Divemedic

As you all know, for the past three weeks, I was a prohibited person. I was not allowed to possess firearms or ammunition. My concealed weapons permit has been revoked. Why? My ex-girlfriend is accusing me of stalking, and filed a complaint for a domestic violence restraining order against me. At an ex parte hearing, it was granted. 

Keep in mind that we broke up in December. She didn’t allege anything until May.

We had our first hearing where I could be present on June 2, and I appeared there with my attorney. He announced in court that we want to have a full hearing, where we will present subpoenaed witnesses in my defense. The motion was granted, so…

We had our second hearing on June 17th. She did not have an attorney or a single witness. The basis of her claim was that I read her text messages and emails while we were a couple, I sent a text to her new boyfriend, I was stalking her, and I came to her workplace and got her fired.

I had an attorney and four witnesses. We were going to testify to the following facts, even though it turns out that they were not needed:

1. Yes, I read her emails while we were a couple. That was how I found out she was cheating. What she left out of the story was that a year earlier, she had given me the password and told me that I could read her email.
2. Yes, I texted her new boyfriend. The reason? I asked him if he really was sleeping with her. No threats. I was just confirming what I saw in the emails, because I didn’t want to accuse her over a misunderstanding.
3. A mutual friend was going to testify that he was asked by my ex-girlfriend to inform her of my whereabouts so she could surprise me with a visit next time I went SCUBA diving. He was there to testify that she was the one following me around.
4. My current girlfriend was to testify that we were not in the state of Florida on some of the dates that I am being accused of stalking her. I was nowhere near her (not even in the same county- I was 100 miles away) on the dates in question.
5. My mother would have testified that the ex-girlfriend never lived with the two of us (my mother lived with me at the time). This is important, because an important element of proving domestic violence is to prove either:
           -That the two involved had a child together, or;
           – That they were married at some point, or;
           – that they lived together as if a family at some point.
   Since none of those is true, there can be no domestic violence.

Yes, I admit that I went to her workplace, and I also admit that me visiting that workplace is what got her fired, but the devil is in the details.

• I was working as a paramedic, and she worked at one of the hospitals that I routinely went to as a part of my job duties.
• My ex girlfriend had been fired for stealing, not because I stalked her. She had left some belongings at my house, which I had attempted to return to her through the mutual friend from paragraph 3, above. Those belongings included a cardboard box that I had not opened. She didn’t pick up those belongings, so after a month I opened the box to find a large cache of pharmaceuticals, surgical equipment, medical records with patient information and social security numbers on them, along with other medical supplies. They were marked “Property of XXX hospital,” so I contacted the hospital to see what they wanted done with their property. The supervisor asked me to bring them in, which I did. The hospital did an investigation, connected them to her, and they fired her for stealing hospital property and mishandling medical records. At the time of her firing, her employer told her how they caught her.

Less than an hour after she was fired, she was at the courthouse, where she filled out a written statement that I had committed domestic violence against her, and that she was afraid of me coming to hurt her. The court issued a DV injunction at an ex parte hearing, and I became a prohibited person for the duration of the order. I was not allowed contact with her, nor could I come within 500 feet of her. It took me three weeks to get to this morning’s hearing.

To protect myself from any potential allegations of violating the order, I left the state for two weeks. I went into exile. I traveled to Atlanta with my new girlfriend for two days, and from there we went to St Martin, St Thomas, and to the Bahamas. I can prove with passport records and airline boarding passes that I was nowhere near her for the past three weeks (I wasn’t even in the country for most of it).

I also had records from the toll transponder for my car, showing that I was nowhere near her on the dates and times that she claimed I was stalking her.

None of it was needed. She presented her case, and before we called our first witness, my attorney pointed out that there was no evidence of violence presented by her. All she alleged was that I had contacted her boss (for a legitimate reason) and new boyfriend. The judge agreed and dismissed all charges.

After this, she said in open court that her new boyfriend is a cop, and that “this isn’t over” because the cop is initiating a criminal investigation into how I got his phone number, among other things, and that he is going to have me arrested.

My lawyer said that if he does that, we will sue for wrongful prosecution and his career will be over.

Now I have to get things back in order. I have my guns again. I have to apply for and get another CWP to replace the one that had been revoked. I can move on. Until she pulls her next stunt.

Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying. I can’t even sue her to recover my considerable legal fees. She won’t even face any criminal charges. This needs to change. Sign the petition here:

Have you ever wondered why Friday the 13th is considered an unlucky day? The short answer: Greed, the French Monarchy, and the Catholic Church. Like most stories, the long version is more complicated. This is the legend as I heard it:

“The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon” were a military order of men who were living in Jerusalem in 1099 AD, at the tail end of the Crusades. There were nine of them at the time, and they were so poor that they were living in a stable, and begging for food. Legend has it that they discovered some of King Solomon’s treasure while digging in the area.

They returned to Europe, and invented what was essentially the first international banking society. They were involved in shipping, banking, and other money making ventures. They formed large society, which at its peak, was comprised of over 20,000 members. Members held different ranks, with the highest being called Knight Templar. A Knight Templar was similar to what a full partner or a member of the board of directors would be today. The ‘board meetings’ only took place at night, and this was because of the need for secrecy. Remember that this was in the age of pure monarchy, when no one who was not a King could own anything without the King taking a large cut of it.

One odd thing about them was that they practiced elaborate rituals that were designed to ensure secrecy. Since it was a crime punishable by death at the time to engage in any ritual not endorsed by the Catholic Church, any person who took part in such a ritual was bound to keep the secrets of the others, or he himself would be killed.

The Knights Templar hired many men of the free masons’ guild to build large structures, such as the Cathedral at Notre Dame. At the time, the free masons were not especially liked by the Church, mostly because the masons were teaching that mathematics ran the world, and not a deity. The Church had to put up with this to a certain extent, however, because God was not in the business of building the Church’s cathedrals, and the free masons were.

The free masons, having built many buildings for the order, needed to be sworn to secrecy. So they were sworn in as minor members of the order, and were taught many of the Templar rituals. 

All went well until October 13, 1307, when the King of France at the time, King Philip IV, entered a partnership with Pope Clement V and decreed that all of the Knights Templar would be declared to be Satan worshipers and would be put to death. The king charged the Templars with usury, credit inflation, fraud, homosexuality, heresy,
sodomy, immorality, and abuses.

Many of the Kinghts Templar were killed at dawn that Friday the 13th, so that their wealth could be confiscated, and at the same time eliminate the possible threat that the military order might pose to Philip’s quest for more power. The ones who weren’t killed were tortured into confessing to their crimes. The Pope then issued arrest warrants for all of the Templars world wide, and the Church confiscated their assets, in order to avoid the military action that Philip threatened to take against the Church. The arrested members of the order were burned at the stake in 1314, and the remainder of the Templars went underground and became a secret society.

King Phillip and Pope Clement both died before the end of 1314, after being cursed by one of the Templars they burned at the stake. According to legend, he called out from the flames that both Pope Clement and King Philip would soon meet him before God.
His actual words were recorded on the parchment as follows : “Dieu sait
qui a tort et a péché. Il va bientot arriver malheur à ceux qui nous
ont condamnés à mort” (free translation : “God knows who is wrong and
has sinned. Soon a calamity will occur to those who have condemned us to
death”).

No one really knows if this is the true account of what happened, but that doesn’t surprise me. History is a fiction that is written by the winners. The history of less than 100 years ago, and even this morning’s newspapers are seldom an account of what actually took place.

My ex-girlfriend is accusing me of stalking, and has filed a complaint for a domestic violence restraining order against me. We had our first hearing on June 2, and I appeared there with my attorney. He announced in court that we want to have a full hearing, where we will present subpoenaed witnesses in my defense.

I received a call on June 4th from my attorney. She called his office that morning looking for an attorney to represent her. She appears to be running through the phone book, and didn’t realize that this particular attorney was mine. I guess she is worried that I have a lawyer, and now she wants one, too.

She claims that I showed up at her workplace. That is true. She worked at a hospital, but she was not at work during the time that I was there. I had a legitimate reason for being there. In Florida, stalking can only be alleged if there is “no legitimate purpose” for the behavior.

She also claims that she was fired after I was there. That is also true. What she left out is that she was fired for stealing medical equipment and pharmaceuticals from her employer, not because of any alleged stalking on my part.

The complaint is without merit, and I believe that I have enough evidence that she has perjured herself to prevail in this case. There are a few facts that we have in our possession that I am not yet at liberty to discuss. As soon as we have the evidenciary hearing, I will release more details.

Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying. This needs to change. Sign the petition here:

I have had to edit and remove all posts on this blog that have to do with my ex girlfriend, the one that broke up with me more than 6 months ago. For my regular readers, you remember the story. The data breaches, and the other incidents that I thought were in my past.

Last week, I was served with a Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Order. I have not spoken with, nor have I had any contact with this woman in four months, yet she went to the courthouse and filed for an injunction. It was granted at an ex parte hearing.

In her complaint, she alleges that we lived together (we did not), and that I am stalking her (I am not), and that I showed up at her workplace,which led to her getting fired. (edited to add: now that the case is done, I can say that the last part is true, I did show up at her workplace, and that did get her fired, but not because I was stalking her. See this post) There are no allegations that I committed any violent act, nor are there any claims that I threatened any violent acts. The basis of her claim is that I own a lot of guns, and she is afraid that I might “snap” one day.

We had our first hearing, and asked for a continuance, so that we could subpoena witnesses for my defense. It was granted.

Every one of us has had this conversation at some point in our lives, whether we are a man who wants to fix a problem, or the woman who just wants us to listen. This video sums up both relationships and today’s politics.

Many women would rather wallow in self pity and sorrow, than to actually DO anything proactive to solve the problem. It isn’t about the nail, it is about how they FEEL about the nail.

This is why so many political issues today involve showing that you CARE about a problem, than they do about actually FIXING the problem.

Governor Rick Scott will veto a change to Florida’s law that would have given the state transportation agency permission to increase speed limits on the state’s highways by 5 miles per hour (from 70 to 75), if the agency deemed that it was safe to do so. Why the veto? Because police asked him to.

Scott said Tuesday that he will “stand with law enforcement” who urged
him to veto the legislation that narrowly passed the Florida
Legislature. Earlier this month, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper who was mourning a
colleague killed after being struck by a vehicle urged Scott to veto the
bill.

Increasing or decreasing the speed limit doesn’t matter to the cops. They don’t obey the speed limit anyway. They know that they aren’t going to get a ticket. That is why they have
all of the “Blue line” bumper stickers, so other cops know that they are
cops and will let them off.

The Orlando Sentinel did a story in February about an honest trooper in Miami that gave another cop a ticket. Since the traffic stop, Trooper Watts claims that she has been harassed by prank calls and threats. According
to her lawyer, over a three-month period, at least 88 law enforcement officers from 25 different agencies accessed Watts’ driver’s license
information more than 200 times. She has had fecal matter left on her personal car at home. She has filed suit against the police agencies involved.

All because she gave another cop a ticket.

A three-month investigation by Miami’s Sun Sentinel (pdf warning) found almost 800 cops from a dozen agencies driving 90 to 130 mph on Florida highways. They weren’t even on duty — they were commuting to and from work in their take-home patrol cars.

The evidence came from police SunPass toll records. The Sun Sentinel obtained a year’s worth, hit the highways with a GPS device and figured out how fast the cops were driving based on the distance and time it took to go from one toll plaza to the next.

Speeding cops can kill. Since 2004, Florida officers exceeding the speed limit have caused at least 320 crashes and 19 deaths. Only one officer went to jail — for just 60 days. At least 320 law enforcement officers across Florida were involved in
crashes from 2004 through 2010 that were blamed on the officers’
speeding. But only 37 — 12 percent — were ticketed, an analysis of crash
reports shows. As a cop,  even leading police on a high speed pursuit only gets your take home patrol car taken away for three months.

After the article came out, the police chief said that he plans to fire the worst offenders. Some of them were exceeding the speed limit by over 50 mph- that is enough to get a regular citizen thrown in jail, not just fired. Even after firing, they will retain their state LEO certification, and will be free to break the laws while they enforce them upon the rest of us.

The third part of the Sun Sentinel article (pdf warning) states that one in five off duty police officers exceeded the speed limit by more than 20 mph. Robert Pusins, a retired major with the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. was quoted in the article as saying: “The problem is the attitude . . . ‘because we can.’ ”

Even in their personal vehicles, officers can easily “badge their way out” of getting tickets,former cops told the Sun Sentinel. The same professional courtesy extends to family members,the ex-cops said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Badges imprinted with “police officer’s son or daughter” are available online for as little as $12.

On one forum, a cop commented on all of this, and this is what he said:

Most companies give some type of breaks to their employees anyway. Car
companies give their employees bigger discounts when they purchase a new
cars, doctors give their staff free medical treatment, dentists give
their employees and their family members free dental work, financial
institutions give their employees lower interest rates and the list goes
on and on.

Governor Scott, instead of standing with Law Enforcement, why don’t you try representing the voters, you know, the ones who put you in office?

Fast food workers are striking again, demanding $15 an hour. This is a coordinated effort, being bankrolled by the left. The problem here is that workers who demand too much money will eventually get to a cost point where automation is cheaper than hiring a worker.
McDonald’s has 7,000 electronic cashiers in Europe, where hiring humans is more expensive because employers are required by law to give a month’s vacation a year, three month’s or more paid maternity leave, and other costly benefits to their employees. Just like ATMs, these machines are cheaper to operate than the employees that they are replacing.
An automated teller, like the ones being used by McDonald’s, have a number of advantages over employees:
– They can speak as many languages as the employer needs them to, to serve a larger customer base.
– They are never rude or insulting to customers
– They will always get the order correct
– They will not steal, or “skim” money from the register
– They do not require ObamaCare insurance.
– They do not call in sick, come in late, leave early, take long breaks, demand a raise, take vacation, get pregnant, or any of the other things that human employees do that cost an employer money.

Next, look for machines to replace the kitchen help, as well.

A $15 an hour minimum wage would be very close to the tipping point, if not already beyond it. In fact, an executive order signed by President Obama  issued last fall for fast food workers on federal contracts under the Service Contract Act require an increase in the minimum wage for such employees, varying by region. The rules also require payment of
new, additional “health and welfare” fringe benefits at a rate of $3.81
per hour to those employees.

Contractor-operated fast food concessions on military installations fall under those regulations. This increases costs to operate restaurants, and this has resulted in the shut down of fast eateries on military bases all over the world.

As for the striking workers, I would simply fire any one who is a no call no show, or anyone who calls in sick and is seen outside protesting. Healthy enough to protest, healthy enough to come into work. A worker who protests on his own time is fine by me, as long as he is not in my uniform, on my property, or reflecting poorly on my company while holding himself out as an employee.

You are free to protest, I am free to fire you.

Freedom, a wonderful thing.

There are many people who claim that the Second Amendment is useless for allowing a citizen militia to oppose a tyrannical government, because the US government of today has machine guns, tanks, warships, artillery, and fighter jets. They claim that no citizen militia could oppose a modern military armed with such weapons.

To me, this makes a good case for citizens owning bigger weapons, but even if this isn’t your cup of tea, history doesn’t support the belief that rifle armed militias can’t oppose modern military forces. The Mexican government’s response to the Zimmerman Telegram is a good example of this.

In the Zimmerman telegram, the German government proposed that Mexico should enter the war on the side of the Germans. This would have prevented the US from sending troops to Europe in opposition to Germany, and prevented the British from using Mexican oil to fuel their war machine. The Mexicans didn’t feel that their military was up to the task, because they could not defeat the US military in the field, and even if they could, the Mexican military did not feel that they could control the large, primarily English-speaking population who were well supplied with guns and ammunition.

In short, a large group of citizens who are armed with personal weapons cannot be governed without their consent. It isn’t as though the Mexican army was poorly equipped in those times, either. The German military had been supplying arms, advisors, and money to the Mexican military for over three years.

In fact, one single munitions ship, the SS Ypiranga, carried a large cargo of German ordinance to Mexico. The ship contained more than 15,000 cases of small arms ammunition, twenty heavy machine guns, and 250,000 rifles, in addition to other arms. In all, the ammunition and arms occupied 30 freight rail cars, and that was just one shipment.

German advisors were allegedly found at the scene of the battle of Nogales, and $12 million in military aid had been given to Mexico by the Germans in 1915. Twelve million dollars in 1915 is 272 million dollars today. This represents a fairly large sum for the time. In 1915, the US budget for the military was $426 million (1915 dollars), so the $12 million represented 3% of the US budget.

This is being touted by the left in an obvious election year ploy:

Paul Saginaw, co-founder of Zingerman’s Deli in Michigan, pays
his 630 employees up to $21/hour, offers health and dental benefits to
all workers, provides paid time off, and 401k retirement plans. This
week, Mr. Saginaw is in Washington lobbying Congress and the restaurant industry to raise wages for all workers! 

 In the article, Saginaw had this to say:

Paying entry wages our employees can live on has contributed to our
profitability and our annual compounded growth rate of 10 percent.
Raising the minimum wage is long overdue.

If paying an increased entry level wage actually increased profitability by itself, then there would be no need to have a minimum wage, as companies would pay the higher wage on their own.


 So I looked up the restaraunt, and they sell sandwiches for $13 each. Fountain sodas cost $2.50 each. Then they require tipping!

Compare that to Subway: A foot long sub for $5, and soda is $1.5. No tipping. I have no problem with a business VOLUNTARILY paying their employees more than the minimum. Just understand that requiring all businesses to do so will raise prices to the point where the increased wages mean nothing. Increasing the minimum wage to $10 an hour, as they are advocating, would increase labor costs in these types of businesses by 45%. Since labor is the biggest expense of most of these businesses, an immediate price increase of about 50-60% would be needed to keep these businesses afloat.


Since the minimum wage would be high, this would remove the desire for skilled trades to go to school and learn skills, because no one would want to work hard to learn a skill, only to earn the same money as a burger flipper. This wage increase would send shock waves through the entire economy and cause incredible inflation as companies struggled to afford the new wages. The Fed would be forced to raise interest rates to tighten the money supply in response. This would slow the economy and eliminate jobs.


I got in a similar conversation with my girlfriend last night. She showed me an article that pointed out how the US is the nearly only country that does not mandate paid maternity leave. She used Canada as an example. She said that Canadian law mandates that an employer pay for 52 weeks of parental leave: For the first 17 weeks, 55% of a woman’s pay ($500 a week maximum), and the remaining 35 weeks can be taken by either parent, and must be paid by the employer at a rate of 55% (maximum $485 a week). To be eligible, an employee must have been employed for 600 hours. 

She teaches courses in how to run a business, and I can’t believe that she did not see the obvious problem: A business is obligated, after 15 weeks, to pay for a woman to take a year off with pay at a cost of over $26,000, or a man 8 months off with pay at a cost of $17,000. The result is obvious: Don’t hire women.


So then she asked, “What about Mexico? Surely the US can match Mexico? They require that women receive 12 weeks of paid maternity leave!”
You mean the Mexico that is currently flooding the US with illegal immigrants that are willing to risk death to sneak through the desert because there are no jobs to be had? The Mexico where the female labor participation rate is only 34%, while the male labor participation rate is 62%? The Mexico where the average household income is less than half of the US average?


People need to stop demanding that the government force others to give them free stuff.