Stop Online Piracy and Protect IP acts have been temporarily set aside as congressional lawmakers ponder how to ensure the 1% run and dictate how the rest of us use the internet. Time that would be better spent working on the REAL problems this country has.

Defiant internet users came together and bombarded congressional websites, Facebook and Twitter showing their displeasure at the flawed and outrageous attempt staged and lobbied for primarily by The Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Most of us get that artists, composers and content creators do not want their work used without permission and we can’t blame them, but giving control of our internet to the above named associations is not the way to do it.

Having the AG enforce these laws means you, the taxpayer foots the bill. Their main gripe? Foreigners host websites that steal and host copyright material. The solution? Punish American website owners, social media websites, search engines, payment providers like PayPal and control what websites you and I can access on the internet.

Youtube videos of cute little kids singing along to their favorite Beyonce song? Lawsuit! Not to mention criminal charges for YouTube and the parents of those kids who posted the video.

Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube. He still posts videos of himself singing not only his songs but those of other artists just for fun.  Not anymore he wouldn’t. Slap the cuffs on him! Bieber is “owned” by his record label and did not have permission to goof around and publish on YouTube.

What about countries where human rights violations are rampant? The internet has provided a platform for the rest of the world to witness these travesties via private and social networking websites and offer help. Not with SOPA and PIPA.  Our government would be able to order internet service providers to block all links and access to that country if “someone” decided there are copyright issues. Internet access fees would also rise as additional burden is placed on ISP’s to police the internet.

Want to post on Facebook an outrageous article that you saw on FoxNews.com? Nope! Jail time for you. As you can see, there is a real potential of abuse by those who want to control what you and I talk about.

Round one of Hollywood vs the People. The People won. But its not over.

Some informative info about the bill.  http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa-dangerous-opinion/

Tomorrow January 18th, website owners large and small will join together in a historical protest. Many websites including this one will replace their home page with one urging Americans to contact congress in protest of SOPA and PIPA. Please do a search to see what this preposterous potential legislation would do.

Do you really want the United States government to control your internet usage? Some believe these bills are only meant to protect against pirating but they both go a whole lot further than that. Your basic rights to use the internet the way you want to will end. Even if we defeat this attempt, they will come back again and again to curtail your freedom so now is the time to send a clear message.

The Motion Picture Association of America, “MPAA” is behind this travesty. It will be interesting to see which elected representatives received a palm greasing for their sponsorship and vote.

Former Senator Chis Dodd of Connecticut is now the chairman of and mouthpiece for the MPAA. That is what your elected officials will do for you! :-(

See how your representatives will vote by going here: http://sopatrack.com/

More important information: http://sopacountdown.com/

This is not a false alarm. Its real and its scary!!!

Darla Lexington, the longtime companion of prominent Houston plaintiffs lawyer John O’Quinn, settled her dispute with O’Quinn’s estate and the John M. O’Quinn Foundation over assets from his estate. O’Quinn died in an automobile accident in October 2009.

Lawyers spent four hours at the courthouse today negotiating the deal.

Read the rest of the story…

Once again (see DMCA), Congress is poised to use your tax dollars to stifle freedom on the internet so fat cats of the entertainment industry can take away your rights to view websites. The proposed law, Stop Online Piracy Act will have the effect of  lost jobs, higher prices online and of course censorship. Don’t let this bill pass.

Many people don’t realize how sneaky big business and corporations are covertly taking away our rights. For example, if you are one of the unfortunates who own a computer that is built with Intel’s Sandy Bridge chip set, you’ve unknowingly allowed your computer manufacturer to place digital restrictions management on your computer. See, “Intel’s Sandy Bridge sucks up to Hollywood with DRM”

Please visit STOP AMERICAN CENSORSHIP to learn more and express your opposition to having our rights taken away plus footing the bill for big business and OUR government to do so!

I’ve censored the following, in protest of a bill that gives any corporation and the US government the power to censor the internet–a bill that could pass THIS WEEK. To see the uncensored text, and to stop internet censorship, visit: http://americancensorship.org/posts/29321/uncensor

???? ????? be the ????????? of the end of the ???????? as we ???? it. ?????? ??????? ???? ??????????????? and ???? ???? NO ????!

Graphic credit

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Texas Judge William Adams, who is shown brutally beating his daughter Hillary in a YouTube video that has gone viral says he does not think his conduct will cause him to be disciplined. This article by a Houston, Texas lawyer outlines how the Judge could indeed face a proverbial firing squad.

Everyone has a different parenting style. My fathers approach was different from my mother’s. Mine is different from both. I did not ever have to spank or strike my children. My method was to hold their arm or hand, look them in the eye and tell them to look at me and I spoke to them about what they did and why it was not correct. At times I had to appear a bit harsh, but beating a kid? Not in my house. And it worked. Of course grounding or restrictions were also an option.

This judge went way over the top in what he did to his daughter. This same judge has presided over family law cases involving children. That in itself is a scary thought when imagining an abused child could have been sent back to a parent who like Judge Adams thinks nothing of beating a child and dropping the “F” bomb for over seven minutes for a minor infraction.

From CBSnews.com;

“In my mind, I haven’t done anything wrong other than discipline my child after she was caught stealing,” Adams said. “And I did lose my temper, but I’ve since apologized.”

When told of her father’s comments, Hillary Adams said, “It’s a shining perfect example of his personality and he believes he can do no wrong. … He will cover up rather than admit to what he did and try to come clean, which is what I really want him to do.”

There are a few more tidbits to share about the unethical Judge Robert Perry who presided over the trial of Howard K. Stern, Khristine Eroshevich and Sandeep Kapoor that took place last summer. It was the trial that was supposed to shed some light and hold those responsible who illegally obtained drugs for Anna Nicole Smith. Those same drugs ultimately led to her death.

Judge Perry conducted himself as if there should be celebrity exceptions to the law. In his court room, if you are a celebrity, you can break laws that us common folk would be incarcerated for. This is even if what you do is instrumental in killing someone.

Think of the following scenario as compared to the trial and charges against the defendants;

There are four people in a car. Two people decide to commit an armed robbery. The other two supplied the gun and want to stay in the car and watch. The cops come and arrest the robbers. Not only do they arrest the ones who actually committed the robbery, they also arrest and charge the two who sat in the car and made the gun available to commit the robbery. They are arraigned and go to trial. All four are sent to prison even though no one died because of their actions. That is how the law is supposed to and does work if there is no interference. Those two who sat in the car could have chosen not to supply the gun and they could have gotten out of the car as soon as they saw a robbery was being planned. However they did not so all four serve prison time for robbery and being  accomplices to robbery.

Now take the same scenario and make the two in the back seat into celebrities (or leeches of celebrities or call themselves a celebrity doctor) who stayed in the car. In Judge Robert Perry’s court, those two walk free, just because they are “celebrities.” Instead of  holding an ethical trial as was done in the first scenario, the judge does his very best to befriend the defendants, admonish the prosecution plus go to extreme lengths to throw out all of their evidence and do a 180′ from the preliminary hearing.

As I watch a bit of the Michael Jackson trial, I see a normal trial as it should be in Los Angeles California. When the judge calls for recess, he leaves the courtroom and goes to his chambers like an ethical judge is supposed to. He does not scooche his chair over to schmooze with the defendants at their table.  Mainstream media does not seem to be frightened off by a Lin Wood/Steven Sadow type lawyer as they were in the Anna Nicole Smith criminal trial. It does not appear that Michael Jackson’s mother is barred from going into the court room until the exact time that court is to reconvene. It does not appear that the judge is excessively throwing out the prosecutions evidence.  And I bet we will also see that the jury will be respected and their verdicts will not be overruled by a biased Judge.

“Court Room Observer”, from the previous article about the trial said they had never seen a trial where the jury was told to leave the court room so many times as the Anna Nicole Smith trial jurors were. They even overheard a producer of a very prominent hit television show whose job it is to cover many high profile cases say THE SAME THING! Yet that jury was still able to convict two of the defendants on the tiny bit of evidence that they actually heard! Anyone can imagine what would have happened if the jurors were permitted to stay in the room and hear even half of what Judge Perry barred. They also recount one instance where Judge Perry sent the jury out of the room and they were kept out for the better part of an hour while Perry attacked and scolded the district attorneys. Sadow was also permitted to scream at and scold the prosecution team. It was just too outrageous.

There was someone else who attended the trial who left a comment on the first article recently and has given me permission to publish it on this post.  Unfortunately, I missed this important email sent at the end of August 2010. I want to thank them for coming to the back to the blog and sharing this with us.

I attended the trial for a few days as well. (I emailed QV when it was fresh in my memory but she never replied). Mrs. Arthur was not present (at that time) but I did notice quite a bit of what I felt was bias on the part of the judge. He seemed bedazzled by the defense attorneys, especially Kapoor’s and Sterns. Not only was he downright rude to the prosecutors and all smiles to the defense, but I felt his rulings were all for the defense . He ripped into the male prosecutor (outside of the jury’s presence) and told him he was taking too much time and he wanted to know where his questioning was going. He also told him that he felt he had a weak case. This was in reference to the testimony of Dr Gagne, I felt the questioning was very pertinent.
Dr Erosovich was very chummy with Linda Deutsh, as was Dr. Kapoor’s lawyer. Erosovich was showing her photos on her cell phone of her mother which Linda promptly ooohed and ahhhed over.. I’ve never been to a trial where the media is interacting with the defendant like this, and I’ve been to many. In my opinion, Judge Perry should not be presiding over a courtroom.

If the Anna Nicole Smith trial would have been televised as the Michael Jackson – Dr. Murray trial is, the public would have been outraged. However Perry most certainly knows what he did is unethical and apparently does not care. It was his decision not to allow the public to see what they should have seen. Most likely he would not have conducted himself in the manner that he did and the jury’s verdict would have been different and allowed to stand.

Did Nancy Grace really have a wardrobe malfunction? I say she did, but you be the judge. How can her talk show viewers ever trust her if she is going to deny a little thing like a nip slip on national television?
Click pic for NSFW version. Photo courtesy of #!/mattchew03 on Twitter

September  20th, 2011. Prosecutors in the Anna Nicole Smith drug trial have filed an appeal on that case saying Judge Robert Perry was biased toward the defendants and their attorneys and against the prosecution. They said that Perry created a celebrity exception to the law.

I’ve had the opportunity to speak to someone who actually attended the Anna Nicole Smith trial concerning the drugs that led to her death. Defendants Howard K. Stern, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Dr. Sandeep Kapoor were charged with excessive prescribing of opiates and sedatives to an addict, and fraudulently obtaining drugs by using false names.

I will call this person, “Courtroom Observer”. Courtroom Observer did not attend the whole trial but gave their take on what really happened in Judge Robert Perry’s courtroom during the time they attended.

The first day of the trial, as soon as Anna’s mother, Virgie Arthur, arrived, Howard K. Stern’s lawyer Steve Sadow asked to approach the judge privately. When Sadow sat back down, Judge Perry made an announcement, before anything happened to warrant such a warning, that anyone caught making comments or bothering the defendants in any way would be removed from the courtroom.

As the trial moved forward, when the court recessed for breaks and lunch, there were times that Mrs. Arthur would return early. She went directly into courtroom and sat until court was called back into session so as to avoid the large crowds in the hallways.

About 4 or 5 days into the trial, there was a break. When Mrs. Arthur returned to the courtroom a little early, she and her family were shocked to find Judge Perry, the defendants and their attorneys having a conversation about boating and vacation spots etc.. Judge Robert Perry had wheeled his chair over to the defendants table in order to have a more intimate conversation. James Arthur, Virgie’s husband commented, “there will be no justice here.” However, Mrs. Arthur remained optimistic.

The next day, after lunch, when Mr. and Mrs. Arthur and those who were with them attempted to enter the courtroom as they had since the beginning of the trial, a deputy stopped them at the door and informed them that they were no longer permitted to enter the courtroom early. The deputy then said Anna’s mother and her husband had to wait until exactly 1:30 pm to enter.

It was then very apparent that Judge Perry, who runs the courtroom, and the defendants and their lawyers didn’t want Anna Nicole’s mother and husband to see Perry socializing with them. The disturbing part was that the media and press that were attending were permitted to enter early. The media was let in but Anna’s mother and family were left sitting in the hallway. It remained that way until Mrs. Arthur had to fly back home for health reasons. The deputy was asked why the media, the defendants and their attorneys were allowed to go in early. His answer was, “well, it’s because they are the media.”

The prosecutors had extensive evidence against these defendants, but time and time again Judge Perry would not allow them to present it. His rational was that the evidence was “too inflammatory to the defendants.” You did not have to be a lawyer to know that the prosecutors were simply doing their jobs and that was to present the evidence, and let the jury hear the full story no matter how inflammatory it was especially when it was facts as presented to law enforcement during the extensive investigation.

There were times when Anna’s mother and family asked the prosecutors why they could not get a new judge to replace Perry who was so obviously biased toward the defendants. Their answer was frightening as they said “Judge Robert Perry is not the worst judge in this courthouse.”

Judge Perry made it clear from the start of the trial that he did not believe the defendants did anything wrong and at times Perry even made objections for the defense. There was so much more that may never be known because most of the prosecutors evidence was thrown out by Perry.

When the prosecutors attempted to refresh a witnesses memory as to what they reported to investigators and testified to previously, the judge would abort their testimony and say, he/she said “they don’t remember, now move on!” Or he would again say “its too inflammatory.”

One day there was a video of Anna Nicole that the prosecutors wanted to use. Perry said he would take it home and watch it and then decide if it could be shown to the jury. When the subject of the video came up while court was in session, Judge Perry said, with Anna Nicole’s mother in the courtroom, that he had watched it and he thought Anna was very entertaining in her “voluptuous” kind of way.  Anna Nicole being “voluptuous” was not the point or reason why the prosecutors wanted to show the video. It was very inappropriate for Judge Perry to speak this way about evidence presented.

Over and over Judge Perry stopped the prosecutors from trying their case. They tried their best to get important evidence and testimony admitted, but Perry was not allowing the majority of it. Perry would say it was either hearsay, inflammatory,or irrelevant.

One of the most disturbing things witnessed was when “Big Moe”, Maurice Brighthaupt was testifying. Moe had been saying “everyone agreed Anna Nicole needed rehab, but no one ever did anything about it.” In other words Moe was saying, they all admitted that Anna Nicole Smith was an addict and needed intervention. Eroshevich and her lawyer Brad Brunon were sitting immediately in front of Mrs. Arthur and family. Brunon looked at Eroshevich and sang,“They wanted her to go to rehab but she said no no no.” Brunon and Eroshevich giggled like schoolchildren. It made one wonder if it was their daughter who was the subject of the trial, if they would find it so funny.

After Judge Perry threw out the jury verdicts, Los Angeles D.A. Steve Cooley had this to say:

“The jury deliberated more than two weeks and reached a fair and thorough verdict in accordance with the law and the evidence we were allowed to present.  Judge Perry’s ruling today is totally inconsistent with his previous rulings at the preliminary hearing, the trial itself and once again when the defense concluded their case. Each time, he refused to dismiss the conspiracy counts. The evidence has not changed from that time to now,” said Cooley.”

“His decision denigrates the substantial investigative efforts conducted by the state Department of Justice and the Medical Board,” said the L.A. District Attorney’s office in a statement. “It diminishes the huge social problem of prescription drug abuse facilitated by irresponsible caretakers and unscrupulous medical professionals …We will immediately pursue all appellate remedies to overturn Judge Perry’s decision.”

* Note. This is the same Judge Perry who appointed himself as a jury of one in the Oscar Grant killing. Basically Perry was saying the jury was stupid like he implied in the Anna Nicole Smith farce of a trial.