Note: This is in the process of being rewritten and re organized so please bear with me. Mid January 2009
Updated text, facts and links on Jan 14, 2010


Are my legal skills still usable two hundred years later and in this life?

Thomas Jefferson used to say 'if you go to court against me on a personal matter then you better hire the best attorney in America and I would never work for scum like you.' (This was only intended for anyone who would take me to court as my life was based on the highest ethical standards so they would have to be scum to do so.)

Another saying I had was 'if you take me to court about a personal matter, then you had better have all your I's dotted and your T's crossed or I will hang you from them with the judge and jury's approval.'

Let's use a recent case that the defense lost in order to test my skills as an attorney in the modern age and tell me if I still have that legal edge. Remember that in this life I have never practiced law, taken a law class or studied it on my own.

I am going to show the reason one case should be overturned on appeal, how to do it and why it is important. Perhaps with the addition of a large civil case as well. This case has been highly publicized and if you are not aware of it you can easily find it yourself on the internet or go to one of the links I've provided. This case could still be overturned and a profitable civil case established.

Having fame and even money does not assure that you will get decent or anything better than mediocre legal representation.

This case involved the musician and actress Courtney Love who was arrested October 2, 2003 at her ex-boyfriends home.

She was falsely arrested which means the police committed a felony. The DA committed at least one felony in court. One of the arresting policemen perjured himself in court which is a felony. The police released her from jail too soon which I think is a felony causing her daughter to be taken from her for 18 months, etc.

None of what I write has been pointed out or brought up in court.

The primary point which nobody has realized is this: Courtney Love was falsely arrested. Specifically she was arrested for being intoxicated in public however she was on private property before her arrest.

When officers arrived at the scene, Love was walking down the driveway and waving to a police helicopter above, according to the LAPD.Here

It's true that the articles do not make it clear whether she was on the private driveway or if the police had called her out on to the public street before they arrested her but that does not matter. If Courtney had been on the private driveway then she definitely never should have been arrested for being intoxicated in public in the first place. If the police had, by signal or by their presence, brought her off private property before she was arrested then that is entrapment by the police.

It would be the same if the police dragged a drunk out of a private party on to the street and then arrested him for being drunk in public. The point being is that without the police presence Ms. Courtney Love had no intention of being intoxicated in public that night nor would she have been. It was only the presence of the police which caused her to be intoxicated in public. The police are not exempt from prosecution for entrapment in this case.

Two more heinous crimes against Ms. Courtney Love occurred later in court.

In the refrigerated stillness of a limousine making its way across West Hollywood, Courtney Love raises herself from a deep slouch and locks eyes with Blender. "Do not forget to ask me about the picture on the cover of the fucking district attorney's file," she commands, "because that's the greatest irony of all." Blender, May 2004

In the same interview:

The picture in the D.A.’s possession is a photograph taken last year after Love duetted with Elton John at London’s fabled Old Vic Theatre, home to regal productions of Shakespeare since the 1800s

The DA must have had this photo of Courtney Love in a body length fishnet stocking in the courtroom for her to have seen it. That means others in the courtroom saw it as well. Was the photograph seen as evidence by other people? Certainly and here is proof of it.

Small wonder, then, that Love, one of rock’s last true believers, is apoplectic about the D.A.’s use of this hallowed keepsake as evidence against her mental fitness.

Even Courtney Love accepted the photograph as being 'evidence'. So everyone who saw the photograph also did and more importantly it was probably intended to be seen as evidence by the judge. Though it may seem minor it would have been the same as if at the beginning of the OJ Simpson trial the DA held up a bloody knife in the courtroom for everyone to see.*

Next, the DA brought the photograph with him into the court and did not acquire it while he was in the courtroom. That shows he planned this ahead of time. That act of premeditation aggravates the crime. (In my made up Simpson example the DA had to also plan ahead of time in order to acquire a knife.)

I think that after attorneys have submitted evidence in a case they are allowed to leave it where it can be seen. They will often place it on top of the file for ready reference. The placing of the photo on the file was very intentional and there is only one reason it was done. It was so the DA would be certain that the people who saw it would assume that the photograph was evidence of criminal activity on the part of Courtney Love. It was all deliberate.

What the DA did used to be called 'presenting evidence out of turn' which is a violation of the rules of procedure. It calls for a mistrial but since that trial is over it calls for an appeal with a very high certainty of a win and in this case I am almost certain it would be without any contention from the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office. A worse crime was an aggravated falsifying of evidence.**

The concept of the law is exceedingly clear in my mind to depth of my soul. It is explaining it which is often a problem and not using the right term is the biggest problem. I'm subject to misusing legal terms for three main reasons. One is that the meaning and the use of the terms have changed in the last 200 years. Another is more complex but it involves the issue of certain words being stored in certain areas of the brain which in this life have different words stored in those areas. This means that when I access that area of my brain the word is not there and so I often use the word that is there. If the word 'juror' was stored in a certain place in my past life but now the word 'dog' is stored then if I am not careful I might accidentally use the word 'dog' when referring to a member of a jury. The third reason is because of what I often do when I just dont know the proper words and have to depend on the words I have learned in this life to describe a concept. Since I have never practiced or studied law in this life I am unfamiliar with many legal terms. So I have to depend on a layman's understanding of the terms and that is often from television shows so it is more than sometimes a bit lacking (but I am learning the definitions of legal terms every day by watching those tv shows). Perhaps you have noticed that this site is written to be understood by a layperson...well you now know, I am that layperson.

Now that we have established that the photo of Courtney in a fishnet stocking was submitted as evidence, though out of turn, let's show that it also involved the falsification of evidence.

Let's say for a minute that we don't ask for a mistrial because of the photo having been evidence that was submitted out of turn. Instead let's go the full distance. Let's allow that and instead show that the DA committed a felony by falsifying evidence...

..except that I cannot find the actual photo of Courtney nude in fishnet stockings. All I could find was the Donald Duck beginning of her dance. That is the story of my life but lets just pretend it's the fishnet photo. The D.A. is either a pervert to have searched a lot longer on the internet than I did in order to find that explicit photo or else the DA is much better that I am at finding those kinds of photos. Either way it does not look at all good for him.

Falsifying evidence includes the omission of pertinent information at the time the evidence is submitted. (An example would be the DA in the OJ Simpson trial submitting that bloody knife as evidence without telling the court that the murder weapon was never found and the knife he showed off was his own.)

The DA presented the photograph without clarifying several main points. The major one is that it had nothing at all to do with the case.

The conclusion that most people will draw after seeing the picture on the DA's file of Courtney Love is that the DA's case involves Courtney performing partially nude in front of a public audience (which would normally include children) in Los Angeles County.

That was not the case. The following was the case.

So here I am onstage with Elton. I hit the right notes! I get a standing ovation from the royal family! And the district attorney in Beverly Hills has this photo sitting in my file as evidence of why I must be removed from the city streets. Why? Because my mascara’s running?”Here

The photos were taken at a benefit concert and that was never made clear when the photograph was displayed as evidence. I think everyone who saw that photo in the courtroom automatically assumed it was taken at a public event. Being before a private audience the photograph is in the same category as a photograph taken with your approval in your own home. It is not illegal to dance and sing naked in your own home. (You should try it some time. It's a lot of fun.).

It was also not made clear that the photo was taken in London UK which is outside the DA's jurisdiction which is the County of Los Angeles in the USA and not the UK. It was not made at all clear that the photograph was taken in England where American laws, customs and lifestyles do not apply.

There was also probably not a single child in the audience with the cost of the benefit tickets being £1,000 per person.

The obvious conclusion that most people will draw after seeing the fish net photo is that the case must have involved Courtney performing partially nude in front of children in Los Angeles County.

Since the photograph was seen by Courtney Love others in the courtroom also saw it. To see that it had a very strong 'apoplectic' effect on Courtney Love leaves virtually no doubt that it had a strong effect on others in the court..

Small wonder, then, that Love, one of rock’s last true believers, is apoplectic about the D.A.’s use of this hallowed keepsake as evidence of a lack of mental fitness.Here

Who in the courtroom would have seen this photo? If the DA carried the file near the bench which usually happens then the judge saw the photograph. The effect that it had on the judge is the very heart of the matter and the gravest violation of Courtney Loves human and U.S. Constitutional rights as well the breaking of several felony laws. It also matters who actually saw it but it simply being on display and falsely presented makes it a felony. If the press saw thyat photo outside the courtroom it would have corrupted their thinking about Courtney to some degree or another and that I think that could make for a libel case.

District Attorney's are sworn to uphold the laws of the land and never violate those laws. It is totally unconscionable that the DA would do this crud, vulgar, mean and illegal act.

These are not half of the crimes that the DA committed against Courtney Love but the rest are not well established or as well documented. The courtroom can be likened at times to a poker tournament. This 'game' happened to be a championship game of stud poker. What I have placed on this page is simply those cards which are dealt face up. I've very carefully put only that information on this page which is conclusive at the present time. I'm not one to tip my other cards so that my opponent can see every card I hold. I think I can find another three felonies that he committed against Courtney. See this page to get an idea of where it could end up.

There are probably several years of prison time waiting for the DA and I have not yet begun with my presentation of the multimillion dollar civil suit that Courtney Love can file against the District Attorney personally and the County of Los Angeles. This DA is very sick or otherwise he would never in a million years have put his future out on the line like this by allowing his sick perverse nature and need to sexually control others dominate his life and the courtroom like he obviously did.

On Courtney Love's second arrest, which occurred immediately after the first arrest.

The first arrest was just the beginning of Courtney Loves problems. Immediately after being released she went home and overdosed. Let's look at the initial arrest for the actual cause of her second arrest.

At approximately 2 A.M., Barber, Love’s on-again, off-again boyfriend and coproducer of America’s Sweetheart, awoke with a start when he heard an intruder attempting to break down his door. He dialed 911, unaware that it was Love doing the breaking and entering. When the police arrived, Barber tried to convince them that it was all a big misunderstanding, but Love’s highly agitated state aroused their suspicion, and they escorted her downtown for questioning

When the police were told that no crime (breaking and entering) had been committed and it was a mistake those police had no business being there. The police later made Courtney take breathalyzer tests so they initially took her in for being alcohol intoxicated in public.

What did he find on you?

“Nothing! I had nothing on me. He had asked me earlier what I take. I said, ‘I take Xanax; sometimes I take painkillers. And that’s it.’ I hadn’t had a Xanax for eight hours.” She was eventually charged with a misdemeanor infraction for being under the influence, and released.

Then she was released almost immediately after her arrest (before dawn). When the police arrest a person for intoxication it is because they are intoxicated to the point of being a danger to themselves or others. That is the basis and what makes it a valid law. They are essentially saying 'You are a danger to the peace, others or yourself. I am now taking you out of circulation of the public and to do so I am also assuming responsibility for your person.' The legal basis is identical to a mental patient being committed to a mental hospital when they are also seen as being a danger to themselves or others.

Once arrested the police assume full responsibility for that person.

The drug 'Xanax' is what Courtney Love was charged with being under the influence of.:

He (policeman) had asked me earlier what I take. I said, ‘I take Xanax; sometimes I take painkillers. And that’s it.’ I hadn’t had a Xanax for eight hours.

On a technical level. Courtney stated that she had taken Xanax. Alprazolam (Xanax) is not like most drugs which leave the body in four hours. That is a very long lasting drug with a elimination half-life of about 11 hours. According to the U. S. Naval Observatory the time of Sunrise on October 3, 2003 was 6:49 a.m. That means between the time they first answered the 911 call to releasing her, was at very most five hours. In that time she eliminated at the most 25% of the Xanax in her body. That means she was only 25% less intoxicated than when they took her in and that is not a big change in anyone's book, including that of the average jury.

This is what the Blender article says occurred within about an hour after Courtney was released.

Love alleges that she went into her safe, grabbed a bottle of OxyContin and accidentally swallowed the wrong dosage — 20 milligrams instead of two. “

Sort of like Marilyn Monroe swallowed the wrong dosage. Courtney's actions were not that of a normal person. She has been through far worse situations so something else happened that we aren't aware of. (We will get to that in a bit.)

When the police release a person back into the public it is a legal statement that the arrestee is no longer intoxicated to the point of being a danger to themselves or others. That is obviously not the case here. I hardly think her overdose would have happened if those police had left Courtney Love in jail like they were legally required to do (or with her boyfriend on their private property).

Now does it seem right what those police did? No it was clearly wrong several times over. The police created the same situation that they arrested Courtney for. They let her out when she was definitely still a danger to herself or others.

The LAPD nearly caused the death of one of music's greatest talents. Nobody in the world apparently saw this fact. This was the first violation of Courtney's rights that I noticed. I saw it by the time I was half way through reading the article in Blender Magazine. Sometimes I get with it.


Even the premise of the initial arrest is wrong.

[The reason the police actually took in Courtney Love for questioning was in error:

Barber tried to convince them (the police) that it was all a big misunderstanding, but Love's highly agitated state aroused their suspicion, and they escorted her downtown for questioning.

There, Love again tried to convince the police that being highly agitated was, for her, a routine condition.

Was being 'highly agitated' the only symptom? That is invalid.

1. Agitation is not a symptom of drug intoxication. Agitation applies to everyone who gets their privacy invaded at 2 am and possibly while making love. Wouldn't you be agitated?

2. She is at the top of her profession. Those who are at the top of their profession are almost always agitated personalities. They are like race horses and they can almost always be described as being 'highly agitated'. Look at Donald Trump who often displays his agitation by firing people on his NBC show 'The Apprentice". These people get 'highly agitated' easily because they don't accept less than perfection and those cops who arrested Courtney were not being 'perfect' by not being professional. They were not professional since they did not leave immediately when they learned that no crime was being committed.

Most people would not watch Courtney on TV or listen to her music if she was not the top of the line.. Courtney Love is a high achiever and in that way like a race horse. Otherwise she would just be one of a million wannabes and not a musician as well as actress who is about the best in her fields. Agitation is average for all high achievers.

3. Agitation is a symptom of a stimulant drug. So at first they were taking her in for being under the influence of a stimulant? How did her attorney's allow it to be twisted completely around to being charged with being under the influence of a sedative? The police disproved their own contention.

4. Why did they test her for alcohol several times? Does alcohol agitate you? Then why were the police testing her for alcohol? I think they were just mean and nasty sadist's who likely were making copies of the video tape taken by a camera for a trophy of them forcing the famous Courtney Love repeatedly perform a highly suggestive action by blowing in the tube. This starts to sound like a cat playing with a mouse. Or two cats playing with a mouse. The rest of what happened pretty much confirms that is exactly what they were doing to Ms. Coourtney Love.

The part about the police jerking Miss Love around is partially what leads me to believe that something horrible may have happened to Courtney Love.

These police officers work the 'Hooker patrol' in the Hollywood area late at night for one reason only and you can probably already guess what that is. They probably offer the 'amateur working girls' on Sunset Strip the option of either providing sex or getting arrested and being put through the hell that the police put Courtney Love through. The reason they had to settle for Courtney is pretty simple. The amateur prostitutes get welfare and SSI checks at the beginning of the month so they don't work the streets then (October 2). Since these cops. think that all women are trash they likely kidnapped Courtney Love and made her that same offer. When she refused they put her through a type of psychological rape normally reserved for those hookers they normally pick up.

Note:I am not saying she was actually raped but I think she may have been.

The reason I think this may very well have occurred is this. Two main things occur to any woman who has been raped. One is they often attempt to commit suicide and Courtney Love immediately tried to do this. Second is this: A rapid fragmentation of the personality occurs along with a rapid moral decline. A mental breakdown can often occur. All these things occurred to Courtney Love soon after this arrest.

This is why I think such a crime was perpetrated against the body and soul of Courtney Love on the night of October 2, 2003.

If she was raped by those cops then it is her word against theirs and they would just deny it. Since she is a public figure she would gain nothing by telling what had happened and she would lose a lot when aspersions would then be directed at her. She had no recourse open to her and with no real emotional support (an exboyfriend'*** that doesn't help and are not waiting for her when she got released from jail do not count) she soon chose suicide rather than have to go through the hell that we later read about her going through nearly every week for three years on the tabloid covers at the supermarket checkout. Once she had downed the pills she stoically decided that suicide was the wrong course of action to take.

This whole affair appears to be a cover-up that goes very high in the LAPD. What evidence is there that a rape may have occurred? The times don't match between two police sources. There is a missing 45 minutes or more.

Blender Magazine covers the music scene and does responsible original reporting. They quote the LAPD spokesman as stating that her arrest was 'just after 2 am'. According to the other reports from a news services the police car was dispatched to go to the location at '2:40 AM' but that I think is a lie.

From Blender Magazine.

Los Angeles police said they arrested the 39-year-old Love just after 2 A.M. on October 2 when they found her outside the home of James Barber, her ex-boyfriend/ manager/producer. Barber, who had called 911, refused to press charges, but the LAPD detained Love, as the arresting officers suspected she was intoxicated.

After being charged with violating Safety Code 11550 (Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance), she was released on $2,500 bail at approximately 5:30 A.M. Forty minutes later, emergency services received a call from her Beverly Hills home. Love, suffering from a drug overdose, was given immediate treatment by paramedics, who then rushed her to a Century City hospital at 6:55 A.M.


'Court TV" and many others who seem to use the same news service said this.

According to reports, police were dispatched to Barber's home at 2:40 a.m. on Oct. 2, 2003, for a possible burglary, and found Love waving to helicopters.

Barber declined to press charges for broken windows, but police arrested the singer, and she was charged with disorderly conduct and being under the influence of opiates and cocaine.

When the police released the second report, which was the official report, they were unaware that someone at the police station had already told Blender Magazine the true time of Courtney's arrest was 'just after 2 A. M.'. For the official report the LAPD realized that it meant that it took the policemen perhaps as long as an hour and forty minutes to take Courtney Love five miles to the police station. The police department covered up this loss of time by not even stating the actual time of the arrest which they normally include since it is readily available and is very important. Instead they reported the time that the police car was dispatched to the scene. All the details of the arrest are given except the arrest time and that is nearly unheard of in a case like this. The police usually try to give the impression that they are perfect by stating such times to within the minute.

How many policemen raped Courtney Love on the way to the police station?

I'd like to make it clear that I am trying to do the most responsible thing that I can by writing this. Courtney Love has been through far more devastating situations in her life than a little arrest and a run downtown in the back of a police car. Yet nothing else in her life has caused nearly this much damage to her personality. So a lot happened that night in a space of less that two hours which I feel has not been talked about. The bizzare psychological condition that Courtney Love then suffered from was not self imposed. And it was a definite threat to not only her well being but also it could have and still could lead to her death or contribute to her early death. I can't believe that anyone would want to see this happen to her. This information is just too important not place it on this web site. If Courtney wants me to remove this part or all of it then I will gladly do so.


If we are to believe the police that Courtney was intoxicated then as her guardians they had to keep her in custody until she had sobered up or they had signed her over to a hospital for treatment.

The police made a very incorrect decision by releasing Courtney Love while it appears that she was still intoxicated and was definitely a danger to herself. The police should accept the responsibility and also pay the hospital charges. The police actually created a fraud on the people of Los Angeles by pretending to be law abiding and yet at the same time not obeying the laws themselves. That is a possible felony. For the police not to have come forward before now clearly aggravates their fraud.

By releasing her while she was intoxicated it transfers most if not all of the responsibility for her subsequent actions (the overdose) to the city and to those police who made a very irresponsible and irreprehensible decision.****

(The police never normally release a drunk until they sober up for the very same reason. It is no different for a musician on a different drug than alcohol.)

The police have no more right to break laws than any other person. They are actually more guilty than a non police officer. When a policeman breaks a law it is often two laws that he breaks. In addition to the first law he broke what he has done is also a fraud. When a police officer is drawing pay and breaks the law he is not only breaking the law but he is also defrauding the government because he is taking money (his government paycheck) and not doing his job.

There are actually about four big civil lawsuits that Courtney Love can pursue against the City and/or County of Los Angeles. It appears those police in the initial arrest had nothing to do except coax a private performance out of Courtney Love.

“This cop makes me take Breathalyzer after Breathalyzer. He tortures me and tortures me, and then we’re smoking cigarettes, we’re having coffee, and this motherfucker Mirandizes me.

Courtney Love charges a lot of money for her time when she puts on shows. I hope that the City and County of Los Angeles don't mind picking up the huge tab for the excessive amount of time these cops took while they toyed with Ms. Courtney Love.

The Constitution guarantee's us equal rights and this is why a citizen had the right to arrest others as much as any policeman. Never forget this.

On the third legal matter which involves Ms. Love's daughter being taken by Child Services. Courtney Love is great mother and you can tell this is a fact because of evidence of her daughter's maturity in an interview I describe and explain on this page.

According to a source close to the case, Love was formally charged with “caretaker incapacity,” stemming from the OxyContin overdose that took place in Frances’s presence.

This shows the danger of releasing a person while they are still intoxicated. It makes the Los Angeles City Police actually responsible for her daughter being taken from her (in addition to being responsible for her taking more drugs).

That she was exposed to her daughter in an intoxicated state is due to the police releasing her before she sobered up. Technically the police were responsible for everything Ms. Love did until she sobered up. That would even apply if she had still been in jail but in this case they released her and she went home. Furthermore she probably obeyed their instructions up to a point because they most likely told her to 'go home and sleep it off'.

This a very personal matter for both Ms. Love and her daughter but I can tell her that there is not a jury that would find in favor of the police in this incident. That would could be a very big civil lawsuit. To pursue one would help the public see her in a better light and it would give her much greater credibility.

Now you know that the legal skill's of Thomas Jefferson still exist. The understandings gained from past lives is the basis for most of what we call aptitude and skills. Even when we don't recall our past lives the skills come through and are still usable. They build up making us greater and greater in each lifetime.

This page exposes the lying arresting officer who can't remember if it was day or at night.when he arrested Courtney and the judges failure to point out this fact and disallow all the testimony.


*Actually placing a photograph on a file makes it worse than a bloody knife since many attorney's clip the most pertinent evidence to the outside of a file. This makes a pretty final argument as to the intent of the DA. His doing this had a very strong effect on Courtney Love so I am certain it affected others in the court including the judge.

**Falsifying evidence is a horrible crime and let me explain why. Falsifying evidence is form of a fraud which usually involves the taking of money through deception. For several reasons the falsifying of evidence is of greater brevity than a conventional fraud.

Let me spell those reasons out.

1. It defrauds the government when it causes the expense of having to house a person in prison. This aspect is identical to any fraud.

2. The falsely imprisoned person is enslaved and we all abhor slavery. The conditions of today's prisons are worse than almost any slave suffered through in the early 1800's.

3. It makes the legal establishment an unknowing accomplice to fraud and effectively makes them kidnapers and slavers. These horrendous violations are what all those people who work in the courts are sworn to work so hard against.

4. For every person so convicted falsely there are about 20 who know they are really innocent and know that their friend was framed. (it used to be around 20 people but this information is dated by about 190 years and it's probably different now) About 1/4 of these people turn against the United States system of laws or learn to distrust them to a high degree. This is the biggest crime..

The actions of falsifying evidence is an attempt to use others to destroy someone who we presume is innocent (if only because they have not yet been found guilty). Two hundred years ago falsifying evidence was considered on par with homicide (which is only slightly below premeditated murder).

The judge and jury used to take this crime as a very personal affront and so they treated any person that falsified evidence accordingly. The some judges swore that falsifed evidence confuses and clouds their judgment for up several hundred cases. That crime was treated very harshly so very few people ever dared falsify evidence. I can vaguely remember about twenty cases (200 years ago) and only two of them got less than ten years in prison. About half of these men were given the added sentence of cracking rocks while serving their time.

>Added Jan 19, 2005<
*** Why do I say that boyfriends that don't help, don't count? This guy Barber needs to learn some manners, at least. He is in part responsible for what happened to his girlfriend.

He should have explained to those police that they could not take her. If that failed he should have kept an eye on them and followed them to the police station. Did he say he was going to and did the police leave before he could? Then he should have been there for her when she was released from custody. Not doing any of these things are a type of negligence.

Who would not do this?. I'd like to explain to him a concept called 'criminal negligence'. (It's a law which 200 years ago I had a hand in developing.) Basically it is when a situation exists that is both obvious and dangerous which is ignored by those who are responsible and which causes property loss, injury or death as a result.

Here are a few examples:

Criminal negligence occurs when security guards are not screened sufficiently and have a criminal past or mental problems. Then people are harmed or killed by them.

Criminal negligence happens if a stop sign falls down and the road crew knows about it but doesn't replace it quickly and an accident with property, bodily injury or death is the result.

If there is only one road crew and they are busy painting new lines on a road so they don't stop to go replace the stop sign then it is criminal negligence because the stop sign is of greater importance. If an accident occurs as a result then the city or county can be held liable.

If however if three stop signs fall down in a strong wind they are doing the correct thing to replace them using any of the following methods.

1.Replace first the two stop signs that are the closest together.

2. Replace first those at the busiest streets.

3. Replace the closest ones to the shop or the location they are at.

If an accident occurs at one of the intersection before they get to that sign then they are not negligent because each method has logical reasoning behind it. The first of the three reasons is in order to get the stop signs replaced as fast as possible. The second is to avoid as many accidents as possible. The third method may be best if they need to go back to the shop to get other equipment or they may just finish faster.

They could even base the order on the speed limit. A county road with few people traveling on it might be first on the list if the speed limit is 55 mph and trees block the visibility of the cross road because death would be much more likely on it than on a city street with greater visibility and a lower speed limit.

One of the most outrageous cases that I recall involved ten men who were convicted of it in the late 1700's. They forced a deranged (highly depressed) man into a duel which was illegal inside the city limits. The sharpshooter that shot him in the duel did not kill him. When the marshall came running because he heard the shot the sharpshooters friends all claimed it was a fair duel and that meant they could only be charged with 'criminal negligence' since they allowed it go on inside the city limits when they could have stopped it. The sharpshooter was found guilty of dueling inside city limits and another crime.

The second conviction came about because the depressed man never wanted to duel and never fired the gun that had been given him. The marshal when he arrived at the scene needed to make certain that the second man had not fired his gun, in case he had fired his at the same time and hence only one report was heard. So the marshall got the gun from the man who had loaned it out and smelled it. He knew it had not been fired but to make certain he fired the gun into a pine board. That was the proof the court needed to show it had not been fired.

The ball did not even go in flush with the pine board when it should have gone in at least three to five inches. The spectators all just said 'uh oh'. One of the buddies of the sharpshooter had given the depressed man his gun but he had only put in maybe one tenth the gunpowder to make absolutely certain their friend wouldn't get injured as a result of a lucky shot. The ball would not have even penetrated the heavy coat that the sharpshooter had borrowed from his friend just for that purpose. The marshall could not prove that the gun was intentionally short charged but they scraped up every law they had broken and accepted the depressed man's testimony that he was never going to fire the gun so the charge was changed to causing grievous bodily harm. They convicted the whole group. The number of years totaled about three life sentences between the group as I recall.

There are always these factors that contribute to the situation but are not always clear in the press. The third time Courtney Love was arrested was when she hit another woman at Barbers home with a bottle.

Did Courtney call Barber before she visited? Did she have a key and it was accepted that she could just drop by unannounced? when she wanted to? Or did they have an agreement that would she visit often and it was ok with him to visit unannounced? Did he use the inside lock on the door?

No matter the answer to these questions if he was present it seems that Barber could have easily have prevented that confrontation before it ever got to the level of violence.

At your home you are partly responsible for what happens. Did he think that he could allow 'duels' to occur on his property and just sit back to watch while two women go at each other with out being thought criminally negligent for allowing it to happen in his house?

****There is a large foundation of cases finding law enforcement partially or fully responsible for the actions of an intoxicated when they were released while still intoxicated going back in the America's to before 1670 and maybe as far as 1619 (and before that in England).

In Thomas Jefferson's day when people made their own whiskey some horses became addicted to sour mash. They could smell it over a mile away. They would break into to peoples sour mash bins and get drunk. Those horses would tear through any fence or wood wall to get to the mash.

The real problem was the nature of a horses stomach is such that a horse could get drunk, then sober and then drunk again up to four times.

One case I can recall involved the arrest of a drunk horse who had broken in to a bin and gotten smashed. After the horse sobered up the town Marshal tied the horse between his office and the dry goods shop next door. The owner of the horse came in and paid the fine. Then as he started to get on his horse it fell right through the window of the dry goods shop. That horse broke a lot of porcelain which the Marshall had to pay for. It was about two months pay if I recall correctly and when he asked the town council to reimburse him I think they just laughed him out of the room. He was so good that another city fired their marshall and hired him at about twice the pay. I think that officer ended up going back and forth several times and made a lot more money than he lost due to that horse..

Previous Page

© 2004-10 John Pinil