May 25, 2014 at 11:50 A.M. Attempts to access the Internet from my home were obstructed. I will try again at one hour intervals to get online. Library computers will not be available until after Tuesday. I may be stuck at home for a few days, but I will try to find a way to continue writing and posting essays.
May 23, 2014 at 11:06 A.M. I was surprised to receive a visit from the Super in my building early this morning suddenly concerned about leaks in my bathroom. I will take my own photos. I will be happy to cooperate with all repair efforts, if any are needed. I will take such actions as may rationally be required to facilitate repairs when it becomes necessary to take such actions.
It appears that new laptops will not be available today at NYPL, Morningside Heights. I will try again tomorrow to add the essay concerning Cecily McMillan to this text.
Mr. Christie's collapse and surrender on the Stuart Rabner reappointment is a terrible mistake for the governor that restores a political enemy -- a man allied with the "friends" of Solomon Dwek -- to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Mr. Rabner will oppose the governor's policies and obstruct every effort to resolve my matters. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")
Mr. Rabner's conflicts of interest -- given his actions and inactions in my matters -- and his desire to protect the OAE as well as himself and his friends (Ms. Poritz), should preclude him from taking any role in my matters or deciding any issue affecting me. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and N.J. Corruption.")
Mr. Rabner's continued presence on the Supreme Court in Trenton is sufficient to establish the appearance -- if not the reality -- of impropriety or corruption. ("N.J.'s Moshe 'David' Schwartz Guilty of Fraud" and "David Samson Resigns.")
Mr. Rabner's reappointment is a defeat for the people of New Jersey and a betrayal of Mr. Chritie's campaign promises concerning reforming the state Supreme Court that is only made possible by the N.J. Governor's weakening as a result of the GWB scandal. Maybe this "weakening" and hurting of Mr. Christie, politically, was the point of that media-generated scandal: Kate Zernike, "Christie Renominates Chief Justice Despite Vows to Remake New Jersey's Supreme Court," The New York Times, May 22, 2014, p. A25.
Mr. Rabner's continued presence on the court is said to displease U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. I concur. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
May 21, 2014 at 5:46 P.M. Earlier today I was denied access to my blogs and was forced to sign-out from NYPL, Morningside Heights, computer #10.
I made copies of a number of bogus pages requesting a "password" (after I had signed-in) or other absurd insults. Some day I may receive an explanation of these tactics from New Jersey. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
Similar harassments, obstructions, censorship of communication efforts in violation of First Amendment rights have been a part of my writing experience on-line for more than a decade and are clearly the work of government and/or police officials emanating from state offices, probably in New Jersey and/or Florida. ("Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")
After years of this sort of attack and the frustration of many communication or writing efforts, I have come to expect this war, every day, in my struggle for the truth from N.J. and to express my thoughts and opinions.
Deliberate infliction of emotional harm and silencing -- however hurtful to me -- is primarily aimed, I believe, at producing permanent harm only in order to prevent the expression of opinions and ideas that powerful individuals dislike because of their social effects or controversy surrounding my views and myself. ("Torture" and "Dehumanization.")
Truths concerning social justice and the reality of oppression are bound to displease those doing the oppressing and seeking to avoid legal outcomes that benefit the many at the expense of the few. Censorship is always the totalitarian response to anyone speaking truth to power.
I should not expect to be liked or popular in a society that I love for its ideals, but that I feel compelled to criticize for moral as well as political reasons concerning a number of issues. The size of the text in this paragraph was altered by hackers as I posted revisions. ("Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution" and "American Lawyers and Torture" then "Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")
Threats or actual harm, anxiety induced through frustrations, economic deprivations, stigmatizing, professional harm -- all of these devices are expected ingredients in the witches' brew conjured by politicians hoping to silence a tortured dissident. Ideally, the victim will give up in despair and commit suicide or sink into severe depression. I will not allow these methods to work with me. I am not alone in this implacable resolve to seek and speak the truth about the injustices with which we live. ("Glen Greenwald's Partner Detained" and "Freedom For Mumia Abu-Jamal.")
I also sense that for sadists engaging in these tactics there is a sexual thrill that accompanies the ability to "affect" victims who cannot respond in kind to cyber-attacks using government technology and resources from New Jersey. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
"The purpose of torture," as George Orwell noted and I never tire of repeating, "is torture." ("How censorship works in America" and "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")
To acquiesce in these hateful tactics, or remain apathetic to them, is complicity in evil. The sickness or control aimed against me is something that must be stopped in this country. If I can be silenced because of the content of my opinions, then soon others with minority opinions will be subjected to similar treatment and silencing. ("Aaron Schwartz, Freedom, and American Law" and "Abuse and Exploitation of Women in New Jersey.")
I was using a public computer when this cyber-crime occurred. My home Internet connection is obstructed, regularly, and I anticipate more such attacks against me and my writings, together with responses in kind against my enemies from unknown "friends" and sympathetic colleagues, in many countries, who are offended and infuriated at seeing a human being tormented and deprived of his rights, as billions of powerless persons also are denied their rights in our world. ("Thomas Nagel's Guilt by Association.")
I fear that someone may be seriously injured -- as I have been
hurt over many years -- because of the brutality and stupidity of persons unable to grasp the points and arguments being offered at these blogs. ("Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" and "Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?")
I will not change my opinions because of threats nor will I hesitate to express thoughts online for as long as I live.
I will be adding to this text an essay examining a controversial case of police brutality and censorship in response to peaceful protest in violation of First Amendment rights, supplemented by additional examples of New Jersey's filth and corruption, suggesting that I am not alone in my experiences. ("Edward M. De Sear, Esq. and New Jersey's Filth" and "Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes.")
No writing will be possible at my preferred library location due to an "upgrade" of the laptop computers at Morningside Heights on May 22, 2014. For how long laptops will be unavailable is impossible to tell.
As of May 27th, laptops are still unavailable at Morningside Heights. As of June 12, 2014 copying is impossible from the new laptops which cannot access Google Chrome and seem to be worse than what existed before these "improvements." Also, a printer has been disabled.
I cannot say whether it is true that Senator Menendez has been "persuaded" by his colleagues and the FBI not to run for reelection. I certainly hope that Mr. Menendez will be replaced in the U.S. Senate and that there will be no more persons (like him) elected to what was once called the "most exclusive club in the world."
Anna Merlan, "The Defense Breasts," The Village Voice, May 14, 2014, p. 1, p. 7.
Alan Feuer, "Officer Testifies of Scuffle During Wall Street Protest," The New York Times, April 15, 2014, p. A18.
Jessica Silver-Greenberg & Ben Protess, "In Tax Case, Credit Suisse Is Denied Milder Penalty," The New York Times, May 20, 2014, p. B1. (The total fine is far less than American yearly earnings for this bank.)
Jenny Anderson & Peter Eales, "A C.E.O. Called the 'Teflon Man,'" The New York Times, May 20, 2014, p. B1.
Ben Protess & Jessica Silver-Greenberg, "Big Swiss Bank Pleads Guilty In Felony Case: Penalty of $2.6 Billion for Credit Suisse," The New York Times, May 20, 2014, p. A1.
James C. McKinley, Jr., "Despite Calls for Release, Activist in Occupy Case Gets Three Months," The New York Times, May 20, 2014, p. A16.
"A woman whose assault case had become a [sensation,] first among Occupy Wall Street supporters and then expanding well beyond the movement, was sentenced to three months in jail on Monday, as a judge rejected calls for her immediate release."
This now celebrated case has come to symbolize many of the failures of the American legal system, not the least of these failures is the "tunnel-vision" and sheer idiocy of some judges and prosecutors who simply cannot see past their own noses in cases of political protest.
In many instances the facts the state would point to in this kind of
unfortunate situation would, rightly, lead to the conclusion that the defendant knowingly assaulted a police officer who was "only doing his duty."
A second and more careful examination of the facts in the McMillan case reveals unique features that change the legal analysis and lead to a conclusion for the defendant.
Aside from the slant in the media ("a video at the scene appeared to confirm" the police story), it is reasonably clear that Cecily McMillan -- now 25 years-old, attractive, and a graduate of the New School University -- was out "drinking" with friends during an evening in 2012 when police were "clearing out" protesters in Zuccotti Park.
By emphasizing that Ms. McMillan had been "drinking" the subtext for the upper-middle-class readers of the Times is that Ms. McMillan (who is also said to have been meeting her "boyfriend" or "-friends) is a whore who "goes out drinking" and, thus, is not to be taken seriously in her accounts of events since she was engaged in a "pub crawl." ("Would you have helped Katherine 'Kitty' Genovese?" and "Abuse and Exploitation of Women in New Jersey.")
Cecily McMillan "appears" to be the most normal 25 year-old I have ever encountered. Nevertheless, given America's contradictions concerning gender-roles and -behavior, her sex-life will soon be a part of this story. This prurience is especially likely if Ms. McMillan is in any way "unusual" in her sexual activity, i.e., if she is a lesbian.
Ms. McMillan is placed on the defensive from the outset and made to apologize for assaulting several police officers who actually assaulted her:
" ... Justice Robert A. Sweibel, who had remanded Ms. McMillan on May 5 after a four-week trial, imposed the jail sentence that prosecutors had requested, rather than release her on probation, as her lawyers had urged. She could have faced a maximum of seven years for the second degree [aggravated?] assault."
Ms. McMillan did not have the effective assistance of counsel until the eve of trial, if at all.
Weeks after the incident, Ms. McMillan was a guest on Democracy Now. There were visible bruises on her face and body, also a large male right-hand "print" on her right breast area, even as her upper back was marked by bruises and scratches that were reported in the media, and that were partly visible also during her television interview.
Ms. McMillan did not visit the hospital immediately after the incident occurred; her body bruises were not photographed on the day they were inflicted, especially those on her back and right side; no subpoena was served on persons at Democracy Now seeking the videotape in question; no charges for assault and battery as well as sexual assault or "groping" were filed against the arresting officer(s) by Ms. McMillan, or by the People of the State of New York, which is something the defendant probably did not realize that she could do and that prosecutors should have done without being asked. A notice of intent to sue the city was not filed. There are time-limitations for such notices and civil suits which are independent of the criminal case.
Why Ms. McMillan was charged with second degree assault is unexplained since she did not have a weapon. No challenge to the indictment is a part of the record in this matter.
There is a statutory PRESUMPTION of non-incarceration for a first-time offender in New York. To overcome this presumption, presumably, there was a showing of a history of violent and/or anti-social behavior by Ms. McMillan, or grievous harm suffered by her victim. Otherwise, the sentence is clearly excessive and should be (as in fact it was, eventually) overturned by appellate courts.
Most likely, the sentence will be overturned after the defendant has done the time in jail which may be the point of the experience as far as prosecutors are concerned.
Ms. McMillan, who is really the aggrieved party, is entitled to apologies and compensation for her ordeal. It is difficult to produce bruises on your own back and breast resulting from being grabbed from behind.
Objective evidence of assault and battery on Ms. McMillan is pretty clear, suggesting that the slender young woman was unlikely to "intend" and/or to "voluntarily" attack several police officers, male and female, on the night in question:
"The trial became a rallying point among people who sympathized with the Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011 and 2012, which called attention to the gap between rich and poor[,] and criticized the government bailout of big banks. Many of Ms. McMillan's supporters saw in her a symbol of the police crackdown that ended the occupation of Zucotti Park and snuffed out the protest's momentum."
As I write these words the spectacle surrounding the "shenanigans" at Credit Suisse have resulted in multi-billion dollar penalties; new revelations concerning what can only be called "scams" at JP Morgan are ignored; HSBC money-laundering for Asian and Latin-American drug cartels as well as of illicit "erotic profits" (child-porn earnings in the millions or billions of dollars) have appeared in the media.
Not one of the chief executives of these financial institutions -- all are men in their fifties -- have been "grabbed in the genitals" by female officers or punched in the face by women prosecutors.
None of these middle-aged men operating the banks has been charged with a crime or sent to prison for heinous crimes involving billions of dollars that often result in the loss or destruction of many lives.
In the interests of legal consistency, legality, it seems only fair to subject these all-male bankers to such experiences and to send them to prisons or jails for a few months (or years), if they are convicted of the crimes for which they should have been tried years ago.
It is obvious to any experienced attorney or judge -- including, I suspect, Justice Zweibel and Ms. Strain, the prosecutor -- what actually happened in this dispute: Ms. McMillan was NOT drunk, but arrived at Zuccotti Park as police began, rudely, forcing young people out of the area. She got into an argument with a police officer (who was probably offensive to her), while another officer (who probably found her attractive) grabbed her from behind (Cecily could not possibly see that this person happened to be a cop), causing Ms. McMillan -- like most young women -- to elbow the assailant in the face. Well done, Cecily.
"In essence, she has repeatedly argued that the rules should not apply to everyone equally [like cops, bankers, financial executives?] -- that defendants who are politically motivated [sic.] deserve special treatment."
Police officers in New York "feeling-up" a young woman they then beat-up and arrest for "ass cover," as she joins a free speech protest, are also subject to "rules." Police officers are rarely charged or punished for their crimes. The legal system exists to protect them, allegedly, from the "dangerous" Ms. McMillan with her torn blouse, concern for communities of color and the poor, and objections to being groped and beaten for making use of her rights:
" ... 'What Cecily continues to endure can happen to any woman who challenges the corporate state,' Lucy Parks, a close friend of Ms. McMillan's bellowed to the crowd. 'The district attorney and the court want to make an example of Cecily.' ..."
Well, the authorities have certainly made Cecily an "example" (and a hero for millions of people) of the absurdities of the legal system as well as of a young woman's determination to stand-up for herself and live with dignity, freedom, and pride in her incorruptible humanity.
