Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

A lucky shot to the temple,

Right.

Only if a well-placed shot to a man's temple to kill him instantly to keep him from negotiating with any more with TAY-RISTS can still be considered lucky!

As a former soldier, I always thought that shots into the "bull's-eye" were skillful, rather than lucky, since we were being taught skill, and not reliance on luck!

But these are now new times, I understand, and we are operating on BUSH RULES now, and so, who can really say what words do now apply, although from the e-mails back to America accompanying the pictures from the scene of the dead Italian guy seem to make it pretty clear that the soldiers involved still consider it to be a skillful and expert shot, and not just luck, as some detractors would want us to believe:

"Oh, you're full of crap, that was just a lucky shot, bet you couldn't do it again!"

"Oh, yeah!"

"Get another Italian out there in a car, and let's just see if I can't make it two for two!"

"Oh, you were just lucky!"

"Want to bet?"

[jeffmoskin]

Only if a well-placed shot to a man's temple to kill him instantly to keep him from negotiating with any more with TAY-RISTS can still be considered lucky!

As a former soldier, I always thought that shots into the "bull's-eye" were skillful, rather than lucky, since we were being taught skill, and not reliance on luck!

But these are now new times, I understand, and we are operating on BUSH RULES now, and so, who can really say what words do now apply, although from the e-mails back to America accompanying the pictures from the scene of the dead Italian guy seem to make it pretty clear that the soldiers involved still consider it to be a skillful and expert shot, and not just luck, as some detractors would want us to believe:

"Oh, you're full of crap, that was just a lucky shot, bet you couldn't do it again!"

"Oh, yeah!"

"Get another Italian out there in a car, and let's just see if I can't make it two for two!"

"Oh, you were just lucky!"

"Want to bet?"

The more skill you possess, the luckier you are.

I wouldn't want to ride shotgun in a second car, and neither would you.

To the temple. Wow. We used to call that kind of shot a "pinwheel."

[Livyjr]

The more skill you possess, the luckier you are.

HHHhhhmmm!

What a very interesting perspective, jeffmoskin!

Interesting indeed, your juxtaposition of skill and luck, in that way, and yes, I can see how it would be so!

And the temple shot is probably the one shot that is absolutely guaranteed to take your man right on out of the picture, foreveraftermore!

And it sure did work on poor old Calipari!

No more negotiating with TAY-RISTS for that boy, at least not with that head George's "BOYS" left him with, and that is for sure, or at least, that is the chatter as I hear it up here, and who ever does really know!

And what are them Italians going to do about it anyway, I hear the boys saying, stop sending us pizzas?

And they do have a point, when you think on it: what can they do?

[jeffmoskin]

And they do have a point, when you think on it: what can they do?

Make us an offer we can't refuse.

[Livyjr]

And while we are on the subject of "war" right now, here is some of what it is costing us right now, here in OUR America, and from the looks of it, if it is not related to "war", it looks like we just cannot afford any of it, well, because we need all of OUR reosurces to go into the pockets of those who make money off of "war", and then put some of that money back into the pockets of OUR politicians, in the form of "contributions", to keep those politicians putting more of OUR money back into the pockets of those who make money off of "war":

"House, Senate Agree on War Spending Bill"

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Wed May 4, 2:54 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The death benefit to survivors of troops killed in combat zones would jump nearly tenfold — from $12,000 to $100,000 — under an $82 billion spending package for Iraq and Afghanistan that is headed for final votes in the House and Senate.

President Bush gets most of what he asked for in final legislation that House and Senate negotiators agreed on Tuesday.

The measure reflects a desire by lawmakers to give the Pentagon what it needs while holding the line on State Department spending.

The House is to vote on the measure Thursday.

The Senate is expected to take up the measure next week when it returns from a weeklong recess.

Overall, the legislation is the fifth such emergency spending package Congress has taken up since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It pushes the costs of the two conflicts and other efforts to fight terrorism worldwide over four years beyond $300 billion.

Congress had promised to pay only for urgent items in the spending package, but the final legislation ended up with the same overall price tag as the president's proposal.

Most of the money — $75.9 billion — is slated for military operations, nearly $1 billion more than what the president wanted.

About $4.2 billion will be spent on foreign aid and other international relations programs, roughly $1.5 billion below Bush's proposal.

The legislation also includes immigration provisions, including one that would make states verify that driver's license applicants are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants.

Since the president asked for the money for Afghanistan and Iraq in February, the House and Senate had differed slightly over what portion of the spending package should go to military operations and how much should go to foreign aid.

In the end, lawmakers added more money to protect troops at war, including funding to put more armor on vehicles used in combat zones.

Congress also included the death-benefits provisions but restricted the one-time payment to survivors of those who die in combat zones.

Some lawmakers had wanted families of all troops who are killed — no matter where they died — to be eligible.

The increase would apply retroactively to families of troops killed in combat zones, as defined by the U.S. statute and including in Iraq and Afghanistan, beginning on Oct. 7, 2001, when U.S. military operations commenced in Afghanistan.

The measure also increases life insurance benefits for all troops to $400,000 from $250,000 and creates a new insurance benefit of up to $100,000 for those who have suffered traumatic injuries such as losing a limb or eyesight.

The bill also includes a provision meant to protect the C-130J cargo plane from being scaled back by the Pentagon and language that would prohibit the Pentagon from reducing its fleet of 12 aircraft carriers until it does a long-term review of defense needs.

On the foreign affairs side, Congress sliced several of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's requests.

The measure provides $230 million for funds controlled by Rice for U.S. allies in the war on terror for economic and military aid.

She had requested $400 million.

The State Department also gets $592 million to build a sprawling embassy in Baghdad, although that too is about $70 million below Rice's request.

The State Department also will get $680 million for international peacekeeping efforts in countries including Sudan and Haiti and $1.7 billion for anti-drug efforts and development projects in Afghanistan.

The bill also provides:

_ $200 million in economic and infrastructure assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

_ $635 million for increased U.S. border security, including money to hire another 500 border patrol agents.

_ Roughly $900 million for tsunami disaster relief.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defense.gov

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

[Livyjr]

And while we are on the subject of "war" right now, here is some of what it is costing us right now, here in OUR America, and from the looks of it, if it is not related to "war", it looks like we just cannot afford any of it, well, because we need all of OUR reosurces to go into the pockets of those who make money off of "war", and then put some of that money back into the pockets of OUR politicians, in the form of "contributions", to keep those politicians putting more of OUR money back into the pockets of those who make money off of "war":

"House, Senate Agree on War Spending Bill"

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Wed May 4, 2:54 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The death benefit to survivors of troops killed in combat zones would jump nearly tenfold — from $12,000 to $100,000 — under an $82 billion spending package for Iraq and Afghanistan that is headed for final votes in the House and Senate.

President Bush gets most of what he asked for in final legislation that House and Senate negotiators agreed on Tuesday.

The measure reflects a desire by lawmakers to give the Pentagon what it needs while holding the line on State Department spending.

The State Department also gets $592 million to build a sprawling embassy in Baghdad, although that too is about $70 million below Rice's request.

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defense.gov

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

The State Department also gets $592 million to build a sprawling embassy in Baghdad, although that too is about $70 million below Rice's request.

Despite what whitewash CONGRESS is putting on this, they'll just build this SPRAWLING PALACE in Baghdad as they originally were going to do, and we'll be handed a bunch of cost over-runs, to have to pay for, as is usually the case with government building projects, like the New York State Capital, and that "BIG DIG", over there in Boston, as examples!

SO?

How much is this sprawling PALACE COMPLEX in Iraq really going to end up costing us American taxpayers?

Stay tuned!

[Livyjr]

"House, Senate Agree on War Spending Bill"

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Wed May 4, 2:54 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The death benefit to survivors of troops killed in combat zones would jump nearly tenfold — from $12,000 to $100,000 — under an $82 billion spending package for Iraq and Afghanistan that is headed for final votes in the House and Senate.

President Bush gets most of what he asked for in final legislation that House and Senate negotiators agreed on Tuesday.

The measure reflects a desire by lawmakers to give the Pentagon what it needs while holding the line on State Department spending.

The House is to vote on the measure Thursday.

The Senate is expected to take up the measure next week when it returns from a weeklong recess.

Overall, the legislation is the fifth such emergency spending package Congress has taken up since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It pushes the costs of the two conflicts and other efforts to fight terrorism worldwide over four years beyond $300 billion.

Congress had promised to pay only for urgent items in the spending package, but the final legislation ended up with the same overall price tag as the president's proposal.

Most of the money — $75.9 billion — is slated for military operations, nearly $1 billion more than what the president wanted.

And while OUR CONGRESS is ramming all of this money of OURS into military operations around the world, what is the state of OUR military, anyway?

Let's look and see what the latest information on that subject has to tell us:

Terrorism & Security

"U.S. military report: Wars straining U.S. power - Future readiness may be hurt by events today, Myers says"

May 3: A U.S. military leader says after years of combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States is seriously limited in its ability to fight another major conflict.

NBC News and news services
Updated: 7:46 p.m. ET May 3, 2005

WASHINGTON - After years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military is seriously limited today in its ability to fight in other major conflicts.

That's the sobering assessment from the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, who told Congress on Tuesday that the United States would ultimately win another war, but it would take longer and put U.S. forces at greater risk, because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained resources.

Myers expressed confidence that American forces would ultimately prevail in any future conflict.

“The timelines may have to be extended, we may have to use additional resources, but it doesn’t matter, because we will be successful in the end,” he said.

Forces may not be as fast, precise

But in his annual Risk Assessment Report to Congress, Myers warns that the stressed U.S. military forces may be unable to meet expectations for speed and precision — in fighting and winning another conflict — and that “may result in higher casualties” for both U.S. military and civilians.

“The problem is that so much or our force is tied down that we don’t have enough to do other wars right away,” said Loren B. Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a think tank based in Arlington, Va.

One defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Myers predicted the risk would go down in a year or two.

The military’s reorganization toward Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s vision of a lean, agile force should reduce any increased risks it faces, he said.

Dealing with what's left of ‘axis’

Among the most likely conflicts the Pentagon foresees in the near term are with North Korea and Iran, the two remaining members of President Bush’s “axis of evil.”

The Bush administration accuses both of having ambitions to become nuclear powers; North Korea has already claimed it has nuclear weapons.

The U.S. military has timelines for defeating its potential adversaries, given enough soldiers, tanks, aircraft and warships to do the job.

But with so many of those resources tied up fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, those timelines could slip, Myers said, according to the defense official.

That increases the risk for conflict in places like North Korea and Iran, if either country believes the United States is in no position to rapidly respond militarily.

Myers' report comes as a nine-member commission held its first meeting Tuesday to discuss the next round of U.S. military base closings.

The Defense Department will release a list of facilities on the chopping block next week.

Ex-general's dire view

Barry McCaffrey, a retired U.S. Army general and an MSNBC analyst, was more dire in his assessment of the nation's military.

“Our ground combat power, the Army and the Marine Corps, are at their limit," he said Tuesday.

"We cannot sustain another operation."

Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, agreed.

“We can respond, but the response is gonna be conditional and this complicates our diplomacy and national security,” he said.

About 138,000 American troops are in Iraq, according to U.S. Central Command.

Another 18,000 are in Afghanistan.

Military officials have given no estimate of when they will be able to significantly draw down the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, but some generals have suggested it could come next year if Iraqi security forces continue to improve in quality and grow in numbers.

NBC News' Jim Miklazsewski and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

And while OUR CONGRESS is ramming all of this money of OURS into military operations around the world, what is the state of OUR military, anyway?

Let's look and see what the latest information on that subject has to tell us:

Terrorism & Security

"U.S. military report: Wars straining U.S. power - Future readiness may be hurt by events today, Myers says"

May 3: A U.S. military leader says after years of combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States is seriously limited in its ability to fight another major conflict.

NBC News and news services
Updated: 7:46 p.m. ET May 3, 2005

WASHINGTON - After years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military is seriously limited today in its ability to fight in other major conflicts.

Ex-general's dire view

Barry McCaffrey, a retired U.S. Army general and an MSNBC analyst, was more dire in his assessment of the nation's military.

“Our ground combat power, the Army and the Marine Corps, are at their limit," he said Tuesday.

"We cannot sustain another operation."

Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, agreed.

“We can respond, but the response is gonna be conditional and this complicates our diplomacy and national security,” he said.

Before George W. Bush was ever elected president of America, back in 1999, my thought was that with him in the White House, we would be tossing this nation's future right in the dumper!

Four years later, in 2004, before he was re-elected, by God alone knows who, I began posting articles from the main-stream media that to me documented the decline in this nation in just four short years under George W. Bush, and now, here we are, facing four more years, and this article above is just one more example of the SOARING DECLINE in America that has come about from having an incompetent as the leader of a once-great nation, sort of like putting Nero or Caligula on the throne of Rome, after the likes of Augustus.

SO!

WE ARE NOT SAFE IN AMERICA, and that is as a direct result of incompetent leadership in OUR America, and I just want the record to be clear THAT I NEVER VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSh, nor did I ever think he had the brains to come in out of the rain, let alone lead a nation such as OURS used to be, and so, those of you out there looking for scapegoats, DON'T LOOK TO ME!

George W. Bush is NOT my president!

Right now, I am disenfranchised, and so, do not have one.

Unfortunately for America, it does!

[jeffmoskin]

Before George W. Bush was ever elected president of America, back in 1999, my thought was that with him in the White House, we would be tossing this nation's future right in the dumper!

Four years later, in 2004, before he was re-elected, by God alone knows who, I began posting articles from the main-stream media that to me documented the decline in this nation in just four short years under George W. Bush, and now, here we are, facing four more years, and this article above is just one more example of the SOARING DECLINE in America that has come about from having an incompetent as the leader of a once-great nation, sort of like putting Nero or Caligula on the throne of Rome, after the likes of Augustus.

SO!

WE ARE NOT SAFE IN AMERICA, and that is as a direct result of incompetent leadership in OUR America, and I just want the record to be clear THAT I NEVER VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSh, nor did I ever think he had the brains to come in out of the rain, let alone lead a nation such as OURS used to be, and so, those of you out there looking for scapegoats, DON'T LOOK TO ME!

George W. Bush is NOT my president!

Right now, I am disenfranchised, and so, do not have one.

Unfortunately for America, it does!

Unfortunately (for all of us) he IS our president. By court appointment in 2000, by skulduggery in 2004.

I don't believe he was EVER elected - - he stole Florida in 2000, and he stole Ohio in 2004 (plus millions of votes in Bush States for his "Mandate").

Still, we are left to pick up the pieces. We cannot impeach him (Repub House and Senate).

The best we could hope for is to get a Dem House and Senate ASAP in 2006.

This post has been edited by jeffmoskin: May 4 2005, 02:39 PM

[Abu Beacon]

The State Department also gets $592 million to build a sprawling embassy in Baghdad, although that too is about $70 million below Rice's request.

Despite what whitewash CONGRESS is putting on this, they'll just build this SPRAWLING PALACE in Baghdad

If anyone who reads this and is not brain dead, can still believe that we are going to leave Iraq in the near or distant future, all I can say is " You have a much more trusting attitude toward the people that are deliberately and steadily tearing down the country that we used to know, than I do. "

$592 million for an embassy. In a country like Iraq.

How much did the Empire State bldg. cost to build? Even in todays dollars?

And more important - Why do we need such a magnificent and costly structure in
one Arab country?

Who are we trying to impress. Why?

Didn't I hear El Jerko saying we have to economize and bring down the deficit?

jeffmoskin called it right long ago.

OIL.

A.B.

[Abu Beacon]

$592 million for an embassy. In a country like Iraq.

How much did the Empire State bldg. cost to build? Even in todays dollars?

And more important - Why do we need such a magnificent and costly structure in
one Arab country?

Didn't I hear El Jerko saying we have to economize and bring down the deficit?

A.B.

And by the way - this is not play money.

It's not George Bush's money.

It's not money nice, rich, patriotic companies like Halliburton donate to the Gov't.

It's your money and mine.

Aren't we at all upset by this?

A.B.

[Livyjr]

And by the way - this is not play money.

It's not George Bush's money.

It's not money nice, rich, patriotic companies like Halliburton donate to the Gov't.

It's your money and mine.

Aren't we at all upset by this?

A.B.

And no, it is not play money, Mr. A.B. and yet they play with it, as if that were all it was, and we represented a never-ending source of it, our labors, as though we were merely beasts of burden, or geese who laid golden eggs.

And somehow, Mr. A.B., I think the emotional overload caused by caring these days is driving people right into a kind of state of walking catatonia, a kind of zombie-ism of where they are beyond getting upset, because their emotional systems just cannot handle the further load!

A similar thing happens when you cause environmental stress in rats by jamming too many of them into a maze!

[Livyjr]

Date: September 27, 1994

Certified Transcript of Examination of county executive "little Johnny Biggg", by order of Federal District Court for Northern District of New York

LIVYJR: Now, on October 13, 1988, do you recall being interviewed by Chris Kapostacy for the Capital Region Report that was subsequently broadcast over Channel 13 television?

LITTLE JOHNNY BIGGG: I remember being interviewed by a number of people.

I have a vague recollection of being interviewed by Chris Kapostacy.

LIVYJR: Do you remember telling Ms. Kapostacy that there was a number of developers who were developing a large pool of money to use to run against you?

LITTLE JOHNNY BIGGG: I don't remember saying that to Ms. Kapostacy, no.

FANCY LAWYER FOR BIGGG: NOTE MY OBJECTION to the record to this procedure.

I don't know what we're going to do here!

Presumably, we're listening to some type of tape that's not been identified.

SO!

Just note my objection for the record.

LIVYJR: This is an excerpt from a tape recording of a Channel 13 news broadcast, and we'll provide you with a copy of the tape.

FANCY LAWYER FOR BIGGG: I just placed my objection on the record as there being no proper foundation for this.

Nor is it proper procedure at a deposition.

But go right ahead and do it!

(Whereupon a portion of the tape was played)

LIVYJR: Do you recognize the voice?

LITTLE JOHNNY BIGGG: I recognize the voice, yes!

Chris!

I don't know who the other guy was, though.

Yes!

I do!

Yes!

LIVYJR: And that is you?

FANCY LAWYER FOR BIGGG: Object to the form.

You can answer.

LITTLE JOHHNY BIGGG: It was tough to hear, but it sounds like my melodic voice, yes!

LIVYJR: Do you remember telling Chris Kapostacy about developers who were getting a fund of money up to run against you?

FANCY LAWYER FOR BIGGG: Object to the form of the question.

I think it's already been asked and answered.

If your question is, does the tape recording refresh his recollection, I'll pemit him to answer that.

LIVYJR: Okay.

Having heard this excerpt of the tape recording, does that refresh your recollection with respect to whether you told Ms. Kapostacy that there were developers who were saving a large amount of money to run against you?

FANCY LAWYER FOR BIGGG: Object to the form.

You can answer.

LITTLE JOHNNY BIGGG: I remember -- well, that obviously refreshes my memory!

I didn't know I said it to her or not.

There was some general information like that from the developer's side.

And then there was the other side, which indicated they weren't too pleased with me, either.

LIVYJR: And what was the source of YOUR INFORMATION that the developers had a fund of $80,000 to run against you, or run somebody against you?

FANCY LAWYER FOR BIGGG: Note my objection to the form!

I don't know where that amount came from!

LITTLE JOHNNY BIGGG: I don't know that, either!

FANCY LAWYER FOR BIGGG: But you can answer the question, GENERALLY!

LITTLE JOHNNY BIGGG: To the best of my recollection, I think it came out of some of the public hearings and legislative hearings and just general rumor floating around.

I don't put much stock in that stuff!

LIVYJR: Did the fact that the developers were allegedly saving up a fund to run somebody against you have anything to do with YOUR DECISION to place Livyjr on leave of absence?

LITTLE JOHNNY BIGGG: OH, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Over in the JUDICIAL part of the forum, in a thread entitled "BUSH-Appointee deals right to dissent a death-blow in Northern District of New York", I am following the efforts of a small group of older American citizens in upstate-New York State, the Capital District area, to be exact, to have a CIVIL RIGHTS APPEAL heard in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, sometime later this year!

Last Thursday, the necessary Notice of Appeal to commence the appeal process in that matter was timely filed by these citizens with the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York within the thirty-day window for filing such notices, and when that Notice of Appeal was filed, that action by these citizens started a ten-day clock ticking, where these citizens then had ten days from the date of that filing to file a case management record with the Court, and that document was put in the mail today.

This necessary filing today keeps this citizen's CONSTITUTIONAL appeal appeal alive, and on track towards an eventual hearing in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which will be based on hard work, and the law, and THEIR continuing belief as Americans that it is OUR adherence to the law, and that alone, which separates us from brute animals!

What follows is the basis of THEIR case as it was filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals today!

For the sake of privacy, names of defendant parties, where private individuals, are given as their "street names"!

However, where the defendants are serving in a public capacity, and are alleged in the court papers to have used their public office in an improper fashion, and where these are public documents that I am citing from, the names of the public officials shall be read from the record as they appear:

Brief Description of Nature of Action, and Result Below:

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 42 USCS 1983 which has as its origins a physical and verbal assault on the PLAINTIFF herein, on videotape, by defendant "Chum-Chum" of Poestenkill, on August 7, 2001.

In that videotape, which is at the heart of the matter, herein, defendant "Chum-Chum" can clearly be seen in digital quality running towards PLAINTIFF on a public thoroughfare in the Town of Poestenkill, County of Rensselaer, State of New York, which is in the Northern District of New York, and assaulting him.

Afterwards, defendant "Chum-Chum", still on tape, can be heard to say "Looka him shake", meaning the PLAINTIFF, who he had just seriously injured, and then, defendant "Chum-Chum" is heard to call PLAINTIFF, a 55-year old disabled veteran, a "f***ing retard"!

Defendant "Chum-Chum" taunts the PLAINTIFF in that videotape:

"Who you going to show that videotape to?"

"Nobody cares!"

Defendant "Chum-Chum" further informed PLAINTIFF as defendant Pelletier assaulted him on August 7, 2001 that defendant Pelletier purposefully intended to seriously harm PLAINTIFF in his person and property to deny PLAINTIFF rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution and 18 USCS 1512(b) & 1513(b) of the laws of the United States, and that he could do so with impunity, in the Town of Poestenkill, County of Rensselaer, State of New York, because he was a protected person.

Thereafter, it is alleged that on or about the afternoon of August 17, 2001, defendant RENSSELAER COUNTY EXECUTIVE Kathleen Jimino called PLAINTIFF at his home in Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, and told PLAINTIFF that defendant "Chum-Chum's" interests would be protected by Rensselaer County if PLAINTIFF attempted to bring a legal action against "Chum-Chum" for alleged Public Health Law and Sanitary Code violations in the Town of Poestenkill involving alleged falsification of test data by licensed professionals in Rensselaer County.

It is then alleged that on August 21, 2001, when PLAINTIFF made it clear to defendant RENSSELAER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR Roy Champagne that PLAINTIFF was instituting a legal action against the Rensselaer County Department of Health for alleged negligence, that defendant Kathleen Jimino, cloaked in the authority of Rensselaer County Executive and acting under color of New York law, did conspire with defendant Joseph Cybulski, who was cloaked in the authority of Rensselaer County Director of Community Services, for the express purpose of having defendant Cybulski, under color of New York State Mental Hygiene Law 41.03(8), 41.05©, 41.07(a), 41.09 and 9.37(b), obtain for defendant Jimino from defendant Samaritan Hospital a fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 involuntary commitment order so that defendant Jimino could have PLAINTIFF involuntarily incarcerated as a mental patient to intentionally harm PLAINTIFF in his person and property for seeking equal protection of law in Rensselaer County and for petitioning for redress of grievance.

Thereafter, on August 22, 2001, despite never having been seen, or examined in any way by CORPORATE DEFENDANTS herein, specifically Dr. John Braaten, Carol Fiorino, Bernadette Hallam and Andrea Gallerie, PLAINTIFF was taken into custody at the Albany, New York VA Hospital and was held against his will, and therefore stripped of his liberty and dignity as a human being, based upon NOTHING MORE than a fraud, a New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 "psychiatric arrest order", signed by defendants John Christian Braaten and Carol Fiorino, falsely attesting therein that they had physically examined PLAINTIFF, and had thereby determined that he was a person suffering from a mental disease who was dangerous and needed immediate incarceration in a secure mental health facility run by defendant Northeast Health, Inc., in the City of Troy, New York.

Were it not for the efforts of an Albany, New York Police Officer, who demonstrated to federal VA officials holding PLAINTIFF that the 9.45 order was based on a fraud, and so secured PLAINTIFF's release, PLAINTIFF would have remained in forced captivity, like a deranged animal, based on nothing but outright false statements transmitted allegedly from the Rensselaer County Office Building to Northeast Health, for the issuance of the 9.45 order, and then back to the Rensselaer County Office Building for transmittal across jurisdictional boundaries from the County of Rensselaer, to the State of New York, and thus, to the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, and the VA POLICE in Albany, New York.

The affidavit containing that sworn record was ordered left off of the COMPLAINT by the Court below.

The Court Below then dismissed the Amended Complaint where these issues were framed with prejudice as being unintelligible.

A MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF to enjoin this practice was denied as moot by the Court below.

Issues Proposed to be Raised on Appeal:

* The twenty-page limit on the maximum length that a pro se Civil Rights Complaint can be in the Northern District of New York, which is extremely prejudicial to the rights of the pro se PLAINTIFF who is a disabled person in the Northern District of New York;

* The central issue, of the appeal, however, is the legality and Constitutionality of what transpired when PLAINTIFF walked into the Albany New York VA Hospital on the morning of 22 August 2001, and was immediately taken into custody on orders of the VA Police upon identifying himself to VA personnel in the hospital as a disabled veteran seeking sanctuary in the VA Hospital, for fear of his life if he were to return to Rensselaer County, and his home.

In the Court below, PLAINTIFF requested permission of the Court to challenge affirmative defenses of absolute or qualified immunity, and collateral estoppel and res judicata raised in their Answers by several non-moving defendants to include defendants Kathleen Jimino, Joseph Cybulski, Timothy Holt, Denise M. Ayers, NYSRPN 453486, Roy Champagne, Robert Reiter, and Kevin Joseph McGrath, NYSLS 049508, which request was granted by the Court on November 24, 2003.

In the Court below, the central issue to be argued in this appeal is as follows:

Where the Amended Complaint in the action 03-CV-0753, commenced by Summons and Amended Complaint on September 17, 2003 in the Northern District of New York, asserts a cognizable Federal claim of violation of plaintiff's rights pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States pursuant to this Court's holdings in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (N.D.N.Y. 2002), and alleges uncontroverted facts that support such claim, the Motions to Dismiss of defendants Northeast Health, Inc., Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, Adrian Anthony Morris, NYSMD 166342, John Christian Braaten, NYSMD 138415, Carol Fiorino, NYSRPN 230870, Bernadette Rotter Hallam, NYSRPN 331662, Andrea J. Gallerie, NYSRPN 444291, Carl Richard Aiken, NYSPE 067805, William Shea, Eugene Bechard and David Gebhardt to dismiss on the pleadings in the within action pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rules 9(b), 12(b)(6) and 12© must be denied in the sound exercise of this Court's discretion.

Where the Motions to Dismiss of various defendants rely upon matters outside of the pleadings, the motions are properly denominated as motions for summary judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P Rule 56, wherefore plaintiff herein is entitled to discovery prior to replying to such motions.

Where a more artfully drawn complaint might state the cognizable claims for relief as against defendants above in a more definitive manner, the Court should treat the Rule 9(b) and Rule 12 motions of defendants as motions for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) and thereby grant leave to amend, rather than order the Amended Complaint dismissed.

Finally, pursuant to this Court's holdings in Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 234 F.Supp.2d 140 (N.D.N.Y.2002), defendants are not entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity in this above matter.

end quotes

Personally, my heart goes out to these simple people, and their struggle as American citizens to see justice finally done in this matter, which has been a charade in OUR America, and a shame, for far too long a time now, and so, I must wish them God Speed, and best of luck, which as jeffmoskin notes, comes of having great skill, and may that be the case here!

Stay tuned, and see!

[Livyjr]

This morning, as is my habit when I wake up, I turned on the radio news to see what parts of the planet or solar system George W. Bush might have had vaporized while I was sleeping, to protect me, of course, the "vaporizing", I mean, because, of course, outside of wanting to take over every place on the face of the earth that has oil, the only real reason George W. Bush would destroy the native population of another country would be to "per-tect" us, but I'm digressing here ....

This morning, the talk on the radio news had to do with the elections in England, and what that "outcome" was likely to be, in terms of "TWO-GUN TEXAS TONY" Blair, the "GREAT APPEASOR" of OUR times, and the commentary that I heard was interesting, and it illustrates why a nation like America should not have seeming pathological liars as presidents or high officials, such as Secretary of State, or National Security Adviser, or Vice-President, or Secretary of Defense, and that is the "sky-is-falling; cry wolf" syndrome, that really never does go away, despite the wishes of the "spinners" out there to have it be so.

The talk on the radio is that "TWO-GUN TEXAS TONY", the Savile Row "cowboy" of London, England, is likely to win re-relection, but in a much weakened state, AS A RESULT OF DISTRUST in that nation towards him for his stance on Iraq, as the very visible APPEASOR and partner of George W. Bush in that enterprise to invade and take over another sovereign nation on the face of the earth to get control of its oil resources, at the expense of the lives of its citizens, especially women and children.

The upshot of this is that in the future, England is much more likely to be wary of any calls from the United States for aid and assistance in dealing with alleged "developing" situations in the world, BECAUSE OF ALL THE LIES surrounding this invasion and military take-over of Iraq.

SO!

OUR America grows weaker IN THE WORLD, by visible degrees, and all George W. Bush and his crowd can do now is continue to PROJECT an aura of ineptitude and weakness and outright thuggishness and stupidity all around the globe, for all the candid world to see, and TAKE NOTE OF, as well, while BURNING up BILLIONS of OUR tax dollars to make us even weaker, here at home:

"Hey, looka there, Billy, the GREAT BIG BULLY has a weak knee and he can't move to his left very well, so stay on that side of him, and then, let him have it real good, right there in that weak knee!"

Or as "GOD" is alleged to have said, one time: "Hey, Daniel, listen, that Goliath fellow is going to be damn big, and mean to boot, but take my advice and put that sling stone right between his little pig eyes, and then watch out, because he is coming down with a crash, because as big as he is, he has a real weak head, and that is where you want to hit him, and good!"

In my lifetime as an American, and as one of its many disabled veterans, I truly never thought that I would see this day when OUR America would be little more than this great big bloated BULLY crashing around out there like a witless idiot out there in the world, running amuck on the world stage, WITH ITS PANTS DOWN AROUND ITS ANKLES, and its fat *** hanging out there, for all the candid world to see, and laugh at!

Like the WMD's, for example!

Some "rocket scientist" or other sees some Iraqi in a satellite phote carrying an over-sized burrito to work for his lunch, and the next thing we know, out of that, Saddam Hussein has "NU-CLAR WEP-INS", and he is a threat to world peace and safety!

EXCEPT .....

It was just an over-sized burrito, and never was anything else, but, what the hey .....

The point was to get the oil, and in the meantime, POUR the entire contents of OUR national treasury right on down the pockets of George W. Bush's "SECURITY INDUSTRY" cronies, and so, yes, America, a few lies just were necessary to achieve those "ends", and that is that!

Look at George W. Bush, will you, out there scouring around in caves and nooks and crannies thousands of miles away from here to dig out these losers, and then parade them before all the candid world as "THE GREATEST ENEMIES" the world has ever known, and THEY are HIS enemies!

"THE WORLD's GREATEST MAN", of course, MUST HAVE "enemies" who have to be the "WORLD's GREATEST", or else this cheap "passion play" involving George W. Bush as "GOD's INDOMITABLE CHAMPION ON EARTH "that is being written and foisted off on the candid world as "history", would simply have no meaning!

And so, WE MUST BELIEVE!

YES, America, we must have faith that some guy captured in Pakistan, who looks like his real crime is sodomizing camels or other wild animals is REALLY THE DEVIL's OWN SECRET AGENT with the power to destroy the earth, before George W. Bush is able to do the same thing, and to me, this whole show is just getting to be down-right ridiculous, to be truthful!

SO?

A question:

TO BE A "GOOD" AMERICAN, circa, 2005, JUST EXACTLY HOW STUPID MUST ONE BE, RIGHT NOW TODAY, as compared to how stupid we had to be back on 9/11/2001?

My own guess is, "A WHOLE LOT MORE", but this is a democracy, and so, that is only one man's opinion on the matter!

SO?

What's yours?

[Livyjr]

This morning, as is my habit when I wake up, I turned on the radio news to see what parts of the planet or solar system George W. Bush might have had vaporized while I was sleeping, to protect me, of course, the "vaporizing", I mean, because, of course, outside of wanting to take over every place on the face of the earth that has oil, the only real reason George W. Bush would destroy the native population of another country would be to "per-tect" us, but I'm digressing here ....

This morning, the talk on the radio news had to do with the elections in England, and what that "outcome" was likely to be, in terms of "TWO-GUN TEXAS TONY" Blair, the "GREAT APPEASOR" of OUR times, and the commentary that I heard was interesting, and it illustrates why a nation like America should not have seeming pathological liars as presidents or high officials, such as Secretary of State, or National Security Adviser, or Vice-President, or Secretary of Defense, and that is the "sky-is-falling; cry wolf" syndrome, that really never does go away, despite the wishes of the "spinners" out there to have it be so.

The talk on the radio is that "TWO-GUN TEXAS TONY", the Savile Row "cowboy" of London, England, is likely to win re-relection, but in a much weakened state, AS A RESULT OF DISTRUST in that nation towards him for his stance on Iraq, as the very visible APPEASOR and partner of George W. Bush in that enterprise to invade and take over another sovereign nation on the face of the earth to get control of its oil resources, at the expense of the lives of its citizens, especially women and children.

The upshot of this is that in the future, England is much more likely to be wary of any calls from the United States for aid and assistance in dealing with alleged "developing" situations in the world, BECAUSE OF ALL THE LIES surrounding this invasion and military take-over of Iraq.

SO!

OUR America grows weaker IN THE WORLD, by visible degrees, and all George W. Bush and his crowd can do now is continue to PROJECT an aura of ineptitude and weakness and outright thuggishness and stupidity all around the globe, for all the candid world to see, and TAKE NOTE OF, as well, while BURNING up BILLIONS of OUR tax dollars to make us even weaker, here at home:

"Hey, looka there, Billy, the GREAT BIG BULLY has a weak knee and he can't move to his left very well, so stay on that side of him, and then, let him have it real good, right there in that weak knee!"

Or as "GOD" is alleged to have said, one time: "Hey, Daniel, listen, that Goliath fellow is going to be damn big, and mean to boot, but take my advice and put that sling stone right between his little pig eyes, and then watch out, because he is coming down with a crash, because as big as he is, he has a real weak head, and that is where you want to hit him, and good!"

"Britons Vote With War in Iraq on Minds"

By BETH GARDINER, Associated Press Writer

25 minutes ago

LONDON - Voters cast ballots in village halls, schools and even pubs across Britain Thursday in a national election that is expected to give Prime Minister Tony Blair a third term in office despite widespread anger over the Iraq war.

Although most observers believed Blair's Labour Party would win the election thanks to the strength of the economy, anti-war sentiment and doubts about Blair's trustworthiness could deny him the landslide victories he won in 1997 and 2001.

Few expected Blair's main rival, Conservative Party leader Michael Howard, to become prime minister, but the Tories could pare back the number of seats Labour holds in the House of Commons.

Blair's party had a huge 161-seat majority in the outgoing legislature; the new house will have 646 members.

If Labour's majority shrinks significantly, it could badly damage Blair, who would wield less power than in his first two terms and lose standing within his party.

"As far as the economy is concerned, we're doing fine."

"It's just the one big issue (the war)."

"I find it appalling that thousands of people are lying out there dead, it just sickens me," said Gary Davis, a taxi driver who voted Conservative in north London.

"Labour haven't lived up to expectations and I don't like the Tory attitude," said Sue Kenworthy, a housewife who cast her ballot in the village hall at Hatfield Broad Oak, a small rural community 40 miles north of London.

She voted for the Liberal Democrats, the second biggest opposition party.

Blair has said that if Labour wins he would serve a full third term but not run for a fourth.

Observers have speculated, however, that he could hand power to his Treasury Chief Gordon Brown midterm if he is badly weakened in the election.

The prime minister cast his own ballot with his wife Cherie and their two oldest children early Thursday in the village of Trimdon Colliery, which is part of the Sedgefield district that he represents in Parliament.

Blair, who turns 52 Friday, said "good morning" to waiting reporters but made no comment about the ballot.

Turnout could be crucial.

The last general election in 2001 saw a turnout of 59 percent — the lowest since troops returned in 1918 at the end of World War I.

This year's brief but hard-hitting campaign exposed the depth of Britons' anger at the prime minister, whose formidable political skills once charmed voters who saw him as a fresh face of change after 18 years of Tory government in the 1980s and '90s.

Blair's decision to commit the country to war in Iraq and his centrist stance on domestic issues — including plans to partly privatize some public services — have infuriated many within his own party.

But he has benefited from the Conservatives' even greater unpopularity and a perception that the opposition is less capable of handling the economy.

Howard headed a focused Tory campaign, pounding on just a few issues — tightening immigration, cutting taxes, cleaning up hospitals.

Although Howard supported the Iraq war, he attacked Blair, accusing the prime minister of lying about intelligence and the legality of the invasion and lacking a plan to win the peace.

"There was only one party that is prepared to take a firm line and to cap the number of immigrants," said Valerie Johnston, a Conservative supporter and retiree.

She voted in the 16th-century Flitch of Bacon pub in the village of Little Dunmow, north of London.

Police said there was no specific terrorist threat against the British election but said they would "have an appropriate policing plan in place which will include an increase in a high-visibility presence at key sites across the capital."

Two small makeshift grenades exploded outside the British Consulate in New York early Thursday, causing slight damage to the building but injuring no one, American officials said.

There were no provisions for Britons to vote at the consulate, the Foreign Office in London said.

[jeffmoskin]

YES, America, we must have faith that some guy captured in Pakistan, who looks like his real crime is sodomizing camels or other wild animals is REALLY THE DEVIL's OWN SECRET AGENT with the power to destroy the earth, before George W. Bush is able to do the same thing, and to me, this whole show is just getting to be down-right ridiculous, to be truthful!

SO?

A question:

TO BE A "GOOD" AMERICAN, circa, 2005, JUST EXACTLY HOW STUPID MUST ONE BE, RIGHT NOW TODAY, as compared to how stupid we had to be back on 9/11/2001?

My own guess is, "A WHOLE LOT MORE", but this is a democracy, and so, that is only one man's opinion on the matter!

SO?

What's yours?

I'd like to give you mine, but there's something breaking on the Michael Jackson trial and I don't wanna miss it.

Priorities.

You understand, of course.

[Livyjr]

I'd like to give you mine, but there's something breaking on the Michael Jackson trial and I don't wanna miss it.

Priorities.

You understand, of course.

Oh, God, jeffmoskin, but you can make me laugh, and that is a fact!

[Livyjr]

I heard on the radio news this morning that the United States (surprise, surprise) is prepared to issue a report that basically lays all the blame for this Italian guy, this Calipari, getting shot in Iraq, right on his shoulders!

It was the Italian guy's fault, as I said quite a few weeks ago, now, and no American is to blame for anything!

Hell, with a shot like that, right in the guy's temple, the shooter is a hero!

And what is this Berlusconi going to do about it?

My prediction is nothing at all!

If he is smart, like everyone else on this earth, he will just keep his mouth closed, right up tight!

Speaking out can be downright hazardous to your health, when George W. Bush is in town, or "CON JOB" Connie, for that matter, and make no mistake about it.

Right, Calipari?

"Berlusconi looks to ease Iraq tensions with U.S."

By Crispian Balmer

Thu May 5, 9:02 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi insisted on Thursday that U.S. soldiers were to blame for the death of an Italian agent in Iraq, but said the incident would not harm U.S. ties or speed an Italian withdrawal from Iraq.

Relations between Italy and the United States have come under strain following the March 4 killing of Nicola Calipari at a U.S. checkpoint, with Washington and Rome blaming each other.

In a somber address to parliament, Berlusconi looked to strike a delicate balance between defending national dignity and reassuring his ally that relations would remain strong.

"The friendship between Italy and the United States has overcome more difficult problems than this," said Berlusconi, who is one of President Bush's closest allies.

"We have no intention of establishing any link between the events surrounding the death of our agent and the role of our country in Iraq," he added, shrugging off calls from some parties for Italian troops to be pulled from Iraq in protest.

Italy and the United States held a joint inquiry into the killing of Calipari, who died as he was escorting an Italian hostage to freedom.

But they failed to draw joint conclusions and have issued conflicting reports over the past five days.

While the U.S. military exonerated its troops of any blame, Rome said nervous, inexperienced American soldiers and a badly executed road block were at the root of the shooting.

"The absence of criminal intent does not at all exclude responsibility because of negligence," Berlusconi said, making clear he did not believe Calipari was deliberately targeted.

ITALIAN INVESTIGATION

Washington's refusal to accept the blame has infuriated many Italians and put pressure on Berlusconi to speed up the withdrawal of some 3,000 troops from southern Iraq, which is provisionally slated to start in September.

But the prime minister repeated on Thursday that he would coordinate the eventual pullout.

"The withdrawal of our troops certainly won't be unilateral, but agreed with our allies."

The Communist and Green parties demanded in parliament an immediate end to the Iraq mission, while the largest opposition party, the Democrats of the Left (DS), demanded an apology.

"We believe that the government of the United States should say sorry," DS leader Piero Fassino said in a speech.

Although the military inquiry is closed, Italian magistrates are pursuing their own investigations and Berlusconi said the government would give its full support to their efforts.

"We remain committed to doing everything possible to uncover the truth behind what went on and the eventual responsibility for the tragic death of a heroic servant of the Republic," he said, flanked by senior cabinet ministers.

The Italian report accused U.S. troops of failing to set up "the most elementary precautions" to warn drivers of the approaching checkpoint, calling the planning and execution of the road block "careless to say the least."

The U.S. pinned much of the blame on the Italian driver, saying he had been driving too fast, and on a lack of communication from Italy over its secret hostage mission.

"The discrepancies over the causes and modality of this tragic accident proved to be irreconcilable ... and I am certainly not going to be the one to minimise the scale of the disagreement," Berlusconi said.

[Livyjr]

"White House Challenges DeLay Allegations Ahead of Probe"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House stepped up its defense of embattled Rep. Tom DeLay on Sunday, disputing the merit of ethics allegations against the House majority leader ahead of an expected congressional probe.

While White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said it was "a matter for the House to consider" whether DeLay violated any House rules, he added:

"We have no reason to believe that they (the rules) haven't been followed."

"We have not seen anything that would suggest that those allegations have any merit," Card told NBC's "Meet the Press," going beyond recent statements of support from President Bush.

Card made his comments after the Republican-led House of Representatives dropped new ethics rules opposed by Democrats, clearing the way for another anticipated probe of DeLay.

Admonished by the House ethics committee last year on three separate matters, DeLay, a Texas Republican, has faced new questions in the past several weeks on ties to lobbyists and foreign trips funded by outside groups.

"I don't know anyone who believes that there is necessarily merit to the allegations that have been put forward," Card said.

DeLay, who has denied any wrongdoing, said he would welcome the opportunity to put the matter before the committee and "set the record straight."

Most House Republicans have publicly supported DeLay, but at least two have suggested that he step aside as leader, at least until the ethics questions are resolved.

Bush showed support for DeLay last week by making a rare public appearance with him at a Social Security event in Texas.

They then flew back to Washington together aboard Air Force One.

"Poll: Most Want No Social Security Cuts"

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Most people say they are not willing to give up some of their Social Security benefits to save the poor from having their payments cut.

About 70 percent of people surveyed do believe President Bush's warning that Social Security is running out of money.

But most also say they do not like the way the president is handling the issue, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

"I'm very concerned that Social Security will run out of money," said Cindy Smith, a 47-year-old Republican from Las Vegas who had reservations about giving up her benefits to protect the poor.

"I would have to have more information about who those worthy lower income people are."

"We're all here to help one another, but I'd need more information," she said.

Many people are resistant to Bush's proposal to have future retirees who are in the middle- and higher-income classes accept smaller benefit checks than they are now set to receive, in order to protect the benefits of the poorest Americans.

The president argues that younger workers in particular can offset the loss with proceeds from the private investment accounts he wants to establish.

Bush has said the current program will not change for workers age 55 and older

The poll, conducted for The Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs, found that 56 percent of respondents are not willing to give up some guaranteed benefits, while 40 percent said they would.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents were opposed to losing any benefits.

"If I was guaranteed that the poor would get what they're supposed to, that would be fine, but I'm not sure they would," said Margaret Normandin, an 80-year-old Democrat from Laconia, N.H.

A majority of those making $75,000 or more said they would be willing to forfeit some benefits.

Younger adults were more likely than older adults to favor an approach giving up some benefits while protecting the poor.

"That would be all right," said Rich Culbert, a 31-year-old engineer who lives near Rochester, N.Y.

"But that's just me not expecting Social Security to be there."

There generally is little public support for giving up benefits or paying higher taxes as a way to address Social Security's financial problems.

"We all want to fix the problem, but we don't want to pay much for it," said Charles Franklin, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who closely follows public opinion.

"We want the wealthy to pay for it."

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, said persuading the middle class to give up benefits is a hard sell.

"The middle class feels like it's barely holding on," she said.

"And Social Security is perceived to be the original middle-class support program."

One of the only proposals that gets support in polls is raising the $90,000 limit on earnings that can be taxed for Social Security.

Bush has suggested he might consider this step, which is opposed by many conservatives, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Republican pollster Whit Ayres, who has done extensive survey work on Social Security, said raising the cap would hurt small-business owners.

When asked whom they trust more to handle Social Security, 48 percent of respondents said Democrats and 36 percent said Republicans.

The president still faces strong opposition to his approach to Social Security, with 60 percent of those surveyed saying they disapprove.

Even some who back his approach express doubts.

"I approve — except that he's not getting anywhere," said John Rose, a Democratic-leaning retiree from Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

"He should be doing a better job of selling it."

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults was taken May 2-4.

It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
___

On the Net:

Ipsos-Public Affairs: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com

[jeffmoskin]

I heard on the radio news this morning that the United States (surprise, surprise) is prepared to issue a report that basically lays all the blame for this Italian guy, this Calipari, getting shot in Iraq, right on his shoulders!

It was the Italian guy's fault, as I said quite a few weeks ago, now, and no American is to blame for anything!

Hell, with a shot like that, right in the guy's temple, the shooter is a hero!

When I was a kid, my mom told me that if I stuck my face where it didn't belong, there would be hell to pay.

So, you might say Calipari stuck his temple where it didn't belong.

In the cross-hairs.

This post has been edited by jeffmoskin: May 5 2005, 05:25 PM