Can there be a fair trial when you see websites like this one that are so convinced of what they “think” is the truth, the truth may be very different, the truth may not be known by even fox news, as good as they “think” that they are, they may be wrong, in fact the US justice system has been wrong in the past.

Can this girl get a fair trial at all?

When you have the media convinced of her guilt, most all of the bobble heads at fox news, and likely other news companies also, have said time and time again by action and by inference, that there are some issues that have not been addressed, do we not have a real working system of justice here?

Earlier we were witness, to a fox news commentator, that made a statement, about how they felt that the defense was trying to show a likely result.

There was no real fair and balanced view presented.

In fact there was only one view presented, that was the “we think that she is guilty view point”

When you look at the thought process, involved here you have to think about one thing and one thing alone, is this fair and is this balanced.

When you hear someone make a statement on national TV about how they think that the defense is trying to show reasonable doubt, and that there is no real reasonable doubt, (allegedly) they fail to make that correct impression, by only presented one point of view, it is not a fair thing to do, what if they are wrong, will they come out and apologize that they made allegedly stupid statements?

For example Phil Keating, talks about about what they “think” the defense is trying to do but he only makes one statement, that statement, is filled with invective, that calls for the conclusion of an alleged, verdict of guilty.

Just now on live TV, the bobble head, made the statement, of what the defense “hopes” to prove, this could be made differently you could say the defense may be trying to show that the use of a particular method of disposing of the body of a pet, might be something to consider in this case.

But they did not say that, they seem to be stuck using words that presume the idea of guilt.

You can use words to influence the thinking of anyone, for example while writing this article, I could use many different points or words to make a point, however, I choose to try to show a counter point, that is not happening on Fox news, the (Fair and balanced news company)

Is this fair and balanced coverage or is it just one sided?

Which means, that the common practice of taking photos, online, using music in videos, using photos in videos, using video clips, that are online on youtube.com in mass quantity.

Literally over night about half or better of the millions of videos on youtube would have to be taken down and removed.

While they may loose this battle, (at least I hope they do) they will eventually pass a bill that criminalizes youtube videos. That means that you will need to have royalty free content, in your possession and you will need to have proof that the content is royalty free.

There are thousands and thousands of PLR photos out there, millions of music clips, being sold and some of those sellers are not even the owners of the music clips.

Words like

• youtube penalty
• youtube court
• youtube felony conviction

Could become the new way to land your self in prison, with estimates of current laws, and new laws, being produced by congress with their collective heads up their back ends, you have to wonder what they are thinking.

Millions of photos, in millions of templates, that are being sold as PLR where the actual authors of the art work were never compensated and never agreed to sell their work in the first place.

What if your buying products that are not being legally sold?

That could be a real problem, something to really seriously consider.

Learn more about legal issues that could soon be effecting you if your marketing online.

When you look at this womans face it is often allegedly that spittle flies out of her mouth allegedly hate, is spewed, venom, is protracted, why is that?

What has this woman against this family, other than an objective reporters opinion in dealing with reporting the news fair and balanced.

This is like watching Dallas back in the day, but really are we not talking about the life of a girl here, guilty or not, liar or not, she is hardly the evil person that the media is depicting her to be.

giving bobble headed opinions as allegedly the ignorant judge on Fox news that continues to

flame her way through the case, it is an interesting process one that you just have to wonder about.

Has the State of Florida wasted Tax payer money by pushing for the death penalty when the case is obviously circumstantial in every way allegedly, when you can go online and read leaked documents by the Orange Country Sheriffs office, When you can see video that Casey thought was private, when you see all these circumstances, you just have to shake your head and wonder about the state of Florida, is this the best use of the tax payers money?

The girl is obviously guilty of something, no doubt about that, but intentionally Murdering, the child, that is a stretch of the imagination, they have really not proven how the child died, nor have they proved that the child was really in the car or the back yard.

They have strong circumstantial evidence, but little of that, so really what do they have besides the media and the leaked documents, and all the strange behavior by the parents, lets not forget, that, remember when the parents were calling for help searching for the missing child?

Certainty they knew the circumstances of this case then…

No, the state has allegedly failed to prove that Casey did this intentionally, the jury may in fact you have to wonder just what the intention of the state is in this matter, I suppose it is clear they want to put her to death but they cant prove that she did it on purpose, and they need to be able to do that if they really want to put her to death, so why all this waste?

All the evidence points to neglect, and accidental means.

Is the state of Florida really this stupid?
The prevailing opinion was that the state filed these overall arrogant charges in an attempt to force a confession, but wait is that no like coercion?

If a state on behalf of the people take a shop lifting case and charge the case as bank robbery is that not wrong?

This practice of over booking and charging cases far in excess of the crime they can prove seems to be something that Florida seems to allegedly enjoy doing, this is allegedly not only morally wrong but ethically wrong.

The United States Attorney should investigate this case and its boundaries against the constitution because this is becoming far too dangerous.

The state of Florida may be guilty of a number of crimes in its careless prosecution of this case.

More so when you consider that there is no real evidence linking the girl to any real crime.

Did the girl have a duty to protect and case for the child, of course but that is not what is happening here what is happening here is a death penalty case that does not rise to the level of a capitol case.

When that happens you have what amounts to legal malpractice.

It sort of makes you wonder just what those people living in Florida think about the people running their state.

Most people believe the girl is guilty and should be punished, and also it is alleged that many people feel that what ever happened it was an accident, and not done or planned out in advance, (one of the criteria for a capitol case) so you have to ask yourself this question, is Florida really the best place to retire after all?

When misconduct by the prosecution is allegedly so profound but never questioned, when circumstances prove that this was not planned, when everything points to accidental means yet the state pushes for execution, you have to wonder about the motives of the state.

One thing remains clear the girl is allegedly mentally ill, probably that is what cause this entire problem to begin with, so again if your thinking about moving to Florida or retiring to Florida you may want to think again, some day you might J walk and end up being charged with Grand theft Auto, sounds crazy but it is no less likely than what we have seen in this case.

Some one better investigate soon…

Yet another reason to keep a gun in the house . . .

gun control debate, well if you were one of those college students that were about to be murdered do you think you might have a different outlook?

In the first days of May, 2009, in the notoriously dangerous neighborhood of College Park in Atlanta, Georgia, two armed criminals broke into a house party of students.

After confiscating the group’s valuables, the invaders split the men and women up into different rooms.

Witnesses say the perpetrators then counted their rounds and discussed if they had “enough” ammunition.

The students believed the gunmen were going to rape and murder the entire group of students, who were celebrating a birthday at the end of the semester.

However, one male student, whose identity is being protected by police and local media, retrieved a handgun from his backpack and fired at the thug who was detaining the men.

(That is: One smart student had prepared for a night in College Park, Atlanta.)

The criminal fled the apartment under the threat of injury and never returned.

The student continued on into the girls’ room, found the other thug, 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, preparing to rape his first victim.

The student exchanged gunfire with Lavant, lethally wounding him in the process. Lavant fled through a window and died in front of his apartment, only one building away.

One of the female students was injured during the exchange, but doctors expect a full and complete recovery.

So what’s the point?

A student saved the girls from rape, and saved the whole group of 10 people (including himself) from murder . . . and he did it with a handgun.

This is a perfect example of how ludicrous “big city gun laws” are. What if this had happened in New York, Chicago, or any of the other big cities that criminalize their citizens’ self defense?

Yes, we would be reading an entirely different story — one so horrendous that we would shudder at the very words.

Either this whole group of friends would have been raped and murdered by these two sorry excuses for human beings . . . or the hero of this story would be facing prison time for firearm possession and murder.

And that’s exactly how gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns want it.

Thankfully, however, Atlanta hasn’t outlawed self-defense yet. And since someone had a gun and was willing to use it, innocent life was preserved.

Congratulations to the unnamed hero of this story. You saved your friends’ lives.

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

Where does it stop, this mob mentality that the media has for blood and gore.

I would ask about the sanity of these people that we trust for our news, but that might be asking too much even bill orielly comes across as a little twisted sometimes.

This fascination with death and the very likely accidental death of a child is a horrible thing beyond belief.

There is no evidence that the death of Caylee Anthony was anything but an accident.

Was the mother ignorant and stupid, yes, certainly but a planned murder, no that is just not possible in this case.

Even if it were possible, in this country you must have evidence to prove your allegations, otherwise your just using the power of the state to push an emotional agenda, What kind of mentality does it take to be able to push this type of life or death issue to the supreme court when there is no evidence that this child was murdered, in fact they have no evidence that suggests the child was murdered at all.

Everything about their case is circumstantial, from friends and ex boy friends coming in and testifying about partying and such that is not evidence that is hear say, but apparently if your living in Florida that is good enough.

I know one state I will not be retiring to and that is Florida, when the state cannot bring proper charges to support the evidence of a case then this is a real problem, for example here are some of the charges levied against this defendant.

capital murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and misleading law enforcement in the case of the death of her daughter, Caylee.

The prosecution is seeking the death penalty.

The have no proof, they have no evidence, they have nothing that suggests anything other than accidental death, and misleading law enforcement, but when someone is trying to kill you what would anyone do, this is why it is so important for the State to file charges only for what they can prove not what they can allege, by hearsay.

Again travel in Florida at your own risk you might end up J walking and being charged with murder.

I know it is sort of difficult to wrap your mind around, but think about it this way what if you “thought” about committing a crime and you “thought” that you were going to do it, but at the last minute you changed your mind…

Remember the movie they made a while back with tom cruise  called minority report, where they have these all powerful psychic that can predict the future so the idea is if you think about it then your guilty.

That could be an alarming thing, considering that a lot of people think about doing things all the time but that does not mean they would act upon those thoughts.

This sort of attacks the innocent until proven guilty thing that has been a part of criminal law for centuries.

But what are we to do now that we have law enforcement that is creating a new way to charge people with crimes that they just think about…

If you are not worried about this then your insane because they could easily say that because you “think bout robbing a bank” then that is the same thing, as robing a bank.

That seems a little crazy, yes and it would be but that is what is happening in many instances, for example they had this girl in florida, (really bad place to visit because you might end up being charged with your own thoughts)

Florida they have this girl whom they setup and they “pretended” to be a “hit man” then they pretended, that they were going to kill someone, “here it comes”  Now they tell this girl, that they “the pretend killers”  who are pretending to be a killer, but are really a cop, that they are going to kill for real the girls husband, ” so they pretend to be a real hit man”  and they pretend to be serious about what they are pretending to do.

Then they get the girl on video and they pretend to say that since we are pretending, we are going to pretend to give you one last chance to get out of this pretend crime, (that is before we charge you with a real crime)  (again florida great place to not visit)

Then they “lie to the girl”  and then they pretend to kill the husband, then they pretend that he is dead, Wow, that is a lot of pretending, now I ask you this, would that girl had actually done what they were pretending to do?

Probably not…

Deception, is a big problem in Advertising these days and more so among Eating establishments and their commercials, you see pictures of Huge three foot Pizzas, 14 inch hamburgers, yet when you get to the restaurant you find that what you get is not the same thing as what you are shown.

Is this not Deception?

We see the keyword used all the time when the FTC goes after someone they think is being deceptive, totally subjective process for the most part, or is it?  With regard to fake merchandise certainly it is easy to see that yes they are being deceptive however one has to wonder, about this entire subject, are restaurants being deceptive in showing the consumer a ten foot high product but when you go to buy that product, you find it is about four inches in diameter, not three feet in diameter, which bring up the question, does the consumer know that they are not going to get what is being show to them?  Logically yes, they know they are not going to get a 12 inch hamburger…

However here is the real question, does the subconscious human mind know this?

Is it possible that some commercials are deceptive by the psychological nature of what they show to consumers.

More importantly should the FTC step in to regulate this aspect of what is most certainly deceptive advertising practices?

Did Taco Bell change its ways, or was the story really ever true?

Well one thing for sure is this, Taco bell had little choice but to either change its practice of calling non beef (beef) or start calling it taco filling.

Not a likely outcome…

Remember the Wendy’s commercials all those year ago, Where’s the Beef, well apparently and allegedly you could say that again…

Well folks you might have to wonder if there is any connection between the new FTC guides and Taco bell, but one thing is clear,

A law firm in Alabama, (of all places) is allegedly happily filing a lawsuit,

allegedly, this is the alleged, ingredients, source, Gizmodo

Water, isolated oat product, salt, chili pepper, onion powder, tomato powder, oats (wheat), soy lecithin, sugar, spices, maltodextrin (a polysaccharide that is absorbed as glucose), soybean oil (anti-dusting agent), garlic powder, autolyzed yeast extract, citric acid, caramel color, cocoa powder, silicon dioxide (anti-caking agent), natural flavors, yeast, modified corn starch, natural smoke flavor, salt, sodium phosphate, less than 2% of beef broth, potassium phosphate, and potassium lactate.

Now, as the story goes, (allegedly) at Gizmodo, Taco bell cannot legally call its beef product, beef, yet, apparently they have been allegedly doing so in some commercials, or something like that, which should come as no surprise considering the results of eating at taco bell more than once per month, (allegedly)

All kidding aside, how are the new FTC guides effecting commercial advertising?

Why is it important?

How do you feel about it?

Is it about time that some action is taken with all of the commercials on TV, there is bound to be a healthy amount of skepticism, I know I sure think that, every day, when I see, a buy one suit at full price get 10 suits FREE, yet, we all know that your paying for those suits, or do we?

Perhaps, some do not, and that may be where this protection is needed, I know for sure that I am sick of seeing a three foot in diameter, pizza, on TV, and then when I go to pick up the pizza it turns out to be barely 14 inches, just for the math to work out right, lets add that up, 3 feet, that would be 36 inches.

Huge, pizza, right, well that my friends is not being honest, in fact the materials that these pizzas are allegedly made from is not food at all but silicone.

So, a disclaimer is in order, something like you of course know that this is not actually pizza at all but a silicone based over sized advertising tool to make you want to buy a pizza, what you may get may not actually even remotely resemble a pizza like the one your being shown.

But wait, would that not be bait and switch?

Perhaps and yes, Bingo, Yahtzee, you win the big prize.

You know it appears that advertising in our culture has long had a very shady element since the times of the carnival, barker who would yell and cajole, laugh and entertain you out of the few dollars and cents you might have in your pocket, advertising false or otherwise has been such a great part of the American culture, that separating it from our TV might be difficult, would it not be a novel idea to produce advertising that is actually accurate?

Only time will tell, it it might not be all that far off before your faced with a hamburger that actually resembles, what you would get if you went down and bought one, a pizza might soon start to look like you might get if you went down and purchased one.

Because to do otherwise, well folks that is just deceptive advertising and it is about time that some law firms start pulling the carpet out from under those jerky advertisers, right? Well, perhaps, I guess it depends on a lot of different things, you would think that in 50 years, that advertisers would have tired of trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, but allegedly they have not and so the fight may be just warming up…

What is going to happen, will darkness descend upon the world?

Will the sky fall?

However, more and more people are having to go to court to defend themselves, and their wallets.

You never know what may happen next and as predictable as the legal system is you really need to have a good relationship with a legal professional.

In the days where spilled coffee can result in a million dollar settlement, net, you have to be aware that the risk of loss is serious, more so when you consider, that there are literally millions of under insured small business companies out there.

You are likely to need legal help at least once over a period of years, yet most of us do
not actively seek legal help at all.