Receipt Racism … Tennessee Man Sues Red Lobster & Waitress for Falsely Accusing Him of Writing Racial Slur “Ni**er” on Receipt
Tennessee man sues Red Lobster for $1 million for falsely accusing him of writing racial slur on receipt … Hires handwriting expert to clear his name.
Devin Barnes is suing Red Lobster and the waitress that served him for falsely accusing him of writing a racial slur “NI**ER” on his receipt in place of writing a tip amount. Barnes is suing the waitress, Toni Jenkins for posting his personal information on the Internet and for receiving about $11,000 in donations based on the story and the lawsuit is asking for a jury trial and $1 million in damages. Barnes hired a hand writing expert to review the receipt and help clear his name from this damaging accusation. At least two experts believed this to be a hoax. Barnes admitted to writing the word “none
Weeks ago, Barnes’ attorney and pastor, Richard Dugger, hired an independent handwriting expert who compared the receipt with samples provided by Barnes and his wife.
“There is no evidence that neither Devin Barnes nor his wife wrote that hideous statement on the line total, which means that someone else did,” Dugger said.
The incident occurred in September 2013 when Devin Barnes ate at the Red Lobster in Cool Spring, Tennessee. Barnes stated that he was running tight on time, so he had his waitress put the meal into a to-go container. When he paid the bill, he wrote “none” under tip. What followed would change his life forever. Toni Jenkins, a Red Lobster waitress, posted on Facebook a photo of a receipt from customer Devin Barnes with his personal information was on a receipt where someone had written the n-word.
In court on Thursday, Barnes filed suit against the waitress, Toni Jenkins, and Red Lobster, claiming that Barnes and his family have suffered because of the situation.
According to the court filing, they have expert testimony from a handwriting analyst to prove Barnes didn’t write the racial slur on the receipt.
Barnes is suing Jenkins for posting his personal information on the Internet and for receiving about $11,000 in donations based on the story.
He also contends the restaurant didn’t do enough to contain the situation.
In response, the restaurant chain said in a statement that, “it is against our policy to post guest information online. Our standard procedure is to suspend the employee involved with pay while we determine what happened. After the completion of a full investigation into this matter, Ms. Jenkins returned to work.”
The lawsuit is asking for a jury trial and $1 million in damages.
The Daily Caller: Waitress, Red Lobster Sued For $1 Million In Alleged Race Hoax.
But two handwriting experts who looked at the receipt and at writing samples from Barnes, his wife, and Jenkins determined that it was unlikely that the couple had written the slur.
The expert hired by Barnes and his attorney concluded that both Barnes and his wife were unlikely to have written the slur.
Another expert, contacted by The Daily Caller News Foundation, analyzed the receipt, comparing it to a copy of a writing sample from Jenkins. The expert determined that “within a reasonable degree of certainty” Jenkins had written the slur.
Jenkins responded at the time telling TheDCNF that she no longer believed that Barnes had written the word.
She said she would apologize to Barnes but maintained that she did not write the word either.
Asked if she planned to share any of the donations she received with Barnes, Jenkins said “Honestly I would…if there was any left.”
Hopefully Red Lobster and this waitress will be successfully sued to put an end to this crime of “Racism by Hoax”.
Marion Superior County Judge Kurt Eisgruber Orders No Prison Time for Indiana Man David Wise Convicted of Drugging & Raping his Wife Mandy Boardman
Talk about a travesty of Justice, since when have we become lenient on rapists … What is is this Shariah Law?
Get ready to be outraged … On May 10, 2011, Mandy Boardman told the detectives at the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department the bizarre story that her husband, David Wise, had been drugging her for at least three years and raping her in her sleep. She had also found video on his cell phone. Last month a jury convicted Wise of six felony charges related to sexually assaulting his wife. On Friday, May 16, 2014, Marion Superior Court judge Kurt Eisgruber sentenced Wise to 20 years. Seems OK so far, right? Well it ends here.
The judges sentence did not include one day in prison. In regards to the 20 year sentence, 12 years were suspended and 8 years were to be spent in home confinement. WHAT THE HELL WAS THIS JUDGE THINKING!!! Since when are we lenient on rapists?
But perhaps the strangest thing is what happened after a jury convicted Wise last month of six felony charges related to sexually assaulting his wife.
On Friday, a Marion Superior Court judge sentenced Wise, 52, to 20 years — but not a day in prison. Of the sentence, 12 years were suspended and 8 years were to be spent in home confinement.
Prosecutors had asked for 40 years in prison.
And Boardman — who divorced Wise after discovering what he’d been doing — is furious.
“To have my rapist, my attacker, convicted on all six counts, only to be let go – only for him to walk out that door the same time I could — was just unfathomable,” Boardman told the Los Angeles Times in a phone interview on Monday. “I never thought that he would be at home, being able to have the same rights and privileges as I do.”
It gets worse, if possible. From Mediaite, check out the rapists defense as to why he was drugging and sexually assaulting his wife.
His wife was “snippy” and drugging her “made her nicer” is how an Indianapolis man convicted of repeatedly drugging and raping his wife explained his actions in court. The offenses, carried out over the course of three years, netted Indiana resident David Wise a grand total of zero years in prison after a trial in which he was found guilty.
Wait, it gets even worse, if that is possible. The judge turned to the victim and told her that she needed to forgive her attacker. WHAT!!! Where does this judge get off making any such comment, especially when the rapsist never apologized and showed any remorse.
“While the judge was giving his opinion on the sentence, he first turned to me and told me I needed to forgive my attacker, which is unfathomable,” Boardman told The Times. “He told me I needed to forgive my attacker and I needed to let my attacker walk. It was a punch to the gut from the justice system — or from one judge.”
The Marion County Prosecutor’s Office confirmed the accuracy of Eisgruber’s remarks.
EXIT QUESTION: What is more criminal, a sicko husband who drugs and rapes his wife or the judge that gives this depraved individual a slap on the wrist?
Pregnant Sudanese Christian Woman Meriam Yehya Ibrahim Faces Death Sentence in Sudan for Converting From Islam … She Refused to Recant her Faith Declaring, “I am a Christian, and I will remain a Christian.”
TAKE A LOOK AMERICA AT THE REAL WAR ON WOMEN AND WHO IS DOING IT, HINT … IT IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, ITS ISLAM.
27 year old Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, a wife and mother expecting another child, was sentenced to death by a Sudanese court for apostasy. The Court ruled that she is Muslim because her father was Muslim, even though she was raised Christian. The court ruled she left Islam and therefore the pregnant Meriam is subject to receive 100 lashes for adultry and then be hanged. Before imposing this heinous sentence, the court gave her an opportunity to recant her Christian faith, but Elnabi said Ibrahim refused to do so, declaring: “I am a Christian, and I will remain a Christian.”
“We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to Islam. I sentence you to be hanged,” Judge Abbas Mohammed Al-Khalifa told Mrs Ibrahim, addressing her by her father’s name, Adraf Al-Hadi Mohammed Abdullah.
Mrs Ibrahim also faces a sentence of flogging for adultery on the grounds that her marriage to a Christian man from South Sudan is considered void under Islamic law. She will be given 100 lashes. Because her father was Muslim, she was considered by the court to be the same.
Oh wait Sharia law is pro-woman after all … it prohibits the execution of pregnant women. Instead, the sentence is delayed until two years after lactation. UNREAL.
Ibrahim’s lawyer, Mohamed Jar Elnabi, said that he plans to ask an appeals court to review the sentence, and could file the request as soon as Sunday. Elnabi argues that Sudan’s constitution allows religious conversion without restriction.
On Thursday, a Khartoum court convicted Ibrahim of apostasy, or the renunciation of faith, and sentenced her to death.
Ibrahim was born to a Sudanese Muslim father and an Ethiopian Orthodox mother. Her father left when she was 6, and she was raised by her mother as a Christian.
Her lawyer, Mohamed Jar Elnabi, said the case started after Ibrahim’s brother filed a complaint against her.
The brother alleged Ibrahim had gone missing for several years and that her family was shocked to find she had married a Christian man.
Because her father was Muslim, the Sharia law court considered her to be the same. It refused to recognize her marriage to a Christian and also convicted her of adultery, with an additional sentence of 100 lashes.
The death ruling for Ibrahim drew condemnation from Western embassies in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, and international rights groups, including Amnesty International.
When are people going to comprehend that Muslim Sharia Law cares little about woman and Islam has nothing to do with freedom of religion.
“The Embassies of the United States of American, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands in Khartoum express their deep concern over the apostasy ruling handed down on Sunday in the trial of Meriam Yahia Ibhrahim Ishag,” said a statement posted on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum.
“We call upon the Government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, including one’s right to change one’s faith or beliefs, a right which is enshrined in international human rights law as well as in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution,” the statement added.
Background of this atrocity … Her own brother ratted her out, who filed a complaint against her, alleging that she had gone missing for several years and that her family was shocked to find she had married a Christian man.
Amnesty International said Ibrahim was arrested and charged with adultery in August 2013 after a family member reportedly claimed that she was committing adultery because of her marriage to a Christian South Sudanese man.
Under Sudan’s Islamic Shari’a law, a Muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-Muslim man, thus any such marriage is considered to be adultery. The court later added the charge of apostasy when Ibrahim asserted that she was a Christian and not a Muslim.
EXIT QUESTION: WHERE IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S CONDEMNATION OF SHARIA LAW AND WHERE IS HIS OUTRAGE OVER THIS WAR ON WOMEN?
Posted May 18, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Appeals Court, Barack Obama, Child Welfare, Civility, Crime, Epic Fail, Islam/Muslims, Islamist, Islamofascist, Jihad, Judicial, Justice, Legal - Court Room - Trial, Middle East, Murder, Radical Islam, Sharia Law, Sudan, War on Woman, War on Women, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 2 comments
Former New England Patriots TE Aaron Hernandez Indicted on Two Counts of First Degree Murder in 2012 Drive-By Killing of Two Men in Boston, MA
MORE TROUBLE FOR FORMER NFL STAR AARON HERNANDEZ …
Former New England Patriots TE Aaron Hernandez was indicted Thursday on two counts of first degree murder for the 2012 drive-by shootings of two men in Boston, Massachusetts. Hernandez was also indicted on three counts of armed assault with intent to murder and an additional count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Hernandez is alleged to be the shooter in the July 16, 2012 drive-by murder of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado. Aaron Hernandez is currently residing in the crowbar hotel awaiting his trial for first-degree murder charges in the shooting death of Odin Lloyd, whose body was discovered June 2013 in an industrial park near Hernandez’s mansion. Following the death of Lloyd and Hernandez’s involvement, he then became under suspicion of for involvement in the unsolved 2012 double murder.
From NFL star to now potential triple murderer … UNREAL.
Former NFL star Aaron Hernandez has been indicted in the July 2012 killings of two Boston men, allegations that come a year after what had been a cold case investigation into the late-night drive-by shooting was revived — seemingly by chance — as investigators zeroed in on the former New England Patriot’s alleged involvement in another killing.
A grand jury indicted Hernandez on two counts of first-degree murder, three counts of armed assault with intent to murder and an additional count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
Now, prosecutors say the former NFL tight end was the shooter in the July 16, 2012, slayings of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado, who were killed in a drive-by shooting after leaving a popular Boston nightclub.
“Mr. Abreu and Mr. Furtado were ambushed and executed as they drove home,” said Daniel Conley, the Suffolk County district attorney. The Boston Globe first reported the indictment Thursday.
The men, along with three others, were in a BMW at Herald and Shawmut streets when prosecutors say an SUV pulled up beside them and Hernandez opened fire with a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber pistol from the driver’s side. Surveillance video captured Hernandez’s SUV circling the block near the Cure Lounge on Tremont Street and passing the victims “at a slow rate of speed” before they got into their own car, according to court documents released earlier this year.
“Our investigation has not uncovered any evidence that these two groups were known to each other, but their chance encounter inside the club triggered a series of events that ended in the murders,” Conley told reporters at a news conference this morning. “For us, this case was never about Aaron Hernandez. This case was about two victims who were stalked, ambushed, and senselessly murdered on the streets of the city they called home … On the morning Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado were killed, they were described in media reports as being tied to a Cape Verdean gang based in Dorchester. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither of them were involved in gangs, guns, or violent crime, and that characterization was unfair to their memory and their families. We have nothing but sympathy for them and their ordeals.”
House Votes To Hold IRS Official Lois Lerner in Contempt of Congress in IRS Targeting Tea Party Scandal
The House of Representatives voted to hold IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress by a 231 to 187 vote. Lerner has invoked her 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination not once, but twice at Congressional hearings. Many believe that Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights by testifying in front of a Congressional hearing by making an opening statement and then going silent. The matter will now be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and the contempt charge will then be referred to a grand jury. However, it is unknown how the Eric Holder Justice Department will proceed, if at all. If ever convicted, Lerner could face between one and 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $100,000. Lois Lerner has since left the IRS, but not without being able to keep her whopping six figure pension.
Wasn’t the Obama administration supposed to be the most transparent presidency ever?
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to hold a former Internal Revenue Service official in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the agency’s special targeting of groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names that were seeking tax-exempt status.
On a 231 to 187 vote, the House approved a contempt citation against Lois G. Lerner, whose admission last year that the tax-enforcement agency had targeted conservative groups infuriated lawmakers in both parties, led to an overhaul of the IRS and Lerner’s eventual retirement from government service.
The House also passed a resolution Wednesday that called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups. House lawmakers voted 250 to 168 to pass the resolution in which 26 Democrats joined all voting Republicans to approve it.
CBS News-DC: US Attorney To Oversee Lerner Contempt Case Appointed By Obama.
The matter now goes to Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Federal law says Machen has a “duty” to bring the matter before a grand jury. But a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it was unclear whether the duty is mandatory or discretionary. Machen was appointed to his job by President Barack Obama.
“We will carefully review the report from the speaker of the House and take whatever action is appropriate,” Machen’s office said in a statement.
The vote calling on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel was 250 to 168, with all Republicans voting in favor and most Democrats voting against.
Attorney General Eric Holder has denied previous requests to appoint a special counsel, saying it was unwarranted.
UPDATE I: Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi misses Lois Lerner vote for fundraiser.
NAACP Was Set to Give L.A. Clippers Owner Donald Sterling a Lifetime Achievement Award Next Month Before He Was Caught on Audio Tape Making Racist Comments … What About all the previous Racism?
NAACP was for giving a racist NBA Basketball owner a Lifetime Achievement Award, before they were against it … WHERE WERE THEY BEFORE WITH HIS PREVIOUS RACIST ACTS?
The L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling was supposed to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award next month from the NAACP’s Los Angeles chapter. However, that was before Sterling was caught on an audio tape making racist and disgusting comments to his girlfriend regarding minorities. The award was supposed to be given on May 15, 2014. Upon the surfacing of the explosive and highly racial audio, the NAACP urged the chapter to withdraw Sterling from its honoree list and suggests that “African Americans and Latinos should honor his request and not attend the games.”
Sorry, my question is not that the NAACP is rescinding this Lifetime Achievement Award, it is why the so-called civil rights group ever gave it to him in the first place? Hey NAACP, Why so Silent?
But that was then, this is now, NAACP Interim President Lorraine Miller said Sunday on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ that the NAACP will not go forward with plans to give a lifetime achievement award to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. She went on to say, “If you’re silent about this, then you’re accepting this. People have got to say that this is not good and do something about it.” Um, who was being silent? One would say the hypocritical NAACP. Did they forget above his previous racist behavior, or were they just being silent? And guess who has joined the act and is calling for a boycott of Clippers games, why the Rev. Jessee Jackson of course.
Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Miller condemned the racist remarks allegedly made by Sterling that were caught on audio recording and leaked over the weekend. The NAACP’s Los Angeles chapter was scheduled to give Sterling a lifetime achievement award at its 100th anniversary celebration next month.
“He is not receiving a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP,” Miller said.
HEY NAACP … WHY SO SILENT?
The NAACP must have missed the documented history of allegedly racist behavior where Sterling had been sued twice by the federal government for allegedly refusing to rent apartments to Blacks and Latinos. Oops, hey NAACP … why so silent? Maybe they might want to read about the case below? I guess the NAACP was also remaining silent when former Clippers exec and NBA great Elgin Baylor sued Sterling for racial discrimination. A jury was ultimately not convinced and shot down Baylor’s case. But when has that ever stopped the NAACP, can you say Trayvon Martin.
United States v. Donald Sterling, et al. (C.D. Cal.)
On November 12, 2009, the court entered a consent order resolving a pattern or practice lawsuit in United States v. Sterling (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on August 7, 2006, alleged that Donald Sterling, Rochelle Sterling, the Sterling Family Trust, and the Korean Land Company, L.L.C. violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race, national origin and familial status by refusing to rent to non-Korean prospective tenants, misrepresenting the availability of apartment units to non-Korean prospective tenants, and providing inferior treatment to non-Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles. The complaint also alleged that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to African-American prospective tenants and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to African-American prospective tenants in the Beverly Hills section of Los Angeles. In addition, the complaint alleged that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to families with children and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to families with children throughout the buildings that they own or manage in Los Angeles County. The United States also alleged that the Sterling Defendants made statements and published notices or advertisements in connection with the rental of apartment units that expressed a preference for Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles and expressed discrimination against African-Americans and families with children in Los Angeles County.
The consent order requires the Defendants to: (1) pay a total of $2.725 million in monetary damages and civil penalties; (2) implement a self-testing program over the next three years to monitor their employees’ compliance with fair housing laws at their Los Angeles County properties; (3) maintain non-discriminatory practices and procedures; and (4) obtain fair housing training for their employees who participate in renting, showing, or managing apartments at the Los Angeles County properties. The order settles the claims of the United States and the private plaintiffs.
Bias law suit: Baylor v. National Basketball Association et al., case number BC407604, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District.
The former general manager of the Los Angeles Clippers has slammed the National Basketball Association, the team, Clippers owner Donald Sterling and management agent Richard Andy Roeser with a lawsuit, accusing the parties of race and age discrimination and unlawful retaliation. On Thursday, Elgin Baylor filed suit in the Los Angeles division of California Superior Court, accusing his former team and colleagues of a slew of employment-related misdeeds.
“Elgin Baylor, a former NBA executive vice president and general manager, charges that he has suffered severe and continuing injury, including severe economic and noneconomic injuries as a result of unlawful and wrongful conduct engaged in by the defendants, individually and/or corporately,” the complaint said. “Consequently, in this action, Mr. Baylor seeks an award of economic, noneconomic and punitive damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
US Supreme Court Sets Aside $3.4 Million Verdict for Child Porn Victim … SCOTUS Says: May Claim Damages from Every Person Caught with Illegal Images
The case was Paroline vs. United States:
The SCOTUS has setaside a$3.4 million verdict again a Texas man named Doyle Paroline. The 5-4 decision upholds part of the Violence Against Women Act which calls for restitution to victims of child pornography, but it has some up with a compromise position on how to set the monetary amount. The SCOTUS majority opinion says those who possess the child porn images must pay something because they have contributed to the abuse. In essence, the Court ruled that a federal district court judge must calculate how much to assess against Paroline personally. The WAPO points out that the 5-4 decision was not the typical SCOTUS left-right split, which although the opinions were based on different rationals, at least issues like child porn are dealt with not along political lines.
Victims of child pornography whose images of sexual abuse have circulated on the Internet may claim damages from every person caught with illegal images, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
But justices rejected the idea that a single person who possesses such images may be assessed the full amount due to the victim, setting aside a $3.4-million verdict against a Texas man in a favor of a woman whose childhood rape was photographed and widely circulated on the Internet.
The 5-4 decision upholds part of the Violence Against Women Act which calls for restitution to victims of child pornography, but it adopts a middle-ground position on how to set the amount. It said those who possess the images must pay something because they have contributed to the abuse.
“It makes sense to spread the payment among a larger number of offenders in amounts more closely in proportion to their respective causal roles and their own circumstances,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “This would serve the twin goals of helping the victim achieve eventual restitution for all of her child pornography losses and impressing upon offenders the fact that child pornography crimes, even simple possession, affect real victims.”
His opinion in Paroline vs. United States leaves it to federal judges to decide on the proper amount in each case.
The case began when a young women using the name “Amy” learned the photos of her sexual abuse as an 8 year old child were circulating on the Internet. Sadly, it was her uncle, Eugene Zebroski, that was her abuser. Initially, a federal judge refused to order Paroline to pay restitution because there was no proof his offense caused or contributed to Amy’s abuse. However, a federal appeals court in New Orleans would overturn that decision and ruled for Amy and said Paroline was responsible for paying the full amount she had sought, a total of $3.4 million.
Paroline was among an estimated 71,000 people worldwide who viewed the attacks.
The full decisions can be read HERE.
Much, much more at the SCOTUS Blog, Opinion analysis: Dividing the duty to pay for child porn.
Each individual — among hundreds and maybe thousands — found guilty of keeping and looking at images of a child being sexually abused must pay the victim something more than a “trivial” sum, but none of them can be required to pay for all that the victim has lost, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a five-to-four decision.
The ruling in the case of Paroline v. United States, settling a dispute among lower courts on a mandatory law of restitution to victims of child pornography, refused to establish a specific formula for allocating the financial blame, telling federal trial judges to “do their best,” with a few suggestions for starting points. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
Former Boxer Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter, Who Was Wrongly Convicted of Murder Dies at age 76 of Prostate Cancer in Toronto, Canada
Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, the former middleweight boxing contender who spent 19 year in prison after being wrongly convicted of a triple murder, has died in Toronto, Canada at the age of 76 from prostate cancer. John Artis, a longtime friend and caregiver, said Carter died in his sleep Sunday. Rubin Carter spent 19 years in prison for a triple killing at the Lafayette Bar and Grill in Paterson, New Jersey before a federal judge ruled in 1985 that he and John Artis, who was with Carter on the night of the shootings. His story was made famous by Denzel Washington in the 1999 movie, ‘The Hurricane’ and the Bob Dylan’s 1975 song, ‘Hurricane’. However, truth be known, there was much poetic Hollywood license and fiction in the movie. There was a bit to much of the softening of The Hurricane. But that being said, it does not change the fact that Rubin “Hurricane” Carter had been very wronged by the system. Carter was freed in November 1985 when his convictions were set aside after years of appeals and public advocacy.
Carter, 76, died of complications from prostate cancer, Wahrer said.
“I always remember spending hours and hours with Rubin talking about the wrongful convictions,” she told CNN. “He was a great mentor and teacher. I felt very fortunate to have those times with him. … He lived a very full life.”
Carter spent 19 years in prison for a triple killing in New Jersey before a federal judge ruled in 1985 that he and John Artis, who was with Carter on the night of the shootings, did not receive fair trials and released them.
The Toronto Star: Rubin “Hurricane” Carter dead at 76.
His career as a prized, top middleweight boxer ended abruptly when he was wrongfully convicted of a 1966 triple murder in New Jersey. In 1985 a U.S. judge freed him, ruling that the prosecution had conducted “an appeal to racism rather than reason, concealment rather than disclosure.”
After he was released from prison Carter moved to the Toronto area, where he took up the cause to fight for those who are wrongfully convicted. In 1993 he helped establish the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, a Toronto-based non-profit.
Toronto lawyer James Lockyer, a founding director of the association said Carter “dominated the room with a mixture of power and humour and decisiveness.”
Lockyer said Carter forged close bonds with the wrongfully accused he worked to free, a lengthy list that included Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard and Steven Truscott.
“He brought such comfort to them and such inspiration to them to carry on the fight,” Lockyer said.
Whenever the association needed an advocate or a speaker, Carter was the natural choice, he said.
And now for a more truthful depiction of Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, his career, the events of 1966 at the Lafayette Bar and Grill in Paterson, New Jersey, the trial and aftermath … from ESPN Sports Century – Rubin Hurricane Carter.
Sports Century – Rubin Hurricane Carter Part 1 of 3
Sports Century – Rubin Hurricane Carter Part 2 of 3
Sports Century – Rubin Hurricane Carter Part 3 of 3
Judge Gayle Williams-Byers Ordered 62 Year Old Edmond Aviv Convicted of Harassing a Neighbor & Her Disabled Children to Stand on Street Corner with a sign that says,”I AM A BULLY”s a bully. to hold the sign for five hours Sunday
JUSTICE … Neighborhood bully finally got what was coming to him.
Municipal Court Judge Gayle Williams-Byers ordered 62-year old Edmond Aviv to display the sign for five hours Sunday that said, “I AM A BULLY!” The order comes in response to the neighborhood jerk harassing and bullying. According to court records, Aviv has feuded with his neighbor Sandra Prugh for the past 15 years. According to court records, Prugh stated in a letter to the court that Aviv had called her an ethnic slur, [monkey momma], while she was holding her adopted black children, who have developmental disabilities, cerebral palsy and epilepsy, spit on her several times, regularly threw dog feces on her son’s car windshield, and once smeared feces on a wheelchair ramp. However, the most recent case stemmed from Aviv being annoyed at the smell coming from Prugh’s dryer vent when she did laundry, in retaliation, Aviv hooked up kerosene to a fan, which blew the smell onto Pugh’s property. The judge also ordered Aviv to serve 15 days in jail and to undergo anger management classes and counseling. Aviv also had to submit an apology letter to Prugh.
A man accused of harassing a neighbor and her disabled children for the past 15 years sat at a street corner Sunday morning with a sign declaring he’s a bully, a requirement of his sentence.
Municipal Court Judge Gayle Williams-Byers ordered 62-year-old Edmond Aviv to display the sign for five hours Sunday. It says: “I AM A BULLY! I pick on children that are disabled, and I am intolerant of those that are different from myself. My actions do not reflect an appreciation for the diverse South Euclid community that I live in.”
The Northeast Ohio Media Group reported that Aviv arrived at the corner just before 9 a.m., placing the hand-lettered cardboard sign next to him as he sat in a chair. Within a couple of minutes, a passing motorist honked a car horn.
Court records show Aviv pleaded no contest in February to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge. His attorney didn’t return a telephone call for comment.
AG Eric Holder Plays the Race Card at Sharpton’s National Action Network Conference About How Congress Treated Him
What a shock, Attorney General plays the victim and the race card …
While speaking to the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network at its annual convention in New York on Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder complained about how he was “treated” by a House committee the day before, namely Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), played the race card, calling it evidence of “ugly and divisive” civil rights challenges facing him and President Barack Obama. Holder stated that his and Barack Obama’s treatment by Congress has been unprecedented to his Al Sharpton crowd. Hmm, what ever could he be implying? Really Holder, call the “wahmbulance”. Holder may want to do some Google searches on how past GOP presidents were treated, he may learn something. But, liberals are always the victim and in Holder’s case, throw a little racism on the fire to continue the divide and conquer strategy as the Obama administrations fails America.
Attorney General Eric Holder strayed from prepared remarks to slam the way he was “treated” by a House committee the day before, calling it evidence of “ugly and divisive” civil rights challenges facing him and President Barack Obama.
“The last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms even in the face, even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity,” Holder said. “If you don’t believe that, you look at the way — forget about me, forget about me. You look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee — has nothing to do with me, forget that. What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”
Holder goes off script and plays the victim during a speech he gave Wednesday to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network.
Holder vs. Gohmert, “Don’t Go There”
Attorney General Eric Holder lashed out a bit at Louis Gohmert yesterday during a contentious exchange, snapping, “You don’t want to go there, buddy.” Holder’s clearly steamed about the back-and-forth, and brought it up during a speech he gave Wednesday to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. The Justice Department posted the transcript of Holder’s remarks as prepared for delivery, but Holder went off-script a bit to take a shot at the Republican congressman.
In the end, Eric Holder would have been fired under any other administration for the poor job that he has done. Holder has provided no justice in ‘Fast & Furious’, ‘Benghazi’ or the IRS scandal of targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups. However, when his job is to obstruct and protect Barack Obama’s bacon from impeachment and his connection to these scandals, Holder is doing a fantastic job and thus the reason why he is still employed. Maybe the reason why, as Holder says, “What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” is because we have never had such a corrupt and imperial administration?