Slashdot Mirror
Conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens Is Thrown Out
A federal judge has thrown out the conviction of the senator who educated us all about the true nature of the Internet. Ted Stevens had been convicted last fall of lying about free home renovations that he received from an oil contractor, 8 days before he lost his Senate re-election bid. The judge blasted the US Department of Justice prosecutors for mishandling the case in ways that might rise to the level of criminality. "In 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approach the mishandling and misconduct in this case," Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said. He called the allegations "shocking and disturbing." According to the article, "Several jurors have told The Washington Post that the evidence against Stevens was overwhelming during a month-long trial that ended in October."
Much of the hearing today focused on what transpired during an April 15, 2008, interview with the key witness, Bill Allen. During that interview, according to notes taken by two of the prosecutors, Allen said he did not recall talking to a friend of Stevens's about sending the senator a bill for work on his home, according to Sullivan.
Under oath at trial, however, Allen testified that he was told by the friend to ignore a note Stevens sent seeking a bill for the remodeling work.
"Bill, don't worry about getting a bill" for Stevens, Allen said the friend told him. "Ted is just covering his [expletive]."
Ok, so we have Ted Stevens asking for a bill on the remodeling, like he should. But it sounds like one was never received or produced. So what was Stevens convicted of?
After a month-long trial, Stevens was convicted of not reporting on Senate disclosure forms that he accepted about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his home in Girdwood, Alaska. Most of the gifts and free remodeling work were supplied by Bill Allen, chief executive of Veco, a now-defunct oil services company.
Ok, regardless of whether or not an invoice was ever produced, the Senate is required to report things like this on their financial disclosure forms so that under the table payments can be discovered. It still sounds like he's guilty for failing to put "I just got these bitching additions to my house from this contractor for $0." Which should spark an investigation.
My point is whether they find him guilty or not, he failed his duties as a senator. It's a shame the prosecution botched this case and withheld that evidence from the court as he's still guilty of failing to disclose this information publicly on his financial disclosure form.
My work here is dung.
What is annoying here is this doesn't mean he isn't guilty - it's just that the prosecutors really messed up.
It wouldn't surprise me.
(No I did not RTFA. How did you know?!)
Why is this YRO?
Now, the process that have freed this sleeze-ball are also the processes that help in preventing the innocent from being railroaded. I'd rather free an occasional sleeze than see a lot of innocents convicted unjustly.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Procedural mistakes should not overturn convictions that are this overwhelming. The practice of law used to require one book, when we found this nation maybe a 100 now there are 10's of thousands of books involving the law in various aspects and it has gotten to be too much. We need to reboot the justice department by rewriting the laws so they are prudent, consistent and concise.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I don't think there should be a problem with what Stevens did. If the government were prohibited from interfering in the economy, there wouldn't be any incentive for a oil company to renovate a politician's house, of all things.
In such situations, all I have to ask is, "where does the actual use of force come into play?" Answer that, and you'll know who is responsible for the violation of rights. In this case, as in the rest, the force - through selective laws that hinder competition and benefit a select few - is supplied by politicians.
None of the things Steven's was accused of receiving illegally were false. Just the amount of value in them.
So a $250,000 felon, or a $80,000 felon..either way he still should be a felon by any reasonable definition.
I'll say that the decision to not retry him is reasonable given his age. His record is, ahem, clean, but his tattered reputation is frankly, well deserved.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Apparently, prosecutors illegally withheld evidence from the defense that was contradictory to their case.
Perhaps if Stevens was given a fair trial, the jury may have seen things differently.
From everything published about this and "tube" Stevens conduct looks like he is guilty. This may even have been botched on purpose as these prosecutors are from Bush appointees.
My father-in-law faced one of the prosecutors in a tax case once. She pulled a lot of the same crap then, harassing witnesses, changing the story she was trying to prosecute, etc.
This is almost certainly like O.J. Simpson, where a guilty man was framed.
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
Mr. Stevens is a criminal. The system encourages his behavior. All Congressmen take bribes. You can't get elected if you don't.
Now lying, on the other hand, is contemptible, and if the charge is true, Stevens should be held to account.
After hearing and reading a bit about the actions of the prosecution, I unfortunately agree with this decision. The actions they took were so egregious that they should not be allowed to proceed.
Now... whether the charges on Stevens should've been permanently thrown out forever, I don't know - that seems a bit much. But you can't consistently withhold evidence from the defense and expect your case to be supported by an impartial judge.
Stevens is almost certainly guilty, from everything I've seen and read, but that doesn't mean he's not entitled to a fair trial.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Losing his job was the worst punishment Stevens could have received. The only downside is now they won't rename the airport.
See my comment to see that these processes and procedures are in place to protect the innocent from being railroaded, harassed, and driven into debt unjustly. The types of abuses that occured before in the U.S. and occur in other countries to this day.
It does mean that the occassional sleeze bucket goes free, murderous teens get out after a few months, and scum balls can make deals. But, it is there so you don't thrown in jail by the local La Costa Nostra-wannabe Sheriff with a grudge.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
do what you will" shall be the whole of the law.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The Justice Department had a pretty solid case at the beginning, and the Prosecutors bungled it either due to negligence or incompetence. So, the head of the dept changes, reviews, and cans one of the best cases as an example to others in his department that the "no holds barred" approach was no longer acceptable, and that all cases would be held accountable. I tip my hat to the new AG, godspeed in cleaning house, you have a mess on your hands.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Several jurors have told The Washington Post that the evidence against Stevens was overwhelming during a month-long trial that ended in October.
Doesn't matter, and surprised /. would post such a trolling and/or clueless aside. The judge ruled the prosecution mishandled evidence and witnesses. The finders of fact, the jurors, were therefore incapable of reaching a just verdict. Their opinions don't matter, because what they heard and saw has been ruled as hopelessly corrupted by prosecutorial misconduct.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Yeah, considering that our legal system is a Common Law system, and that it inherited from British Common Law with all it's many-centuries history, it's ridiculous to think that legal practice was ever simple enough to be contained in only a hundred books, much less one.
The enemies of Democracy are
This is trolling: Where's the sense of proportion? This was a mutual dealing between two people. It just so happens the guy receiving the favors has a vote in congress. Maybe there's something here, but its like fixing a scratch on the wall in a mobile home.
Compare this against what's happening with taxpayer dollars; Trillions of dollars going from my and your pockets directly into shady Banks, who will lose our money just like they lost their own.
I first heard about the case being dismissed on NPR on April 1st. I was assuming it was an April Fool's Day gag that all the news outlets were picking up.
--- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
Ted Stevens is awesome. Only in Alaska can a man this corrupt live to 85 and never go to jail. Alaska is the anarcho-capitalist Promised Land.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Surely something of this magnitude, someone got fired, right?
Were the prosecutors Republicans or Democrats? It's one thing to have an impartial prosecution of a politican before an election, but a crooked deeply partisan is unacceptable. He does sound guilty though, but who knows what the prosecutors lied about.
Enjoy your staying power.
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." - Anon
Stevens is not necessarily retired: Palin, Republicans call for special Senate election.
He could still be re-elected if Palin and the Republicans get their way. It would be a good thing too, my tubes were just again becoming clogged by too many internets. I keep trying to fix it myself, but I think my problem might be that I'm thinking of the internet as a big truck and that's just not right. It's not a big truck -- I really wish some helpful senator would come fix it for me. No!
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
I honestly can't believe that as much media attention as that whole rigamarole got that said prosecutors would be able to get away with this kind of mishandling of a federal case.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Well, the thing with home renovations is that it's not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.
Especially with plumbing for your home: that's a series of tubes. So, Mr. Stevens was simply suggesting a way for you to not just dump something on.
My father-in-law faced one of the prosecutors in a tax case once. She pulled a lot of the same crap then, harassing witnesses, changing the story she was trying to prosecute, etc.
Exactly. What should be disappointing is not that the case was dismissed, but that much of what went on probably happens in most criminal cases, and it was only because of the political power Stevens wields that the judge decided to call prosecutors on it.
If you want a decent parallel: selective/discretionary enforcement of speed/traffic laws. You can't possibly stop everyone- which works nicely as an excuse for both why you didn't stop the rich white guy, and why you did stop the guy with the turban. Add in "officer's discretion" on whether to write a ticket or warning for a nice cherry on top of the "tools to discriminate" pie.
Please help metamoderate.
As the Liberal Media have been pointing out, the prosecutors here were the corrupt and politically biased Bush Administration Justice Department, which was led by the corrupt Alberto Gonzalez, who Stevens had voted to confirm a few years before. So if there was intentional misconduct, well, nyahh nyahh.
Of course, if there was prosecutorial misconduct, and they have to drop those charges, chances are good that they've blown their Double Jeopardy roll and can't try him again and can't throw the old man in jail.
But that doesn't mean Stevens wasn't corrupt enough to deserve not to get re-elected, even though the Republicans are now trying to pretend that since they're the minority party, they should get a do-over on the election.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Most of the disputed "gift" expenses concern oilfield promoter-contractor VECO Corp and Bill Allen trying to curry favor and a false image as an efficient, low cost contractor on Stevens' house. VECO's bad planning and futzing around probably doubled VECO/Allen's out of pocket costs for rennovation, where Stevens paid approximately what the result was actually worth.
I am an Anchorage home owner with as much rennovation, a lot of oil suits hate me, and I have repeatedly voted against that old coot but this was a "people's court" lynching.
The false testimony was the entire case. The actual facts of the case is that Senator Ted Stevens did in fact request the bill for the renovations exactly as he has claimed. The testimony to the contrary was fabricated by the prosecution, and exculpatory evidence was hidden by the prosecution. He was convicted for making false statements, when his statements were true.
There was no $250,000, there was no $80,000 -- there was just false testimony presented by the prosecution.
Here's to hoping the prosecutors get a long stay in federal prison.
You might say that his conviction went down the tubes.
~~~~~~~~~
dissertus scribendo latine videri volo.
The prosecution did indeed screw up, but keep in mind, the system worked as intended. Because of misconduct by the prosecution team, the entire trial of Ted Stevens was tainted, and his conviction was rightfully tossed.
At this point, it doesn't even matter if he really was guilty or innocent. Once the prosecution screws up this badly, everything about the case is thrown into question. We should not let our personal feelings of someone cloud our judgment. If you were standing trial for something that could potentially land you in prison and the prosecution withheld key evidence, you would be wanting your conviction to be tossed as well.
At this point, all that matters is that Ted Stevens did not get a fair trial. Regardless of the letter next to his name (R or D), he still has rights and we would want the same treatment if we were in his place. Does it suck that serial murderers and serial rapists can potentially get off on a technicality?* Yes. C'est la vie.
*No, I'm not comparing Stevens to a murderer or rapist, I'm just pointing out that this system applies to everyone who is accused, from petty thieves to serial killers.
Best "String" Ever!
Seems to me like you went ahead and convicted him anyway...
Overturning the Stevens conviction is a cover, but not for what you might think. THe big problem facing the Obama administration is that the Justice Department is radically broken. For the past eight years hiring of career Justice Department employees has been a partisan affair, with conservative political beliefs being the litmus test. Partly because of this a culture of corruption has spread.
So, how does the Stevens reversal play into this?
1) Reverse Stevens convictions, getting approval from Republicans, so when you
2) start overturning other political witch hunts you have cover, and then
3) use the overturned cases as a way to go after corrupt Justice Department officials, giving you concrete reasons to fire them.
So, this is just the beginning. Wait and watch.
Why do you think it is less human to be free? I think that participating in a society where you must constantly hold everyone else in check at the point of a gun makes us less human. What Man would chose live his whole life in constant fear of punishment so that they might exact the same on another? Maturity means not choosing to sacrifice my freedom for the false promise of security. The world today is populated by adult children. I want no part of that.
What are the odds that one or more of the "prosecutors" were planted by Stevens or his allies?
I know that's totally tin-foil-hat-enducing conspiracy theory, but with how rich and connected this guy is, is it unreasonable to think that he convinced someone to have someone else make a few mistakes?
Maybe there *should* be criminal charges against the prosecution, but not necessarily in the way that the judge has implied.
But I also think that we need a new (fair) trial, and that this guy should not get off just because he's old or no longer in power. And that's what it looks like has happened. (And no, his "damaged reputation" is not punishment enough if he is indeed guilty.)
-David
THAT is when you know there's a ream of evidence.
And this isn't overturned because of manufactured evidence or even evidence of no crime. This was overturned on a procedural technicality.
That the contractor said "hey, it's free" and Ted never wrote anything down saying "thanks" personally doesn't prove squat.
If it had been $50 worth of paint, maybe. $X0,000 renovation? NO WAY.
If you walk out with $20 of unpaid goods in your pocket you won't get to demand the CCTV footage that shows you looking at the item, taking out a hanky to blow your nose and then putting the hanky and the item "absent-mindedly" in your pocket before walking to the till to pay your other goods. If they refused, you wouldn't get off scott free.
'cept unless you have high-paying solicitors.
But if the justice you get depends on the money spent on solicitors, your justice system is no justice.
...is naive. He's rich and well-connected. That the Bush administrations DOJ--the same one that overwhelmingly investigated Democrats over Republicans--bungled his case probably just saved them from having to pardon him.
Instead of dropping the charges, the DOJ should have asked for a new trial - which is exactly what Steven's attorneys were asking for.
No, the bullshit is that Don Siegleman is still a convict while Steven's walks. The prosecutorial misconduct was far, far, FAR, FAR worse in the case of the former governor than it was for the former senator. Just to start with, the prosecutor who went after Siegleman is married to the campaign manager of Siegleman's opponent.
And at the same time flagrant tax cheats and criminals are nominated to cabinet positions with scantly a snicker from the media. We are at war in this country, and neither side displays even the slightest shred of integrity or ethics.
Quo vadis, USA?
End anonymous moderation and posting on
There is also the small matter of the prosecution sending one of their witnesses home to Washington State because he was ill.
This witness was also on the defense list. The prosecutors sent him home without notifying the defense, which is such an obvious abuse that the judge nearly stopped the trial right then and there.
But no matter. The prosecution got what they wanted - Stevens is no longer a Senator. That can't be rectified.
Remember, the rules apply to all of us. When they come to accuse you of something, will you be so trusting of the prosecutors?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
So first they make sure he's truly screwed right before a critical Senate seat election. Now they say Nevermind! No matter where you are in the political spectrum -- especially if you're an Alaska voter -- can this be considered justice. All involved in this farce should be in jail for a good long time (e.g. 10 years w/no time off and no Club Fed)!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
...is obviously just a series of tubes.
No!
(I can't find a good video of the context there -- this one has a bit more)
coding is life
No wonder Stevens got off the hook. When it comes to people in power, there is plenty of reason to believe that the law is more overly applied by
political opponents than it is applied at all.
Same thing with Obama's economic team.
Did the Sec-Treasury cheat on his taxes? Yeah, but, making a big circus out of it was overkill from a political opposition. I would only really be bitter about Obama's people getting all nazi-fied over taxes if they started nailing everyone else to the wall.
This is my sig.
He's got something on someone.
This is the "getting off on a technicality" that conservatives like Stevens are always railing against. Are they going to now protest in front of the courthouse? I doubt it.
Remember that the GOP controlled the Justice Department at this time. They did this on purpose to prevent Stevens from having to serve jail time. It's ingenious, especially since he was guilty as sin and they knew it.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
> That's not technically correct, while most of the US is indeed common law, with the exception of LA which uses Napoleonic code to this day.
You should be more clear about whether you mean Louisiana or Los Angeles when you write that.
Especially because I believe it's Louisiana (and not Los Angeles) which uses the Napoleonic code.
Because YRO is one of the most frequently misused topics. Seriously.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
However, it is incorrect to equate the Louisiana Civil Code with the Napoleonic Code. Although the Napoleonic Code strongly influenced Louisiana law, it was never in force in Louisiana, as it was enacted in 1804, after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. While the Louisiana Civil Code of 1808 has been continuously revised and updated since its enactment, it is still considered the controlling authority in the state.
While it would have been true to say Louisiana's legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic code and is very different from the common law systems in all the other states, it's not the same thing as saying it uses Napoleonic code.
Hope you don't take offense for having this pointed out.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
one manifestation of corruption is bogus corruption charges.
This is not news for nerds.
But clearly, I view the subject of the assertion a bit differently...
Procedural mistakes should not overturn convictions that are this overwhelming.
So, what standard do you propose? Is it OK for the prosecution to withhold evidence because the other guy is "really bad" and it would be a shame if he were acquitted?
I could've sworn we had juries for some reason...
The prosecution in this case withheld evidence from a defendant. They could be - and, if I had to bet money, probably will be - disbarred for this.
Why? Because this little thing called the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (the "one book" I imagine you alluding to) grants defendants the right to confront their accusers. That's pretty damn hard to do when the prosecution does not hand over its evidence as it is required to do by law and as the attorneys are required to do by their ethical obligation.
Now, why would this be important? Oh, I don't know. Let's say you get accused of a murder you didn't commit. Sadly, you have no alibi for the night in question and an awful lot of circumstantial evidence just happens to point your way. But, in the course of its investigation, the prosecution happens to turn up a piece of evidence that demonstrates you could not have possibly committed the crime (say you happen to have randomly been caught on a security camera somewhere, whatever, it doesn't really matter what the evidence is). Now, what should the prosecution do? Drop the case. Immediately. But Mr. Prosecutor has an awful lot riding on this case, you know. A promotion. Some political concern. He doesn't want to just walk away from it - he's invested too much, and maybe he thinks you're just a bad guy and should go to jail anyways. So he goes forward with it, and just conveniently "forgets" to hand over that one piece of exculpatory evidence you so desperately needed. You get convicted. Sorry! You're in jail!
Failure to hand over evidence is not merely a "procedural mistake". In this case, it was the result a conscious effort by the prosecution to keep evidence out of the hands of the defense. This is no mistake - this is keeping important information out of the hands of the finder of fact (the jury) so the prosecutors can put someone in jail. This is very, very, very bad. It games the system, it runs the risk of imprisoning the innocent, and it simply should not be allowed.
Now here, to be quite frank, we have a case of a scumbag getting out because the attorneys trying him were also scumbags. But I'd rather this scumbag got off than allow this sort of misconduct to continue. Someday I might find myself as a defendant, and the possibility that the prosecution, which has access to far more investigatory resources than I ever would, could withhold evidence from my attorney that could be used in my defense. There's a reason for the confrontation clause and the proper cross-examination of a witness is simply impossible without full access to evidence.
The practice of law used to require one book, when we found this nation maybe a 100 now there are 10's of thousands of books involving the law in various aspects and it has gotten to be too much.
Hogwash.
When, pray tell, did the practice of law - an actual system of laws, not simply a dictatorship - ever require just "one book" in the last thousand years? Hell, look at Roman law, Rabbinical scripts, you name it. Are you thinking about Hammurabi's Code or something?
As to "maybe 100" books when this nation was "found" [sic]? Please. American law is based on English Common Law, which by 1776 was quite voluminous and filled libraries. There was far more to it than a mere "100 books".
As to the "10's of thousands of books" dealing with the law now, it's true. There are lots of books dealing with the law, including uncountable volumes of case law. That's just how it works in a common law system - each year, people seem to piss other people off and
The attack took 5 years to prepare. Most of it — on Clinton's watch.
Another point against Clinton is that he refused to accept Osama bin Laden, when Sudan offered him. Clinton was a lawyer and rejected the offer, because there was no grand jury indictment against Osama (yet). So instead of going to a US jail, Osama went to Yemen and is mocking the US ever since — inspiring thousands of terrorists world-wide. For better or worse, Bush — not being a lawyer — would've taken Sudan on their offer and the 9/11 would never have happened. USS Cole would, probably, not have been attacked either.
There is plenty in 9/11 to blame Clinton for... Most in fact...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
being thrown out represents "restoral of the rule of law" or just another way of protecting connected fat cats is for AG Holder to answer. Note that Holder is the one who moved to stop the prosecution before the judge acted.
If the prosecutors are fired on a basis of this misconduct and/or are subject to criminal investigation if this conduct can be reasonably held to be a deliberate attempt to make criminal prosecution impossible, Holder is restoring the rule of law.
If the prosecutors are left in place, we can assume that Holder got what he actually wanted, a GOP ex-senator walking free, and what we've got is "the law applies only to the little people", not change any sane person would believe in.
Tech Public Policy stuff
He's a politician, for Christs sake. Duly elected by GOD, with incidental help from voters. You think you have a right to ask him about his business dealings? Who the hell exactly do you think you are?
I can only wonder how much dirt Stevens has on other politicians. It might be better for everyone in Washington to just make it go away. The Cover Your Ass-ness of politics is impressive.
The pranksters behind Eisenstadt acknowledge that he was not, through them, the anonymous source of the Palin leak. He just claimed falsely that he was the leaker--and they say they have no reason to cast doubt on the original story. For its part, Fox News Channel continues to stand behind its story.
"Well, this guy may or may not be innocent, but he sure does deserve to be in prison,"
my case had a defendant who was clearly guilty of a great many things. However, she was NOT demonstrably guilty of the crime she was actually charged with. Now, several on the jury were perfectly ready to send her to the big house anyway. Fortunately, for her, there were those of us who took our responsibilities seriously and disagreed.
The foreman howled about how justice was being put aside because we would not cave in. I replied that a mistrial simply sent the prosecution back to do their job properly. If the prosecution had desired they could always retry. I have no idea if they did. In any case, the prosecution did a pretty bad job. Possibly they hoped that the obvious character flaws of the defendant would cover their crappy case.
From TFA:
Normally slashdot is late on reporting stuff, but in this case they managed to post a story from the future.
The Names of the Bush Procecuters ... are known.
The where abouts of the Bush Procecuters ... are known.
The Faces of the Bush Procecuters ... are known.
These ARE the Perps!
Justice ... will visit them ... each and every one ... in the ... Night.
"Character ... is what you are ... in the Night!"
You need hard evidence. Common sense doesn't matter.
Obama got a $300,000 deal on his house. Doesn't mean he is guilty of corruption. Common sense doesn't matter. You need hard evidence.
We have build an elaborate system of punishments and rewards to heard ourselves though life like cattle.
I wrote:
"An it harm none do what you will" shall be the whole of the law.
The words aren't mine and they're not new as the obsolete use of "an" for "if" would lead one to infer. The idea itself tracks back at least to BCE Greece. Aleister Crowley in his work left out the "An it harm none" part, because that's the way he was. He had his fans, but I disagree with his omission. Despite AC's assertion, the idea has been tried many times as public policy and succeeded for far longer than the experimental federal republic that I live in. Generally speaking the failures have been from failure to provide for the common defense. As a point of philosophy one might assert that a decision to neglect the common defense in the context of "do what you will" is a decision to submit to a foreign aggressor and so abandon the system for another - which doesn't invalidate the system.
Nevertheless, the AC is socially right and personally wrong. The common man is a crowd distracted by fireworks and glitter and he needs the comfort of a shepherd and myriad inconsistent rules to make him uncertain of the correct course and so submit readily to charismatic leadership. He prefers forceful misdirection so he can go wrong with confidence. For individual free thinking Men, there are only three rules. That quote is one. Another is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." The third is "Survive." I've put them in reverse order of precedence.
Lifting up the average man to self awareness, personal responsibility and healthy skepticism is an Herculean task. As for me, you're welcome to it.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Forget::Repeat
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The best thing you can do to promote your ideals is outlive the opponents of them. The next best thing is to die well. Either way it goes, good luck to you.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Sarah Palin's days are numbered!
Yet again, Palin serves to remind Humanity the World Over that she is "The" Bowl Bloakage ... and nothing more.
What a waste! What refuse! What a "Pity ... Pity!" .. pity.