In 2007, Marc Carpenter, a quiet, unassuming attorney, who was also a lifetime cyclist, was run over and killed on Highway 67 at the intersection of Poway Road. The motorist was never even investigated. See ya! Ta-ta!

On December 2 of this year, Ed Costa, a 30-year-old self-employed construction worker, father of two (he worked with his family at Costa Construction), was run over and killed in Alpine by a hit-and-run driver, allegedly Travis Weber. Only after family members saw the alleged offender pull into a local bar, the Liars’ Club, right across the street from the accident site two days later, during a candlelight/ prayer vigil at the accident site, did the San Diego County sheriff — whose brand-spanking-new $4 million office complex sits next door — act and arrest Mr. Weber. Weber also had been in an accident earlier on December 2, just down the road on Alpine Boulevard, and was reported to the sheriff as a drunk driver. The San Diego County sheriff knew he was likely the driver/murderer involved and chose not to arrest him. I won’t get into Weber’s criminal record, including DUIs, but suffice it to say that he had to be the primary suspect. What I heard from a DEA agent on December 13 is that the victim, Ed Costa, was “suspected” of being a drug runner, so both the DEA and the San Diego County sheriff considered his death a positive. While taken aback, that attitude did not surprise me.

I have been hit or nearly hit on my bike by offending motorists a dozen times in the last five years, and not once has an SDPD officer or San Diego County sheriff intervened or cited the offending driver. Several of these incidents have actually been witnessed by sheriff’s deputies. The response is always the same — a laugh, a wink, a nod, as if to say, “Too bad, buddy. Why the hell are you riding a bike, anyway?”

They’re too busy writing registration violations and seat belt tickets (revenue!) to bother with helping to preserve the lives of citizens.

Dean Patterson
via email

Free Juries

The December 4 “Judge for Yourself” (Local Events) interview with retired judge Norbert Ehrenfreund was enriching, and he should be commended and congratulated for his comments — honest comments about the jury and the jurors’ unlimited rights and independence; accountable to no one for their verdict, for whatever reason they choose, such as voting “no conviction” against an unjust law tried against a guilty defendant is acceptable.

The Founders saw the jury as the last peaceful barrier against malicious prosecution and tyranical government, thus granting juries complete independence from a judge’s instructions (jury tampering) or any other outside influence.

Knowledge of your unlimited rights as a prospective juror should never be revealed to a judge or prosecutor during the juror-seating process or you will be removed, for prosecutors’ and all lawyers’ first allegiance is to the court bench, not the client or accused. Justice is what you can afford.

Never reject jury duty. Your one “no” vote could save an innocent individual from incarceration when tried under atrocious or stacked nonrelevant charges. Jury duty is how we protect each other from malicious government (potential liars), promotion-seeking cops, judges, and prosecutors.

To fortify Judge Ehrenfreund’s assertions, consider the following:

John Jay, first chief justice, U.S. Supreme Court: “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796: “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

“All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Alexander Hamilton, 1804, quoted by Joe Sax: “Jurors should acquit even against the judge’s instruction…(if) exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.” Sometimes called “jury nullification” or jury lawlessness by judges and prosecutors.

Harlan F. Stone, 12th chief justice, U.S. Supreme Court, in 1941 stated: “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided.”

U.S. v. Moylan, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (1969): “If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”

U.S. v. Dougherty, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (1972): “The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power…to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”

Norton v. Shelby County: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Pass on to friends.

Jay Cook
Valley Center

In The No-Win Zone

This letter is in regards to the lead article in the November 20 issue. First off the bat, “Welcome to Weedmart” was a pretty cheese-ball title for your article regarding the perils of obtaining medical marijuana. Obviously, obtaining marijuana is not as easy as driving down to Walmart to obtain the latest and greatest in overseas-made discount what have you.

Second, those who grow their medicine obviously do so at their peril. Not just from Johnny Law but also from those who will stop at nothing to poach your plants for their nonmedicinal use. This is why most growers not only invest in decent security systems but also sometimes have to resort to keeping loaded firearms handy.

Third, when it comes to medical marijuana, the market is such that being charged way above market prices is pretty much the norm. It is like how Big PhRMA members run their corporations — they have the meds if you have the cash.

Unlike Big PhRMA, however, there are no low-income or medically necessary discount programs when it comes to medical marijuana. If you want your medicine, it is cash on the barrelhead or go without! What you have is about the same type of deal that you get from your local street peddler, really.

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

davidtanny Jan. 10, 2009 @ 8:44 p.m.

re: Name Withheld's definition on what radio is

Since the dark cloud of corporate control of terrestrial radio covered most of San Diego, Internet has become radio while AM and FM have become anything but radio.

Since the mid-90s, the definition of what a radio is has changed to mean streaming audio from websites, and that has become the new meaning of radio.

Satellite delivered playlists of music is also called radio.

Podcasts are not, however, radio, but more like shows on demand, but many people are thinking that it's radio.

What is no longer radio, however, are the stuff that comes between the AM frequencies of 540 and 1700 kHz. What it is are mostly right-wing wacko propagation machines in the guise of talk, religion, and news shows. The music played on the AM band tends to be aimed for people in the AARP age group. Generally, younger people think of AM as their grandparent's band, and is not relevant to their lives.

FM is the younger people's parent's band. That band too tends to play music that is controlled by suits in far away places who have no connection with what the general public wants to hear. On the corporate-run stations that's anything but radio, all you get is lite pop rock music aimed at young females, worn out dinosaur rock for what's left of the older listeners, watered-down country and alternative rock, light jazz, adult contemporary that sounds like rock, rock that sounds like adult contemporary, R&B that has anything but house music, and other monotonous ideas.

With younger listeners flocking to radio (Sateliite, Internet, whatever else) and away from merely corrupt AM/FM, the collective numbers for the radio stations continues to fall, with many more stations going below a 1.0, and a sizable portion under a 0.5 rating. As long as radio station decision makers continue to shoot themselves in the foot, the ratings will continue to ebb, advertising dollars fall, and deficits on the rise.

Stations are going dark, asking for donations, cutting back on local talent in favor of cheaper programming, and adding more informercial blocks. In short, radio is out of ideas on what to program to get an audience.

On the Internet, you can find oldies that go far deeper than what The Walrus is daring to do, dance mixes that commercial stations avoids, real comedy that you won't find on the morning talk shows, blues, bluegrass, folk, rock-country, and other genres that go ignored on the AM and FM bands, and so forth.

It makes me wonder why it is worth it for a radio station to keep pushing the same old stuff again and again when the audience doesn't care for it anymore. Get some refreshing talk programming that doesn't slam people and you'll get ratings. Get some music that has a beat, pulse, groove, and a real riff and you'll get some listeners again.

So when will the terrestrial analog streams on the AM and FM bands start acting like radio once again?

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close