Tuesday, December 15, 2015


William Fleener

Saturday, April 11, 2015

from: William Fleener

Hi! How are you?
Have you seen this http://microgamingwiki.com/write.php ? It was shown on the Oprah's show! 
Best wishes, 
William Fleener

Monday, March 9, 2015

From: William Fleener

Hi! How are you? 

Have you seen this http://www.colorxpresstc.com/young.php before? 
Oprah had been using it for over a year! 

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

William Fleener



CNN says this is one of the best http://gaer.com.mx/law.php

William Fleener



Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Tom Tomorrow Post Election Recap

This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow

Andrew Shirvell Loses Job as Assistant Attorney General

I wrote about this idiot a few days ago.  Here is the update.

Andrew Shirvell has been fired from his job as a Michigan assistant state attorney general, his attorney said this afternoon.
Shirvell was fired for using state resources for his campaign against University of Michigan student body President Chris Armstrong and for lying to investigators during his disciplinary hearing, Attorney General Mike Cox said in a statement.
Shirvell was called before the attorney general’s staff at 1:30 p.m. today, said Philip Thomas, Shirvell’s attorney.
“The only reason they gave was the fact that they felt his actions had made it impossible for him to continue in his role,” Thomas said.
Shirvell has been under fire for weeks for comments he made about Armstrong, who is openly gay. Shirvell has shown up at public events to condemn Armstrong’s “radical homosexual agenda.”
In a written statement, Cox said Shirvell was fired for "conduct unbecoming a state employee, especially that of an assistant attorney general."
"To be clear, I refuse to fire anyone for exercising their First Amendment rights, regardless of how popular or unpopular their positions might be," Cox said in the statement. "However, Mr. Shirvell repeatedly violated office policies, engaged in borderline stalking behavior, and inappropriately used state resources, our investigation showed.

Cox's investigation into Shirvell showed he:
  • Showed up at Armstrong's home three separate times, including once at 1:30 a.m. "That incident is especially telling because it clearly was about harassing Mr. Armstrong, not engaging in free speech," the statement said.
  • "Engaged in behavior that, while not perhaps sufficient to charge criminal stalking, was harassing, uninvited and showed a pattern that was in the everyday sense, stalking."
  • Harassed Armstrong's friends as they were socializing in Ann Arbor.
  • Called Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office, Armstrong's employer, in an attempt to "slander Armstrong and ultimately attempting to cause Pelosi to fire Armstrong.
  • Attempted to "out" Armstrong's friends as homosexual — several of whom aren't gay.
The investigation found Shirvell engaged in his campaign on company time, Cox said. Shirvell called Pelosi's office while at work, during working hours, and sometimes posted online attacks about Armstrong while at work, the statement said.
In addition, Cox's statement said, Shirvell lied to investigating assistant attorneys general on several occasions during his disciplinary hearing.
"The cumulative effects of his use of state resources, harassing conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment, and his lies during the disciplinary conference all demonstrate adequate evidence of conduct unbecoming a state employee," the statement said. "Ultimately, Mr. Shirvell's conduct has brought his termination from state service."
Shirvell met for four hours on Friday with a panel made up of officials from the Attorney General’s Office. Shirvell has claimed his actions were both protected by Constitutional rights of free speech and were conducted away from his work on off-hours.
“I think it’s most unfortunate,” Thomas said. “This whole thing has a political aroma to me. I think my client is a victim of the liberal media piling on. In the first stories about this, (Attorney General Mike Cox) was quoted as saying that my client was doing this on his own time. What’s changed since then?”
The panel that conducted the hearing gave a summary to Cox, who decided to fire Shirvell, Cox’s spokesman, John Sellek, said in an e-mail.
"I think it's great that he was finally fired," said U-M third-year student Martell Lyons. "He really was abusing his position and I think he was stalking (Armstrong). I wish this would have happened sooner."
After Friday’s hearing, Thomas said he and Shirvell were expecting to come back before the panel on Tuesday or Wednesday. However, Thomas said he had a message on his office’s answering machine on Saturday, moving the time of the hearing up to today.
“I’m not sure what happened between Friday afternoon and Saturday,” Thomas said, adding he'll be consulting with his client on the next steps.
Shirvell has successfully appealed a University of Michigan order that barred him from any U-M owned property. The U-M Department of Public Safety modified the order last week.
But Shirvell stills faces complaints before the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. Armstrong and his attorney, Deborah Gordon, have asked the commission to disbar Shirvell.
Gordon issued a statement today praising the firing. She also said she and Armstrong are pushing forward with their request to have Shirvell disbarred on the basis that he is not fit to be licensed to practice law, and said they continue to consider additional legal options.
"This clearly is the correct decision by the Attorney General's Office," Gordon said in her statement. "The next step must be a complete retraction of all the malicious lies and fabrications by Mr. Shirvell, and a public apology to Chris Armstrong, his family and the others Mr. Shirvell has slandered.
"It is past time for Shirvell to realize that there are consequences for his reckless, outrageous statements and actions and that he is solely responsible for those consequences."
David Jesse covers higher education for AnnnArbor.com. He can be reached atdavidjesse@annarbor.com or at 734-623-2534.

Another case for banning the death penalty

A few days ago, Anthony Graves called his mother and asked what she was cooking for dinner. She asked why he wanted to know. He said, "Because I'm coming home."

Maybe it sounds like an unremarkable exchange. But Anthony Graves had spent 18 years behind bars, 12 of them on death row, for the 1992 murder of an entire family, including four young children, in the Texas town of Somerville. It wasn't until that day, Oct. 27, that the district attorney's office finally accepted what he'd been saying for almost two decades: He is innocent.
So the news that Graves would be home for dinner was the very antithesis of unremarkable. His mother, he told a news conference the next day, couldn't believe it. "I couldn't believe I was saying it," he added.
Graves' release came after his story appeared in Texas Monthly magazine. The article by Pamela Colloff detailed how he was convicted even though no physical evidence tied him to the crime, even though he had no motive to kill six strangers, even though three witnesses testified he was home at the time of the slaughter.
The case against Graves rested entirely on jailhouse denizens who claimed they'd heard him confess and on Robert Carter, who admitted committing the crime, but initially blamed Graves. Carter, executed in 2000, recanted that claim repeatedly, most notably to District Attorney Charles Sebesta the day before Sebesta put him on the stand to testify against Graves. Defense attorneys say Sebesta never shared that exculpatory tidbit with them, even though he was required to do so.
Colloff's story drew outraged media attention, including from yours truly. But the attention that mattered was that of the current DA, Bill Parham, who undertook his own investigation. He was unequivocal in explaining his decision to drop the charges. "There's not a single thing that says Anthony Graves was involved in this case," he said. "There is nothing."
One hopes people who love the death penalty are taking note. So often, their arguments in favor of that barbarous frontier relic seem to take place in some alternate universe where cops never fabricate evidence and judges never make mistakes, where lawyers are never inept and witnesses never commit perjury. So often, they behave as if in this one critical endeavor, unlike in every other endeavor they undertake, human beings somehow get it right every time.
I would not have convicted Anthony Graves of a traffic violation on the sort of evidence Sebesta offered. Yet somehow, a jury in Texas convicted him of murder and sent him off to die.
When you pin them on it, people who love the death penalty often retreat into sophistic nonsense. Don't end the death penalty, someone once told me, just enact safeguards to ensure the innocent are never sentenced to die.
Yeah, right. Show me the safeguard that guarantees perfection.
Those who propose to tinker with the death penalty until it is foolproof remind me of the addict attempting to negotiate with his addiction, desperately proffering minor concessions that will allow him to continue indulging in this thing that is killing him.
But there comes a day when you simply have to kick the habit.
As a nation, we are stubbornly addicted to the death penalty, strung out on exacting retribution and calling it justice. Even though we know innocent men and women have surely died as a result.
Or, like Anthony Graves, been robbed of irreplaceable years. He was 26 when he was arrested. He is 45 now. When he made that call home to his mother, he borrowed his lawyer's cell phone.
The lawyer had to show him how to use it.
LEONARD PITTS JR. is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132. Write to him at lpitts@miamiherald.com .

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Student Loans are a pain but this pleading is probably over the top (Language Warning!!)

Ass Clown Petition

Letter from Bishop Jerry Lamb and the Standing Committee of The Diocese of San Joaquin to all Bishops and Standing Committees regarding the consent for Bishop-elect Dan Martins

The continuing Diocese of San Joaquin has many concerns about the proposed bishop of Springfield and rightly so in my opinion.

the Episcopal
Diocese of San Joaquin
The Central Third of California
The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, Bishop
The Rev. Canon Mark H. Hall, Canon to the Ordinary
October 16, 2010
Sent via E-mail and US Mail
Dear Bishops and Standing Committee Members,
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin joins me in sending you this
letter that outlines our grave concerns about the election of the Rev. Daniel Martins as
the Bishop Diocesan of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois. Our concern is not about the
electing process, but about the suitability of Daniel Martins to be ordained a bishop in
the Episcopal Church. We write to you now before the consent process is in full swing,
so you will know of our concerns and have a chance to review pertinent information
about Daniel Martins and his involvement in the attempted separation of the Episcopal
Diocese of San Joaquin from the Episcopal Church. We also request that you visit
Daniel Martins’ website (http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/) and review his comments
about the startup of the Continuing Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. All of the
material concerning Daniel Martins’ relationship to the Diocese of San Joaquin can be
found on our diocesan website (www.diosanjoaquin.org) under “Updates” on the right
sidebar or by direct link at http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/dioceseofspringfieldconsent.html .
Daniel Martins came to the Diocese of San Joaquin in 1994 when he was called to be
the rector of St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church in Stockton. He remained at St.
John’s until August 2007 when he accepted a call to St. Anne’s Episcopal Church in
Warsaw, Diocese of Northern Indiana. St. John’s is the oldest Episcopal Church in
Stockton (and was one of the leading parishes in the diocese.) Only months after
Martins left St. John’s, the parish chose to follow John-David Schofield in the attempt to
leave the Episcopal Church. It is our contention that Daniel Martins did not prepare this
congregation to remain in the Episcopal Church, but did just the opposite. St. John’s,
Stockton is one of the few incorporated parishes in the diocese, and we were forced to
file suit to recover this property for the Episcopal Church.
While residing in the Diocese of San Joaquin, Daniel Martins was very active in
diocesan affairs. He was elected a deputy to General Convention multiple times, the
last time in 2006. The Diocesan Council meeting minutes on April 8, 2006 report on a
discussion of the upcoming Diocesan Convention resolution regarding disassociation
from the Episcopal Church. In response to a question as to why deputies to General
Convention 2006 had questions about the timing of the resolution, the Rev James Snell
is referenced: “Read e-mail from Dan Martins. Endorse substance of proposal but
Diocesan Office: 1528 Oakdale road • Modesto • CA • 95355
Ph. 209-576-0104 • FAX 209-576-0114
October 16, 2010
Page 2
concerned that (1) language provocative, (2) timing is ill-advised (prior to GC 2006) -
diverts attention, (3) resolution will be spun by Bps adversaries, (4) robs GC deputations
of effectiveness and credibility at GC. If GC rejects Windsor Report, then it will be time
to act and Dan will lead the charge.” (See http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/CouncilMinutesApr2006)
In John-David Schofield’s address to convention in December 2006, when the first
reading of the proposed change to the Constitution was made, he made the following
statement, “Working independently of this Virginia meeting, three of our rural deans:
Frs. Dan Martins, Jim Snell, and Richard James came up with a substitute for the
original proposed changes to our diocesan constitution.” This substitute amendment
became the very amendment that the disaffiliating parties attempted to use as their
vehicle to leave the Church. (See http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/SchofieldAddr2006)
When former Bishop Schofield called for a vote in 2006 on this constitutional change
removing the accession clause (after rejecting the motion for a secret ballot) and called
for a vote by delegates standing in favor, reliable witnesses noted that Daniel Martins
voted in the affirmative.
The Standing Committee and I contend Daniel Martins was instrumental to the process
that led to first and second votes by the diocese to change the Constitutions and
Canons that resulted in the failed attempt to unilaterally leave the Episcopal Church.
Further excerpts from Diocesan documents are available at our diocesan website.
(See for example, email dated June17, 2007 from Martins to Standing Committee
http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/Email6172007 , Standing Committee minutes from June 2007
http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/SCMinutesJun2007 , and email from Dan Martins in December
2006 http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/Email12182006)
We also urge you to read excerpts from Daniel Martins’ blog entitled “Confessions of a
Carioca.” (See http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/DanMartinsBlogExcerpts ) The following are
examples from his blog.
3-5-2008: There's a new group of Non-Jurors in the process of formation even
as I write. They are former clergy and laity of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Their
principled stand places them between the "rock" of their former bishop, whom
they have loved and served loyally, but whom they cannot in good conscience
follow to the Province of the Southern Cone, and the "hard place" of the noncanonical
rump "remaining" Diocese of San Joaquin, which they cannot in good
conscience join because it represents the raw exercise of naked illicit power by
the Presiding Bishop, and because to do so would compromise their oath of
loyalty to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
7-13-2008: Now, aside from the ... what shall we say? ... ungenerous ... tone of
the missive, it raises some curious issues. It comes as no news that, for a
Diocesan Office: 1528 Oakdale road • Modesto • CA • 95355
Ph. 209-576-0104 • FAX 209-576-0114
October 16, 2010
Page 3
number of substantive technical reasons, I recognize neither the constitutional
foundation of the "Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin" nor the authority of Bishop
Jerry Lamb. By any rational reading of the Constitution & Canons of the
Episcopal Church, we're talking about a bogus diocese with a bogus bishop,
though they have some impressive-looking stationery. That they exist at all, and
are able to maintain the chimera of legitimacy is a result only of the raw exercise
of naked political power on the part of the Presiding Bishop. She is manifestly
guilty of presentable offenses but it will never happen because the political
calculus just isn't there.
Out of concern for the Episcopal Church, we urge you to review the information in this
letter, on our website (http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/dioceseofspringfieldconsent.html), and in
Daniel Martins’ own blog.
Upon reviewing the materials, we believe that it is clear that Daniel Martins not only
actively supported and voted to attempt to remove the Diocese from the Episcopal
Church. Furthermore, it is implicit in his writings and actions that he clearly holds the
belief that a Diocese may leave this Church unilaterally, which is contrary to our
understanding of Anglicanism and the polity of the Episcopal Church.
In closing, the consent process, as mandated by our canons, is the only way the wider
Church can respond to the election of a person to be a bishop. Accordingly, we would
ask you to join us in withholding consent for Daniel Martins to become the Bishop of
+Jerry A. Lamb
Bishop of San Joaquin
Members of the Standing Committee
of the Diocese of San Joaquin