…is apparently prosecuting the Gordon Lee case in Rome, GA. As the press release from the CBLDF below will show, after a year and a half, on the eve of the case going forward, the prosecutor “suddenly” discovered that the basic facts of their case were wrong. Out went the old case, in comes the new. If I were a taxpayer in Rome, I’d be outraged over the frivilous waste of tax dollars. See below:
Gordon Lee: Case Dismissed, But Back To Square One
The long-running case of Georgia v. Gordon Lee took yet another strange turn of events yesterday when the prosecution dismissed all charges against the Rome, Georgia retailer only to bring a new accusation arising from the Halloween 2004 incident that resulted in his arrest.
When Judge Larry Salmon entered the courtroom shortly after 9 AM Monday, prosecutors declared the case nolle prosse, meaning that the charges that were to go to trial this week have been dismissed. Prosecutors are re-filing under a new accusation alleging that Lee handed “Alternative Comics #2” to a six-year-old minor and his nine-year-old brother, instead of solely to the nine-year-old, as has been previously, and repeatedly, declared.
Lee now faces two misdemeanor counts of “Distribution of Materials Harmful to a Minor” (OCGA 16-12-103). One count alleges he “did unlawfully … knowingly furnish and disseminate to a minor… a book, pamphlet, magazine and printed matter containing pictures, drawings and visual representation and images of a person or portion of the human body which depict sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, and sadomasochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors…” The second count alleges that he disseminated and furnished material containing “explicit and detailed verbal descriptions and narrative accounting of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, and sadomasochistic abuse and which taken as a whole is harmful to minors.”
The dismissal of the case against Lee is a victory for the retailer, though the new accusation sets his defense back to square one. The next step will be for prosecutors to bring a new arraignment for Lee, at which point the case proceeds down the long road to trial all over again. Defense Attorney Paul Cadle says, “This is a victory, but it means we have to keep going.”
Cadle adds, “Today’s dismissal is recognition of the strengths of Gordon’s case and our vigorous legal defense of him in this matter. We said all along that these charges are inappropriate and I think we’ve been vindicated by their dismissal. But, if they want to bring further charges, we’ll be back in court again.”
Though the dismissal is a victory in the near term, there are abundant questions about how prosecutors arrived at this point. CBLDF counsel first heard of the intention to dismiss the existing charges and draw up a new accusation late Sunday afternoon.
Lead counsel Alan Begner says, “I have never — as a criminal trial lawyer for thirty years — seen a complete changing of the facts like this. Throughout the last year and a half, through written statements, the investigation, and the presentation of evidence before the grand jury, as well as the written accusation and indictment, the State had steadfastly asserted that the comic book had been handed to the nine-year-old. The dismissal of the charges today reflects the prosecution’s admission that everything that was presented as evidence before was untrue, and that they had stuck to the false facts through procedure after procedure in the case. We now intend to investigate how a year and a half of statements based on one set of facts has now been changed at the last minute to another set of facts.”
Cadle adds, “To find out about this significant factual change in the allegations against Gordon at 3 PM on a Sunday when we were supposed to be going to trial at 9 AM on a Monday is disconcerting. It unfortunately has the result of costing Mr. Lee and the Fund tons more time, effort, and money. As attorneys, we’ve done what we’re supposed to do and we’re going to keep doing that. Alan and I were ready, willing, and able to go to trial this week, but unfortunately we now need to incur more legal time and expense to move forward.”
To date the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has spent in excess of $40,000 defending Mr. Lee, and expects costs to hit the $50,000 mark later this month when invoices from the current round of legal fees arising from trial preparation arrive.
Charles Brownstein, the Fund’s Executive Director said, “Monday’s proceedings represent one of the stranger legal episodes in the Fund’s twenty-year history, but it is an episode that stands as vindication of our commitment to proving Gordon’s innocence, as well as affirmative evidence of the larger importance of our organization’s purpose. From the start of the courtroom process, our attorneys have proved that Mr. Lee has been unjustly overcharged, and yesterday’s dismissal of that case is the most recent indication that his arrest and the charges brought against him were entirely without merit.”
Brownstein adds, “By the start of May we will have spent $50,000 defending Mr. Lee against these unjust charges – a sum that no small retailer, such as Gordon, would have been able to afford. Without the Fund, he would have had to risk personal bankruptcy or pleading to a crime that prosecutors have now admitted he is not guilty of committing. Our purpose is to defend retailers like Gordon against such unjust prosecution. And while the cost of proving his innocence is great, it is a pittance in comparison to seeing a member of our business community sold down the river for crimes of which he is innocent.”
He concludes, “I can only shake my head at the fact that the case has come this far, and that the prosecution appears ready and willing to sink even more of Rome’s public resources into prosecuting such a meritless misdemeanor. That said, we intend to finish the job we started: to continue our march to prove Mr. Lee’s innocence, and to ensure that no retailer in Georgia is harmed by any bad precedent that could arise from a conviction in this case. We hope we can continue to count on the support of the comics fan and business communities as we perform this important work, because there’s still a long road left to travel before we reach a final victory.”
The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1986 as a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights for members of the comics community. Donations and inquiries should be directed to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund at info@cbldf.org or 800-99-CBLDF
• 
If there were real justice, a judge will throw the entire mess out and tell the state to pay a refund of all legal fees to Mr. Lee and the CBLDF. It would be one thing if the actual case went to trial, but to “discover” the state was lying all thru the procedures deserves a harsh penalty to the state.
Thanks for mentioning that the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is a 501 c 3 organization. I will send off a contribution shortly.
He concludes, “I can only shake my head at the fact that the case has come this far, and that the prosecution appears ready and willing to sink even more of Rome’s public resources into prosecuting such a meritless misdemeanor.
Not to mention, the prosecution wasting the funds of the CBLDF and their supporters.
What a bunch of dûmbáššëš.
I have to wonder if we’ve missed the prosecution’s real plan.
Fact: The CBLDF has spent $40,000 so far and expects the total to reach $50,000 by the start of May.
Statement in the article: $50,000 is “a sum that no small retailer, such as Gordon, would have been able to afford. Without the Fund, he would have had to risk personal bankruptcy or pleading to a crime that prosecutors have now admitted he is not guilty of committing.”
If I understand correctly, this latest legal maneuver means the CBLDF lawyers have to start over. Certainly much of the work done so far should provide useful reference but the charges have been changed. The six year old added to the mix must be factored in, if nothing else.
Query: was the prosecutor, seeking an easy way to prove how he protects children from ‘dangerous pørņ,’ figure to win by forcing Gordon Lee to surrender for lack of funds and/or be forced to close his doors, giving the prosecutor a nice little TV ad about how he got these filthy pørņø comics off the streets? After all, everyone hates child pørņ.
Query: Has this become an ego matter for the prosecutor now of the ‘dámņ it, if I back down I’ll be called soft on kiddy pørņ’ variety?
I have no idea of the answers. I’m just wondering.
Apologies for the run on sentences.
My parents are taxpayers in Rome, GA, but I doubt they have even heard of this case.
PAD wrote: “If I were a taxpayer in Rome, I’d be outraged over the frivilous waste of tax dollars.”
Ditto. I’d be burning up the phone lines on this one. One either has a case or one doesn’t. Apparently, the prosecution didn’t.
When in Rome…
Sorry.
Yeah, I concur, I think they are trying to pressure Lee to plea out by dragging this thing out. Hoepfully, his lawyers will make that argument at the next available opportunity, and the judge concurs.
One question I have that I haven’t seen in any of the papers – did the child (or children) in question pay for the material? If so, then the parent should be held responsible for the child getting his dirty little hands on it. But if it were a giveaway, the retailer could say it got mixed in with child friendly comics and he was not aware of it until the child’s parental unit raised h*ll about it.. Just a thought… Since it’s, in essence, a new trial, there should be a new D.A. and a new judge, don’t you think?
Over at Newsarama, Gordon Lee provided the following link to a Rome newspaper:
http://209.41.184.21/partners/680/p…news708720.html
You’ll note in that article that the DA acknowledged that not once in 18 months had anyone from her department interviewed the boys who allegedly received the comic in question. They were relying solely on the police reports.
Un. Freakin’. Believable.
If she had an once of integrity, she’d resign.
This is exactly what got me up off my fat lazy ášš to join the CBLDF.
I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t understand something. If the only thing different between the new case and the old one is the identity of the child, I don’t understand why there will be so much expense. Wouldn’t a lot of the defense’s arguments be about supplying the material to a minor in general, and not necessarily about supplying it to a particular minor?
Bill’s link is broken. The story is here.
(Newsarama shortened the URL in the post, while inlcuing the full URL in the link tag, and Bill copied that shortened one.)
One question I have that I haven’t seen in any of the papers – did the child (or children) in question pay for the material?
The comic was part of Free Comic Book Day.
giving the prosecutor a nice little TV ad about how he got these filthy pørņø comics off the streets? After all, everyone hates child pørņ.
Yeah, everybody does hate child pørņ. But child pørņ has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Even if the comic were considered pørņ –and the pictures I’ve seen are no worse than the pictures in a book my parents gave me as a child entitled How Babies are Made — even if they are considered pørņ, they are of adults. Not children.
But John, it’s comics and therefore, it was for kids! Everyone knows that.
Well, everyone except for the people who actually buy comics.
I wonder what really happened behind the scenes in the prosecutions office. Did they realize that Lee wasn’t going to knuckle under and that they themselves weren’t prepared? Is this a delaying tactic on their part or just an attempt to further harass Lee?
Also, what’s up with this site today? I couldn’t access it all morning and when I did, there was all this spam? Someone really thinks you need new tennis shoes or insurance, Peter.
Is this a delaying tactic on their part or just an attempt to further harass Lee?
To go a year and a half and only the night before the trial starts does the six-year-old brother get mentioned? To spend all this time only going by police reports?
It’s a dámņëd witch hunt. Has been from the start.
It’s a dámņëd witch hunt. Has been from the start.
Well, that’s a given. My question relates to this particular decision to literally change tactics on the day the trial was set to begin.
Are the people conducting the witch trying to harass him into conceding or just incompetent?
That’s my question.
Posted by grenadier at April 4, 2006 12:56 PM
Bill’s link is broken. The story is here.
(Newsarama shortened the URL in the post, while inlcuing the full URL in the link tag, and Bill copied that shortened one.)
Bill is sorry.
Since this is happening in Rome, is there any way we can have the prosecutors fall on their swords?
I’m with Jeff; the judge should be throwing the book at someone and it ain’t Gordon Lee.
Weirdness. Makes me look forward to the day I could be in a position to not file these stupid cases. The Winona Ryder shoplifting case shouldn’t have gone to trial. This shouldn’t have gone to trial.
Lets worry about the important things.
Until later
John
Are the people conducting the witch trying to harass him into conceding or just incompetent?
That’s my question.
Were I a betting person, I’d guess that the prosecution anticipated a fairly easy time of things–a quick plea bargain with which they could proclaim victory–and did not expect that they’d face the not-just-competent-but-actually-vigourous legal defense provided by the CBLDF.
They may now be falling back on the old legal maneuver of dragging out things so as to drive up the defense’s legal costs with the hope of making it so expensive to proceed with the case that the defendant is bullied into cutting a deal.
And if that’s the case, well, I can’t think of many more compelling reasons to throw a donation toward to CBLDF!
I’d have to assume they’re trying to drive the costs up. The second set of charges would seem to be more dámņìņg than the first — now involving two minors instead of one — so I can’t imagine why the prosecution would have sat on that for so long.
Would have been a non-issue if there had been a target audience guideline clearly visible on the cover in the first place…
“I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t understand something. If the only thing different between the new case and the old one is the identity of the child, I don’t understand why there will be so much expense. Wouldn’t a lot of the defense’s arguments be about supplying the material to a minor in general, and not necessarily about supplying it to a particular minor?”
The expense doesn’t arise from the argument. The expense arises from paperwork, filings, court appearances, etc. The initial charges have been determined to be factually incorrect. The fact that it’s still a minor involved, but simply a different minor, is irrelevant. It still means we’re back to square one. Considering getting from square one to this point ran us $40,000 in legal fees, just imagine a repeat.
PAD
So the Rome DA’s office is either tragically incompetent or ruthlessly and cynically manipulating the system to win.
Needless to say, I hope someone burns.
[sarcasm]As opposed to the current administration’s judicious use of American tax-payer dollars….[/sarcasm]
One hopes the CBLDF and Mr. Lee can sue the town of Rome, GA for legal fees on the charge now revealed as false.
Nope, the city will get off scott free. You have to show that there was intentional misconduct in going against Gordon Lee. This is extremely difficult to prove.
Suing someone, no matter how much they may deserve it, is not within the CBLDF’s charter. We, like Mr. Miyagi’s karate, are for defense only.
PAD
Hopefully the refiling at least casts a shadow over the case. One of the charges is that he did “knowingly furnish and disseminate to a minor”. If it took a year and a half to figure out which kid received the comic, how can the prosecution claim that they’re sure he gave it out intentionally? It seems that if they can’t even be sure exactly what he did, then there should be little enough evidence of it being done “knowingly” to dismiss that charge.
****
The expense doesn’t arise from the argument. The expense arises from paperwork, filings, court appearances, etc. The initial charges have been determined to be factually incorrect. The fact that it’s still a minor involved, but simply a different minor, is irrelevant. It still means we’re back to square one. Considering getting from square one to this point ran us $40,000 in legal fees, just imagine a repeat.
PAD
****
Hmm. Sounds like you (the CBLDF) might be getting fleeced by the lawyers you hired, in addition to being given the runaround by the apparently underworked prosecutors. The lawyers haven’t done a trial yet, and they’ve submitted $40K in billing? I am a prosecutor in South Carolina, only one state north of GA, and I just don’t see those fees as justifiable in a criminal context when the case has not proceeded to trial until now. Sounds like they are charging you guys for golf course time.
Also, is the DA naming a new child altogether, or merely adding an additional name to the indictment? I wasn’t clear on whether the six-year-old who has now entered the picture is in addition to the nine-year-old previously alleged, or will be substituted for the nine-year-old in the new charges.
Also, the fact that the DA hasn’t spoken to his main witnesses at all in a case like this doesn’t bode well for the State’s case. Take comfort in the fact that the particular prosecutor is incompetent, which will ultimately make things easier for everyone sane in this case.
“Also, is the DA naming a new child altogether, or merely adding an additional name to the indictment?”
New child altogether. The case was supposed to be in court this week. Those charges were dropped and new charges were filed, putting everything back at square one.
A lot of that $40k comes from the fact that all the court preparation had already been done. As already stated, the case was supposed to be in court this week.
I’ll just repeat my comment about the prosecutors from the Newsarama forum..
Come On!!! Enough Already!!!
***
Posted by Jason M. Bryant at April 4, 2006 10:10 PM
A lot of that $40k comes from the fact that all the court preparation had already been done. As already stated, the case was supposed to be in court this week.
***
Well, that explains some, but not all, of that number. And thanks for the explanation of the musical victims game here; I must admit, that had me a little puzzled.
That is still one huge fee for two lawyers to listen to the prosecutor tell them he’s dismissing the case (sort of). I hope the lawyers at least filed a motion to dismiss or to quash the indictment or something; otherwise, they were paid to let the prosecution’s incompetence do the work. Which would be sad in so many ways.
At least most of the briefings and citations will be re-usable for the new case. If not, Chris has a point, and the attorneys are not on the up-and-up.
Carl (20+ years working in the Justice System)
“That is still one huge fee for two lawyers to listen to the prosecutor tell them he’s dismissing the case (sort of).”
Huh?
They didn’t charge $40k for that one day’s work. That’s the total expenses for a year and a half.
O.K. I know that this is probably going to sound stupid to some of you, but considering that this case is gettign a LOT of play in the press, has anybody thought of trying to organize a fundraiser for Mr. Lee? I mean, a comic book convention with creators, artists and all that, where the proceeds would go directly to the defense case?
Of course, we couldn’t hold it in Rome…
Ok, I’m not a lawyer, but I play one in my home.
Seriously, couldn’t a borderline Double Jeopary argument be made even though the initial case was dropped?
Doesn’t the fact that the initial case was dropped at the twelfth hour cast reasonable doubt over the second set of charges?
Why is it that dropping the case at the twelfth hour to refile a subsequent set of charges that pertain to the same incident is not considered evidence of intent to harass?
Why is the prosecutor willing to cast such a shodow of reasonable doubt over whatever “flavor of the month” charges they want to file?
Meanwhile the publicly funded Boyscouts of America are allowed to preach hate, priests are engaging in ACTUAL deviant behaviors with children, and another member of the Department of Homeland inSecurity has been discovered engaging in ‘internet predator’ activities whith what he thought to be a 14 year old girl.
By all means, let’s crucify the small business owner who, unlike everyone else, can’t be in all places at all times.
To the people of Rome, GA:
Be different. Use logic.
“Meanwhile the publicly funded Boyscouts of America are allowed to preach hate, priests are engaging in ACTUAL deviant behaviors with children, and another member of the Department of Homeland inSecurity has been discovered engaging in ‘internet predator’ activities whith what he thought to be a 14 year old girl.”
WTF are you talking about??? The Boy Scouts of America are only publicly funded if you mean that individual members of the public donate funds. And please, what “hate” are they “preaching”?
You also make it sound like every priest is involved in child abuse. This ranks up with thinking all Rabbi’s want to kill Palestinians, all Baptist Minsters have KKK sheets in their closets, and all Muslem Clerics are shaprening their swords to chop the head off the infidels.
And please, name the other official from Homeland Security that’s been accused of being an internet predator.
Finally, what do any of these things have to do with the case at hand?
Jeff, I can only speak to the first point Mitch (may have) made:
In San Diego, for quite a number of years, the Boy Scouts have been allowed to lease space in the city-owned Balboa Park at the rate of $1/year (yes, that’s one dollar), with the city picking up the rest of the tab for their stays. Similar rates had been offered them on such city-owned properties as Fiesta Island.
As for the hate – the Boy Scouts of America actively and openly discriminate against gays, atheists, and polytheists. For that matter, given the form of the Boy Scout Oath, even a Muslim has to stretch a point to be covered.
Due to this discrimination, the ACLU finally brought suit this past year to discontinue the severely preferential treatment this group has been receiving from the City of San Diego.
So, because the BSA has arranged a deal to LEASE some land (granted at a very low cost)? And what did the city have to pay for the Scouts using the land? Knowing how the BSA works, I imagine that while at the park the Scouts were doing things like clean-up projects, and some land use projects at a much less cost than using city workers would have been.
And this so-called discrimination? The Scouts have had the same rules as an organization since their founding. If someone can’t or isn’t willing to accept those rules, then they shouldn’t try to join. But no. Instead of gays, athiests, polys, and whatever else getting along and starting their own organizations, they would rather try to tear down something someone else has.
I wanted to join a sorority in college so I could live in a house with all those women, but was turned down. Maybe I should have called the ACLU.
This is the only comment I’ll make on the BSA thing, since I think it’s getting far afield from the initial (important) topic.
And this so-called discrimination? The Scouts have had the same rules as an organization since their founding. If someone can’t or isn’t willing to accept those rules, then they shouldn’t try to join.
I would agree with this in general. However, if they want to be an entirely private organization with its own rules, they need to avoid public funding of ANY kind — and yes, Jeff, that would include the previously mentioned sweetheart deals. You cannot have it both ways.
My brother-in-law was in the BSA (and was an Eagle Scout), so I’m well aware of all the good the organization can do. I’m also aware of the fact that they DO discriminate: the requirements mentioned above keeping out gays and atheists have nothing whatsoever to do with one’s ability to carry out the missions of the organization, and are primarily a way to keep the “wrong” people out.
That’s their right (and, paraphrasing Voltaire, I’ll defend to the death the right to have those requirements) — but, like a whites-only country club, it’s also something that’s not a positive trait and shouldn’t be glorified as such.
(Oh, and in response to your sorority analogy; given that the word “sorority” MEANS “sisterhood”, I think the requirement to be a woman is pretty well definitional. Sorry to burst … well, whatever it is I’m bursting there.)
TWL
Chris, the CBLDF has been very active, getting most of the charges dismissed prior to this action. There’s been a fair amount of brief filing, so that $40K represents a pretty active defense team. I’m not sure what kind of local attornies the CBLDF has, so there may be some travel and lodging costs in that fee as well.
And please, name the other official from Homeland Security that’s been accused of being an internet predator.
That would be Brian Doyle, as per the lead article on CNN.com right now. Second one in six months, it seems.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/04/homeland.arrest/index.html
TWL
Pardon the graphic terminology, but the prosecutor’s office in engaged in nothing less than a mental rape of Lee. It looks like they feel their case is built on shakey grounds at best and so they figure if they basically hit the restart on the proceedings, they can just wear him down. Disgusting.
Posted by Reverend Snow:
O.K. I know that this is probably going to sound stupid to some of you, but considering that this case is gettign a LOT of play in the press, has anybody thought of trying to organize a fundraiser for Mr. Lee? I mean, a comic book convention with creators, artists and all that, where the proceeds would go directly to the defense case?
I don’t know how feasible it would be to do an entire convention as a fundraiser, but certainly the CBLDF has been present and active at many if not most of the country’s comics conventions–including Atlanta’s Dragon*Con (not quite Rome, GA, but still close enough to be of local interest.) Plus there are smaller scale fundraisers done on the local level such as the one described at http://tinyurl.com/gd7rd
The CBLDF certainly could use more donations–more money, especially now. But they haven’t been remiss in beating the Gordon Lee drum as part of beating the fundraising bushes either.
“As for the hate – the Boy Scouts of America actively and openly discriminate against gays, atheists, and polytheists”
A few points here. You can argue that the BSA should get no public funds or preferential treatment. However, you’re going waaaay to far to ascribe the “hate” mentality to them. The BSA is and has always been a religious organization. Units can only be chartered in conjunction with a charter organization (a church). Unless you are ascribing the “hate” connuncatation to every church in the world, (and in that case, there is no use continuing this conversation), then it doesn’t work for the BSA.
And second, polytheists are NOT disallowed from participating. In fact, the BSA is very clear that it doesn’t care the religious beliefs of their scouts, just that scouts recognize some sort of higher power, or power bigger than themselves. This can be nature, multiple gods, the greater will and good of humanity, or whatever.
Thirdly, as a life long Scout, I can tell you that there is no screening or anything for Atheism. In fact, the only way an organization would even be aware that a scout is an atheist, is if they made a stink about participating in the charter activities (troops participate in church services, hold chapel on campouts, etc). And if this is the case, I have to look at the agenda of the athiest. Why join an org that holds activities I don’t want to participate in?
As a lifelong scout, eagle scout, and now parent of a scout, I’d be 100% behind the BSA no longer reciving any special treatment or funds from city/states/feds.
Jeff in Nc:
“WTF are you talking about??? The Boy Scouts of America are only publicly funded if you mean that individual members of the public donate funds. And please, what “hate” are they “preaching”? “
Hi Jeff.
Tim Lynch and Jonathan (the other one) have addressed the BSA points I was trying to make quite well (thanks, guys).
The only thing I would add is that there is a federal regulation that states, in short, that public monies are not to be spent on organizations that discriminate. Since the BSA actively discriminates based on religion and sexual orientation then it is a violation of the federal rule when there is a meeting at a public school or a rally at a military base even at the cost of $1.00.
That being said, I believe that the BSA has every right to discriminate as a private organization. They will have to eventually choose between public funds or discriminatory practice. The sooner the better as far as I’m concerned.
Jeff in Nc:
“You also make it sound like every priest is involved in child abuse. This ranks up with thinking all Rabbi’s want to kill Palestinians, all Baptist Minsters have KKK sheets in their closets, and all Muslem Clerics are shaprening their swords to chop the head off the infidels.”
Now I could be a real dìçk here (I’m quite good at it, you know) and point out that, in fact, YOU infered that I was refering to all priests when I never specified ALL priests or EVERY priest. I simply used the plural of the word meaning more than one.
Since I can see how my word could be taken in another context I will clarify that I do NOT believe that all priest are actively seeking alter boys for their private rodeo.
Jeff in Nc:
“And please, name the other official from Homeland Security that’s been accused of being an internet predator.”
Named by Tim (thanks again).
Jeff in Nc:
“Finally, what do any of these things have to do with the case at hand?”
It has to do with image over substance.
The Gordon Lee case seems to be more about a prosecutor wanting to make a name for him/herself rather than prosecuting an actual criminal while elsewhere actual criminal act are being perpetrated and prosecuted.
If Rome, GA has so little genuine criminal element that it’s officials have the time to spend eighteen months putting together a flimsy case just to drop said case the day before it goes to court so they can spend more time putting together a new and improved case (and with fewer calories too!) then I submit that these officials should either tell the rest of us what secret weapon exist to so control said criminal element or go all ‘reality’ and spend their time going after true criminals.
(Ok, that last was so ‘run on sentence’ that I had to catch my breath after typing it.)
This case, sorry… These CASES against Gordon Lee look like a witch-hunt.
This is kinda off point, too, (but not much):
What kind of parent thakes their children to a public place and ignores them long enough for a stranger to hand them something or long enough to climb into a vending maching for that matter?
And they always say the same thing, “I just turned away for a second.”
Bûllšhìŧ.
Oh, and Jeff…
If it seems as though I’m lashing at you I’m really not. It’s just that cases like this REALLY piss me off and, like alot of people online, I have absolutely no power in the real world so I vent in places such as this.
Many Regards.
And this so-called discrimination? The Scouts have had the same rules as an organization since their founding
Well, that makes it okay then. A group discriminated for 100 years so the discrimination is acceptable.
I wanted to join a sorority in college so I could live in a house with all those women, but was turned down. Maybe I should have called the ACLU.
If the sorority was funded with public money, as the scouts are, then yes, you should have.
You also make it sound like every priest is involved in child abuse. This ranks up with thinking all Rabbi’s want to kill Palestinians, all Baptist Minsters have KKK sheets in their closets, and all Muslem Clerics are shaprening their swords to chop the head off the infidels.
I disagree. I think the point here is that those who claim to be moral leaders, or who say they are acting to improve morality, all too often turn out to be quite immoral themselves. Sometimes for the very things they condem others for.
Since the BSA actively discriminates based on religion and sexual orientation then it is a violation of the federal rule when there is a meeting at a public school or a rally at a military base even at the cost of $1.00.
That seems a bit odd considering that the military also discriminates against gays.
Tim, I read that article. Chilling. Man, this guy, Scott Ritter, Mel Reynolds…how do these pervs think they can get away with it? Especially when, like Doyle, they actually BRAG about their positions?
Mitch (Me):
“Since the BSA actively discriminates based on religion and sexual orientation then it is a violation of the federal rule when there is a meeting at a public school or a rally at a military base even at the cost of $1.00.”
Bill Mulligan:
“That seems a bit odd considering that the military also discriminates against gays.”
Hi Bill.
I’m not certain what the current policy is in the military regarding homosexuality. The last thing I know of is “Dont ask, don’t tell.” I just rolled my eyes at that one as another political non-solution.
Mitch, That’s OK. We’re having a discussion. You said some things I don’t agree with, I repied. I don’t think any discussion on-line is going to change either of our minds, but it’s good to hear other points of view and not resort to the name calling that happens so much.
I agree about the Gordon Lee case. It seems to be totally without cause, and the prosecutor office has screwed it up so much, they now want to just say “do over!” and change the rules.
If a person can’t follow the rules of an organization like the Boy Scouts, then they shouldn’t join. It’s actually that simple. But, like I said before, these same people will spend more time trying to tear down somthing that doesn’t affect them then they would doing something productive with their own life.
Your original statement said that “priests are engaging in ACTUAL deviant behaviors with children”. No qualifier like “some priests” or “many” or even “a few”. I knew what you meant, but when a statment like that is made with such a broad brush, it tends to hurt the arguement rather then help it (just some debate hints).
And Mitch, you do have power. Vote. If you’re able, contribute to the CBLDF, write to your local press (which will do a lot more good than a comic book creator’s web site…no offense to PAD). Cases like Gordon Lee’s should piss you and everyone else off. And if the initial case didn’t piss you off, the sudden change right before trial should.