People of the State of New York
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED:
On or about 30 April 2015, I was in Starbucks and I saw Ms. Shields walk by. I had parked up the street and politely asked if she needed a good parking spot- 'it took me 45minutes to find it.' She walked off rather abruptly. I thought it odd because Just two months before, in November, Ms. Shields declared to the world that her mother had been protecting me. We even shared a few stories and it was shared with the world that I was "sweet and that 'it' was really nice."
I later went to my car- still parked in the spot I had offered, scratched- vandalized.
I reacted going to social media- Twitter and voiced my upset. Twitter, mind you is protected under the first amendment according to a Supreme Court Ruling
Incidentally, I do park in the West Village and if I'm in-front of someone's home that I know, I've offered up my spot many times- despite how difficult it is to find parking. I've even offered to help carry in furniture. It's what any good neighbor would do.
'forget the celebrity BS.
A police report was made and the past was re-created. It was recreated to make something look one way with only one motive- a 'stay-away. Lies were said and the past recreated to look nothing like it actually was or had already been detailed at the time of occurrence.
Despite how much a celebrity shares one might argue that all the social media may not be a good thing. Now, many celebrities participate in social media to promote themselves. But, when they do something wrong or someone in their employ does as representation, they should be held accountable.
THAT's it. AND 11 days in NYCJail.
The West Village constitutes the western portion of the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New YorkCity. The area is roughly bounded by the Hudson River on the west and Sixth Avenue on the east, extending from West 14th Street south to West Houston Street.
The neighborhood is primarily residential, with a multitude of small restaurants, shops, and services. The area is part of Manhattan Community Board 2, as well as of the Sixth Precinct of the New York City Police Department, which also covers an area east of the West Village between Sixth Avenue and Broadway from Houston to 14th Streets. Residential property sale prices in the West Village neighborhood are some of the most expensive in the United States, typically exceeding US$2,000 per square foot ($22,000/m2) in 2016.
West Village - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Village
The West Village is home to an eclectic group of people and where I've called home since 1999. In general it's a calm and peaceful place to live and for the most part we live as a collective. No one cares what a person does or is impressed by status.
'where one man can fracture a society, another can help it to heal...
§12 Claim for Ineffective Assistance of CounselCRIMINAL DEFENDANT’S HANDBOOK –Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are raised initially by motion in district court. In most cases, it’s inappropriate to raise the issue on direct appeal. Ineffective assistance claims must be sufficiently substantiated in the trial court and an appropriate record made. Pre-trial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed on a different standard than post-trial claims.
If a defendant claims before trial that counsel was ineffective in investigation, preparation, or for some other substantial reason, the trial court has a constitutional duty to conduct an inquiry sufficient to determine the truth and scope of the defendant’s allegations. The court must make on-the-record findings sufficient to permit meaningful review on the issue of the ability and preparedness of counsel to render effective assistance under the prevailing circumstances.
“The right to counsel is the right -to effective assistance of counsel.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). “When a jurisdiction provides an appeal of right, due process also guarantees the assistance of counsel on appeal.” Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 83 L.Ed.2d 821, 105 S.Ct. 830 (1985). This right does not extend to “discretionary appeals,” Wainright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586, 71 L.Ed.2d 475, 102 S.Ct. 1300 (1982), “petitions for certiorari,” Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 41 L.Ed.2d 341, 94 S.Ct. 2437 (1974), or “post-conviction proceedings,” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 115 L.Ed.2d 640, 111 S.Ct. 2546 (1991); Pennsylvannia v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 95 L.Ed.2d 539, 107 Sect. 1990 (1987).
The defendant has a right to expect that his attorney will use every skill, expend every energy, and tap every legitimate resource in exercise of independent professional judgment on behalf of defendant and in undertaking representation. Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 779 (9th Cir. 1994); U.S.C.A. Const. Amend 6. Counsel owes defendant duty of loyalty, unhindered by state or by counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be initially raised before trial or sentencing. If the court fails to make adequate findings, the conviction must be reversed or remanded. Once jeopardy attaches, any claim of ineffective assistance is governed by the Strickland standard and should be addressed in a pre-trial or post-trial motion.
On post-trial claims of ineffectiveness, any question as to whether a hearing is needed should be resolved in favor of conducting a hearing. A hearing must be held unless the claims are vague, wholly incredible, or even if true, would merit no relief. Claims can be made in a section 2255 motion or motion for new trial.
“First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient…Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Strickland, at 687.
As for the prejudice requirement ”[t]he benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland, at 686.
The “defendant need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome of the case,” Strickland, at 693, but rather “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” Strickland, at 695-96.
Prejudice requirement does not require petitioner to prove that he would not have been found guilty. Prejudice in pro se motions is not strictly construed. In cases which “counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,” ineffectiveness will be presumed under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 80 L.Ed.2d.657, 140 S.Ct. 2039 (1984).
Ineffectiveness is presumed when an actual conflict of interest is shown or an irreconcilable conflict between counsel and the defendant.
Examples of grounds for claim of ineffective assistance of counsel are as follows:
The U.S. Legal System
6 Reasons the U.S. Justice System Is Anything But Just
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/6-reasons-the-u-s-justice-system-is-anything-but-just.html#ixzz47Adjbsx2
Deep down, people still believe that justice prevails in U.S. courts. The truth, however, is that the court system is flawed in just about every way imaginable. The courts are in the practice of handing out punishments – not justice – which generally work to oppress our country’s racial minority and impoverished people.
Here are ways the Justice System fails to promote actual justice:
1. Threats Necessitate Plea Bargains
In other countries like the U.K., the prosecution cannot threaten to pursue more aggressive charges if a suspect does not plead guilty and wants to go to trial. In America, however, this is just standard practice. The idea behind our justice system is that everyone gets his or her day in court, but that is rarely how things play out anymore. In many instances, maintaining your innocence is considered a dumb move because the potential punishment is so hefty. In most cases, people plead guilty and take a lesser punishment regardless of their culpability because the risks of losing at trial is far too risky. How is that justice?
2. Public Defense is a Joke
The lawyers who agree to serve as public defenders are underpaid and overworked, and often lack the time and resources to adequately mount an effective case against the state’s prosecution.
3. Winning Trumps Justice
With pressure from the state to obtain convictions, prosecutors are forced to play a game where being on the winning side is more important than being on the right side. Somewhere in this process, the idea of finding justice is lost. Prosecutors should be tasked with presenting a fair case, not attempt to win at any cost, particularly when “winning” may mean a potentially innocent person’s freedom is at stake.
People who were 'misunderstood.'
Friedrich Nietzsche — 'And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.'
Brooke Shields Lied. Chris Henchy lied. Jil Fritzo lied. Kelly Corrigan Lied. Mike Zahara lied- all paid for and on Brooke's pay-roll.
To prove my legitimacy, I have:
The White House, including the First Lady and Vice President Biden's, Jillian Doody.
Newtown, CT. families + volunteers.
Now, I know how this sounds- crazy right? Well, it's not what was said that was the problem- although lies, the issue is if we are actually an organization and NOT delusional. That is the real question.
Follow along and see for yourself as we post all our supporting documentation...
Cause + Effect of a Bully.
If you are feeling suicidal now, please stop long enough to read this. It will only take about five minutes. I do not want to talk you out of your bad feelings. I am not a therapist or other mental health professional - only someone who knows what it is like to be in pain.
I don't know who you are, or why you are reading this page. I only know that for the moment, you're reading it, and that is good. I can assume that you are here because you are troubled and considering ending your life. If it were possible, I would prefer to be there with you at this moment, to sit with you and talk, face to face and heart to heart. But since that is not possible, we will have to make do with this.
I have known a lot of people who have wanted to kill themselves, so I have some small idea of what you might be feeling. I know that you might not be up to reading a long book, so I am going to keep this short. While we are together here for the next five minutes, I have five simple, practical things I would like to share with you. I won't argue with you about whether you should kill yourself. But I assume that if you are thinking about it, you feel pretty bad.
Well, you're still reading, and that's very good. I'd like to ask you to stay with me for the rest of this page. I hope it means that you're at least a tiny bit unsure, somewhere deep inside, about whether or not you really will end your life. Often people feel that, even in the deepest darkness of despair. Being unsure about dying is okay and normal. The fact that you are still alive at this minute means you are still a little bit unsure. It means that even while you want to die, at the same time some part of you still wants to live. So let's hang on to that, and keep going for a few more minutes.
Start by considering this statement:
Suicide is not chosen; it happens
when pain exceeds
resources for coping with pain.
That's all it's about. You are not a bad person, or crazy, or weak, or flawed, because you feel suicidal. It doesn't even mean that you really wantto die - it only means that you have more pain than you can cope with right now. If I start piling weights on your shoulders, you will eventually collapse if I add enough weights... no matter how much you want to remain standing. Willpower has nothing to do with it. Of course you would cheer yourself up, if you could.
Don't accept it if someone tells you, "That's not enough to be suicidal about." There are many kinds of pain that may lead to suicide. Whether or not the pain is bearable may differ from person to person. What might be bearable to someone else, may not be bearable to you. The point at which the pain becomes unbearable depends on what kinds of coping resources you have. Individuals vary greatly in their capacity to withstand pain.
When pain exceeds pain-coping resources, suicidal feelings are the result. Suicide is neither wrong nor right; it is not a defect of character; it is morally neutral. It is simply an imbalance of pain versus coping resources.
You can survive suicidal feelings if you do either of two things: (1) find a way to reduce your pain, or (2) find a way to increase your coping resources.Both are possible.
Now I want to share with you five things to think about...
1You need to hear that people do get through this -- even people who feel as badly as you are feeling now. Statistically, there is a very good chance that you are going to live. I hope that this information gives you some sense of hope.
2Give yourself some distance. Say to yourself, "I will wait 24 hours before I do anything." Or a week. Remember that feelings and actions are two different things - just because you feel like killing yourself, doesn't mean that you have to actually do it right this minute. Put some distance between your suicidal feelings and suicidal action. Even if it's just 24 hours. You have already done it for 5 minutes, just by reading this page. You can do it for another 5 minutes by continuing to read this page. Keep going, and realize that while you still feel suicidal, you are not, at this moment, acting on it. That is very encouraging to me, and I hope it is to you.
3People often turn to suicide because they are seeking relief from pain. Remember that relief is a feeling. And you have to be alive to feel it. You will not feel the relief you so desperately seek, if you are dead.
4Some people will react badly to your suicidal feelings, either because they are frightened, or angry; they may actually increase your pain instead of helping you, despite their intentions, by saying or doing thoughtless things. You have to understand that their bad reactions are about their fears, not about you.
But there are people out there who can be with you in this horrible time, and will not judge you, or argue with you, or send you to a hospital, or try to talk you out of how badly you feel. They will simply care for you. Find one of them. Now. Use your 24 hours, or your week, and tell someone what's going on with you. It is okay to ask for help. Try:
5Suicidal feelings are, in and of themselves, traumatic. After they subside, you need to continue caring for yourself. Therapy is a really good idea. So are the various self-help groups available both in your community and on the Internet.
Well, it's been a few minutes and you're still with me. I'm really glad.
Since you have made it this far, you deserve a reward. I think you should reward yourself by giving yourself a gift. The gift you will give yourself is a coping resource. Remember, back up near the top of the page, I said that the idea is to make sure you have more coping resources than you have pain. So let's give you another coping resource, or two, or ten...! until they outnumber your sources of pain.
Now, while this page may have given you some small relief, the best coping resource we can give you is another human being to talk with. If you find someone who wants to listen, and tell them how you are feeling and how you got to this point, you will have increased your coping resources by one. Hopefully the first person you choose won't be the last. There are a lot of people out there who really want to hear from you. It's time to start looking around for one of them.
Now: I'd like you to call someone.
And while you're at it, you can still stay with me for a bit. Check out these sources of online help.
Additional things to read:
Want to share your suicide story?
Please visit the Suicide Project and leave your story
Have feedback? Please write us
All of our pants are almost constantly on metaphorical fire, is the basic impression I got after watching the new documentary Dishonesty: The Truth About Lies. The film is a fascinating exploration of the current scientific research on the little things that nudge people into lying, cheating, and stealing, and most of the research comes from behavioral economist Dan Ariely, the Duke professor and best-selling author of books likePredictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.
The film will be screening for a short time in New York at the IFC Center, starting this Friday. (For bonus social-science nerd fun, Ariely and director Yael Melamde will be at the Friday and Saturday shows to answer audience questions.) But Science of Us got an advance screener of the film, so, herewith, some of the most interesting findings on dishonesty the documentary covers. (All direct quotes in the post are taken from the film. Honest.)
Some of the most interesting insights into human dishonesty have stemmed from a 20-item set of math problems. In much of his research on lying, Ariely has favored something called the matrix experiment, a set of 20 straightforward math problems that anyone could solve, were they given enough time. The trick is, as Ariely explains, they never give their study volunteers enough time. The participants get just five minutes to answer as many questions as they can; then, they take their papers up to the front of the room and shred them. Next to the shredder is one of the experimenters, and the students are instructed to tell this person how many questions they answered correctly, and they’ll be paid the according amount of dollars.
RELATED STORIESLying to Your Kids — Even for Good Reasons — Will Turn Them Into Liars
Kids As Young As 5 Know It's Sometimes Nicer to LieBut there’s a second trick: The shredder didn’t actually shred their papers. It only shred the sides, so the researchers can later see who was telling the truth. On average, people solve four problems correctly, but they tend to report getting six right.
When given the opportunity, the majority of people will lie. But the bigger, fatter lies are rare. More than 40,000 people have now participated in some version of the matrix experiment, and more than 70 percent of them cheated. But only a few — Ariely has counted about 20 — could be considered “big” cheaters, those who told the researchers that they solved all the matrix problems correctly, meaning they walked away with $20 they didn’t earn. So these liars stole a total of $400 from the researchers. In contrast, Ariely and his team have documented about 28,000 fibbers, stealing a grand total of about $50,000. “I think this is not a bad reflection of reality,” Ariely said. “Yes, there are some big cheaters out there, but they are very rare. And because of that, their overall economic impact is relatively low. On the other hand, we have a ton of little cheaters, and because there are so many of us, the economic impact of small cheaters is actually incredibly, incredibly high.”
We’re also pretty good at lying to ourselves. Michael Norton, a Harvard Business School professor, has done experiments in which he gives study participants general trivia tests, and some of the papers have the answers at the bottom. So the participants first take that test, and then they’re given another one — this one with no answers at the bottom. They’re also asked to predict how well they think they’ll do on this second test, and most of them predict they’ll get an excellent score on this test, as well. “They just think that they’re amazing test-takers now,” Norton said. Even when he’s tried to get them to think more realistically by promising them more money if their predictions are more accurate, people still overestimate their ability. “This process of deceiving ourselves is so strong, and it happens to us so quickly, where we have a twinge of, Maybe I cheated, and then, No, I didn’t, I’m a genius,” Norton said.
Animals lie, too. It’s a broader take on the idea of lying, but Murali Doraiswamy, of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, argues that “all creatures, big or small, have deception as part of their armamentary,” usually as a means of survival. “A plant or a bird might change color and camouflage itself, which is a form of deception,” Doraiswamy said. And the bigger the brain, the better the liar: take chimpanzees, for example. “They may lead their group away from where the food is, so that one particular chimpanzee can come back to the food later on,” he said.
A little dishonesty is good for kids, kind of. Doraiswamy argues that when young kids start to experiment with lying, it’s often more of a way to build their imagination than an attempt to get away with something. “It helps them build their brain, and it helps them build what is called theory of mind,” said Doraiswamy, referencing the psychological theory that says as our brains mature, we get better at figuring out what another person is thinking about (a form of imagination, really). “And unless children lie, and unless children imagine, and dream big, they may not have the full capacity to develop a theory of mind,” he said.
Lying for someone else’s benefit doesn’t really feel like a lie.When people can justify their dishonesty, the lie often doesn’t get picked up by a lie detector, according to Ariely’s research. “Lie detectors basically detect emotional arousal — when we feel uncomfortable,” he explains. When people cheat for their own gain, the lie is detected, no problem. “But sometimes, we ask people to cheat for a charity. And then the lie detector is silent. The lie detector doesn’t catch anything. Why? Because if we could justify it, we’re doing something for a good cause, there’s really no arousal — there’s no conflict, there’s no emotional problem.” The film follows this little factoid with the story of Kelly Williams-Bolar, the Ohio woman who was jailed for lying on her kids’ school records so they could switch to a better district, and it is heart-breaking.
Dishonesty gets easier over time, and neuroscientists think they know why. At first, even a little lie provokes a big response in brain regions associated with emotion, such as the amygdala and insula, said Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London. “The tenth time you lie, even if you lie the same amount, the response is not that high. So while lying goes up over time, the response in your brain goes down.” Sharot believes this can be explained by a very basic principle of neuroscience: the brain adapts. “The brain is coding everything relative to what the baseline is,” she explains. So if we don’t usually lie, and then we do, this prompts a big neurological response. But if we lie a lot, the response lessens over time. “After a while, the negative value of lying — the negative feeling — is just not there, so much,” Sharot said. And this, she reasons, makes it easier for people to keep on lying.
But there is an extremely simple way to curb dishonesty dramatically — just remind people to not be dishonest. All you have to do is show people some kind of reminder of a moral code, and the urge to lie dissipates. In one experiment Ariely describes, researchers asked 500 students at UCLA to try to jot down as many of the Ten Commandments that they could remember. After that, they took part in the matrix experiment. None of them recalled all the commandments, and yetnone of them cheated, Ariely said. This was true regardless of whether the students were religious or not. Simply reminding them that Thou shall not lie has a weirdly powerful effect.
The study was replicated at MIT, but without the religious context: Students were asked to read MIT’s “moral code” before the matrix task. Again, no one cheated, Ariely said — this, despite the fact that MIT doesn’t even havea moral code. “It is not about heaven and hell and being caught,” Ariely said. “It’s about reminding ourselves about our own moral fiber.”
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.”