Wednesday, October 31, 2012

A maure woman's take on the First Amendment

We tripped across a January 2010 blog post from then Jeff Dunham's soon to be ex wife. (It appears Mr. Dunham divorced his wife. From her blog post, it may be that she committed adultery. (Reference to her "mistakes.") Although it appears Mr. Dunham wasn't so pure either.)

According to her post, there were some things said on the Internet that some judges in Arizona might consider "harassment." (Or as cheating judge Mary Hamm said, "Dangerous." For exercising the First Amendment.)

So it's refreshing to read a mature woman's words about being "attacked" publicly on the Internet. Quoting excerpts from her post [with out bloggers comments in brackets]:
The blog was a discussion on my pending divorce. While I admit it is strange to see your life being discussed that way, I accepted that parts of my life could become public when I married someone in this industry. [As when you divorce your husband and your court records are public.] Although uncomfortable, for the most part what was said in the blog was true. [Same with with blog.] I'm not proud of my mistakes, but I own them and really only Jeff and I know the complete truth. Also, I truly love this country and the generations of men and women who have fought and died to create and sustain it. (I PROUDLY brag that I have a family member who has fought in EVERY major war to form and protect America and the freedoms we have). Since one of the very principles this country was founded on is Freedom of Speech, I must accept that people are free do discuss my mistakes.
You go, girl! If only more so-called Americans had the same mindset as you!  Not everyone does.

She continues:
However, while men and women fight and die everyday to protect our freedom, it really isn't always ours. My soon to be ex-husband didn't like what was being said, so he used his connections to have the blog removed. It seems he is only comfortable with freedom of speech and expression as long as HE is making others talk.
Boy, can our blogger testify to this last part. He says that Melody Thomas-Morgan used her connections (Dan Murray, a Prescott police "officer" (no longer POST certified), Mr. Thomas Lloyd, a Prescott City Prosecutor, and Judge Kenton Jones to abuse our blogger by getting an unconstitutional injunction against harassment against him.. She is only comfortable with freedom of speech as long as SHE is the one talking.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Money Quote on Michael's Law!

If you're a victim of an unconstitutional revocation of your Second Amendment via a civil injunction, use this quote from the Arizona Court of Appeals in your appeal. Better yet, quote this in a Notice to your judge before you challenge the injunction against you. By putting the judge on notice now that he can't take away your gun rights, you might save yourself a lot of aggravation in the future.

On October 18, 2012, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on a Second Amendment gun grab against a Federal Border Patrol Agent. (Thankfully, they gave the Agent his gun right back. He was going to lose his job otherwise. No gun = no job.) There is a great statement in the Opinion which pertains to "Michael's Law" and should settle the issue once and for all that a judicial officer in Arizona cannot legally revoke your Second Amendment right in a civil injunction.
The case is Mahar v. Acuna.

The case was about a criminal Order of Protection, a criminal domestic violence matter, which, per statute (right or wrong) allows a judge to take away your guns. (As opposed to a civil injunction, which does not. And which our blogger has been fighting for a few years now.)

While the overall case is not on-point for civil injunctions per se, the COA said something interesting in their ruling which is on-point for civil injunctions:
Our statutes do not authorize their use [orders concerning firearms] to discourage people from yelling or engaging in 'harassment' of the type proscribed by A.R.S. § 12-1809(R). Nor do our statutes authorize the use of firearms restrictions to provide incentives for positive behavior or to teach people a '[l]esson' about civilized conduct.
And that's from the liberals in Tucson! (Division 2)

So the judges of the Court of Appeals get it, even if the Justices of the Arizona Supreme Court don't.

Not the same as Jezebel website. But close?

We doubt anyone would confuse this blog with the website "Jezebel," which bills itself as the "Home of Shiny Happy Ladies" whatever that means. (We don't want to know.)

Anyway, we find it interesting that, even though the creators of the Jezebel website don't appear to be Christians, they, ironically, seem to know enough about the Bible to name themselves after another "shiny" lady in the Bible.

What's more, they seem to be flaunting her name, just as she flaunted herself. Just before she died.

Oh, the arrogance.