Craig's guilty plea and conviction upheld; vows to stay in office. Give that seat to a Dem next term!
ScottyFLL
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his
term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind
his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting.
"I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively,"
Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow
Republicans who have long urged him to step down.
Craig had earlier announced he would resign his seat by Sept. 30, but
had wavered when he went to court in hopes of withdrawing his plea.
The third-term lawmaker issued his statement not long after Idaho
Gov.
C.L. "Butch" Otter relayed word he has selected a replacement for
Craig in the event of a resignation.
"He is ready to act should we receive a letter of resignation," said
Jon Hanian, Otter's spokesman in Boise, in what seemed like a
calculated signal that home-state Republicans want Craig to surrender
the seat he has held for 17 years.
In his statement, Craig said he will not run for a new term next
year.
But in the meantime, he said: "I will continue my effort to clear my
name in the Senate Ethics Committee - something that is not possible
if I am not serving in the Senate."
The ethics committee has already signaled it is reviewing the facts
of
Craig's case, taking the step after the Senate Republican leadership
requested it.
Craig's decision to stay and fight raises the strong possibility of
public hearings - virtually certain to be televised live - centered
on
the issue of gay sex.
When the charges first surfaced, Craig said he would resign by Sept.
30. But then he decided to attempt withdrawing a written guilty plea
in August to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. He said he
would stay in office at least until a judge ruled on that bid.
"Because the defendant's plea was accurate, voluntary and
intelligent,
and because the conviction is supported by the evidence ... the
defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied," Hennepin
County Judge Charles Porter wrote.
Craig's lawyer, Billy Martin issued a statement saying his client was
considering whether to appeal the ruling.
"We are, of course, disappointed with the ruling issued today,"
Martin
said in his statement. "Senator Larry Craig maintains that he is
innocent and there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that
he is guilty. Thus, we renew our arguments that it is manifestly
unjust to deny Senator Craig's request to withdraw his guilty plea.
Senator Craig continues his steadfast denial that any inappropriate
behavior took place at the airport.
"He is currently considering whether to appeal this decision.
Throughout this trying time, Senator Craig has remained a dedicated
public servant and continues to serve the people of Idaho with honor
and distinction, as he has done for the past 27 years," Martin said.
Craig shocked the Senate in late August when it was disclosed that he
had quietly pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct after
being arrested by an undercover police officer.
The officer said Craig had exhibited behavior consistent with seeking
a sexual encounter in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport.
Craig said he had panicked when arrested, and admitted guilt because
an Idaho newspaper had been aggressively investigating allegations
that he was gay.
Emphatically denying that was the case, Craig hired lawyers and
announced plans to seek the withdrawal of the plea.
"I am extremely disappointed with the ruling issued today," he said
in
his written statement. "I am innocent of the charges against me."
Craig added that over five terms in the House and three in the
Senate,
"I have accumulated seniority and important committee assignments
that
are valuable to Idaho."
He did not mention that at the request of the leadership, he
relinquished the senior Republican posts on his committees.
Craig says his actions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport bathroom June 11 were misconstrued by the police officer who
arrested him.
The officer said Craig had looked into his bathroom stall, and tapped
his foot and moved his hand under the divider in a way that suggested
he was looking for a sexual partner.
Craig denied that in an interview with the officer after his arrest.
But he pleaded guilty on Aug. 8. He later said he "panicked" in
entering his plea, believing that it would keep the matter quiet. The
Idaho Statesman had been holding back an article on rumors about his
sexuality, and Craig said in court papers that he feared the arrest
would trigger the story.
Porter rejected that as a good reason to withdraw the plea. Any
pressure Craig was under "was entirely perceived by the defendant and
was not a result of any action by the police, the prosecutor, or the
court," he said.
Minnesota law allows a plea to be withdrawn if a "manifest injustice"
occurs, but leaves it to judges to define that. Porter ruled that
none
occurred in Craig's case.
"It is not a manifest injustice to force the defendant to be bound by
his plea bargain and the waivers and admissions which he made in
conjunction with the execution of that bargain," Porter wrote.
He also wrote that Craig hadn't produced any "newly discovered
evidence" that would clear him.
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Craig's closest ally in the Senate, said
Craig "has the right to pursue his legal options as does any citizen,
and I support his effort. I look forward to serving with him as we
continue to work on issues important to Idaho."
___
Associated Press writers John Miller in Boise, Patrick Condon in
Minneapolis and Matthew Daly in Washington contributed to this
report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_go_co/craig_senate
Death
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> Craig vows to stay despite court loss
No one expected the toilet-toy to keep its word.
Not only it is a politician but a self-confessed
( guilty your honor) fag to boot.
No One
Craig has stated repeatedly that he's not "gay", so he is not
"self-confessing" that. He did plead guilty to a nebulous charge of
disorderly conduct.
Craig also stated that he won't run for another term, so a Republican
is likely to win - with a large Republican majority, whatever anger
there is will be directly primarily at Craig.
Death
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> Craig has stated repeatedly that he's not "gay", so he is not
> "self-confessing" that. He did plead guilty to a nebulous charge of
> disorderly conduct.
>
Indeed, why would he do that?
Friday, October 5, 2007
Idaho senator pleads guilty to disorderly conduct after incident at
Minnesota airport that echoes previous allegation of homosexual conduct.
Kerry Maloney / kmal...@idahostatesman.com
Sen. Larry Craig answered questions with his wife, Suzanne, at their home
in May. The Craigs listened to a tape of a man who says is certain he had a
brief sexual encounter with Craig at Union Station. Craig told the
Statesman the man's story isn't true, and he denied two other accusations
as well. "The gay movement, we know it for what it is," he said. "It's now
aggressive, and it's liberal, and it's naming people to try to put them in
compromising, difficult situations."
Sen. Larry Craig responds to a man's allegation that he followed him
suggestively at the REI store in Boise.
Sen. Larry Craig on why he hasn't sued a blogger who wrote that he engaged
in homosexual activity.
Sen. Larry Craig responds to a man who said he had a sexual encounter with
Craig.
Sen. Larry Craig responds again to a man's story that the two had a sexual
encounter.
Sen. Larry Craig responds to a story from a man who pledged his college
fraternity who told the Statesman that Craig hit on him.
Sen. Larry Craig responds to questions about whether his marriage is one of
convenience.
Listen to a man talk about what he says was a sexual encounter with Larry
Craig.
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
Our View: Sen. Craig owes Idahoans an explanation
What does the undercover officer allege happened?
ELSEWHERE
Video: See an AP video report about Sen. Larry Craig
Video: Watch a 1982 news story about the sex and drug scandals in the U.S.
House and watch Craig deny accusations
Video: News story about the sex and drug scandals in the U.S. House in 1982
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
What happens if Larry Craig resigns from the Senate?
If Sen. Larry Craig resigns his seat, Idaho law will require Gov. Butch
Otter to appoint someone to fill the vacancy until the next general
election, which is set for November 2008.
Otter spokesman Jon Hanian said the governor has not discussed any possible
replacements should Craig resign. "(Otter's) not commenting until he's had
an opportunity to talk directly to the senator and he hasn't had a chance
to do that yet," Hanian said Monday.
Idaho reactions
"I'm sorry we don't live in a world where the senator feels he can be open
about his sexual orientation."
Idaho Rep. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise
"We need to make sure we have all the facts. If there's truth to it, then I
think it's the kind of thing where the senator needs to think about
resigning from office."
Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance
Washington sex scandals
* In July, U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., acknowledged having been in touch
with the D.C. Madam, whose phone records were examined by an investigator
for Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt. Vitter went into seclusion for
a week, then had a news conference with his wife to apologize for his
conduct.
* Last fall, Mark Foley, a Republican congressman from Florida, resigned
from Congress after news reports surfaced that he sent lewd computer
messages to a former congressional page. Last week, a Florida newspaper
reported that he is unlikely to face criminal charges.
* In 1998, the House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton
after his affair with former intern Monica Lewinsky became public. The
Senate acquitted the Democratic president.
* And at the height of the public interest in Clinton's affair with
Lewinsky, Idaho had its own Washington sex scandal when the late U.S. House
Rep. Helen Chenowith, a Republican, admitted that she had once had a
six-year affair with a married man. By Dan Popkey -
dpo...@idahostatesman.com
Edition Date: 08/28/07
Sen. Larry Craig, who in May told the Idaho Statesman he had never engaged
in homosexual acts, was arrested less than a month later by an undercover
police officer who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him in an
airport men's room.
The arrest at a Minnesota airport prompted Craig to plead guilty to
disorderly conduct earlier this month. His June 11 encounter with the
officer was similar to an incident in a men's room in a Washington, D.C.,
rail station described by a Washington-area man to the Idaho Statesman. In
that case, the man said he and Craig had sexual contact.
The Minnesota arrest was first reported Monday by Roll Call, a Capitol Hill
newspaper.
In an interview on May 14, Craig told the Idaho Statesman he'd never
engaged in sex with a man or solicited sex with a man. The Craig interview
was the culmination of a Statesman investigation that began after a blogger
accused Craig of homosexual sex in October. Over five months, the Statesman
examined rumors about Craig dating to his college days and his 1982
pre-emptive denial that he had sex with underage congressional pages.
The most serious finding by the Statesman was the report by a professional
man with close ties to Republican officials. The 40-year-old man reported
having oral sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station, probably in 2004.
The Statesman also spoke with a man who said Craig made a sexual advance
toward him at the University of Idaho in 1967 and a man who said Craig
"cruised" him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise. The Statesman also
explored dozens of allegations that proved untrue, unclear or unverifiable.
Craig, 62, was elected to Congress in 1980. Should he win re-election in
2008 and complete his term, he would be the longest-serving Idahoan ever in
Congress. His record includes a series of votes against gay rights and his
support of a 2006 amendment to the Idaho Constitution that bars gay
marriage and civil unions.
News about the June 11 arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport was reported on Roll Call's Web site Monday. According to police
and court records obtained by Roll Call, Craig pleaded guilty Aug. 8 to
misdemeanor disorderly conduct in Hennepin County District Court. He paid
$575 in fines and fees. A 10-day jail sentence was suspended and Craig
received one year's unsupervised probation.
Craig on Monday denied any misconduct. "At the time of this incident, I
complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions," he said
in a written statement. "I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct. I
should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In
hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this
matter myself quickly and expeditiously."
Craig, through his staff, declined to answer questions.
Craig resigns Romney post
On Monday afternoon, Craig resigned from his role as the U.S. Senate
co-chair of the Mitt Romney for president campaign. Monday night, the
Romney campaign canceled a visit to Boise scheduled for today by Romney's
son, Josh.
Until Monday, the Statesman had declined to run a story about Craig's sex
life, because the paper didn't have enough corroborating evidence and
because of the senator's steadfast denial.
In the hourlong May 14 interview, Craig was accompanied by his wife,
Suzanne. He specifically and generally denied ever engaging in any
homosexual conduct.
During that interview, the Statesman played Craig an audiotape of the man
claiming that he and Craig had sex in the Union Station restroom. Like the
Minnesota airport restroom, the Union Station restroom is known as a place
where men can find anonymous sex.
Craig denied the man's account and said, "I am not gay and I have never
been in a restroom in Union Station having sex with anybody.
"There's a very clear bottom line here," Craig said. "I don't do that kind
of thing. I am not gay, and I never have been."
Craig's accuser spoke to the Statesman on the condition he not be named.
The man said he was sure it was Craig he had oral sex with but said he had
no evidence other than his word.
Craig also denied the claims of the two other men that he made sexual
advances to them.
One man, who was considering pledging with Craig's fraternity at the U of I
in 1967, said Craig took him to his room and made what the man said he took
to be an invitation to sex. Responding to that allegation in May, Craig
said, "I don't hit on any men."
Another man said that in November 1994 Craig "cruised" him at the REI store
in Boise. The man, who is gay, told the Statesman that Craig stared at him
in a sexually inviting way and followed him around REI for a half-hour.
Said Craig: "Once again, I'm not gay, and I don't cruise, and I don't hit
on men. I have no idea how he drew that conclusion. A smile? Here is one
thing I do out in public: I make eye contact, I smile at people, they
recognize me, they say, 'Oh, hi, Senator.' Or, 'Do I know you?'
"I've been in this business 27 years in the public eye here. I don't go
around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn't do it in
Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!"
Undecided about re-election
On Aug. 9, the day after his guilty plea in Minnesota, Craig told the
Statesman he had yet to decide whether he would seek re-election in 2008.
He served five terms in the House before he was elected to the Senate. His
third Senate term expires in January 2009. Lt. Gov. Jim Risch has said he
will likely run should Craig retire. Former Democratic Rep. Larry LaRocco
announced in April that he will run for the Senate.
Craig said that he would announce his re-election plans by mid-September.
He said personal factors, including spending time with his nine
grandchildren, were weighing on the side of retirement. But he also said he
enjoyed his job and the benefits of seniority.
During the interview in May, Craig said his re-election or retirement would
not be influenced by accusations that he was gay. "If I'm going to run from
these kinds of stupid, false allegations after 27 years in public life,
having done a credible job, then I shouldn't have been there in the first
place."
Blogger makes claims
The Statesman began its inquiry last October, after a gay activist blogger,
Mike Rogers, published a claim that Craig had sex with men. Rogers cited
anonymous sources. Rogers believed he had the evidence to nail a
hypocritical Republican foe of gay rights, raise the din in the Rep. Mark
Foley scandal, and help the Democrats win the Congress.
Millions heard or read of Rogers' claims. Amid anticipatory buzz from Web
sites like the liberal Wonkette, Rogers published his report at
blogactive.com Oct. 17. He also appeared on a liberal talk show in 100
radio markets. Mainstream media - including four Idaho newspapers, the
Washington Post, USA Today, MSNBC and Bill Maher on HBO - spread the story
widely.
But Statesman editor Vicki Gowler would not rely on Rogers' anonymous
sources. Instead, she decided to investigate the widespread rumors that
date to 1982, when Craig pre-emptively denied involvement in a gay sex
scandal involving congressmen and underage pages.
During its investigation, the Statesman interviewed 300 people, visited the
ranch where Craig grew up, and made two trips to Washington, D.C.
On May 12, two days before its interview with Craig, the Statesman finally
interviewed Rogers' "best source," the man who says he is certain he had a
brief sexual encounter with Craig at Union Station, which is two blocks
from Craig's office. The man said the sex occurred in two restrooms on a
weekday afternoon. He estimated the encounter lasted three or four minutes.
The man's motive was twofold. A lifelong Republican, he recently had
re-registered as a Democrat because he's angry with what he sees as the
GOP's gay-bashing. Second, he was tired of Rogers picking on congressional
staffers and offered him the chance to "out" a senator.
The Washington-area man's story has remained consistent, beginning with his
Aug. 9, 2004, e-mail to Mike Rogers: "I've hooked up with Craig ... why not
out some actual members and not their staffers?"
That suggestion came shortly after Rogers launched his outing campaign,
prompted by his anger over the GOP election-year push for a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage. Craig voted for the failed measure July 14,
2004. He also has opposed allowing gays or lesbians in the military and
voted against extending civil rights protections to homosexuals in the
workplace.
Craig told the Statesman in May that he doesn't care about a person's
sexual orientation. He said he had a homosexual staffer. "I hire people
based on their talent and their ability to produce," he said.
Marriage should be between and man and a woman, Craig said. But he said he
supports unions between same-sex couples. "You can have a civil union, but
you can't commandeer the institution of marriage. That's very special,
religious, culturally, and you can't go there."
Last fall, however, after Rogers' report, Craig issued a statement saying
he would vote for an amendment to the Idaho Constitution on the November
ballot that bans both gay marriage and civil unions.
In the May 14 interview, Craig and his wife listened to a four-minute
excerpt of the Statesman's interview with the 40-year-old man who first
spoke to Rogers. At first, Craig objected to the man's anonymity, but
agreed to listen. The man's voice was disguised.
Craig said the man is an activist. "The gay movement, we know it for what
it is. It's now aggressive and it's liberal and it's naming people to try
to put them in compromising, difficult situations."
Suzanne Craig's eyes reddened and filled with tears as she listened. After
her husband's denial, she said, "I'm incensed that you would even consider
such a piece of trash as a credible source."
To which Craig added, "Jiminy God!"
Before moving on to the next question, Craig turned to his wife and said,
"Sorry, Hon."
Until Monday's report, Craig was facing a lone credible accuser. Rogers
told the Statesman he had lost track of his other two sources, who he said
described encounters with the senator, one in Idaho and one in Seattle.
Rogers concedes he doesn't know those two sources' last names. "I was an
amateur," he told the Statesman.
The Statesman followed dozens of leads about alleged sexual partners. Two
prevalent rumors swirl around two men who are dead. The Statesman has found
no written record of sexual intimacy between those men and Craig. Relatives
of those men are dead, unaware of proof to substantiate the rumors, or
unreachable.
Two other alleged partners unequivocally denied having been intimate with
Craig. Other accounts are simply unfounded. Some were inconclusive.
There are, however, the two men who told the Statesman Craig made passes at
them. Craig denied those accounts in his May 14 interview.
The Page Scandal
Until the Mike Rogers report in October and the Roll Call story on Monday,
rumors about Craig were grounded in the 1982 congressional page scandal.
Craig denied involvement in 1982, but the timing of his statement fueled
rumors that lasted decades. Among them were that Craig married shortly
after the scandal to cover up his alleged homosexuality.
Craig and the then-Suzanne Scott had their first date on Valentine's Day
1980, when Craig was making his first run for Congress. Craig proposed six
months after the scandal, on Suzanne's birthday, Dec. 28, 1982. They
married in July 1983.
About a year before the marriage, on June 30, 1982, 13.3 million viewers of
CBS News heard page Leroy Williams allege he had sex with three House
members when he was 17.
The following day, Craig issued a statement saying he'd received calls from
reporters saying they were going to publish his name in connection with the
scandal. His statement called the allegations "part of a concerted effort
at character assassination."
"I have done nothing that I need to be either publicly or privately ashamed
of. I am guilty of no crime or impropriety, and I am convinced that this is
an effort to damage my personal character and destroy my political career."
Craig alone - among 535 members of Congress - issued such a statement. In
the news vacuum of the July 4 recess, the freshman Republican was thrust
into the national spotlight. A network helicopter followed him to Jordan
Valley, Ore., where he attended a potluck for Southwest Idaho ranchers.
He told a national audience: "Persons who are unmarried as I am, by choice
or by circumstance, have always been the subject of innuendos, gossip and
false accusations. I think this is despicable."
Before he hit the airwaves, Craig hosted a breakfast for his campaign staff
at the Owyhee Hotel to tell them what was about to happen. Brad Hoaglun
remembers the moment: "He was very matter-of-fact and forthright. He said,
'I want to tell you nothing in the story is accurate.'"
"I was finishing up college. This was my first paid campaign, and I can
remember sitting there thinking, my gosh, what have I got myself into? And,
OK, do I believe Larry Craig? And I came quickly to the conclusion that,
yes, I do."
Hoaglun went on to be an important GOP hand and was former Gov. Jim Risch's
spokesman.
After the staff breakfast in 1982, Cheryl Miller, a top Craig campaign
aide, drove Craig to Jordan Valley in her silver Pontiac. She said Craig
liked to sing along to her 8-track tapes of country western and gospel. It
relaxed him. Despite the pressure, Craig's gift for campaigning was
unaffected, Miller said. All who knew him believed he'd been wrongly
accused, she said.
Staffer John Keenan was on the next leg, from Boise to North Idaho. "It
really rattled our cages," said Keenan, a Craig staffer from 1981-85. At a
stop in Council, a crew from a second network helicopter "stuck a
microphone in his face. I was standing there, just kind of amazed. I was so
impressed, he handled it so well."
During the drive, Craig told tales of his youth on the family ranch 24 long
miles from Midvale, where he attended the one-room South Crane School,
became a champion orator and tussled with a cow that stuck its head in his
tent and took off running.
"He took comfort in telling us stories," said Keenan. "He has a sense of
humor that he doesn't reveal easily. Gosh, I was laughing my head off."
At the time, a top Craig staffer, Karmen Larson, said reporters from CBS
and The New York Post said they were going to name Craig, prompting his
denial. The CBS reporter on the story, John Ferrugia, declined comment to
the Statesman.
Craig says he 'panicked'
But Peter Fearon, then with the New York Post, said he never said his paper
was preparing to name Craig. "No, no - it wasn't 'are you under
investigation?' It was simply an inquiry: 'Have you heard anything? Who
have you heard about? Have you heard any names mentioned? What's your
reaction to this news?'
"The next thing I know, Larry Craig has issued a press release: 'This
isn't me.' Which I just thought was a bizarre and ultimately very foolish
thing to do.
"He was the only person going on the record anywhere," Fearon said. "And of
course, when you do that, it's like raw meat. He's saying, 'Nobody's
actually accusing, but it wasn't me!' It's no wonder it's dogged him. He
denied something that no one had accused him of."
Four weeks later, page Williams recanted, saying he'd made up the whole
thing. A second page who had appeared on CBS, Jeffrey Opp, said he'd
exaggerated or misunderstood what he took to be sexual advances from
congressmen.
A six-month probe into sex charges was launched by the House ethics
committee. In December 1982, they exonerated those accused by Williams and
Opp.
The committee chastised CBS's Ferrugia for planting "lurid tales of sexual
misconduct and homosexual prostitution in the Congress" in Opp's mind. Opp
declined to speak to the Statesman for this story; Williams did not reply
to repeated inquiries.
Though his staff credits Craig for a cool head in 1982, he told the
Statesman on May 14 that he panicked.
"I was scared, plain and simple scared," he said. "When you have somebody
walk into your office and make that kind of allegation and tells me he's
gonna go to print - and I'm a freshman congressman and go, 'Oh my God!'"
Craig talks to FBI
Craig allowed the Statesman to review, but not copy, what he said were an
FBI report and a privately administered polygraph from 1982 regarding the
page scandal.
Craig did not respond to requests to have the FBI verify the authenticity
of the FBI document. Craig also declined to sign a waiver allowing the
Statesman to review anything in his FBI file regarding homosexuality.
The FBI document supplied by Craig describes a July 20, 1982, FBI interview
with Craig at the offices of his Washington law firm. Craig requested the
interview with the FBI and said reporters had threatened to disclose
allegations of homosexuality.
"Craig stated that he had never engaged in a homosexual relationship" with
Williams or Opp, the FBI report said. "Craig further indicated that he has
never engaged in a homosexual relationship with any person."
The document says Craig told the FBI that he suspected that then-Rep.
Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., might be behind the allegations against him.
Opp was appointed by Schroeder. "Craig said that recent polls indicate
strong support for his re-election this fall, and he perceives this as a
slanderous campaign by the opposition party to have him defeated," said the
report.
An attached document from a polygraph examiner hired by Craig said it was
the examiner's opinion "that Congressman Craig is not a homosexual and has
since adulthood not engaged in homosexual acts of any type."
Craig also provided the Statesman military records to respond to a rumor he
left the Idaho National Guard because he was homosexual. Craig was
honorably discharged in 1972, after 20 months of a six-year enlistment.
Had he been discharged for homosexual conduct, a different section of the
military code would have been cited, and he wouldn't have received an
honorable discharge. Records show he was let go because of a "physical
disqualification," although they do not specify the reason. There is no
physician's report available, according to the Pentagon and the Idaho
Guard. Craig says his ailment was flat feet.
U of I days
Craig told the Statesman he was unaware of rumors about him being gay going
back to his college days. Craig had about 150 fraternity brothers at Delta
Chi during his U of I years.
The Statesman interviewed 41 of them. Of those 41, three said there were
jokes about him being effeminate and possibly gay. Most said that had Craig
been thought to be gay, he would have never become a leader in the
fraternity and the student body.
As president of Delta Chi, Craig secured a $100,000 loan to remodel the
fraternity house, instituted study hours, and blackballed members for drug
use. They called him "Mother Craig" for his officiousness.
After shedding 50 pounds the summer before college, he was elected state
president of the Future Farmers of America on his second try. He also was
student body president at U of I. Graduating in 1969, he won the Donald R.
Theophilus Outstanding Senior Award. Five years later, at 28, he was
elected to the state Senate. He's been in public office ever since.
Most of Craig's college friends say he was disciplined, studious and
serious, even if he was awkward with women.
One woman who dated him off and on for a year asked not to be named, but
said, "I don't imagine that he ever held my hand. He was into the
gotta-hold-the-door-for-the-woman sort of thing. But I always felt like I
was an accessory. I might as well have been his briefcase."
Craig said he did sometimes invite women because a date was expected. But
he said he had a serious girlfriend in college; they split over religious
differences. He declined to name her.
Men Craig served with or under in Congress - Republicans Jim McClure, Orval
Hansen, George Hansen and Steve Symms and Democrats Richard Stallings and
Larry LaRocco - all said they have no credible evidence of Craig being gay.
The same goes for scores of former staffers. They spoke to the Statesman
before Monday's news of Craig's guilty plea.
McClure, whom Craig succeeded in the Senate, said Craig's formal manner of
speaking has fueled rumors. Craig was taught by an old-school orator - the
late D.L. Carter of Weiser. The lessons served Craig well, as he won state
championships, attended two national contests and filled his bedroom at the
ranch with trophies.
Said McClure: "He was of the old oratorical school where you went in and
took each word and broke it into syllables and enunciated and all of that.
And that's how that style came about, to project across a full hall."
Craig also took piano lessons in high school and was in the high school
choir.
"Larry's speech patterns are very precise," said McClure. "They're not what
you expect from a rancher from Midvale. His speech patterns say, 'Hey,
here's a guy who's a little different.' And he is, he's a little different.
But that doesn't mean he's homosexual for heaven's sakes! You have to jump
from prejudice to suspicion to I don't know what to give the rumors any
credibility."
Neighbors weigh in
Last fall, Craig's neighbors at a Washington marina expressed disbelief at
Rogers' attempt to out him. Ed Johnson is an openly gay man, former local
elected official and has been an acquaintance and neighbor of Craig's off
and on for 15 years. He is president of the Gangplank Slipholders
Association, a neighbor to the smaller Capital Yacht Club, where Craig
lives.
A Democrat, Johnson works for the American Humanists Association, which he
describes as "the godless, liberal, left-wing atheists."
"If I thought there was truth to the rumor, I'd be first in line to out
him," said Johnson, who agrees hypocritical public officials should be
exposed.
"But after 15 years in a close-knit community where everybody knows
everybody's business, to be that clandestine and never have anything said -
it's just hard to imagine. I mean, if somebody has a fight and breaks up
with their boyfriend or girlfriend, you know it the next day."
Dan Popkey: 377-6400
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Craig has stated repeatedly that he's not "gay", so he is not
> > "self-confessing" that. He did plead guilty to a nebulous charge of
> > disorderly conduct.
> >
>
> Indeed, why would he do that?
He claims it was to avoid adverse publicity and that an Idaho newspaper
was questioning his sexual orientation, a topic about which he is
apparently quite sensitive. He thought the bad PR if he contested
the charge was too costly, regardless of is actual guilt or innocence.
BTW, he had a good chance of winning in court given a reasonable doubt
standard because the evidence is rather weak - the arresting officer
should have waited for Craig to pull out his wiener or do something
else that might qualify as lewd conduct.
<snip of a very large cut and paste job of various news articles>
Death
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
>
> > "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Craig has stated repeatedly that he's not "gay", so he is not
> > > "self-confessing" that. He did plead guilty to a nebulous charge of
> > > disorderly conduct.
> > >
> >
> > Indeed, why would he do that?
>
> He claims it was to avoid adverse publicity
well that was a waste of time
>and that an Idaho newspaper
and I provided some of that, cut and paste
so there would be no mis-under-standings
> was questioning his sexual orientation, a topic about which he is
> apparently quite sensitive. He thought the bad PR if he contested
> the charge was too costly, regardless of is actual guilt or innocence.
My point exactly, NOT guilty your honor.
> BTW, he had a good chance of winning in court given a reasonable doubt
> standard because the evidence is rather weak -
lol, guilty, your honor, is not rather weak-
>the arresting officer
> should have waited for Craig to pull out his wiener or do something
> else that might qualify as lewd conduct.
>
Oh, he qualified, guilty your honor.
Keep in mind those are his words, not mine.
Even at that, the faggot got a deal you or I would not
have recieved. You feel he got the shaft, where I know
he got the elevator.
You want to turn lewd conduct into indecent exposure.
I don't think Larry wants you on his side of the argument
in court.
> <snip of a very large cut and paste job of various news articles>
lol
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
> >
> > > "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > Craig has stated repeatedly that he's not "gay", so he is not
> > > > "self-confessing" that. He did plead guilty to a nebulous charge of
> > > > disorderly conduct.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Indeed, why would he do that?
> >
> > He claims it was to avoid adverse publicity
>
> well that was a waste of time
If you flip a coin, it doesn't always come up heads.
> >and that an Idaho newspaper
>
> and I provided some of that, cut and paste
> so there would be no mis-under-standings
You provided hundreds of lines of cut and pasting from various web
pages when you could have simply provided URLs to the original
material. When you do that, don't expect it to be read.
>
> > BTW, he had a good chance of winning in court given a reasonable doubt
> > standard because the evidence is rather weak -
>
> lol, guilty, your honor, is not rather weak-
... and not the defense he'd have used if he had contested the charges.
> >the arresting officer
> > should have waited for Craig to pull out his wiener or do something
> > else that might qualify as lewd conduct.
> >
>
> Oh, he qualified, guilty your honor.
> Keep in mind those are his words, not mine.
... as I said, he chose not to contest the charges (and pleaded guilty
to disorderly conduct, not lewd conduct).
> Even at that, the faggot got a deal you or I would not
> have recieved. You feel he got the shaft, where I know
> he got the elevator.
Your slurs aside, he probably got the standard deal. Most of these
stings are rather dubious operations, which is why the ACLU got
involved. According to the local newspaper, they had one in my area
years ago where they arrested 12 people caught in a restroom where
this sort of thing was allegedly going on. They let 10 go. What does
that tell you? You can guess the tactic - round up the innocent with
the guilty, and then tell the innocent guys that there won't be an
arrest record if they agree not to sue for false arrest, figuring that
nearly everone will go along to avoid being publicly embarrassed.
These stings have a nationwide history of being very sleazy
operations. There's also a lot of entrapment that goes on, where the
police hit on a guy and then arrest him if he responds. If someone
flirts with you, shouldn't you have the right to flirt back? If not,
a lot of straight women would be in jail.
How would you like it if you were simply using a restroom for its
intended purpose and were dragged off by the police because some
other guys liked to hook up there for sexual encounters?
Death
>
No it doesn't. With each flip you have a 50/50 chance
even it you flip it 50 times.
If you mean to take a chance in court with 50/50 odds
I think I'd pass.
>
> You provided hundreds of lines of cut and pasting from various web
> pages when you could have simply provided URLs to the original
> material. When you do that, don't expect it to be read.
> >
Read it or don't, ain't that 50/50 lovely?
>
> Your slurs aside, he probably got the standard deal.
Did he or didn't he? Back to the 50/50
>Most of these
> stings are rather dubious operations, which is why the ACLU got
> involved.
You know that as fact? Lets see where you got that from.
A cut and paste will do nicely.
>According to the local newspaper, they had one in my area
> years ago ...
not germane to Craigs' guilty plea and conviction upheld ...
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >
> > If you flip a coin, it doesn't always come up heads.
> >
>
> No it doesn't. With each flip you have a 50/50 chance
> even it you flip it 50 times.
> If you mean to take a chance in court with 50/50 odds
> I think I'd pass.
He took a chance that nobody would notice the conviction as
"disorderly conduct" does not suggest "bathroom sex".
> >
> > You provided hundreds of lines of cut and pasting from various web
> > pages when you could have simply provided URLs to the original
> > material. When you do that, don't expect it to be read.
> > >
>
> Read it or don't, ain't that 50/50 lovely?
A cut and paste job of old newspaper articles won't be read.
<snip>
>
> >
> > Your slurs aside, he probably got the standard deal.
>
> Did he or didn't he? Back to the 50/50
I'd say he did - a 500 dollar fine when he really hadn't
even done anything other than act weird.
> >Most of these
> > stings are rather dubious operations, which is why the ACLU got
> > involved.
>
> You know that as fact? Lets see where you got that from.
> A cut and paste will do nicely.
Try reading the ACLU's comments about it. It was posted
previously, so you can go find it on your own.
Death
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
> >
> > Did he or didn't he? Back to the 50/50
>
> I'd say he did - a 500 dollar fine when he really hadn't
> even done anything other than act weird.
>
Peeping at another man sitting (pretending to be taking a shit)
and wanting to have faggot ass sex, yes that is weird and
at the least, disgusting.
Weirder yet, to plead guilty when he wasn't? Nah
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
> > >
> > > Did he or didn't he? Back to the 50/50
> >
> > I'd say he did - a 500 dollar fine when he really hadn't
> > even done anything other than act weird.
> >
>
> Peeping at another man sitting (pretending to be taking a shit)
> and wanting to have faggot ass sex, yes that is weird and
> at the least, disgusting.
He was three feet from the officer's stall - check the police report -
while waiting to go into his. It wasn't like he had his eyes glued to
the tiny gap at the edge of the stall.
Also, he never asked for sex and he never exposed an "objectionable"
part of his anatomy.
> Weirder yet, to plead guilty when he wasn't? Nah
Not if he thought it would cover it up.
ScottyFLL
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
>
> > > "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > Craig has stated repeatedly that he's not "gay", so he is not
> > > > "self-confessing" that. He did plead guilty to a nebulous charge of
> > > > disorderly conduct.
>
> > > Indeed, why would he do that?
>
> > He claims it was to avoid adverse publicity
>
> well that was a waste of time
LOL!!
ScottyFLL
Not germane indeed. Another of No One's fallacies. "Because some,
therefore all."
ScottyFLL
That is ONE messy amicus brief! http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf
No One
Another of Scottyffl's lies - I never said "because some, therefore
all". "Death" refused to believe the ACLU's statments, which I would
presume to be factual, and I merely gave him an example consistent
with the ACLU's claim.
Of course, all of us should take a very dim view of stings that round
up innocent people, particularly when they are then coerced into
giving up the right to sue for false arrest. Perhaps Scottyffl thinks
otherwise.
No One
That's your opinion, but the ACLU has a valid point, and the brief
is hardly "messy".
Dionisio
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
>>Weirder yet, to plead guilty when he wasn't? Nah
>
> Not if he thought it would cover it up.
Ah, yes. That's right. No One believes that Craig is honest, innocent, and perhaps the
Second Cumming.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worships, that the legislative
powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
expression thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
-- From a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association from President Jefferson in 1801.
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
Dionisio
> ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
>>That is ONE messy amicus brief!
>>http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf
>
> That's your opinion, but the ACLU has a valid point, and the brief
> is hardly "messy".
And the point is? That Craig gave his plea, of his own free will -- exercising his freedom
of speech no doubt -- and in a situation that involved neither torture nor coercion; And
whilst having been appraised of his right to Counsel, which he refused of his own free will.
And the thought of Disorderly Conduct being Constitutionally protected... Particularly
when it involves -- as a plea deal -- something unquestionably illegal...
That's a crock.
What the Hell were they smokin'?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
You can take away our jobs;
You can refuse us the basic rights of citizenship;
You can withhold our economic and civil liberty;
You can beat us, jail us, curse us, and kill us;
You can threaten us with Hell;
And you can take away our children;
But you can never take away our Dignity.
Josh Rosenbluth
> No One wrote:
>
>> ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
>>
>>> That is ONE messy amicus brief!
>>> http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf
>>
>>
>> That's your opinion, but the ACLU has a valid point, and the brief
>> is hardly "messy".
>
>
> And the point is? That Craig gave his plea, of his own free will --
> exercising his freedom of speech no doubt -- and in a situation that
> involved neither torture nor coercion; And whilst having been appraised
> of his right to Counsel, which he refused of his own free will.
>
> And the thought of Disorderly Conduct being Constitutionally
> protected... Particularly when it involves -- as a plea deal --
> something unquestionably illegal...
I disagree with the ACLU's argument, but your reasoning (it is illegal
and therefore cannot be Constitutionally protected) makes no sense.
Josh Rosenbluth
No One
> No One wrote:
> > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
> >>Weirder yet, to plead guilty when he wasn't? Nah
> > Not if he thought it would cover it up.
>
> Ah, yes. That's right. No One believes that Craig is honest, innocent,
> and perhaps the Second Cumming.
Liar.
Dionisio is apparently too daft to realize that a politician might
decide it's better to pay $500 to cover something up rather than
paying far more in PR to overcome any adverse publicity, even if
ultimately being vindicated in a trial. A defense attorney for one of
the other people caught in the sting claimed that Craig had an
excellent chance winning in court if he had pled "not guilty" due to
the evidence being rather weak.
It's not a question of him being "honest" or "innocent" but rather of
there being insufficient evidence of a crime being committed. He
appears to have been too far from the officer's stall for "peering" to
be a believable charge, and his behavior inside the stall is also
consistent with mere clumsiness. If you do a rough estimate, you'd
figure there is maybe a 2 percent chance of an innocent guy (innocent
of sending 'sex' signals) showing his behavior being arrested, but
that is too high for a conviction under a reasonable doubt standard.
Even if he was flirting with the officer, that isn't a crime unless it
was for purposes of engaging in public sex, and there is no evidence
that Craig wanted to do that - the officer jumped the gun by not
waiting for a request to have sex, either in public or by going off
and getting a hotel room. While Craig was concerned about missing his
flight after he was arrested, that doesn't preclude canceling a flight
for purposes of spending the afternoon with a real "hottie" in a nice
hotel room, which would be completly legal.
The "disorderly conduct" charge is absurd - if Craig was signaling for
sex, the officer reciprocated, but if not, Craig was simply engaging
in harmless but clumsy behavior.
Meanwhile, we get to see him stay in the Senate as the Republicans
squirm.
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> Dionisio is apparently too daft to realize that a politician might
> decide it's better to pay $500 to cover something up rather than
> paying far more in PR to overcome any adverse publicity, even if
> ultimately being vindicated in a trial.
That's not a basis for withdrawing a guilty plea.
> It's not a question of him being "honest" or "innocent" but rather of
> there being insufficient evidence of a crime being committed.
Even if it is not likely, it would not be impossible for jury to convict
him of disorderly conduct based on the evidence. That's all that is
needed to maintain the plea.
Josh Rosenbluth
No One
> No One wrote:
> > ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
> >>That is ONE messy amicus brief!
> >>http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf
> > That's your opinion, but the ACLU has a valid point, and the brief
> > is hardly "messy".
>
> And the point is? That Craig gave his plea, of his own free will --
> exercising his freedom of speech no doubt -- and in a situation that
> involved neither torture nor coercion; And whilst having been
> appraised of his right to Counsel, which he refused of his own free
> will.
Read the brief. It clearly indicates that what he did does not
constitute disorderly conduct and that, even if he was asking for
sex, that is not illegal unless the sexual acts were to occur in a
public space. Then there is the whole entrapment issue.
>
> And the thought of Disorderly Conduct being Constitutionally
> protected... Particularly when it involves -- as a plea deal --
> something unquestionably illegal...
>
> That's a crock.
> What the Hell were they smokin'?
It's not something unquestionably illegal - the disorderly conduct
charge was for allegedly asking for sex via some obscure signals sent
to someone who was obviously soliciting more signals, thereby
rendering the charge of disorderly conduct bogus. Sex is not an
illegal act, and there was zero evidence that Craig was soliciting sex
that was to occur in public. You can legally ask an adult you meet in
a restroom to go home with you and join your friends in your saturday
afternoon orgy - just don't be surprised when you get a definitive
"no" as a response. But it is not a crime to ask, just rude if you are
too blunt about it. It can be handled quite civilly - a couple of
weeks ago, a couple of guys started talking to me as I was walking
along the sidewalk, and decided that I was "hot" and expressed an
interest in doing it with me. I basically said, "Thanks for the
compliment, but no thanks."
The ACLU has a perfectly valid point.
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> Read the brief. It clearly indicates that what he did does not
> constitute disorderly conduct and that, even if he was asking for
> sex, that is not illegal unless the sexual acts were to occur in a
> public space. Then there is the whole entrapment issue.
The ACLU neither argued that Craig did not commit disorderly conduct
under the statute, nor that he was entrapped.
They argued that 1) the statute was facially invalid because it did not
distinguish between protected and unprotected speech, and 2) even if the
statute could be saved by being narrowly constructed to only apply to
unprotected speech, Craig's speech was protected and thus beyond the
reach of the statute.
Regarding point #1, prior decisions have found the statute facially
valid so long as it applies only to unprotected speech. Regarding point
#2, while verbally asking (in public) for sex (in private) maybe
protected, it is not persuasive that all physical actions related to the
sex request are automatically protected speech. For example, would
rubbing one's crotch be Constitutionally protected?
Josh Rosenbluth
Dionisio
> I disagree with the ACLU's argument, but your reasoning (it is illegal
> and therefore cannot be Constitutionally protected) makes no sense.
Murder is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally protected.
Theft is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally protected.
Defamation of Character is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally
protected.
Larceny is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally protected.
Assault is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally protected.
Rape is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally protected.
Libel is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally protected.
Perjury is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally protected.
Go ahead. Try just one.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
The gods gave man fire and he invented fire engines. They gave him love and he invented
marriage.
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
>> I disagree with the ACLU's argument, but your reasoning (it is illegal
>> and therefore cannot be Constitutionally protected) makes no sense.
>
>
> Murder is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally
> protected.
>
> Theft is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally
> protected.
>
> Defamation of Character is illegal. Make an argument that it can be
> Constitutionally protected.
>
> Larceny is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally
> protected.
>
> Assault is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally
> protected.
>
> Rape is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally
> protected.
>
> Libel is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally
> protected.
>
> Perjury is illegal. Make an argument that it can be Constitutionally
> protected.
>
> Go ahead. Try just one.
True, all I need is one example, and I am not limited to your selections.
Same-sex sodomy was illegal in Texas. It is however Constitutionally
protected.
Josh Rosenbluth
No One
> No One wrote:
> > Dionisio is apparently too daft to realize that a politician might
> > decide it's better to pay $500 to cover something up rather than
> > paying far more in PR to overcome any adverse publicity, even if
> > ultimately being vindicated in a trial.
>
> That's not a basis for withdrawing a guilty plea.
... that's what the judge ruled, but we were talking about Craig's
actual guilt or innocence.
> > It's not a question of him being "honest" or "innocent" but rather of
> > there being insufficient evidence of a crime being committed.
>
> Even if it is not likely, it would not be impossible for jury to
> convict him of disorderly conduct based on the evidence. That's all
> that is needed to maintain the plea.
Except we weren't talking about the judge at this point, nor the
plea withdrawal. What I've been getting a lot of static for from
a couple of jerks is simply for pointing out that the evidence
against Craig was in fact pretty weak - that would certainly be
relevant if there is a Senate Ethics Committee hearing about it.
The ACLU had a valid argument, but Minnesota law apparently gives
the judges a fair bit of discretion regarding plea withdrawals.
ScottyFLL
I didn't SAY that you said "becomes some, therefore all". "Because
some, therefore all" is the FALLACY.
ScottyFLL
The brief is SEVERELY messy and so misses the point that I hope the
judge who had to look at it handed it to Senator Craig with the intent
that Craig would wipe his ass with it (which it appears he didn't do
on the day in question).
No One
> No One wrote:
> > Read the brief. It clearly indicates that what he did does not
> > constitute disorderly conduct and that, even if he was asking for
> > sex, that is not illegal unless the sexual acts were to occur in a
> > public space. Then there is the whole entrapment issue.
>
> The ACLU neither argued that Craig did not commit disorderly conduct
> under the statute, nor that he was entrapped.
It said explicitly, "there is a very real possibility that this
defendant pled guilty under circumstances in which the Constitution
would not have permitted a conviction." Also:
"But there is an even more powerful reason to relieve the
defendant of his plea here. Almost 30 years ago, the Minnesota
Supreme Court ruled that the law involved here was
unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. It preserved the law
by restricting its application to 'fighting words,' a
restriction which would almost certainly make any conviction
in this case a near impossibility."
That's a pretty good indication that what he did is not disorderly
conduct - a prior Minnesota Supreme Court ruling limits the applicability
of the law he supposedly violated so as to exclude what he apparently
actually did. Even if he wanted the officer to get it up, he didn't
tell the officer to put it up.
> They argued that 1) the statute was facially invalid because it did
> not distinguish between protected and unprotected speech, and 2) even
> if the statute could be saved by being narrowly constructed to only
> apply to unprotected speech, Craig's speech was protected and thus
> beyond the reach of the statute.
They argued several things, including what I quoted above.
> For example, would rubbing one's crotch be Constitutionally
> protected?
LOL. If that were illegal, the "national pastime" would have
the police breaking up just about every game. :-)
ScottyFLL
> No One wrote:
> > ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
> >>That is ONE messy amicus brief!
> >>http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf
>
> > That's your opinion, but the ACLU has a valid point, and the brief
> > is hardly "messy".
>
> And the point is? That Craig gave his plea, of his own free will -- exercising his freedom
> of speech no doubt -- and in a situation that involved neither torture nor coercion; And
> whilst having been appraised of his right to Counsel, which he refused of his own free will.
>
> And the thought of Disorderly Conduct being Constitutionally protected... Particularly
> when it involves -- as a plea deal -- something unquestionably illegal...
>
> That's a crock.
>
> What the Hell were they smokin'?
I'm thinking they were smoking something that wasn't constitutionally
protected!
In the end, they are saying that Craig should be allowed to withdraw
his plea of guilty because the Minnesota law against disorderly
conduct MIGHT be unconstitutional. And they didn't give a very good
argument even for that. Gee, you can almost tell the people who wrote
that brief can't stand Craig, either!
ScottyFLL
> Dionisio <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> writes:
> > No One wrote:
> > > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
> > >>Weirder yet, to plead guilty when he wasn't? Nah
> > > Not if he thought it would cover it up.
>
> > Ah, yes. That's right. No One believes that Craig is honest, innocent,
> > and perhaps the Second Cumming.
>
> Liar.
>
> Dionisio is apparently too daft to realize that a politician might
> decide it's better to pay $500 to cover something up rather than
> paying far more in PR to overcome any adverse publicity, even if
> ultimately being vindicated in a trial. A defense attorney for one of
> the other people caught in the sting claimed that Craig had an
> excellent chance winning in court if he had pled "not guilty" due to
> the evidence being rather weak.
And that may well be true. However, the point is moot, as Craig pled
guilty.
> It's not a question of him being "honest" or "innocent" but rather of
> there being insufficient evidence of a crime being committed. He
> appears to have been too far from the officer's stall for "peering" to
> be a believable charge, and his behavior inside the stall is also
> consistent with mere clumsiness.
That is where you're wrong and where just about everyone disagrees
with you. It is your imagination that is making his behavior
consistent with "clumsiness". You refuse to put pieces of the puzzle
together to arrive at the likelihood that he was trolling for sex.
> If you do a rough estimate, you'd
> figure there is maybe a 2 percent chance of an innocent guy (innocent
> of sending 'sex' signals) showing his behavior being arrested, but
> that is too high for a conviction under a reasonable doubt standard.
Where do you get this 2%? How do you arrive at this "rough estimate"?
ScottyFLL
> Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
> > No One wrote:
> > > Dionisio is apparently too daft to realize that a politician might
> > > decide it's better to pay $500 to cover something up rather than
> > > paying far more in PR to overcome any adverse publicity, even if
> > > ultimately being vindicated in a trial.
>
> > That's not a basis for withdrawing a guilty plea.
>
> ... that's what the judge ruled, but we were talking about Craig's
> actual guilt or innocence.
The only one talking about his "innocence" is you. Everyone else
knows he's guilty (including, apparently, Craig himself, who so pled
intelligently and of his own free will and knowledge).
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>>No One wrote:
>>
>>>Read the brief. It clearly indicates that what he did does not
>>>constitute disorderly conduct and that, even if he was asking for
>>>sex, that is not illegal unless the sexual acts were to occur in a
>>>public space. Then there is the whole entrapment issue.
>>
>>The ACLU neither argued that Craig did not commit disorderly conduct
>>under the statute, nor that he was entrapped.
>
>
> It said explicitly, "there is a very real possibility that this
> defendant pled guilty under circumstances in which the Constitution
> would not have permitted a conviction."
That doesn't say one thing about whether he engaged in disorderly conduct.
> Also:
>
> "But there is an even more powerful reason to relieve the
> defendant of his plea here. Almost 30 years ago, the Minnesota
> Supreme Court ruled that the law involved here was
> unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. It preserved the law
> by restricting its application to 'fighting words,' a
> restriction which would almost certainly make any conviction
> in this case a near impossibility."
>
> That's a pretty good indication that what he did is not disorderly
> conduct
Same as above.
The ACLU is arguing about the constitutionality of the law, not whether
Craig committed the crime.
- a prior Minnesota Supreme Court ruling limits the applicability
> of the law he supposedly violated so as to exclude what he apparently
> actually did. Even if he wanted the officer to get it up, he didn't
> tell the officer to put it up.
>
>
>>They argued that 1) the statute was facially invalid because it did
>>not distinguish between protected and unprotected speech, and 2) even
>>if the statute could be saved by being narrowly constructed to only
>>apply to unprotected speech, Craig's speech was protected and thus
>>beyond the reach of the statute.
>
>
> They argued several things, including what I quoted above.
What you quoted above is exactly my point #2.
>>For example, would rubbing one's crotch be Constitutionally
>>protected?
>
> LOL. If that were illegal, the "national pastime" would have
> the police breaking up just about every game. :-)
I'm sure you knew the context of my question (a man rubs his crotch in a
restroom looking for a hookup). Is that protected speech?
Josh Rosenbluth
No One
Talk about dishonesty! That "becomes some" stuff is not what I said
you said, and what I said you said is a lie as I never said it.
You post it repeatedly so it isn't mere confusion on your part - you
are simply a liar.
No One
It may be "messy" to you but in fact it was quite easy to understand
and completely clear. You, for some reason, just don't like it.
No One
> No One wrote:
>
> > Josh Rosenbluth <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >>No One wrote:
> >>
> >>>Read the brief. It clearly indicates that what he did does not
> >>>constitute disorderly conduct and that, even if he was asking for
> >>>sex, that is not illegal unless the sexual acts were to occur in a
> >>>public space. Then there is the whole entrapment issue.
> >>
> >>The ACLU neither argued that Craig did not commit disorderly conduct
> >>under the statute, nor that he was entrapped.
> >
> > It said explicitly, "there is a very real possibility that this
> > defendant pled guilty under circumstances in which the Constitution
> > would not have permitted a conviction."
>
> That doesn't say one thing about whether he engaged in disorderly conduct.
Read the whole post before commenting.
> > Also:
> > "But there is an even more powerful reason to relieve the
> > defendant of his plea here. Almost 30 years ago, the Minnesota
> > Supreme Court ruled that the law involved here was
> > unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. It preserved the law
> > by restricting its application to 'fighting words,' a
> > restriction which would almost certainly make any conviction
> > in this case a near impossibility."
> > That's a pretty good indication that what he did is not disorderly
> > conduct
>
> Same as above.
>
> The ACLU is arguing about the constitutionality of the law, not
> whether Craig committed the crime.
No, Craig didn't commit "the crime" because the Minnesota Supreme
Court restricted the law's application 30 years ago, and because
of that prior ruling, the law does not apply to Craig's actions
(unless you claim there was some evidence of 'fighting words' or
their equivalent).
>
> - a prior Minnesota Supreme Court ruling limits the applicability
> > of the law he supposedly violated so as to exclude what he apparently
> > actually did. Even if he wanted the officer to get it up, he didn't
> > tell the officer to put it up.
> >
> >>They argued that 1) the statute was facially invalid because it did
> >>not distinguish between protected and unprotected speech, and 2) even
> >>if the statute could be saved by being narrowly constructed to only
> >>apply to unprotected speech, Craig's speech was protected and thus
> >>beyond the reach of the statute.
> > They argued several things, including what I quoted above.
>
> What you quoted above is exactly my point #2.
The disagreement is with your "even" part as the ACLU clearly indicated
that the Minnesota Supreme Court had made the ruling 30 years ago, so
there is no choice in interpretting the law. Surely you don't think that
Supreme Court decisions should be ignored by lower-level courts and by
prosecutors.
> >>For example, would rubbing one's crotch be Constitutionally
> >>protected?
> > LOL. If that were illegal, the "national pastime" would have
> > the police breaking up just about every game. :-)
>
> I'm sure you knew the context of my question (a man rubs his crotch in
> a restroom looking for a hookup). Is that protected speech?
Yes, apparently, as long as they go to a private place to do it. It
might, however, be construed as very rude, depending on where the
restroom is located. I'm assuming, of course, that he has his
pants on and his zipper zipped, and is obviously not masturbating.
No One
> On Oct 6, 4:34 pm, Dionisio <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
> > What the Hell were they smokin'?
>
> I'm thinking they were smoking something that wasn't constitutionally
> protected!
>
> In the end, they are saying that Craig should be allowed to withdraw
> his plea of guilty because the Minnesota law against disorderly
> conduct MIGHT be unconstitutional.
They quoted a Minnesota Supreme Court decision made 30 years ago that
restricted the application of this law significantly. They are saying
that this court ruling means what it says.
> And they didn't give a very good argument even for that. Gee, you
> can almost tell the people who wrote that brief can't stand Craig,
> either!
Nope - you got that wrong too. The judge basically used documents
Craig he signed as evidence to support the plea.
No One
> On Oct 6, 4:57 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Dionisio <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> writes:
> > > No One wrote:
> > > > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
> > > >>Weirder yet, to plead guilty when he wasn't? Nah
> > > > Not if he thought it would cover it up.
> >
> > > Ah, yes. That's right. No One believes that Craig is honest, innocent,
> > > and perhaps the Second Cumming.
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> > Dionisio is apparently too daft to realize that a politician might
> > decide it's better to pay $500 to cover something up rather than
> > paying far more in PR to overcome any adverse publicity, even if
> > ultimately being vindicated in a trial. A defense attorney for one of
> > the other people caught in the sting claimed that Craig had an
> > excellent chance winning in court if he had pled "not guilty" due to
> > the evidence being rather weak.
>
> And that may well be true. However, the point is moot, as Craig pled
> guilty.
No, it isn't "moot". It is completely relevant to forming an opinion
as to what actually happened.
>
> > It's not a question of him being "honest" or "innocent" but rather of
> > there being insufficient evidence of a crime being committed. He
> > appears to have been too far from the officer's stall for "peering" to
> > be a believable charge, and his behavior inside the stall is also
> > consistent with mere clumsiness.
>
> That is where you're wrong and where just about everyone disagrees
> with you. It is your imagination that is making his behavior
> consistent with "clumsiness". You refuse to put pieces of the puzzle
> together to arrive at the likelihood that he was trolling for sex.
Liar - I put the likelyhood that he was trolling for sex at an estimated
98 percent. That just isn't high enough to pass the "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard as having 2 percent of the prison population actually
completely innocent would be an outrage.
When you analyze these things, you basically estimate the chance that
an innocent person would engage in the observed behavior. It's small,
but the number of people who troll for sex in restrooms is also small.
> > If you do a rough estimate, you'd
> > figure there is maybe a 2 percent chance of an innocent guy (innocent
> > of sending 'sex' signals) showing his behavior being arrested, but
> > that is too high for a conviction under a reasonable doubt standard.
>
> Where do you get this 2%? How do you arrive at this "rough estimate"?
Go back and search for it. I explained it to you a week or two ago.
If you didn't pay attention then, you won't if I redo it, so I'm not
going to waste my time.
No One
Craig says he was not actually guilty and only pled guilty to cover
up the incident for political reasons. That may be of "his own free
will and knowledge", which means he shouldn't expect to get his $500
back, but it isn't proof of actual guilt.
ScottyFLL
No no no, honey. You cited previous mishaps in sting operations, and
then tried to apply it to Craig's case. You can't do that. The
fallacy is that you are taking some cases from the past and applying
it to all similar cases. "Because some, therefore all." Can't do
that.
ScottyFLL
It's seriously disorganized and doesn't address the legal matters in
this case. That's messy to me. A horribly messy amicus brief.
No One
It's not seriously disorganized and it does address the legal matters,
whether you like it or not.
ScottyFLL
The ACLU did not make its case.
Scruffy McScruffovitch
moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com, typed this:
> No One wrote:
>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
>>> Weirder yet, to plead guilty when he wasn't? Nah
>>
>> Not if he thought it would cover it up.
>
> Ah, yes. That's right. No One believes that Craig is honest,
> innocent, and perhaps the Second Cumming.
I don't know why people are debating this. Politcally, Craig is done.
Even if the guy does manage to stay until the end of his term, I doubt that
anyone is going to take him seriously.
--
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
enough to take away everything you have."
Thomas Jefferson
No One
Not true at all, honey. I cited an ACLU statement (if you read the
press reports, the bad behavior that occurs in these stings was
mentioned), and then I merely added a data point - something that had
happened in my area. You really have to wonder when they would arrest
12 people in a restroom and let 10 go with no charges being filed.
Also, it was quite common in the past for the police to raid gay bars
and just round people up, even people just standing in the place
talking with friends or acquaintances. These stings and related
activities simply have a bad reputation, and one well earned.
Given that bad behavior, it is only sensible to demand real proof,
and real proof is definitely missing in Craig's case. It has all
the earmarks of a "round 'em up and process them as fast as possible
operation." Otherwise Karsnia wouldn't have jumped the gun - he
could have waited until Craig asked to enter Karsnia's stall, or
tried to stick his wiener under the partition. That would have
been pretty convincing. What we have simply isn't.
ScottyFLL
> ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
> > On Oct 6, 4:57 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Dionisio <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> writes:
> > > > No One wrote:
> > > > > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
> > > > >>Weirder yet, to plead guilty when he wasn't? Nah
> > > > > Not if he thought it would cover it up.
>
> > > > Ah, yes. That's right. No One believes that Craig is honest, innocent,
> > > > and perhaps the Second Cumming.
>
> > > Liar.
>
> > > Dionisio is apparently too daft to realize that a politician might
> > > decide it's better to pay $500 to cover something up rather than
> > > paying far more in PR to overcome any adverse publicity, even if
> > > ultimately being vindicated in a trial. A defense attorney for one of
> > > the other people caught in the sting claimed that Craig had an
> > > excellent chance winning in court if he had pled "not guilty" due to
> > > the evidence being rather weak.
>
> > And that may well be true. However, the point is moot, as Craig pled
> > guilty.
>
> No, it isn't "moot". It is completely relevant to forming an opinion
> as to what actually happened.
It does NOT matter if he had pled "not guilty", because in the end he
did plead "guilty", so the possibility of his pleading "not guilty" is
a moot point. It simply doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.
> > > It's not a question of him being "honest" or "innocent" but rather of
> > > there being insufficient evidence of a crime being committed. He
> > > appears to have been too far from the officer's stall for "peering" to
> > > be a believable charge, and his behavior inside the stall is also
> > > consistent with mere clumsiness.
>
> > That is where you're wrong and where just about everyone disagrees
> > with you. It is your imagination that is making his behavior
> > consistent with "clumsiness". You refuse to put pieces of the puzzle
> > together to arrive at the likelihood that he was trolling for sex.
>
> Liar - I put the likelyhood that he was trolling for sex at an estimated
> 98 percent. That just isn't high enough to pass the "beyond a reasonable
> doubt" standard as having 2 percent of the prison population actually
> completely innocent would be an outrage.
There have always been people convicted of things they didn't do.
Sad, but true.
You have no basis for claiming 98% or 2% or any of the rest of it.
> When you analyze these things, you basically estimate the chance that
> an innocent person would engage in the observed behavior.
Good, now we're getting somewhere.
You are admitting the the observed behaviors -- in the plural -- are
highly suggestive of Craig's trolling for sex in the public restroom.
> It's small,
> but the number of people who troll for sex in restrooms is also small.
Ah, but here you've missed the point. The fact that the population is
SMALL is interesting because that makes them much more VISIBLE. See,
it was the observation of very specific BEHAVIORS associated with that
SMALL population that can lead one to conclude that the person in
question, because of the behaviors, was a member of that small
population.
And I think there just were too many behaviors in too short a period
of time in a place known for this kind of behavior, to simply
postulate that he was "clumsy" or that his behaviors were
"accidental".
And that's my point in determining that he was indeed trolling for
sex. A NUMBER of behaviors, in a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME (and including
behaviors AFTER he was taken into custody), in a place where that
PATTERN of quite SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS is more than just suggestive that
the person in question was doing exactly what he was suspected of
doing.
You have offered possible "reasons" for his behaviors, and you've done
this for each and every of his behaviors. That's done in many a
trial. Doesn't mean a damn thing.
Seeing a pattern of behaviors, offering excuses for each and every
behavior, will eventually get on a jury's nerves. Because the more
you do this, the more evident it becomes to the jury that any doubt
they had simply isn't reasonable. Too many "coincidences", too many
"excuses".
> > > If you do a rough estimate, you'd
> > > figure there is maybe a 2 percent chance of an innocent guy (innocent
> > > of sending 'sex' signals) showing his behavior being arrested, but
> > > that is too high for a conviction under a reasonable doubt standard.
>
> > Where do you get this 2%? How do you arrive at this "rough estimate"?
>
> Go back and search for it. I explained it to you a week or two ago.
> If you didn't pay attention then, you won't if I redo it, so I'm not
> going to waste my time.-
You got the number somehow from the prosector's fallacy, Bayes
whatever, you provided formulas, but you never showed us the numbers
you plugged into those formulas to come up with your "rough estimate"
of 2%.
I want to see the work. We can all say that XYZ/ab * cxy/rt = 2%.
ScottyFLL
Stating that one is guilty after having been accused of being guilty
is probably the BEST evidence of guilt we could ever hope to get.
(Don't bring up the rare instances of people who admit to doing things
they didn't do. It's fallacious.)
Death
"Dionisio" <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
> No One wrote:
> > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
> >>Weirder yet, to plead guilty when he wasn't? Nah
> >
> > Not if he thought it would cover it up.
>
> Ah, yes. That's right. No One believes that Craig is honest, innocent,
and perhaps the
> Second Cumming.
>
He's a fucking politician for Christs' sake.
He understood the value of words and their meaning.
I'm sure the judge took that under consideration as well.
ScottyFLL
Ah, but it is. Looks like someone conceived of it during an epileptic
seizure. And apparently the Minnesota judge agrees with me.
ScottyFLL
Yeah, and you're using that as an example, and trying to apply that
example to the present case. We know what you're doing. It doesn't
work.
> Also, it was quite common in the past for the police to raid gay bars
> and just round people up, even people just standing in the place
> talking with friends or acquaintances. These stings and related
> activities simply have a bad reputation, and one well earned.
And here you're doing the exact same thing. Trying to make us believe
that since it's happened in the past, it is happening now in the
present case. Doesn't work.
> Given that bad behavior, it is only sensible to demand real proof,
> and real proof is definitely missing in Craig's case.
Craig pled guilty, and that's really all we need to know.
> It has all
> the earmarks of a "round 'em up and process them as fast as possible
> operation."
It simply doesn't matter, and indeed, would not matter even if each
and every one of the other people "rounded up" was innocent. This
does NOT speak to the issue of Craig's case! It just doesn't!
> Otherwise Karsnia wouldn't have jumped the gun - he
> could have waited until Craig asked to enter Karsnia's stall, or
> tried to stick his wiener under the partition. That would have
> been pretty convincing.
Certainly it would have been. And there would have been probably a
couple of other more serious charges tossed in.
> What we have simply isn't.-
That's your opinion. And you seem to be the only one who thinks that,
which is your right.
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>>No One wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Also:
>>> "But there is an even more powerful reason to relieve the
>>> defendant of his plea here. Almost 30 years ago, the Minnesota
>>> Supreme Court ruled that the law involved here was
>>> unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. It preserved the law
>>> by restricting its application to 'fighting words,' a
>>> restriction which would almost certainly make any conviction
>>> in this case a near impossibility."
>>>That's a pretty good indication that what he did is not disorderly
>>>conduct
>>
>>Same as above.
>>
>>The ACLU is arguing about the constitutionality of the law, not
>>whether Craig committed the crime.
>
>
> No, Craig didn't commit "the crime" because the Minnesota Supreme
> Court restricted the law's application 30 years ago
Whether or not Craig committed the crime is independent of whether the
law is valid. For example, Lawrence committed the crime of sodomy even
though SCOTUS invalidated the law.
> and because
> of that prior ruling, the law does not apply to Craig's actions
> (unless you claim there was some evidence of 'fighting words' or
> their equivalent).
>
>>- a prior Minnesota Supreme Court ruling limits the applicability
>>
>>>of the law he supposedly violated so as to exclude what he apparently
>>>actually did. Even if he wanted the officer to get it up, he didn't
>>>tell the officer to put it up.
>>>
>>>
>>>>They argued that 1) the statute was facially invalid because it did
>>>>not distinguish between protected and unprotected speech, and 2) even
>>>>if the statute could be saved by being narrowly constructed to only
>>>>apply to unprotected speech, Craig's speech was protected and thus
>>>>beyond the reach of the statute.
>>>
>>>They argued several things, including what I quoted above.
>>
>>What you quoted above is exactly my point #2.
>
>
> The disagreement is with your "even" part as the ACLU clearly indicated
> that the Minnesota Supreme Court had made the ruling 30 years ago, so
> there is no choice in interpretting the law. Surely you don't think that
> Supreme Court decisions should be ignored by lower-level courts and by
> prosecutors.
The court ruled only on verbal disorderly conduct, not physical actions
(such as rubbing your crotch).
>>>>For example, would rubbing one's crotch be Constitutionally
>>>>protected?
>>>
>>>LOL. If that were illegal, the "national pastime" would have
>>>the police breaking up just about every game. :-)
>>
>>I'm sure you knew the context of my question (a man rubs his crotch in
>>a restroom looking for a hookup). Is that protected speech?
>
>
> Yes, apparently, as long as they go to a private place to do it.
I disagree, which is why I disagree with the ACLU.
Josh Rosenbluth
Death
> actual guilt or innocence.
>
Just what are you saying here, that Craig is a liar !?.
The faggot said he was guilty.
Damn, somebody bang the gavel, case closed.
Trot out the next pervert to be tried on usenet.
No One
Did you bother to read the judge's opinion? He stated that the documents
Craig signed constituted a factual basis for the crime. He mentioned
things in the police report later, but he may have just wrote that
as 'filler' without thinking about it too clearly, as he seemed to
think that the documents were enough.
No One
The ACLU has a perfectly valid argument. The judge used Craig's signed
documents as a factual basis for the plea. The hearing was not about
Craig's guilt or innocence but about whether the plea could be withdrawn
and the judge simply used Craig's signed documents as a factual basis
for considering it a done deal.
Judges in Minnesota are given some discretion and he exercised it.
Ironically, as a senator, Craig had little sympathy for liberal
views about fair treatment.
No One
> On Oct 6, 9:34 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > No, it isn't "moot". It is completely relevant to forming an opinion
> > as to what actually happened.
>
> It does NOT matter if he had pled "not guilty", because in the end he
> did plead "guilty", so the possibility of his pleading "not guilty" is
> a moot point. It simply doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.
Wrong - it is not moot because we aren't talking about legalities but about
his actual guilt or innocence.
> > Liar - I put the likelyhood that he was trolling for sex at an estimated
> > 98 percent. That just isn't high enough to pass the "beyond a reasonable
> > doubt" standard as having 2 percent of the prison population actually
> > completely innocent would be an outrage.
>
> There have always been people convicted of things they didn't do.
> Sad, but true.
>
> You have no basis for claiming 98% or 2% or any of the rest of it.
Another lie - I gave you the basis for that estimate and you simply
lack the education to understand it. You'll just have to accept that
or spend a week or two doing some reading.
>
> > When you analyze these things, you basically estimate the chance that
> > an innocent person would engage in the observed behavior.
>
> Good, now we're getting somewhere.
Nope, it's what I pointed out weeks ago.
> You are admitting the the observed behaviors -- in the plural -- are
> highly suggestive of Craig's trolling for sex in the public restroom.
>
> > It's small,
> > but the number of people who troll for sex in restrooms is also small.
>
> Ah, but here you've missed the point. The fact that the population is
> SMALL is interesting because that makes them much more VISIBLE. See,
> it was the observation of very specific BEHAVIORS associated with that
> SMALL population that can lead one to conclude that the person in
> question, because of the behaviors, was a member of that small
> population.
Wrong. You are neglecting the probability (also small) that people who
are completely innocent unwittingly engage in the same behavior.
>
> And I think there just were too many behaviors in too short a period
> of time in a place known for this kind of behavior, to simply
> postulate that he was "clumsy" or that his behaviors were
> "accidental".
Wrong again - I was pointing out that being clumsy can explain the
behavior, but that the chances of someone being that clumsy were
very small (say, 1 in a thousand).
>
> And that's my point in determining that he was indeed trolling for
> sex. A NUMBER of behaviors, in a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME (and including
> behaviors AFTER he was taken into custody), in a place where that
> PATTERN of quite SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS is more than just suggestive that
> the person in question was doing exactly what he was suspected of
> doing.
Wring again. When you actually compute it, you'll find that the chance
that he is guilty can be far smaller than you imagine.
>
> You have offered possible "reasons" for his behaviors, and you've done
> this for each and every of his behaviors. That's done in many a
> trial. Doesn't mean a damn thing.
Wrong. It does mean a "damn thing" when coupled with estimates of the
probability of those behaviors. A responsible juror should insist
that the prosecutor provide those probabilities via expert testimony,
so the jury has a rational basis for estimating the probability of
guilt. If you don't do that, you risk fooling yourself.
> Seeing a pattern of behaviors, offering excuses for each and every
> behavior, will eventually get on a jury's nerves. Because the more
> you do this, the more evident it becomes to the jury that any doubt
> they had simply isn't reasonable. Too many "coincidences", too many
> "excuses".
LOL - that's why you do the calculation and quantify it! Otherwise
"too many" is simply rhetoric.
> > > > If you do a rough estimate, you'd
> > > > figure there is maybe a 2 percent chance of an innocent guy (innocent
> > > > of sending 'sex' signals) showing his behavior being arrested, but
> > > > that is too high for a conviction under a reasonable doubt standard.
> >
> > > Where do you get this 2%? How do you arrive at this "rough estimate"?
> >
> > Go back and search for it. I explained it to you a week or two ago.
> > If you didn't pay attention then, you won't if I redo it, so I'm not
> > going to waste my time.-
>
> You got the number somehow from the prosector's fallacy, Bayes
> whatever, you provided formulas, but you never showed us the numbers
> you plugged into those formulas to come up with your "rough estimate"
> of 2%.
It's Bayes' theorem and it is covered near the start of courses on the
theory of probability. It is pretty basic. I showed you the numbers.
You'll have to apply Bayes' theorem to get the answer. It is
straightforward. If that is not enough information for you, you won't
follow the equations anyway. I suggest you educate yourself rather
than whine on usenet.
This is very basic stuff - Probability 101. You need to know it to
make any meaningful comment. It's in any number of text books, and it
is not reasonable to ask me to provide an on-line course via usenet to
educate you.
> I want to see the work. We can all say that XYZ/ab * cxy/rt = 2%.
I posted it for you and you ignored it. I'm not going to go around in
loops just so you can ignore it some more.
Josh Rosenbluth
> ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
>
>
>>On Oct 6, 9:34 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>No, it isn't "moot". It is completely relevant to forming an opinion
>>>as to what actually happened.
>>
>>It does NOT matter if he had pled "not guilty", because in the end he
>>did plead "guilty", so the possibility of his pleading "not guilty" is
>>a moot point. It simply doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.
>
>
> Wrong - it is not moot because we aren't talking about legalities but about
> his actual guilt or innocence.
Are you arguing Craig wasn't trying to hook up?
Josh Rosenbluth
No One
> On Oct 6, 9:37 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Craig says he was not actually guilty and only pled guilty to cover
> > up the incident for political reasons. That may be of "his own free
> > will and knowledge", which means he shouldn't expect to get his $500
> > back, but it isn't proof of actual guilt.-
>
> Stating that one is guilty after having been accused of being guilty
> is probably the BEST evidence of guilt we could ever hope to get.
Not when it is a plea bargain when there is a big downside for
having a trial so that pleading guilty when not is the best option.
> (Don't bring up the rare instances of people who admit to doing things
> they didn't do. It's fallacious.)
It isn't fallacious - its an observed phenomenum with plenty of evidence
for it happening.
We had a manslaughter trial in a nearby county some time ago where a
guy who owned a restaurant was being harrassed by an angry driver (cut
off, honked out, and generally threatened) repeatedly over a 30 mile
drive. He finally pulled over and the enraged driver came at his
car. A gun was pulled and the road-rage guy was shot and killed. It
sounded like it was "shoot or he'll get my gun and do who knows what
to me." The DA prosecuted and the trial ended up as a hung jury,
about 9 in favor of conviction for manslaughter. The DA decided to
retry the case and, facing bankruptcy, the defended then pleaded
guilty. Do you honestly think there is no reason that someone who
thinks he is innocent might end up quite rationally pleading guilty
because the consequences of pleading innocent are worse, even if you
win in court?
ScottyFLL
> ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
> > On Oct 6, 9:34 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > No, it isn't "moot". It is completely relevant to forming an opinion
> > > as to what actually happened.
>
> > It does NOT matter if he had pled "not guilty", because in the end he
> > did plead "guilty", so the possibility of his pleading "not guilty" is
> > a moot point. It simply doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.
>
> Wrong - it is not moot because we aren't talking about legalities but about
> his actual guilt or innocence.
It's moot because it's already been decided. He pled guilty and Judge
Porter, in his denial of Craig's motion, said "the evidence does
support the conviction" (Judge's order, page 8).
> > > Liar - I put the likelyhood that he was trolling for sex at an estimated
> > > 98 percent. That just isn't high enough to pass the "beyond a reasonable
> > > doubt" standard as having 2 percent of the prison population actually
> > > completely innocent would be an outrage.
>
> > There have always been people convicted of things they didn't do.
> > Sad, but true.
>
> > You have no basis for claiming 98% or 2% or any of the rest of it.
>
> Another lie - I gave you the basis for that estimate and you simply
> lack the education to understand it. You'll just have to accept that
> or spend a week or two doing some reading.
You need at least one number in that formula to come up with a result
that is a number. You did not provide us with any such number.
> > > When you analyze these things, you basically estimate the chance that
> > > an innocent person would engage in the observed behavior.
>
> > Good, now we're getting somewhere.
>
> Nope, it's what I pointed out weeks ago.
>
> > You are admitting the the observed behaviors -- in the plural -- are
> > highly suggestive of Craig's trolling for sex in the public restroom.
>
> > > It's small,
> > > but the number of people who troll for sex in restrooms is also small.
>
> > Ah, but here you've missed the point. The fact that the population is
> > SMALL is interesting because that makes them much more VISIBLE. See,
> > it was the observation of very specific BEHAVIORS associated with that
> > SMALL population that can lead one to conclude that the person in
> > question, because of the behaviors, was a member of that small
> > population.
>
> Wrong. You are neglecting the probability (also small) that people who
> are completely innocent unwittingly engage in the same behavior.
That isn't a probability so much as an improbability. See, people in
that lifestyle have codes, and a series of them. A person not
familiar with the signals is NOT going to run his hand along the stall
wall bottom, three times. It is SO unlikely that the possibility need
not even be considered.
> > And I think there just were too many behaviors in too short a period
> > of time in a place known for this kind of behavior, to simply
> > postulate that he was "clumsy" or that his behaviors were
> > "accidental".
>
> Wrong again - I was pointing out that being clumsy can explain the
> behavior, but that the chances of someone being that clumsy were
> very small (say, 1 in a thousand).
So... one in one thousand gives you REASONABLE DOUBT??????
> > And that's my point in determining that he was indeed trolling for
> > sex. A NUMBER of behaviors, in a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME (and including
> > behaviors AFTER he was taken into custody), in a place where that
> > PATTERN of quite SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS is more than just suggestive that
> > the person in question was doing exactly what he was suspected of
> > doing.
>
> Wring again. When you actually compute it, you'll find that the chance
> that he is guilty can be far smaller than you imagine.
Yet you just gave us a one in one thousand calculation above.
> > You have offered possible "reasons" for his behaviors, and you've done
> > this for each and every of his behaviors. That's done in many a
> > trial. Doesn't mean a damn thing.
>
> Wrong. It does mean a "damn thing" when coupled with estimates of the
> probability of those behaviors. A responsible juror should insist
> that the prosecutor provide those probabilities via expert testimony,
> so the jury has a rational basis for estimating the probability of
> guilt. If you don't do that, you risk fooling yourself.
Are you fucking KIDDING me? Expert testimony on the likelihood that
running one's hand along the bottom of the stall wall three times is
"accidental" or "clumsy"?
Get fucking REAL! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No One
> In News 4707ef18$0$11038$4c36...@roadrunner.com,, Dionisio at
> moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com, typed this:
>
> > No One wrote:
> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
> >>> Weirder yet, to plead guilty when he wasn't? Nah
> >>
> >> Not if he thought it would cover it up.
> >
> > Ah, yes. That's right. No One believes that Craig is honest,
> > innocent, and perhaps the Second Cumming.
>
> I don't know why people are debating this. Politcally, Craig is done.
> Even if the guy does manage to stay until the end of his term, I doubt that
> anyone is going to take him seriously.
Looks like he'll have no trouble staying until the end of his term.
One problem the Republicans face is that, if they try to expell
Craig from the senate, the Democrats can ask, "what about Vitter",
the guy who apparently hired prostitutes. If Vitter goes, his
replacement will be picked by a Democrat.
All the Democrats have to do is to say that they intend the apply the
same standards to everyone. That sounds fair to the voters, doesn't
it? But it puts the Republicans in a very awkward position. So they
will probably just let the thing die quietly (or let the Ethics
oommittee hem and haw for a while and then just slap Craig's wrist.)
Also, if Craig's lawyers can make mincemeat of Karsnia, the other
Republicans might go along with that - having Craig vindicated in some
way would solve their problem, especially given how hard it would be
to boot Craig out of the senate.
Try <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100600937.html>
and
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a1eg59WEkBL4&refer=us>.
The latter points out that, since 1789, only 9 senators have been
censured. Even conservative Republicans are saying that expulsion is
unlikely (and this is not a statement of what they want, but of the
difficulty of getting rid of Craig).
No One
He also knows how to cut a deal he doesn't particularly like when
the alternatives are worse. That's what politicians have to do
sometimes.
Sniper. 308
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
> > "Dionisio" <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
Never mind that. Where are the scat pics?
Last night, my friend greywolf passed out drunk with his pants off and
his ass sticking up. He has a great body. Hairy chest and muscled. He
had just taken a shit in the toilet before he passed out. I was about
to go to bed, when I looked at him and noticed he still had shit
hanging from his ass. I grabbed a towel, put it by the bed and I
jerked off while licking his asshole clean. I shot a huge load on the
towel. That was the best orgasm I have EVER had. He never knew it
happened. When he passes out, you can't wake him for shit. LOL.
No One
> On Oct 6, 9:56 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Not true at all, honey. I cited an ACLU statement (if you read the
> > press reports, the bad behavior that occurs in these stings was
> > mentioned), and then I merely added a data point - something that had
> > happened in my area. You really have to wonder when they would arrest
> > 12 people in a restroom and let 10 go with no charges being filed.
>
> Yeah, and you're using that as an example, and trying to apply that
> example to the present case. We know what you're doing. It doesn't
> work.
Not so - this was simply an additional comment at the end of a post with
no use made of the example beyond "these sort of things happen".
>
> > Also, it was quite common in the past for the police to raid gay bars
> > and just round people up, even people just standing in the place
> > talking with friends or acquaintances. These stings and related
> > activities simply have a bad reputation, and one well earned.
>
> And here you're doing the exact same thing. Trying to make us believe
> that since it's happened in the past, it is happening now in the
> present case. Doesn't work.
No, does work - given the history, it is reasonable to demand proof
that this sort of thing is not going on here.
>
> > Given that bad behavior, it is only sensible to demand real proof,
> > and real proof is definitely missing in Craig's case.
>
> Craig pled guilty, and that's really all we need to know.
Nope - the issue was whether he was actually guilty, not how he
pleaded.
> > It has all
> > the earmarks of a "round 'em up and process them as fast as possible
> > operation."
>
> It simply doesn't matter, and indeed, would not matter even if each
> and every one of the other people "rounded up" was innocent. This
> does NOT speak to the issue of Craig's case! It just doesn't!
The error rate of this sort of police operation is relevant.
>
> > Otherwise Karsnia wouldn't have jumped the gun - he
> > could have waited until Craig asked to enter Karsnia's stall, or
> > tried to stick his wiener under the partition. That would have
> > been pretty convincing.
>
> Certainly it would have been. And there would have been probably a
> couple of other more serious charges tossed in.
If he was actually caught doing those other things, he would have
deserved the charges, but it never happened.
>
> > What we have simply isn't.-
>
> That's your opinion. And you seem to be the only one who thinks that,
> which is your right.
That's a lie on your part as others have said the same thing.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100600937.html>:
"For the same reasons that we had qualms about the basis for
his prosecution, we think demands that he leave or be ousted
from the Senate are overblown and unwarranted. Mr. Craig's
behavior in a Minneapolis airport restroom was almost
certainly the prelude to something criminal -- not homosexual
conduct but sex in a public place -- but we are sympathetic to
his argument that the ballet of toe-tapping did not rise to
the level of criminal disorderly conduct."
Note the term "almost certainly" - consistent with my estimate of 98%.
It just isn't enough for a conviction, particularly given that no
public sex took place.
No One
> No One wrote:
> > Josh Rosenbluth <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >>No One wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Also:
> >>> "But there is an even more powerful reason to relieve the
> >>> defendant of his plea here. Almost 30 years ago, the Minnesota
> >>> Supreme Court ruled that the law involved here was
> >>> unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. It preserved the law
> >>> by restricting its application to 'fighting words,' a
> >>> restriction which would almost certainly make any conviction
> >>> in this case a near impossibility."
> >>>That's a pretty good indication that what he did is not disorderly
> >>>conduct
> >>
> >>Same as above.
> >>
> >>The ACLU is arguing about the constitutionality of the law, not
> >>whether Craig committed the crime.
> > No, Craig didn't commit "the crime" because the Minnesota Supreme
> > Court restricted the law's application 30 years ago
>
> Whether or not Craig committed the crime is independent of whether the
> law is valid. For example, Lawrence committed the crime of sodomy
> even though SCOTUS invalidated the law.
If someone was charged today with sodomy, it would not be committing a crime
because the charge would have *followed* a supreme court ruling. That is
the case above - the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on the issue 30 years
ago.
>
> The court ruled only on verbal disorderly conduct, not physical
> actions (such as rubbing your crotch).
Craig didn't rub his crotch.
>
> >>>>For example, would rubbing one's crotch be Constitutionally
> >>>>protected?
> >>>
> >>>LOL. If that were illegal, the "national pastime" would have
> >>>the police breaking up just about every game. :-)
> >>
> >>I'm sure you knew the context of my question (a man rubs his crotch in
> >>a restroom looking for a hookup). Is that protected speech?
> > Yes, apparently, as long as they go to a private place to do it.
>
> I disagree, which is why I disagree with the ACLU.
Well, I'd trust the ACLU on it, but as I said, I'd consider it a very
rude thing to do in a typical restroom. It's probably OK in the
restrooms in certain South of Market bars, but that's not your typical
restroom and every who doesn't want that sort of thing knows to stay
out.
No One
I estimated the probability that he was trying to hook up given his
behavior at 98 percent, which I consider not high enough to meet the
"beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but high enough to make him the
butt of jokes on late-night TV.
Given what I saw in the police report and heard on the interview
tape (and assuming that is all the evidence), I wouldn't convict
him due to the prosecution not adequately proving its case.
ScottyFLL
> Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
> > The court ruled only on verbal disorderly conduct, not physical
> > actions (such as rubbing your crotch).
>
> Craig didn't rub his crotch.
The court found that Craig did enter Karsnia's stall with his eyes,
foot, and hand. These are not verbal actions, and intent is not
necessary to convict on the disorderly conduct charge.
> > >>>>For example, would rubbing one's crotch be Constitutionally
> > >>>>protected?
>
> > >>>LOL. If that were illegal, the "national pastime" would have
> > >>>the police breaking up just about every game. :-)
>
> > >>I'm sure you knew the context of my question (a man rubs his crotch in
> > >>a restroom looking for a hookup). Is that protected speech?
> > > Yes, apparently, as long as they go to a private place to do it.
>
> > I disagree, which is why I disagree with the ACLU.
>
> Well, I'd trust the ACLU on it, but as I said, I'd consider it a very
> rude thing to do in a typical restroom.
Judge Porter said that the ACLU's argument was "inapplicable and
potentially misleading".
ScottyFLL
> ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
> > On Oct 6, 9:56 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Not true at all, honey. I cited an ACLU statement (if you read the
> > > press reports, the bad behavior that occurs in these stings was
> > > mentioned), and then I merely added a data point - something that had
> > > happened in my area. You really have to wonder when they would arrest
> > > 12 people in a restroom and let 10 go with no charges being filed.
>
> > Yeah, and you're using that as an example, and trying to apply that
> > example to the present case. We know what you're doing. It doesn't
> > work.
>
> Not so - this was simply an additional comment at the end of a post with
> no use made of the example beyond "these sort of things happen".
>
>
>
> > > Also, it was quite common in the past for the police to raid gay bars
> > > and just round people up, even people just standing in the place
> > > talking with friends or acquaintances. These stings and related
> > > activities simply have a bad reputation, and one well earned.
>
> > And here you're doing the exact same thing. Trying to make us believe
> > that since it's happened in the past, it is happening now in the
> > present case. Doesn't work.
>
> No, does work - given the history, it is reasonable to demand proof
> that this sort of thing is not going on here.
It might be of some interest to you to know that Craig, in his recent
motion, did not deny anything Karsnia said.
Just so you know.
> > > Given that bad behavior, it is only sensible to demand real proof,
> > > and real proof is definitely missing in Craig's case.
>
> > Craig pled guilty, and that's really all we need to know.
>
> Nope - the issue was whether he was actually guilty, not how he
> pleaded.
The court finds him guilty.
> > > It has all
> > > the earmarks of a "round 'em up and process them as fast as possible
> > > operation."
>
> > It simply doesn't matter, and indeed, would not matter even if each
> > and every one of the other people "rounded up" was innocent. This
> > does NOT speak to the issue of Craig's case! It just doesn't!
>
> The error rate of this sort of police operation is relevant.
Irrelevant. Plea of guilty was made and upheld.
> > > Otherwise Karsnia wouldn't have jumped the gun - he
> > > could have waited until Craig asked to enter Karsnia's stall, or
> > > tried to stick his wiener under the partition. That would have
> > > been pretty convincing.
>
> > Certainly it would have been. And there would have been probably a
> > couple of other more serious charges tossed in.
>
> If he was actually caught doing those other things, he would have
> deserved the charges, but it never happened.
The charge and conviction of disorderly conduct is based on his
entering Karsnia's stall with his eyes, foot and hand, which Craig
himself does not deny. Intent is not necessary to convict.
> > > What we have simply isn't.-
>
> > That's your opinion. And you seem to be the only one who thinks that,
> > which is your right.
>
> That's a lie on your part as others have said the same thing.
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR200...>:
>
> "For the same reasons that we had qualms about the basis for
> his prosecution, we think demands that he leave or be ousted
> from the Senate are overblown and unwarranted. Mr. Craig's
> behavior in a Minneapolis airport restroom was almost
> certainly the prelude to something criminal -- not homosexual
> conduct but sex in a public place -- but we are sympathetic to
> his argument that the ballet of toe-tapping did not rise to
> the level of criminal disorderly conduct."
>
> Note the term "almost certainly" - consistent with my estimate of 98%.
> It just isn't enough for a conviction, particularly given that no
> public sex took place.
Simply doesn't matter. Craig pled guilty, never presented evidence to
the contrary, in fact did not deny his behaviors. The Washington Post
article you cite above seems to have it wrong... Craig was charged
with disorderly conduct not based on foot tapping, but on entering the
stall of another with his eyes, foot and hand, which he knew or should
have known would or might cause alarm (etc.).
ScottyFLL
> Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
> > No One wrote:
>
> > > ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
>
> > >>On Oct 6, 9:34 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>No, it isn't "moot". It is completely relevant to forming an opinion
> > >>>as to what actually happened.
>
> > >>It does NOT matter if he had pled "not guilty", because in the end he
> > >>did plead "guilty", so the possibility of his pleading "not guilty" is
> > >>a moot point. It simply doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.
> > > Wrong - it is not moot because we aren't talking about legalities
> > > but about
> > > his actual guilt or innocence.
>
> > Are you arguing Craig wasn't trying to hook up?
>
> I estimated the probability that he was trying to hook up given his
> behavior at 98 percent, which I consider not high enough to meet the
> "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but high enough to make him the
> butt of jokes on late-night TV.
What about the likelihood that he did the following:
1. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his eyes
2. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his foot
3. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his hand (x 3)
It is those behaviors that brought the disorderly conduct conviction,
and Craig does not deny any of them.
QED
No One
> On Oct 6, 11:07 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
> > > On Oct 6, 9:34 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > No, it isn't "moot". It is completely relevant to forming an opinion
> > > > as to what actually happened.
> >
> > > It does NOT matter if he had pled "not guilty", because in the end he
> > > did plead "guilty", so the possibility of his pleading "not guilty" is
> > > a moot point. It simply doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.
> >
> > Wrong - it is not moot because we aren't talking about legalities but about
> > his actual guilt or innocence.
>
> It's moot because it's already been decided. He pled guilty and Judge
> Porter, in his denial of Craig's motion, said "the evidence does
> support the conviction" (Judge's order, page 8).
Dishonest quote - the judge stated that the factual basis was the
documents he signed as part of the plea bargain.
> > Another lie - I gave you the basis for that estimate and you simply
> > lack the education to understand it. You'll just have to accept that
> > or spend a week or two doing some reading.
>
> You need at least one number in that formula to come up with a result
> that is a number. You did not provide us with any such number.
Still another lie - I posted all the numbers that went into the estimate.
> > Wrong. You are neglecting the probability (also small) that people who
> > are completely innocent unwittingly engage in the same behavior.
>
> That isn't a probability so much as an improbability.
No, it is a probability. There is no such thing as "improbability" in
the theory or probability. Rather than produce a valid argument, you
are simply resorting to loaded language.
> See, people in that lifestyle have codes, and a series of them. A
> person not familiar with the signals is NOT going to run his hand
> along the stall wall bottom, three times. It is SO unlikely that
> the possibility need not even be considered.
Wrong again. If he reached over with his right hand to pick up the
piece of toilet paper (what Craig said he did), and his left hand
dangled and ran back and forth along the underside of the stall or
just dangled below it and went back and forth, you could easily have
several motions as our fat senator tried to bend to the side to
reach down. I put the chances of that at 1 in 1000. And when I
did the calculation (including similar odds for accidentally
playing footsie), I got a probability of only 98 percent that he
was trolling for sex.
>
> So... one in one thousand gives you REASONABLE DOUBT??????
Yep, because the odds that a random person showing up was trolling for
sex is also very low - maybe 1 in 1000. It's a men's restroom so figure
anyone trolling for sex is gay or bi (i.e., about 10% of the population)
and that at most 1 percent of gay or bi guys might do that (1 percent
is probably an overestimate, but if you use a lower value, it becomes
less likely that Craig is guilty).
When you put it all togehter you get the 2 percent chance of Craig
being innocent of trolling for sex that I estimated.
> > Wring again. When you actually compute it, you'll find that the chance
> > that he is guilty can be far smaller than you imagine.
>
> Yet you just gave us a one in one thousand calculation above.
Look, you are simply showing your ignorance. The 1 in 1000 is not
a calculation but an estimate of a probability. Using those estimates,
I computed the chance that he was actually trolling for sex and it
came out as 98% or so. Read up on Bayes' theorem and go through it.
It's not my job to walk you through the first few lectures of a
college level course on the subject.
> > Wrong. It does mean a "damn thing" when coupled with estimates of the
> > probability of those behaviors. A responsible juror should insist
> > that the prosecutor provide those probabilities via expert testimony,
> > so the jury has a rational basis for estimating the probability of
> > guilt. If you don't do that, you risk fooling yourself.
>
> Are you fucking KIDDING me? Expert testimony on the likelihood that
> running one's hand along the bottom of the stall wall three times is
> "accidental" or "clumsy"?
>
> Get fucking REAL! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Moron - if the prosecutor can't produce those numbers, you can't
figure out what to make of the "evidence" so your only choice is
to acquit for lack of proof.
Also, if he was reaching for something with his right hand and having
trouble, his left hand could be waving back and forth several times
without him being aware of it. You know - as a result of his torso
moving back and forth. If you saw only his left hand, who knows what
you'd think was going on.
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >
> > ... that's what the judge ruled, but we were talking about Craig's
> > actual guilt or innocence.
> >
>
> Just what are you saying here, that Craig is a liar !?.
He claimed he pled not guilty when innocent to avoid a PR
problem. Ask him if that constitutes a lie. He probably
thought of it as a business arrangement.
> The faggot said he was guilty.
> Damn, somebody bang the gavel, case closed.
> Trot out the next pervert to be tried on usenet.
Hey dude, he's *your* guy - he votes consistently against gay rights.
You should want him to stay given your attitude.
No One
> On Oct 6, 11:40 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
> >
> > No, does work - given the history, it is reasonable to demand proof
> > that this sort of thing is not going on here.
>
> It might be of some interest to you to know that Craig, in his recent
> motion, did not deny anything Karsnia said.
>
> Just so you know.
Just in case you are pretending not to know, the hearing was about
a plea withdrawal and what Karsnia said was not particularly revelant.
> > > Craig pled guilty, and that's really all we need to know.
> >
> > Nope - the issue was whether he was actually guilty, not how he
> > pleaded.
>
> The court finds him guilty.
Irrelevant to his actual guilt or innnocence - the court merely
accepted a plea that he gave for whatever reason.
> > The error rate of this sort of police operation is relevant.
>
> Irrelevant. Plea of guilty was made and upheld.
No, relevant - this is a question of what we as members of the
public should believe.
>
> The charge and conviction of disorderly conduct is based on his
> entering Karsnia's stall with his eyes, foot and hand, which Craig
> himself does not deny. Intent is not necessary to convict.
>
ROTFLMAO. Craig did deny the eyes thing in the interview and
he claimed any foot bumping was accidental and that he had not
been aware of it. Being clumsy is not a crime.
> > > > What we have simply isn't.-
> >
> > > That's your opinion. And you seem to be the only one who thinks that,
> > > which is your right.
> >
> > That's a lie on your part as others have said the same thing.
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR200...>:
> >
> > "For the same reasons that we had qualms about the basis for
> > his prosecution, we think demands that he leave or be ousted
> > from the Senate are overblown and unwarranted. Mr. Craig's
> > behavior in a Minneapolis airport restroom was almost
> > certainly the prelude to something criminal -- not homosexual
> > conduct but sex in a public place -- but we are sympathetic to
> > his argument that the ballet of toe-tapping did not rise to
> > the level of criminal disorderly conduct."
> >
> > Note the term "almost certainly" - consistent with my estimate of 98%.
> > It just isn't enough for a conviction, particularly given that no
> > public sex took place.
>
> Simply doesn't matter. Craig pled guilty, never presented evidence to
> the contrary, in fact did not deny his behaviors. The Washington Post
> article you cite above seems to have it wrong... Craig was charged
> with disorderly conduct not based on foot tapping, but on entering the
> stall of another with his eyes, foot and hand, which he knew or should
> have known would or might cause alarm (etc.).
Nonsense, and I'd trust the Washington Post over you any day.
He did not enter another stall "with his eyes" (a physical impossibility
from three feet away). Any foot contact was claimed to be inadvertent
but even if it wasn't, Karsnia clearly solicited it - Karsnia claimed
to have moved his foot up and down slowly, which he claims is one of the
signals for people wanting to hook up, so any intrusion of a foot or
hand into Karsnia's stall was invited. If it was invited, how could
it cause alarm? Even sending the signals on purpose is not a crime
if one's only intention is to flirt, not to have sex. Karsnia simply
has no evidence to back up the arrest, and Craig could have fought it
successfully in court.
Also, there is the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that clearly
restricts the application of the disorderly conduct law, and you are
completely ignoring that.
No One
> On Oct 6, 11:46 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
>
> > > The court ruled only on verbal disorderly conduct, not physical
> > > actions (such as rubbing your crotch).
> >
> > Craig didn't rub his crotch.
>
> The court found that Craig did enter Karsnia's stall with his eyes,
> foot, and hand. These are not verbal actions, and intent is not
> necessary to convict on the disorderly conduct charge.
See my previous post. You are repeating your same old crap.
<snip>
> > Well, I'd trust the ACLU on it, but as I said, I'd consider it a very
> > rude thing to do in a typical restroom.
>
> Judge Porter said that the ACLU's argument was "inapplicable and
> potentially misleading".
It was a valid argument, but Porter settled the case on other grounds
(documents that Craig had signed, for instance.)
No One
> On Oct 6, 11:50 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
> > > No One wrote:
> >
> > > > ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
>
> What about the likelihood that he did the following:
>
> 1. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his eyes
0 percent - I don't find it at all credible. All Karsnia could tell
is that Craig was more or less looking in the general direction of
Karsnia's stall and that Karsnia could see Craig's eyes.
> 2. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his foot
100%
>
> 3. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his hand (x 3)
100% (except it was on act, with the hand moving back and forth
three times for whatever reason).
>
> It is those behaviors that brought the disorderly conduct conviction,
> and Craig does not deny any of them.
>
> QED
Wrong - they are not criminal acts. If, for example, you are an elderly
gentleman who drops his keys, kneels down to get them, and grabs the
underside of a stall door for balance while standing up, that is in no
way disorderly conduct. Similar, if you twist around to pick something
up while in a stall, and your foot accidentally intrudes into the next
stall, that is not disorderly conduct.
You simply need more than what you claim.
Your whole argument is ridiculous.
ScottyFLL
> ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Oct 6, 11:50 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
> > > > No One wrote:
>
> > > > > ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
>
> > What about the likelihood that he did the following:
>
> > 1. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his eyes
>
> 0 percent - I don't find it at all credible. All Karsnia could tell
> is that Craig was more or less looking in the general direction of
> Karsnia's stall and that Karsnia could see Craig's eyes.
Craig did not deny it, so I'd give it something more than 0 percent.
> > 2. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his foot
>
> 100%
We are in agreement.
> > 3. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his hand (x 3)
>
> 100% (except it was on act, with the hand moving back and forth
> three times for whatever reason).
We are in agreement.
> > It is those behaviors that brought the disorderly conduct conviction,
> > and Craig does not deny any of them.
>
> > QED
>
> Wrong - they are not criminal acts.
But they are. Read the judge's order.
> If, for example, you are an elderly
> gentleman who drops his keys, kneels down to get them, and grabs the
> underside of a stall door for balance while standing up, that is in no
> way disorderly conduct. Similar, if you twist around to pick something
> up while in a stall, and your foot accidentally intrudes into the next
> stall, that is not disorderly conduct.
>
> You simply need more than what you claim.
Not according to Minnesota law and the judge's order in this
particular case.
> Your whole argument is ridiculous.
That's preposterous. Read the judge's order.
ScottyFLL
Actually, Judge Porter said it didn't pertain to the case. Read the
judge's order.
ScottyFLL
Judge Porter disagrees with you. He glanced into that stall. That is
entering the stall with the eyes.
> Any foot contact was claimed to be inadvertent
Doesn't matter.
> but even if it wasn't, Karsnia clearly solicited it
Also doesn't matter. See, according to the law, it doesn't matter if
the person IS offended or alarmed by the behavior. What matters is
that the behavior exists and that the person should reasonably
understand that the behavior COULD cause offense or alarm.
>- Karsnia claimed
> to have moved his foot up and down slowly, which he claims is one of the
> signals for people wanting to hook up, so any intrusion of a foot or
> hand into Karsnia's stall was invited.
See above. Doesn't matter.
> If it was invited, how could
> it cause alarm?
Read the judge's order. It does NOT have to cause alarm. A
reasonable expectation that a behavior COULD cause alarm or offense to
a person is all that is needed.
> Even sending the signals on purpose is not a crime
> if one's only intention is to flirt, not to have sex.
The case isn't about the signals. It is about what I had stated at the
beginning: the entrance into a stall in which a person is entitled to
reasonable privacy.
> Karsnia simply
> has no evidence to back up the arrest
Craig has not denied his behavior. Not even in his motion!!
>, and Craig could have fought it
> successfully in court.
Moot point.
> Also, there is the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that clearly
> restricts the application of the disorderly conduct law, and you are
> completely ignoring that.-
That ruling deals only with verbal, and not physical, conduct. Read
the judge's order.
No One
> On Oct 7, 12:55 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Nonsense, and I'd trust the Washington Post over you any day.
> >
> > He did not enter another stall "with his eyes" (a physical impossibility
> > from three feet away).
>
> Judge Porter disagrees with you. He glanced into that stall. That is
> entering the stall with the eyes.
Judge Porter stated that the documents he signed were a factual
basis for the plea. He then seemed to look for supporting evidence
and probably didn't evaluate the report very carefully. Otherwise
he'd have realized the Karsnia's claim about glancing into the
stall is bullshit - Craig may have looked in the stall's general
direction (he claimed to be looking at the adjacent one, probably
the edge of it to see when the door opened), and that may have
confused Karsnia or fooled him into seeing what he wanted to see.
But I just don't buy it. Craig was too far away to get any sort
of real look into it.
> > Any foot contact was claimed to be inadvertent
>
> Doesn't matter.
Yes it does.
> > but even if it wasn't, Karsnia clearly solicited it
>
> Also doesn't matter. See, according to the law, it doesn't matter if
> the person IS offended or alarmed by the behavior. What matters is
> that the behavior exists and that the person should reasonably
> understand that the behavior COULD cause offense or alarm.
If someone asks you to do something, how could you reasonably believe
that the person would be offended if you actually did it? Your
argument is absurd.
> >- Karsnia claimed to have moved his foot up and down slowly, which
> >he claims is one of the signals for people wanting to hook up, so
> >any intrusion of a foot or hand into Karsnia's stall was invited.
>
> See above. Doesn't matter.
Does matter.
>
> > If it was invited, how could it cause alarm?
>
> Read the judge's order. It does NOT have to cause alarm. A
> reasonable expectation that a behavior COULD cause alarm or offense to
> a person is all that is needed.
It could not cause alarm or offinse when a person asks for it.
>
> > Even sending the signals on purpose is not a crime if one's only
> > intention is to flirt, not to have sex.
>
> The case isn't about the signals. It is about what I had stated at
> the beginning: the entrance into a stall in which a person is
> entitled to reasonable privacy.
... which never happened. Nothing Craig did interfered with anyone's
privacy. It's not like he stuck he head under the stall or grapped
Karsnia's leg with his hands.
> > Karsnia simply
> > has no evidence to back up the arrest
>
> Craig has not denied his behavior. Not even in his motion!!
... because the behavior he did not deny is not criminal.
>
> >, and Craig could have fought it successfully in court.
>
> Moot point.
Not moot - completely relevent to the discussion.
>
> > Also, there is the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that clearly
> > restricts the application of the disorderly conduct law, and you are
> > completely ignoring that.-
>
> That ruling deals only with verbal, and not physical, conduct. Read
> the judge's order.
Read the ACLU brief.
No One
Read the ACLU's brief. it is highly relevant to the discussion, no matter
what the judge said (which was only about the plea withdrawal, not
Craig's guilt or innocence).
No One
> On Oct 7, 1:03 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > On Oct 6, 11:50 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
> > > > > No One wrote:
> >
> > > > > > ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
> >
> > > What about the likelihood that he did the following:
> >
> > > 1. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his eyes
> >
> > 0 percent - I don't find it at all credible. All Karsnia could tell
> > is that Craig was more or less looking in the general direction of
> > Karsnia's stall and that Karsnia could see Craig's eyes.
>
> Craig did not deny it, so I'd give it something more than 0 percent.
He did deny it. He claiemd he was looking at the adjacent stall
>
> > > 2. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his foot
> >
> > 100%
>
> We are in agreement.
>
> > > 3. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his hand (x 3)
> >
> > 100% (except it was on act, with the hand moving back and forth
> > three times for whatever reason).
>
> We are in agreement.
>
> > > It is those behaviors that brought the disorderly conduct conviction,
> > > and Craig does not deny any of them.
> >
> > > QED
> >
> > Wrong - they are not criminal acts.
>
> But they are. Read the judge's order.
No, they are not criminal acts.
>
> > If, for example, you are an elderly
> > gentleman who drops his keys, kneels down to get them, and grabs the
> > underside of a stall door for balance while standing up, that is in no
> > way disorderly conduct. Similar, if you twist around to pick something
> > up while in a stall, and your foot accidentally intrudes into the next
> > stall, that is not disorderly conduct.
> >
> > You simply need more than what you claim.
>
> Not according to Minnesota law and the judge's order in this
> particular case.
Not true at all.
>
> > Your whole argument is ridiculous.
>
> That's preposterous. Read the judge's order.
The judge did not rule on your silly argument.
Death
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> Same-sex sodomy was illegal in Texas. It is however Constitutionally
> protected.
>
Bullshit. Sodomy was not protected by the court, privacy was.
Stand in the street and push turds to see if sodomy is protected.
Death
>
Rubbed at what location?
Your question is vague, at best
Death
I see you have missed the target again.
The disorderly charge was a plea bargain.
That is all he plead guilty to, not the actual charge levied.
Death
He was close enough to reach under it (stall) and play with
the cops leg.
Death
> him of disorderly conduct based on the evidence.
If he went before a jury, it will be with the original charge,
a gross misdemeanor charge of interference to privacy not
on the lower plea allowed him.
Death
> problem. Ask him if that constitutes a lie. He probably
> thought of it as a business arrangement.
>
> Hey dude, he's *your* guy - he votes consistently against gay rights.
> You should want him to stay given your attitude.
For me, this isn't about faggots rights or wrongs.
If Jesus Christ walked into a shit-house and reached
under the stall to sexually play with my leg, I'd attempt to kick
his teeth down to his asshole.
There are just some things you don't do, legal or illegal.
Death
> as to what actually happened.
> >
I"ll have to hum the rest, that all the words I know.
Death
> behavior at 98 percent, which I consider not high enough to meet the
> "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but high enough to make him the
> butt of jokes on late-night TV.
>
Preponderance 52%
A guilty plea freely given 100%.
Death
His PO has a lot to say about that.
> One problem the Republicans face is that, if they try to expell
> Craig from the senate, the Democrats can ask, "what about Vitter",
The demo-craps let Kennedy slide on a murder.
> the guy who apparently hired prostitutes. If Vitter goes, his
> replacement will be picked by a Democrat.
>
Enter Barney fag Franks, who used his appartment as a male
faggot whore-house
> All the Democrats have to do is to say that they intend the apply the
> same standards to everyone. That sounds fair to the voters, ...
sounds fair to me, a civil libertarian.
Craig is not my boi, he is a republican
Death
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> writes:
>
> > He's a fucking politician for Christs' sake.
> > He understood the value of words and their meaning.
> >
> > I'm sure the judge took that under consideration as well.
>
> He also knows how to cut a deal he doesn't particularly like when
> the alternatives are worse. That's what politicians have to do
> sometimes.
Exactly, he brokered a better deal, guilty of disorderly conduct
Death
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> The ACLU did not make its case.
>
Oh- they made their case alright.
Act-up will pay their bill.
The ACLU didn't give 2 shits about Craig
it was another shot at perverting the law if possible.
Did you know Act-up got money by selling weed?
The ACLU is no-where around to protest that, lol.
Death
> Ironically, as a senator, Craig had little sympathy for liberal
> views about fair treatment.
By Ted Twietmeyer
10 -6 -7
Imagine finding out that "someone has a contract out on you." (In America
and probably much of the civilized world, that's a common expression that
an assassin has been hired to cancel your breathing ability.)
So what would you do? Run away? Where could you hide? Logically it comes
down to either fighting for your life or losing it. The sad truth is that
there IS a contract out on your life. And it's big brother (Uncle) who
signed the contract. Think the word "Peon" is archaic and describes a
non-existent way of life? Think again. There are those in power who
"pee-on" you everyday, and few take notice of it.
First, let's look at war. Public schools give a sanitized viewpoint of war
throughout Earth's history, and tell you that war is merely a reason to
take or re-take land. But it isn't really about taking or re-taking land.
It's all about taking the lives of another race of people. And it's always
about a DIFFERENT race that's the other side.
There are numerous examples of this, such as the Indians and the
Pakistanis, Serbians and the Croatians, the Jews and Arabs, American
government (whites) against Iraqis who are Persian-Arabs, and perhaps soon
the Iranians to name just a few of the better- known conflicts. And in
Africa, indigenous black people are trying to exterminate European whites.
What about the land in Africa? Much of it is now hotter, drier and more
useless than ever. In reality, most of these conflicts have nothing to do
with re-taking land. Land may often the pretense used, but today it's
really about extermination. Who in the mid-east would fight over boiling
hot, dry empty desert which often doesn't even have a single oil well on
it, or any oil under it?
Palestine and the Gaza strip are another case in point. Baghdad is another
one. These are reduced to shot-up, bombed-out labyrinths of rubble.
And in the course of these wars there will be the dead. Numerous types of
weapons are used to take lives in war, with each weapon designed for use in
a certain situation or environment. (More about this later.) Soldiers that
survive each battle are given the task of burying the dead. It has nothing
to do with respect for the dead, but everything to do with the stench,
Cholera and other diseases resulting from rotting flesh.
Soldiers that survive get burial detail often using bulldozers instead of
shovels. In Iraq, contractors get to do the dirty work so troops can
continue on with the business of running patrols and finding "insurgents."
(Or is it more like instigating more oppression in the populace to foment
the creation of insurgents?) Of course, the word insurgent is nothing more
than political-speak for a patriot. These are terrible people of course -
they love their country and simply want the invaders to get the hell out.
If you die on enemy soil, expect a quick bulldozer burial in an unmarked
grave, dog tags and all. If you die on your own soil and not the result of
nuclear, bio or chemical warfare, perhaps your body will be sent home for
military burial. Often those who bury the dead today will themselves be
buried tomorrow. In either case, the walking dead bury the dead.
But the crux of all this isn't just about war. All of this comes full
circle down to you and me and the contract out on us. Billions live their
lives every day often in quiet desperation. In industry, there are jobs
commonly known as "busy-work." For the few readers who haven't heard of
this, busy-work is simply stupid, pointless jobs to keep people busy when
their regular job has nothing for them to do. For example, sorting parts or
putting things away, dusting, sweeping, etc But there are other forms of
busy-work.
The economic structure is such that all day, every day there is
considerable busy-work in everyone's life. Billions of people world-wide in
"developed countries" all worry about paying bills, taxes, medical bills,
house and car payments, cooking, cleaning etc The list is far too long to
include here. But most will agree that money issues are their biggest
concern. And that IS by design. The idea is to keep people as busy as
possible. Keep them worrying about income, bills, survival and taxes with
Uncle's left hand so they won't see what Uncle's right hand is doing to
them. Just don't bend over to pick anything up unless you look behind you
first Uncle just might be waiting for the right moment.
Many years ago when I was just out of school I began work at Kodak. At that
time, more than 65,000 people worked for the company which had the
affectionate nick-name on CB radio, "The yellow box." When I received my
first paycheck from the company, I commented to a 35 year employee and
relative of Kodak that my paycheck was barely enough to pay my bills as a
single man. His answer was a simple one which I'll never forget, "They have
it all figured out to give you just enough to live on." And time proved he
was correct. But that was then.
Today, corporations (including Kodak) no longer care enough about you to be
sure you even have enough to live on. Starting in the 1980's, Kodak
management cooked up a new trick to stave off layoffs and save money. They
began giving employees a mandatory week off every month - without pay. This
went on for a few years before the first ever layoffs from Kodak began. Up
until that time, Kodak never had mass layoffs and a job there meant you
were set for life. Then it too, began creating the walking dead. Today it
is said that the most dangerous job position in America is that of late
night convenience store clerk. And it pays the least, too.
But it isn't enough for government to have millions of working people
scraping by on crumbs from the bastard's table. Uncle wants more
oppression:
Insure that disease, both intentional and natural, take millions of lives
and do nothing to stop it.
Insure genetically alter food will have undesirable long term effects.
Permit neurotoxins in almost all manufactured foods. Ignore the test
results which show they are deadly
Start wars where soldiers not only die, but those that live can bring home
fatal sicknesses to their families like a modern version of hundreds of
thousands of Typhoid Maries. And keep family doctors in the dark so they
will remain completely untrained to recognize, diagnose or treat the
mysterious engineered bio diseases.
Permit health insurance plans to be influenced by doctors and drug
companies, causing countless numbers of people to suffer and die because
they cannot afford treatment.
Ignore the fact that those who live from serious illnesses will be saddled
with a lifetime of debt, forced to pay six and seven figure hospital bills
which are collected by utterly ruthless lawyers employed by hospitals.
Fill all living space indoors and out with invisible microwaves from many
different sources, with a plethora of frequencies interacting with each
other in both known and unknown ways, altering our DNA and causing serious
illnesses.
Protect big pharmaceutical companies - in 2002, buried in the Homeland
Security legislation was a provision to protect pharmaceutical corporations
from lawsuits for mercury poisoning. Specifically named in the legislation
were LILLY, ELI, & CO, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, UNITED STATES. So mercury in
vaccines is SAFE?
Remember what I said earlier about numerous weapons used in war? These
things listed above are but a few of the silent weapons being used for the
contracts out on you and me.
Biohazard sign from "Terrorism and Domestic Preparedness" official website
Jacksonville, FL [1]
(I was unable to find an official warning sign for a chemical warfare zone.
It may be the scull and bones symbol.)
And yet even with all these attacks against us mentally, physically and
economically it still isn't considered by Uncle to be enough pressure and
misery! The elite are quite animate that "80-90% of the world's population
should be exterminated." Don't think for one minute that Uncle disagrees
with that. The disabled and mentally challenged will be the first to do,
reducing the drain on social service programs. Several world government
leaders have already supported this insane idea. It's also laid out in the
Georgia Guidestones and the UN plans.
Respected nature lover Jacque Cousteau was a man that people loved and
respected. But he had his own Draconian plans, too. Cousteau advocated that
350,000 people a day must die to "stabilize" the world population level.
This is also an important part of the new world order plan. Cousteau (like
most of the hypocrites) didn't take his own life to show the world he is an
example. Instead, he lived to be 87 years old and died of heart failure.
Obviously he didn't want himself to be part of his daily condemned 350,000.
[2]
Georgia Guidestones [3]
Guidestones close-up [4] - At the top of this monument is the statement
"MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE."
Limiting the population of the Earth to 500 million will require the
extermination of approximately 90% of the world's people.
New world order cowards don't want the dirty work of cleaning up after a
mass extermination. There would be no easy way to stop the spread of
disease from millions of rotting corpses, which will commence within a few
days after any mass extermination. It is impossible to clean up such a mess
fast enough. And it won't matter if nuclear, chemical or biological weapons
are used.
Birds, flies and wild animals are scavengers and their consumption of
rotting corpses will quickly spread Cholera and other diseases everywhere
by way of droppings and possibly bug bites. Rain and wind are also disease
vectors that will spread contagions far and wide. Disease will spread among
the people and among "the chosen ones" equally for a very long time. As the
Good Book says, "Rain falls on the just and the unjust." This is probably
why the order hasn't engineered some major "terrorist attack" in a big
city, although numerous rumors of such an imminent attack have been spread
for about 6 years.
It's far more important to apply logic and reason to the terrorism issue,
instead of fear and panic.
Let's look at the terrorism issue with cold logic. Extermination probably
will most likely NOT be carried out with mass methods such as helicopter
sprayed neurotoxins, or mass biological or chemical attacks. The most
efficient and safe method for leaders to implement their evil plan is to
kill people slowly, giving them enough time for the walking dead to bury
the dead for them. Incurable diseases are better suited for this sort of
thing.
Rich, new world order cowards are also penny-pinchers and do not want to
pay one cent for cleaning up their carnage. If you ever met a millionaire
or billionaire, you would quickly realize that they are the stingiest,
tightest and often the most miserable people you will ever meet. I can tell
you that from personal experience, and know several of these people.
Overnight money can change people from kind and caring to stingy, ruthless
and selfish. And once someone earns their first million dollars? That's not
enough. They are millionaires and no in the multi-millionaire class. It
doesn't stop there when that goal is reached either.
The ultra-rich billionaires spend much of their time worrying about keeping
every penny they have and making more. As one of them stated some time ago,
"Before I was rich, I worried about getting rich before I was too old. Now
that I'm rich I spend much of my time worrying about losing my money." Do
people like Donald Trump appear happy to you? But we can be sure that new
ideas to hasten the population reduction process are in the works, while
making sure that walking dead will continue to bury the dead.
Destroying the infrastructure will automatically destroy the structure of
any civilized society. Think about what happens at local stores and gas
stations when electricity is off for a week. Now imagine what carnage will
happen if electricity is off indefinitely, no running water or heat in
winter. No wonder cities like Baghdad without a working infrastructure are
dangerous places. So would New York City, Los Angeles or any city anywhere
in the world. It immediately becomes survival of the fittest. Will the
walking dead bury the dead? Probably not in this case. They would be too
busy just trying to survive.
And what would be the price tag to rebuild the infrastructure in any city?
Billions of dollars and years of work, which is far more than anyone will
pay whether be rich genocidal types or the government. Look at Iraq- five
years later after it was declared that the war was won, Baghdad (and
probably other cities) are still without water and power. The truth is that
the US will never rebuild Iraq for the Iraqi people, despite all the big
speeches claiming how much the Iraqi people are loved by America. Israel is
no better in fact, they are quite proud of their influence around the
world and their outright genocide of other races like the Arab sects, such
as Palestinians. Yet they claim to fear God?
After looking at all this, does it all mean there only fear and no
solution? Here is one part of the solution you can do right away - don't
participate in ANY of the games being silently played with you. Live within
your means no matter what it takes. Don't spend what you don't have and
can't afford to. Learn to do without that which you really don't need, and
you'll reduce the number of bills in your mail. It will reduce the level of
stress in your life every day. Avoid food additives of all kinds,
genetically modified foods and anything that's a diet drink or diet food.
Avoid cell phones, Wi-fi and ALL needless wireless toys. Billions of people
worldwide have already forgotten that mankind lived for countless millennia
without any of this nonsense. Do people really think they need to fit in,
and accept misery that comes along with it? I for one have never bought
into that paradigm.
Is all this impossible to do? Not at all when you realize just what's at
stake with your life.
When I walk through parks with my wife, almost always we see people
tethered to a piece of plastic clipped to their belt or dangling from their
hand. Happy people are out taking a quiet stroll. The peace is suddenly
shattered by an idiotic, retarded, loud ring-tone announcing an incoming
utterly pointless phone call. Or the air- head in the supermarket with the
phone welded to her ear, "Yes, I'm in the store now.going up aisle 2 now.
About to get the peanut butter we talked about. Heading for the register
now. See you soon, bye." I just want to take that phone from her hand, and
throw it at the closest wall. Then tell her, "Oh, I'm sorry. I couldn't
control myself - just like you can't with a phone."
The real truth is that there is really nothing in life that can't wait
while you take a stroll somewhere to unwind, or simply relax at home. Some
may say, "But what if someone dies? That's an emergency!" To that I simply
respond, "No matter how fast you get there - that person will still be
dead! What do you think people did just 25 years ago BEFORE cell phones
existed? Get real! They called and left a message, or just called you back
when you were home!" I usually get the inevitable phone-addict-idiot
answer, "I can't even imagine living without my cell phone." This is
pathetic to say the least. What can compare to getting the masses to PAY to
irradiate their brains with microwave radiation, several times each day?
Everyone has grown up knowing that LSD and pot are not exactly good for
your metabolism. Are genetically altered foods, food additives, cell phones
and cell towers, Wi-fi and wireless toys and more acceptable and harmless
just because Uncle hasn't told you they are harmful? Are you really lying
to yourself by counting on big brother to protect you? Then you have
already forgotten that Uncle is the one who signed that contract out on
you, and he's in bed with ALL the big corporations.
Those in power want to make you believe you can't live without any of the
genetically altered foods, neurotoxins, chemicals, food additives and
numerous useless electronic toys which shorten your life. The leaders of
the extermination movement already know of these issues and smile from ear
to ear. The Japanese (in Japan) are amazing they are leading innovators
in consumer electronics and may be the world's greatest clean-freaks.
Back in 1989, I was tasked with taking a visiting Japanese business
executive to dinner without any notice. I had my second car with me that
day. Every time we came to a stoplight, he was hiding his face from the car
next to me as though someone would recognize him (out of 300 million
people.) But the Japanese don't seem to care about the detrimental effects
of microwaves because of their child-like obsession with electronic
devices. Japanese society has beenone of strict regimentation, respect and
protocol. OBEY is the code of the day in Japan. But they too, will be
burying or cremating their dead as a consequence of their blind addiction.
Numerous quiet weapons (disguised as advancements in science) are all
promoted by a simple basic marketing strategy. Marketing is a science/art
of making you believe you can't live without a certain product or service.
Marketing is so powerful it can make most people run out and purchase
something or dial a phone and order it. Shopping channels have this down to
a highly refined science.
Setting a fad is perhaps the most powerful marketing tool there is. Today
it's Bluetooth and MP3 players. Next year the fad could change to chip
implants or overt mind control.
If you refuse to buy into marketing propaganda both literally and
figuratively, you'll live a happier, healthier, wealthier and wiser life.
After all, do you REALLY want to help Uncle execute his contract on you?
Your fate is largely up to you, not Uncle.
Ted Twietmeyer
www.data4science.net
te...@frontiernet.net
....snip.....
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
This Site Served by TheHostPros
Josh Rosenbluth
>>
>>Whether or not Craig committed the crime is independent of whether the
>>law is valid. For example, Lawrence committed the crime of sodomy
>>even though SCOTUS invalidated the law.
>
>
> If someone was charged today with sodomy, it would not be committing a crime
> because the charge would have *followed* a supreme court ruling. That is
> the case above - the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on the issue 30 years
> ago.
Your dual use of "did not commit a crime" to mean either 1) based on the
facts of the case or 2) because the law is unconstitutional, is
ambiguous (I trust you aren't claiming that the ACLU argued the former
interpretation), and typically only the former interpretation is used in
legal circles to avoid the ambiguity. For example, someone who engages
in same-sex sodomy today in Texas has committed a crime (the law is
still on the books), but cannot be prosecuted because the law is invalid.
>>The court ruled only on verbal disorderly conduct, not physical
>>actions (such as rubbing your crotch).
>
> Craig didn't rub his crotch.
Yes, but he made other physical gestures which are no more protected
speech per the earlier ruling than rubbing one's crotch.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>>No One wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Oct 6, 9:34 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>No, it isn't "moot". It is completely relevant to forming an opinion
>>>>>as to what actually happened.
>>>>
>>>>It does NOT matter if he had pled "not guilty", because in the end he
>>>>did plead "guilty", so the possibility of his pleading "not guilty" is
>>>>a moot point. It simply doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.
>>>
>>>Wrong - it is not moot because we aren't talking about legalities
>>>but about his actual guilt or innocence.
>>
>>Are you arguing Craig wasn't trying to hook up?
>
>
> I estimated the probability that he was trying to hook up given his
> behavior at 98 percent, which I consider not high enough to meet the
> "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard
Once you introduce the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt", you *are*
talking about the legalities, not actual guilt or innocence. The legal
issue is mooted by the plea.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
Sodomy in private is Constitutionally protected even though Texas had
outlawed it.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>> For example, would rubbing one's crotch be Constitutionally protected?
>>
>
> Who's crotch?
> Rubbed at what location?
A man's own crotch. In a public place such as a restroom.
Josh Rosenbluth
Scruffy McScruffovitch
jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net, typed this:
Only if you're a rock/pop star.
--
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
enough to take away everything you have."
Thomas Jefferson
ScottyFLL
> ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Oct 7, 12:55 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > Nonsense, and I'd trust the Washington Post over you any day.
>
> > > He did not enter another stall "with his eyes" (a physical impossibility
> > > from three feet away).
>
> > Judge Porter disagrees with you. He glanced into that stall. That is
> > entering the stall with the eyes.
>
> Judge Porter stated that the documents he signed were a factual
> basis for the plea. He then seemed to look for supporting evidence
> and probably didn't evaluate the report very carefully.
Ah. See, just another imagination-bending excuse. NOW Craig is not
guilty because the JUDGE, who wrote a 27-page opinion on this very
small matter, didn't evaluate the REPORT carefully!
You're a hoot.
> > > Any foot contact was claimed to be inadvertent
>
> > Doesn't matter.
>
> Yes it does.
No, it doesn't. The behavior doesn't have to be intentional.
Couldn't tell that just by looking at the law itself, but case law, as
cited in the judge's opinion, is presented.
> > > but even if it wasn't, Karsnia clearly solicited it
>
> > Also doesn't matter. See, according to the law, it doesn't matter if
> > the person IS offended or alarmed by the behavior. What matters is
> > that the behavior exists and that the person should reasonably
> > understand that the behavior COULD cause offense or alarm.
>
> If someone asks you to do something, how could you reasonably believe
> that the person would be offended if you actually did it? Your
> argument is absurd.
Ah, but it isn't absurd. Read the judge's opinion. Blame it on
Minnesota law. You've already blamed it on the judge.
> > >- Karsnia claimed to have moved his foot up and down slowly, which
> > >he claims is one of the signals for people wanting to hook up, so
> > >any intrusion of a foot or hand into Karsnia's stall was invited.
>
> > See above. Doesn't matter.
>
> Does matter.
Read the judge's opinion, specifically the citation of case law with
respect to the law in question.
> > > If it was invited, how could it cause alarm?
>
> > Read the judge's order. It does NOT have to cause alarm. A
> > reasonable expectation that a behavior COULD cause alarm or offense to
> > a person is all that is needed.
>
> It could not cause alarm or offinse when a person asks for it.
It doesn't HAVE to. That is the point. Read the judge's opinion.
> > > Even sending the signals on purpose is not a crime if one's only
> > > intention is to flirt, not to have sex.
>
> > The case isn't about the signals. It is about what I had stated at
> > the beginning: the entrance into a stall in which a person is
> > entitled to reasonable privacy.
>
> ... which never happened. Nothing Craig did interfered with anyone's
> privacy.
Let's just say that he didn't look into the stall, for the sake of
argument and since you say there is a zero percent chance that he did
it.
You DID say that there is a 100% chance that Craig touched Karsnia's
foot on Karsnia's side of the divider, and you also did say that there
is a 100% chance that Craig swiped his hand under the divider three
times.
That's 4 different instances of behavior.
Each time, a part of his body entered Karsnia's space.
And that interferes with Karsnia's privacy.
QED.
> It's not like he stuck he head under the stall or grapped
> Karsnia's leg with his hands.
Doesn't have to. A person can be arrested for trespass without having
his entire body on someone else's property. Just a foot can be enough
to arrest, believe it or not.
> > > Karsnia simply
> > > has no evidence to back up the arrest
>
> > Craig has not denied his behavior. Not even in his motion!!
>
> ... because the behavior he did not deny is not criminal.
No, he did not deny his behavior because he did indeed behave the way
it was presented. And those behaviors got him in trouble.
> > >, and Craig could have fought it successfully in court.
>
> > Moot point.
>
> Not moot - completely relevent to the discussion.
Moot. The issue has been resolved. Doesn't matter what he COULD have
done had he gone a different route. That's like saying that a person
who died in a car accident by going down Route 1 might not have gotten
into an accident by going down Route 2. It simply doesn't matter.
The person is dead. The point is moot.
> > > Also, there is the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that clearly
> > > restricts the application of the disorderly conduct law, and you are
> > > completely ignoring that.-
>
> > That ruling deals only with verbal, and not physical, conduct. Read
> > the judge's order.
>
> Read the ACLU brief.
I have. It's a messy thing that doesn't address the issues in the
present case. I said that even before I read the judge's decision.
The judge agrees with me.
ScottyFLL
Basically, Judge Porter said, "Thanks for going to the trouble of
writing this, but what you present is not relevant. I'm going to give
it to Larry Craig so he can wipe his ass with it."
ScottyFLL
> ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Oct 7, 1:03 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > On Oct 6, 11:50 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
> > > > > > No One wrote:
>
> > > > > > > ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> writes:
>
> > > > What about the likelihood that he did the following:
>
> > > > 1. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his eyes
>
> > > 0 percent - I don't find it at all credible. All Karsnia could tell
> > > is that Craig was more or less looking in the general direction of
> > > Karsnia's stall and that Karsnia could see Craig's eyes.
>
> > Craig did not deny it, so I'd give it something more than 0 percent.
>
> He did deny it. He claiemd he was looking at the adjacent stall
No, he never actually denied looking into that stall. He said he
looked into the ADJACENT stall, but he never denied that he looked
into Karsnia's. He never said, "I didn't look into your stall."
> > > > 2. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his foot
>
> > > 100%
>
> > We are in agreement.
>
> > > > 3. Entered into Karsnia's stall with his hand (x 3)
>
> > > 100% (except it was on act, with the hand moving back and forth
> > > three times for whatever reason).
>
> > We are in agreement.
>
> > > > It is those behaviors that brought the disorderly conduct conviction,
> > > > and Craig does not deny any of them.
>
> > > > QED
>
> > > Wrong - they are not criminal acts.
>
> > But they are. Read the judge's order.
>
> No, they are not criminal acts.
Under Minnesota law, they are. Two judges have deemed the behaviors
to constitute a misdemeanor.
> > > If, for example, you are an elderly
> > > gentleman who drops his keys, kneels down to get them, and grabs the
> > > underside of a stall door for balance while standing up, that is in no
> > > way disorderly conduct. Similar, if you twist around to pick something
> > > up while in a stall, and your foot accidentally intrudes into the next
> > > stall, that is not disorderly conduct.
>
> > > You simply need more than what you claim.
>
> > Not according to Minnesota law and the judge's order in this
> > particular case.
>
> Not true at all.
That's preposterous. It's true because it is and two judges have
confirmed it.
> > > Your whole argument is ridiculous.
>
> > That's preposterous. Read the judge's order.
>
> The judge did not rule on your silly argument.
The judge upheld the conviction, as I said he would. He dismissed the
ACLU's brief as irrelevant, which I and others here thought it was.
Craig is convicted, the conviction upheld, the ACLU brief crumpled up
for Craig to wipe his ass with, and you have been proved wrong on just
about every point you've tried to make in this issue.
ScottyFLL
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
He'd actually be tried on both counts.
ScottyFLL
And Jesus would have gotten the same charges as Craig did if he had
done this at MSP.
That's actually the point of the disorderly conduct charge. The
behavior of reaching into a stall in which one is entitled to privacy
is behavior that could ALARM, ANGER or DISTURB:
"...knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or
will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or
breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a
misdemeanor:
...
"3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy
conduct or in offensive,
obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm,
anger, or resentment in others.
A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly
conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure."