Uncensored Justice System Discussion

SaberGal · Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: Oregon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 6:08-cr-118-Orl-DDD-DAB
JUDE LACOUR,

Defendant

/

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR MALICIOUS, CRIMINAL, AND OUTRAGEOUS PROSECUTORIAL/JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING

The Defendant, Jude T. Lacour, a Pro Se inmate at Orange County Correctional Facility, pursuant to Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is respectfully requesting that the Court issue an Order dismissing all charges against all Defendants, with prejudice. In the event that the Court does not dismiss this action or deny this Pro Se inmate an evidentiary hearing, Defendant requests, in the alternative, the following:

A. That all current members of the government’s trial team and the Orlando judiciary, including visiting federal Judge David D. Dowd, Jr., be disqualified for participating, condoning and or acquiescing to prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that was committed for purposes other than the faithful discharge of their duties.

Defendant declares under penalty of perjury that prosecutor Karen Gable is a corrupt public official and that the Orlando judiciary through its inaction facilitated her crimes. Instead of preventing injustice, the Court is injudiciously forcing this Pro Se Defendant to go to trial, knowing, that, through no fault of his, Defendant has not reviewed a single page of discovery, that’s incorporated in 9 CD’s containing approximately 400,000 pages of documents. Defendant has been begging the Court and his conflicted attorney to permit him to review his discovery and be allowed to have a speedy trial. The former prosecutor, like so many attorneys before him, took the money and did nothing to advance his case. The Court knows that Mr. William Bryan engaged in multiple acts of wrongdoing and caused irreparable harm to his client and his case. William Bryan’s motion to withdraw was granted without inquiry so as to protect William Bryan, Karen Gable and her former boss Rick Jancha’s conflict related misconduct. The Court failed to ask any probing questions, such as; did the lawyer interview any witnesses, serve subpoenas, comply with Defendant’s reciprocal discovery obligations, prepare jury related material, and or court exhibits. Had the Court asked those questions the answer would have been a resounding “No”. The Defendant should not be punished and forced to go to trial unprepared because his attorney was involved in conflict with the prosecutor, Karen Gable. To more fully inform the Court of this conflict, the Defendant is providing the Court with a 35 page Prosecutorial Misconduct letter as (Exhibit #1), so the Court can see for itself that the Defendant is not playing games or unnecessarily delaying the process. Defendant takes his case very seriously and he is equally as hard on his own corrupt defense attorney as he is against the corrupt prosecutor. Defendant is simply asking for fairness and he should not be subjected to trial by ambush, which is exactly what the Court is proposing.

With the trial only days away, this inmate has been stripped of all his constitutionally guaranteed rights, not because they don’t exist, but because the 80 year old “visiting” Judge David Dowd, has other more pressing family or business commitments…and…granting a continuance would interfere with his tight schedule. Judge David Dowd’s comment at the February 4, 2009, status conference that “…my wife is still on my back for agreeing to it, and it’s one reason we’re going to try this case in less than 12 weeks…” is beyond prejudicial. Defendant is convinced that Judge David Dowd has injudiciously denied his discovery motions (Exhibit #2) and motion to delay the trial (Exhibit #3) so he can tend to his wife’s needs. Forcing a Defendant to go to trial unprepared is not serving justice or doing justice, it’s administering injustice.

Visiting Judge David Dowd was inserted in this case via Chief Judge Anne Conway who played a significant role in denying this Defendant’s notices and motions because they didn’t comport with “local rules”. Judge Anne Conway demanded that the Defendant file appropriate federal forms, when she knew that the County Correctional institutions had no such forms. This Defendant is not persuaded by Judge David Dowd’s argument that his assignment was predicated on Judge Anne Conway’s “enormous problems with her docket”. Defendant has made several court appearances and he saw no evidence of overcrowding at the Orlando Federal Court house.

Defendant is entitled to a fair trial and a fair judge and he is concerned with Judge Dowd’s appearances and rulings in the instant case in advance of being approved by the Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts and or Chief Judge of the 11th Circuit. Judge David Dowd is on record saying that in August of 2009, he has agreed to sit with the 11th circuit, the same circuit Defendant will have to file his appeals, including this Prosecutorial/Judicial misconduct motion. Defendant has already been punished for disqualifying three federal judges and he is certain the system will further violate, demonize, and accuse him of being contemptuous and or disrespectful simply because he is zealously defending the constitution that the Orlando prosecutor and the judiciary abandoned.

B. That the Court requests the U.S. Department of Justice to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the handling of this case by the government and the Orlando judiciary;

C. That a Special Master be appointed to assist the Court in a review of all instances of prosecutorial abuse in this and other similar cases, in the Middle District Court of Florida, Orlando Division;

Defendant has been incarcerated for approximately 11 months at Seminole and Orange County Correctional Institution and personally observed a wide spread systemic and pervasive prosecutorial and judicial abuses involving indigent inmates who are being railroaded by the system from speedy trial violations to being charged outrageous fees for court transcripts, that in some cases, costs as much as $80.00 a page.

D. That this prosecutorial/judicial misconduct motion be submitted to Office of Professional Responsibility, in order to conduct an appropriate investigation and adjudication of this matter.

E. That the Court prepare instructions to the jury indicating that the jury may infer that the wanton misconduct by the government in this matter can be inferred as an admission by the government that his selective prosecution was motivated by bias and revenge.

F. That a continuance of the trial date be granted so defendant can review his 400,000 pages of discovery, locate and interview material witnesses and serve appropriate Subpoena Duces Tecums, as part of his constitutional right to a fair trial.

1. The Courts have long recognized that indictments may be dismissed in cases of unambiguously criminal, flagrant and or bad faith abuses by the prosecution in order to protect judicial integrity and deter prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Carrasco, 786 F.2d 1452, 1455 (9th Cir. 1986), citing United States v. Kennedy, 564 F.2d 1329, 1338 (9th Cir. 1984). This notion of protecting judicial integrity in the face of prosecutorial misconduct harkens back to Justice Sutherland’s cautionary words in 1935: [t]he United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party, whose interest is not that it shall win a case, but that justice be done. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

2. This sentiment is steeped in the very fundamental rights underlying our legal system. As Judge Aldisert observed in United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3rd Cir. 1982), “[t]here is no more cruel tyranny than that which is expressed under cover of the law, and with the colors of justice.” Id. At 614 (quoting Montesquieu, De l’Espririt des Lois).

3. These instructions regarding prosecutorial ethics that mandates candor toward the tribunal, fairness to opposing party and counsel, special responsibilities of a prosecutor, and the constitutional commands of Brady v. Maryland, have not been heeded by representatives of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida and or United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division.

4. As will be outlined in greater detail in this motion and or during the evidentiary hearing, Defendant will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in the instant case, the government committed and engaged in pervasive obstruction of justice, misrepresented waivers, covered up multiple felonious crimes, withheld exculpatory evidence which would have exposed their criminal activities, concealed and condoned criminal violations of its agents, provided deliberately false and misleading arguments and or answers in various motions and notices, suborned perjury, intentionally made false and misleading representations to the Court, intimidated and invaded Defendant’s legal team, maliciously violated Defendant’s right to a reasonable bail, intentionally violated Defendant’s speedy trial rights, denied defendant and his legal team the right to bring a computer into the Correctional facility while permitting government employees to do so, falsely claiming that the Correctional Facilities have law libraries, requesting inmates to file federal forms which are not kept in County based correctional institutions, manipulated the Grand Jury process, willfully deprived Defendant of being able to review and or provide reciprocal discovery, and used dubious and conflicted judges to strike his notices and motions for violating the “local rules”.

Defendant alleges that the sheer number of Akerman-Senterffit judges at the Orlando Middle District Court is unprecedented and apparently sanctioned by the FBI that rubber stamped their approval. The new Attorney General needs to be made aware of this local “arrangement” to determine if there is a bona fide need to restore public confidence and integrity in the Orlando judicial system that was largely ignored by the Bush administration and Florida’s Administration of Justice.

5. In isolation, any one of these illegal and or outrageous acts would warrant dismissal. Collectively, these actions mandate dismissal and additional sanctions to curb blatant and criminal prosecutorial abuses, that were orchestrated and condoned by Karen Gable, her assistant AUSA Daniel C. Irick, whose recent case was dismissed with prejudice for perjury, and Karen Gable’s former supervisor Rick Jancha who is “representing” one of the co-defendant’s, in violation of United States Attorney’s manual and or various federal and state laws.

6. Against the foregoing background, Pro Se inmate Jude Lacour declares that Defendant’s defense in the upcoming trial is based on law enforcement and prosecutorial misconduct, shoddy investigation, entrapment, selective prosecution, and multiple advice of counsel. It should be noted that Karen Gable and the Court has deprived Defendant of his ability to identify dozens and dozens of lawyers he relied on, by corruptly ensuring that he could not use a computer and or call witnesses to bolster his defense.

7. Defendant declares under penalty of perjury that on April 15, 2005, Magistrate Judge David A. Baker, signed a search warrant granting permission to Special Agent John F. Groeschner, Jr. of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to retrieve corporate documents and electronic devices relating to Defendant’s Internet Pharmacy business. Defendant has ever intention of calling Magistrate Judge David A. Baker, to testify as a witness in this trial, in order to affirm that the Court did not grant any exceptions and did not corruptly invite the government to illegally usurp his authority and use the search warrant as a pretext to falsely imprison, detail, intimidate, and interrogate approximately 30 Jive Network employees who were present at the Daytona Beach location, during the execution of the corporate search warrant, on April 19, 2005. The last time the Defendant looked at the law, false imprisonment was a crime.

8. Defendant alleges under penalty of perjury that he will seek testimony from Special Agent John F. Groeschner, Jr. and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on April 19, 2005, at the direction of prosecutor Karen Gable, the FBI agent intentionally and unlawfully exceeded the scope of the search warrant that Magistrate Judge David A. Baker approved on April 15, 2005. Intentional violation of the law is a crime.

9. The Defendant alleges under penalty of perjury that prosecutor Karen Gable, in concert with Special Agent John F. Groeschner, Jr. knowingly and willfully devised a scheme and artifice to commit various crimes and conspired, planned, and coordinated their illegal strategy long before they sought the search warrant from Magistrate Judge David A. Baker. The confederacy and conscious unlawful acts by the prosecutor and her agent was premeditated and necessitated the involvement of substantial resources, planning, and coordination, by some 50 law enforcement personnel. Conspiracy to commit an illegal act is a crime.

10. Defendant alleges that Special Agent John F. Groeschner, Jr. is in possession of internal security surveillance camera tape that recorded the execution of the corporate search warrant. The existence of the tape has not been acknowledged or provided so as to impede and deny Defendant an opportunity to show the jury the government’s excesses when they illegally detained, abused, interrogated, and terrorized his employees. Intentional concealment of evidence is misconduct.

11. Defendant alleges that government agents stayed at his corporate location for two days, and deleted exculpatory data from his computers and or servers to conceal their crimes and to deprive Defendant of his exculpatory evidence. Defendant further alleges that when FBI agent John F. Groeschner returned some of his computers and servers to Defendant, his property report contained wrong serial numbers. The examination of returned computers and servers revealed that some of them were tampered with and that selective information was expunged. Defendant alleges that this act of misconduct was brought to the attention of prosecutor Karen Gable in May of 2005. Destruction of evidence is a crime. (Exhibit #4)

12. This Pro Se Defendant declares under penalty of perjury that Karen Gable and Special Agent John F. Groeschner, Jr. are public officials who took an oath of office in which they swore that they would faithfully discharge the duties of their office, including adhering to the standards of conduct delineated in the U.S. Attorney’s Office Manual. Engaging in criminal and unlawful activities is misconduct.

13. This Pro Se Defendant declares under penalty of perjury that visiting Judge David Dowd, Chief Judge Anne Conway, and Magistrate Judge David A. Baker were made aware of Karen Gable’s criminal misconduct through various letters, notices and motions, and failed to take appropriate measures to expose or prevent her misconduct. Defendant is convinced that the Court is involved in serious misconduct, to wit; judicial “code of silence”

14. The Court was made aware that defendant’s attorney (William Bryan) was recently disqualified for conflict involving him; prosecutor Karen Gable and her former boss Rick Jancha. Attorney William Bryan’s misconduct will be reported to the State Bar. In the interim, former prosecutor, Rich Jancha retired from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in January of 2007, and became a partner in NeJame, LaFay, Jancha, Ahmed, Barker & Joshi law firm. Defendant was informed that this law firm is currently under investigation for money laundering and drug trafficking. Unbeknown to Defendant, Attorney William Bryan and Rick Jancha were good friends and Mr. Bryan was renting an office from Rick Jancha’s law firm. When Defendant discovered this and confronted his attorney, Defendant was told that William Bryan would move out of Rick Jancha’s office, by December 31, 2008. That too was a lie. William Bryan told Defendant and his defense investigator that Rick Jancha was a high level prosecutor who had functional supervisory oversight over Karen Gable and others. The lawyer admitted that Rick Jancha and Karen Gable were in the same office, at about the same time Magistrate Judge Baker issued a search warrant for Defendant’s Internet Pharmacy business.

Sensing a possible conflict of interest situation, defense investigator Bill Pavelic reviewed the United States Attorney’s Manual and other material and determined that actual conflict did exist between attorneys William Bryan, Karen Gable and defense attorney Rick Jancha. It was readily apparent to Defendant that Rick Jancha, Karen Gable and William Bryan were concealing their conflict and that the prosecutor Karen Gable and William Bryan lied and misrepresented their official notices that were filed with the Court. Intentionally filing false notices is criminal misconduct.

Mr. Pavelic demanded that William Bryan obtain an ethics opinion to determine the scope of the conflict and if criminal penalties and disciplinary action may be imposed for such conflict violations. William Bryan reluctantly agreed and consulted with his friend, Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee, from the Southern District of Florida, at which time he was told that the conflict was absolutely real and that the Court must be officially notified.

In subsequent discussions, attorney William Bryan told his client and Mr. Pavelic that the conflict with Karen Gable and Rick Jancha was very serious and that the Orlando judges would have to have known of the conflict. What he didn’t say is that prosecutor Karen Gable filed false court notices to conceal the conflict misconduct involving Rick Jancha. The Defendant took the high road and demanded that his attorney William Bryan withdraw his representation of Defendant do to his conflict with Karen Gable and Rich Jancha…and…in typical corrupt fashion, Karen Gable and Rick Jancha took the low road, by remaining on the case so they can further subvert justice. The Court once again engaged in judicial “code of silence” and permitted Mr. Jancha and Ms. Gable to remain on the case and continue to operate as if the conflict law does not apply to them.

The Court was made aware that former prosecutor William Bryan was impersonating a defense attorney and that he was tacitly working for the prosecution against his client’s interests. He is not the only defense attorney that facilitated, aided and abetted the prosecutor, Karen Gable. Defendant has not been able to prepare a Massiah motion which he will commence to finalize after the evidentiary hearing.

15. The Defendant alleges that prosecutor Karen Gable is concealing the investigation that was conducted against the defendant involving the Volusia Bureau of Investigation and agent Harry Oakley. Defendant has known for quite some time that Harry Oakley, a highly decorated office, under color of authority, perfected his technique of targeting vulnerable Daytona Beach women involved in minor vice activities and used them as confidential informants to advance his investigations and sexual appetite. The Defendant has not received any documents pertaining to Volusia Bureau of Investigation and or Det. Harry Oakley, who played such a significant role in targeting the Defendant because of his relationship with Mona, his confidential informant.

Defendant alleges that prosecutor Karen Gable, FBI agent John Groeschner and Volusia Bureau of Investigation are covering up agent Harry Oakley’s activities so as not to reveal his confidential informants. The prosecutor is on record claiming there were no confidential informants used in this case, which is patently false. Over the years, agent Harry Oakley used numerous informants while investigation Defendant, including Defendant’s former girlfriend, Mona. Defendant knows for a fact that on or about April 19, 2005, Volusia Bureau of Investigation interrogated Mona concerning Defendants Internet Pharmacy business. Concealing witnesses that the prosecutor will not use at trial and hiding discovery concerning Operation CyberJive is misconduct.

16. Defendant alleges that on or about April 12, 2005, at the direction of prosecutor Karen Gable, FBI Agent John F. Groeschner used inside sources (confidential informants) to hire an FDA undercover agent to penetrate and or infiltrate Defendant’s business. During his short tenure with Jive Network, the FDA undercover agent using the name of “Tony Lammatta” dispensed orders…just as other employees have done for years. The report from the undercover operative has not been turned over to the defense and his testimony is crucial because his dispensing of orders were captured on tape. The tape has not been provided to Defendant.

17. On April 19, 2005 at approximately 0900 hours, employee Dolores A. was at work when she heard people shouting “Put your hands up”. She saw agents point guns at her and other employees. No matter where she looked there were guns pointed at the employees. She was terrified, scared, and in a state of shock. Dolores remembered seeing FDA agent “Tony Lammatta” with a gun in his hand. She recognized Lammatta as the person she hired and trained on or about April 12, 2005. Dolores recalled that Tony Lammatta personally made calls and placed orders with customers while employed by Jive Network. Dolores was searched and directed to go outside where she was interviewed by an agent. She was asked how Jive Network processed orders and she responded by saying that all orders had to be reviewed by a licensed physician and afterwards by a licensed pharmacist. The agent was interest in knowing if Jive Network shipped outside the country and her response was an adamant “No”. Dolores was asked a couple of times if her answer was “No” and noticed that the agent falsely marked her answer a “N/A” instead of “No.” Some of the questions dealt with whether or not Jive Network imported medication from out of the country causing Dolores to say that all of Jive medication were FDA approved and from within the United States.

A few days after the execution of the search warrant, Dolores was at a Wal Mart parking lot when she was approached by Detective Harry Oakley. He asked her if she heard what had happened to the company she used to work for and she informed him that she was still employed by Jive Network. Harry Oakley volunteered that Jude Lacour was in California and that he (Harry Oakley) was offered the case but declined the offer because he used to date “Mona”, Jude’s ex-girlfriend. Detective Oakley went on to state that his friend, “Josh” was in charge of the case and that they found a book in Jude’s office where he had the work “law” underlined. He told Dolores that one of Jude’s employees claimed that Jude was changing pharmacies to stay out of trouble from the law and that Jude knew what he was doing was wrong. Det. Harry Oakley declared that Jude was about to be indicted and that they were going after his house and assets. Dolores was told to look for another job because Jude was in a lot of trouble. She in turn told Det. Harry Oakley that she has worked for Jude for almost 2 years and that he did everything by the book and that he was an honest man who would never do anything to jeopardize his company or employees. (Exhibit #5)
Defendant alleges that the agent who questioned Dolores A. was involved in misconduct by misrepresenting her statement and that Harry Oakley had an obligation to prepare a report concerning his discussing with Dolores A. Defendant has not been provided with Dolores or any other employee’s statement from the April 19, 2005 search warrant execution.

18. Defendant alleges that the prosecutor who is the subject of this prosecutorial misconduct is also custodian of records and she has no intentions of providing Defendant with needed discovery that will implicate her in criminal misconduct. Consequently all attempts by Defendant to obtain and review discovery has been rebuffed. Defendant sought discovery from witnesses the government DOES NOT ANTICIPATE CALLING AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL and the prosecutor continues to impede and retard his discovery request.

19. Defendant alleges that when the government illegally detained, interrogated and intimidated his employees, they were not advised of their constitutional rights and or given an opportunity for the corporation to provide them with legal counsel. Defendant himself was detained for hours and questioned by the agents who intentionally failed to prepare a report so as to conceal their overreaching. Defendant has not been provided with a single report involving his employees. The government has no intention of calling all the employees at trial and is delaying the production of their reports as a policy of concealment.

20. On or about May 3, 2005, defendant sough legal representation from attorney Cheney Mason. In his engagement letter dated May 3, 2005, Mr. Mason claimed he contacted prosecutor Karen Gable and that she confirmed to him that Defendant and his father are targets of the investigation and that she intends to indict him. (Exhibit #6) Defendant states and alleges that prosecutor Karen Gable claimed that no such discussions ever took place. Defendant believes that Karen Gable was lying and concealing a conflict that Cheney Mason created by subsequently representing John Labascoe and Defendant’s father. Lying through official federal notices is misconduct.

21. On or about May 23, 2005, defendant’s attorney sent a letter to Karen Gable delineating various acts of law enforcement/prosecutorial misconduct, including: that federal agents working under prosecutor’s direction made several attempts to directly contact Defendant concerning the pending investigation. The attorney further communicated to Karen Gable that the agents showed up at Defendant’s business to return property and that it was determined that the serial numbers on the returned property did not match the serial numbers contained in the reports. Ms. Gable was informed that one computer that was seized and returned with the wrong serial numbers was tampered in order to conceal the officer’s misconduct during the execution of the search warrant. The prosecutor was advised of information from many individuals as to the conduct of the federal and local law enforcement officers and their treatment of the civilians present at the premises during the execution of the search warrant. Ms. Gable was asked to provide to Defendant’s attorney a copy of the employee file, reflecting the hiring of an undercover agent and put the prosecutor on notice that the person who facilitated the hiring of this undercover officer was dating one of Karen Gable’s agents. And finally, Ms. Gable was informed that local law enforcement has been using informants and (perhaps over-reaching) personal relationships to gain information about Defendant. (Exhibit #7)

Defendant alleges that on May 24, 2005, prosecutor Karen Gable responded to Defendant’s prosecutorial misconduct issues, in part by stating: “…Please be assured that I take allegations of this type very seriously. I have checked into the issues that you have raised, and I have found no evidence that the agents acted improperly…” The inquiry by the prosecutor, within 24 hours, was a sham and designed to cover up prosecutorial misconduct. (Exhibit #8)

22. On June 9, 2005, Defendant retained the services of attorney Jeff Dowdy to represent him in both civil and pending criminal case. On August 8, 2005, Defendant’s attorney spoke with prosecutor Karen Gable informing him of the following; “…My conversation with Karen Gable yesterday concerned whether or not she was intending to indict you. Based upon our conversation she told me that if we can show her your reliance on the advice of counsel that your business was legal she would reconsider prosecuting your case…”

23. After conversing with attorney David Dowd [This should read Jeff Dowdy] on August 8, 2005, Karen Gable caused FBI agent John Groeschner to contact Jeff Lacour, a represented party. The call to Jeff Lacour was unethical and in violation of various rules and regulations, including U.S. Attorney’s Manual.

24. On August 18, 2005, Karen Gable and her agents met with Jeff Lacour and among other things discussed the Akerman-Senterfitt representation of Jive Network. Karen Gable used this meeting to corruptly and falsely obtain a Grand Jury subpoena from Akerman-Senterfitt law firm and knowingly misrepresented to Akerman-Senterfitt that she had a valid waiver to obtain the Defendant’s corporation files. Defendant declares under penalty of perjury that the only person who could have provided such a waiver is the Defendant and that Karen Gable dishonestly and deceitfully obtained his files from the Akerman-Senterfitt law firm. Using the Grand Jury to falsely obtain records is misconduct. (Exhibit #9)

WHEREFORE, This Pro Se inmate certifies that this motion was made in good fiath and respectfully requests that this Court enter its Order.
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here)

SaberGal · Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: Oregon

I will get the exhibits posted as soon as possible
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here)

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA

WOW. You were absolutely right, Saber, the motion detailing the many acts of blatant prosecutorial misconduct does indeed "blow my mind," to put it mildly.

I honestly don't know how these corrupt and lying "law enforcement officials" get away with their despicable and IMO even criminal behavior. But I see that is what happens when there is NO ONE watching or questioning their actions. The words UNCHECKED AND UNBALANCED come immediately to mind! angryfire

J

_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954

SaberGal · Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: Oregon