Category: Wall of Fame Assholes

Using the Legal System to Maintain Monopolies

People seem to mistaken the legal system in the United States for a justice system. The legal system isn’t setup to administer justice, it’s setup to protect monopolies. Whenever competition threatens a major corporation that corporation turns to the state for protection and the state is always willing to listen to anybody with deep pockets. Meet Rajul Zaparde, Shri Graneshram, and Kevin Petrovic the founders of FlightCar:

The idea was this: At every major airport, acres of cars sit idle, left parked by owners who have jetted off. Why couldn’t these same cars be rented to arriving travelers? Rates could be dramatically cheaper than those charged by traditional car rental companies, since, under this model, the rental company wouldn’t have to pay for or maintain the fleet.

Owners would have a fourfold incentive to participate: free parking, a free car wash, a cut of the rental fee and a guarantee their car would be waiting for them when they returned.

With financing from angel investors, FlightCar, the trio’s brainchild, began renting cars in February to passengers arriving at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), for rates start as low as $21 a day, depending on the make and model of the car.

Sounds like a pretty sweet deal. I wish FlightCar would have been available where I’ve flown to because paying $21.00 for a car is far better than almost $100.00. As you can guess this business was looking to succeed so it was inevitable that somebody was going to sue them:

Foes of FlightCar, however, have started to shoot back.

It’s easy to see how traditional rental companies might not be amused to have their prices undercut. But San Francisco International is crying foul, as well.

Doug Yakel, public information officer for SFO, tells ABC News that FlightCar refuses to play by the rules that govern other rental car companies. It doesn’t pay the same fees, he says, and it doesn’t abide by the same regulations.

SFO’s objections have taken the form of a complaint filed last month against FlightCar by the city attorney of San Francisco.

When the San Francisco International (SFO) airport says FlightCar isn’t playing by the rules it really means FlightCar isn’t giving it a piece of the action:

or example, SFO wants FlightCar to pay it 10 percent of its gross profit and a $20 fee for each rental car transaction — the same as what the airport gets from every other rental car company.

The fact that FlightCar operates from a base outside airport property, Yakel says, makes no difference: SFO has three other rental companies that also operate off-property. According to the complaint, those three paid SFO over $2 million in fees in 2012. FlightCar, too, should pay, thinks Yakel.

What makes SFO think it has any right to expropriate wealth from other entities, especially when those entities aren’t on its property? While the three rental companies currently paying SFO fees may be doing so willingly, likely for preferential treatment involving direct shuttle access from the airport to the rental car center, there is no reason SFO is entitled so such fees. I’m sure SFO is worried that FlightCar will succeed and that success will drive its competitors out of business, which would deprive SFO of roughly $2 million annual.

A justice system would have thrown this complaint out the window as soon as it was informed that FlightCar isn’t stationed on SFO property. Sadly, judging by the history of similar legal issues in this country, SFO, which is owned by the city and county of San Francisco and therefore the same entities that own the local legal system, is likely to win this case or, at least, drag it on long enough to bankrupt FlightCar (in court, if you can’t beat them you can bankrupt them).

The Police Will Murder Your Dog Over Expired License Tabs

Do you want to see an example of the violence inherent in the system? I’m guessing you do, otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this blog, so here you go:

LIBERTY HILL — Vinny is German Shepherd with a bullet wound on the back of his neck. On Monday, a Leander police officer shot Vinny when he says the dog and another German Sheppard came running at him while trying to serve a warrant.

“He said they were growling, and closing distance very quickly,” said Lt. Derral Partin, a spokesperson for Leander Police.

However, Vinny’s owners Renata and Chris Simmons, say Vinny has never acted aggressively.

“This dog wasn’t after him. This dog was just running up going ‘hey what are you doing?’ and they have a right to do that. This is my yard; this man should not have even been there. He could have killed my husband’s best friend,” said Renata Simmons.

The Simmons also tell KVUE — KENS 5’s sister station in Austin — they have never heard of the man that police were looking for.

The warrant was for a man named Bradly Neal Simpson, who is wanted for an expired vehicle registration.

The address on the warrant is in Cedar Park, not Liberty Hill where the Simmons have lived for nine years. However, Leander Police say their database shows Simpson’s last known address as the same one where the Simmons live.

Many people have pointed out the incorrect address as the primary failure here but the primary failure, in my opinion, is issuing a kidnapping order warrant for expired license tabs. It’s pretty messed up to send men with guns to cuff a man and lock him in a cage for failing to pay the state an annual fee to register his vehicle. What’s even more messed up is that the men sent to kidnap the offender apparently wanted to shoot something so badly that they jumped at the opportunity to put a bullet in a dog. If somebody can explain to me how this is an effective justice system I’m all ears.

Peter King Should be Arrested

Peter King, a schmuck from New York who claims to represent some people, recently stated that he believes Glenn Greenwald should be arrested:

“Not only did [Greenwald] disclose this information, he said he has names of CIA agents and assets around the world and threatening to disclose that,” King said when asked by host Megyn Kelly why he wants to prosecute the reporter. “I think [prosecuting reporters] should be very targeted and very selective and a rare exception. In this case, when you have someone who discloses secrets like this and threatens to release more, yes, there has to be legal action taken against him.”

He then asserted: “This is a very unusual case with life-and-death implications for Americans.”

I believe there has to be legal action taken against Mr. King. When Mr. King took his position as a “representative” he, along with his cohorts, took the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

While I’m not particularly fond of the Constitution I have read it and know that the Fourth Amendment makes the actions of the National Security Agency (NSA) illegal:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Greenwald broke the story on the NSA’s widespread surveillance operation, which was a complete violation of the people’s right to be protected from unreasonable searches. Mr. King, by demanding the prosecution of Mr. Greenwalk, is aiding and abetting a criminal organization and that shit ain’t legal.

No Good Comes from Calling the Police

It’s pretty well known at this point that the police have no legal duty to protect you. In fact, as this country deteriorates more and more into a full blown police state, it’s becoming more apparent that calling the police can only lead to grief. Whether they’re blasting kittens in front of children or forcing a landlord to evict a woman out of his property because her boyfriend beat her too many times — no that wasn’t a typo — the police seem to deliver violence and grief wherever they go:

Last year in Norristown, Pa., Lakisha Briggs’ boyfriend physically assaulted her, and the police arrested him. But in a cruel turn of events, a police officer then told Ms. Briggs, “You are on three strikes. We’re gonna have your landlord evict you.”

Yes, that’s right. The police threatened Ms. Briggs with eviction because she had received their assistance for domestic violence. Under Norristown’s “disorderly behavior ordinance,” the city penalizes landlords and tenants when the police respond to three instances of “disorderly behavior” within a four-month period. The ordinance specifically includes “domestic disturbances” as disorderly behavior that triggers enforcement of the law.

I’m starting to suspect that the police are doing everything in their power to persuade people not to call them. It makes sense, they probably want to eat their doughnuts in peace but keep getting called by the people that they’re supposedly tasked with protecting. The fastest way to put an end to such interruptions is to kill the pets of whoever called them.

One thing is certain, calling the police will end in misery.

Caving My Skull in with a Face Palm

There may not be any stupid questions but there are stupid ideas. For example, if you designed a line of ammunition specifically for the purpose of offending one or more religions you have acted a stupid idea:

A group of Idahoans have gotten together to produce ammunition loaded with bullets dipped in pork-infused paint. Why you ask? They claim it will deter radical Islam terrorists from fighting if they run the risk of being hit in the stomach with a pork-paint tipped bullet, but most likely they did it because it is bound to offend Muslims (and maybe Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, Seventh-day Adventists and vegans as well).

[…]

On their website Jihawg say …

We at Jihawg Ammo hope you will stock up on Jihawg as a natural deterrent to the ever growing threat of radical Islam and Sharia Law. We, however, stress that the nullifying principle of our product is only effective if you are attacked by an Islamist in Jihad. Otherwise, our ammo functions just like any other ammunition so we obviously insist upon defensive use of our ammo only-not offensive.

I may have given myself brain damage from the massive face palm that follow reading this excerpt.

Classical Liberal and I discussed this matter briefly on Facebook and both noted that possessing this type of ammunition would be a prosecutor’s bonanza if you found yourself in court following a self-defense shooting. Convincing a jury that you meant no ill after shooting somebody with ammunition specifically targeted at a religious group is going to be a tough sell. Even if you didn’t use one of these rounds in self-defense but had some at home a prosecutor could effectively destroy your case by character assassination.

Obviously you’re free to buy it but do know that I will judge you negatively for doing so and so will a jury.

Another Example of the State’s Priorities

Although I try to point out that the primary purpose of the police is to expropriate wealth from the general population people continue to think that their duty is to protect and serve. You may have heard that Stockholm is experiencing some difficulties as of late. The people are pissed and have decided to let their aggression show by rioting. During times of civil unrest you would expect the police to get into their armor and pull out their fancy tanks to protect the areas threatened by rioters. Instead the police of Stockholm have chosen a different strategy:

Since last Sunday, May 19, rioters have taken to the streets of Stockholm’s suburbs every night, torching cars, schools, stores, office buildings and residential complexes. Yesterday, a police station in Rågsved, a suburb four kilometers south of Stockholm, was attacked and set on fire.

But while the Stockholm riots keep spreading and intensifying, Swedish police have adopted a tactic of non-interference. ”Our ambition is really to do as little as possible,” Stockholm Chief of Police Mats Löfving explained to the Swedish newspaper Expressen on Tuesday.

[…]

Swedish parking laws, however, continue to be rigidly enforced despite the increasingly chaotic situation. Early Wednesday, while documenting the destruction after a night of rioting in the Stockholm suburb of Alby, a reporter from Fria Tider observed a parking enforcement officer writing a ticket for a burnt-out Ford.

The police won’t protect property threatened roaming rioters but they will issue parking tickets for vehicles that have been destroyed by rioters. Expropriation is the name of the state’s game.

The Police Won’t Protect You, They’ll Use You as a Political Pawn

It’s no secret that the police are under no obligation to protect you but it’s probably not common knowledge that the police use people as political pawns. A police department in Oregon allowed a woman to be sexually assaulted because they were pissy about recent budget cuts:

“Uh, I don’t have anybody to send out there,” the 911 dispatcher told the woman. “You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away? Do you know if he’s intoxicated or anything?”

The woman told the dispatcher that Bellah previously attacked her and left her hospitalized a few weeks prior to the latest incident. The dispatcher stayed on the phone with the woman for more than 10 minutes before the sexual assault took place.

“Once again it’s unfortunate you guys don’t have any law enforcement out there,” the dispatcher said, according to Oregon Public Radio.

The woman responded: “Yeah, it doesn’t matter, if he gets in the house I’m done.”

Police say Bellah choked the woman and sexually assaulted her. He was arrested by Oregon State Police following the incident.

This situation is an example of Washington Monument syndrome. If you haven’t heard of Washington Monument syndrome it’s the name given to the phenomenon where government agencies cut the most visible programs whenever their budgets are cut. This strategy is meant to directly make the lives of people more miserable in the hopes that they protest and demand more funding for whatever agency is cutting the visible program. It appears that the police department in question was pulling such a move when they told her no units could respond.

This story demonstrates another thing, the dangers of centralized security. I’ve discussed the advantages of decentralized security before but the most important point in regards to this story is that decentralized security doesn’t suffer complete failure due to any single component failing. Police not responding may not have resulting in the woman being sexually assault if she had access to a firearm or some of her neighbors had access to a firearm and the legal ability to respond to phone calls for help.

Relying on the state for security results in a complete lack of security, especially when a state agency is pissed off because of budget cuts and decides to throw a temper tantrum instead of coming to the aid of a person in need.

The Next Chapter in the State’s War Against the Homeless

The next chapter in the state’s continuing war against people who have nothing to steal began in Redbridge, London:

Adam Jaskowiak was one of the men targeted and said he pleaded with police to be able to keep his things but was ignored.

He was sleeping with eight other people finding shelter for the night in the former Ilford Baths in High Road, Ilford.

All of their belongings were bundled into a police car leaving the men, one in his 60s, stunned.

A police chief told the Recorder the operation was carried out to “reduce the negative impact of rough sleepers”.

But Mr Jaskowiak, 34, said: “They were just taking the sleeping bags and chucking out everything. I asked to keep it and the food, but they said ‘no’.

Let it be known that the state will not tolerate anybody who provides food to those that are hungry or seeks warmth in a sleeping bag when the have no shelter. One thing is for certain, the state will take whatever you have even if you have nothing more than a little food and a sleeping bag.

The Definition of Self-Defense According to Obama

Shoot or don’t shoot scenarios are always fun to ponder over. Here I will present two separate scenarios for you to consider. Your goal is to decide whether or not a scenario qualifies as a self-defense situation. After presenting the scenarios I will present Obama’s answers.

For the first scenario we will pretend you live in a small neighborhood where two of your neighbors are feuding. What started the feud happened so long ago nobody besides the two neighbors can remember the exact circumstance. Finally, after putting up with their shit for a long time, you decide to do something about it. You decide to form an alliance with the neighbor that lives closer to you. After your attempts to arm your closest neighbor fail to resolve the ongoing feud you decide to take matters into your own hands. One night you kick in the further neighbor’s door and shoot one of the family members in the face. At this point another family member returns fire. If you being shooting at that family member are you performing an act of self-defense?

For the second scenario we will continue to assume that you live in a small neighborhood but this time you don’t have to suffer feuding neighbors. After living in the neighborhood for a short while you get into an altercation with one of your neighbors. The cause of the altercation isn’t important but it was trivial. One night you catch the neighbor you’re fighting with setting your house on fire. Fortunately you caught the act in time to run inside, grab a fire extinguisher, and put the fire out before it spread too far. Would it be a valid case of self-defense if you then grabbed your gun, walked over to a different neighbor’s house, and shot members of his family?

According to Mr. Obama both of those scenarios are valid cases of self-defense:

Mr Obama also defended the use of drones to kill four US citizens.

“We are at war with an organisation that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first,” he said in Thursday’s address at the National Defense University in Washington DC.

“So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defence.”

After causing grief for many nations through proxy wars with Russia and clandestine operations to topple existing governments the United States is now claiming self-defense as the justification for bombing children in the Middle East. The United States has allied itself with one side of various conflicts, armed those sides, and outright killed members of the other side when their allies failed to take out their opposition. In response to 9/11 the United States decided to invade Iraq as a retaliatory strike against al-Qaeda, who were chiefly operating inside of Afghanistan.

War is peace and initiating aggression is self-defense.

Another Battle in the State’s War Against the Homeless

While the hearts of many self-proclaimed progressives are in the right place they tend to go about their stated goal of helping those in need in the wrong way. Asking the state to help those without resources is an exercise in futility because the state is an agent of expropriation and is only interested in providing assistance to individuals who actually have something to steal.

The state’s war against the homeless is pretty overt at this point. It seems that any organization that attempts to provide food, clothing, or shelter to those without means are shutdown by whatever municipality they are operating in. Manchester, New Hampshire is the latest battlefield in this twisted war:

MANCHESTER — City officials have told a church group that it will no longer be allowed use Veterans Park to serve a free hot breakfast to the homeless.

The decision has left Do you know Him? Ministries without an outdoor location in the downtown area to serve the breakfast.

The group had been using Veterans Park each weekend since January 2012 until December when, due to the cold, it took the operation indoors at the Salvation Army.

When it sought to again serve the breakfast at the park, the group was told by the Parks Department that its permit would not be renewed.

Why wasn’t their permit renewed? In most of these cases the state claims health and safety reasons to block organizations from helping those in need but this time the justification was a bit more honest:

“There was some concern from area businesses who didn’t feel like it was the best fit, using park space to feed people,” Chief of Parks Peter Capano said. “We sat down to try and find another location to do the ministry and had a rough time of it.”

Obviously we can’t have a bunch of homeless people reminding patrons that some people have it better than others. If we allowed that some of those people may decide to help and that would mean resources would be going to those without means instead of the state and its cronies. Instead the problem must be swept under the rug.

In the end the lesson is the same: the state cannot be used to help those in need. If you really want to help people who have little or nothing then you’ll have to develop voluntary methods of doing so.