OT: I hate big governments, government overeaching it’s sticky hands

[NotCranky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Chapel_Church_ritual_abuse_case

“Two of the accusers were the grandchildren of Jack and Mary Goodall, the former being the CEO of Jack in the Box. Upon hearing the district attorney, Ed Miller, was to drop charges against Akiki due to lack of evidence, the Goodalls, who had contributed to his campaign, managed to convince him to continue prosecution. Miller then chose deputy DA Mary Avery, who was a member of the San Diego Ritual Abuse Task Force. Avery was also the founder of the San Diego Child Abuse Prevention Foundation, to which Goodal was the largest financial contributor.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rustico]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Chapel_Church_ritual_abuse_case

“Two of the accusers were the grandchildren of Jack and Mary Goodall, the former being the CEO of Jack in the Box. Upon hearing the district attorney, Ed Miller, was to drop charges against Akiki due to lack of evidence, the Goodalls, who had contributed to his campaign, managed to convince him to continue prosecution. Miller then chose deputy DA Mary Avery, who was a member of the San Diego Ritual Abuse Task Force. Avery was also the founder of the San Diego Child Abuse Prevention Foundation, to which Goodal was the largest financial contributor.”[/quote]

Rus, this case was absolutely nothing but a lo-o-o-ong drawn-out “witch hunt” by “Avery & Co” who systematically “coached” children to make accusations.

I was employed within the “system” at the time of Akiki’s prosecution and subsequent acquittal.

The case was a travesty in that it was a HUGE waste of taxpayer funds as well as the waste of 4+ years of an innocent man’s life and damaged his reputation beyond repair. He can never get those years back. Even though Akiki was eventually vindicated, this whole mess is a very sad commentary on the way “child abuse” investigations were conducted.

Yes, there was absolutely a BIG, GLARING conflict of interest there. The decision on whether to prosecute this case should have been given to the AG’s office. In the end, Avery succeeded only in making an @ss of herself and her Department. Her and her “team’s” handling of this case caused the demise of a longtime DA. Karma’s a bitch in the end.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rustico]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Chapel_Church_ritual_abuse_case

“Two of the accusers were the grandchildren of Jack and Mary Goodall, the former being the CEO of Jack in the Box. Upon hearing the district attorney, Ed Miller, was to drop charges against Akiki due to lack of evidence, the Goodalls, who had contributed to his campaign, managed to convince him to continue prosecution. Miller then chose deputy DA Mary Avery, who was a member of the San Diego Ritual Abuse Task Force. Avery was also the founder of the San Diego Child Abuse Prevention Foundation, to which Goodal was the largest financial contributor.”[/quote]

Rus, this case was absolutely nothing but a lo-o-o-ong drawn-out “witch hunt” by “Avery & Co” who systematically “coached” children to make accusations.

I was employed within the “system” at the time of Akiki’s prosecution and subsequent acquittal.

The case was a travesty in that it was a HUGE waste of taxpayer funds as well as the waste of 4+ years of an innocent man’s life and damaged his reputation beyond repair. He can never get those years back. Even though Akiki was eventually vindicated, this whole mess is a very sad commentary on the way “child abuse” investigations were conducted.

Yes, there was absolutely a BIG, GLARING conflict of interest there. The decision on whether to prosecute this case should have been given to the AG’s office. In the end, Avery succeeded only in making an @ss of herself and her Department. Her and her “team’s” handling of this case caused the demise of a longtime DA. Karma’s a bitch in the end.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rustico]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Chapel_Church_ritual_abuse_case

“Two of the accusers were the grandchildren of Jack and Mary Goodall, the former being the CEO of Jack in the Box. Upon hearing the district attorney, Ed Miller, was to drop charges against Akiki due to lack of evidence, the Goodalls, who had contributed to his campaign, managed to convince him to continue prosecution. Miller then chose deputy DA Mary Avery, who was a member of the San Diego Ritual Abuse Task Force. Avery was also the founder of the San Diego Child Abuse Prevention Foundation, to which Goodal was the largest financial contributor.”[/quote]

Rus, this case was absolutely nothing but a lo-o-o-ong drawn-out “witch hunt” by “Avery & Co” who systematically “coached” children to make accusations.

I was employed within the “system” at the time of Akiki’s prosecution and subsequent acquittal.

The case was a travesty in that it was a HUGE waste of taxpayer funds as well as the waste of 4+ years of an innocent man’s life and damaged his reputation beyond repair. He can never get those years back. Even though Akiki was eventually vindicated, this whole mess is a very sad commentary on the way “child abuse” investigations were conducted.

Yes, there was absolutely a BIG, GLARING conflict of interest there. The decision on whether to prosecute this case should have been given to the AG’s office. In the end, Avery succeeded only in making an @ss of herself and her Department. Her and her “team’s” handling of this case caused the demise of a longtime DA. Karma’s a bitch in the end.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rustico]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Chapel_Church_ritual_abuse_case

“Two of the accusers were the grandchildren of Jack and Mary Goodall, the former being the CEO of Jack in the Box. Upon hearing the district attorney, Ed Miller, was to drop charges against Akiki due to lack of evidence, the Goodalls, who had contributed to his campaign, managed to convince him to continue prosecution. Miller then chose deputy DA Mary Avery, who was a member of the San Diego Ritual Abuse Task Force. Avery was also the founder of the San Diego Child Abuse Prevention Foundation, to which Goodal was the largest financial contributor.”[/quote]

Rus, this case was absolutely nothing but a lo-o-o-ong drawn-out “witch hunt” by “Avery & Co” who systematically “coached” children to make accusations.

I was employed within the “system” at the time of Akiki’s prosecution and subsequent acquittal.

The case was a travesty in that it was a HUGE waste of taxpayer funds as well as the waste of 4+ years of an innocent man’s life and damaged his reputation beyond repair. He can never get those years back. Even though Akiki was eventually vindicated, this whole mess is a very sad commentary on the way “child abuse” investigations were conducted.

Yes, there was absolutely a BIG, GLARING conflict of interest there. The decision on whether to prosecute this case should have been given to the AG’s office. In the end, Avery succeeded only in making an @ss of herself and her Department. Her and her “team’s” handling of this case caused the demise of a longtime DA. Karma’s a bitch in the end.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rustico]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Chapel_Church_ritual_abuse_case

“Two of the accusers were the grandchildren of Jack and Mary Goodall, the former being the CEO of Jack in the Box. Upon hearing the district attorney, Ed Miller, was to drop charges against Akiki due to lack of evidence, the Goodalls, who had contributed to his campaign, managed to convince him to continue prosecution. Miller then chose deputy DA Mary Avery, who was a member of the San Diego Ritual Abuse Task Force. Avery was also the founder of the San Diego Child Abuse Prevention Foundation, to which Goodal was the largest financial contributor.”[/quote]

Rus, this case was absolutely nothing but a lo-o-o-ong drawn-out “witch hunt” by “Avery & Co” who systematically “coached” children to make accusations.

I was employed within the “system” at the time of Akiki’s prosecution and subsequent acquittal.

The case was a travesty in that it was a HUGE waste of taxpayer funds as well as the waste of 4+ years of an innocent man’s life and damaged his reputation beyond repair. He can never get those years back. Even though Akiki was eventually vindicated, this whole mess is a very sad commentary on the way “child abuse” investigations were conducted.

Yes, there was absolutely a BIG, GLARING conflict of interest there. The decision on whether to prosecute this case should have been given to the AG’s office. In the end, Avery succeeded only in making an @ss of herself and her Department. Her and her “team’s” handling of this case caused the demise of a longtime DA. Karma’s a bitch in the end.

[ILoveRegulation]

The original post is a rather lame attempt at demonstrating the ‘perils’ of big government. In contrast to the OP’s goal of demonizing big government, the OP has instead unwittingly demonstrated the harm that can befall innocent citizens when powerful, politically-connected private individuals influence government to act in a deleterious manner.

This happens all too often. Regulators at the SEC know that if they look the other way when banksters are raping Main Street, that they will eventually get cush jobs on Wall Street. Regulators at the Minerals Management Service know that if they look the other way while BP rapes the Gulf Coast, they will be rewarded.

The real problem in America is the all-too-common insidious relationship between unscrupulous government regulators and powerful, politically-connected private individuals and corporations with no sense of morality and no fear of prosecution. The constant demonizing of ‘big government’ only serves to drive down the level of political discourse to an elementary-school level while drawing attention away from the real issues.

[ILoveRegulation]

The original post is a rather lame attempt at demonstrating the ‘perils’ of big government. In contrast to the OP’s goal of demonizing big government, the OP has instead unwittingly demonstrated the harm that can befall innocent citizens when powerful, politically-connected private individuals influence government to act in a deleterious manner.

This happens all too often. Regulators at the SEC know that if they look the other way when banksters are raping Main Street, that they will eventually get cush jobs on Wall Street. Regulators at the Minerals Management Service know that if they look the other way while BP rapes the Gulf Coast, they will be rewarded.

The real problem in America is the all-too-common insidious relationship between unscrupulous government regulators and powerful, politically-connected private individuals and corporations with no sense of morality and no fear of prosecution. The constant demonizing of ‘big government’ only serves to drive down the level of political discourse to an elementary-school level while drawing attention away from the real issues.

[ILoveRegulation]

The original post is a rather lame attempt at demonstrating the ‘perils’ of big government. In contrast to the OP’s goal of demonizing big government, the OP has instead unwittingly demonstrated the harm that can befall innocent citizens when powerful, politically-connected private individuals influence government to act in a deleterious manner.

This happens all too often. Regulators at the SEC know that if they look the other way when banksters are raping Main Street, that they will eventually get cush jobs on Wall Street. Regulators at the Minerals Management Service know that if they look the other way while BP rapes the Gulf Coast, they will be rewarded.

The real problem in America is the all-too-common insidious relationship between unscrupulous government regulators and powerful, politically-connected private individuals and corporations with no sense of morality and no fear of prosecution. The constant demonizing of ‘big government’ only serves to drive down the level of political discourse to an elementary-school level while drawing attention away from the real issues.

[ILoveRegulation]

The original post is a rather lame attempt at demonstrating the ‘perils’ of big government. In contrast to the OP’s goal of demonizing big government, the OP has instead unwittingly demonstrated the harm that can befall innocent citizens when powerful, politically-connected private individuals influence government to act in a deleterious manner.

This happens all too often. Regulators at the SEC know that if they look the other way when banksters are raping Main Street, that they will eventually get cush jobs on Wall Street. Regulators at the Minerals Management Service know that if they look the other way while BP rapes the Gulf Coast, they will be rewarded.

The real problem in America is the all-too-common insidious relationship between unscrupulous government regulators and powerful, politically-connected private individuals and corporations with no sense of morality and no fear of prosecution. The constant demonizing of ‘big government’ only serves to drive down the level of political discourse to an elementary-school level while drawing attention away from the real issues.

[ILoveRegulation]

The original post is a rather lame attempt at demonstrating the ‘perils’ of big government. In contrast to the OP’s goal of demonizing big government, the OP has instead unwittingly demonstrated the harm that can befall innocent citizens when powerful, politically-connected private individuals influence government to act in a deleterious manner.

This happens all too often. Regulators at the SEC know that if they look the other way when banksters are raping Main Street, that they will eventually get cush jobs on Wall Street. Regulators at the Minerals Management Service know that if they look the other way while BP rapes the Gulf Coast, they will be rewarded.

The real problem in America is the all-too-common insidious relationship between unscrupulous government regulators and powerful, politically-connected private individuals and corporations with no sense of morality and no fear of prosecution. The constant demonizing of ‘big government’ only serves to drive down the level of political discourse to an elementary-school level while drawing attention away from the real issues.

[temeculaguy]

Flu, you need to be a little more skeptical. First, the link you provided goes to some world press blog and I didn’t see an author’s name. I did a little search and read a few versions of the article but it’s all pretty much the same, it’s from the lawyer of the father and a serbian consulate advocate. So you are hearing one side of the story and making assumptions, which is exactly what the lawyer wants you to do. I’m not saying the lawyer is lying or wrong but break down his press release. The lawyer said that cps produced a videotape of the five year claiming the father innapropriately touched her, the lawyer said the contact was routine “such as drying off the child with a towel.” He also said the questions were ambiguous. Look at the accusation he chose to give you and the media, a harmless act that all parents do. But he doesn’t tell you what the other allegations were yet he throws out an attack of the ambiguous nature of the questions (“such as” means that is but one example). He’s prepping the defense for what those other allegations are. The authorities can’t tell the media anything, they are prohibited. I’m sure there is more to the story. This is a spin tactic to get the agency to give up, to try the case in the court of public opinion where only one side gets to talk. Maybe they are right, but don’t be so quick to judge because you and I only know hat the defense wants us to know. Maybe the questions weren’t ambiguous, why doesn’t the lawyer tell us the questions? Lawyers aren;t evil, they have a job to do. They don’t usually lie, but they do omit things that are damaging to their client, especially in the media.

Why not wait to hear both sides of the story before deciding? More often than not, cps would love to show you everything but they are prohibited from doing so.

Imagine you have a friend that is going through a divorce, or got arrested, or lost a bet, or lost an argument. Now imagine he tells you his side of the story, but you cant ask questions and you cant talk to the other party. You will probably certainly side with him, just from what he tells you, he certainly got screwed somehow. But we dont live like this, we ask our friend questions, sometimes we know the other person and we almost certainly dont see it how he wants us to see it once we delve a little deeper into it. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. What you have just done is taken everything your friend said as fact and made a decision on how the world operates. Take a step back, doubt both sides and always doubt the side that is talking.

Believe none of what you read and only half of what you see.

[temeculaguy]

Flu, you need to be a little more skeptical. First, the link you provided goes to some world press blog and I didn’t see an author’s name. I did a little search and read a few versions of the article but it’s all pretty much the same, it’s from the lawyer of the father and a serbian consulate advocate. So you are hearing one side of the story and making assumptions, which is exactly what the lawyer wants you to do. I’m not saying the lawyer is lying or wrong but break down his press release. The lawyer said that cps produced a videotape of the five year claiming the father innapropriately touched her, the lawyer said the contact was routine “such as drying off the child with a towel.” He also said the questions were ambiguous. Look at the accusation he chose to give you and the media, a harmless act that all parents do. But he doesn’t tell you what the other allegations were yet he throws out an attack of the ambiguous nature of the questions (“such as” means that is but one example). He’s prepping the defense for what those other allegations are. The authorities can’t tell the media anything, they are prohibited. I’m sure there is more to the story. This is a spin tactic to get the agency to give up, to try the case in the court of public opinion where only one side gets to talk. Maybe they are right, but don’t be so quick to judge because you and I only know hat the defense wants us to know. Maybe the questions weren’t ambiguous, why doesn’t the lawyer tell us the questions? Lawyers aren;t evil, they have a job to do. They don’t usually lie, but they do omit things that are damaging to their client, especially in the media.

Why not wait to hear both sides of the story before deciding? More often than not, cps would love to show you everything but they are prohibited from doing so.

Imagine you have a friend that is going through a divorce, or got arrested, or lost a bet, or lost an argument. Now imagine he tells you his side of the story, but you cant ask questions and you cant talk to the other party. You will probably certainly side with him, just from what he tells you, he certainly got screwed somehow. But we dont live like this, we ask our friend questions, sometimes we know the other person and we almost certainly dont see it how he wants us to see it once we delve a little deeper into it. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. What you have just done is taken everything your friend said as fact and made a decision on how the world operates. Take a step back, doubt both sides and always doubt the side that is talking.

Believe none of what you read and only half of what you see.

[temeculaguy]

Flu, you need to be a little more skeptical. First, the link you provided goes to some world press blog and I didn’t see an author’s name. I did a little search and read a few versions of the article but it’s all pretty much the same, it’s from the lawyer of the father and a serbian consulate advocate. So you are hearing one side of the story and making assumptions, which is exactly what the lawyer wants you to do. I’m not saying the lawyer is lying or wrong but break down his press release. The lawyer said that cps produced a videotape of the five year claiming the father innapropriately touched her, the lawyer said the contact was routine “such as drying off the child with a towel.” He also said the questions were ambiguous. Look at the accusation he chose to give you and the media, a harmless act that all parents do. But he doesn’t tell you what the other allegations were yet he throws out an attack of the ambiguous nature of the questions (“such as” means that is but one example). He’s prepping the defense for what those other allegations are. The authorities can’t tell the media anything, they are prohibited. I’m sure there is more to the story. This is a spin tactic to get the agency to give up, to try the case in the court of public opinion where only one side gets to talk. Maybe they are right, but don’t be so quick to judge because you and I only know hat the defense wants us to know. Maybe the questions weren’t ambiguous, why doesn’t the lawyer tell us the questions? Lawyers aren;t evil, they have a job to do. They don’t usually lie, but they do omit things that are damaging to their client, especially in the media.

Why not wait to hear both sides of the story before deciding? More often than not, cps would love to show you everything but they are prohibited from doing so.

Imagine you have a friend that is going through a divorce, or got arrested, or lost a bet, or lost an argument. Now imagine he tells you his side of the story, but you cant ask questions and you cant talk to the other party. You will probably certainly side with him, just from what he tells you, he certainly got screwed somehow. But we dont live like this, we ask our friend questions, sometimes we know the other person and we almost certainly dont see it how he wants us to see it once we delve a little deeper into it. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. What you have just done is taken everything your friend said as fact and made a decision on how the world operates. Take a step back, doubt both sides and always doubt the side that is talking.

Believe none of what you read and only half of what you see.

[temeculaguy]

Flu, you need to be a little more skeptical. First, the link you provided goes to some world press blog and I didn’t see an author’s name. I did a little search and read a few versions of the article but it’s all pretty much the same, it’s from the lawyer of the father and a serbian consulate advocate. So you are hearing one side of the story and making assumptions, which is exactly what the lawyer wants you to do. I’m not saying the lawyer is lying or wrong but break down his press release. The lawyer said that cps produced a videotape of the five year claiming the father innapropriately touched her, the lawyer said the contact was routine “such as drying off the child with a towel.” He also said the questions were ambiguous. Look at the accusation he chose to give you and the media, a harmless act that all parents do. But he doesn’t tell you what the other allegations were yet he throws out an attack of the ambiguous nature of the questions (“such as” means that is but one example). He’s prepping the defense for what those other allegations are. The authorities can’t tell the media anything, they are prohibited. I’m sure there is more to the story. This is a spin tactic to get the agency to give up, to try the case in the court of public opinion where only one side gets to talk. Maybe they are right, but don’t be so quick to judge because you and I only know hat the defense wants us to know. Maybe the questions weren’t ambiguous, why doesn’t the lawyer tell us the questions? Lawyers aren;t evil, they have a job to do. They don’t usually lie, but they do omit things that are damaging to their client, especially in the media.

Why not wait to hear both sides of the story before deciding? More often than not, cps would love to show you everything but they are prohibited from doing so.

Imagine you have a friend that is going through a divorce, or got arrested, or lost a bet, or lost an argument. Now imagine he tells you his side of the story, but you cant ask questions and you cant talk to the other party. You will probably certainly side with him, just from what he tells you, he certainly got screwed somehow. But we dont live like this, we ask our friend questions, sometimes we know the other person and we almost certainly dont see it how he wants us to see it once we delve a little deeper into it. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. What you have just done is taken everything your friend said as fact and made a decision on how the world operates. Take a step back, doubt both sides and always doubt the side that is talking.

Believe none of what you read and only half of what you see.

[Author]

Posts