Prosecutors Who Should Be Prosecuted

I remember this very well.  On Halloween night, 2001, the sport editor for the Columbia Daily Tribune (Columbia, Missouri) was murdered in the Tribune's parking lot.  Two men were convicted of the crime under Boone County Prosecutor Kevin Crane -- a good law and order Republican. 

One of the men, Charles Erickson, confessed to the crime, and, likely in exchange for a lighter sentence, implicated a friend, Ryan Ferguson.  Ferguson, who maintained his innocence, was sentenced in 2005 to 40 years in prison.  Erickson got 25 years. 

Part of the case against Ferguson was based on testimony from alleged eyewitness, Jerry Trump.  Trump was in prison at the time he identified Ferguson:

At the evidentiary hearing, Trump said Kevin Crane, then chief prosecutor and now a 13th Circuit Judge, called him while in prison and said it would be "helpful" for him to identify Ferguson and Erickson.

Crane's investigator Bill Haws talked to Trump while he was still in prison and also interviewed Barbara Trump. The prosecution is legally obligated to disclose all interviews to the defense attorneys. Haws did not file a report on these interviews and therefore Crane didn't necessarily know they took place, according to the opinion.

I would guarantee Crane knew all about it.  As prosecutor, Crane was quite ambitious and wanted convictions at any cost.  I had a little personal experience with Crane's office, so maybe I'm not too objective.  I come near to hating those bastards.  Because of the misconduct by Crane and his team and because there was no real evidence to link Ferguson to the killing, his conviction has, at long last, been overturned.  This sounds fairly typical:

Chuck Erickson and Jerry Trump are the two witnesses who recanted their testimonies.

Erickson had been partying with Ryan Ferguson the night of the murder and in 2004 started having dreams that the two committed the killing. They were underage but had been drinking at a local club. Erickson also admitted to using cocaine, Adderall and marijuana that night.

Erickson received a 25-year sentence after pleading guilty to second-degree murder, first-degree robbery and armed criminal action.

In 2009, Erickson taped a sworn statement that he committed the robbery and murder alone. Erickson testified at the 2012 evidentiary hearing that he had no memory of the killing whatsoever.

Trump, a janitor at the Columbia Daily Tribune at the time, saw two men the night of the killing and testified at the original trial that one of them was Ryan Ferguson. He recanted his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, stating he only identified Ryan Ferguson because he thought it was what the prosecutor, Kevin Crane, wanted. (Links are from the original.  Emphasis added by me.) 

I suspect that is what Kevin Crane wanted, maybe because he is a despicable SOB.  

An innocent man -- a kid, really -- has lost nearly a decade of his life to a prosecutor who just wanted one more scalp on his belt.  I am confident that Kevin Crane and the other attorneys in his office at the time will never suffer much in this world for what they have done.  I am also confident that some bright day all these creeps who think nothing of ruining a few innocent lives in their quest for position and power will have to face a righteous Judge who has all the evidence in hand.  

A Letter from Claire

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is concerned about her constituents and wants to meet with us to find out what we think. 

Dear Mr. and Mrs. [Mushroom],

My name is David Rauch and I am a staff member for U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill. On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, on behalf of the Senator, I will be hosting a "Kitchen Table Talk" in Buffalo at the O'Bannon Center (315 East Ramsey) from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to reach out to you, to listen to your thoughts and ideas about federal policies and legislation and to take them back to the Senator.

These "Kitchen Table Talks" also serve, in part, to inform you of the services that are available through Senator McCaskill's regional offices. The Senator's staff throughout the state are able to assist you on a range of federal government issues. If you are currently having an issue with a federal agency, I will be happy to discuss that with you and put you in touch with the member of the Senator's staff best suited to help with your issue.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at David_Rauch@mccaskill.senate.gov or by calling (417) 868-8745. I hope you will be able to join me in Buffalo on November 12th.

Sincerely,

David Rauch
Field Representative
U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill

An anonymous citizen's reasonable response:

Thank you, Mr. Rauch and Senator McCaskill, for the kind invitation.  Unfortunately, the Senator would be highly unlikely to appreciate any input my wife and I would be able to provide, especially as regards the Senator’s vote in favor of the so-called “Affordable Care Act” which is already proving disastrous economically to thousands of Missourians.  I have family members who are losing their insurance coverage because of this bill and the lies (“If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.  Period.”) told by the President and by Senator McCaskill.  If the Senator had listened to her constituents rather than using her “mom voice” on them, she would have voted against this mess and been hailed as a hero in Missouri and throughout the nation.  However, as partisan loyalty trumps both the best interests of the citizens subjects and – apparently – reality, she could not do that. 

Meanwhile the private sector of the economy (you know, the part that actually produces for the parasites getting government checks to consume and waste) continues to languish because of the deficit and another irresponsible increase in the debt ceiling.  Inflation grows as the Federal Reserve, via its ZIRP and QE policy, continues to enable the federal government’s ability to spend money in excess of its $2 trillion in annual revenues, buying votes in the urban centers and enriching its union and corporatist allies. 

Consequently, I, who might have been able to retire a few years early, will be working desperately to keep my job on November 12th at 10:30 am.  I will be trying to keep my insurance, to help out my children and grandchildren, to save a little more to make up for the devastating effects of interest rates below 1% and exponential losses caused by inflation and taxes.   

But by all means, Mr. Rauch, I urge you and the staff and the security detail and the Senator to enjoy traveling around and livin’ la vida loca of the political and governmental elites.  After all, you really are better and know better than us.  You deserve it. 

 

The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up

Might as well laugh as cry.  Justin eviscerates with humor.


Bambi killed by a deadly shoulder thing that goes up:

Logan Pearce Knife Gallery

H/T to Sweet Peach, which sound rather cakey, but has a Manly Monday. 

Check out the Logan Pearce Knife gallery: 

Is that cool, or what?

Early Retirement ... For Your Doctor

If you like your insurance plan you can keep it -- unless it doesn't meet Ministry of Insurance requirements, including maternity coverage for single men. 

If you like your doctor, you can keep him or her -- unless your doctor decides to cut his losses and retire.

I work for a large corporation that self-insures.  Because we are a technology company, we have a lot of younger, healthy employees.  To keep insuring us will cost the company an extra $400,000 this year.  Next year?  Probably more.  At some point something will give. 

My wife has Type I diabetes and, after nearly forty years, some of the consequent complications, such as retinopathy.  She has been fortunate in that she has had very talented eye surgeons that have saved and actually improved her vision.  Her current eye doctor is not only exceptionally skilled but dedicated and caring.  In his late fifties, his plan was to continue practicing until around age 70. 

He may not be able to do that.  According to his conversation with my wife on Friday, a failure on his part to follow the new government rules could result in a $100,000 fine for his first offense.  A second offense would land him in jail.  He no longer accepts Medicaid patients -- not because he is unwilling to provide care at a lower cost but because Medicaid exposes his practice to too much regulatory risk.  His specialty is retinopathy and macular pathologies.  Thus the majority of his patients are older, many on Medicare. 

The government thinks it can do a better job of providing medical care than doctors.  If government-run medical systems are so wonderful, tell me how many American doctors flee to Canada, England or France to practice?  I think the Canadian and French models are all right in some respects.  Canada has around 35 million residents, France about 65 million.  France is not all that far from the same kind of financial crisis that threatens the southern tier of the EU.  But in any case, what works for a smaller and less diverse population may not work nearly so well for the U.S. 

I hope all the Democrat voters out there will be happy when they need a translator to tell the doctor they are having a heart attack.

The federal government has already shown its incompetence in attempting to set up the system.  Implementation will be even more disastrous. 

Let people choose what risks they want to take.  Then make them accept the consequences.  That's the way it should work. 

What I Thought Was Well-Understood

Law enforcement agencies at all levels are known for what should be called entrapment.  At the federal level, for example, agents get wind of some group that sounds like it might be plotting violence and respond by getting operatives to infiltrate the group.  Online, police officers pose as underage girls and get into conversations with perverts who are arrested when they try to make contact with the victim.  While I think any male over sixteen who is trying to seduce a thirteen-year-old girl needs to have his parts run through an old-fashioned wringer washer, entrapment is still a questionable tactic.   Essentially what the LEOs are doing is baiting someone to act, because, so far, prosecution for a thought-crime can be difficult. 

There is no reason to think that federal operatives are NOT posing as anti-government groups and individuals online.  It is a virtual certainty, and, frankly, I would be disappointed in the FBI if they weren't doing it. 

As far as I am concerned, a person can say what they like about any public figure and certainly about any politician or political party, government agency or program.  We have the First Amendment to protect -- specifically -- political and religious speech by individuals.  It doesn't mean we get to slander somebody with impunity, but it does mean the leftists won't be arrested for calling Bush Hitler and right-wing radicals won't go to jail for comparing Michelle Obama to Chewbacca --  although that does come close to slandering the Wookie. 

Right now, there are posters on prepper/patriot/pro-gun/pro-Constitution blogs and websites who are talking about open, armed rebellion.  The federal government would love for a bunch of right-wing, Christian militia-types to start something.  The agents and operatives that are out there will do their best to spark that type of response and add fuel to the fire if it ignites.  They will set up those people -- just like they did the Hutaree militia up in Michigan -- then vilify them in the media. 

Do not engage with such people.  If a revolution or second civil war breaks out, you won't have to worry about missing it.  It won't start over some "tribe" of twenty people in camo who have circled their trailers out in the woods somewhere.  Use your head.  As long as vocal and political opposition is accepted, that is the route we will take.  Unless Obama orders the arrest of Ted Cruz for crimes against the State, Barack the Magnificent, and Dr. Seuss, I'd hold off on planting landmines in the driveway. 

Tuco Is Proven Right Again

From Hillview, KY, Police say home intruder wrestled gun away from woman, shot her. 

Fortunately for the victim, it appears that she will survive.  The shot struck her in the shoulder. 


Remember -- I am not a judge, attorney or law enforcement officer.  This is just my personal opinion as a hillbilly.  Do not take my advice.

I mentioned the other day that my wife has a laser-equipped 10/22 and a revolver in .38 Special as her home defense weapons.  I've explained the use of the rifle to her.  For the handgun, my instructions are very simple. 

• Retrieve the handgun.  Keep it down and out of sight.
• Retreat as far as possible while screaming, "Go away!  Don't hurt me!" or whatever comes to mind.
• If the intruder continues to advance and reaches a point almost within arms' length, thrust the revolver toward the intruder while pulling the double action trigger.  Continue to do this until the gun is empty.  
• Do not drop the gun immediately but attempt to use it as a bludgeon if the intruder has not dropped or retreated.  

We have practiced this with dummy rounds in the revolver so she is familiar with how quickly someone can close the distance and keep her from firing.

If someone has entered my house without permission, they have already committed the crime of breaking and entering.  They should have no expectation of safety at that point. 

• Pointing a firearm at someone is technically assault.  

• Warning shots are a waste of ammunition.  

• Firing a gun at someone is use of deadly force.  

 It seems to me I might as well try to make it count.

Despite looking a lot like this old cracker -- just add a big white mustache --

as a relatively active and substantial male with some firearms' experience, I have a little more leeway in deciding when to pull the trigger.  The frailer and the weaker a person is the less they can afford to wait.  Teach them well.