|
Firefighter pleads guilty to arson
Blaze at Virginia Dale church was one he says he set
By Sarah Langbein, Rocky Mountain News
February 21, 2004
FORT COLLINS - A volunteer firefighter who confessed to burning down a
123-year-old church pleaded guilty Friday to first-degree arson.
Austin Gene Mayo, 20, could face up to 24 years in prison if the judge finds
aggravating circumstances in a string of four fires, including the Nov. 16 blaze
that burned down the Virginia Dale Community Church on U.S. 287 just south of
the Wyoming line.
Mayo, who appeared to be in good spirits Friday, told Larimer County District
Court Judge Jolene Blair he set four fires Nov. 10-18 - three of which he helped
put out with fellow firefighters.
Mayo admitted setting the fires from the beginning of the investigation and was
relieved to finally confess in court, his lawyer, Linda Miller, said.
But it was not made clear why Mayo started the fires.
"I think it's far more complex than saying thrill-seeking or hero (behavior),"
Miller said.
Mayo will be sentenced April 2, when the district attorney's office is expected
to show Blair special circumstances to increase the severity of Mayo's sentence.
If Blair agrees, Mayo's sentence could range from 12 to 24 years in prison. If
aggravating circumstances are not proven, Mayo could receive fewer than 12 years
or even probation.
He is expected to remain in jail on $500,000 bond until his sentencing and be
ordered to pay more than $75,000 in restitution.
The first fire Mayo admits to setting in a nine-day period was a 150-ton
haystack, followed by a 2 -acre grass fire. Next came the church, which was
destroyed, and finally a small fire at a community center.
"Our concern was the fires were escalating," said investigator Steve Koenig of
the Larimer County Sheriff's Office.
Miller said Mayo had stopped taking his anti-depressants at the time of the
arsons.
"He was really struggling with whether he wanted to live at that point," she
said. "His intent was not to set out and destroy property."
Virginia Dale Community Church is nearly rebuilt, and parishioners are looking
to add final touches to the near-replica building. The first service will be
private, said church trustee Dana Moen-Wright, who attended Friday's hearing.
Visibly upset, Moen-Wright said Mayo's plea gave her some sense of closure.
"I expected him to do that," she said of his confession. "I guess I just wanted
to hear him say he did it, as part of a closure for me. I just wish he would say
I'm sorry."
|
| |
| |
Unfortunately, this type of thing happens all of the time. There were 5
fatalities within a few miles of my community last year due to volunteers
lighting fires.
Tragic.
Firefighter pleads guilty to arson
Blaze at Virginia Dale church was one he says he set
By Sarah Langbein, Rocky Mountain News
February 21, 2004
FORT COLLINS - A volunteer firefighter who confessed to burning down a
123-year-old church pleaded guilty Friday to first-degree arson.
Austin Gene Mayo, 20, could face up to 24 years in prison if the judge
finds
aggravating circumstances in a string of four fires, including the Nov. 16
blaze
that burned down the Virginia Dale Community Church on U.S. 287 just south
of
the Wyoming line.
Mayo, who appeared to be in good spirits Friday, told Larimer County
District
Court Judge Jolene Blair he set four fires Nov. 10-18 - three of which he
helped
put out with fellow firefighters.
Mayo admitted setting the fires from the beginning of the investigation
and was
relieved to finally confess in court, his lawyer, Linda Miller, said.
But it was not made clear why Mayo started the fires.
"I think it's far more complex than saying thrill-seeking or hero
(behavior),"
Miller said.
Mayo will be sentenced April 2, when the district attorney's office is
expected
to show Blair special circumstances to increase the severity of Mayo's
sentence.
If Blair agrees, Mayo's sentence could range from 12 to 24 years in
prison. If
aggravating circumstances are not proven, Mayo could receive fewer than 12
years
or even probation.
He is expected to remain in jail on $500,000 bond until his sentencing and
be
ordered to pay more than $75,000 in restitution.
The first fire Mayo admits to setting in a nine-day period was a 150-ton
haystack, followed by a 2 -acre grass fire. Next came the church, which
was
destroyed, and finally a small fire at a community center.
"Our concern was the fires were escalating," said investigator Steve
Koenig of
the Larimer County Sheriff's Office.
Miller said Mayo had stopped taking his anti-depressants at the time of
the
arsons.
"He was really struggling with whether he wanted to live at that point,"
she
said. "His intent was not to set out and destroy property."
Virginia Dale Community Church is nearly rebuilt, and parishioners are
looking
to add final touches to the near-replica building. The first service will
be
private, said church trustee Dana Moen-Wright, who attended Friday's
hearing.
Visibly upset, Moen-Wright said Mayo's plea gave her some sense of
closure.
"I expected him to do that," she said of his confession. "I guess I just
wanted
to hear him say he did it, as part of a closure for me. I just wish he
would say
I'm sorry."
|
| |
| |
howard aubrey wrote:
Unfortunately, this type of thing happens all of the time. There
were 5 fatalities within a few miles of my community last year due to
volunteers lighting fires.
Tragic.
And there were 10,000's of fatalities arond the world due to the
lying criminal scumbag Bu$h lighting fires for his own pleasure.
|
| |
| |
On 29 Feb 2004 15:44:45 GMT, "Lee Weaver" <lweaver@firefighteremt.net>
wrote:
Yeah, Bush is the only American profiting off the middle east oil market.
Of course, and he's doing it by importing NO oil from Iraq too!
And it's always about the oil.
As long as that's what we run on I'm good with that!
Look, I don't agree with everything Bush
does, but damn folks, he is our PRESIDENT! Because of that we have to have
faith in his actions. We gave him 4 years, and there are no "take backs".
And don't gimme that b.s. about the election being stolen. It may have been
a flaw in the electoral college, but that flaw has always been there. You
don't like what Bush has done, vote him out in the next election. Let's
start ignoring these jack ass morons who use a firefighter turned arsonist
to spread their political messages.
Amen.
"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:4041FF3D.4080601@it.com...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
|
| |
| |
Lee Weaver wrote:
hahahahahahaha!
Everyone keeps going off on how we went into iraq only because there is oil
there, and the fact that we don't go into every country proves it.
With good reason. Bush was only embarrassed into going into Liberia
and now, Haiti. He's set a precedent which will overwhelm us.
Well, how
many of you hold the rank of General or Admiral? How many of you work for
the CIA or NSA? There is a lot of #@($ that we don't know about. My guess is
they had reason to believe saddam was a serious threat, so they kicked his
ass.
Obviously, there were a lot of things the CIA didn't know about.
When the Chinese pose a similar threat, we'll kick all billion of their
asses...although the North Koreans may learn of this first ;)
The United States isn't perfect. Ask any working man who gets raped on taxes
only to watch his drug addict, ex con, welfare sucking neighbor with 19 kids
get free healthcare how perfect our country is. Yes, our country still needs
a lot of work, but despite that fact, it's still the greatest country on
earth.
I'd beg to differ on that point, noting that I don't enjoy the
minimum freedom of speech enjoyed by citizens in virtually all of the
civilized world. If and when that changes, and/or the perpetrators are
brought to justice, I might change my mind. But not until then.
Too many people want to #@&@
and protest about everything.
The Bill of Rights *IS* everything. Bush wipes his ass with it.
How many
of you firefighters out there have a chief that's an ass hole? Probly quite
a few...but you still take his orders don't you? He's in charge, and he
didn't get there by mistake or by "stealing the vote".
Unlike the current squatter in the White House.
Show some f#$%ing loyalty.
Why should I "show some @$#*ing loyalty" to a man who shows no
loyalty to either me or the Constitution? Shrub should be impeached and
shot at sunrise.
|
| |
| |
Lee Weaver wrote:
OHHH....okay, now I get it. You're pissed because you failed the bar
and
instead of admiting you're just too stupid you'd rather play the
martyr and
blame uncle sam.
Wrong again, moron.
And ya know something, if you don't salute the flag anymore, why
don't you
get the hell out of this aweful country?
It's lowlife fascists like you who will be ex-nationalized, with
extreme prejudice, in short order.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The
Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
Uncle Samuel wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:43:19 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
You blather here, what does that not count?
The injury has already been inflicted. It's a little late....
They already denied me a
license to practice law, because someone at the Board of Law Examiners
got a bug up their ass about my "journalistic and internet expose" of a
corrupt televangelist.
Practicing law is not equivalent to "freedom of speech"
You're obviously not legally trained (or even legally competent, for
that matter). Ever heard of the concept of indirect restraints?
The government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that
infringes his constitutionally protected interest . . . For if the
government could deny a benefit to a person because of [his exer-
cise of] constitutionally protected [rights], his exercise of those
freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would
allow the government to produce a result which it could not command
directly. Such interference with constitutional rights is imper-
missible. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 583, 597 (1972).
University of Colorado v. Derdeyn, 863 P.2d 929, 947 (Colo. 1993).
Let's try this another way. The citizens of Saddam's Iraq all had
the freedom to say what they wanted -- but Uday Hussein also had the
freedom to cut their tongues out if he didn't like what they said. Do
you think they said what they REALLY wanted to say?
That's the concept of indirect restraints on speech. The Soviets
used to do it all the time. The Chinese are doing it right now to Falun
Gong members. (It's what you expect of fascists and socialists like
Spammy.) If you didn't like what a man said, you declared him insane,
and found a friendly psychiatrist to give you the opinion you wanted;
then, you sent him to the gulag. What's the difference, Unka Smarmy?
Best to keep your mouth shut, or parrot what the powers-that-be want
to hear, right, Smarmy? Can we hear you give a shout of praise to our
Great and Heroic General, Kim Jong- er, I mean, George Walker Bush?
If you don't see what's wrong with what happened to me, you don't
DESERVE freedom!
- you continue
to make bizarre and disproportionate paranoiac linkages.
Translated, I refuse to kiss Bush Baby's ass like sick Unka Spammy.
If you are free to speak, but the government can deny you a
livelihood on account of exercise of that "freedom," you are no better
off than the poor citizens of Iraq under Saddam.
Did they deny you the right to be a paralegal?
No.
Did they deny you the right to prepare tax returns?
No.
Did they say you can't be a pilot?
I didn't spend several years training to be a pilot. But if they can
do it to me here, why can't they do it to me there?
Just like Saddam's @$#*in' Iraq, cowboy! If Saddam didn't like what
you said, you couldn't do what you're trained for.
Yet, people wonder why I don't salute the flag any more....
Because you're a whining self-obsessed prick who blames his failures
on everyone else.
Who's blaming anything on anyone but the perpetrators, and those who
acquiesce in it? If you won't stand up for my rights, don't ever ask me
to stand up for yours. And trust me, the time WILL come....
Face it, you could have taken a psych eval. YOU chose not to.
God forbid that we should have any rights in this country!!!!!
YOU caused yourself to be disqualified to practice law in Colorado.
I stood up for my rights, and I'd do it again. I suppose that if you
don't suck Jesus' diseased donkey-dick, you're a second-class citizen in
Spammy's eyes....
YOU are to blame for your failures.
Yep -- just like a rape victim is to blame for being raped. We are
supposed to have basic human rights in this country, and when we find
that we can't rely on the @$#*in' Constitution, we're to blame?
DEAL with it!
When you get your sorry tongue out of George Walker Bush's ass, let
me remind you what a TRUE Republican said: that extremism in the defense
of liberty is no vice, and that moderation in the pursuit of justice is
no virtue. Know who he was?
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 04:55:00 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Uncle Samuel wrote:
The injury has already been inflicted.
"Inflicted"????
It's a little late....
Seek help.
They already denied me a
license to practice law, because someone at the Board of Law Examiners
got a bug up their ass about my "journalistic and internet expose" of a
corrupt televangelist.
Practicing law is not equivalent to "freedom of speech"
You're obviously not legally trained (or even legally competent, for
that matter). Ever heard of the concept of indirect restraints?
Ever see any restraint of your free speech here?
Well????
The government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that
infringes his constitutionally protected interest . . . For if the
government could deny a benefit to a person because of [his exer-
cise of] constitutionally protected [rights], his exercise of those
freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would
allow the government to produce a result which it could not command
directly. Such interference with constitutional rights is imper-
missible. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 583, 597 (1972).
University of Colorado v. Derdeyn, 863 P.2d 929, 947 (Colo. 1993).
Let's try this another way...
<blather trimmed>
If you don't see what's wrong with what happened to me, you don't
DESERVE freedom!
If you can pass the psych eval you have NO problems..right counselor?
- you continue
to make bizarre and disproportionate paranoiac linkages.
Translated, I refuse to kiss Bush Baby's ass like sick Unka Spammy.
Idjit.
If you are free to speak, but the government can deny you a
livelihood on account of exercise of that "freedom," you are no better
off than the poor citizens of Iraq under Saddam.
Did they deny you the right to be a paralegal?
No.
Did they deny you the right to prepare tax returns?
No.
Did they say you can't be a pilot?
I didn't spend several years training to be a pilot. But if they can
do it to me here, why can't they do it to me there?
If they thought you were unstable and nuts they could...so?
YOU chose not to prove them wrong kenny-boy.
Just like Saddam's @$#*in' Iraq, cowboy! If Saddam didn't like what
you said, you couldn't do what you're trained for.
Yet, people wonder why I don't salute the flag any more....
Who's blaming anything on anyone but the perpetrators, and those who
acquiesce in it? If you won't stand up for my rights, don't ever ask me
to stand up for yours. And trust me, the time WILL come....
If you're no kook, pass the test!
Do it!
Sheesh.
Face it, you could have taken a psych eval. YOU chose not to.
God forbid that we should have any rights in this country!!!!!
You CHOSE not to.
YOU caused yourself to be disqualified to practice law in Colorado.
I stood up for my rights, and I'd do it again. I suppose that if you
don't suck Jesus' diseased donkey-dick, you're a second-class citizen in
Spammy's eyes....
You CHOSE not to prove them wrong.
Why?
YOU are to blame for your failures.
Yep -- just like a rape victim is to blame for being raped. We are
supposed to have basic human rights in this country, and when we find
that we can't rely on the @$#*in' Constitution, we're to blame?
YOU chose your fate.
DEAL with it!
When you get your sorry tongue out of George Walker Bush's ass, let
me remind you what a TRUE Republican said: that extremism in the defense
of liberty is no vice, and that moderation in the pursuit of justice is
no virtue. Know who he was?
YOU chose your fate.
|
| |
| |
Uncle Samuel wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 04:40:33 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
But nothing...you had the choice, YOU refused.
You're right. I had the choice -- to give up my rights as a citizen,
or stand and fight for them. Which would you have chosen, Spammy -- to
have Uday rape your daughter?
Live with it!
Kind of like saying to the Iraqi father, "Uday raped your daughter.
Live with it!" Certain things are just wrong....
Yer a sick puppy.
And yer so sick that you can't even bear to have your real name
associated with your perverse views.
|
| |
| |
Uncle Samuel wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 04:55:00 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
"Inflicted"????
Seek help.
They already denied me a
license to practice law, because someone at the Board of Law Examiners
got a bug up their ass about my "journalistic and internet expose" of a
corrupt televangelist.
Practicing law is not equivalent to "freedom of speech"
Ever see any restraint of your free speech here?
Do you even understand the concept of indirect restraint upon speech?
I've *tried* to explain it to you, but you have done nothing but stick
your proverbial fingers in your ears.
Well????
Spam, explain the concept of indirect restraint upon speech, and how
it chills free speech. Or do you need slides?
The government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that
infringes his constitutionally protected interest . . . For if the
government could deny a benefit to a person because of [his exer-
cise of] constitutionally protected [rights], his exercise of those
freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would
allow the government to produce a result which it could not command
directly. Such interference with constitutional rights is imper-
missible. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 583, 597 (1972).
University of Colorado v. Derdeyn, 863 P.2d 929, 947 (Colo. 1993).
Let's try this another way...
<blather trimmed>
Translated, Spammy can't answer my question in a way that will help
to make his case, so he tries to make it disappear. Typical of the
psycho religious nutter: disregards those facts and realities which
clash with his immaculate preconceptions.
If you don't see what's wrong with what happened to me, you don't
DESERVE freedom!
If you can pass the psych eval you have NO problems..right counselor?
If taking one is a violation of my right to privacy, then it is a
very large problem. If the government has no right to rummage through
our personal papers without a compelling reason (one of the grievances
which sparked the Revolution in the first place), how much more so that
it has no right to rummage through our minds!
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:08:50 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Uncle Samuel wrote:
Do you even understand the concept of indirect restraint upon speech?
The courts didn't.
I've *tried* to explain it to you, but you have done nothing but stick
your proverbial fingers in your ears.
I read your views, they're off kilter.
Well????
Spam, explain the concept of indirect restraint upon speech, and how
it chills free speech. Or do you need slides?
Explain how you would be damaged by taking and passing a psych eval.
Explain how you would be deprived of the right to travel and perhaps
work if MVD required you to take an eye test for a driver's license.
Think.
Right vs. privilege.
The government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that
infringes his constitutionally protected interest . . . For if the
government could deny a benefit to a person because of [his exer-
cise of] constitutionally protected [rights], his exercise of those
freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would
allow the government to produce a result which it could not command
directly. Such interference with constitutional rights is imper-
missible. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 583, 597 (1972).
University of Colorado v. Derdeyn, 863 P.2d 929, 947 (Colo. 1993).
Let's try this another way...
<blather trimmed>
Translated, Spammy can't answer my question in a way that will help
to make his case, so he tries to make it disappear. Typical of the
psycho religious nutter: disregards those facts and realities which
clash with his immaculate preconceptions.
Translated: more red herrings from a man who can't live with the
court's decision.
If you don't see what's wrong with what happened to me, you don't
DESERVE freedom!
If you can pass the psych eval you have NO problems..right counselor?
If taking one is a violation of my right to privacy, then it is a
very large problem.
Ah privacy...well now...how concerned were you for Bob Larson's
privacy?
Oh I know, he's a public figure, you used public documents, etc.
But in practice how concerned were you for his privacy?
If the government has no right to rummage through
our personal papers without a compelling reason (one of the grievances
which sparked the Revolution in the first place), how much more so that
it has no right to rummage through our minds!
They had a reason, you made it happen by your obsession with Larson.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Uncle Samuel wrote:
You're right. I had the choice -- to give up my rights as a
citizen,
or stand and fight for them. Which would you have chosen, Spammy --
to
have Uday rape your daughter?
Spammy likes to roll-over and piss on himself at the first sight or bark
of "authority" ...
Live with it!
Kind of like saying to the Iraqi father, "Uday raped your daughter.
Live with it!" Certain things are just wrong....
Spammy needs to be told what to do.
But we all *know* that when favors get called in, funny things
happen -- like the way George Walker Bush failed his pilot's
entrance
exam, and got put in a champagne battalion, far away from the
fighting
in 'Nam?
That shouldn't have been too hard, right counselor?
And ya know something, if you don't salute the flag anymore, why
don't you get the hell out of this aweful country?
At this point, I'd rather fight to make it what it was supposed
to be.
With your class warfare taxation schemes and loopy anti-Bush and
anti-God diatribes, sure counselor...sure...
If you hate them so much, don't you think that the Democrats would
have loved my diatribes? ;-)
Yer a sick puppy.
And yer so sick that you can't even bear to have your real name
associated with your perverse views.
Harlan.
|
| |
| |
ncle Samuel wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:08:50 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
[snip]
They already denied me a
license to practice law, because someone at the Board of Law Examiners
got a bug up their ass about my "journalistic and internet expose" of a
corrupt televangelist.
Practicing law is not equivalent to "freedom of speech"
You're obviously not legally trained (or even legally competent, for
that matter). Ever heard of the concept of indirect restraints?
Ever see any restraint of your free speech here?
Do you even understand the concept of indirect restraint upon speech?
The courts didn't.
We'll see. The case has yet to be decided on the merits, though
Judge Nottingham is known to socialize with the Defendants, and was
presumably disinclined to hear my case if he could at all avoid it.
Judges tend to protect each other's asses wherever possible. (I
actually saw an expert witness testify to that effect -- at which point,
the judge read him the riot act. :) )
I read your views, they're off kilter.
How so? Please explain.
Well????
Spam, explain the concept of indirect restraint upon speech, and how
it chills free speech. Or do you need slides?
Explain how you would be damaged by taking and passing a psych eval.
Explain how you would be deprived of the right to travel and perhaps
work if MVD required you to take an eye test for a driver's license.
Think.
Right vs. privilege.
The right/privilege distinction has long been abandoned by the
Supreme Court, and admission to the practice of law is now considered a
right to those who have qualified. And any criterion to be applied in
determining qualifications for the admission to practice law must be
related to "the singular objective of ensuring that attorneys are honest
and proficient in the basic skills and knowledge of their profession."
Goldsmith v. Pringle, 399 F.Supp. 620, 625 (D.Colo. 1975).
"The Due Process Clause directly protects fundamental aspects of
personal privacy against intrusion by the State," Mangels v. Pena, 789
F.2d 836, 839 (10th Cir. 1986), and one elemental aspect of this right
to privacy is the "individual interst in avoiding disclosure of personal
matters." Whalen v. Roe, 429 F.2d 589, 600 (1977).
Under federal law, the due process test for whether a bar applicant
should be required to undergo a psychiatric examination and whether a
driver's license applicant should be required to have an eye examination
is the same: The court must balance the interests involved, considering
whether the applicant "has a legitimate expectation of privacy, (2) if
disclosure serves a compelling state interest, and (3) if disclosure can
be made in the least intrusive manner." Denver Policemen's Protective
Ass'n v. Liechtenstein, 660 F.2d 432, 435 (10th Cir. 1981). Colorado's
privacy standard is even higher. See, People v. Hillman, 834 P.2d 1271,
1279-80 (Colo. 1992) (Quinn, J., dissenting; collecting cases).
In the driver's license hypo, I wouldn't have a legitimate
expectation of privacy -- if I'm Mister @$#*in' Magoo, I'm probably
wearing glasses thicker than Coke bottles in any event. And no one
reasonably disputes the State's interest in ensuring that I can see well
enough not to plow through the crowds at Five Points during Juneteenth.
And what would be the least restrictive way to get the requisite
information?
Apply the same rules to the psych exam question. You certainly have
an interest in not disclosing personal information to the government --
if you don't agree with me here, you're not a Republican -- and as the
sagas of Kate Faber and Linda Tripp have shown us, if your information
ever becomes of value to anyone, you can rest assured that it will be
leaked to the press. Second, given the phenomenal success of Abraham
Lincoln -- a known manic-depressive -- it is difficult to argue that a
mental fitness exam that would have screened him out is in the State's
interest, the second test is failed. Finally, as an applicant's mental
stability can be ascertained by the assessments of those who know him or
her best, and state bars can and do do such assessments (see, e.g., In
re Anastaplo, 366 U.S. 82, 106-07 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting) (Black
made the observation that an extensive background check was done on the
candidate; he was refused licensure on other grounds), there is no need
to do such an examination in the absence of preliminary work. The sloth
and indolence of the government should never be an excuse with which to
short-circuit the Constitution.
So, let's here your counter-argument.
The government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that
infringes his constitutionally protected interest . . . For if the
government could deny a benefit to a person because of [his exer-
cise of] constitutionally protected [rights], his exercise of those
freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would
allow the government to produce a result which it could not command
directly. Such interference with constitutional rights is imper-
missible. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 583, 597 (1972).
University of Colorado v. Derdeyn, 863 P.2d 929, 947 (Colo. 1993).
Let's try this another way...
<blather trimmed>
Translated, Spammy can't answer my question in a way that will help
to make his case, so he tries to make it disappear. Typical of the
psycho religious nutter: disregards those facts and realities which
clash with his immaculate preconceptions.
Translated: more red herrings from a man who can't live with the
court's decision.
I cant live with an obviously unconstitutional decision, for as Sen.
Barry Goldwater once said, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no
vice ... and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." He's a
REAL Republican; you're just a religious nutter who pretends to be one.
If you don't see what's wrong with what happened to me, you don't
DESERVE freedom!
If you can pass the psych eval you have NO problems..right counselor?
If taking one is a violation of my right to privacy, then it is a
very large problem.
Ah privacy...well now...how concerned were you for Bob Larson's
privacy?
Oh I know, he's a public figure, you used public documents, etc.
But in practice how concerned were you for his privacy?
The Bill of Rights only restrains the government, as your hero John
Rocker can attest. And the public has a right to know that a minister
|
| |
| |
|
