “We have seven that were pretty clear violations of President Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on these people. The one you always hear people bring up is the Cadillac excise tax. That’s not a tax on people, that's a tax on the insurance company. We’ve never asserted that that is a tax [on consumers] because frankly it isn’t. We don’t need to make that argument because there are seven that clearly are.”
Just before signing the bill into law, President Obama said, “And this represents the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in our history.”
A Democratic spokesman for the House Ways and Means Committee could not be reached for comment on Wednesday. But after Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said in a statement that the law provides tax credits for four million small businesses.
“Today, in the greatest of American traditions – opportunity and community – we enacted a law that will improve the overall health of our citizens and the overall well-being of our nation,” Levin said in the March 23 statement. “This legislation was the product of generations of hard work, driven by the personal stories of so many who have suffered from a lack of health insurance and the devastation of rising health care costs.”
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Healthcare Bill To Receive New Vote Due To "procedural violations"
Republicans forced a new vote on fixes to historic US health care reform legislation by finding two procedural "violations," a spokesman for a top Democratic senator said on Thursday.
"After hours of trying to find a way to block this, they (Republicans) found two relatively minor provisions that are violations of Senate procedure which means we're going to have to send it back to the House," Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told AFP.
Reid had been working to corral Senate votes for a package of "fixes" to the health care legislation, which President Barack Obama signed into law on Tuesday.
Manley said the violations related to provisions dealing with "higher education," but did not provide further details.
"I'm confident that the House will be able to deal with these and pass the legislation," he said.
A day after Obama signed the main health care reform legislation into law, the Senate began debate Wednesday on modifications sent by the House.
Often the Senate and the House pass bills containing different language and then hammer out a consensus bill that both houses then vote on again.
In this case no compromise bill was drawn up and the House agreed to use the Senate version for its historic vote last Sunday.
The fixes were to alter provisions in the original Senate version of health care reform that the House had agreed to pass in exchange for certain alterations.
The Senate took up the package of fixes Wednesday, with Republicans seeking to introduce dozens of amendments aimed in part at forcing the House to vote anew.
Democrats planned to approve the changes in the Senate under rules that prevent Republicans from using a filibuster to indefinitely delay and kill the measure.
The health care legislation Obama signed into law Tuesday is his administration's key priority and will extend coverage to some 32 million Americans who currently lack insurance.
The $940 billion overhaul means 95 percent of US citizens and legal residents under the age of 65 will have health insurance.
The 2,000-plus page bill mandates that all Americans buy insurance, or face fines -- a provision that has drawn lawsuits from several state attorney generals who claim it is unconstitutional.
Among other key reforms, the legislation also bans insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, from dropping clients who get sick or from setting lifetime caps.
Republicans presented a united front in opposition to the bill, which also drew anti-reform protesters to Washington.
But a USA Today/Gallup poll taken just as it was signed into law found that nearly half of Americans support the overhaul, with 49 percent of respondents saying the bill was a "good thing," while 40 percent considered it a "bad thing."
US Senate passes 'fixes' to landmark health law
The US Senate on Thursday passed a set of technical changes to President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul, sending the package to the House of Representative for a likely final vote.
With US Vice President Joe Biden overseeing the proceedings, senators voted 56-43 to approve a set of fixes to the law, which Obama triumphantly signed on Tuesday after a year of bitter debate and legislative struggles.
Source
"After hours of trying to find a way to block this, they (Republicans) found two relatively minor provisions that are violations of Senate procedure which means we're going to have to send it back to the House," Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told AFP.
Reid had been working to corral Senate votes for a package of "fixes" to the health care legislation, which President Barack Obama signed into law on Tuesday.
Manley said the violations related to provisions dealing with "higher education," but did not provide further details.
"I'm confident that the House will be able to deal with these and pass the legislation," he said.
A day after Obama signed the main health care reform legislation into law, the Senate began debate Wednesday on modifications sent by the House.
Often the Senate and the House pass bills containing different language and then hammer out a consensus bill that both houses then vote on again.
In this case no compromise bill was drawn up and the House agreed to use the Senate version for its historic vote last Sunday.
The fixes were to alter provisions in the original Senate version of health care reform that the House had agreed to pass in exchange for certain alterations.
The Senate took up the package of fixes Wednesday, with Republicans seeking to introduce dozens of amendments aimed in part at forcing the House to vote anew.
Democrats planned to approve the changes in the Senate under rules that prevent Republicans from using a filibuster to indefinitely delay and kill the measure.
The health care legislation Obama signed into law Tuesday is his administration's key priority and will extend coverage to some 32 million Americans who currently lack insurance.
The $940 billion overhaul means 95 percent of US citizens and legal residents under the age of 65 will have health insurance.
The 2,000-plus page bill mandates that all Americans buy insurance, or face fines -- a provision that has drawn lawsuits from several state attorney generals who claim it is unconstitutional.
Among other key reforms, the legislation also bans insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, from dropping clients who get sick or from setting lifetime caps.
Republicans presented a united front in opposition to the bill, which also drew anti-reform protesters to Washington.
But a USA Today/Gallup poll taken just as it was signed into law found that nearly half of Americans support the overhaul, with 49 percent of respondents saying the bill was a "good thing," while 40 percent considered it a "bad thing."
US Senate passes 'fixes' to landmark health law
The US Senate on Thursday passed a set of technical changes to President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul, sending the package to the House of Representative for a likely final vote.
With US Vice President Joe Biden overseeing the proceedings, senators voted 56-43 to approve a set of fixes to the law, which Obama triumphantly signed on Tuesday after a year of bitter debate and legislative struggles.
Source
Nearly 300 Congressman Declare Commitment to "unbreakable" US-Israel Bond
Make sure and read Article XIII above.
Nearly 300 members of Congress have signed on to a declaration reaffirming their commitment to "the unbreakable bond that exists between [U.S.] and the State of Israel", in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The letter was sent in the wake of the severe recent tensions between Israel and the U.S. over the prior's decision to construct more than 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, a project it announced during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's visit to the region.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took advantage of his trip to the United States this week to try to mend the rift with the Obama administration, but he was greeted with cold welcome by the White House. Netanyahu also met during his visit with members of Congress, who welcomed him with significantly more warmth.
The letter from Congress expresses its "deep concern" over the U.S.-Israel crisis, and emphasizes that lawmakers had received assurances from Netanyahu that the events leading up to the recent tensions would not be repeated.
Full Story Here
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Former Obama Aide Now Head Of AIPAC
Just when you thought the thieves couldn't get any thicker.
(IsraelNN.com) Lee “Rosy” Rosenberg, a jazz recording industry veteran capitalist who accompanied U.S. President Barack Obama on his campaign trip to Israel two years ago, takes over on Sunday as the new president of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Rosenberg also served on the president’s national campaign finance committee.
The new AIPAC president hails from Chicago, the home state of President Obama, and also is on first-name terms with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, President Obama’s senior advisor.
Steve Rosen, a former 23-year, high-ranking AIPAC official, told the Chicago Tribune, “I don't think AIPAC has made any secret of the reality that his friendship with the president played a role in Rosy's rise. He's a guy who works very hard at fundraising [and] in the political arena. It was not as if he was plucked out of nowhere. He paid his dues. But I'm sure nobody was blind to the fact that he's from Chicago.“
Rosenberg is known as an expert in bringing in big money from powerful people who generally are not outwardly committed to Israel.
Full Story Here
(IsraelNN.com) Lee “Rosy” Rosenberg, a jazz recording industry veteran capitalist who accompanied U.S. President Barack Obama on his campaign trip to Israel two years ago, takes over on Sunday as the new president of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Rosenberg also served on the president’s national campaign finance committee.
The new AIPAC president hails from Chicago, the home state of President Obama, and also is on first-name terms with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, President Obama’s senior advisor.
Steve Rosen, a former 23-year, high-ranking AIPAC official, told the Chicago Tribune, “I don't think AIPAC has made any secret of the reality that his friendship with the president played a role in Rosy's rise. He's a guy who works very hard at fundraising [and] in the political arena. It was not as if he was plucked out of nowhere. He paid his dues. But I'm sure nobody was blind to the fact that he's from Chicago.“
Rosenberg is known as an expert in bringing in big money from powerful people who generally are not outwardly committed to Israel.
Full Story Here
The Kol Nidre
The following is the Kol Nidre, a prayer recited by jews every year on the eve of yom kippur. This prayer quite literally gives them a license to lie for the entire year.
What kind of sick and vile religion practices such a thing? With this knowledge, how could in rational person ever trust a jew?
"All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether called 'konam,' 'konas,' or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths."
What kind of sick and vile religion practices such a thing? With this knowledge, how could in rational person ever trust a jew?
"All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether called 'konam,' 'konas,' or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths."
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Important Notice
Over the past few months google has suspended traffic to Truth In Our Time, we no longer get any hits from them even though our Pagerank is 3 out of 10. We used to get over 100 visitors per day from google alone. Since google owns blogger (which I use to publish this blog) I'm not sure if I should start reading the handwriting on the wall.
Many good blogs have been banned from their service and I assume it's just a matter of time before I join those ranks. Hopefully that isn't the case but regardless I have taken some preemptive measures. One of these measures is to back up all the posts to another website. If this website ever gets taken down you will be able to find everything over at http://truthinourtime.wordpress.com/
If we are removed from blogger, I will switch the domain over so that truthinourtime.com, will route to the wordpress site and not the blogger site so you shouldn't have to change your link although to be safe you might want to bookmark the wordpress site.
In the meantime if you would like to increase the traffic to this site (or any site) for free you should check out this link. It only takes a few minutes and brings in literally hundreds of people.
Many good blogs have been banned from their service and I assume it's just a matter of time before I join those ranks. Hopefully that isn't the case but regardless I have taken some preemptive measures. One of these measures is to back up all the posts to another website. If this website ever gets taken down you will be able to find everything over at http://truthinourtime.wordpress.com/
If we are removed from blogger, I will switch the domain over so that truthinourtime.com, will route to the wordpress site and not the blogger site so you shouldn't have to change your link although to be safe you might want to bookmark the wordpress site.
In the meantime if you would like to increase the traffic to this site (or any site) for free you should check out this link. It only takes a few minutes and brings in literally hundreds of people.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Quote Of The Week
2 Timothy 3
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The Truth About Morris "The Sleaze" Dees
Morris Dees -- Child Molester, Pervert, and Liar?
Part I
For the past several years, the Major Media has portrayed Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center as an "expert" on terrorism, militias, and the Patriot Movement.
Is Morris Dees a trustworthy and truthful source of information, on a subject so dear to the American people as their liberties?
Decide for yourself after reading the following court document. This was forwarded to me by email several years ago. I make no claim as to it's authenticity... Research the facts for yourself. I merely reproduce it here in the public interest. WEB
IN THE ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
MAUREENE BASS DEES )
)
Appellant, )
)
-vs- ) CASE NO. CIV. 2114
)
MORRIS S. DEES, )
)
Appellee. )
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
------------------
MAURY SMITH
JULIA S. WATERS
CHARLES M. CROOK
Attorneys for the Appellant
OF COUNSEL:
SMITH, BOWMAN, THAGARD,
CROOK & CULPEPPER
P.O. Box 78
Montgomery, Al 36101
Telephone: (205) 834-6500
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
----
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................ 4
THE ISSUES ................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ....................................... 5
A. Morris' Financial Condition ........................... 5
B. The Cause Of The Breakup; Vicki Booker McGaha ......... 6
C. The Reconciliation .................................... 6
D. Morris Can't Give Up His Mistress ..................... 7
E. Maureene Is Compelled To Seek Divorce ................. 8
F. Morris Sets A Trap .................................... 9
G. Morris' Trap Works: The Hotel Room Agreement .......... 11
H. Morris' Sexual Appetite ............................... 12
A. Dianne Hicks ...................................... 12
B. Cathy Bennett ..................................... 12
C. Judith Rogers ..................................... 13
D. Deborah Levy ...................................... 13
E. Pamela Horowitz ................................... 13
F. Charlie Springman ................................. 14
G. Morris' Step-Daughter ............................. 14
H. Morris' Future Daughter-in-law .................... 15
ARGUMENT ..................................................... 15
A. The Trial Judge Plainly And Palpably Abused
His Discretion ....................................... 15
1. The Conduct Of The Parties With Reference
To The Cause Of Divorce ........................... 18
(a) Even If The Parties Were Equally At
Fault, The Present Decree Is Indefensible ........ 20
2. The Source Of Their Property ...................... 20
3. The Parties' Standard Of Living During The
Marriage And Their Potential For Maintaining
Or Exceeding That Standard After Their
Divorce ........................................... 22
4. The Financial Circumstances Of The Parties ........ 23
5. The Parties' Future Prospect ...................... 23
6. The Length Of The Marriage ........................ 24
B. Morris Dees' Entire Estate Has Been Used Regularly
For The Common Benefit Of The Parties ................. 24
1. The Real Estate .................................... 26
2. Morris' Other Assets ............................... 27
1968 through 1975 ................................ 27
1975 ............................................. 29
1976 ............................................. 30
1977 ............................................. 30
1978 ............................................. 30
C. The Trial Court Erred In Prohibiting The Wife
From Calling The Husband As A Witness ................. 30
CONCLUSION ................................................... 31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................
At the time of the divorce, Morris' net worth, based upon his own
calculations, was $3,876,029 (R. 1252, et. seq; Def. Ex. 86-87; Stipulation,
R. 231). His annual income exceeds $230,000 (Def. Ex. 76-79), of which more
than $160,000 annually is derived from municipal bonds upon which Morris
pays no income tax (Def. Ex. 28).
B. The Cause Of The Break-up: Vicki Booker McGaha
Although Maureene was subjected to a number of degrading sexual episodes
by Morris during the marriage which will be discussed hereafter, neither
Morris nor Maureene ever wanted or sought a divorce until Morris established
his permanent relationship with Vicki Booker McGaha in August of 1977. It
was Morris' absolute refusal to give up his mistress, whom he was supporting
and whom he had made pregnant, that directly caused termination of
Maureene's marriage and forced her to institute these divorce proceedings.
In August, 1977, Morris tried the "Weisenhunt case" in Birmingham, and
became acquainted with Vicki Booker McGaha, who was a member of that jury
(R. 1459). Thereafter, Morris and Vicki began a sexual affair which has
still not ended, and which was the cause of termination of two marriages.
Following their meeting in Birmingham during the Weisenhunt trial in
August, 1977, Morris had sexual relations with Vicki at Oak Mountain State
Park in Shelby County (R. 1461), the Prattville Holiday Inn, the Holiday Inn
East, the Governor's House Hotel, and the Howard Johnson Motel (R. 1462).
The first trip that he took with her was a four day trip to the "Cajun
Country" in Louisiana on a motorcycle in April, 1978 (R. 1464-1465). In
August, 1978, Vicki joined Morris in Columbus, Georgia, where she stayed
with him at the Holiday Inn (R. 1468).
Maureene first found out about Vicki when she was contacted by Vicki's
husband, who subsequently turned over to her letters that Morris had written
to Vicki and tape recordings of conversations that Morris had had with Vicki
(R. 361-362). Mr. McGaha divorced Vicki McGaha in May, 1978 (R. 1469).
Around this time, at Morris' request, Maureene met with Morris and Vicki
at the Sheraton Mountain Brook Inn to discuss the situation (R. 358). During
this conversation Morris told Maureene that he was in love with Vicki, that
they wanted to be together, and they didn't care if they had anything but a
shack with a dirt floor if they could be together (R. 358). Morris told
Maureene that he and Vicki were going to live together and they they hoped
she would understand. Maureene learned that the affair had been going on
since August of 1977 (R. 280-281, et seq). In later conversations Morris
cried and told Maureene that he loved them both, and that "Vicki has such
beautiful blue eyes and she can see right through you" (R. 360). Following
this meeting, Maureene separated from Morris for the first time and filed
the first suit for divorce (R. 361).
C. The Reconciliation
After Maureene and Morris had been separated for about four to six weeks,
Morris telephoned her and said that he had made a mistake, that he did love
Maureene and wanted her back, and he swore never to see Vicki McGaha again
(R. 282). To assure her of this Morris arranged another meeting among the
three of them as Joe Levin's lake cabin on July 3, 1978 (R. 367, et seq).
This meeting was bizarre. In a three-way conversation Morris would first
ask Vicki to state how much she loved him, and he would then turn to
Maureene to ask her to state how much she loved him (R. 367). It was as if
he were staging a contest to see who loved him the most, or who would do
the most for him (R. 367). After a lengthy conversation, during which
Morris had taken his socks off, he announced, "Alright, I'll tell you girls
my answer when I get my socks on." After taking an inordinate amount of
time putting his socks on, he got up, walked around behind them, put an arm
on each girl, and ceremoniously stated, "I tell you this day, July 3, 1978,
I, Morris Dees, can't live without either one of you." (R. 368). At that
point, Maureene said, "I'll tell you what, Vicki, you can have him."
(R. 368).
In response to these statements by Morris, Maureene made it clear once
again that Morris could not have them both, that he could not remain married
to her and live with Vicki, and that he must make up his mind one way or
another. At the conclusion of the meeting, Morris promised never to see
Vicki again (R. 282). He told Vicki that he and Maureene had reconciled,
and that he could not see her anymore (R. 1357). Morris himself testified
that in Maureene's presense he told Vicki that it was all over and that he
wouldn't see her anymore (R. 1357; 1522-1523).
D. Morris Can't Give Up His Mistress
Morris' promises did not last long. Although Maureene didn't know it at
the time, less than two weeks later he resumed his relationship with Vicki
(R. 1523). By his own admission, he found himself unable to terminate the
relationship with Vicki, in response to questions by his own attorney:
(At R. 366)
Q. (By Mr. Byrne) Now, give the Court some judgement about how many times
you attempted during 1978 and 1979 to break off your relationship with
Vicki Booker?
A. Oh, gosh, about every month I'd say. It was a continual off and on
relationship.
***
(At R. 1367)
A. (By Morris, describing Defendant's Exhibit 103, a letter from Morris
to Vicki) Well, its an undated letter. I think it was in January of
1979, and it basically described the continuing problem of we ought to
end this relationship. I'm telling her that I don't really think I've
got the strength to and I wish she would do it herself."
***
(At R. 1434)
Q. (By Mr. Smith) Let me ask you if you said this or this in substance
in response to a question by Mr. Byrne. 'I attempted every month to
break off my relationship with Vicki'.
A. I think that would be a pretty accurate statement before Maureene
left home."
Morris had been supporting Vicki since her divorce from her husband in
May, 1979, and he continued to do so as they continued their affair even
after promising Maureene in July, 1978 that the affair was over for good.
Morris admits to having provided the following support to Vicki during the
eleven-month period from may, 1978 through March, 1979 (R. 1504, et seq):
May 30, 1978 $1,500
June 6, 1978 500
June 22, 1978 1,500
July 6, 1978 1,000 (after "reconciling" with
July 30, 1978 1,500 Maureene July 3rd)
Aug. 26, 1978 1,500
Aug. 27, 1978 1,625
Sept. 20, 1978 1,500
Nov. 27, 1978 5,000
Jan. 25, 1979 5,000
March, 1979 2,000
Total $22,625
Morris stopped sending Vicki money only when the present divorce suit was
filed (R. 1506). In addition, Morris loaned Vicki $28,000, at 8% interest,
to enable her to purchase her former husband's interest in their home at the
time of her divorce (R. 1351).
E. Maureene Is Compelled To Seek Divorce
In November, 1978, Morris finally admitted to Maureene that,
notwithstanding the promises that he had made in July to abandon Vicki and
reconcile with Maureene, he had continued to see Vicki in Birmingham, that
she was then five months pregnant with his child, and that he would be going
to Birmingham in a few days to be with her while she had an abortion which
Morris was paying for (R. 364). Over the next sixty days, Maureene concluded
that he simply could not accept the situation any longer. It was apparent
to Maureene that Morris was not going to stop seeing Vicki, and Maureene
was not willing to live in a situation where she knew for a fact that her
husband really had, in effect, two wives (R. 412). Morris was supporting
Vicki and had been doing so for almost a year. He treated Vicki like a
wife, supplying all of her financial and emotional needs. He was there when
she needed him. He was spending almost half a week going back and forth
to Birmingham two or three times a week, attempting to divide his time
between them (R. 412). In January or February, 1979, Maureene told Morris
that she could simply no longer accept this situation, and that she was
going to leave (R. 385). Following this conversation, Morris started trying
to induce Maureene to execute certain agreements (which will be discussed
in detail hereafter) that would permit each of them to have sexual relations
with other parties (R. 385). Maureene refused to sign any of these
agreements (R. 387).
While trying to induce her to sign these agreements, Morris continued to
tell Maureene that he loved her and that he would stop seeing Vicki (R. 390).
However, he did not stop seeing her. During this period he took Vicki and
her children to the ballet in birmingham, and spent the night at Vicki's
house (R. 390). He met Vicki in New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl in January,
1979, where they spent two days together (R. 1473).
In March, 1979, Maureene left Morris for the last time, and she has lived
separate and apart from him ever since (R. 370). Morris and Vicki moved
into the family home in Mathews (R. 370). Maureene commenced the present
suit on March 8, 1979.
Following the final separation, Morris openly continued his relationship
with Vicki. Taking his daughter, Ellie, with him, Morris met Vicki in Los
Angeles on March 10, 1979 (R. 1473). He introduced Vicki to Ellie as "Pat"
(R. 1475), and after leaving Los Angeles the three of them flew to Las Vegas
together (R. 1475). They had only one room for the three of them, but
Morris claimed that Vicki sat up all night in the hotel lobby (R. 1476).
Morris took Vicki to the White House signing of the Israel-Egypt Peace
Treaty on March 26, 1979 (R. 1518). On June 4, 1979, Morris took his
daughter Ellie, and Vicki and her family, to the Grand Hotel (R. 1479).
F. Morris Sets A Trap
In February, 1979, Morris Dees realized that he was in a precarious legal
position. He had been conducting an affair with Vicki McGaha for almost two
years; she had become pregnant by him and had received an abortion which he
had paid for; he was supporting her and spending most of his time with her
and planned to continue to do so; and Maureene, who was fully aware of all
of these facts, and stated that she could not tolerate the situation any
more and was leaving him to institute divorce proceedings. To protect
himself in the impending litigation, Morris had to find a way to neutralize
Maureene.
In February, 1979, after Maureene informed Morris that she was leaving him,
Morris wrote out an agreement, which he showed to her on a Sunday afternoon,
and asked her to stay and live by this agreement (R. 385). This agreement,
identified and introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 30, purported to permit the
parties to lead separate lives but stay married, and provided that they
would not hold anything against each other that had happened either before
or after the date of the agreement (R. 386). The first such purported
agreement (Pl. Ex. 30) provided in part as follows:
"Whereas they "Morris and Maureene) feel that they can better work
toward a more complete and satisfying relationship in their marriage
if they have an open marriage, i.e., where each party, while still
living together as man and wife, be free to have relationships with
the opposite sex, which said relationships may consist of sexual
intercourse. . ."
During the time that he was discussing this agreement and urging her to
sign it, Morris continued to tell Maureene that he loved her and that he had
stopped seeing Vicki (R. 390), which was another lie. Plaintiff's Exhibit
31 is another agreement which Morris drafted because he did not like the
language of the first agreement, and contains this provision:
[PAGE 11 MISSING]
A. Prior to even drawing up these agreements, I agreed to it orally.
I have already said that . . .
Q. When did you first orally agree that your wife, your lawful wife,
could have sexual intercourse with other people?
A. About a day before this agreement was drawn up.
Q. This was some time in February?
A. Yes
Q. And it was one day preceeding the first agreement?
A. Approximately."
***
(At page 253)
"Q. You knew she (Maureene) knew about you and Vicki?
A. About the abortion, and she said, I am going to use that and I
said, Maureene, look if you have somebody you want to have sex with,
go ahead and have sex with them. We said that that night at the bar.
Q. That was clear and unmistakable?
A. Clear and unmistakable.
Q. You encouraged her to and if there was anybody --
A. If you call that encouragement --
G. Morris' Trap Works: The Hotel Room Agreement
On March 4, 1979, Maureene walked naively into the trap which Morris had
set. On that date, she flew to Washington, D.C., where she met Brian
O'Daugharty (R. 576). Maureene knew Mr. O'Daugherty in connection with her
work on the National Endowment, and he was the Director of the Media Arts
Program (R. 341). Morris had told her that she could see anyone she wanted,
as long as she was discreet (R. 578), and her flight to Washington was
booked under the name of Better Foster (R. 576). Maureene and O'Daugherty
had dinner together on the night of March 4th, and returned to her hotel
room (R. 578). When they were in bed together, Morris and a Montgomery
private detective, both of whom had been hiding in the bathroom, jumped out
and started taking photographs, Morris said word in substance as follows:
"Alright sister, you wanted a divorce. Now I want one, because I've
got you where I want you." (R. 586)
Morris was acting crazy, and Maureene thought he was going to kill
everybody in sight. He told her that he had five detectives with him (R.
592). He hit her and gave her a busted jaw. (R. 592). He then started
writing something on paper which he then gave her to sign (R. 422-423).
This document, entered unto evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 43, was a
separation agreement (R. 423). The agreement provided that Morris was
to have custody of Ellie, the parties' nine-year old daughter. Maureene was
to receive "25,000 alimony-in-gross upon the "execution" (sic) of a divorce,
and that in addition she was to receive $1,500 per month as alimony for a
period of three years from the divorce. Under this agreement, Maureene
relinquished all claims to any real estate owned by Morris, and agreed to
return to him the diamond ring which he had given to her. The agreement
recites that, although it is execute on March 5th in Washington, D.C., it
will be notarized by an Alabama notary (the detective) and shall be
governed by the laws of Alabama. Maureene signed the agreement because
she was afraid not to (R. 423).
After returning to Montgomery, Morris asked attorney Paul Lawrey to
handle the divorce based upon the hotel room agreement (R. 412). Although
he knew that Maureene was already represented by Maury Smith, Morris
instructed her to go to Paul Lowery's office for this purpose (R. 427). She
declined to do this, and later Paul Lowery came to the house where Maureene
was staying, with papers for her to sign, but she refused to do so
(R. 428-429).
Apparently in a last effort to induce a settlement with Maureene, Morris
later told her that he was sorry he had the photograph taken in the hotel
room, that he should not have taken them, and that he wanted her to have
them (R. 426). He gave them to her with instructions to destroy them,
telling her that these were the only copies (R. 426). He also gave the
original signed copy of the hotel room agreement. She tore up both
envelopes without looking inside (R. 426). Morris' statement that these
were the only copies of the photographs was another lie, since he introduced
the photographs into evidence at the trial.
H. Morris' Sexual Appetite
Maureene was literally force to file suit for divorce in March, 1979,
because of Morris' obstinate refusal to give up his mistress who he was
then supporting and who had become pregnant by him. However, Maureene
did not give up her marriage easily. Prior to Morris' permanent
involvement with the McGaha woman, Maureene had endured a long series
of degrading incidents which evidenced Morris' voracious and eclectic
sexual appetite. Since early in their marriage, Morris repeatedly bragged
to Maureene that with his looks and his money he could have any woman
he wanted, and he constantly bragged about women propositioning him
(R. 350, et seq). [Some insight into the size of Morris' ego is provided
by his letter of January 22, 1979, to "Ham" Jordan (a copy of which he
sent to Vicki) in which he makes application to be appointed Attorney
General of the United States to replace Griffin Bell, giving as one of his
principal qualifications the fact that "... all my life, I have been a
winner."] (Pl. Ex. 91). Later in the marriage he repeatedly told her of
women that he had had sexual intercourse with during the marriage (R. 354).
He said further that he enjoyed trying to turn on gay people and he
expressed a desire to have an experience with a gay (R. 354).
Early in the larriage, Morris gave her a book on "Open Marriage" and
started encouraging her to have sexual intercourse with other men
(R. 419-420). During the year or so after they were married, Maureene
became aware that her husband was having an affair with a woman name
Becky Logan (R. 458). During the same period, she began receiving
anonymous telephone calls concerning her husband and a black woman
in town (R. 459).
A. Dianne Hicks. In his deposition, Morris admits that in
the spring of 1973 (Morris depo. p. 27), or during the summer of
1973 (Morris depo. p. 25), he had an affair with Dianne Hicks, a
Mobile lawyer who was working for the Southern Poverty Law Center
(Morris depo. p. 25). He had sex with her during a canoe trip down
the Tallapoosa River (Morris depo. p.25), and also in Brewton where
they were working together on a trial (Morris depo. p. 26-27).
B. Cathy Bennett. in the fall of 1974, Morris brought to
the family home in Mathews a girl named Cathy Bennett who was a
psychologist who had worked with Morris on several cases (R. 284).
She stayed in their home in Mathews for about a week, during which
time theu had Bobby Kennedy there as a guest (R. 285). Maureene was
suspicious of her husband's relationship with this girl (R. 286),
and later Morris admitted having an affair with her (R. 1325).
Morris told Mrs. Dees that his affair with her was over in December,
1974, But she later found that he and Cathy continued to conduct an
affair in Atlanta where Morris lived for a period during the Jimmy
Carter campaign (R. 287, 291).
C. Judith Rogers. in the fall of 1977 (R. 1344), Morris
and Maureene held a Little Theatre party at their home, attended by
Dr. Rogers, a Montgomery physician, and his wife Judith, who is a
criminal psychologist (R. 292, 1344, 1345). During the party Morris
admits that he took Judith into a back room of his house, while the
party was going on, and had intercourse with her (R. 1344, 293).
D. Deborah Levy. In the spring of 1976, Morris invited to
the house Deborah Levy who worked for the American Civil Liberties
Union in New York, and the man with whome she lived in New York,
Michael Gaas (R. 299, 303). The Southern Poverty Law Center was
considering starting a magazine in opposition to the death penalty,
and Morris was interviewing Deborah Levy for the job of running the
magazine (R. 301). She was not hired for the job, but she and her
boyfriend did visit the Dees home in Mathews for several days on two
different occasions (R. 301). in August, 1976, Morris and Maureene
took them on a canoe trip down the river (R. 202-203). After
supper, they had all gone to bed in sleeping bags, when Maureene
woke up and found Morris and Deborah naked, having sex on the
sandbar (R. 306). Morris turned to Maureene and insisted that she
have sex with the other man. (R. 306). Later Maureene went back to
sleep and woke up shortly before dawn, and found Morris and Deborah
having intercourse again right next to her (R. 307). While having
intercourse with Deborah, Morris leaned over and kissed Maureene (R.
308). The next morning Maureene objected strongly to the night's
events and stated emphatically that she did not want anything of
that nature to happen again (R. 309). The following month, in
September, 1976, she and Morris went to New York for a tennis
tournament and to take one of the children to a special school in
Boston (R. 310). Over Maureene's objections, Morris insisted upon
visiting Deborah Levy and Michael Gaas (R. 310). While the group
was having dinner together in a restaurant Maureene, returning from
the restroom, overheard Morris and Deborah making plans to be together
the following afternoon (R. 315). Later when confronted with this
Morris admitted having such plans (R. 320). Later in a conversation
among the four of them, Morris stopped the conversation in the
middle and said to Michael Gaas "I've just got to tell you this
because I feel bad about it. I want to tell you that Deborah and I
were planning to go off this afternoon and make love and I just want
to tell you that." (R. 322). This embarassed Maureene and made her
furious (R. 324). Gaas responded that if that's what Morris was here
to do he should just get up and go do it, following which Morris and
Deborah got up and went into the bedroom where they remained for
about forty-five minutes (R. 325, et seq). While they were gone
Maureene had sexual intercourse with Michael (R. 326). Afterward
Morris left the apartment, returned in about thirty minutes and hit
Michael in the face (R. 327).
E. Pamela Horowitz. In the spring of 1977 Morris planned a
trip to Kentucky and invited Maureene to go with him, knowing that
she could not go becuase she was in rehearsal for a play (R. 330).
Over Maureene's objection, he took with him, on his motorcycle
Pamela Horowitz, a lawyer working for the Southern Poverty Law
Center at that time (R. 331). He drove the motorcycle and she rode
behind him from Montgomery to Kentucky, and they were gone for four
or five days, during which they shared the same hotel accomodations
(R. 331-332) F. Charlie Springman (homosexual). On August 11, 1978,
Maureene and Morris' tenth anniversary, they were having dinner at
the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C., and afterward had drinks in
the bar (R. 333, et seq). In the bar, they saw Charlie Springman,
who Maureene knew as a Regional Coordinator for the National
Endownment of the Arts (R. 335). She had told Morris that Springman
was gay, but Morris had never met him. When they saw him in the
bar, Morris suggested inviting him over for a drink (R. 335). After
a while, to Maureene's surprise, Morris suggested that Charlie come
up to the room with them (R. 336). In the room, they drank wine and
talked, and Morris unbuttoned his shirt to the waist (R. 336).
Charlie tried to leave several times but Morris wouldn't let him (R.
337). Finally Morris proposed that Charlie spend the night with
them (R. 337). Mrs. Dees protested, and put on her robe and
nightgown to go to bed (R. 337-338). Soon Charlie and Morris were
in the bed naked, with Maureene in the middle with her gown on (R.
338-339). Springman and Morris hugged and kissed, and Morris tried
to get Charlie to have relations with Maureene, but Springman was
physically unable to because he was not interested (R. 340). In
fact, no one made any effort to have sex with Mrs. Dees during this
incident (R. 341). Springman kissed Morris' penis, and in fact,
Morris complained that he bit him and that it hurt (R. 340). Morris
kissed Springman on Springman's penis (R. 341). After about thirty
minutes they all went to sleep (R. 342). When Maureene woke up the
next morning, Morris was gone (R. 342), but Springman was still
asleep in the bed. After five or ten minutes Morris returned and
found Maureene crying. He apologized for the incident and said that
he would not let anything like that happen again (R. 343). Morris
denies parts of this episode, he admits its essential features:
Morris admits that he invited Springman to the room (R. 1571); that
Maureene put on a nightgown and robe and got into bed (R. 1537);
that Morris got into bed with nothing but his underclothes on (R.
1575); and that Springman got into the bed naked (R. 1590).
G. Morris' Step-Daughter. Holly Buck, Maureene's daughter
by a previous marriage, is eighteen years old (R. 728). She was
seven years old when her mother and Morris married, and she has
lived with them in the house at Mathews from then until the
separation (R. 728). Holly testified that, in the summer of 1977,
Morris attempted to molest her in the following incident (R. 729):
One night Maureene and Morris were sitting drinking wine and
discussing a case Morris was trying. She was with them. Around
eleven or twelve o'clock Maureene went to bed and Holly stayed up
with Morris discussing the case. Morris kept offering Holly wine,
some of which she accepted. At Morris' suggestion, they went
outside to the pool, and he suggested that they go for a swim, but
Holly was tired and declined (R. 731). She went to her room and
then went into the bathroom. Looking out the window, she saw Morris
in the bushes beside the bathroom window looking in (R. 731). She
said "Morris, is that you", but he said nothing and ran away (R.
732). Two months later, she was asleep one night and Morris entered
her room from Ellie's room, through the bathroom. He was in his
underwear and he sat on the bed where Holly was lying on her stomach
facing away from the door. He touched her on the back and woke her
up. He told her that he had brough her a present, and he presented
her with a vibrator. He plugged it in and said he had brought it to
her. He proceeded to rub it on her back and said, "Let me show you
how to use it" (R. 733). She said that's not necessary, but he
started to place it between her legs when she raised he voice and
said no loudly. He then took the vibrator and left (R. 734). All
he had on was a pair of bikini underwear shorts (R. 734). About two
hours later, she had fallen back asleep and he came back in (R.
735). He brought the vibrator with him, plugged it in and said
again, "Let me show you how to use it." He tried to show her again
by putting it between her legs, but she raised her voice again and
he stopped. He took it and left (R. 635). She did not tell her
mother about this incident until the separation when they moved out
of the Mathews house in the spring of 1979 (R. 736).
H. Morris' Future Daughter-in-law. Karen Sherman Dees is
Morris' daughter-in-law, who is married to Morris' son Scooter
(Morris, III) (R. 345). Before Karen and Scooter were married, when
they were eighteen or nineteen, which was three or four years ago,
an incident occurred on Mother's Day at the family home in Mathews
(R. 345). The Dees had Karen and Scooter to dinner at the house,
and they cooked out (R. 346). While Scooter and Maureene were
cleaning up and washing dishes, Karen and Morris went out to go
swimming (R. 345). Five or ten minutes later, Maureene and Scooter
started down the path toward the pool, with Maureene in front. As
she approached the gate, she could see Morris and Karen standing
with their arms around each other with no clothes on, and Morris had
an erection. Maureene immediately turned and told Scooter that she
did not want to go swimming and the two of them headed back to the
house without Scooter having seen anything (R. 347). Later, Karen
and Morris returned from the pool, fully dressed, and the group
stayed in the den for a little while (R. 349). Morris got up and
went to bed, and Maureene joined him a few minutes later. While
lying in the bed, Maureene looked up and saw that Karen had entered
the room (R. 349). She didn't have any clothes on but had a towel
or sheet wrapped around her (R. 350). She came over and got in the
bed on Morris' side (R. 350). Nothing happened, but she remained
there for about ten minutes, and eventually got up and left
(R.350-351). Morris told Maureene that he just couldn't understand
why she came in the room (R. 351).
In 1974 and 1976, after Maureene had become aware of some of
Morris' infidelities, she had two brief sexual liasons; one with
Charles Morgan, with whom she was co-starring in a Little Theatre
production, and the other with Steve Denton, who was visiting in
Montgomery for a tennis tournament.
Part I
For the past several years, the Major Media has portrayed Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center as an "expert" on terrorism, militias, and the Patriot Movement.
Is Morris Dees a trustworthy and truthful source of information, on a subject so dear to the American people as their liberties?
Decide for yourself after reading the following court document. This was forwarded to me by email several years ago. I make no claim as to it's authenticity... Research the facts for yourself. I merely reproduce it here in the public interest. WEB
IN THE ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
MAUREENE BASS DEES )
)
Appellant, )
)
-vs- ) CASE NO. CIV. 2114
)
MORRIS S. DEES, )
)
Appellee. )
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
------------------
MAURY SMITH
JULIA S. WATERS
CHARLES M. CROOK
Attorneys for the Appellant
OF COUNSEL:
SMITH, BOWMAN, THAGARD,
CROOK & CULPEPPER
P.O. Box 78
Montgomery, Al 36101
Telephone: (205) 834-6500
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
----
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................ 4
THE ISSUES ................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ....................................... 5
A. Morris' Financial Condition ........................... 5
B. The Cause Of The Breakup; Vicki Booker McGaha ......... 6
C. The Reconciliation .................................... 6
D. Morris Can't Give Up His Mistress ..................... 7
E. Maureene Is Compelled To Seek Divorce ................. 8
F. Morris Sets A Trap .................................... 9
G. Morris' Trap Works: The Hotel Room Agreement .......... 11
H. Morris' Sexual Appetite ............................... 12
A. Dianne Hicks ...................................... 12
B. Cathy Bennett ..................................... 12
C. Judith Rogers ..................................... 13
D. Deborah Levy ...................................... 13
E. Pamela Horowitz ................................... 13
F. Charlie Springman ................................. 14
G. Morris' Step-Daughter ............................. 14
H. Morris' Future Daughter-in-law .................... 15
ARGUMENT ..................................................... 15
A. The Trial Judge Plainly And Palpably Abused
His Discretion ....................................... 15
1. The Conduct Of The Parties With Reference
To The Cause Of Divorce ........................... 18
(a) Even If The Parties Were Equally At
Fault, The Present Decree Is Indefensible ........ 20
2. The Source Of Their Property ...................... 20
3. The Parties' Standard Of Living During The
Marriage And Their Potential For Maintaining
Or Exceeding That Standard After Their
Divorce ........................................... 22
4. The Financial Circumstances Of The Parties ........ 23
5. The Parties' Future Prospect ...................... 23
6. The Length Of The Marriage ........................ 24
B. Morris Dees' Entire Estate Has Been Used Regularly
For The Common Benefit Of The Parties ................. 24
1. The Real Estate .................................... 26
2. Morris' Other Assets ............................... 27
1968 through 1975 ................................ 27
1975 ............................................. 29
1976 ............................................. 30
1977 ............................................. 30
1978 ............................................. 30
C. The Trial Court Erred In Prohibiting The Wife
From Calling The Husband As A Witness ................. 30
CONCLUSION ................................................... 31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................
At the time of the divorce, Morris' net worth, based upon his own
calculations, was $3,876,029 (R. 1252, et. seq; Def. Ex. 86-87; Stipulation,
R. 231). His annual income exceeds $230,000 (Def. Ex. 76-79), of which more
than $160,000 annually is derived from municipal bonds upon which Morris
pays no income tax (Def. Ex. 28).
B. The Cause Of The Break-up: Vicki Booker McGaha
Although Maureene was subjected to a number of degrading sexual episodes
by Morris during the marriage which will be discussed hereafter, neither
Morris nor Maureene ever wanted or sought a divorce until Morris established
his permanent relationship with Vicki Booker McGaha in August of 1977. It
was Morris' absolute refusal to give up his mistress, whom he was supporting
and whom he had made pregnant, that directly caused termination of
Maureene's marriage and forced her to institute these divorce proceedings.
In August, 1977, Morris tried the "Weisenhunt case" in Birmingham, and
became acquainted with Vicki Booker McGaha, who was a member of that jury
(R. 1459). Thereafter, Morris and Vicki began a sexual affair which has
still not ended, and which was the cause of termination of two marriages.
Following their meeting in Birmingham during the Weisenhunt trial in
August, 1977, Morris had sexual relations with Vicki at Oak Mountain State
Park in Shelby County (R. 1461), the Prattville Holiday Inn, the Holiday Inn
East, the Governor's House Hotel, and the Howard Johnson Motel (R. 1462).
The first trip that he took with her was a four day trip to the "Cajun
Country" in Louisiana on a motorcycle in April, 1978 (R. 1464-1465). In
August, 1978, Vicki joined Morris in Columbus, Georgia, where she stayed
with him at the Holiday Inn (R. 1468).
Maureene first found out about Vicki when she was contacted by Vicki's
husband, who subsequently turned over to her letters that Morris had written
to Vicki and tape recordings of conversations that Morris had had with Vicki
(R. 361-362). Mr. McGaha divorced Vicki McGaha in May, 1978 (R. 1469).
Around this time, at Morris' request, Maureene met with Morris and Vicki
at the Sheraton Mountain Brook Inn to discuss the situation (R. 358). During
this conversation Morris told Maureene that he was in love with Vicki, that
they wanted to be together, and they didn't care if they had anything but a
shack with a dirt floor if they could be together (R. 358). Morris told
Maureene that he and Vicki were going to live together and they they hoped
she would understand. Maureene learned that the affair had been going on
since August of 1977 (R. 280-281, et seq). In later conversations Morris
cried and told Maureene that he loved them both, and that "Vicki has such
beautiful blue eyes and she can see right through you" (R. 360). Following
this meeting, Maureene separated from Morris for the first time and filed
the first suit for divorce (R. 361).
C. The Reconciliation
After Maureene and Morris had been separated for about four to six weeks,
Morris telephoned her and said that he had made a mistake, that he did love
Maureene and wanted her back, and he swore never to see Vicki McGaha again
(R. 282). To assure her of this Morris arranged another meeting among the
three of them as Joe Levin's lake cabin on July 3, 1978 (R. 367, et seq).
This meeting was bizarre. In a three-way conversation Morris would first
ask Vicki to state how much she loved him, and he would then turn to
Maureene to ask her to state how much she loved him (R. 367). It was as if
he were staging a contest to see who loved him the most, or who would do
the most for him (R. 367). After a lengthy conversation, during which
Morris had taken his socks off, he announced, "Alright, I'll tell you girls
my answer when I get my socks on." After taking an inordinate amount of
time putting his socks on, he got up, walked around behind them, put an arm
on each girl, and ceremoniously stated, "I tell you this day, July 3, 1978,
I, Morris Dees, can't live without either one of you." (R. 368). At that
point, Maureene said, "I'll tell you what, Vicki, you can have him."
(R. 368).
In response to these statements by Morris, Maureene made it clear once
again that Morris could not have them both, that he could not remain married
to her and live with Vicki, and that he must make up his mind one way or
another. At the conclusion of the meeting, Morris promised never to see
Vicki again (R. 282). He told Vicki that he and Maureene had reconciled,
and that he could not see her anymore (R. 1357). Morris himself testified
that in Maureene's presense he told Vicki that it was all over and that he
wouldn't see her anymore (R. 1357; 1522-1523).
D. Morris Can't Give Up His Mistress
Morris' promises did not last long. Although Maureene didn't know it at
the time, less than two weeks later he resumed his relationship with Vicki
(R. 1523). By his own admission, he found himself unable to terminate the
relationship with Vicki, in response to questions by his own attorney:
(At R. 366)
Q. (By Mr. Byrne) Now, give the Court some judgement about how many times
you attempted during 1978 and 1979 to break off your relationship with
Vicki Booker?
A. Oh, gosh, about every month I'd say. It was a continual off and on
relationship.
***
(At R. 1367)
A. (By Morris, describing Defendant's Exhibit 103, a letter from Morris
to Vicki) Well, its an undated letter. I think it was in January of
1979, and it basically described the continuing problem of we ought to
end this relationship. I'm telling her that I don't really think I've
got the strength to and I wish she would do it herself."
***
(At R. 1434)
Q. (By Mr. Smith) Let me ask you if you said this or this in substance
in response to a question by Mr. Byrne. 'I attempted every month to
break off my relationship with Vicki'.
A. I think that would be a pretty accurate statement before Maureene
left home."
Morris had been supporting Vicki since her divorce from her husband in
May, 1979, and he continued to do so as they continued their affair even
after promising Maureene in July, 1978 that the affair was over for good.
Morris admits to having provided the following support to Vicki during the
eleven-month period from may, 1978 through March, 1979 (R. 1504, et seq):
May 30, 1978 $1,500
June 6, 1978 500
June 22, 1978 1,500
July 6, 1978 1,000 (after "reconciling" with
July 30, 1978 1,500 Maureene July 3rd)
Aug. 26, 1978 1,500
Aug. 27, 1978 1,625
Sept. 20, 1978 1,500
Nov. 27, 1978 5,000
Jan. 25, 1979 5,000
March, 1979 2,000
Total $22,625
Morris stopped sending Vicki money only when the present divorce suit was
filed (R. 1506). In addition, Morris loaned Vicki $28,000, at 8% interest,
to enable her to purchase her former husband's interest in their home at the
time of her divorce (R. 1351).
E. Maureene Is Compelled To Seek Divorce
In November, 1978, Morris finally admitted to Maureene that,
notwithstanding the promises that he had made in July to abandon Vicki and
reconcile with Maureene, he had continued to see Vicki in Birmingham, that
she was then five months pregnant with his child, and that he would be going
to Birmingham in a few days to be with her while she had an abortion which
Morris was paying for (R. 364). Over the next sixty days, Maureene concluded
that he simply could not accept the situation any longer. It was apparent
to Maureene that Morris was not going to stop seeing Vicki, and Maureene
was not willing to live in a situation where she knew for a fact that her
husband really had, in effect, two wives (R. 412). Morris was supporting
Vicki and had been doing so for almost a year. He treated Vicki like a
wife, supplying all of her financial and emotional needs. He was there when
she needed him. He was spending almost half a week going back and forth
to Birmingham two or three times a week, attempting to divide his time
between them (R. 412). In January or February, 1979, Maureene told Morris
that she could simply no longer accept this situation, and that she was
going to leave (R. 385). Following this conversation, Morris started trying
to induce Maureene to execute certain agreements (which will be discussed
in detail hereafter) that would permit each of them to have sexual relations
with other parties (R. 385). Maureene refused to sign any of these
agreements (R. 387).
While trying to induce her to sign these agreements, Morris continued to
tell Maureene that he loved her and that he would stop seeing Vicki (R. 390).
However, he did not stop seeing her. During this period he took Vicki and
her children to the ballet in birmingham, and spent the night at Vicki's
house (R. 390). He met Vicki in New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl in January,
1979, where they spent two days together (R. 1473).
In March, 1979, Maureene left Morris for the last time, and she has lived
separate and apart from him ever since (R. 370). Morris and Vicki moved
into the family home in Mathews (R. 370). Maureene commenced the present
suit on March 8, 1979.
Following the final separation, Morris openly continued his relationship
with Vicki. Taking his daughter, Ellie, with him, Morris met Vicki in Los
Angeles on March 10, 1979 (R. 1473). He introduced Vicki to Ellie as "Pat"
(R. 1475), and after leaving Los Angeles the three of them flew to Las Vegas
together (R. 1475). They had only one room for the three of them, but
Morris claimed that Vicki sat up all night in the hotel lobby (R. 1476).
Morris took Vicki to the White House signing of the Israel-Egypt Peace
Treaty on March 26, 1979 (R. 1518). On June 4, 1979, Morris took his
daughter Ellie, and Vicki and her family, to the Grand Hotel (R. 1479).
F. Morris Sets A Trap
In February, 1979, Morris Dees realized that he was in a precarious legal
position. He had been conducting an affair with Vicki McGaha for almost two
years; she had become pregnant by him and had received an abortion which he
had paid for; he was supporting her and spending most of his time with her
and planned to continue to do so; and Maureene, who was fully aware of all
of these facts, and stated that she could not tolerate the situation any
more and was leaving him to institute divorce proceedings. To protect
himself in the impending litigation, Morris had to find a way to neutralize
Maureene.
In February, 1979, after Maureene informed Morris that she was leaving him,
Morris wrote out an agreement, which he showed to her on a Sunday afternoon,
and asked her to stay and live by this agreement (R. 385). This agreement,
identified and introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 30, purported to permit the
parties to lead separate lives but stay married, and provided that they
would not hold anything against each other that had happened either before
or after the date of the agreement (R. 386). The first such purported
agreement (Pl. Ex. 30) provided in part as follows:
"Whereas they "Morris and Maureene) feel that they can better work
toward a more complete and satisfying relationship in their marriage
if they have an open marriage, i.e., where each party, while still
living together as man and wife, be free to have relationships with
the opposite sex, which said relationships may consist of sexual
intercourse. . ."
During the time that he was discussing this agreement and urging her to
sign it, Morris continued to tell Maureene that he loved her and that he had
stopped seeing Vicki (R. 390), which was another lie. Plaintiff's Exhibit
31 is another agreement which Morris drafted because he did not like the
language of the first agreement, and contains this provision:
[PAGE 11 MISSING]
A. Prior to even drawing up these agreements, I agreed to it orally.
I have already said that . . .
Q. When did you first orally agree that your wife, your lawful wife,
could have sexual intercourse with other people?
A. About a day before this agreement was drawn up.
Q. This was some time in February?
A. Yes
Q. And it was one day preceeding the first agreement?
A. Approximately."
***
(At page 253)
"Q. You knew she (Maureene) knew about you and Vicki?
A. About the abortion, and she said, I am going to use that and I
said, Maureene, look if you have somebody you want to have sex with,
go ahead and have sex with them. We said that that night at the bar.
Q. That was clear and unmistakable?
A. Clear and unmistakable.
Q. You encouraged her to and if there was anybody --
A. If you call that encouragement --
G. Morris' Trap Works: The Hotel Room Agreement
On March 4, 1979, Maureene walked naively into the trap which Morris had
set. On that date, she flew to Washington, D.C., where she met Brian
O'Daugharty (R. 576). Maureene knew Mr. O'Daugherty in connection with her
work on the National Endowment, and he was the Director of the Media Arts
Program (R. 341). Morris had told her that she could see anyone she wanted,
as long as she was discreet (R. 578), and her flight to Washington was
booked under the name of Better Foster (R. 576). Maureene and O'Daugherty
had dinner together on the night of March 4th, and returned to her hotel
room (R. 578). When they were in bed together, Morris and a Montgomery
private detective, both of whom had been hiding in the bathroom, jumped out
and started taking photographs, Morris said word in substance as follows:
"Alright sister, you wanted a divorce. Now I want one, because I've
got you where I want you." (R. 586)
Morris was acting crazy, and Maureene thought he was going to kill
everybody in sight. He told her that he had five detectives with him (R.
592). He hit her and gave her a busted jaw. (R. 592). He then started
writing something on paper which he then gave her to sign (R. 422-423).
This document, entered unto evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 43, was a
separation agreement (R. 423). The agreement provided that Morris was
to have custody of Ellie, the parties' nine-year old daughter. Maureene was
to receive "25,000 alimony-in-gross upon the "execution" (sic) of a divorce,
and that in addition she was to receive $1,500 per month as alimony for a
period of three years from the divorce. Under this agreement, Maureene
relinquished all claims to any real estate owned by Morris, and agreed to
return to him the diamond ring which he had given to her. The agreement
recites that, although it is execute on March 5th in Washington, D.C., it
will be notarized by an Alabama notary (the detective) and shall be
governed by the laws of Alabama. Maureene signed the agreement because
she was afraid not to (R. 423).
After returning to Montgomery, Morris asked attorney Paul Lawrey to
handle the divorce based upon the hotel room agreement (R. 412). Although
he knew that Maureene was already represented by Maury Smith, Morris
instructed her to go to Paul Lowery's office for this purpose (R. 427). She
declined to do this, and later Paul Lowery came to the house where Maureene
was staying, with papers for her to sign, but she refused to do so
(R. 428-429).
Apparently in a last effort to induce a settlement with Maureene, Morris
later told her that he was sorry he had the photograph taken in the hotel
room, that he should not have taken them, and that he wanted her to have
them (R. 426). He gave them to her with instructions to destroy them,
telling her that these were the only copies (R. 426). He also gave the
original signed copy of the hotel room agreement. She tore up both
envelopes without looking inside (R. 426). Morris' statement that these
were the only copies of the photographs was another lie, since he introduced
the photographs into evidence at the trial.
H. Morris' Sexual Appetite
Maureene was literally force to file suit for divorce in March, 1979,
because of Morris' obstinate refusal to give up his mistress who he was
then supporting and who had become pregnant by him. However, Maureene
did not give up her marriage easily. Prior to Morris' permanent
involvement with the McGaha woman, Maureene had endured a long series
of degrading incidents which evidenced Morris' voracious and eclectic
sexual appetite. Since early in their marriage, Morris repeatedly bragged
to Maureene that with his looks and his money he could have any woman
he wanted, and he constantly bragged about women propositioning him
(R. 350, et seq). [Some insight into the size of Morris' ego is provided
by his letter of January 22, 1979, to "Ham" Jordan (a copy of which he
sent to Vicki) in which he makes application to be appointed Attorney
General of the United States to replace Griffin Bell, giving as one of his
principal qualifications the fact that "... all my life, I have been a
winner."] (Pl. Ex. 91). Later in the marriage he repeatedly told her of
women that he had had sexual intercourse with during the marriage (R. 354).
He said further that he enjoyed trying to turn on gay people and he
expressed a desire to have an experience with a gay (R. 354).
Early in the larriage, Morris gave her a book on "Open Marriage" and
started encouraging her to have sexual intercourse with other men
(R. 419-420). During the year or so after they were married, Maureene
became aware that her husband was having an affair with a woman name
Becky Logan (R. 458). During the same period, she began receiving
anonymous telephone calls concerning her husband and a black woman
in town (R. 459).
A. Dianne Hicks. In his deposition, Morris admits that in
the spring of 1973 (Morris depo. p. 27), or during the summer of
1973 (Morris depo. p. 25), he had an affair with Dianne Hicks, a
Mobile lawyer who was working for the Southern Poverty Law Center
(Morris depo. p. 25). He had sex with her during a canoe trip down
the Tallapoosa River (Morris depo. p.25), and also in Brewton where
they were working together on a trial (Morris depo. p. 26-27).
B. Cathy Bennett. in the fall of 1974, Morris brought to
the family home in Mathews a girl named Cathy Bennett who was a
psychologist who had worked with Morris on several cases (R. 284).
She stayed in their home in Mathews for about a week, during which
time theu had Bobby Kennedy there as a guest (R. 285). Maureene was
suspicious of her husband's relationship with this girl (R. 286),
and later Morris admitted having an affair with her (R. 1325).
Morris told Mrs. Dees that his affair with her was over in December,
1974, But she later found that he and Cathy continued to conduct an
affair in Atlanta where Morris lived for a period during the Jimmy
Carter campaign (R. 287, 291).
C. Judith Rogers. in the fall of 1977 (R. 1344), Morris
and Maureene held a Little Theatre party at their home, attended by
Dr. Rogers, a Montgomery physician, and his wife Judith, who is a
criminal psychologist (R. 292, 1344, 1345). During the party Morris
admits that he took Judith into a back room of his house, while the
party was going on, and had intercourse with her (R. 1344, 293).
D. Deborah Levy. In the spring of 1976, Morris invited to
the house Deborah Levy who worked for the American Civil Liberties
Union in New York, and the man with whome she lived in New York,
Michael Gaas (R. 299, 303). The Southern Poverty Law Center was
considering starting a magazine in opposition to the death penalty,
and Morris was interviewing Deborah Levy for the job of running the
magazine (R. 301). She was not hired for the job, but she and her
boyfriend did visit the Dees home in Mathews for several days on two
different occasions (R. 301). in August, 1976, Morris and Maureene
took them on a canoe trip down the river (R. 202-203). After
supper, they had all gone to bed in sleeping bags, when Maureene
woke up and found Morris and Deborah naked, having sex on the
sandbar (R. 306). Morris turned to Maureene and insisted that she
have sex with the other man. (R. 306). Later Maureene went back to
sleep and woke up shortly before dawn, and found Morris and Deborah
having intercourse again right next to her (R. 307). While having
intercourse with Deborah, Morris leaned over and kissed Maureene (R.
308). The next morning Maureene objected strongly to the night's
events and stated emphatically that she did not want anything of
that nature to happen again (R. 309). The following month, in
September, 1976, she and Morris went to New York for a tennis
tournament and to take one of the children to a special school in
Boston (R. 310). Over Maureene's objections, Morris insisted upon
visiting Deborah Levy and Michael Gaas (R. 310). While the group
was having dinner together in a restaurant Maureene, returning from
the restroom, overheard Morris and Deborah making plans to be together
the following afternoon (R. 315). Later when confronted with this
Morris admitted having such plans (R. 320). Later in a conversation
among the four of them, Morris stopped the conversation in the
middle and said to Michael Gaas "I've just got to tell you this
because I feel bad about it. I want to tell you that Deborah and I
were planning to go off this afternoon and make love and I just want
to tell you that." (R. 322). This embarassed Maureene and made her
furious (R. 324). Gaas responded that if that's what Morris was here
to do he should just get up and go do it, following which Morris and
Deborah got up and went into the bedroom where they remained for
about forty-five minutes (R. 325, et seq). While they were gone
Maureene had sexual intercourse with Michael (R. 326). Afterward
Morris left the apartment, returned in about thirty minutes and hit
Michael in the face (R. 327).
E. Pamela Horowitz. In the spring of 1977 Morris planned a
trip to Kentucky and invited Maureene to go with him, knowing that
she could not go becuase she was in rehearsal for a play (R. 330).
Over Maureene's objection, he took with him, on his motorcycle
Pamela Horowitz, a lawyer working for the Southern Poverty Law
Center at that time (R. 331). He drove the motorcycle and she rode
behind him from Montgomery to Kentucky, and they were gone for four
or five days, during which they shared the same hotel accomodations
(R. 331-332) F. Charlie Springman (homosexual). On August 11, 1978,
Maureene and Morris' tenth anniversary, they were having dinner at
the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C., and afterward had drinks in
the bar (R. 333, et seq). In the bar, they saw Charlie Springman,
who Maureene knew as a Regional Coordinator for the National
Endownment of the Arts (R. 335). She had told Morris that Springman
was gay, but Morris had never met him. When they saw him in the
bar, Morris suggested inviting him over for a drink (R. 335). After
a while, to Maureene's surprise, Morris suggested that Charlie come
up to the room with them (R. 336). In the room, they drank wine and
talked, and Morris unbuttoned his shirt to the waist (R. 336).
Charlie tried to leave several times but Morris wouldn't let him (R.
337). Finally Morris proposed that Charlie spend the night with
them (R. 337). Mrs. Dees protested, and put on her robe and
nightgown to go to bed (R. 337-338). Soon Charlie and Morris were
in the bed naked, with Maureene in the middle with her gown on (R.
338-339). Springman and Morris hugged and kissed, and Morris tried
to get Charlie to have relations with Maureene, but Springman was
physically unable to because he was not interested (R. 340). In
fact, no one made any effort to have sex with Mrs. Dees during this
incident (R. 341). Springman kissed Morris' penis, and in fact,
Morris complained that he bit him and that it hurt (R. 340). Morris
kissed Springman on Springman's penis (R. 341). After about thirty
minutes they all went to sleep (R. 342). When Maureene woke up the
next morning, Morris was gone (R. 342), but Springman was still
asleep in the bed. After five or ten minutes Morris returned and
found Maureene crying. He apologized for the incident and said that
he would not let anything like that happen again (R. 343). Morris
denies parts of this episode, he admits its essential features:
Morris admits that he invited Springman to the room (R. 1571); that
Maureene put on a nightgown and robe and got into bed (R. 1537);
that Morris got into bed with nothing but his underclothes on (R.
1575); and that Springman got into the bed naked (R. 1590).
G. Morris' Step-Daughter. Holly Buck, Maureene's daughter
by a previous marriage, is eighteen years old (R. 728). She was
seven years old when her mother and Morris married, and she has
lived with them in the house at Mathews from then until the
separation (R. 728). Holly testified that, in the summer of 1977,
Morris attempted to molest her in the following incident (R. 729):
One night Maureene and Morris were sitting drinking wine and
discussing a case Morris was trying. She was with them. Around
eleven or twelve o'clock Maureene went to bed and Holly stayed up
with Morris discussing the case. Morris kept offering Holly wine,
some of which she accepted. At Morris' suggestion, they went
outside to the pool, and he suggested that they go for a swim, but
Holly was tired and declined (R. 731). She went to her room and
then went into the bathroom. Looking out the window, she saw Morris
in the bushes beside the bathroom window looking in (R. 731). She
said "Morris, is that you", but he said nothing and ran away (R.
732). Two months later, she was asleep one night and Morris entered
her room from Ellie's room, through the bathroom. He was in his
underwear and he sat on the bed where Holly was lying on her stomach
facing away from the door. He touched her on the back and woke her
up. He told her that he had brough her a present, and he presented
her with a vibrator. He plugged it in and said he had brought it to
her. He proceeded to rub it on her back and said, "Let me show you
how to use it" (R. 733). She said that's not necessary, but he
started to place it between her legs when she raised he voice and
said no loudly. He then took the vibrator and left (R. 734). All
he had on was a pair of bikini underwear shorts (R. 734). About two
hours later, she had fallen back asleep and he came back in (R.
735). He brought the vibrator with him, plugged it in and said
again, "Let me show you how to use it." He tried to show her again
by putting it between her legs, but she raised her voice again and
he stopped. He took it and left (R. 635). She did not tell her
mother about this incident until the separation when they moved out
of the Mathews house in the spring of 1979 (R. 736).
H. Morris' Future Daughter-in-law. Karen Sherman Dees is
Morris' daughter-in-law, who is married to Morris' son Scooter
(Morris, III) (R. 345). Before Karen and Scooter were married, when
they were eighteen or nineteen, which was three or four years ago,
an incident occurred on Mother's Day at the family home in Mathews
(R. 345). The Dees had Karen and Scooter to dinner at the house,
and they cooked out (R. 346). While Scooter and Maureene were
cleaning up and washing dishes, Karen and Morris went out to go
swimming (R. 345). Five or ten minutes later, Maureene and Scooter
started down the path toward the pool, with Maureene in front. As
she approached the gate, she could see Morris and Karen standing
with their arms around each other with no clothes on, and Morris had
an erection. Maureene immediately turned and told Scooter that she
did not want to go swimming and the two of them headed back to the
house without Scooter having seen anything (R. 347). Later, Karen
and Morris returned from the pool, fully dressed, and the group
stayed in the den for a little while (R. 349). Morris got up and
went to bed, and Maureene joined him a few minutes later. While
lying in the bed, Maureene looked up and saw that Karen had entered
the room (R. 349). She didn't have any clothes on but had a towel
or sheet wrapped around her (R. 350). She came over and got in the
bed on Morris' side (R. 350). Nothing happened, but she remained
there for about ten minutes, and eventually got up and left
(R.350-351). Morris told Maureene that he just couldn't understand
why she came in the room (R. 351).
In 1974 and 1976, after Maureene had become aware of some of
Morris' infidelities, she had two brief sexual liasons; one with
Charles Morgan, with whom she was co-starring in a Little Theatre
production, and the other with Steve Denton, who was visiting in
Montgomery for a tennis tournament.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Edgar Steele Banned From The Constitution Party
Source
My name is Edgar J. Steele.
The Constitution Party of Idaho doesn't think I am good enough to be a common member, let alone a candidate for state office on its ticket in 2010. Chairman Paul Venable said so when he returned my membership application with the the word "REJECTED" stamped across its face in giant, red block letters.
I've been good enough to get out the vote for Constitution Party candidates, as followers of my writings well know.
Readers will recall that I encouraged financially supporting Constitution Party candidates in the past, notably Chuck Baldwin, 2008 candidate for President on the party ticket.
I was good enough to generate tons of support and money for Ron Paul, who ultimately endorsed Chuck Baldwin.
My family was good enough to contribute money with which we could ill afford to part.
I'm not good enough to help select Idaho Constitution Party officers or participate in crafting its agenda or message.
I'm not good enough.
Paul Venable, Idaho Constitution Party Chairman, says so.
That's why I won't be allowed to vote at the upcoming North Idaho Constitution Party organizational meeting to be held in Coeur d'Alene just three days from now. Though I will attend this meeting at which officers will be elected, I anticipate that Mr. Venable, who has called the meeting, will have me removed because I am not a member - by force, if necessary. It could be quite a spectacle. You should come watch if you are in the area Wednesday night.
Why was I found unfit for membership? Well, you will have to ask Mr. Venable, since he never bothered to give me a reason for stamping "REJECTED" on my membership application, but I presume it is because he disapproves of my writings on race relations in America. You see, Paul Venable is Black. During my one phone conversation with Mr. Venable, he made it clear that he disapproved of my writings on race, though I had the distinct impression that he had read only out-of-context excerpts like the one he threw in my face. He admitted to never even having looked at my book.
Despite telling me that they were thinking of not even running a candidate for governor, so as to concentrate on more "winnable" races, it was during that phone conversation with Mr. Venable, in which I had sought the party's blessing to run as Governor on the party ticket, that he pledged to "find someone" to run against me in the 2010 Idaho Constitution Party primary election for nomination for Governor if I decide to run, anyway.
I sent another copy of my book under cover of a similar letter to President Obama. Mr. Holder sent back a nice note, thanking me. I like to think that I haven't received anything similar from the White House because Mr. Obama is waiting to finish reading it before acknowledging my attempt to discuss race with him via my book. After all, he did promise to be President for all of us.
Already a member of the National Constitution Party, I applied for membership to the Idaho State chapter because I have been considering running for Governor in next year's election on the Constitution Party ticket. Like Chuck Baldwin, who merely is "affiliated" with the Constitution Party, I previously have avoided joining any parties or groups so as to maintain the degree of separation necessary for credibility both in courtrooms and outside them.
You see, for years I have defended, for free, oppressed members of American society in courts up and down the West Coast on matters where important Constitutional rights were being trampled by our increasingly-authoritarian governmental authorities. These have been largely futile efforts, of course. "There is no justice for the politically incorrect," as I like to say.
Or, as Attorney General Holder says of those who, like I, attempt to discuss race in America: We risk "...at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."
Well, Mr. Holder was absolutely correct, because Paul Venable apparently thinks I lack the character necessary to be an ordinary member of the Idaho Constitution Party.
Never mind my years of unstinting dedication to defending the Constitution in courtrooms against all comers, at the expense of my career.
Never mind all the writing I have done defending Constitutional principles - principles that Mr. Venable discards out of hand by rejecting me.
Never mind the individual rights guaranteed to each and every American, regardless of race, creed or religion, by the US Constitution.
By denying me membership in the Idaho Constitution Party, Paul Venable denies my constitutional right to run for office.
Paul Venable and the Idaho Constitution Party deny my constitutional right to free speech because I am not allowed to speak out during local party meetings.
Paul Venable and the Idaho Constitution Party deny my constitutional right to free association because I am not allowed to attend local Constitution Party meetings.
Paul Venable denies me equal protection under the law because others who have not personally offended him are allowed to be members, to speak out during meetings and, even, to run for office.
Paul Venable and the Idaho Constitution Party deny me my constitutional right to due process by summarily rejecting me without providing reasons or an opportunity to appeal or, even, to be heard concerning my party membership rejection.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Who is going to save the Constitution, not to mention the Constitution Party, from Paul Venable?
Indeed, since Mr. Venable gets to reject members at all, let alone without cause, leads one to ask just how one becomes a member of the Idaho Constitution Party unless one first passes muster with Mr. Venable's personal prejudices.
I long have spoken out against affirmative action, racial quotas, set-asides and racial preferences of every stripe. The racial pendulum has swung much too far in America and it is long past time that we brought it back to center and rendered true equality among the races.
We offered Blacks equal opportunity, but they have demanded and received equal outcome, with no regard for merit in the process.
We offered Blacks a leg up, but they have rewarded us by stepping upon us in the process.
Enough, I say. Far too much, in fact.
Clearly, Paul Venable is a racist in every sense of the word.
This abjectly racist conduct by Paul Venable and, through him, the Idaho Constitution Party cannot be allowed to stand. If you allow them to do it to me, they can do it to anybody, including you ... and will, rest assured.
1. Demand my immediate instatement as a member in good standing of the Idaho Constitution Party.
2. Demand Paul Venable's resignation as Idaho's party chairman so that he is unable to continue his campaign of perversion of the very principles upon which the Constitution Party is founded.
Contact information for the national headquarters of the Constitution Party:
Chairman: Jim Clymer
Constitution Party
P.O. Box 1782, Lancaster, PA 17608
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
On-line email: https://secure.giftwrapplus.org/cpnc/eu/contactus/
(though the on-line email link seems to yield an error, click through to the form anyway - unable to find a proper email address at the national headquarters anyplace on line)
Contact information for the Idaho headquarters of the Constitution Party:
State Chairman: Paul Venable
P. O. Box 695, Parma, Idaho 83660
www.CPIdaho.org
chairman@cpidaho.org
My name is Edgar J. Steele.
The Constitution Party of Idaho doesn't think I am good enough to be a common member, let alone a candidate for state office on its ticket in 2010. Chairman Paul Venable said so when he returned my membership application with the the word "REJECTED" stamped across its face in giant, red block letters.
Good Enough
I've been good enough to vote for Constitution Party candidates since the days it called itself the Taxpayers' Party. I've been good enough to get out the vote for Constitution Party candidates, as followers of my writings well know.
Readers will recall that I encouraged financially supporting Constitution Party candidates in the past, notably Chuck Baldwin, 2008 candidate for President on the party ticket.
I was good enough to generate tons of support and money for Ron Paul, who ultimately endorsed Chuck Baldwin.
My family was good enough to contribute money with which we could ill afford to part.
Not Good Enough
But I'm not good enough to be a member of the very party I have supported so vigorously down through the years. I'm not good enough to help select Idaho Constitution Party officers or participate in crafting its agenda or message.
I'm not good enough.
Paul Venable, Idaho Constitution Party Chairman, says so.
REJECTED
"REJECTED." That's Mr. Venable's opinion of my worthiness to be even a rank-and-file member of the Idaho Constitution Party.That's why I won't be allowed to vote at the upcoming North Idaho Constitution Party organizational meeting to be held in Coeur d'Alene just three days from now. Though I will attend this meeting at which officers will be elected, I anticipate that Mr. Venable, who has called the meeting, will have me removed because I am not a member - by force, if necessary. It could be quite a spectacle. You should come watch if you are in the area Wednesday night.
Why was I found unfit for membership? Well, you will have to ask Mr. Venable, since he never bothered to give me a reason for stamping "REJECTED" on my membership application, but I presume it is because he disapproves of my writings on race relations in America. You see, Paul Venable is Black. During my one phone conversation with Mr. Venable, he made it clear that he disapproved of my writings on race, though I had the distinct impression that he had read only out-of-context excerpts like the one he threw in my face. He admitted to never even having looked at my book.
Despite telling me that they were thinking of not even running a candidate for governor, so as to concentrate on more "winnable" races, it was during that phone conversation with Mr. Venable, in which I had sought the party's blessing to run as Governor on the party ticket, that he pledged to "find someone" to run against me in the 2010 Idaho Constitution Party primary election for nomination for Governor if I decide to run, anyway.
A Nation of Cowards
Recently, Black US Attorney General Eric Holder stated that we are a "nation of cowards" because we are afraid to discuss race. He was right. I promptly sat down and wrote Mr. Holder a letter, enclosing a copy of my book, Defensive Racism, An Unapologetic Examination of Racial Differences as evidence of the fact that not all Americans have been afraid to discuss race. I sent another copy of my book under cover of a similar letter to President Obama. Mr. Holder sent back a nice note, thanking me. I like to think that I haven't received anything similar from the White House because Mr. Obama is waiting to finish reading it before acknowledging my attempt to discuss race with him via my book. After all, he did promise to be President for all of us.
Already a member of the National Constitution Party, I applied for membership to the Idaho State chapter because I have been considering running for Governor in next year's election on the Constitution Party ticket. Like Chuck Baldwin, who merely is "affiliated" with the Constitution Party, I previously have avoided joining any parties or groups so as to maintain the degree of separation necessary for credibility both in courtrooms and outside them.
You see, for years I have defended, for free, oppressed members of American society in courts up and down the West Coast on matters where important Constitutional rights were being trampled by our increasingly-authoritarian governmental authorities. These have been largely futile efforts, of course. "There is no justice for the politically incorrect," as I like to say.
Or, as Attorney General Holder says of those who, like I, attempt to discuss race in America: We risk "...at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."
Well, Mr. Holder was absolutely correct, because Paul Venable apparently thinks I lack the character necessary to be an ordinary member of the Idaho Constitution Party.
Never mind my years of unstinting dedication to defending the Constitution in courtrooms against all comers, at the expense of my career.
Never mind all the writing I have done defending Constitutional principles - principles that Mr. Venable discards out of hand by rejecting me.
Never mind the individual rights guaranteed to each and every American, regardless of race, creed or religion, by the US Constitution.
Constitutional Irony
The irony of Paul Venable and the Idaho Constitution Party denying me mere membership in the state chapter of the party will not be lost upon students of the US Constitution, since Mr. Venable thereby denies me many of the rights guaranteed every American under the US Constitution:By denying me membership in the Idaho Constitution Party, Paul Venable denies my constitutional right to run for office.
Paul Venable and the Idaho Constitution Party deny my constitutional right to free speech because I am not allowed to speak out during local party meetings.
Paul Venable and the Idaho Constitution Party deny my constitutional right to free association because I am not allowed to attend local Constitution Party meetings.
Paul Venable denies me equal protection under the law because others who have not personally offended him are allowed to be members, to speak out during meetings and, even, to run for office.
Paul Venable and the Idaho Constitution Party deny me my constitutional right to due process by summarily rejecting me without providing reasons or an opportunity to appeal or, even, to be heard concerning my party membership rejection.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Who Will Save the Constitution?
Reportedly, when Mr. Venable, a newcomer from Ohio, first arrived in North Idaho to help organize the local chapter of the Idaho Constitution Party, he announced that he was "here to save the Constitution" for us local residents. Who is going to save the Constitution, not to mention the Constitution Party, from Paul Venable?
Indeed, since Mr. Venable gets to reject members at all, let alone without cause, leads one to ask just how one becomes a member of the Idaho Constitution Party unless one first passes muster with Mr. Venable's personal prejudices.
Yes, Let's Do Talk About Race and Racism
Whites in America have suffered affirmative action due to a false sense of guilt about the treatment of blacks we never knew by whites with whom we have nothing in common except skin color. Today's action by Paul Venable and the Idaho Constitution Party makes clear that we merely were trading places with those who had been discriminated against in the past. I long have spoken out against affirmative action, racial quotas, set-asides and racial preferences of every stripe. The racial pendulum has swung much too far in America and it is long past time that we brought it back to center and rendered true equality among the races.
We offered Blacks equal opportunity, but they have demanded and received equal outcome, with no regard for merit in the process.
We offered Blacks a leg up, but they have rewarded us by stepping upon us in the process.
Enough, I say. Far too much, in fact.
Clearly, Paul Venable is a racist in every sense of the word.
This abjectly racist conduct by Paul Venable and, through him, the Idaho Constitution Party cannot be allowed to stand. If you allow them to do it to me, they can do it to anybody, including you ... and will, rest assured.
Speak Out
Speak out on this and:1. Demand my immediate instatement as a member in good standing of the Idaho Constitution Party.
2. Demand Paul Venable's resignation as Idaho's party chairman so that he is unable to continue his campaign of perversion of the very principles upon which the Constitution Party is founded.
Contact information for the national headquarters of the Constitution Party:
Chairman: Jim Clymer
Constitution Party
P.O. Box 1782, Lancaster, PA 17608
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
On-line email: https://secure.giftwrapplus.org/cpnc/eu/contactus/
(though the on-line email link seems to yield an error, click through to the form anyway - unable to find a proper email address at the national headquarters anyplace on line)
Contact information for the Idaho headquarters of the Constitution Party:
State Chairman: Paul Venable
P. O. Box 695, Parma, Idaho 83660
www.CPIdaho.org
chairman@cpidaho.org
Don't Tread On Pipe Tobacco
Just about every member of the pipe smoking community should already know about H.R. 4439, the Tobacco Tax Parity Act of 2010. It proposes to raise the tax on pipe tobacco 775% from $2.8311 to $24.78 per pound. Many of you have signed our Petition to Stop the Pipe Tobacco Tax. While I am quite pleased with the support the pipe community has shown in rallying against this bill, many of the comments, attitudes and opinions expressed have been disappointing and disheartening to say the least.
We are thankful for the support, but we are frustrated with the finger-pointing, self-segregation of smokers and suggestions to tax other things that are Personal Lifestyle Choices.
Those of us that enjoy pipe smoking are not happy about more and more taxes being placed on pipe tobacco. We also don’t like all the new smoking restrictions that keep popping up, especially the ludicrous restrictions against outdoor smoking and no smoking inside a tobacconist’s shop. Yes, there are some localities that have passed and proposed laws outlawing smoking indoors, including tobacco shops and smoking lounges.
Read the rest here.
We are thankful for the support, but we are frustrated with the finger-pointing, self-segregation of smokers and suggestions to tax other things that are Personal Lifestyle Choices.
Those of us that enjoy pipe smoking are not happy about more and more taxes being placed on pipe tobacco. We also don’t like all the new smoking restrictions that keep popping up, especially the ludicrous restrictions against outdoor smoking and no smoking inside a tobacconist’s shop. Yes, there are some localities that have passed and proposed laws outlawing smoking indoors, including tobacco shops and smoking lounges.
Read the rest here.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Department of Education Buying Shotguns
Source
Remington Shotguns
Solicitation Number: EDOOIG-10-000004
Agency: Department of Education
Office: Contracts & Acquisitions Management
Location: Contracts (All ED Components)
Solicitation Number:
EDOOIG-10-000004 Notice Type:
Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Synopsis:
Added: Mar 08, 2010 10:39 am
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14" - PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT - XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID - 14" LOP are designated as the only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
The required date of delivery is March 22, 2010.
Interested sources must submit detailed technical capabilities and any other information that demonstrates their ability to meet the requirements above, no later than March 12, 2010 at 12 PM, E.S.T. Any quotes must be submitted electronically to the attention of Holly.Le@ed.gov, Contract Specialist (Contract Operations Group), with a concurrent copy to Sherese.Lewis@ed.gov, Contracting Officer (Contract Operations Group).
The following clauses are applicable to this requirement:
52-212-1 Instruction to Offerors - Commercial Items
52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items
52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications - Commercial Items
52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items
52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required Implementing Statutes or Executive Orders - Commercial Items
In accordance with 52.212-2, the fill-in applicable to this requirement is below:
52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items.
As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows:
Evaluation-Commercial Items (Jan 1999)
(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:
(i) Technical Capability
(ii) Price
In accordance with 52.212-5, the following clauses are applicable to this requirement:
52.225-1 Buy American Act - Supplies (February 2009)
52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer-Central
New equipment only; no remanufactured products. No partial shipments
Offer must be good for 30 calendar days after submission.
Offerors must have current Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at the time offer is submitted. Information can be found at www.ccr.gov.
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. The Government will award a commercial item purchase order to the offeror with the most advantageous offer to the government. All offerors must submit their best price and delivery capabilities.
Place of Delivery:
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
c/o: Gary Pawlak, Special Agent
500 West Madison Street - Suite 1414
Chicago, IL 60661
Contracting Office Address:
550 12th Street, SW, 7th Floor
Washington, District of Columbia 20202
Primary Point of Contact.:
Holly Le,
Contract Specialist
Holly.Le@ed.gov
Phone: 202-245-6070
Fax: 202-245-6297
Secondary Point of Contact:
Sherese Perrin Lewis,
Contracting Officer
Sherese.Lewis@ed.gov
Phone: 202-245-6235
Fax: 202-245-6296
Remington Shotguns
Solicitation Number: EDOOIG-10-000004
Agency: Department of Education
Office: Contracts & Acquisitions Management
Location: Contracts (All ED Components)
Solicitation Number:
EDOOIG-10-000004 Notice Type:
Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Synopsis:
Added: Mar 08, 2010 10:39 am
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14" - PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT - XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID - 14" LOP are designated as the only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
The required date of delivery is March 22, 2010.
Interested sources must submit detailed technical capabilities and any other information that demonstrates their ability to meet the requirements above, no later than March 12, 2010 at 12 PM, E.S.T. Any quotes must be submitted electronically to the attention of Holly.Le@ed.gov, Contract Specialist (Contract Operations Group), with a concurrent copy to Sherese.Lewis@ed.gov, Contracting Officer (Contract Operations Group).
The following clauses are applicable to this requirement:
52-212-1 Instruction to Offerors - Commercial Items
52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items
52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications - Commercial Items
52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items
52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required Implementing Statutes or Executive Orders - Commercial Items
In accordance with 52.212-2, the fill-in applicable to this requirement is below:
52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items.
As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows:
Evaluation-Commercial Items (Jan 1999)
(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:
(i) Technical Capability
(ii) Price
In accordance with 52.212-5, the following clauses are applicable to this requirement:
52.225-1 Buy American Act - Supplies (February 2009)
52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer-Central
New equipment only; no remanufactured products. No partial shipments
Offer must be good for 30 calendar days after submission.
Offerors must have current Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at the time offer is submitted. Information can be found at www.ccr.gov.
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. The Government will award a commercial item purchase order to the offeror with the most advantageous offer to the government. All offerors must submit their best price and delivery capabilities.
Place of Delivery:
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
c/o: Gary Pawlak, Special Agent
500 West Madison Street - Suite 1414
Chicago, IL 60661
Contracting Office Address:
550 12th Street, SW, 7th Floor
Washington, District of Columbia 20202
Primary Point of Contact.:
Holly Le,
Contract Specialist
Holly.Le@ed.gov
Phone: 202-245-6070
Fax: 202-245-6297
Secondary Point of Contact:
Sherese Perrin Lewis,
Contracting Officer
Sherese.Lewis@ed.gov
Phone: 202-245-6235
Fax: 202-245-6296
Saturday, March 6, 2010
McAmnesty At It Again
The spineless cowards who voted for this piece of trash are a disgrace to themselves and this country.
"Former Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman and former GOP presidential candidate John McCain have introduced a new detention policy bill in response to the Christmas Day underwear bomber. From The Atlantic: "A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity."
This is another reminder of why, as horrible as Obama is on practically every issue, his competition was likely no better. Not that I expect Obama to veto this monstrosity. On detention policy, he has proven himself to be approximately as bad as his predecessor, if not worse.
Can we build a bipartisan police state, complete with the destruction of the last vestiges of due process, while we distract the public with political sideshows and debates over whether the government should control 60% or 61% of the economy? Yes we can."
Source
"Former Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman and former GOP presidential candidate John McCain have introduced a new detention policy bill in response to the Christmas Day underwear bomber. From The Atlantic: "A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity."
This is another reminder of why, as horrible as Obama is on practically every issue, his competition was likely no better. Not that I expect Obama to veto this monstrosity. On detention policy, he has proven himself to be approximately as bad as his predecessor, if not worse.
Can we build a bipartisan police state, complete with the destruction of the last vestiges of due process, while we distract the public with political sideshows and debates over whether the government should control 60% or 61% of the economy? Yes we can."
Source
Thursday, March 4, 2010
America's Deadliest Sweetner Seeks Facelift
Aspartame producer Ajinomoto is launching a new initiative that will rebrand the sweetener as “AminoSweet.”
Aspartame is used in many foods and beverages marketed as low calorie or sugar-free. However, its reputation has been clouded somewhat by studies that have investigated reports of ill effects.
Just to remind you, the side effects of aspartame can include:
* Headache
* Change in vision
* Convulsions and seizures
* Hallucination
* Nausea and vomiting
* Joint pain
It can cause many, many other problems as well.
Source: FoodBev 2010
Full Article Here
Aspartame is used in many foods and beverages marketed as low calorie or sugar-free. However, its reputation has been clouded somewhat by studies that have investigated reports of ill effects.
Just to remind you, the side effects of aspartame can include:
* Headache
* Change in vision
* Convulsions and seizures
* Hallucination
* Nausea and vomiting
* Joint pain
It can cause many, many other problems as well.
Source: FoodBev 2010
Full Article Here
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Ernst Zundel Free At Last!
Truth In Our Time welcomes home Ernst Zundel! We are excited that he will be reunited with his wife, and look forward to what he has in store for the future.
Here is a letter from his wife.
Here is a letter from his wife.
Alex Jones Is A Fraud
I have posted before about Alex Jones being a zionist shill, and have even posted the videos of him breaking up this pro 2nd amendment rally but this is still a good video showing the world the truth about Alex "the arabs run hollywood" Jones.
Government Motors Recalls 1.3 Million Vehicles
Story here.
Let's make sure everyone hears about this one. The controlled media certainly has done everything in it's power to demonize non unionized Toyota.
Ron Paul Wins Big
Ron Paul has decimated his opponents for the GOP primary, much to the chagrin of the Neo Con Party leaders.
Congratulations to Dr. Paul and the great people of Texas's 14th District!
| U.S. House District 14 | In: | 100% |
John Gay | 3,003 | 5.3% |
Tim Graney | 5,536 | 9.7% |
Ron Paul (I) | 45,947 | 80.8% |
Gerald Wall | 2,402 | 4.2% |
Congratulations to Dr. Paul and the great people of Texas's 14th District!
Monday, March 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)