One year ago today: May 5, 2022, posturing but empty.
Five years ago today: May 5, 2018, 49th birthday of this journal.
Nine years ago today: May 5, 2014, bulletin boards.
Random years ago today: May 5, 2015, looking at Pedal Pub.
Motivation, maybe later. Seven hours on the computer, sipping coffee, and I’m still tired. It is the consequence of my on-going battle with the ESE, the Evil Squirrel Empire. Everybody I’ve kept informed with my blog dispatches is on the side of the rodents. Is there no repect left for aging bass-players? That is why this afternoon I’ll go shopping again. We are $60 under budget for miscellaneous, so how about we stock up on some goodies? When I said on the computer, that does not mean I was playing Tetris, Theresa. The accounts in Tennessee are too low. That’s due to an unusual series of vet visits.
Thanks to Trump, a far greater segment of the public is now aware of this power and the support for the Marine is very clearly delineated along political lines. If this goes to trial, it is going to be a terrible revelation to the public over just how deeply the left has to control the legal system to get a conviction.
Burger King has not announced which 400 stores it will be closing, but you can guess what neighborhoods. It’s getting so the looters and burglars are going to have to commute. This morning’s top story is a mystery critter is again digging holes in my yard. I’m working on the air compressor canopy, so be glad you got this much—unless you want to drop over and give me a hand. Then we can find something better to do.
Admit it, I went out shopping and I’m counting that as work. That’s cheating! Maybe, because I also loaded some lumber and hardware. Then, unable to kick-start, I stop at Dunkin for a coffee. They got all new staff and the coffee is terrible. It’s also $2.50 a cup, so I went out to the van and got a packet of my travel crystals (the dreaded Folger’s) and spiked the to just past tolerable. Then this fat lady walks in with her three drop-dead gorgeous daughters, all late teens I’m wise to say. Of course way out of my league but it’s when you stop looking you get old or some other equally self-serving cliché.
How good-looking were they? It took me a half-hour to do the cryptogram. They are plainly not from around here. I finally get home and do I find peace and quiet like other bachelors? No. I’m met by two pairs of infuriated squirrels. There is no justice. Another coffee. Nap time. A jury trial got my attention because I left the term ‘nullification’ in my list. It’s that Waukesha Parade dude, which is not the issue for me. Rather, in previous years I’ve foretold that sooner or later somebody was going to start questioning the jury system as it has been manipulated. What do I mean?
Recall my words, that a Judge and others are allowed to counsel a jury on what they can or cannot do without the accused being present to object. Thus, his only recourse is to talk to the jury in the courtroom and that is what happened. Now, one must be careful here because while the court can tamper with (give orders to) the jury, the accused cannot. So when this guy began asking the question over whether the jury had been informed they had the right to overturn the law, the Judge was fuming. Now this is borderline for the Defendant, but it is not tampering. He was only asking, but I knew sooner or later this would happen. If the answer was a “yes”, (the jury had been informed) then things could have proceeded, but had they not been informed, he was not getting a fair trial.
The Judge dodged the question until the jury was taken back out of the courtroom, then went on a little tirade telling the accused that while the jury had a “duty” they did not have a “right. The conclusion is that the jury had been told they had a duty to apply the law as it was written, but not that they had the right to declare not guilty if the law itself was unjust. Of course I was hoping it would be an innocent guy who broached this issue, but I’m riveted by this situation. The guy put the Judge and courtroom on the spot and the fact he could even do so sends a signal that the system is rigged.
Likely it will be difficult to get much more information on this, but the damage is done. There cannot be one person on that jury that is not by now questioning what they have not been told. For many, it is likely the first hint they had of power over the court’s decision. And it is obvious the court is very displeased with this development, and they are so in a manner that telegraphs they have gotten used to manipulating the system. This Defendant (Brooks) is cool under fire. The inconsistencies he’s point out will linger a long time after he’s put away.
If I see a video or anything about the war in North Africa involving Rommel, I tend to give it some attention. The problem is, to date, 100% of the material is pro-British and anti-German, allowing for the admission by both sides that Rommel was a fantastically talented leader. I’m referring to the presentation that the war was some sort of evenly matched contest and that the Germans possessed overwhelming power. Wrong. Most of the time Rommel was outnumbered ten and twenty to one.
At one point he was down to ten tanks and ten thousand men, yet the affair is presented as a desperate ordeal for the British. If so, it was due to their own incompetence and then some. The Allies universally include the vast numbers of Italians who did little but stand around making faces. The fact is, the so-called victory battles by Montgomery were against a tiny cadre of Germans who had barely enough gasoline and equipment to retreat.
Ad for “tattoo-healing” lotion.
Remember to use BACK ARROW to return to blog.
Aha, recall a couple days ago my hole saw bit would not fit the cutting tubes? Now I know why. I bought that cheap-ass door jig from Harbor Freight and you know, the same pieces don’t fit my other tubes. Twenty minutes later, this jig is ingenious. I’m going to spend some time with it. There are four standard settings, each a simple pull on the clearly marked rings This warrants it’s own private wooden box. A remarkably intuitive design. No door is safe around me now. I can and will install deadbolts inside the house, it has something to do with the way I was raised.
Another look at these super capacitors and I still don’t know if this is something new, or just an old idea that’s leapt into the picture. The problem with volatile RAM has been around for 50 years so I wonder why nobody has thought of using capacitors before. Nor could I find any sketches or diagrams of how this voltage is controlled. I imagine there are several hard-wired solutions but of course, the microcomputer would be a better if more expensive option. The product seems to work on 2.7 volts, which does not match anything already on the market.
There’s a chance it is compatible with the 3.3 volt standard that is gaining traction. Personally, I have not bothered with 3.3 because more gear is compatible with 5.0 volts. And I was turned off by the premium prices for sensors other than 5.0. Capacitors are limited by the surface area that exposes electrons in graphene, that’s the material in your pencil and also many battery electrodes. Enter nano-technology, with the ability to print the graphene or graphite (I use both terms to mean the same) a single atom thick. Trials report the printed patterns outperforrm regular designs by 1000x. Don’t laugh, if it works they’ll 3D print a whole car from this stuff that will charge up in a couple minutes.
For those who recall, I bought a book on nano-tech back in 2012 in Colorado, but the information was too deep. It was incredible, but I was wasting my time trying to comprehend it. At least I’m familiar with the terms and let’s keep an eye on this. What if it is the breakthrough in battery tech that makes batteries obsolete? I’ve long since felt regular batteries are maxed out and any major improvement requires a different path. I’m still studying the topic.
Meanwhile, Taylor is in the news again. At 33 she has another boyfriend, this one is skinnier than she is. Tay is developing thunder thighs. Well, I held the door open for her, but some women insist on squandering their charms. Worst joke of the day, “Police have confirmed the man who fell from an 18th storey nightclub was not a bouncer.”
ADDENDUM
Later, I’m going to go back over the trail procedings mentioned above, here’s your link because anybody who’s felt railroaded by the Court will see Brooks continually put the Judge on the spot. And he does so in situations where she is plainly not used to being called. For example, she quotes cases in the obvious hopes the Defendant is not familiar, but he repeatedly points out where the cases are not relevant.
The behavior of the Judge is at first humorous in a way, she avoids answering the questions, which seem lucid and valid. Why are you quoting a statute that does not even mention the situation at hand? When the Judge sees that does not work, she tries the tactic of telling the accused his “conduct” is enough to cause him to lose his rights. Problem, his only conduct is asking questions that most anyone would agree he has a right to ask. This is getting interesting.
I’ve got to side with the accused at the point where the Judge begins to use superficial arguments to break him down. She keeps, lawyer-fashion, rewording what he’s saying and he won’t cooperate with that. He is not allowed, she says, to tell the jury they have the power to override the court or to even mention it. He’s saying it is his right, and it probably is, to ask the jury if they have been informed they have that power. I’m not as taken by the legal issues as by what I consider sheer trickery on the part of the Judge and system to force this guy down a path he is clearly not going to be bluffed into.
The Judge talks herself into a corner by stating that the Defendant has a right to ask the jury about nullification, but if he does, that is forfeiting his right to ask. Murderer or not, I like this guy’s ability to mock such idiotic and contradictory law. There are other videos available but they all take the same side—that someone who represents themselves thinks they know the law. Catch-22. It may mean that they know better than to expect a lawyer to do a damn thing in their favor if it displeases the court—something that is the opposite of justice. Seems to me a person who defends themselves should be immune from rules that might confine a lawyer because, you got it, he is not a lawyer.
He was found guilty, by the way. That’s not what I’m addressing. The guy asked many valid questions that were not answered and was repeated told if he kept asking questions that he would forfeit his rights to certain aspects of his own defense. He never stood a chance. Bottom line, if you defend yourself, you should not be subject to the rules that would govern what a lawyer can say or do, because that is likely the very reason you got rid of the lawyer.
