Casey Anthony...sentenced! Lawyer tries to hoodwink Judge! Release July 13th!

If you caught the sentencing hearing for Casey Anthony bright-and-early this morning, it should have been obvious (as it was to moi!) that a defense lawyer for the accused attempted to pull a fast one on the Judge.

But, the old coot was sharp and wasn't fooled by the deceitful ploy!

For example, at the last-minute a wimpy female lawyer approached the podium to request that a "motion" - to consider misdemeanor counts 4, 5, 6, and 7 as one sole count - be granted by the Court.

The legal eagle argued that there was no "pause for reflection" when each statement was made to Police Officers - and thus - amounted to one continuing "lie" - and not - "four distinct separate falsehoods" as alleged by the prosecution.

In sum, counsel took the position that a failure to recognize the niggling point, may result in legal error on the grounds of  "double-jeopardy".

The fact that the defense neglected to deliver the "motion" into the hands of the Judge prior to the sentencing hearing for a proper review was highly suspect (in my estimation).

In fact, at one point, the Judge interrupted the lawyer and cut to the chase.

"I don't have a copy of that motion."

The shrinking violets's response spoke volumes!

"I handed it to the clerk. I'm sorry, I forgot to ask that it be given to you."

Bullshit!

If 'ya ask me, it was an intentional maneuver on the part of the defense counsel to gain the upper hand.

Fortunately, the intelligent Judge took a moment to secure the documents in question, review the facts, and allegations, and applicable case law before he proceeded.

Nice try, counsel!

In the end, the Judge noted that like the rulings pertaining to Count 1, Count 2, and Count 3 - the Jury was also crystal clear - about their findings in respect to Count 4, 5, 6, and 7.

If you read between the lines, it is evident that the deceitful conduct of the defense lawyers backfired!

Notwithstanding, in view of the outrage that swept the country in the wake of the verdict yesterday, I just betcha the Judge's decision to give the maximum sentence for each count was - not only a way to appease the American people - but also pave the way for a "cooling off" period so folks could settle down emotionally.

By the way, Anthony was sentenced to 1 year in jail for each count (for a total of four years) and a $1,000.00 fine for each offense.

When credit for time served was applied, it was determined that Casey Anthony should be released on-or-about July 13th (if she survives in jail, that is).

Baby killers and rapists are often the victims of mysterious deaths while incarcerated, after all!

May God forgive you, Casey Anthony, for your heinous crimes.

http://www.thetattler.biz

Latino and Asian voters...cry foul! At-large elections not fair!



Years ago, when Harvey Milk first ran for office in the Castro District, he lost the first couple of times out at the polling stations.

That is a little known footnote in San Francisco (and LGBT) history.

The reason he failed to nab the popular vote first-time out in the heady days of open-and-out gay activism?

Quite simply, the city districts were structured in such a way, that the election process did not favor the homosexual community.

However, once the Castro District was rezoned, Milk was able to snap up the majority - in neighborhood where the voters were mostly gay or homo-friendly - go figure!

Now, the Asian and Latino communities in San Mateo County are crying foul for the same reason.

The two ethnic groups make up one quarter of the county's nearly 72,000 residents and a slightly smaller share of its voting-age population.

So, what is the fuss all about?

The two minorities are lamenting the fact that only one Latino - and no Asians-Americans - have held seats on the five-member Board of Supervisors since 1995.

According to a spokesperson for the disgruntled voters, the at-large system - combined with alleged "racially polarized voting" - unlawfully deprives Latino and Asian members in the community to voice their preferences meaningfully with ballot-in-hand.

For this reason, a lawsuit - based on voting rights - has been filed against San Mateo County.

The plaintiffs are demanding that the Judge presiding over the proceedings declare the upcoming county-wide elections illegal. 

Pursuant to state law, attorney Robert Rubin (Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights) has argued that new election districts should include a majority-Latino and majority-Asian American district.

"And, perhaps there should be a third district, in which two groups together form a majority," he noted, in an after-thought.

In response, County Counsel John Beiers has stated for the record in no uncertain terms, that he has not seen any evidence that the at-large system weakens the voting power of Latinos or Asian Americans.

The underlying arguments that the suit is based on refers to a 2002 California voting-rights Law that prohibits at-large elections in areas with a history of racially polarized voting - such as in the case where the majority voted as a bloc - against minority candidates and minority interests.

The litigants are optimistic about their chances of prevailing in court.

After all, an appeals court upheld the law in a suit against Modesto, in 2006.

On the heels of the ruling, the city switched from an at-large system to district elections.

In defense, opponents argue quite vigorously that at-large elections encourage voters to consider diverse views of an entire city or county.

But, critics pooh pooh that notion, for good reason.

In their view, the at-large elections allow a majority - whether racial or political - to control a governing board and ignore minority concerns.

We'll see which way the wind blows, after the issues are hashed out in court.

http://www.thetattler.biz

Beachfront property worth fighting for!

U.S. Supreme Court...Unconscionable ruling favors anti-gay protesters! 1st Amendment rights!



One headline said it all:

“Unconscionable but Constitutional”

Of course, I am referring to the high court’s ruling in favor of a hateful posse of protesters who were sued for picketing a soldier’s funeral because he was an “out” practicing homosexual.

While the actions of the rag-tag gang of Church-goers (!) from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka (Kansas) was considered deplorable (un-Christian-like, if you ask me) the Supreme Court was forced to recognize that the protesters (headed up by Fred Phelps) had a Constitutional right to voice their opinion that the “U.S.” was “overly tolerant of sin” and that God allegedly “Kills soldiers as punishment” for their “gay” lifestyle.

To many, though, the Church group’s anti-gay protests at funerals – where shameful parishioners waved signs that read – “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers” – were “sick” and in bad taste.

Although their message may have been lacking in any resemblance to the loving God portrayed in the scriptures – or his message of compassion and understanding and forgiveness – Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Phelps and his bible thumpers observed the laws of the land because they maintained a thousand-foot buffer zone and protested without “physical” violence .

What about the mental and emotional anguish they wrought on innocent mourners?

With an 8-1 ruling to back his decision, the bench-warmer wrote in his opinion that “even hurtful speech on public issues” merits 1st Amendment protection.

In sum, the hypocritical religious zealots won this round – rightly so – for the aforementioned reasons.

However, in the eyes of God, their reprehensible conduct was not only unconscionable – but, sinful - as well.

The scriptures are quite specific in that regard in at least two passage as follows:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

John 8:7

“Judge not that ye be judged”

Mathew 7:1

Amen!

http://www.thetattler.biz




Chief Justice John Roberts votes for 1st Amendment rights!
(no matter how hateful in nature)

Elena Kagan...media frenzy over sexuality peaks! Supporters scoff "not gay"...

Shortly after President Barack Obama announced that Elena Kagan was his choice for Supreme Court nominee, the Internet was rife with speculation about the perky little politician’s sexuality.

For good reason!

The “gay-marriage” suit - slated for closing arguments in the Federal District Court in June - will probably end up in the lap of the Supreme Court Justices down the road a year or two from now.

Dave Letterman made a quip the other night, for instance, that hinted the Liberal candidate might be a butch gay woman, which caused tongues to wag at coffee coolers at the crack of dawn the following day.

Bill O’Reilly criticized one newspaper for running a photograph of Kagen at the plate on a baseball diamond which inferred that because she played softball she might be a diesel dyke.

At one juncture, O’Reilly threw his hands up in the air in dismay, and called on guest Dennis Miller to voice his opinion on the matter.

“Well, she has a good stance,” he joked straight-faced.

When CBS picked up the story, Kagan supporters sprang into action to squelch the rampant rumors running wild around the four corners of the globe.

“When we were students years ago, I recall her excitedly chatting about a couple of boys, how cute they were, that sort-of-thing,” one long time acquaintance uttered up in her defense in so many words.

I laughed out loud!

Ellen Degeneres often gushes about young studs like the Jonas Boys.

And, fans of Rosie O’Donnell show, can attest to the fact she was always ecstatically blabbing about her crush on Tom Cruise (before she officially came out publicly) .

Bottom line?

Both strong-willed Lesbos with a taste for petty pu**y.

Kagan was also coming of age in an era when homosexuality was strictly taboo in the heartland of America.

In fact, in many respects, it was still the love that dare not speak its name.

A closeted male with his sights set on an executive position at a major corporation often grappled with the dilemma.

Come out, and you might be passed over for a plum job, in a Fortune 500 company.

No wonder, many career-minded homosexuals - with a strong sense of self-survival - chose to live a double-life instead.

There are many instances, for example, where men married - and started up a family - in a deceitful effort to bolster a straight image that would be an entree into the upper echelons of polite society.

Sexual urges for male companionship were pursued in clandestine fashion on the fringes of a shadowy underground gay society behind closed doors.

A few years ago, the Los Angeles Times once reported in the morning daily - that when the police conducted a sweep in the Silverlake area in a bold-faced effort to thwart gays from  prowling for sex on the streets at the midnight hour - a large percentage of the males booked on charges of lewd conduct in a  public place were married (with wives and children at home in the suburbs).

So, the Kagan arguments are flimsy at best.

The fact that the Supreme Court nominee hasn’t stepped forward to resolve the issue publicly - establishes one thing - however.

Kagan definitely doesn’t have any ba**s.

Do you accept Shorty?

http://www.thetattler.biz

Hillary Clinton...bandied about as potential Supreme Court nominee! Obama looney...

Stuff that respectable Justices are made of?

The scuttlebutt on the hill in Washington at the crack of dawn this morning was that Hillary Clinton's name is being bandied about as a potential candidate for the post of Supreme Court Justice.

Obama, say it ain't so!

Clinton is not worthy of the lofty prestigious perch - in the staid environs of the Supreme Court - at the  highest level of the judiciary in the land.

If you recall, during the Whitewater scandal, Mrs. Clinton not only twisted and distorted the facts - but on occasion - locked heads with investigators amidst a lot of nonsensical legal wrangling, dirty politics, and game-playing.

Oh, she's a slippery one, alright!

When Hillary was asked to produce documents, for instance, she begged off with the excuse that she - quite honestly - didn't know where the subject paperwork was.

One fine day when boxes of the incriminating documents turned up, Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints were the only ones spied on the wayward cartons.

Talk about a smoking gun.

Gotcha!

And who could forget the vicious unscrupulous attacks on Obama on the campaign trail?

Hillary and slick Willy are a disreputable duo - prone to feather their own nests - at the expense of others (the taxpayers, in particular).

The former Presidential hopeful's lack of moral rectitude bars her from assuming the post.

In a nutshell, installing Mrs. Clinton as a Justice would not only be a fatal misstep on the part of the President, but result in irreparable harm to the integrity of the Court.
 
Talk about a fox in the hen house!

 

http://www.thetattler.biz/

Charlie Sheen...volatile TV actor enters plea of "not guilty"! Circus court on horizon...

Treat women as you would have them treat you, Charlie!

Surprise!

Charlie Sheen copped a "not guilty" plea when he was in court yesterday.

If you recall, the "Two and a Half Men" star was booked for domestic violence charges (menacing, criminal mischief and assault) arising from an incident over the Christmas holidays in Aspen, Colorado.

During the course of a 911 emergency call, Sheen's wife - Brooke Mueller - alleged that the high-profile actor put a knife to her throat during a quarrel and threatened to kill her if she sought a divorce.

On the heels of the incident, Sheen admitted himself to a rehab program here in Southern California, which triggered a shut-down on production at the studio where the  popular TV Sitcom was filming (and landing top ratings for the Network).

For weeks there has been speculation - by TMZ and legitimate news outlets, too - that Sheen would go for a plea bargain.

Not true!

Although Mr. Sheen has admitted arguing with his high-strung emotional wife on the day of the incident, the pint-sized actor has denied threatening Ms. Mueller.

The Judge presiding over the proceedings has set a court date for July 21st (2010).

On that date, I expect a media circus will descend on the courthouse, unless authorities manage to stop posturing and agree to equitable terms Sheen may be inclined to accept in the interests of judicial economy.

News at 11!

 

A stiff di*k has no conscience!

http://www.thetattler.biz

Sonia Sotomayor...stupid racist not fit to sit on Supreme Court bench! Smug smirk on face tells alll...

Whoa Nelllie, that bu** looks a little wide for the bench!

A lot of the brouhaha over Sonia Sotomayor's controversial remarks at the confirmation hearings finally died down by the end of the week once her interrogators figured out she was going to be one tough nut to crack.

Oh, she's a piece of work alright.

That smug smirk on her tired old face said it all, in my estimation.

The words were pretty telling, too.

If you recall, the fury was initially triggered on Capitol Hill when Sotomayor - driven by a nasty ego and overblown sense of judicial self-importance - had the audacity to take a swipe at white male members on the bench.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't had the experiences," she caustically spat out at one point.

A revealing moment, to say the least.

If anything, Sotomayor is just a dumb racist not fit to warm the bench in the environs of the Supreme Court in Washington, especially given her propensity to put down her Caucasian male colleagues in a deceitful bold-faced effort to raise herself up at their expense!

Notwithstanding, Sotomayor's lack of foresight - and utter inability to anticipate from the get-go that her inappropriate remarks would trigger the furor it did - underscored just how ignorant (thick in the head?) the lady (I use the term loosely) truly is.

Unless, of course, she was just feigning ignorance because of the tight fix she got herself in on the heels of opening up her fat yap without considering the consequences first.

Ultimately, what was her defense?

"It was a failed rhetorical flourish."

Huh?

What a load of bullsh**!

She sure can shovel it, can't she?

If you ask me, Sotomayor was running circles around all those huffy politicians in Washington this past week, playing games with their heads, and what-have-you.

Bottom line?

She made fools of the lot of 'em.

Was it a case of improper wording?

Duh, just a mispeak, dudes!

If so, maybe she should have expressed her "altruistic" thoughts this way, instead.

"I trust that an individual with a richness of experience would have the capacity to reach a better conclusion that one who does not."

Because Sotomayor was instinctively inclined to take a slap at white male jurists underscores that by nature (in her psyche thru-'n-thru and deep down in her taco-filled gut) that she is a racist.

And, I expect, one who may be prone to hold grudges against those who mistreated her highness "up the ranks".

Adversaries, beware!

In one respect, I am inclined to agree with Sotomayor, however.

A Judge shouldn't just follow the "letter of the law" when making Judicial determinations.

After all, the court is supposed to be one of equity.

A Judge who reviews applicable law - but, also applies knowledge and wisdom acquired by virtue of "rich life experience" - is capable of arriving at a decision that is not only legally sound - but one that balances the scales of justice so that it is morally correct, too.

In the case of Sotomayor - well, just betcha - if she lands on the bench she'll have a few axes to grind.

In that event, look out America!

Hell hath no fury like a minority female Judge scorned after a treacherous climb to the top!

http://www.julianayrs.com

LAPD...vice squad threatens & intimidates pedestrian! Tries to coerce confession & violates rights...

Last night a pedestrian left an art opening and proceeded to turn down Hayworth Street (just west of Fairfax) to his vehicle parked at the curb on the unusually dark side street.

Suddenly, a late-model sedan swerved into the curb on his right, and a voice barked out from the interior of the unmarked car.

"What are you doing there?"

The local resident hesitated for a second to get his wits about him - at which point - the unidentified man stepped out of the door on the driver's side in a Police uniform and approached.

When the fellow calmly explained he was on his way to his parked car farther down a-ways on the left side of the quiet street - the cop didn't put much stock in his response - for some inexplicable reason.

At this juncture, the pedestrian was led into the middle of the intersection under blinding street lights, as the Officer snatched up an envelope from his shaking hand and roughly tossed the contents of his personal effects onto the roof of his car.

"Where's your wallet," he demanded.

The surprised citizen informed the rude and insulting officer that it was in his back pocket.

Now, the Cop (who still hadn't identified himself or stated the nature of his business) decided to detain the man, in spite of the fact he had been cooperative and was not putting up any resistance.

The thirty-something law enforcement agent whirled the older gent around, ordered him to place his arms over this head, then handcuffed him!

Now, a second officer appeared out-of-the shadows - shone a flashlight into his eyes without warning - then asked for the "keys" to his car.

The distressed detainee motioned to his front pocket.

After struggling to locate the key ring for a few minutes, the officer's partner turned on his heel (after a few whispers between them) and headed up Hayworth towards a vehicle on the left in the next block.

Suddenly, and without any provocation whatsoever, the first officer began to threaten and intimidate his charge into making a "confession".

First, he mumbled:

"What were you going to pay (for) or (in) the car."

The emotionally distraught resident was shocked by the turn of events - understandably - and responded by noting he had his own vehicle parked on the street a half-a-block away.

"Why would I want that car? I have my own just down the street."

The officer retorted in a nasty tone of voice:

"Look, I'll dust the car for prints. So, you may as well fess up."

At this juncture, the alleged suspect was totally confused by the officer's demands.

The cop continued.

"Would you prefer a misdemeanour for lewd conduct in a public place or a Felony Count for obstructing justice?"

Whoa!

What kind of a shake-down was this?

Since when was it considered lewd conduct to stroll down the street to one's vehicle after an entertaining night out at a cultural event in the community?

Obstructing justice?

The unlawfully detained gentleman was beside himself with grief.

The local resident had not only cooperated with the cop, but also gave a detailed account of events he witnessed on the street just before the Officer sped up next to him, and proceeded to engage in what amounted to a false arrest.

For example, he informed the young rookie that as he was heading toward his SUV, he spotted a couple of individuals (at least two, maybe three) lurking in the shadows about half-way down the street.

Was there a drug deal underway, he wondered to himself?

It also crossed his mind that the suspicious characters may have been laying in wait to mug unaware residents in the neighborhood innocently passing by on the street.

So - as he explained to the Officer - he proceeded to plunk himself down on a retainer wall out of sight as he tried to surreptitiously observe what was going on in the shadows ahead.

Suddenly, he heard a shout. But, he couldn't make out what was said.

Now, he spotted someone (it appeared to be a male) dart off like he was either trying to elude or catch up to someone.

A second or two later a second individual raced off in the same direction (after him?).

The two individuals both turned down a cross-street at the next corner and out of sight.

Then, he noted for the record, that he heard a car door slam in the vicinity of the commotion.

At this juncture, a man calmly (but swiftly) walked up the other side of the street opposite him, in a Northerly direction towards busy Santa Monica Boulevard.

Alone in the dark night, and not knowing what to think of the startling events, the bystander proceeded towards his vehicle.

At this juncture, the cop sped up and the aforementioned events I reported here, unfolded like clock-work.

When the officer made mention of the other vehicle, and that he intended to dust for prints, it was clear at this point to the hapless suspect that the Officer thought he was involved in the incident the detainee was a witness to from his vantage point farther up the street.

There was no way he was going to deviate from his account of things, after all, he was totally clueless about the events and his alleged participation in them.

As the 2nd Officer strolled off to fulfill his promise to impound the subject vehicle up the street, there was squawk on the walkie-talkie.

A dispatcher at the Police Station relayed updated information to his "jailer", that appeared to have an unsettling effect on him.

When the cop signed off, there was an awkward pause for a second, then he informed the alleged suspect he was being "let go".

"We know you are not the individual we were after."

Did the Police Department conduct a search on the title to the suspect vehicle - and after checking the identity of the innocent pedestrian - arrive at that conclusion at long last?

Who knows!

But, shortly after that confession, the Officer made another shocking disclosure.

"I'm with the Vice Squad with the LADP. There was a prostitute giving head to a gentleman in that vehicle down there. I didn't see his face because he pulled his hat down."

The falsely accused gent hadn't even considered that scenario!

A drug deal gone sour, perhaps!

Or, a break-in gone wrong was quite possible, too!

The Officer stuttered a bit and made a lot of silly excuses to the falsely accused man who - in a nutshelll - had not only detained and falsely accused - but publicly humiliated in the street in front of residents of the neighbourhood and strangers passing by.

Indeed - at one point the officer threatened and intimidated the innocent victim - and deceitfully tried to coerce him into admitting to committing an alleged crime he was not part of - or face a Felony charge of obstructing justice.

In fact, the patient detainee had been nothing but cooperative, in spite of the outrageous rights Violations, willful and wrongful illegal conduct of the Officer which was unjust and demeaning - which ultimately - amounted to a shocking abuse of the color of authority.

The intentional act of the - "Intimidation of a witness" - is a Federal Crime, isn't it?

And, what of an officer who tries to coerce a confession from an innocent victim under threat of prosecution?

Notwithstanding, in the aftermath when the cuffs were off, the Officer had the bald-faced audacity to laugh about the ugly incident as if it were a delicious joke to feast on.

"Now you have something to tell your friends for years to come," he guffawed.

And, to the FBI and Police Chief Bratton, for starters!

That cop should be strung up by the ba**s and hung out to dry!

http://www.julianayrs.com

A Profile of Judge Robert Beezer...Corrupt Judge of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals!

On occasion, a review of court documents reveals that a Judge presiding over a case not only failed to adjudicate an issue correctly, but made grievous error(s) which resulted in a gross violation of a party's Constitutional rights.

In addition, the facts may also signal a lack of integrity on the part of the Judge, which may have resulted in a corruption of the court.

Such is the case with Robert R. Beezer, a Senior Judge sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - who has demonstrated in one case that I know of - that he is not fit to "warm" the bench.

For example, in a case Beezer presided over a few years ago, a litigant appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on several issues - one of which - was pertaining to a lower court ruling denying a right to proceed IN FORMA PAUPERIS (waiver of filing fees).

In respect to the fee waiver issue, Beezer incorrectly ruled that because the "Petition for Relief" was denied in the lower court, and the appellant subsequently paid the filing fees thereafter, that the issue was "moot" in the Appellate court.

On the contrary.

Judge Beezer not only established his ignorance of applicable statutes, but a shocking willingness to deceitfully ignore his duty to uphold Justice in a "Court of Law" and openly discriminate against an IN PRO PER litigant.

Notwithstanding, his grievous legal error caused considerable hardship to the litigant involved, for which he should be ashamed.

For example, in the lower court the litigant was entitled to a "waiver of fees", based on his low income. That right was protected by Statute.

When the court failed to issue a ruling, and serve him with notice, the litigant was forced to pay the fees out of his meager earnings to salvage his "case".

Just because the appellant paid the filing fee, did not make the issue "moot". In fact, it made it more grievous and ripe for legal issue.

In sum, the litigant was denied his right to a waiver of fees. Because of this, he was forced to use funds - that would normally be used to pay for food, rent, and the necessities of life - to pay court costs to which he was legally entitled a waiver.

Was Judge Beezer too stupid to figure this out, or was he demonstrating his distaste for disadvantaged litigants without the benefit of funds to secure legal counsel?

The fact the appellant paid the fees under great hardship - and "did without the necessities of life" to do so - does not negate the fact he was denied his legal right to a waiver of fees, nor does it make the issue "moot".

In sum, Judge Robert R. Beezer's ruling is a bunch of hokus-pokus bullsh**.

In fact, the erroneous ruling - in the public record and available for close scrutiny by the wise, the mighty, and the compassionate - calls attention to a man who has not only fallen from Grace, but - ultimately - "is a disgrace" to the Judiciary and in the eyes of the Lord.

As Martin Erdmann aptly put it,

Appellate Division judges [are] the whores who became madams.”

Judge Robert R. Beezer...photos vanish off Internet after allegations of corruption!

Last night I posted an item on Judge Robert R. Beezer who presides over cases in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In that post, I noted that Judge Beezer was a dishonest corrupt Judge.

Lo and behold, within a couple of hours after the post was published, photographs of Judge Beezer began to vanish off the Internet.

Is the Judge pulling strings behind the scenes, abusing his power once again?

Is the man ashamed to show his face in public, after his shocking and disturbing misdeeds were exposed on the great World-Wide-Web, for all to read?

As Lincoln Steffen once opined,

"Power is what men seek and any group that gets it will abuse it.”

This obviously applies to Justices at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Craigslist...should someone be held accountable?

Craigslist is a popular Internet web site which offers up a bulletin board for individuals who seek to buy, sell, or trade goods.

The site is also rife with ads for a multitude of services, including notices pertaining to housing.

According to the latest figures, at least thirty million internet users post notices on the highly-cruised space each month.

In 2006, attorneys opined that Craigslist openly permitted discriminatory practices in respect to rentals, which they allege, were in direct Violation of the U.S. Fair Housing Act. For example, landlords posted rental notices that warned that those in the minority classes, or with children, need not apply.

For this reason, a Chicago-based Law Firm brought legal action against the Internet heavyweight to stop the questionable practices.

Just recently, a three-member panel of Judges in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that Craigslist "is not liable for discriminatory housing ads posted on its website."

The upper-level court based their decision on a "finding" that Craigslist was not the publisher of the ads (like a newspaper would be) - and therefore - not liable for the discriminatory acts of the post-it masses who frequently utilize the site.

Personally, I believe that their assessment is misguided.

Craigslist does provide the "space"; hence, they should be held accountable for what is posted there.

At a minimum - as is the case at YouTube and Facebook, for example - Craigslist should monitor the site for potential abuses, and take appropriate action, when called for.

In a civilized society, that is a reasonable expectation, don't you think?

I trust that the litigants will proceed to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for a more in-depth review. Obviously, justice cries out for such action, since it appears that the Judges who ruled on the issue to date are suffering from brain rot and should be put out to pasture.