Uncategorized

This is a story of events that occurred to me about 7 years ago, events which resulted in my CWP being revoked. It took me six months, multiple hearings, an administrative appeal, and several thousand dollars in attorney fees to finally clear my name. Let this serve as a warning to others that this can happen to you.

It began on Saint Patrick’s day in 2004, when my live in girlfriend announced that she wanted to see other people and moved out. During the time we were living together, her car had broken down, and I had been letting her drive my second car while she was awaiting repairs. The car was 100% mine, and my name was the only one on the title and registration. She had also been using a second cell phone on my Nextel account. (Trust me, I am not rambling- this is all important later)

When she moved out, I turned off the cell phone and I asked for my car back. She refused. I called the cops, but they told me that since I had given her the keys, it was a civil matter. I didn’t know where she had moved to, so my car was gone. A month later, I saw the car parked at the mall, but there was a “club” on the steering wheel. I had it towed to my house.

That night, she came to my house at 2 in the morning, pounding on my door and demanding that I give her the car back. I told her to go away, and she refused. I called the police. They arrived, and explained to me that I had to let her in the house, because she had a 2 month old bill with her name and my address on it, and that constituted enough proof in their minds that she lived with me.

They told me that I had to let her get her stuff. I told him that I wanted her to give me back the keys to the car. The cop said, “Car? What car?” I told him that the car was parked right around the other side of the apartment. He said, “If I I don’t see a car, there is no car.” He then asked me to put my hands on the wall and frisked me. He then made me stand in my living room in “the position” with my hands on the wall.

While that was going on, he let her into my apartment, where she proceeded to steal about $2,000 of my stuff and began loading it into the car. I pointed that out, and he said that my ex-girlfriend was claiming it to be hers. I asked him to run the tags. He refused and told me not to tell him how to do his job. (Note here that they had no problem getting involved in the “civil matter” on her side, but would not get involved on my behalf.)

I told the cop that my arms were getting tired and asked if I could wait outside. He told me that was fine, so I grabbed my set of keys to that car (that she had helpfully removed the “club” from) and walked outside.

While the ex was in the house with the cops getting more of my stuff, I got in the car and drove it down the street. I pulled the wires from the computer to the distributor out of the car and tossed them in the bushes before heading back to my place.

When I got back, the cop asked me where the car was. I pointed out to him that if he didn’t see a car, there was no car. He became furious and told me I was under arrest for auto theft and obstructing a LEO. He even put the cuffs on me. I told him that he had just made my day, and he was going to get sued for wrongful arrest. I pointed out that he was arresting me for stealing my own car, and since this was a “civil matter” and therefore no crime had occurred, there was nothing for me to obstruct. He must have realized that he had screwed up, because a few minutes later he took the cuffs off and let me go.

The next day, there was a sheriff’s deputy at my door with a domestic violence injunction, ordering me to appear at a hearing a week later. At the hearing, she produced a statement that I had been beating her while we were together. No witnesses, no police reports, no medical records, no marks on her, no corroborating evidence of any kind, just her say-so. It turns out that there is a “domestic violence victims advocates office” at the court house that coaches these women on what to say, and juggles the judicial calendar to make sure they get sympathetic judges. (Witness tampering?)

While in court, she began crying, and told the judge that I had taken away “her” phone, and that I had taken away “her” car, and left her with no way to get to work. She also told the judge that she was afraid of me because I owned a lot of guns.

This infuriated the judge, and he ordered me to turn my guns in to the police, revoked my CCW, and ordered me to provide her with a cell phone at my expense. While doing this, he said, “Is this true? You own two cars, and she doesn’t have one?”

I replied that this was true, and he said “Not any more. Give her one. In fact, give her the car you drove in here today. You can hitch a ride or take a cab, for all I care.” Now I wasn’t about to give her my primary car, which was worth much more than the one she had been driving, so I lied and told him that the car I arrived in wasn’t mine. The judge then ordered me to deliver the car to the courthouse the following day, also entering into the order that the car have “No defects, nothing wrong with it, and it had better have a full tank of gas, or I will hold you in contempt.”

My attorney objected, and pointed out to the judge that my girlfriend and I had never been married, had no children together, and he was therefore not within the law to enter such an order. The judge told him to sit down and shut up.

He also said that since my 2 jobs as a paramedic could potentially bring me near her, that I was prohibited from going to work. One job was willing to work with me and came up with a plan for vacation and administrative reassignment, the other one fired me the next day. The one willing to work with me (the fire department) placed me on paid suspension. I was told that if the order was made final, they would have to terminate me.

Luckily, the attorney had forewarned me about the anti-gun attitude of this particular judge, and I had already sold all of my guns to my brother in law for $10 two days earlier. Since this was not a final judgment, we could not appeal. The judge also said that my taking away “her” car and phone was a kind of violence, in that I was using my financial influence and the threat of firearms to control her.

For the next five months, we had numerous hearings, and I was eventually able to return to my fire department job. I had to endure her showing up everywhere I went. I started making sure I had witnesses wherever I was, so that she couldn’t accuse me of anything. I hung out with friends and family, so that way it wouldn’t be my word against hers.

It would go like this: I would be at a sports bar owned by my partner, and she would show up and call the police. Since I was there first, they couldn’t arrest me, but they would make me leave. She would go grocery shopping at the store across the street from my house, and tell the cops I was watching her from my window, and they would come over and hassle me. She called the cops and told them her doctor’s office was in my mom’s neighborhood, and they would even throw me out of my mom’s house, and make me leave until she was finished at the doctor.

One night, she called me and told me that the whole thing would go away if I paid her $10,000 in cash and let her keep the car. I refused. My attorney was finally able to trip the judge on a legal technicality and got him recused from the case. With a new judge, we got the whole thing thrown out, and I got my car back. By the time I got it, it had been damaged by some sort of tool or keys. Someone had drawn large male genitalia in the side of the car by scratching it into the side of the car with a sharp object. My deductible for the insurance claim was $750.

Another month, $1,100 in fees, and some administrative appeals later, I managed to get my CWP back. I bought the guns from my brother in law, and my life returned to normal.

All of this was done on a statement filled out by her, with no witnesses, and no evidence whatsoever. I discovered that when you get in front of these judges, you are at their mercy. They can ruin your life.

As I have stated before, I am not a union member. I am not a Democrat. The reason that I have been sympathetic to the unions in Wisconsin is because the Republicans are passing a law that infringes in the rights of public employees to assemble and petition the legislature for a redress of grievances. This is an abridgment of the First Amendment. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that you use the force of government and law to silence them.

The excuse that they do not have the interest of the taxpayer in mind when they speak doesn’t fly with me. It isn’t as though corporations are any better when they give lucrative job offers to military procurement officers in exchange for the inside track to government contracts.

That is also why I am against closed shops. Closed shops take away my right to speak for myself, and force me to accept that the union will speak for me. I am in a union shop, and I am not in the union. I speak for myself. It is not my place to force others to follow my path. I will fight anyone who tries to force an opinion on others. Even if that opinion is my own, and even if the person it is being forced upon is my enemy. I do this because I may one day be the person being forced to obey, and the person in power may be that enemy. What powers I grant to myself may one day be used by my enemy.

We should remember that, always.

As soon as the government mandates that any good or service is a right, it means that someone is now obligated to provide that right. This is true in the case of Healthcare, education, monetary handouts like Welfare and Social Security, food, housing, whatever.

There are only three ways to do this:

1 Require that the cost of the good or service is spread amongst all taxpayers
Sometimes this can be justified, in that the cost of the good or service is borne by all, and is provided equally to all, with everyone paying, and everyone benefiting. This system is good when the cost to any one person is high, but everyone needs and has access to the service.

Examples of this include national defense,  the court system, or fire protection. Every person benefits, every person pays.

2 Require that the cost of the good or service is paid for by the provider, that is the provider must provide the good or service at their own expense.

At least a portion of the good or service is forcibly taken from one person for the pure benefit of another. Examples of this include welfare, social security, education, and medical programs. For example, the law forces Doctors to provide medical services for a set price. This system is sometimes confused with other plans, but it easily distinguished by the fact that the good or service is not provided to everyone equally. Welfare is not available to some based on income, race, or other factors, for example.
  
3 Require the person receiving the good or service to pay for it themselves. Some systems do offset a portion of the costs through user fees, but these are typically heavily subsidized by other means. A good example of a user fee supported mandate is the auto insurance that is required to operate a vehicle.

I used to be a supporter of the TEA party, until I realized that they are merely trying to shift the provider from one column to another. They still want the government to provide them with stuff, they just don’t want to be the one who pays for it. They want government mandated schools, fire departments, and all the other hand outs, but instead of paying for it, they want to force others to do so, either by asking them to provide their labor at a certain price, or by making someone else pay a tax that they themselves want to be exempted from.

Even though the anonymous commenter doesn’t want to post even a screen name, I will post the information requested:
 Instead of negotiating with government employees, the TEA Party of Wisconsin is passing a law that would require teachers to take pay cuts, and prohibiting them from even discussing the matter. No different that requiring Doctors to provide medical care at set rates under Obamacare, the TEA party (which is a branch of the Republican party) simply wants someone else (teachers) to foot the bill for education. I say, break the Dem/Rep stranglehold, and begin phasing out public education.

Closer to my home state of Florida, the TEA party is already making with the politics as usual:

Managed care health insurance companies — eager to shape legislation that could give them more access to 3.2 million Medicaid patients and an expected $21.6 billion budget — gave nearly $200,000 to the parties in the last quarter of 2010.

Political committees representing property insurers and individual companies gave the Republican Party nearly $60,000 as lawmakers prepared a proposal to loosen regulations that could allow rate increases and fewer requirements to cover sinkhole damage.

The sugar companies, Florida Crystals and U.S. Sugar — which donated $250,000 and $175,000, respectively — have joined other agricultural interests in opposing a new federal clean water mandate affecting nutrient runoff. They have urged the governor to delay implementing the rules.
Private prison operator Geo Group chipped in $82,500. Private companies run seven of the state’s 146 prison facilities under contracts worth $159 million and Scott proposes privatizing more to help reduce a $2.4 billion corrections budget.

Not only that, but during the campaign, TEA party gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott said that he would not cut the pay and benefits of police and fire. Four weeks after being sworn in, he proposes to eliminate the retirement plan for all state workers, cops and firemen included. Proving that the TEA party is comprised of a bunch of the same old lying politicians that will say whatever it takes to get elected that we have always had.

For those who think that such liars are trustworthy, remember that when he decides to turn on you for a few extra votes. Or have you forgotten Gillibrand already?

I just watched 2012. I am very glad that I watched it as a streaming movie on Netflix, and didn’t pay $21 to see it. It was pure mental pablum, no substance, and the science was ridiculous. The main star was the CGI. Can we go back to making movies that have character development and a plot, please?

Let’s imagine that the government signs a contract with Boeing, where the company will provide 500 military aircraft over a ten year period. The contract is structured so that Boeing gets $10 million for each unit, payable on delivery, and another $5 billion at the end of the 10 year contract, as a bonus for completing all aircraft on time, bringing the total of the contract to $10 billion.

Nine years into the project, 450 aircraft have been delivered, and the company is well positioned to deliver the remaining aircraft before the expiration of the contract and collect the bonus. The Air Force decides that they cannot afford to pay the bonus, and unilaterally alters the contract to eliminate the bonus, and decides that the original price of $10 million per copy is sufficient. The military also announces that while other contracts with defense contractors are unaffected by this contract change, budgetary constraints may cause them to alter other contracts in the future.

Boeing protests, saying that each aircraft costs the company more than $10 million to build, and the company stands to lose money on this contract if the previously promised bonus is not paid. Boeing further states that had the bonus not been a part of the contract, they would have signed other, more lucrative deals with other parties, and that the bonus was the reason the deal was agreed to in the first place. Boeing petitions their congressman to reinstate the original conditions of the contract. Instead, the Democrat-controlled congress threatens to pass a law preventing corporations who receive money from military contracts from negotiating the terms of those contracts.

Boeing responds by refusing to deliver the remaining aircraft. Other defense contractors, afraid that their contracts are in danger of future cuts if this precedent is allowed to stand, send strong letters and lobbyists to speak to congress in Washington. Many of these letters claim that the companies will cease delivering products to the military if such a law were passed.

1. At this point, is Boeing justified in refusing to deliver any more aircraft?
2. Should the government be able to force them to deliver them anyway?
3. Is the law preventing defense contractors from contacting their representatives constitutional or fair?

Most would say that the Air Force and Congress are out of line. Sure, $20 million per aircraft seems steep, but the Air Force still made the deal, and should have considered that prior to having the work done.

How is this any different from what is being done to those who provide labor as their product? The employees have delivered the product (their labor), and now that the work is done, there are attempts to alter the agreement. Attempts to negotiate are met with threats of making negotiation illegal, and so the employees refuse to provide any more labor under those conditions. I am interested to see what answers our Republican fanboys have to the above questions. I bet they avoid answering them.

The only difference I see is that the Republicans don’t like the fact that many unions support Democrat politicians. As Borepatch says:

the problem isn’t the Democrats, and the solution isn’t the Republicans.  The problem is an institutionalized ruling class that views the rest of us with increasing contempt.

EDITED TO ADD: I am tired of being spammed by comments that do not directly relate to the posts. Comments that are not related to the post, or are mere links to other sites with no comment will be deleted.

In my previous post,  there were some comments that public employees should be prohibited from contacting their government representatives as a group, because doing so was against the will of the people. So much for that theory.

Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

I am not, nor have I ever said that public employees should get their way, and I am also actively opposed to so-called “closed shops.” I do however, feel that they should have a seat at the table. Telling them that they cannot speak collectively is like telling people that they can only protest alone. What happened to the right to peaceably assemble?

The First Amendment is as important to me as the Second. There are many that I used to admire for their love of the Constitution, but I am sorely disappointed that they are only interested in using the words of the founders to feather their own nest.

When I paid my OUC electric bill online, I keyed in my checking account information wrong. They called and told me, so I paid it, plus a $25 fee, in cash the next day. Now they say I am cash only, no checks, no credit cards, no online payments for the next two years. In person, in cash, only. That is total bullshit. If they didn’t have a total monopoly, I would switch today.

OUC is a government owned utility. There is no practical choice for getting electricity any other way than through the local government. They require me to come pay in cash, while at the same time they are violating the law themselves by prohibiting me from carrying my concealed weapon in their government owned offices, despite being prohibited from doing so by Florida’s preemption laws.

I am going down there now to pay my bill. In nickels.

EDITED TO ADD: OK, I checked. They will not accept bulk coins. I am going to contact as many elected officials as I can to cause trouble for this. This is purely a vindictive thing, as they will not even accept money orders. Cash only, in person only.

A constitutional amendment that would take court procedural rulemaking authority away from the Supreme Court and give it to the Legislature has been introduced in a House subcommittee that has been studying the issue.

Currently, Art. V, Sec. 2, provides that the Supreme Court has the authority to adopt practice and procedure rules for the court, and the Legislature may repeal any rule by a two-thirds vote of both chambers. It also includes some technical language about the court and the district courts of appeal submitting questions on military law for an advisory opinion to a special military appellate court.

The amendment repeals all of that, and instead specifies: “No court shall have the power, express or implied, to adopt rules for practice and procedure in any court. Court rules of practice and procedure may be recommended by the Supreme Court to be adopted, amended or rejected by the legislature in a manner prescribed by general law. If there is a conflict between general law and a court rule, the general law supersedes the court rule.

Make no mistake, this change is intended to neuter the Supreme Court. The state Legislature of Florida intends to make the Supreme Court of the State a useless appendage. When any branch of government seeks to overrule the others, watch out.