Band Width

[UPDATE! SNOPES HAS DEBUNKED THIS IMAGE: SNOPES]

I belong to a private group on Facebook that’s set up exclusively for residents of Flemington, New Jersey and surrounding areas. By that, I mean past and present citizens, and it encompasses nearby towns like Ringoes, Three Bridges and Frenchtown. Plenty of people, like myself, do live out of state now, but Flemington will always be my home.

There were plenty of thoughts and prayers regarding the safety of everyone along the path of Hurricane Irene as it etched its way up the east coast. There still are. Many of us were able to communicate our concerns on the Flemington page and elsewhere, where others were in harm’s way. As much as some people may feel negative about Facebook and social networks in general, there are some benefits, such as reconnecting with old friends and keeping in touch in real time. In this case, until power went out.

Where this picture originated, I do not know. If it is copyrighted, I apologize for republishing it here. I don’t know if it is fake or not, either. If it’s real, all I can say is that it is one INCREDIBLE photograph that illustrates the forces of nature at work - something we have no control over whatsoever.

Wildwood, NJ

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Examining the Examiner

Recently, a news story surfaced that claimed Caylee Anthony’s mother had “inked a multi-media deal, 6 figure cash advance.” Several local media outlets in Orlando, and perhaps elsewhere in the country, credited the Los Angeles Examiner with the shocking revelation. There’s a serious flaw with that claim because there is no such publication as the Los Angeles Examiner. The Los Angeles Examiner was founded in 1903 by William Randolph Hearst. In 1962, it merged with the Los Angeles Herald-Express and became the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. On November 2, 1989, it published its last edition. While that paper folded, the San Francisco Examiner, also once owned by Hearst, is still in business, and at one time, the two papers complemented each other.

Today, a new breed of “newspapers” have entered the fray of Internet-based media outlets. While these new kids on the block print no paper editions, they are still loosely considered newspapers to some extent. One of them is Examiner.com, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any real newspaper, in print and online form, with Examiner in its name. The Washington Examiner and the San Francisco Examiner are two examples of print and online versions and there is a lot of confusion between Examiner.com and those two legitimate Examiner newspapers. To clarify the difference, let’s clear up any confusion. Examiner.com is a division of the Clarity Media Group, which is wholly owned by The Anschutz Company. Clarity Media Group is the parent company of the Washington and San Francisco newspapers. However, neither are affiliated with Examiner.com. The CEO of Examiner.com, Rick Blair, asserted that, “We offer stories about the best bike trips in the city and where to go on the weekend. We’re really not covering news.”¹

A few years ago, I thought about applying for one of the Examiner openings. I don’t recall what position it was specifically, i.e., Orlando Flirting Examiner, Orlando Drinking Games Examiner, Orlando Beauty After 50 Examiner, or whatever. (Actually, those are job offerings as of today.) Yes, whatever it was, Examiner.com seemed to promise more than it could deliver right from the start, and I walked away without applying. Their Website claims that you can:

• Earn extra income writing about what you love.
• Build your portfolio and gain valuable experience.
• Set your own hours
• Work from home

All of this sounds enticing because “IT PAYS TO BE AN EXAMINER!”

Rosetta Thurman is the author of Blogging for Branding.  Her Website claims that no one writes for “The Examiner,” you simply become an Examiner. From the Blogging for Branding Website:

I see a lot of people saying that they “write for the Examiner,” which is incorrect and misleading. Examiner.com itself is clear that (my bold emphasis):

“We are powered by Examiners, the largest pool of knowledgeable and passionate contributors in the world. Examiners provide unique and original content to enhance life in your local city wherever that may be.”

You are called “an Examiner” as a title that identifies you as a writer for the site. It is simply a descriptive noun. Again, you do not write for any of the Examiner newspapers in any way. Yet it’s a misconception that the site obviously profits from.

Now that we are aware of what Examiner.com is all about, let’s take a look at the bottom line. What kind of money can an Examiner make? Examiner.com bases its compensation on page view traffic, subscriptions, session length and advertiser interest, but it does claim that contributing writers should not consider a writing gig as any sort of full-time employment, and it “tries to be very clear and transparent that this isn’t a ‘quit your day job’ opportunity.”

WritersWeekly claims to be the “highest-circulation freelance writing ezine in the world.” Examiners were issued a call by WritersWeekly to share their experiences. After the interviews, an article was published on the site (no author credit) that consolidated the math of the respondents and claimed that the estimated cost per-article looked like this:

Penny $ 2.09 per article
Barbie $ 2.30 per article
Mario $ 0.07 per article
Katrina $ 1.96 per article
Tim $ 0.88 per article
Clark $ 1.60 per article
Franny $ 0.37 per article
Kathryn $ 1.96 per article
Courtney $ 1.88 per article

Average: $1.46 per article

Some had written hundreds of articles (usually 400-600 words each) and these were their averages. One claimed to make 10 cents per hour when all was said and done. WritersWeekly also noted that most of the pay-per-click contracts require continued contributions from writers, so if you stop writing for Examiner.com, you lose your residual income while they keep making money in perpetuity.

While many media outlets claimed that the defunct Los Angeles Examiner published the article about the Anthony book deal, it was not remotely close to the kind of newspaper the mind generally conjures up when mentioned by legitimate media sources. To make things more clear, the Orlando Sentinel  and Orlando magazine have print and online editions, whereas, Examiner.com merely has an online presence. Writers for the Orlando publications are real journalists. Those with Examiner.com cannot make that claim for the most part. That takes us to the article that started this mess. Written by Donna Thomas, the LA Crime Examiner, who is she?

Her Examiner bio says she “is a published author. She is a frequent contributor on different true crime cases. She has interviewed everyone from Ted Bundy to the Unabomber.” All fine and good, right?

Garth Stapley is a journalist with the The Modesto Bee. In a January 7, 2008 article, Stapley wrote that “Scott Peterson strangled his pregnant wife in their kitchen on Christmas Eve 2002, according to a book written by a woman claiming he confessed to her 15 months ago during a prison visit.” (See: Author says Peterson confessed how and why he killed Laci)

Stapley pointed out that Thomas’s book contained a number of inconsistencies with her first, self-published, book and with statements she made to The Modesto Bee in interviews during a 19-month period. According to Stapley:

His appellate lawyers in October issued a terse statement confirming that their client had contact with Thomas, but denying that Peterson made statements attributed to him in publicity for the book.

“It is unclear what the motivation was for Ms. Thomas’ initial contact with Mr. Peterson,” East Bay attorneys Larry Gibbs and Cliff Gardner wrote to The Bee. “We are unsure of her motive in writing the book after Mr. Peterson broke off contact with Ms. Thomas, but it was not the search for truth.”

Thomas’s “I’m sorry I lied to you” book did not cite her first book, “Conduct Unbecoming - However, the Scott Peterson I Know Is Innocent”, either. She told the newspaper that she had passed a polygraph regarding Peterson’s alleged jailhouse confession, but she never produced proof, and she never produced any of the original letters she claimed she had received from Peterson. Here’s an interesting little tidbit, in my opinion, of course. According to Stapley, Thomas pledged “to donate a portion of her proceeds to ‘Haven/Stanuslaus (sic) Women’s Refuge.’ But Belinda Rolicheck, executive director of the Haven Women’s Center of Stanislaus, said recently she has never spoken with Thomas or her publisher.”

I think Stapley pretty much painted a picture of Donna Thomas, who I am not out to impugn at all. Instead, I strongly recommend that you read The Bee article written by Stapley and formulate your own opinion.

In the 1981 movie, “Body Heat”, William Hurt played a gullible third-rate attorney who was taken advantage of by a sinister woman played by Kathleen Turner. IMDB described it this way:

In the midst of a searing Florida heat wave, a woman convinces her lover, a small-town lawyer, to murder her rich husband.

The great Paul Newman starred in a 1982 movie titled, “The Verdict”. His character was a washed-out, drunk, ambulance chasing attorney who gets set-up to fall hard by a huge law firm headed by James Mason. How could a drunk has-been (or never-was) topple the Boston Diocese and the most powerful law firm in the city? (I urge you to watch both films.)

What this leads me to is quite simple and straightforward. Jose Baez and Cheney Mason sure looked inept in the courtroom. By that, I mean the prosecution was clear and concise and they produced compelling evidence that should have convicted Caylee Anthony’s alleged murderer. While many still argue over the outcome of the trial, one thing we did learn was that the defense was shrewd, cunning, and willing to lie in order to exonerate their client. I would assert that there’s a good possibility that Donna Thomas and Examiner.com were set-up by Baez or one of his goons. For the life of me, and this is the very first thing that came to mind, I would never suspect that a real whistle-blower would contact an Examiner to hand over an exclusive story like this one. That sort of “bombshell” belongs to the Riveras and Graces of the world, or any other legitimate and credible journalist. Thomas claims it was sources that told her, not one singular source. That’s suspect to me because she wrote most of the article using the plural, but in the end, she wrote that a source said Anthony doesn’t care if her book is boycotted or not; she has her 6-figure advance and she will be flush with money for a long time to come. The article finished by citing a source - singular - not sources, as saying anyone who thinks that crime doesn’t pay is sadly mistaken. Also, who could possibly live for a long time on a 6-figure salary, particularly after the IRS, her attorneys and handlers, and potential lawsuits are paid off?

With regard to a writer for Examiner.com, any writer, my guess is that an average pay-per-click amount would be somewhere around one cent. If a “How to make meatloaf” article written by an LA Home Recipes Examiner gets about 200 hits, it might make a whopping $2.00 for the hour it took to write. Imagine a story that draws the attention of millions of people worldwide; a powerful exclusive! How many hits would you guess it could garner? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? You know, it would be an easy incentive to make a fast buck, that’s for sure. Lots and lots of bucks, for that matter, but I’m not trying to infer anything seedy about the author. No doubt, the defense is capable of doing anything to keep their client in the limelight by planting a seed and later denying it, because that will keep her star from fading into oblivion, right? I really can’t say, but as far as I’m concerned, any way you look at it, it’s pure sleaze, from top to bottom. Bottom is more like it, and I’m not going to buy into any of it.

If you have any type of problem commenting on this or any other post, please let me know by sending me an e-mail. You can use the “Contact Me” form located at the bottom of the left sidebar. 

Behind-the-scenes look at the 9/11 memorial

Of Biblical Proportions

SOLOMON, PART I

On January 27, 2010, I wrote a post titled, “The Wisdom of Solomon”. It was two days after The Honorable Judge Stan Strickland listened to Amy Huizenga’s thieving friend plead guilty to thirteen counts of fraud. Here is part of what I wrote that day:

State Attorney Frank George stood up at his respective podium and began to speak. On July 8, 2008, Casey wrote a check in the amount of $111.01 that accounted for charges 2, 3, and 4. She wrote this check at Target.  On July 10, she passed a check at Target in the amount of $137.77 that accounted for charges 5, 6, and 7. Also on July 10, she passed a third check at Target for $155.47 and that took care of counts 8, 9, and 10. Counts 11, 12, and 13 took place on July 15 when she wrote a check for $250 at the Bank of America. He then brought up count 1 which referred to a deliberate scheme of conduct overall. She planned on writing checks until they bounced off the walls, I would guess. Good thing we live in the information age, where account balances are instantaneous almost everywhere we go.

Judge Strickland gave the defense an opportunity to challenge the charges. We can discuss the lack of brevity or the levity of the arguments, but let’s cut to the chase - it came down to the judge. First, it should be noted that Casey had no prior convictions and she did make full restitution and  Baez did bring up “equal justice” for his client. He asked for one year of probation and credit for time served, rather than the five years of incarceration the State sought. In the end, His Honor sentenced the 23-year-old Casey to (jail) time served - 412 days - plus $5,517.75 in investigative costs and $348 for court. The amount may be discussed and negotiated at a later motion hearing because the defense found the investigative charge too high and not justifiable. He also adjudicated Casey guilty on six of the fraud counts and withheld adjudication on seven, plus he tacked on a year of supervised probation, which could be problematic and complex later on, given that she still faces a huge mountain of charges ahead. He said that he had given this a lot of thought prior to sentencing. “I’ve done what I thought is fair based on what I know.”

In closing, he added what he felt was the right thing to do:

“There was not an even number of offenses, so I withheld in seven, I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is.”

Of particular interest now is the Solomon-like decision Judge Perry faces regarding the recent clarification of Casey’s probation period set by Judge Strickland. I find it ironic that good old Solomon once again rears his head at the now acquitted and much detested convicted felon.

MOSES, PART I

That brings me to another biblical figure - Moses. He was the guy who cast ten plagues on the people of Egypt. He also parted the Red Sea after he turned the Nile into blood. The pharoah was none too happy with that, so he let Moses and his people go out of Egypt to be slaves no more.

My reason for bringing up Moses has little to do with him, actually. It’s more about the pharaoh at the time, and what his edict was while Moses was packing up the Israelites to wander in the desert for forty years. Every mention of his name and every word etched in stone was struck from the official records. (Historical records actually show that Ramses II was not in charge at the time, but Hollywood disagrees.)

As Ramses II, Yul Brynner exclaimed in Cecil B. de Mille’s film The Ten Commandments, “So it shall be written, so it shall be done.” In this same light, I proclaim that the name Casey Anthony will no longer be permitted on this blog. It is now stricken from the record. However, I do have an appropriate replacement. We know that Caylee called Cindy Ci Ci, and George was Jo Jo. What did she call her mother? How about Ca Ca? From now on, Caylee’s mother will only be known as Ca Ca. Yes, you know how it’s pronounced.

SOLOMON, PART II

Back to the problem Judge Perry called “a legal maze” and “a legal morass”. What sort of decision should he make? According to the Department of Corrections, Ca Ca served her probation while incarcerated and was duly discharged a year later; free from all restrictions. According to what Judge Strickland said in open court on January 25, 2010, her probation was supposed to begin AFTER her release from jail, not while she was sitting in a cell, and he made it clear last week, on August 1, when he issued a corrected Order of Probation and corrected Court Minutes, nunc pro tunc to January 25, 2010. Nunc pro tunc, of course, means now for then; whatever the action is, it has a retroactive legal effect.

Here’s the dilemma. Ca Ca’s defense argues that she has served her probation while incarcerated and they have a letter from DOC to prove it. On the other hand, Judge Strickland made it abundantly clear that Ca Ca did not serve her probation as per his instructions, and his order stated that it was to begin after her release, only there was a mix-up on the first order, as written by the court. But that was not Judge Strickland’s fault. Meanwhile, Cheney Mason filed a motion on his client’s behalf, the EMERGENCY MOTION FOR HEARING TO QUASH, VACATE, AND SET ASIDE COURT’S ORDER. 

Judge Perry said (at the August 5 hearing on the matter) that what Strickland stated in court should trump all - not what the defense claimed. At the same time, Perry acknowledged that she DID serve out her probation in jail according to the Orange County Corrections Department. What a quagmire. “If anything could go wrong,” he said, “it went wrong here.”

Perry is quite aware of safety concerns, meaning keeping Ca Ca safe from harm. To openly serve probation now opens up a can of worms since her address would be made public due to Florida’s sunshine laws. You know, what with all those death threats and whatever.

Phooey. Ask OCSO how many real death threats they’ve received since her release from incarceration. From my own experience with trolls and the “vengenance is mine” crap - yes, that’s the way one idiot spelled it, insinuating harm on me - almost every one of them lives far enough away to be a real threat, although I wouldn’t trust any of them face-to-face, and that leads me back to Ca Ca. Personally, I feel she should be more afraid the farther away from home she is, as she enters uncharted territory. There are more crazies out there in the world than there are in Orlando. Believe me, I thank God for the Atlantic ocean, but that’s another story.

Ahum.

Moving on, I am left with prior motions the defense filed before the trial which asked the court to seal jail records, including visitation logs, telephone conversations and commissary purchases. They were filed and denied while Strickland was on the bench, and they were refiled, along with new ones, after Judge Perry took over. Both judges made it very clear that the judicial branch holds no legal sway over the legislative branch; the one that controls jails and prisons. Consequently, neither judge ruled in favor of the defense because they had no authority to do so.

That leads me to what I think the judge should do. Since he has no power over the jail because it’s a completely separate governmental branch from the court, his decision should be based on those prior rulings. The court does not have to honor the administrative decisions the jail makes in its day-to-day operations. What both judges have been saying all along is that they have no control over the executive branch, and at the same time, the jail has no power over the judicial. There you have it - a very simple solution to a complex problem. Ca Ca did not serve a day of probation while incarcerated because she did not satisfy the court’s order. The heck with what the jail says.

MOSES, PART II

As Ramses said about Moses, let Judge Perry say the same thing about Ca Ca. So it shall be written, so it shall be done. While he wanders through what must be at least 40 years worth of court cases, let’s see how he rules. Personally, I think the answer should be a year of supervised probation. Afterward, she can find her Promised Land. By then, she should be old news and TMZ won’t pay her another dime.

Have a Happy Heavenly Birthday!

Last Laugh?

I’m sorry. I did state that I planned on walking away from the Casey Anthony case, and it’s still my intent, but I just had to say something about today’s news. I couldn’t resist, especially when it comes to Judge Strickland…

On August 1, 2011, Judge Stan Strickland ordered Casey Anthony to serve one year of supervised probation, nunc pro tunc. Nunc pro tunc is Latin for now for then. In other words, the judge issued a new court order showing that the earlier order was in error in its interpretation by the Department of Corrections. The words upon release were omitted in the original document.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Strickland said, “From my reading of this, she should be reporting to probation in Orlando probably within 72 hours. I suspect she’s going to be required to report to probation.”

On January 25, 2010, Anthony pleaded guilty as charged to check fraud. Her attorney, Jose Baez, asked Judge Strickland to give her credit for time served and to place her on probation for a year. He obliged by sentencing her to time served, 412 days for each of the six charges he found her guilty of , followed by one year of probation. The 412 day sentences were to be served concurrently.

At issue, upon her release from jail on July 17, 2011, was whether she had served her probation during the year following her guilty plea to fraud. Clearly, a person cannot violate probation while sitting in a 4’x9’ jail cell 23-hours each day. The judge’s intent was for Casey to serve her probation upon her release from jail, not during. Therefore, he made that very clear in his amended order today.

Casey was also ordered to pay the following amounts: $5.00 for court costs, $50.00 for CCF, $225.00 for LGCJTF, $3.00 for TEENCT, and $65.00 for the Criminal Ordinance program. She must also pay the costs of investigation and prosecution. Attached to the new order were special conditions, along with the year of probation. Of course, there’s to be no contact with the victim, Amy Huizenga, which should be no problem at all. Each month, Casey must make a “full and truthful report” to her Probation Officer, along with $20.00 (payable to the state of Florida) toward the cost of supervision, and a 4% surcharge.

Here’s where the order gets tricky. The order states that Casey “will not change [her] residence or employment or leave the county of [her] residence without first procuring the consent of [her] Probation Officer.” Oddly, her last place of residence was 4937 Hopespring Drive. Something tells me she will fight tooth and nail to keep herself away from that house.

The order carries a total of 13 legal stipulations she must follow, such as not being able to own any sort of weapon. Attached are the two documents released by the Clerk of Courts today. I think we can fully count on her defense challenging this new order, but what judge will hear the motion? None other than Chief Judge Belvin Perry, according to the Orlando Sentinel write-up.

I do not believe Judge Strickland intended to have the last laugh. His design was for Casey to serve her probation upon her release from jail. Isn’t it ironic, though, that in the end, while Cheney Mason claims he was able to take the judge down, he couldn’t take him out? Rich indeed!

OneTouch Aug 01, 2011 (1)

OneTouch Aug 01, 2011 (2)