VOLPE'S DAD GLAD THE TRUTH HAS COME OUT AT LONG LAST
Ken [NY
THE TRUTH HAS
COME OUT AT LONG LAST
By STEVE DUNLEAVY
NY Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES SCHWARZ
New lease on life.
March 2, 2002 -- BOB VOLPE said yesterday: "Justin will sleep easier
at night knowing that an innocent man is going free."
Volpe, the retired undercover cop, is the father of Justin Volpe, who
is serving 30 years in the Abner Louima assault.
The senior Volpe made the statement to Andra Schwarz, wife of a
tortured Chuck Schwarz, who now has a new lease on life.
Volpe first called Chuck's lawyer, Ron Fischetti, who has stuck on
this case, pro bono, from the get-go.
"He said thank you, not only for Chuck, but for the system. Very
gracious," said Fischetti.
And then Andra added after the telephone call: "Justin is very lucky
to have a father like Bob Volpe and his wife, Grace. Very decent
people."
I had spoken earlier to Bob Volpe, whom I have known for a long time -
since he was an undercover narcotics cop.
"Look, this is not about Justin, this about justice," he said, "all of
us, including me, will sleep easier.
"I'm very happy that the truth is finally coming out about Chuck.
"I'm pleased, but I am not pleased about the system. What kind of a
system locks up an innocent man like Chuck?"
Justin Volpe's confession from the stand implicated nobody else in the
assault in the 70th Precinct station house.
"He said he acted alone, and he offered to take a polygraph test.
Prosecution denied him that request [to] prove he was telling the
truth.
"It's like the movie 羨 Few Good Men,' when Jack Nicholson tells Tom
Cruise, 塑ou can't handle the truth.'
"This was more. This was a case of they [the prosecution] didn't want
to know the truth.
"This is not, I repeat, not about Justin. He knows what he did, even
if he didn't know what he did when he was doing it. Anyway, he is
serving his sentence and that's that."
I'm not about to carry a cross for Justin Volpe, but I am acutely
aware that while you don't carry the sins of a father to a son, you
don't carry the sins of a son to a father.
Bob Volpe, a good cop, believes that, in time, so much truth will come
out about this case that it might put a different light on a shameful
event.
He does not see life through rose-colored glasses, or see the justice
system as tender as a baby's bottom. But he does know one thing. He
will be dead before he ever sees his son free, and he is not screaming
and yelling about that.
He's just tipping his hat to Andra Schwarz that a decent guy got freed
from the venomous and bureaucratic bungle that proves justice can
sometimes be spelled J-U-N-K.
"This is Chuck's day, and God bless that family that has gone through
so much. The truth will set him free," he told me.
"In the end, the whisper of truth speaks louder than the shouts in the
midst of a riot.
"It's a fine and good day for Chuck."
It's a little ironic that the Volpe and Schwarz families would mean so
much to one another.
"There is much made about a so-called cover-up. The truth is Justin,
my son, and Chuck Schwarz were not particularly great friends," the
senior Volpe told me.
"They hardly knew each other, but I suspect they weren't real buddies.
"Justin made his statement in court not to help out Chuck Schwarz. Why
would he, if they weren't great buddies? Justin is looking at 30
years. Does he want 10 more years for perjury?"
The basis of the conspiracy was the fact that people made telephone
calls to each other, according to nit-wit prosecutor Alan Vinegrad.
And then all the cops met together.
Truth is, there were 19 telephone calls exchanged over a period of two
months between all of the accused. Amazing? Of course, if all four
people are charged, they'd be talking to each other: "What do you
know? What are you saying?" Pretty simple.
But most bizarre was about them meeting together. That is a fact. They
met once in the basement of the 70th Precinct station house at 3 p.m.
within a week of potential indictments. That is the busiest time at
any precinct, when shifts change.
They were not meeting at 3 a.m. behind a headstone in Calvary
Cemetery. They were there with their lawyers. Their union executives.
If they hadn't met with their lawyers and union executives, they
should have been fired from the job because that would prove they had
the IQ of room temperature.
This case, tragically, plays into the hands of the Al Sharptons of
this world. But it is not recognized by blacks, Latinos and whites who
recognize that cops die trying to save other human beings' lives.
Ken (NY)
--
Chairbeing,
Department of Redundancy Department
Assistant Grand Poobah, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
___________________________________
http://www.kintera.org/frf/home/default.asp?ievent=1351
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
"What do people mean when they
say the computer went down on them?"
-Marilyn Pittman
Michael Zarlenga
: March 2, 2002 -- BOB VOLPE said yesterday: "Justin will sleep easier
: at night knowing that an innocent man is going free."
Yeah, Volpe cares ... only as long as that innocent man is white
and has an NYPD badge, otherwise the innocent get a shit covered
plunger in the face and everyone around gets amnesia.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
mike
"Ken [NY" wrote:
>
> VOLPE'S DAD GLAD
> THE TRUTH HAS
> COME OUT AT LONG LAST
>
> By STEVE DUNLEAVY
> NY Post
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CHARLES SCHWARZ
> New lease on life.
>
> March 2, 2002 -- BOB VOLPE said yesterday: "Justin will sleep easier
> at night knowing that an innocent man is going free."
> Volpe, the retired undercover cop, is the father of Justin Volpe, who
> is serving 30 years in the Abner Louima assault.
Does he sleep better knowing that a guilty cop walked?
> "I'm pleased, but I am not pleased about the system. What kind of a
> system locks up an innocent man like Chuck?"
What kind of a system lets a guilty cop walk?
Louima ststed that TWO cops were responsible.
torresD
in court, then he should go free and be compensated financially
for the time he spent in prison.
If not, well....
Volpe, the former cop, who admitted to raping Louima,
with a stick, is in prison for 30 years and he says
Charles Schwarz is was not in the bathroom.
Sometimes enough is enough.
"Ken [NY" <Ken4b...@usa.SPAM.net> wrote in message
news:11h18u051sm2urndh...@4ax.com...
> "It's like the movie 'A Few Good Men,' when Jack Nicholson tells Tom
> Cruise, 'You can't handle the truth.'
Debbie
>From: "torresD" torr...@hotmail.com
>Date: 3/3/2002 1:44 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <Y2vg8.2344$qf2.19...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>
>
>If Charles Schwarz is truly innocent, and that it is proven
>in court, then he should go free and be compensated financially
>for the time he spent in prison.
>
>If not, well....
>
I couldn't agree with you more.
Debbie
mike
torresD wrote:
>
> If Charles Schwarz is truly innocent, and that it is proven
> in court, then he should go free and be compensated financially
> for the time he spent in prison.
>
> If not, well....
>
> Volpe, the former cop, who admitted to raping Louima,
> with a stick, is in prison for 30 years and he says
> Charles Schwarz is was not in the bathroom.
>
> Sometimes enough is enough.
>
Too bad he did not say who helped him.
THAT SCUMBAG is still a free man.
Capt. Duncel (ret.)
cares if racist cops go free or not. Volpe's dad is just as guilty as his son, so
says the bible. Where else can the son learn to be a pure white racist cop of the
grand order of the Ku klux Klan twice removed from the Neo-Nazis.
Let see, how long will it be before he gets his job back. And his back pay. Hey,
maybe he'll sue the city too and move to Florida, right next door to his victim. How
Ironic would that be.
Phil
> What kind of a system lets a guilty cop walk?
>
> Louima ststed that TWO cops were responsible.
Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop. Should Schwarz be
punished for a crime he didn't commit?
Phil
========
visit the New York City Homebrewers Guild website:
http://www.pipeline.com/~dogglebe/nychg.html
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C813B88...@nyc.rr.com>...
>
> > What kind of a system lets a guilty cop walk?
> >
> > Louima ststed that TWO cops were responsible.
>
> Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop. Should Schwarz be
> punished for a crime he didn't commit?
>
Someone has to pay.
Innocent people go to jail every day. Or is it just that these are cops
and not the usual "perps" and "skells"?
cliff jamison
> > at night knowing that an innocent man is going free."
> > Volpe, the retired undercover cop, is the father of Justin Volpe, who
> > is serving 30 years in the Abner Louima assault.
>
> Does he sleep better knowing that a guilty cop walked?
>
> > "I'm pleased, but I am not pleased about the system. What kind of a
> > system locks up an innocent man like Chuck?"
>
> What kind of a system lets a guilty cop walk?
>
> Louima ststed that TWO cops were responsible.
Man, you can smell the sour grapes sweetening!
torresD
Well yes, that is true.
Volpe did not act alone.
If not Charles Schwarz, who helped Volpe.
Volpe did rape Louima with a stick all by himself.
And the screams of pain, when his bladder and colon
were ruptured, someone must have been heard those screams.
You collar up, bring the perp in to the precinct,
go in front of the desk sergeant, take the perp to
the back to be processed.
A lot of people in that command, saw Louima,
before and after his colon and bladder were
pierced with a wooden stick.
It wasn't just Volpe.
In Haiti, unfortunately, this sort of thing happens
all the time, and nobody gets caught and nobody gets paid.
At least there was some justice for Louima and Volpe
is in prison.
Alex Rodriguez
>> Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop. Should Schwarz be
>> punished for a crime he didn't commit?
>Someone has to pay.
So do you stupidly prosecute an innocent man?
>Innocent people go to jail every day. Or is it just that these are cops
>and not the usual "perps" and "skells"?
Cop or not should make no difference. If they are innocent, they should
not go to jail.
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
cyp...@punk.net
# mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C813B88...@nyc.rr.com>...
#
#
# > What kind of a system lets a guilty cop walk?
# >
# > Louima ststed that TWO cops were responsible.
#
# Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop.
Apparently he was distracted by the plunger working his ass.
# Should Schwarz be punished for a crime he didn't commit?
Should Schwarz not be punished for a crime he commited?
(See how you're trolling now)
Phil
> In article <3C839BBA...@nyc.rr.com>, moo...@nyc.rr.com says...
>
> >> Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop. Should Schwarz be
> >> punished for a crime he didn't commit?
> >Someone has to pay.
>
> So do you stupidly prosecute an innocent man?
>
Mike does a lot of things stupidly. As long as cops are punished, he'll be happy.
Phil
> Phil wrote:
> >
> > mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C813B88...@nyc.rr.com>...
> >
> > > What kind of a system lets a guilty cop walk?
> > >
> > > Louima ststed that TWO cops were responsible.
> >
> > Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop. Should Schwarz be
> > punished for a crime he didn't commit?
> >
>
> Someone has to pay.
With this twisted logic, then justice was served when Louima was shot.
After all, the cops were looking for a rapist when they came across
him. Louima was punished for the crimes of the rapist.
You're happy with this arrangement, aren't you Mike?
Phil
> Phil wrote:
> >
> > mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C813B88...@nyc.rr.com>...
> >
> > > What kind of a system lets a guilty cop walk?
> > >
> > > Louima ststed that TWO cops were responsible.
> >
> > Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop. Should Schwarz be
> > punished for a crime he didn't commit?
> >
>
> Someone has to pay.
With this twisted logic, then justice was served when Louima was shot.
After all, the cops were looking for a rapist when they came across
him. Louima was punished for the crimes of the rapist.
You're happy with this arrangement, aren't you Mike?
LED
>
> Innocent people go to jail every day.
you don't really mean to use that as a defense do you mike?
Alex Rodriguez
dogg...@yahoo.com says...
>> Someone has to pay.
>
>With this twisted logic, then justice was served when Louima was shot.
> After all, the cops were looking for a rapist when they came across
>him. Louima was punished for the crimes of the rapist.
>
>You're happy with this arrangement, aren't you Mike?
I think you are confusing cases. Louima was not shot, he was sodomized
with a plunger. Diallo was shot.
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> ad...@columbia.edu (Alex Rodriguez) wrote in message news:<a60hjl$m96$9...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>...
> > In article <3C839BBA...@nyc.rr.com>, moo...@nyc.rr.com says...
> >
> > >> Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop. Should Schwarz be
> > >> punished for a crime he didn't commit?
> > >Someone has to pay.
> >
> > So do you stupidly prosecute an innocent man?
> >
>
> Mike does a lot of things stupidly. As long as cops are punished, he'll be happy.
>
Sorry, Philly...as long as BAD cops are punished.
These three dickheads are going to make sure that the guilty one will walk.
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C839BBA...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > Phil wrote:
> > >
> > > mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C813B88...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > >
> > > > What kind of a system lets a guilty cop walk?
> > > >
> > > > Louima ststed that TWO cops were responsible.
> > >
> > > Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop. Should Schwarz be
> > > punished for a crime he didn't commit?
> > >
> >
> > Someone has to pay.
>
> With this twisted logic, then justice was served when Louima was shot.
> After all, the cops were looking for a rapist when they came across
> him. Louima was punished for the crimes of the rapist.
>
> You're happy with this arrangement, aren't you Mike?
There was a second officer involved. Luima said so. Volpe said so.
There is a guilty party that need to be brought to justice.
mike
Just stating a FACT.
mike
Philly was sucking on his HomeBrew again!
Ken [NY
breathlessly shared the following:
>>> Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop. Should Schwarz be
>>> punished for a crime he didn't commit?
>>Someone has to pay.
>
>So do you stupidly prosecute an innocent man?
That is exactly right. The radicals think if a cop is
convicted, that is good. If four are convicted, that is better. The
concept of actual guilt and nailing the correct perpetrator does not
enter into their reasoning.
Ken (NY)
--
Chairbeing,
Department of Redundancy Department
Assistant Grand Poobah, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
___________________________________
http://www.kintera.org/frf/home/default.asp?ievent=1351
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all
spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined,
despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling
brats." - P.J. O'Rourke
mike
"Ken [NY" wrote:
>
> On 4 Mar 2002 19:23:33 GMT, ad...@columbia.edu (Alex Rodriguez)
> breathlessly shared the following:
>
> >>> Louima wasn't able to identify the second cop. Should Schwarz be
> >>> punished for a crime he didn't commit?
> >>Someone has to pay.
> >
> >So do you stupidly prosecute an innocent man?
>
> That is exactly right. The radicals think if a cop is
> convicted, that is good. If four are convicted, that is better. The
> concept of actual guilt and nailing the correct perpetrator does not
> enter into their reasoning.
Hey KKKen, "conceptualize" this......
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-nyplaz042609216mar04.column
ONE POLICE PLAZA
Court Ruling Puts The Heat on Worth
Leonard Levitt
March 4, 2002
A federal appeals court has spoken. And if Stephen Worth is allowed to
spend another day defending a cop either in court or in the
Police Department trial room, someone should be asking Patrolmen's
Benevolent Association president Patrick Lynch some hard
questions.
The appeals court didn't say Worth's client Charles Schwarz was innocent
of being the so-called second man in the bathroom of the 70th
Precinct station house in Brooklyn when Justin Volpe sodomized Abner
Louima with a broomstick handle.
The court all but cried out that Schwarz and fellow defendants Thomas
Bruder and Thomas Wiese lied about their whereabouts on
Aug. 9, 1997.
Nonetheless, the three-judge panel called for a new trial for Schwarz
because anyone with a pea brain could have put on a better defense
than Worth with his $10 million PBA retainer.
Worth's so-called defense - based on no facts, the judges said - was
that Volpe acted alone and that Louima fabricated the second man to
"preserve his manhood."
The judges regarded this defense as so feeble they could offer no
explanation other than that Worth sought to turn the focus from
Wiese. Volpe subsequently named Wiese as the second man in the bathroom,
and Wiese admitted he entered the bathroom, although
he claims the assault was over.
Worth's purpose, the judges concluded, was to distance the union from
Louima's unprecedented civil suit, which claimed union
officials conspired to injure Louima and cover it up.
Part of the alleged conspiracy was a precinct-basement meeting of the
participants shortly after the assault. That meeting included Wiese,
the precinct delegate; Mike Immitt, the union trustee; and a union
lawyer, Hugo Ortega, whose firm held the PBA retainer before its
partners went to jail for fraud and Worth's firm took over.
Still, had the jurists attended Schwarz's first trial, they might have
reached a different conclusion as to why Worth failed to implicate
Wiese.
Those who know Worth best say that what caused him to tank the biggest
case of his career was not his $10 million retainer but his ego.
Ego is why Worth takes the stairs when he leaves the fourth-floor trial
room at One Police Plaza - so that he can amble by the offices of
the police reporters on the second floor. Worth loves seeing his name in
The New York Times, and he loves seeing himself on the 6
o'clock news.
But there in Brooklyn federal court at Schwarz's first trial, holding
center stage as Volpe's attorney, was a rival who had unsuccessfully
sought the PBA contract and whose ego is the same size as Worth's:
Marvyn Kornberg.
As the trial began, it was Kornberg, not Worth, getting the hot media
play until he flamed out with the claim that Louima had been
sodomized not by his client's broomstick handle but through gay sex.
Nonetheless, when Volpe pleaded guilty to assaulting Louima, Kornberg
informed Worth in his best Queens Boulevard brogue, "My
guy can take your guy out of the bathroom."
This, the appeals court noted, gave Worth the following information: (1)
Volpe, the only indisputable witness in the bathroom with
Louima, would testify Schwarz was not the second officer; (2) Louima
could not identify Schwarz; (3) both Wiese and Bruder had
indicated it was Wiese, not Schwarz, who escorted Louima toward the bathroom.
But to travel Wiese's road meant Volpe had to testify. Worth later said
he feared no jury would believe Volpe, and at Schwarz's second
trial he was proven correct.
But those close to him say that what caused Worth to avoid Volpe was not
Worth's fear of a credibility gap involving Volpe. It was
instead an awareness that in calling Volpe, Kornberg would get more air time.
Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.
Phil
> Sorry, Philly...as long as BAD cops are punished.
"Someone has to pay."
Aren't these your words?
Phil
> I think you are confusing cases. Louima was not shot, he was sodomized
> with a plunger. Diallo was shot.
You're right. My bad.
Phil
"Someone has to pay."
Even when I drunk, my way of thinking is better than yours.
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C840505...@nyc.rr.com>...
>
> > Sorry, Philly...as long as BAD cops are punished.
>
> "Someone has to pay."
>
> Aren't these your words?
The guilty party is walking the streets, they must pay.
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C84059B...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <83456a7a.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> > > dogg...@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > > >> Someone has to pay.
> > > >
> > > >With this twisted logic, then justice was served when Louima was shot.
> > > > After all, the cops were looking for a rapist when they came across
> > > >him. Louima was punished for the crimes of the rapist.
> > > >
> > > >You're happy with this arrangement, aren't you Mike?
> > >
> > > I think you are confusing cases. Louima was not shot, he was sodomized
> > > with a plunger. Diallo was shot.
> >
> > Philly was sucking on his HomeBrew again!
>
> "Someone has to pay."
>
> Even when I drunk, my way of thinking is better than yours.
>
I meant the guilty party has to pay.
cyp...@punk.net
You drunk.
Phil
> > > Philly was sucking on his HomeBrew again!
> >
> > "Someone has to pay."
> >
> > Even when I drunk, my way of thinking is better than yours.
> >
>
> I meant the guilty party has to pay.
No you didn't, you liar.
Read it again:
"Someone has to pay."
You never said anything about a guilty party. You said:
"Someone has to pay."
I'll repeat that:
"SOMEONE has to pay."
BTW, the Guiness Book people called. They want to be sure they spell
your last name right in the entry for the world's fastest
backpeddling.
ridley1230
teach them they are white Americans and they are superior to the entire
world. They forget to tell the pigs like VOLPE that the landlords were
destroyed so they can now be called white Americans. I think all white folks
in the USA just as EVIL as H.
<cyp...@punk.net> wrote in message
news:_L6g8.23935$in3.5...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> In nyc.general Ken [NY <Ken4b...@usa.spam.net> wrote:
> # VOLPE'S DAD GLAD
> # THE TRUTH HAS
> # COME OUT AT LONG LAST
>
> Ken, who gives a shit?
>
> Really, who gives a flying fuck?
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C85499A...@nyc.rr.com>...
>
> > > > Philly was sucking on his HomeBrew again!
> > >
> > > "Someone has to pay."
> > >
> > > Even when I drunk, my way of thinking is better than yours.
> > >
> >
> > I meant the guilty party has to pay.
>
> No you didn't, you liar.
>
> Read it again:
>
> "Someone has to pay."
>
> You never said anything about a guilty party. You said:
>
> "Someone has to pay."
>
> I'll repeat that:
>
> "SOMEONE has to pay."
>
I meant the guilty party has to pay.
But since it seems that A Guilty Cop is going to walk,
I guess you are jumping with joy.
<shrug>
Phil
> > "SOMEONE has to pay."
> >
>
> I meant the guilty party has to pay.
"Innocent people go to jail every day. Or is it just that these are
cops
and not the usual "perps" and "skells"?"
What does this mean, Mike? It sound like you're grouping the cops
with these 'innocent people' who are in jail.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
I admitted my mistake in mixing up Diallo and Louima. Can't you admit
your mistake?
Then again, you can't admit you lied about Bloomberg commuting by
subway to work every day.
> But since it seems that A Guilty Cop is going to walk,
> I guess you are jumping with joy.
Volpe's in jail and I'm glad. There's no proof that Schwarz helped
Volpe's. None at all. What makes you so sure he's guilty....besides
being a cop?
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> Volpe's in jail and I'm glad. There's no proof that Schwarz helped
> Volpe's. None at all. What makes you so sure he's guilty....besides
> being a cop?
I never said it was Schwarz.
Louima testified that two cops were involved.
Volpe testified that another cop helped him.
So WHO is the guilty one? We need to find out.
Not just let all three walk.
The guilty party must pay.
ex_cathedra
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C84059B...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <83456a7a.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> > > dogg...@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > > >> Someone has to pay.
> > > >
> > > >With this twisted logic, then justice was served when Louima was shot.
> > > > After all, the cops were looking for a rapist when they came across
> > > >him. Louima was punished for the crimes of the rapist.
> > > >
> > > >You're happy with this arrangement, aren't you Mike?
> > >
> > > I think you are confusing cases. Louima was not shot, he was sodomized
> > > with a plunger. Diallo was shot.
> >
> > Philly was sucking on his HomeBrew again!
>
>
> "Someone has to pay."
>
> Even when I drunk, my way of thinking is better than yours.
>
Sorry boo-boo.
It doesn't work like that.
Thats the mantra of the alcoholic.
(Get some help)
0 = - )~
Phil
> So WHO is the guilty one? We need to find out.
> Not just let all three walk.
For the sake of argument, let's say that one of the three is guilty.
You're willing to keep two innocent men in jail until we find out who
the guilty party is?
For the sake of argument, let's say that none of the three are giulty.
You're willing to keep three innocent men in jail until we find out
who the guilty party is?
> The guilty party must pay.
"Someone must pay." - Mike
Phil
> (Get some help)
Help for what?
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C8631AE...@nyc.rr.com>...
>
> > So WHO is the guilty one? We need to find out.
> > Not just let all three walk.
>
> For the sake of argument, let's say that one of the three is guilty.
> You're willing to keep two innocent men in jail until we find out who
> the guilty party is?
>
> For the sake of argument, let's say that none of the three are giulty.
> You're willing to keep three innocent men in jail until we find out
> who the guilty party is?
>
> > The guilty party must pay.
>
> "Someone must pay." - Mike
Surely, someone (the guilty party) must pay.
Pedal harder Philly.
Its the only ammo you have.
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C8631AE...@nyc.rr.com>...
>
> > So WHO is the guilty one? We need to find out.
> > Not just let all three walk.
>
> For the sake of argument, let's say that one of the three is guilty.
> You're willing to keep two innocent men in jail until we find out who
> the guilty party is?
>
> For the sake of argument, let's say that none of the three are giulty.
> You're willing to keep three innocent men in jail until we find out
> who the guilty party is?
Louima said that there were TWO offenders.
Volpe said that there were TWO offenders.
These three know who the second party was.
If they refuse to Testify (not Testilie), jail them all for
obstruction of justice and conspiracy.
Being a cop does not give one the Right to conspire
to obstruct Justice.
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C8631AE...@nyc.rr.com>...
>
> > So WHO is the guilty one? We need to find out.
> > Not just let all three walk.
>
> For the sake of argument, let's say that one of the three is guilty.
> You're willing to keep two innocent men in jail until we find out who
> the guilty party is?
>
> For the sake of argument, let's say that none of the three are giulty.
> You're willing to keep three innocent men in jail until we find out
> who the guilty party is?
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-vpbres072614192mar07.column
Freedom for Louima Officers
Jimmy Breslin
March 7, 2002
They should give Charles Schwarz bail right away this morning in
Brooklyn Federal Court and get him out on the street where he belongs.
He belongs out because he is part of the Louima case, and two of the
cops from that case already are free, and therefore everybody should be
free.
Those already out are cops Thomas Wiese and Thomas Bruder. Schwarz today
should be the third.
For this morning's matter, Schwarz fills all the requirements. Bail does
not indicate the seriousness of the crime. Bail is used only to
ensure the person's appearance in court. Schwarz has roots in the
community. He has made every court appearance since this case started
five years ago. In one appearance, he was left by himself in the
courthouse, the verdict was coming in, and he climbed the stairs to the
sixth-floor courtroom to hear them call out guilty. He fills the
definition of a man worthy of bail.
He should make the third of four charged in the sodomizing of Abner
Louima to be on the street.
The fourth is Justin Volpe. He was dumb enough to plead guilty. If he
had any foresight, he would have seen that somehow they were
going to find a way to spring everybody.
If you're going to let everybody go, why keep this one fool in prison?
Let's make it a clean sweep. Justin Volpe should be released
forthwith.
No cop who was in the 70th Precinct station house that night was
innocent. Everybody knew what was going on and, at the least, they said
nothing and obstructed justice.
Only the four were charged. Let out the fourth, Volpe, and you help all
of society.
For if the four cops are not in jail for sodomizing a prisoner, then
perhaps the sodomy never happened. If the sodomy never happened,
then you have nothing to be ashamed about. The city is more marvelous
than it ever was.
However, if you have one cop still in prison, and for a long time, his
face and name will haunt us. He will make every cop guilty. Every so
often there will be stories about Volpe, and his pictures will become
more evil, his deed nastier, his guilt spreading everywhere. We will be
an unhappy society with Justin Volpe in prison.
But if we let him out of prison, he will walk back into our lives with
the sun splashing off his shoulders and brightening everything
around him.
Who releases him? The same three appeals judges, people who voted for
the cops. The chief judge for the panel was John T. Walker, who
is a cousin of all the Bushes and, as noted here before, in presidential
campaigns, both Bushes put on cop's badges here in New York. Now
cousin Walker can, too.
On Sept. 11, Walker and the other two on his panel were in the federal
courthouse on Foley Square when the planes hit the trade center.
The judges had to be evacuated from the building. When they came back to
court, cops and firefighters suddenly were the new champions
of the city. Cops are Tops. George W. Bush is over at the trade center
devastation extolling our cops. God bless the police who save us.
There is no way to know if the judges put on NYPD baseball caps while
they worked. But here is what they decided:
Jury Conviction of Schwarz on Charge of Holding Louima Down: The jury
had some nerve finding him guilty, and we hereby overturn
the verdict. Because we find he had a lawyer he wanted, Stephen Worth,
who had a conflict. Even knowing this, Schwarz wanted Worth.
He got him. He got a lawyer who said that there was only one cop in the
bathroom, and that was Volpe, and that Louima said there were
two cops because he had to defend his honor, his dignity. That was some
defense. The appeals judges had to run in like lifeguards to pull
Schwarz out of the water.
Schwarz is not guilty of assisting a sodomy because his lawyer had a
conflict of interest.
Jury Conviction of Schwarz, Wiese, Bruder on Conspiracy to Obstruct
Justice by Lying to the Grand Jury: They were only practicing lying,
the three judges said. They got in the basement of the station house
with a PBA trustee, delegate and lawyer and came up with a story to
tell all federal agents and investigators.
They had the precinct dog remain asleep to prevent the odd chance of
somebody grilling him like they tried to do with the Akita in the O.J.
Simpson case.
The four cops' story was designed to baffle a grand jury. But as the
cops were targets of the investigation, they never got the chance. They
were convicted in Brooklyn court - lying is lying - but a pre-game
practice at lying, the appeals judges said, wasn't enough to convict.
That Mario Biaggi went to prison for lying to an FBI agent before a
grand jury started makes no difference. Mario was not a cop at the time
of the World Trade Center, when they let everybody out. If they have any
sense, they'll let Volpe come out. We then can bury the Louima
case, and in all the years to follow, you might hear this:
"Remember that sodomy in the Seven-O?"
"What sodomy?"
Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.
Ken [NY
>Louima said that there were TWO offenders.
>Volpe said that there were TWO offenders.
>
>These three know who the second party was.
"When I was in the bathroom, the only officer who assaulted Mr. Louima
was myself."
-Justin Volpe
http://www.nycpba.org/press-nd/00/nd-000218-volpe.html
Ken (NY)
--
Chairbeing,
Department of Redundancy Department
Assistant Grand Poobah, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
___________________________________
http://www.kintera.org/frf/home/default.asp?ievent=1351
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
Q: What is the difference between a
Harley and a Hoover?
A: The position of the dirt bag.
Ken [NY
>Louima said that there were TWO offenders.
>Volpe said that there were TWO offenders.
>
>These three know who the second party was.
Justin Volpe, who pleaded guilty during the civil rights trial last
year and is currently serving a 30-year sentence, told jurors that
Schwarz was wrongfully convicted and that Wiese was in the bathroom
and saw him sodomize Louima. According to Volpe, Wiese stood by and
watched the attack and did nothing to stop it.
<snip>
Louima himself was never been able to identify Schwarz decisively as
one of his attackers in the bathroom. Louima only said during the
criminal civil rights trial that the attacker resembled the driver of
the car that took him to the 70th Precinct. Records show that the
driver of that car was Schwarz.
During the obstruction trial Louima suggested — for the first time —
that a third officer was involved in the bathroom attack. He said that
someone opened and closed the bathroom door as someone held him and
Volpe attacked. However, Louima could not see the person's face and
again failed to positively identify Schwarz as Volpe's accomplice.
Ken [NY
breathlessly shared the following:
>> Too bad he did not say who helped him.
>> THAT SCUMBAG is still a free man.
>
>Well yes, that is true.
>
>Volpe did not act alone.
>
>If not Charles Schwarz, who helped Volpe.
>Volpe did rape Louima with a stick all by himself.
Volpe took full responsibility for the assault, testifying, "No one
held Mr. Louima. No one assaulted Mr. Louima except for me."
But he said Wiese was present during the attack and never tried to
stop it.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/17/police.torture/
Steve Furbish
I hate to get in the middle of your little hissy, but it sure looks like
even though you state that you'd prefer "(the guilty party)" you'll settle
for any old cop's head on the chopping block? A fact of life is Mikey -
someone doesn't always pay - be they cop or not. Volpe is taking the
justifiable hit that he deserves and like any other common criminal he
apparently isn't willing to give up his accomplice.
Steve
Steve Furbish
>
>
> Phil wrote:
> >
> > mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<3C8631AE...@nyc.rr.com>...
> >
> > > So WHO is the guilty one? We need to find out.
> > > Not just let all three walk.
> >
> > For the sake of argument, let's say that one of the three is guilty.
> > You're willing to keep two innocent men in jail until we find out who
> > the guilty party is?
> >
> > You're willing to keep three innocent men in jail until we find out
> > who the guilty party is?
>
> Louima said that there were TWO offenders.
> Volpe said that there were TWO offenders.
>
> These three know who the second party was.
>
> If they refuse to Testify (not Testilie), jail them all for
> obstruction of justice and conspiracy.
>
> Being a cop does not give one the Right to conspire
> to obstruct Justice.
Yeah, I never much cared for that fifth amendment anyway.....
Steve
mike
I used a bad choice of words at the time. The guilty should pay.
mike
That would only apply to the GUILTY party.
The other two could TELL THE TRUTH....but its cops we are
talking about here.
LED
geeez mike, why bring 'truth' into the argument? They're cops
Phil
> Pedal harder Philly.
>
> Its the only ammo you have.
When did I backpedal? Do you even know what it means to do so? Let's
go over this in words that even you can understand.
On March 4th you said, in regards to the Louima incident:
"Someone has to pay."
In the same message, you also wrote: "Innocent people go to jail
every day. Or is it just that these are cops and not the usual "perps"
and "skells"?"
On March 5th you said, "I meant the guilty party has to pay."
Phil
> Pedal harder Philly.
>
> Its the only ammo you have.
Let's go over this again, since my message was cut off....
On March 4th, you said: "Someone has to pay."
You also said: "Innocent people go to jail every day. Or is it just
that these are cops and not the usual "perps" and "skells"?" This
implies that innocent people go to jail and cops shouldn't be exempt
from this."
On March 6th, you said:
"Louima testified that two cops were involved.
Volpe testified that another cop helped him."
"So WHO is the guilty one? We need to find out.
Not just let all three walk."
Again, you want (atleast) two cops imprisoned for crimes they didn't
commit.
On March 7th, you wrote:
"These three know who the second party was.
If they refuse to Testify (not Testilie), jail them all for
obstruction of justice and conspiracy."
How do you know what they know? Or is this just a part of your 'all
cops are guilty' philosophy?
Stick with cheap insults, Mike. It's the only thing you're good at.
mike
OK Philly....here it is....for the world to see....for your gratification....
get ready Phil.....
Put down the HomoBrew.....
"I Moonman Mike, made a mistake of grammar."
There it is.
Happy now?
mike
Phil wrote:
> "So WHO is the guilty one? We need to find out.
> Not just let all three walk."
>
> Again, you want (atleast) two cops imprisoned for crimes they didn't
> commit.
What part of "So WHO is the guilty one?" don't you understand?
ONE... as in the amount of beer you can't stop at?
Read it again in the morning when you are sober.
"So WHO is the guilty one? "
ONE, Philly, ONE.
Lets put the guilty ONE in jail. Not let all three walk.
Phil
> "I Moonman Mike, made a mistake of grammar."
>
> There it is.
>
> Happy now?
It wasn't a grammatical error. This was never about grammar.
Phil
Normally, I just ignore people who point out grammar and misspellings,
but this was a good one, Cypher. You got me.
Phil
>
> get ready Phil.....
>
> Put down the HomoBrew.....
A gay insult! Anti-cop and anti-gay.
> Happy now?
I will be when I hear you backpedal out of this.
Phil
You really should've studied more in your ESL class, Mike. I'm not
the only one 'misinterpreting' what you're saying.
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C88D69A...@nyc.rr.com>...
>
> > "I Moonman Mike, made a mistake of grammar."
> >
> > There it is.
> >
> > Happy now?
>
> It wasn't a grammatical error. This was never about grammar.
Whatever you say, Phil.
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C88D763...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > Phil wrote:
> >
> > > "So WHO is the guilty one? We need to find out.
> > > Not just let all three walk."
> > >
> > > Again, you want (atleast) two cops imprisoned for crimes they didn't
> > > commit.
> >
> > What part of "So WHO is the guilty one?" don't you understand?
> >
> > ONE... as in the amount of beer you can't stop at?
> >
> > Read it again in the morning when you are sober.
> >
> > "So WHO is the guilty one? "
> >
> > ONE, Philly, ONE.
> >
> > Lets put the guilty ONE in jail. Not let all three walk.
>
> You really should've studied more in your ESL class, Mike. I'm not
> the only one 'misinterpreting' what you're saying.
>
You certainly are free to interpret postings any way you wish.
One.
Steve Furbish
> I used a bad choice of words at the time. The guilty should pay.
That would be true in a perfect world, but in a perfect world you wouldn't
have sick shit like this happen in the first place. The real sad thing is
that had this incident NOT involved cops it would probably be back page news
in some venues.
Steve
Steve Furbish
Fact is - you still wouldn't know who to punish would you? If nobody else
talked you could hardly know which one the 5th amendment applied to and
which ones it didn't. You can't hold someone criminally liable for a denial
if that denial is actually the truth and you can't punish them for not
witnessing something just because YOU think they should have seen it.
There's even just a slight chance here that it's people like you - who think
you know the truth, but in reality haven't a clue - who are the true moral
delinquents? You want a pound of flesh even if it means taking it out on
someone who is totally innocent.
Steve
Steve Furbish
"LED" <lcerura...@newyorkled.com> wrote in message
news:itZh8.21644$106.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > talking about here.
>
> geeez mike, why bring 'truth' into the argument? They're cops
and you're a shithead, but that's no crime either...
Steve
Steve Furbish
<cyp...@punk.net> wrote in message
news:E1Zh8.32411$in3.9...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> In nyc.general Ken [NY <ken4b...@usa.spam.net> wrote:
> # On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 19:11:02 GMT, "torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com>
> # breathlessly shared the following:
> #
> # >> Too bad he did not say who helped him.
> # >> THAT SCUMBAG is still a free man.
> # >
> # >Well yes, that is true.
> # >
> # >Volpe did not act alone.
> # >
> # >If not Charles Schwarz, who helped Volpe.
> # >Volpe did rape Louima with a stick all by himself.
> #
> # Volpe took full responsibility for the assault, testifying, "No one
> # held Mr. Louima. No one assaulted Mr. Louima except for me."
>
> Okay, Ken, tell us how one person manages this assault.
I saw Abner on TV the other day. He didn't look like he'd be all that hard
to assault that way if a person were so inclined.
Steve
LED
"Steve Furbish" <sfur...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:tNbi8.4392$ia.7...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
bite my wood asshole.
if you've followed the threads in this NG you'd know that mike is much more
against cops than probably anyone around here and I on the other hand have
come to their defense despite the a handful or rather, several handfuls over
time whom don't give a damn about telling the truth. Who've commited their
own bits of racial profiling, perhaps not newsworthy, but it's been done.
cyp...@punk.net
#
# A gay insult! Anti-cop and anti-gay.
According to your post, you made up that quote,
since it is not attributed to anyone.
LED
<cyp...@punk.net> wrote in message
news:9rei8.32862$in3.9...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...> # cyp...@punk.net wrote in message
news:<_ddh8.31032$in3.7...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com>...> # >
> # > You drunk.
> #
> # Normally, I just ignore people who point out grammar and misspellings,
> # but this was a good one, Cypher. You got me.
>
> Someday, all of us Usenet whackies should get together. ;-)
I'll bring the Wild Turkey....
....I am invited aren't I?
Ken [NY
<lcerura...@newyorkled.com> breathlessly shared the following:
And you were coming to the defense of police officers when you
wrote: "geeez mike, why bring 'truth' into the argument? They're
cops." Horse shit, pal. You are just another cop-basher with possibly
a better education.
LED
"Ken [NY" <ken4b...@usa.SPAM.net> wrote in message
news:meti8u0j346dhm0n8...@4ax.com...
hehehehe, Cop Basher Ken? Is that the term of the day? Cop basher huh? I
think not. I'm no more delusional with my posts than you yourself are.
Tell me Ken, what's your nationality? Where do you hang out? Where do you
live?
Many cops out there make it up as they go along. I've got many stories.
Wanna hear one?
I used to live on Lexington Avenue in the 20's awhile ago. 'Lived on the 3rd
floor and on the second floor was a whore house filled with hispanic women
(south american I believe...mind you, they themselves got visits from the
cops, but that's irrelevant right now). I recall one early evening coming
out of my building and being confronted by a male and two female cops
outside.
"Where you come from? You just came from that apartment didn't you? Give us
some ID!"
"NO, I live in this building! What are you talking about?"
"Don't lie to us, I saw you come out of that apartment! I saw you!!!"
I showed him my ID, and he looked at the display just outside the door with
the names of everyone who lived in the building and their respective
apartment numbers. My name wasn't there. The cop thought he was ahead of me
until I led him inside and opened up my own mailbox with mail inside which
was addressed to me. I then offered to lead him to my apartment on the 3rd
floor. My mailbox was enough for him.
I then spent a few minutes trying to get an apology out of them. NEVER GOT
ONE! I could've complained by I READ THE PAPER. and back then, complaints
never got one very far, and being a working man, I didn't have the time.
(Which in and of itself was a Very Sad Statement of the Current Time back
then)
SO KEN, I've got other stories to tell. You wanna talk about Cops!???? It
took me years to get over all the shit I've withstood at their hands!
SO FUCK YOU KEN and your two bit accusation of who's a cop basher!
Stick that up your ass and blow.
LED
It's true isn't it.
It's all black and white with you. Black and White as far as race is
concerned. Black and White with with everything....with no greys in between.
Refusal to meet someone halfway, refusal to see more than what you're
trained to see since childhood, or since you've graduated from the force is
quite a fault Ken. You're guilty of not seeing anything more.
After all, you can't even see that the 1st amendment means: Freedom to
practice any religion in America as well as Free of being subjected to any
religion.
I bet you're quite the thrill when visiting the museum. Cubism,
Expressionism, Surrealism and all other forms of art, the meaning of which
aren't totally obvious to a 6 year old just simply go way over your head. I
know your type. I bet you've got paintings of boats in your livingroom and
nothing more, not because you couldn't afford them, but more because they
never made sense to you and your to appreciate them without a black and
white, to the point explanation.
Sad, and Boring. You're a fossil, Ken.
Ken [NY
<lcerura...@newyorkled.com> breathlessly shared the following:
>SO FUCK YOU KEN and your two bit accusation of who's a cop basher!
"geeez mike, why bring 'truth' into the argument? They're cops."
-LED
Ken [NY
<lcerura...@newyorkled.com> breathlessly shared the following:
>Sad, and Boring. You're a fossil, Ken.
And you are still a liberal asshole copbasher.
Phil
> According to your post, you made up that quote,
> since it is not attributed to anyone.
Here's the post, Cypher.
mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C88D69A...@nyc.rr.com>...
> Phil wrote:
> >
> > mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C87CCD9...@nyc.rr.com>...
> >
> > > Pedal harder Philly.
> > >
> > > Its the only ammo you have.
> >
> > When did I backpedal? Do you even know what it means to do so? Let's
> > go over this in words that even you can understand.
> >
> > On March 4th you said, in regards to the Louima incident:
> > "Someone has to pay."
> >
> > In the same message, you also wrote: "Innocent people go to jail
> > every day. Or is it just that these are cops and not the usual "perps"
> > and "skells"?"
> >
> > On March 5th you said, "I meant the guilty party has to pay."
>
> OK Philly....here it is....for the world to see....for your gratification....
>
> get ready Phil.....
>
> Put down the HomoBrew.....
>
> "I Moonman Mike, made a mistake of grammar."
>
> There it is.
>
> Happy now?
Now, let's concentrate on Mike's bigotted remark.
Phil
========
visit the New York City Homebrewers Guild website:
LED
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 03:31:25 GMT, "LED"
> <lcerura...@newyorkled.com> breathlessly shared the following:
>
> >Sad, and Boring. You're a fossil, Ken.
>
> And you are still a liberal asshole copbasher.
> Ken (NY)
>
The truth hurts doesn't it Ken?
His long held beliefs that all cops are always truthful is suddenly
threatened. Oh no, they never lie right Ken? They're all honest and above
being human......without erring in their ways, right?
Ok. I apologize and promise never to use the word "truth" and Cops in the
same phrasing....much less the same paragraph.
INTHEDOGHOUSE
>From: "Ken [NY" ken4b...@usa.SPAM.net
>Date: 3/9/02 6:11 AM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <le2k8usa2lslvrq1b...@4ax.com>
>
>On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 03:31:25 GMT, "LED"
><lcerura...@newyorkled.com> breathlessly shared the following:
>
>>Sad, and Boring. You're a fossil, Ken.
>
> And you are still a liberal asshole copbasher.
> Ken (NY)
A fossil? I take exception to that name! That would make most of us "almost
fossils"! <lol>
DJ
mike
Steve Furbish wrote:
> There's even just a slight chance here that it's people like you - who think
> you know the truth, but in reality haven't a clue - who are the true moral
> delinquents? You want a pound of flesh even if it means taking it out on
> someone who is totally innocent.
>
NO. I NEVER said that an inncent man has to be jailed.
<cue Philly who will repost my "Someone must pay" quote>
Louima and Volpe BOTH said that two men were involved.
mike
Got some firsthand knowledge of attacks like that, eh?
mike
Only the bad ones, LED, only the bad ones.
mike
LED wrote:
> hehehehe, Cop Basher Ken? Is that the term of the day? Cop basher huh? I
> think not. I'm no more delusional with my posts than you yourself are.
>
> Tell me Ken, what's your nationality? Where do you hang out? Where do you
> live?
>
KKKen is as White as you can get, born on LI, he as some Irish and
Italian in him,
lives in Queens and frequents some of the "Cop-Friendly" bars in Bayside
on Bell Blvd.
mike
Phil wrote:
>
> cyp...@punk.net wrote in message news:<Ioei8.32860$in3.9...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com>...
>
> > According to your post, you made up that quote,
> > since it is not attributed to anyone.
>
> Here's the post, Cypher.
>
> mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C88D69A...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > Phil wrote:
> > >
> > > mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3C87CCD9...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > >
> > > > Pedal harder Philly.
> > > >
> > > > Its the only ammo you have.
> > >
> > > When did I backpedal? Do you even know what it means to do so? Let's
> > > go over this in words that even you can understand.
> > >
> > > On March 4th you said, in regards to the Louima incident:
> > > "Someone has to pay."
> > >
> > > In the same message, you also wrote: "Innocent people go to jail
> > > every day. Or is it just that these are cops and not the usual "perps"
> > > and "skells"?"
> > >
> > > On March 5th you said, "I meant the guilty party has to pay."
> >
> > OK Philly....here it is....for the world to see....for your gratification....
> >
> > get ready Phil.....
> >
> > Put down the HomoBrew.....
> >
> > "I Moonman Mike, made a mistake of grammar."
> >
> > There it is.
> >
> > Happy now?
Thanks Philly!
> Now, let's concentrate on Mike's bigotted remark.
HomoBrew.
Did this hit a little too close to home?
Philly, you and your "buddies" never tell "straight" or "vanilla" jokes, right?
Steve Furbish
> bite my wood asshole.
You have a wood asshole? Perhaps if you'd stop trying to speak through it
we'd be able to get along?
> if you've followed the threads in this NG
Which NG would you be meaning here, nimrod? Alt.L-E or one of the
cross-posted cophater groups? I didn't wander into your world - someone
crossposted. Perhaps I should have bothered to trim the malcontent groups,
but I have seen enough of your drivel to conclude that you're nothing more
than a crybaby cophater with a chip on his/her shoulder...
> you'd know that mike is much more
> against cops than probably anyone around here
So who give two shits about what mike is against? He's a little turd too.
> and I on the other hand have
> come to their defense
Yeah, we could sure use a few more loyal defenders like yourself to keep the
mikes of the world at bay. On second thought, nevermind...
> despite the a handful or rather, several handfuls over
> time whom don't give a damn about telling the truth. Who've commited their
> own bits of racial profiling, perhaps not newsworthy, but it's been done.
When are you going to get around to telling us your little tale of woe?
Surely it must be a doosey to have motivated you to have such contempt for
cops?
Steve
Steve Furbish
> And you were coming to the defense of police officers when you
> wrote: "geeez mike, why bring 'truth' into the argument? They're
> cops." Horse shit, pal. You are just another cop-basher with possibly
> a better education.
Perhaps a bit too much credit there Ken? Any fool with a grudge or an axe to
grind can fire off hollow accusations or employ cheap innuendo.
Steve
Steve Furbish
> > wrote: "geeez mike, why bring 'truth' into the argument? They're
> > cops." Horse shit, pal. You are just another cop-basher with possibly
> > a better education.
> >
>
> hehehehe, Cop Basher Ken? Is that the term of the day? Cop basher huh? I
> think not. I'm no more delusional with my posts than you yourself are.
By all means, don't go getting all delusional or start feeling special.
You're just one of many who have found a place where you can sound off
without having to face the ones you're sounding off about. Have you ever had
to back up your BS without a keyboard to hide behind?
> Many cops out there make it up as they go along. I've got many stories.
> Wanna hear one?
Oh yeah, here it comes....
> I used to live on Lexington Avenue in the 20's awhile ago. 'Lived on the
3rd
> floor and on the second floor was a whore house filled with hispanic women
> (south american I believe...mind you, they themselves got visits from the
> cops, but that's irrelevant right now). I recall one early evening coming
> out of my building and being confronted by a male and two female cops
> outside.
<snipped for brevity>
> My mailbox was enough for him.
I've heard better stories... You have the nerve to post this trivial whine
in a thread about a man who was anally raped in a police precinct house? You
ought to be ashamed of yourself - crying about being asked for ID in a
thread of this sort (IMO).
> I then spent a few minutes trying to get an apology out of them. NEVER GOT
> ONE!
Guess they recognized you for the waste of time you are, huh?
> SO KEN, I've got other stories to tell. You wanna talk about Cops!???? It
> took me years to get over all the shit I've withstood at their hands!
Sounds like you haven't exactly GOTTEN OVER IT yet?
> SO FUCK YOU KEN and your two bit accusation of who's a cop basher!
>
> Stick that up your ass and blow.
But I see you are trying to stay on topic by tossing an anal reference in
for good measure. Congrats.
Steve
Steve Furbish
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 03:31:25 GMT, "LED"
> <lcerura...@newyorkled.com> breathlessly shared the following:
>
> >Sad, and Boring. You're a fossil, Ken.
>
> And you are still a liberal asshole copbasher.
> Ken (NY)
And obviously not as bright as you were originally willing to give him
credit for being.... ;-)
Steve
Steve Furbish
But when you can't prove who the other suspect was - you'll settle for any
old cop, right mike? That's exactly the kind of crap you'd be bitching about
if a cop had said it.
Steve
Steve Furbish
>
>
> Steve Furbish wrote:
> > I saw Abner on TV the other day. He didn't look like he'd be all that
hard
> > to assault that way if a person were so inclined.
> >
> Got some firsthand knowledge of attacks like that, eh?
As a matter of fact, I've had the opportunity to see all sorts of disgusting
and inhumane acts over the course of my career mike. As a rule (and almost
without exception) it hasn't been the cop doing the crime. I hope that
answers your question because that's about as much detail as I'm free to
provide.
Steve
mike
Never said that. I have almays maintained that they guilty party should pay.
mike
Yeah, you are sworn to secrecy!
LED
hehe, you're a moron. It was a simple argument as to whether i was
copbashing or not. There stands a distinct difference between saying that
All cops are bad because of the blunders of a handful or so....and saying
that cops lie...and if you've got a problem with that then no need for us to
talk further. If you can't handle that then Fuck off. Nothing worth wasting
my time on and obviously someone from the force.
btw, I HAVE said such things to cops' faces and have in turn been confronted
with only embarrassed faces, but that's not to be part of my argument. Like
I said, fuck off.
LED
bad ones what mike?
Not all cops who lie are bad. Yet lord knows they all do at one point in
time or anther. But cops who are willing to do racial profiling or anything
of the like are.
Ken [NY
breathlessly shared the following:
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. My mistake in
his case.
LED
> I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. My mistake in
> his case.
> Ken (NY)
>
too bad Ken I didn't begin following everyone's direction here on this NG as
to how much of a loser you are. Now I will.
mike
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/newyork/ny-nyland092617638mar09.story
Jury: The Landlord Did It
By Patricia Hurtado
STAFF WRITER
March 9, 2002
A Manhattan State Supreme Court jury deliberated just under three hours
Friday before convicting Madison Avenue landlord Louis Hubrecht of
second-degree murder for
the fatal shooting of an elderly tenant.
The Manhattan State Supreme Court jury rejected the defense's argument
that Hubrecht, 68, was suffering from extreme emotional disturbance when
he killed Barbara
Kenna, 69, on Sept. 11, 2000. His lawyer had argued that Hubrecht
snapped after enduring years of abuse from Kenna and fired six shots at
her.
Kenna was a school librarian at PS 2 in Chinatown.
Hubrecht faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced by Supreme
Court Justice Harold Beeler on April 30.
Prosecutor Robert Frazer charged that Hubrecht killed Kenna because he
became enraged with her after believing she had stolen a wrench from the
building, at 700 Madison
Ave. Frazer had argued to the jury in his closings Thursday that
Hubrecht had been harassing Kenna to get her out of the building.
Hubrecht did not take the stand in his own defense. After initially
ruling that Hubrecht's lawyer could use self-defense to justify the
killing, Beeler reversed himself, saying
there was not enough evidence presented during the trial for jurors to
consider that defense.
While Hubrecht admitted shooting Kenna, his lawyer, Robert Gottlieb,
charged that tensions spilled over on the day of the shooting and
Hubrecht had fired in self-defense
because he believed she was coming at him with a hammer in the
building's stairwell.
But during the trial, which began Jan. 22, a city medical examiner
testified that Kenna's injuries were consistent with her hands being at
her sides.
Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.
Phil
> > > Put down the HomoBrew.....
> > >
> > > "I Moonman Mike, made a mistake of grammar."
> > >
> > > There it is.
> > >
> > > Happy now?
>
> Thanks Philly!
>
> > Now, let's concentrate on Mike's bigotted remark.
>
> HomoBrew.
>
> Did this hit a little too close to home?
> Philly, you and your "buddies" never tell "straight" or "vanilla" jokes, right?
I'm not gay, Mike, and I can't think of any logical reason why anyone
would think I was (emphasis on the word LOGICAL). Perhaps you can
tell us how you came to this conclusion of yours.
Why you're at it, you can tell us what you have against the gay
community.
Steve Furbish
>
>
> Steve Furbish wrote:
> > But when you can't prove who the other suspect was - you'll settle for
any
> > old cop, right mike? That's exactly the kind of crap you'd be bitching
about
> > if a cop had said it.
> >
> Never said that. I have almays maintained that they guilty party should
pay.
But what you are ignoring is the simple fact that there is no way to prove
who the other "guilty party" is without trampling on some innocent guy's
rights and it appears that is a sacrifice you might be willing to make as
long as the innocent guy wears a cop uniform? Whenever ANY type of case
relies on a single individual's testimony to proceed you have to count on
the witness being willing and able to testify. Despite your assertions to
the contrary it seems more than just possible that even if there was a
second (or third) guilty party the chances of confessions are slim and
there's nothing but your own speculation to suggest that an independent
witness might be able to shed some light.
Steve
Steve Furbish
Actually, yes. Talking about specific cases where no conviction has been
obtained would be more exposure than I'm willing to risk to satisfy your
perverted curiosity. It' s also not real fair to alleged victims. Yet
suffice it to say that if you think that what happened to Mr. Louima was the
worse that one individual can do to another then you haven't used your
imagination enough.
Steve
Steve Furbish
> hehe, you're a moron. It was a simple argument as to whether i was
> copbashing or not.
And it's no coincidence that you don't even seem to understand what the term
implies.
> There stands a distinct difference between saying that
> All cops are bad because of the blunders of a handful or so....and saying
> that cops lie...
The difference isn't all that distinct from the other side of the fence.
> and if you've got a problem with that then no need for us to
> talk further. If you can't handle that then Fuck off. Nothing worth
wasting
> my time on and obviously someone from the force.
I can live with that. Just don't expect me to reserve comment when you spew
your BS in the future. It's not my style.
> btw, I HAVE said such things to cops' faces and have in turn been
confronted
> with only embarrassed faces, but that's not to be part of my argument.
Like
> I said, fuck off.
Pardon my disbelief. You just sound too much like a typical keyboard
commando for that to be true.
Steve
Steve Furbish
Oh my! "Everyone's" direction? Are we trying to associate our opinions with
a large imaginary group in order to validate our own inadequacies, LED? I'm
sure you could muster a handful of shitbirds who will chime in with you, but
the use of the term everyone is at best mistakenly inaccurate and more
likely a completely intentional false exageration. You really are a toad.
Steve
Phil
> > But when you can't prove who the other suspect was - you'll settle for any
> > old cop, right mike? That's exactly the kind of crap you'd be bitching about
> > if a cop had said it.
> >
> Never said that. I have almays maintained that they guilty party should pay.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
Backpedal.
Phil
========
visit the New York City Homebrewers Guild website:
Steve Furbish
<cyp...@punk.net> wrote in message
news:ybZi8.34577$in3.10...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> Bzzzt! Wrong.
>
> He was simply calling you a moron, and you over-analyzed that.
Over-analyze this...
> What a maroon!
You NYers aren't long out of the trees yourself.
Steve
Steve Furbish
<cyp...@punk.net> wrote in message
news:9hZi8.34611$in3.10...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> In nyc.general Steve Furbish <sfur...@attbi.com> wrote:
> # "LED" <lcerura...@newyorkled.com> wrote in message
> # >
> # > too bad Ken I didn't begin following everyone's direction here on
this NG
> # as
> # > to how much of a loser you are. Now I will.
> #
> # Oh my! "Everyone's" direction? Are we trying to associate our opinions
with
> # a large imaginary group in order to validate our own inadequacies,
LED?
>
> Gee, I guess you don't know what cross-posts are.
So what percent of the big apple do you profess to represent?
> Welcome to nyc.general.
I suppose it's better than actually driving down for a visit?
> No "lurkers support me in email" here.
No, just left wing turds. The kind that would elect Hillary Clintoon.
> Ken's a known nutter:
And your claim to fame is?
> http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/ken.jpg
Not big on talent, but at least we know one of your fantasies now..
Steve