Judge "Backroom Deals" Jackson & a Crooked Attorney Named "Pope"

Yesterday I witnessed one of the most obvious cases of backroom dealing I've ever seen, in the Shawnee County courthouse. It was an assault case, with the Shawnee County DA prosecuting one of my neighbors, Scotty Dundee Wilson, for an incident where Wilson assaulted and sucker-punched me in front of a 27 news camera last year during the floods.

I mean literally, the incident was caught on camera, by then-reporter Brian Dorman. At no point did I do anything but defend myself from this 400 lb bully and his 350 lb brother (I'm only 155 lbs). In fact, the only thing I DID do was say some words to him after he attacked me.

Keep in mind, at no point was I on trial; I was only involved as a witness. Wilson purchased the services of an attorney named "Pope". EVERYONE who saw the tape, could see it was an obvious case of a big bully attacking a smaller guy - just because he can.

As I said, I have a witness in Brian Dorman, who at the time was a TV Reporter for 27 news (now he's an Anchor for 13 news). He and I actually became acquainted during this incident, which started when Scotty and Will Wilson attempted to take the news camera away from Brian Dorman while he was interviewing me about the 2007 flood. Scotty Wilson (literally on camera), got in my face, pushed me about 8 feet away, then a minute later got in my face again, and sucker-punched me.

And yet, after going into chambers with Wilson's attorney (Pope), Judge Jackson declares it was "mutual combat". Even though NOT ONCE did I do anything but raise my arms in defense as Wilson came at me.

Next week I will be protesting Judge "Backroom Deals" Jackson. As far as I'm concerned, that son-of-a-bitch has no business sitting on any bench, especially when he cares more about backroom deals than justice.

Sincerely,

Thomas Lessman
Web: www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
------------------------------------

Meth Wars: Program Monitors Pharmacies

I believe government news like this "Program to monitor pharmacies in meth battle" needs to be recieved cautiously.

Sure it "feels good" to hear the government is going to "do something" to stop illegal drug use. But I need to know a LOT more information before I can just accept another government program, especially when it appears to be a seriously invasive program.

What information are they going to collect from the pharmacies? Who will be collecting the information, where will it be stored, and how will it be used? How do they expect this to fix the meth problem? How will they fund the program? What will they do with the already existing programs that are similar but apparently aren't working? If those other programs are working, then why do they need another program?

WE the People keep letting the government jump into whatever programs it wants, without paying attention to the consequences. We've already got serious budget and economic problems.
Why are we being told that they government doesn't have enough money to pay for all of the road construction, infrastructure, police positions, and various social services the government says it needs?

If the government doesn't have enough money to pay for its existing needs, why is it starting new programs that will cost more and be even more invasive, without disbanding the older similar programs that apparently aren't working?

Thomas Lessman
Web: www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
====================

Libertarian Party of Kansas: www.LPKS.org

Drunk Driving Prevention: Use Common Sense

Drunk driving is a terrible problem that is (and should be) a crime. But it can also be an honest mistake that all too easy to make, and current policies don't help the situation. Here are two common problems with common sense solutions that will go a LONG way to prevent drunk driving:

Problem 1: Lowering the legal limit only puts more drunk drivers on the road. Many drunk drivers honestly have no idea they were over the legal limit. I don't know of any bars equipped with a breathalyzer. I don't know anyone who owns a breathalyzer (or who knows where to get one). How can anyone know they are over the legal limit if they have no way of seeing what their blood/alcohol level is?

Solution: Breathalyzers need to be available so people can see for sure whether they are legally drunk or not. Either allow bars to install them, or help people get a breathalyzer installed in their car. Or instead of setting up checkpoints, have some officers go to bars and OFFER to let people take a breathalyzer (by choice), so people actually have a way to know for sure whether they are legally drunk or not BEFORE they get in their car.

Problem 2: Forcing bars to kick everyone out at 2am with no exceptions puts people in a sudden bind. Especially if they just finished their (last call) drink and they haven't felt the effects yet. That can easily lead to people honestly not realizing they're drunk until they are already on the road!

Solution: Allow bars to stay open longer but stop serving alcohol at 2am. That way if someone needs to sit for a while and sober up, they can do it in the bar instead of in their car. If the bar wants, it can also serve breakfast to customers so they can sober up and while waiting for their food and eating. That would let people have time to sober up AND it would let the bar make more money by giving its customers what they need. A win-win situation!

Conclusion: There are more changes that would help prevent drunk driving, but the two above would be a good start. Laws are necessary to define crimes and punishment, but should we really punish someone harshly if they honestly didn't know they were breaking the law? We have to make sure that people actually have a way to know if they are breaking the law, so they have the opportunity to do the right thing before it's too late.

Thomas Lessman
Website: http://www.thomaslessman.com/
. Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------
-----------------------
--------------