Anon E. Mous’s Techdirt Profile


About Anon E. Mous

Anon E. Mous’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 21st, 2016 @ 2:47pm

    (untitled comment)

    Most people know that suing your critics rarely achieves it's goal which is to silence them and that is exactly what Steele & Hansmeier attempted to do in this case as well as find out who the critics were.

    Steele & Hansmeier attempt here was to use big scary numbers in a lawsuit as a threat and as a means to find out who their critics were much like they did with their ISP subscribers IP addresses in comment blogs at DieTrollDie & FightCopyrightTrolls.

    As much as Steele loved to profess how the sites like DTD & FCT were a waste of time and were no skin off his back, this very lawsuit proved otherwise as even Steele himself posted on FCT to throw in some snarky remarks.

    FCT & DTD were very very effective at making life hell for Steele and Hansmeier and getting information out to the public on Prenda's trolling activities so ISP subscribers knew what they were dealing with if sued by Prenda.

    While Hansmeier and Steele were forced out of the porn trolling game, they are still trolling for cash with the Americans With Disabilities Act. That easy settlement cash is hard to walk away from and fairly addictive, so much so that even with Hansmeier's law license suspended, Hans wife is now the fact of ADA trolling lawsuits in Minnesota.

    Steele is in Illinois, how much trolling he is doing is unknown ( maybe he was waiting to see what happened with Hans law License and his bankruptcy first ). Steele though has not filed for Bankruptcy and the Illinois bar has filed it's complaint against Steele but it has not been adjudicated yet.

    What ought to be interesting is what Steele does to avoid all those costs he has been hit with for the various judgments and sanction orders against him?

    Hansmeier thought he could out fox everyone by filing for bankruptcy, and we all know how that worked out, nothing like shooting yourself in the foot. One would believe that Steele after seeing how things went for Hansmeier might not want to take that route.

    Hansmeier learned the hard way that his creditors from those Judgments weren't going away and I am sure Steele figured that out by now that some of those creditors will be looking for Steele to cough up as well and this Judgement is going to follow him around unless of course Steele decides to appeal, and we all know how well that worked out.

    It will be interesting to see how quick Godfread and Cooper pursue this Judgement against Steele and what John's reaction will be to this and how he deals with the rest of the creditors coming after him, those pesky creditors arent going to go away.

    I do wonder when the FBI and USDOJ and IRS are going to have their turn at Steele and Hansmeier, they have been in the backround digging away and taking notes of everything that has been going on with Hansmeier and his BK filing and the discovery answers he gave under oath which I am sure will come up in their investigation of where all that money went.

    Steele ought to be having some restless nights wondering if that knock on the door is the FBI coming to throw the wrist bracelets on him or the Domino's pizza driver

  • Oct 11th, 2016 @ 11:46am

    (untitled comment)

    First off, you will have to excuse me, but this lawsuit is a farce. The medallion owners aka the brokers, have long ago gamed the system to get those medallion rates high. How would I know this you may ask? My uncles are brokers who own over 100 cabs and the medalions aka plates that allow them to operate in the city we live in.

    Now the brokers have amassed a lot of medallions aka plates, and there are only so many brokers in a city that belong to each cab company they contract to. The brokers depending on the amount of cars they have and plates to match get huge discounts on their fleet and liability insure because they are doing a bulk business, it is the same with auto parts, leases, buying vehicles etc.

    Now the brokers always always pressure and lobby to keep the number of medallions low ( ie the number of cabs on the street ) to the taxi authority that governs them in the city they are operating in. The lowers the number of cabs on the street are, the more demand they have for their cabs and the better ratio that those cabs are kept occupied by paying fares in a shift ( most brokers rent their cabs out for 3 - 8 hour shifts per day or for 2 - 12 hour shifts per day. )

    The brokers will lease the cab per month or per week to each driver depending on the shift (ie: 8 or 12 hour days ) Now if these cabs are busy the drivers make a good buck but the broker make an excellent return. You have to remember if a driver is renting that cab for a 5 day a week 8 hour shift, then the driver pays them his $1000.00 a week for his 8 hour shift. Now if you have 3 guys renting that cab for a grand a week that's 3 k a week in your pocket and that's on top of other little ways they gouge the renter ( ie: any damages, to the body of the cab, any windshield damage, any interior damage, dispatch fees, fuel fees repair surcharges etc )

    The broker know that the local city taxi authority is always wanting to get more cabs on the road to service the need of people who need cabs, but the brokers aren't necessarily interested in seeing that happen. The more demand for service, the more your limited fleet of cabs makes due to their being more consumers needing your service than cabs that can provide it. They don't care if joe consumer has to wait an hour for a cab, cause they know they will still get the business. Keep demand high for cabs but keep the inventory of cabs on the street low.

    Now the brokers have the drivers at a disadvantage as well her, because they keep the medallions and rent out the cabs to the drivers they therefore can justify raising the rates of the rent of the cab to the drivers as they feel the need. They know that the drivers will be hard pressed to go elsewhere due to the the fact there are limited amount of cabs out there to rent. So they can control how much the driver will pay in rent to them and raise it at will, and if a driver protests, they are simply told to take it or go and rent elsewhere.

    Now that Uber and other ride services are coming along, it is the cab companies and the brokers that own the cabs/plates/medallion that are crying because they dont and cant control the demand for cab service now that joe consumer has other options, that means they can not lock in the prices increases you normally see going up so much per mile over time. Those rates are set by the taxi can authority in that various city, but those rate increases on fares are pushed by the cab companies and brokers who claim costs of fuel, repairs, insurance, liability etc etc etc as excuses of why the rates the consumer need to go up.

    Meanwhile those increases are passed on to joe consumer in the form of rate increases you pay to go from A to B in a cab ride. Now the driver can make good money if they hustle and provide decent service, but if you rent the cab for the shift that week and your not really busy that week or if your ill and you not making much cash, the broker doesn't give a toot. They flat out want their money for the rent, if you can't pay, then they move on to the next driver and your SOL. Why can they do that, because that limited number of cars and medallion keeps supply low and demand high, and that goes for drivers too.

    The reason cab companies and brokers are crying and threatening to sue is because most of the drivers now can drive their own leased cars or personal vehicles that meet Uber standards, and can do this at a way lesser cost then renting from one of the brokers and keep more of the profit in their own pockets then what they would have left over if they had to pay a broker for rent plus expenses per shift.

    It also lets the drivers that are operating for Uber set their own hours and if they want to partner up with someone share the expenses of the car for way cheaper than what they would be getting under the system of renting from the broker. The plates and medallions are still worth a lot of money, these brokers have owned plates and medallion for years and years, they didn't just pony up a million each time to buy a plate or medallion so don't be fooled by that. The medallions increased in price due to the fact that the number of cabs have purposely been kept low for years and years with only nominal increases.

    Go to a taxi authority meeting in your city when they are contemplating seeking to put more cabs on the road and increasing the plates, and watch the brokers and the cabs companies complain how it will hurt their business and revenues and some may go out of business and how insurance and liability coverage will go up... it;s always the same song and dance , then they will ask for a price increase for the rate the consumer pays and of course they will settle for a minimum amount of cars to be added. all while keeping demand high and the amount of cars in service low.

    It's all gamesmanship. I drove for 4 years at night and on weekends while in school during the day.The brokers are still making bank, they just aren't making what they are used to and the drivers who rent their cabs now can get a better deal on rents they pay for their shift. If the cab driver were really loving the way the brokers and companies treat them and they thought what they were paying for rent and other fees were fair, do you really think they'd be running off to drive for Uber?

    Broker and cab co's have been using the supply and demand issues of the amount of cabs on the street and the business for them against the consumer and the drivers for years, and it wont change. All Uber is doing is giving the drivers a choice and consumers another option, the brokers and cab companies can compete, they are just loathe to give up even a nickel when they have been making bank for so long and had the drivers at their mercy

  • Sep 23rd, 2016 @ 4:25am

    (untitled comment)

    So the forensic science of federal/State crime labs that prosecutors say leads to the certainty of guilt of an accused in a case isn't so solid.

    So how many have been convicted by testimony that was professed to be of over whelming certainly that an accused was/is involved in a crime by way of scientific evidence? And now the science and testimony is in question.

    What troubles me most is the government has people on a committee who deal with these issues but yet they didn't want the committee to look at said issues and ignore it , so they could still have the tactical advantage over an accused and their counsel.

    Isn't part of the just systems balance and checks is that their is separation between the various parties involved and that disclosure and following the rules of law and the court not to mention sworn professional oaths and that little swearing in to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth still apply these days?

    If your an accused the deck seems to be getting higher and higher against you and the amount of collusion in seeking to make sure that prosecutions move along to convictions even if their has been hanky panky or questionable actions on part of the prosecution side of cases that judges seem to be allowing.

    It seems as though impartiality is a thing of the past as is the ethics that govern all players in the justice system as it would seem more and more that prosecutors are being allowed a wide berth with disclosure and playing by the rules and that more and more courts are okaying that uneven playing field.

    You are no longer innocent until proven guilty more you are now guilty till you can prove your innocence.

    It really is a shame how the constitution and peoples rights have taken a back seat to a scorched earth campaign at convictions at any cost no matter what.

  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 10:22pm

    Re: Don't be sad everyone.

    Well said TAC

  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 10:20pm

    Re: Re: Hansmeir should welcome prosecution

    Who knows maybe when the FBI swoops down to nab Hans and Steele and Hans is in the lick he and his fellow inmates (calling Danny Hecker) can collaborate on all the latest and greatest schemes to generate easy money.

    My only fear is if Hans and Steele start their own teaching course on get quick rich schemes to inmates. lord knows what will happen on the streets afterwards!

  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 10:15pm

    Re: Re:

    I dont think Browne is as innocent as many thought she portrays to be, the fact that she has decided to be the face of ADA lawsuits in Minnesota will no doubt be picked up by the media there and of course being married to Paul Hansmeier I am sure already has brought snickers of laughter and scorn.

    The trolls are loathe to walk away from that easy settlement cash, hence why even facing peril Hans continued on with that genre of easy cash settlements.

    Ah old Steve Gibson (I still laugh at thought of him in his pink sweater with his Bluetooth ear piece on) that were used in a lot of publicity pics.

    Gibson's reputation took one hell of a beating and while I believe he still works on intellectual and copyright matters he is staying on the down low and away from settlement schemes.

    Mind you I am sure having Righthaven or Prenda Law on your resume isn't very good for your job prospects.

  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 10:06pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Agree TAC. Hence why I made the comment above ( but fogot to log in hence the Anonymous Coward nic ) regarding Hans wife Browne filing away with Hans in the backround.

    Remember when Gibbs was with Prenda and docs were being filed in cases with Gibbs ECF but it was more than a rumor that it was Hans or Steele using Gibbs ECF login to file those documents in Prenda cases.

    I would be of the opinion that this is the same scenario that Hans is doing the work behind the scene but it will be Browne doing the actual appearances unless he pulls a John Steele and coaching from the cheap seats (like John was trying to do with Lutz until busted by the Judge hearing the Sunlust case)

    If you had asked me if I thought Browne would be willing to take over from Hans to continue the ADA settlement game, my anwser would have been no...obviously that would have been a mistake looking at things now.

    I was under the impression that this would have been too low brow for Browne and she would not want to sully her reputation, how wrong was I. I guess we now kn ow the "I didnt know nuffin" routine she gave in her depositions was no where near the case in my opinion, seems the babe in the woods routine might not work so well on the next go round for her

  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 9:55pm

    (untitled comment)

    Why does it seem the DOJ seems to think that rules governing wiretapping are allowed to be stretched at their very whim despite the laws that are on the books about it.

    The ninth may have said that it must be done this way accept... and that is the problem. The courts are stuck with archaic laws passed ages ago that have not caught up with modern times and now seem to be bending it to fit with todays tech and this is a problem.

    So instead of lawmakers updating the laws to work with the advances in technology which they choose to leave sitting by the wayside because there is all that Lobbyist cash to go after to fill their pockets, the courts are left to deal with the issues, but are continually ruling all over the map in their decisions because of how technology has outpaces the laws on the books covering wire tapping etc.

    The SCOTUS isnt doing it's part to clear up the matters like this or that relate to spying on citizens or a lot of other technological questions either. There seems to be the we dont want to deal with it so we will send it back to the lower court to do and the mess continues on and on.

    The rules are on the books, if the DOJ finds the rules are not fitting the advances in technology then get law makers to pass new legislation to bring certain acts up to todays age, but in no way should the courts tell the DOJ do one thing and but say it's okay to bend the rules to allow it to do so.

    All these rulings that are all over the map are just mudding up the waters even further than it already is. The courts seem to believe that if the government wants to bend the rules it is okay, even if that gives the government an unfair tactical advantage over a defendant.

    It seems more and more that a defendants rights and rules of the court are not black and white and that all grey areas are allowed to be put forth. Rules, statues, law and the constituion be damned

  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 9:39pm

    (untitled comment)

    Sega is smart about not being over bearing with fan videos and fan made game etc. Are the very fans Sega is doing nothing about hurting Sega's brand or name, hell no!

    This is one thing that Nintendo seems to be oblivious to. Nintendo wants to protect the brand and I get that but going after fan videos and games only hurts the fan base and damages Nintendo's rep with those very same fans.

    If Nintendo was smart they would pull a Sega and jump on the band wagon and instead of trying to squash every fan lil project via the DMCA, encourage it. Nintedo has to relaise that the fans are doing this our of fun and love for some of the Nintendo games that they have coded or made videos of.

    I highjly doubt Nintendo is going to be injured or their reputation shattered by some of the fan creations, the only one damaging Nintendo's reputation is their own draconian policies toward fan based collaborations and videos.

    If anything the fan creation are putting Nintendo's name out there and bribing like minded fans together to talk about past, present and what could be future Nintendo games, why Nintendo see's that all as a threat is oblivious to a lot of folks out there

  • Sep 7th, 2016 @ 3:39pm

    (untitled comment)

    First off this is starting to get to the point of ridiculous the protections Law Enforcement seems to think they deserve unequivocally and there should be no questions asked.

    The fact that Law Enforcement already has several laws and statues that can be used criminally not to mention the immunity protections that are in place (yet can be disqualified by a court depending on the circumstances ) has been sufficient for years, that was until video equipment in surveillance cameras, body cams and dash cams, mobile phones, hand held video cameras, Go Pro type units etc have brought the misdeeds by police to the forefront and out to the public.

    Law Enforcement personnel's word for what they say transpired in an event carries a lot of weight with the courts and within an investigation and if it is an accused persons word or a citizens word of their view of what transpired in an Law Enforcement event where wrong doing is alleged, whose word usually gets taken as gospel.... Law Enforcement!

    If you some person accused of a crime and you believe your innocent and protest that to the law Enforcement agency and police you are dealing with, your word means squat! It will be the Officers word against yours, and their word is king.

    It is up to the citizen to prove their innocent, the premise of your innocent until proven guilty dies a painful death long ago. Now it is more a case of your guilty unless you can prove your innocent.

    Even though the courts say you can video tape Law Enforcement in their duties in a public area as long as you are not impeding them and are doing so safely, Law Enforcement knows that is the law but yet chooses to try intimidation and/or threats of arrest on what ever charge they seem to think fits the narrative to violate your rights.

    How many times have stories come out in the last dozen years questioning Law Enforcement's version of events of an incident? There has been quite a few and this trend has been on the increase due to the public taking a proactive stance to pull out and video something they see involving the Police. Now think about how many interactions the police have with the public in a day, in just one state, and then think about it across the U.S., I doubt the police are called on the carpet about 1% of out of all the interactions they have in a day across a city or a state or even the country.

    The tables have always been tilted in Law Enforcement favour when dealing with public, Law Enforcement has a wide range of protections for it's members in the criminal code and in state law. The deck has always been stacked in Law Enforcement favor and the public has always bore the brunt of that when complaining about a violation of their rights or being falsely accused of a crime.

    If it wasn't for technological advances with various video capabilities the field would still be tilted to Law Enforcement advantage as it is right now. The courts take Law Enforcemnts word over yours most of the time and when the police are investigating themselves, the tables are still tilted the officers way.

    Do Law Enforcement officials get wrongly accused of things, sure they do. DO they take some serious shit out there, yes they do. Do they have to go into the path of danger, yes they do. I am no law enforcement hater, but I do believe that just because you have a gun and a badge does not make you immune from breaking the law nor immune form punishment for it.

    Law Enforcement associations are pushing for more and more "protections" from the public in the course of their duties, as with people video taping them and the ability to arrest those doing so. There are bills before several state assemblies being pushed by Law Enforcement association lobbyists seeking to get that type of legislation passed.

    Some Law Enforcement agencies refuse to release details on an indecent where an officer has been punished and discipline has been handed down and this includes what the punishment was and the officers name and when this punishment took place. Texas is one state that is notorious for this and even though FOIA requests have been filed those requests are usually turned down,

    Law Enforcement unions and associations wield a lot of power and they use that power to protect their members good and bad. The fact that more and more Law Enforcement associations/ Unions are trying to shield their members disciplinary records fro seeing the light of day and pushing to expunge those records is alarming in my mind.

    Bad enough that some officers who are accused of a serious crime can still be paid for months and years till a matter reaches a conclusion is stunning enough. Honestly what is next. A weeks vacation in Hawaii for every citizens right that violated, a trip to Disneyland for every wrongful conviction.

    Law Enforcement officers are entitled to their benefits, but when it comes to the disciplinary end of the scale and the protections they already have, the field is getting way to tilted in Law Enforcement favor and the public is still up against it.

    The public needs to have confidence in the process that when Police/Law Enforcement do wrong they will be held to the same standards that a citizen would be, and this is far from the case and it is why the public is more and more aware of the encounters with Law Enforcement and why people believe there is way too much power in the hands of Law Enforcement when it comes to policing their own and why the public is losing confidence in that process and that's because it has and is still abused and broken

  • Sep 2nd, 2016 @ 7:04am

    (untitled comment)

    What? I can pay to watch a streaming service with ads or I can pay 4 dollars more and get ad free streaming with ads!! Score!!!

    Did the employee who came up with ingenious idea get Employee of the Month and a free ham.

  • Sep 1st, 2016 @ 8:58am

    (untitled comment)

    Gotta love the irony here. We have a AT&T VP criticizing Google for it's short comings when AT&T's own failure have been going on for years with failure to deploy and even bring better broadband services to various states.

    Meanwhile this AT&T VP is forgetting is they and other providers teamed up to deny Google access to their poles, and have gone to great lengths to get cities, and state governments to pass stautes that would thwart competitiors and limit what municipalities could do on their own to bring a company like Google into build out in their town/city.

    So it's more than a little rich that the AT&T VP is knocking Google when AT&T history isnt exactly a beacon of light. All it shows is how much of an irritant Google was to them in the cities and states where AT&T had to actual do something to compete with another provider.

    Not to worry though I am sure AT&T will continue to pillage the consumers pockets while doing the least possible in the way of improvements and satisfying the customer

  • Aug 18th, 2016 @ 5:13am

    (untitled comment)

    One has to wonder if when purchasing a Stingray from Harris Corp that a non disclosure agreement is always part of the sales agreement no matter what.

    So if the RCMP and other Law Enforcement agencies in Canada are using Stingray devices in investigations, why is it that no defense counsel or media have never heard of their use in any cases?

    I would suffice to guess that if Canadian Law Enforcement agencies are using Stingray's in criminal investigations that the use of Stingray is not being disclosed to defense counsel.

    There have a ton of cases in the U.S. where Law Enforcement agencies have not disclosed the use of a Stingray, and the reasoning was it was never disclosed until found out.

    IMHO it would safe to assume that if Canadian Law Enforcement agencies are using Stingray devices that they as well are not disclosing that fact or have convinced Judges to seal the record of a Stingray being used.

    The fact that no Canadian criminal trial lawyers associations have come out publicly about a Stingray being used in an investigation where charges are brought forth leads me to believe that defense lawyers know of a Stingray's use, or they have no clue because it isnt being disclosed.

    When searching Canadian media sites to see if reporters are digging deeper into the use of Stingray device by Canadian law enforcement agencies, there really isnt any reporting of this going on only what has been reported by motherboard and Techdirt and re blurbed by some Canadian media.

    Maybe the media up in the great white north doesnt like to ruffle the feathers of Law Enforcement too much

  • Aug 12th, 2016 @ 11:56am

    (untitled comment)

    Somewhere in a corner office at the FBI James Comey's eyes are welling up with tears of joy that his message on how backdoors are needed is finally coming to fruition

  • Aug 12th, 2016 @ 9:28am


    All that was missing from the above reply was the signature of someone from the MPAA

  • Aug 8th, 2016 @ 7:52pm

    Re: "I got a candy bar yesterday, you owe me a candy bar today."

    I agree.

    The RIAA and MPAA whose membership include a lot of music and film industries biggest companies still want the days of old when they controlled how, when, where, what format and what you payed to get the media from the end destination, thus they controlled the monies before they got distributed out after deductions for various accounting, production, distribution and advertising and of course if there was anything left over giving whoever their pittance.

    Now that artists and film makers have a say and can put out their own albums thru various methods of release and even cut the studios and labels out of the equation troubles the RIAA and MPAA as they see their take of the pie become less and they have less control where an artist, band or film is not under their thumb.

    Honestly Google and every other company that sells dvd or MP3's, cd's, or media for download or to stream online could give the RIAA/MPAA 99 cent out of every dollar and they would still scream it isn't enough and how they are being cheated.

    The RIAA/MPAA with their studio's and Labels as clients have said the same thing time and time again. When casette and casette records came out they said it would be the death of music labels and artists and they needed a levy to survive.

    When VHS and Beta recorders came out the same refrain was screamed again at how it would be the death of the industry and a levy was needed.

    When CD's and DVD's came out and the record able media methods were once again purported to be the death knell of their industries... unless a levy was added

    Over and over again we have seen the same mantra over and over again from the RIAA/MPAA crying out the same complaints.

    No matter how much Google, Youtube, Apple increase either the MPAA or RIAA aligned clients a better percentage it will never be enough and it will only placate them till the next time they fell they deserve even more.

    They do not give a shit about the consumer and are uninterested in what the consumer will pay or in what way the consumer can get the media they desire.

    It has always been this way for the MPAA/RIAA and its clients, it always will be and wont change. The consumer will always be the one held hostage to the whims of the clients of the RIAA /MPAA and they could care less what the consumer see's as fair and convenient

  • Aug 2nd, 2016 @ 5:22pm

    (untitled comment)

    So basically the FBI wanted to get the courts approval and the court would not grant it's approval, so the FBI just ignored the courts directive and just did it anyway.

    Nice to know the FBI doesnt believe it needs to follow the laws it was sworn to uphold and are governed by.

  • Jul 9th, 2016 @ 4:10am

    (untitled comment)

    Isn't it convenient that the FBI wrapped up their investigation of Clinton and decided "nothing to see here" before this DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision came out.

    One has to wonder if there was pressure applied thru the USDOJ to the FBI to make sure there "investigation" of HRC was completed before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision came down, thus the republicans and media along with Trump couldn't point to the Appeals court decision and say "a-ha"

    Could this be just strange timing? Sure. Could it be avoiding Stepping on a landmine by asserting some political might with the help of the White House so as not to threaten the democrat nominee for POTUS? You'll have to decide that one yourself, but the optics sure does make an interesting point of debate.

  • Jul 7th, 2016 @ 5:14pm

    Re: Conspiracy!

    Your bang on. I Agree and the conspiracy will rage on because of the tactics that Federal Law Agencies like the FBI are using to keep information out of reach of other agencies, the media and citizens.

  • Jul 5th, 2016 @ 11:53pm

    (untitled comment)

    There are things that bother me about the DEA and the original court that heard the case first. The DEA knew there were defenses but yet still filed for a got a warrant for a search.

    Then you have the court which it knows that the DEA has a ton of defenses in the warrant and their case and knows by law that the results of that search should be excluded due to the defenses in the original warrant application.

    The fact that the court knew that the evidence gathered as a result of the warrant should be tossed as a matter of law, decides to ignore that to help the DEA keep their case alive.

    The Judge is supposed to be unbiased and the defendants and plaintiff are to be treated equally and have their evidence evaluated by the laws on which it was obtained. The problem is too many Judges and courts seem to be more than willing to skip the being impartial part and do their best to help secure a conviction against an accused person.

    If the prosecution is unable to make their case according to the law, then that should be that. To have Judges take their impartiality out of the equation to help a case along is a travesty under the rules of court, the constitution and the rights afforded to an accused person.

    It's sad to see how much some court Judges have lost their ability to be impartial and fair and rule according to the law and not the fringes of it. It is why I say if your an accused you are no longer innocent until proven guilty but are guilty until you can prove your innocence and these days the deck is getting stacked more and more against an accused

More comments from Anon E. Mous >>