He Should Have Gone to a Stripclub!!! :)
Wednesday, January 7, 2009 12:01 PM
"Federal judge indicted on additional sex charges
By JUAN A. LOZANO, Associated Press Writer
HOUSTON – U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent, the first federal jurist indicted on sex crimes, is now facing more serious charges.
Kent was set to be arraigned Wednesday, a day after a federal grand jury in Houston added three new charges to the indictment it issued in August that accuses him of making unwanted sexual advances toward his former court case manager.
The new charges — aggravated sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact and obstruction of justice — allege Kent engaged in unwanted sexual contact with a second former court employee and later lied about it to investigators.
. . .
Kent, who was released on his own recognizance after last year's indictment, is still on the bench.
Jury selection in Kent's trial on the initial charges against him was set to begin Jan. 26. It was not immediately known if the new charges would delay the trial.
If convicted, Kent faces up to life in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. He is the first federal judge to be indicted in the last 18 years.
. . .
McBroom has said the alleged harassment culminated in March 2007, when the judge pulled up her blouse and bra and tried to force her to perform oral sex when they were interrupted."
Sorta reminds me of a case here in Miami. This older middle age man brushed up against a teenager and it was caught on tape. The teen didn't even know she'd been "assaulted" twice less than 10 minutes apart. In fact, the only reason the police investigator was able to tell it was assault was because the middle age man's second "attack." I felt sorry for the "sexual predator" because no one would have known it was an "assault" if he didn't come back. Anyway, he faced a minimum mandatory of 3 years (30 years?) in prison plus monitoring and registration for life.
Anyway for you timid grabbers i.e. "sexual predators" out there head to a stripclub where the dancers demand that you act like a man! :)
By JUAN A. LOZANO, Associated Press Writer
HOUSTON – U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent, the first federal jurist indicted on sex crimes, is now facing more serious charges.
Kent was set to be arraigned Wednesday, a day after a federal grand jury in Houston added three new charges to the indictment it issued in August that accuses him of making unwanted sexual advances toward his former court case manager.
The new charges — aggravated sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact and obstruction of justice — allege Kent engaged in unwanted sexual contact with a second former court employee and later lied about it to investigators.
. . .
Kent, who was released on his own recognizance after last year's indictment, is still on the bench.
Jury selection in Kent's trial on the initial charges against him was set to begin Jan. 26. It was not immediately known if the new charges would delay the trial.
If convicted, Kent faces up to life in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. He is the first federal judge to be indicted in the last 18 years.
. . .
McBroom has said the alleged harassment culminated in March 2007, when the judge pulled up her blouse and bra and tried to force her to perform oral sex when they were interrupted."
Sorta reminds me of a case here in Miami. This older middle age man brushed up against a teenager and it was caught on tape. The teen didn't even know she'd been "assaulted" twice less than 10 minutes apart. In fact, the only reason the police investigator was able to tell it was assault was because the middle age man's second "attack." I felt sorry for the "sexual predator" because no one would have known it was an "assault" if he didn't come back. Anyway, he faced a minimum mandatory of 3 years (30 years?) in prison plus monitoring and registration for life.
Anyway for you timid grabbers i.e. "sexual predators" out there head to a stripclub where the dancers demand that you act like a man! :)
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
14 comments
Over at the old Baby Dolls (a five dollar club) a couple of drug dealers spent around 10 thousand dollars on a couple of dancers. Those dancer were special. In fact, one of the drug dealers jumped in front of me just as I was going to ask one of the special dancers for a dance. I'm glad he did so because the dancer made a ton more money.
If you were talking about the incident at Lipstick, I KNOW she was "...that kind of girl."
No, this was Club Pink Pussycat. And, the dancer who made all the money was also that kind of girl (her claim was that because she was married she had strict rule; lol). The situation was that the prosecutor was recognized and she was instructed to teach the "good Christian" a lesson. If he had any brains, then he would have taken his financial beating like a man and left peacefully. He lost sinecure which I believe was paying him around a $150,000 a year plus bennies----a true bargain to brain taxpayers.
Thumbs way up for Club Pink Pussycat, however, some other lowlife or lowlifes were probably promoted or newly hired to fill his space. Well, it is the government's money.
The guy at Lipstick was Kendall Coffey, if the spelling is correct. He bit a dancer. I do not know the final outcome, as I was told it was all done in confidence.
BTW, the government has NO money other than what they take from some citizens.
Coffey sounds familiar, but I don't remember the name of prosecutor in the Pussycat case and that case received attention from The Miami Herald.
"BTW, the government has NO money other than what they take from some citizens."
***That is NOT true.*** Here in U.S. the government has been running a fiat currency for many years. You remember the saying that it ain't worth a Continental? The Continental currency became absolutely worthless because the people figured out that the government was just printing money----sorta like the government just prints money today and in the last few decades.
The current Constitution was *supposed* to fix the problem of the government just printing money to pay its bills. A 5-4 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court effectively eliminated that protection (what's new). Just think for a moment. The total federal budget in the WWII years was something like $4 billion dollars. That "pocket change" ($4 billion) probably won't even pay a day's interest on the government's debt.
PLEASE repeat after me: The government MUST create NEW money for a modern economy to survive. It MUST. I mean there really isn't any choice unless you want the same amount of money in circulation in 1940 as in 2009. And, that frankly is insane. Do really want the amount of money to remain fixed? Do you have any idea where all this newly created money comes from? Hint: Foreign nations generally do NOT have stockpiles of U.S. currency in storage waiting to give it to the U.S. government! (Yes, I'm aware of the propaganda that foreign governments are lending the U.S. government endless quantities of dollars to finance government spending; lol.)
It is a pretty open scam, but the normal Joe will never figure it out. And, even if Joe Citizen finally figures it out who the hell cares? LOL! :)
Here is a short video for those of you who might be interested in the government's money printing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPwZ-wQFF…
I do NOT agree with this gentleman, but it is a good start as far as thinking about the endless supply of dollars that U.S. government creates. Again, I do NOT agree with his conclusions and truly he needs to think some more about the subject. Or, maybe he has and has just resorted to foundation of Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).
Don't worry it is a fraud that is actually largely good for the American people and world, imho.
Yes sir ee, the government's endless money creation can reduce prices by creating economies of scale and by redirecting demand to higher ticket substitutes and by ?. It is all about the flow of the money and the incentives or disincentives that follow therefrom.
He loved my little stat (hopefully correct) about the $4 billion federal government budget that was not too long ago. Where did all this current money come from? Well if you believe the government's media (freedom of speech---lol) the money came from the foreign countries like China or Japan. Those Asians are just so clever creating trillions of U.S. dollars to lend to dumber than dumb Americans. :)
Of course they can print money but that doesn't "create" money, rather devalues what there is.
No, it doesn't necessarily devalue what there is. That is the beauty of a well managed fiat currency system. That is why the government can create massive amounts of wealth with the addition of new dollars.
I was looking at the amount new money that the government created and wondered why the inflation although substantial was significantly greater than it is. If the government increases the number of dollars in circulation by a factor of 10, then prices should assuming the issuance of new dollars doesn't create wealth, increase prices by a factor of 10.
That isn't what happens at all. What happens is extremely interesting due to things like saturation points and economies of scale. New dollars can actually REDUCE the cost of products. Yes, I know that seems crazy and some people would immediately say if that is true, then why not increase the new dollar production without limit? It is sorta like salt. Just because a little salt or medium amount of salt is "good" that doesn't mean a truckload isn't extremely negative. It is all about proportion.
One way new dollars can create real wealth is by stimulating demand, which in turn can lead to 1) economies of scale and 2) new technology and innovation to attempt to earn these new dollars. Imagine for just a moment that the federal government didn't increase the number of new dollars or that new dollars were fixed in rigid ratio of let's say $1,000 dollars per ounce of gold held in Fort Knox.
I hope you can visualize how much misery and inefficiency that rigid monetary system would create. I may want a new color TV, but where is the money coming from? There probably wouldn't even be enough money to meet a growing population (from births or immigration). The government with its new dollars provides 1) lubrication, 2) incentives, and 3) wealth. Without the new dollars trade would most likely either grind to halt or subsist at such a level that there only be enough money for bare subsistence. It would be like going back to the barter economy.
The new dollars are a product and a product that creates wealth as much as the automobile creates wealth. There is a multiplier effect that without the automobile or the new dollars the people's wealth/standard of living would be greatly reduced.
Praise be this valuable government service/product.
Let's say these foreign countries decided not to acquire a dime of federal debt; iows, they refused to lend the government a single penny. Gee, I guess that means the cost of borrowing goes up? No, not in the least. The government can do what it is already doing on a massive scale which is basically borrowing from itself (with a tad of sleight of hand and help from banksters). This is basically known a monetizing (creation of new dollars) and we should be grateful for this product and service because it is the engine of wealth creation. It can also lead to collapse, btw, if done negligently.
So what would the foreign governments do with their U.S. dollars? Gee, the could use it as a store of value (hide it in a vault or place it in insured bank accounts), buy American products, invest in America (buy land or businesses), trade it to other countries for good or services, give it away as charity, etc. Basically, the point is these foreign governments aren't doing any great favors by investing/lending to the U.S. government. Those dollars assuming they want 'em have to go somewhere and that somewhere should lead to employment or investment.
. . .
Most criticism of the official inflation number, the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, has focused on the statistical flimflam used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate how fast prices are going up.
Chief among these is a technique called hedonics. Starting in the 1990s, some economists and government statisticians began arguing that a $100 increase in the price of, say, a car wasn't really a $100 price increase if the power, safety features or general usefulness of the car improved substantially. If the subjective value of the car went up by $100, then, despite the increase in what you paid, according to the government, the price didn't go up at all.
The objection to this kind of adjustment is that it introduces a huge amount of subjectivity into the process of calculating inflation. Determining the increased usefulness of a product or service requires a subjective judgment about the value of this or that feature. What is the extra horsepower of a car worth to a user? How about extra safety features? And to which user? And if the cost of a car went up by $100 even if it came with more and better features, wasn't the price still in reality $100 higher?
Hedonic quality adjustments weren't the only statistical adjustments that the government made to the inflation numbers. Starting in 1983, the government also started to measure changes in the cost of housing by looking not at the cost of a house but at what an owner would get if he or she rented out that house. Since in a housing boom the price of houses rises about three times as fast as rents do, this change understated the rate of inflation.
In the 1990s, the government also started to include substitution pricing in its inflation measure. In this adjustment, government statisticians assumed that if the price of something went up, people would use less and would substitute a less costly product or service. So when steak went up in price, consumers might buy more pork or chicken. Figuring out what substitution a consumer would make again added to the subjectivity of the inflation numbers. Including substitution destroyed the whole point of the exercise because it turned the government's shopping basket from an inflation measure to a set of lifestyle choices."
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inv…
Just thought this was an interesting tid bit for those who are interested in the value of the dollar. Hedonics in the economics and as applied to stripclubs is very interesting. In my area the black dancers typically charge $5 and the white dancers are charging $20 or more. Discrimination? Perhaps, but the type of dances given is very different. The white dancers that I've had the pleasure of enjoying generally give excellent eye contact and it is a sensual GFE. The black dancers generally more about shaking the booty. It is a real treat for me when I find a black dancer (at $5) who was trained in a white club (that is their usual explanation) or who just naturally does the GFE. Notable the few black dancers that I asked for GFE at much higher prices didn't like that---it was too personal. Blow jobs and FS were no problem, but GFE even at higher wages was a problem. Typical response was if that is what you need then you need to be hunting for a girlfriend. I wonder if white dancers would actually prefer to the impersonal $5 dances?
Never failed to repay a debt? Gee, how impressive when you have a printing press for dollar creation at your disposal and a Supreme Court (another 5-4 decision, btw) that says the government doesn't have to honor its contracts because its a sovereign. Anyway, I'd say giving paper money to creditor who contractually had a right to demand gold and did demand gold is definitely a failure to repay a debt. Most sickening was that the government had the gold to honor its obligations, but wished to establish another precedent that it was above the law.
So how does this have anything to do with strippers? Well, I've been told strippers don't want silver or gold for dances---too fearful of being conned and difficulty with redemption. U.S. dollars to the rescue and wealth creation again. :)