Where is 1% of the American adult population?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Please, let's play that game and see what kind of funnies we can generate.

This one! In hindsight, I'm not contributing, so consider me properly chastised.

</delurk>

Posting is contributing. And there was no intention of chastising, simply a request for clarification.

Given the way this thread has gone, your suggestion is a good idea. So, to get it started:

Let's have a gun show at the elementary school down the street.

Come one, come all and let's put some funnies in this lounge -- it's beginning to look like a funeral parlor in here. Entirely too somber!

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Come one, come all and let's put some funnies in this lounge -- it's beginning to look like a funeral parlor in here. Entirely too somber!

The elementary school gun club, or shooting range is good. All night discotheque... Gymnasium, spa and massage emporium. Free clinic... need I say more?

[NuurAbSaal]

Come one, come all and let's put some funnies in this lounge -- it's beginning to look like a funeral parlor in here. Entirely too somber!

The elementary school gun club, or shooting range is good. All night discotheque... Gymnasium, spa and massage emporium. Free clinic... need I say more?

YMCA?

take care
Tarabulus

[kandrathe]

I saw an blurb this week on TV somewhere about a new book out called "One Nation Under Arrest" -- They were interviewing a guy, George Norris, who did 18 months in Federal prison for selling Orchids (and not the wrong ones either). http://economist.com/node/16636027

And, the other one was a fuel cell researcher, Krister Evertson, who was indicted on federal charges for selling a pound of sodium on Ebay without the proper "ground shipement" paperwork, he was acquitted, but the government came back and figured out a way to nab him with the EPA.

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2009/07/cau...lized.html

[Jester]

And, the other one was a fuel cell researcher, Krister Evertson, who was indicted on federal charges for selling a pound of sodium on Ebay without the proper "ground shipement" paperwork, he was acquitted, but the government came back and figured out a way to nab him with the EPA.

Do we really have all the facts in this case? His own testimony and his expert witness obviously support him (as they would), but yet he was still convicted by a jury. That at least implies to me that there's more to this.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Do we really have all the facts in this case? His own testimony and his expert witness obviously support him (as they would), but yet he was still convicted by a jury. That at least implies to me that there's more to this.

-Jester

"Evertson’s appeal brief sums up the absurdity of the whole case by quoting from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in the year 2000: “To say that when something is saved it is thrown away is an extraordinary distortion of the English language.” Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Here is the site of the people who attempted to bring his appeal to the SCOTUS. Review was denied. "The Court’s one-sentence order did not explain the reasons for denying review. In its petition for certiorari, WLF argued that the lower courts misinterpreted RCRA and in essence denied the defendant the opportunity to demonstrate that he never abandoned the chemicals and thus that they were not “waste.”"

[Jester]

"Evertson’s appeal brief sums up the absurdity of the whole case by quoting from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in the year 2000: “To say that when something is saved it is thrown away is an extraordinary distortion of the English language.” Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Right-wing newspaper believes right-wing things. Editorials are not reporting.

Here is the site of the people who attempted to bring his appeal to the SCOTUS. Review was denied. "The Court’s one-sentence order did not explain the reasons for denying review. In its petition for certiorari, WLF argued that the lower courts misinterpreted RCRA and in essence denied the defendant the opportunity to demonstrate that he never abandoned the chemicals and thus that they were not “waste.”"

So, the SCOTUS didn't want to look at it. Not surprising, since they almost never look at anything that does not turn on a question of principle they are interested in examining.

However, the defendant would obviously endorse his own case, as would the right-wing 'legal foundation' behind him. There's no use citing their own brief as evidence that they're in the right. Every defendant looks good if you only look at that.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

"Evertson’s appeal brief sums up the absurdity of the whole case by quoting from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in the year 2000: “To say that when something is saved it is thrown away is an extraordinary distortion of the English language.” Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Right-wing newspaper believes right-wing things. Editorials are not reporting.

Here is the site of the people who attempted to bring his appeal to the SCOTUS. Review was denied. "The Court’s one-sentence order did not explain the reasons for denying review. In its petition for certiorari, WLF argued that the lower courts misinterpreted RCRA and in essence denied the defendant the opportunity to demonstrate that he never abandoned the chemicals and thus that they were not “waste.”"

So, the SCOTUS didn't want to look at it. Not surprising, since they almost never look at anything that does not turn on a question of principle they are interested in examining.

However, the defendant would obviously endorse his own case, as would the right-wing 'legal foundation' behind him. There's no use citing their own brief as evidence that they're in the right. Every defendant looks good if you only look at that.

-Jester

I'm just relaying the facts as I find them. Unless the Washington Examiner is criminally derelict in its ability to report a case, and if even 50% of the story is true, then it seems at face value to be a miscarriage of justice. There are no unbiased sources, so choose to believe nothing if you like.

From what I gather; he bought a bunch of sodium for his experiments, ran out of money, sold some of it on ebay, attracted the attention of the FBI, got charged with shipping it improperly (ground ship from Alaska = air shipment anyway), won his case, and then was charged by the EPA for "disposing of hazardous waste" which he was not disposing, and which he did not consider waste, and had stored in special stainless steel containers at his neighbors house.

Am I missing something? I don't have the trial transcripts, so I need to rely on the Washington Examiner to at least get the gist of the facts straight.

[Jester]

I'm just relaying the facts as I find them. Unless the Washington Examiner is criminally derelict in its ability to report a case, and if even 50% of the story is true, then it seems at face value to be a miscarriage of justice. There are no unbiased sources, so choose to believe nothing if you like.

No need to throw a tantrum about sources. There are sources that are reliable enough to believe. But an *editorial* from a newspaper notorious as a right-wing propaganda organ is not among them.

From what I gather...

From what you've shown us? Because that's what I'm questioning. No point in repeating it back in your own words.

Am I missing something? I don't have the trial transcripts, so I need to rely on the Washington Examiner to at least get the gist of the facts straight.

Precisely the point. Are you missing something? How would we know, from what we've looked at? Because I'm pretty damn sure you can't rely on an *editorial* in the Washington Examiner to provide you with *all* the facts. Only the ones that support its argument, at best, and a complete hash, at worst.

A jury found him guilty. His appeal was refused. That doesn't mean he isn't innocent, but it does suggest that there is more to this, at least from a legal perspective. But all we have from what you've given us is some right-wing opinion makers, and the EPA saying little more than that he was convicted.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

A jury found him guilty. His appeal was refused. That doesn't mean he isn't innocent, but it does suggest that there is more to this, at least from a legal perspective. But all we have from what you've given us is some right-wing opinion makers, and the EPA saying little more than that he was convicted.

Would you perhaps believe what is written in the PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the SCOTUS?

The bigger question is whether someone deserves time in federal prison for safely storing some hazardous materials, and flying off to Alaska to earn money to continue their research.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Would you perhaps believe what is written in the PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the SCOTUS?

No. If we are to accept the writ as written, then why submit it, or anything else, to the Supreme Court?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

No. If we are to accept the writ as written, then why submit it, or anything else, to the Supreme Court?

It states both facts and opinions, of the defense lawyers. But, they are not going to outright lie to the SCOTUS now are they? Wouldn't that be a huge breach of professional ethics, and probably grounds for disbarment?

[--Pete]

Hi,

It states both facts and opinions, of the defense lawyers. But, they are not going to outright lie to the SCOTUS now are they? Wouldn't that be a huge breach of professional ethics, and probably grounds for disbarment?

That's why lawyers get paid the big bucks. To present the case of their client as positively as they can. Omissions are not lies. Spin is not always a lie. Putting the best face on the facts is not a lie.

Show me the corresponding document from the prosecution, and maybe by reading both, I might form an opinion. Or maybe not -- as good as my BS detector is, the true professionals can sometimes get past it.

--Pete

[Jester]

Would you perhaps believe what is written in the PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the SCOTUS?

No, of course I wouldn't. A petition for a writ of certiorari is just a fancy name for asking for an appeal. Who asks for an appeal? An advocate. What is an advocate? Someone who is paid to make arguments *in favour* of their client. They have every incentive to say what makes their client look good, and not to say what doesn't - that's the other guy's job. But we haven't heard from them yet.

The bigger question is whether someone deserves time in federal prison for safely storing some hazardous materials, and flying off to Alaska to earn money to continue their research.

No, that's not "the bigger question". That's a loaded rhetorical question with an easy answer - of course not. But, is that what is going on here? The courts seem to have disagreed already, and I'd like to know why.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But we haven't heard from them yet.

I found another bit from the 9th circuit.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/me...-30427.pdf

It does not dispute the facts as they've been laid out. The EPA's position was that storing the materials for two years presented a danger. That the materials were waste materials, and not useful chemicals temporarily set aside.