Obama Sure Knows How to Pick Em - David Ogden

[apatriot]

OMG ... first tax evaders ... now ppl that support child porn !!!! what is going on ?

http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/02-03-2009/0004965762&EDATE=

Fidelis: Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for #2 at Justice

Fidelis Slams David Ogden's 'Obscene' Record

CHICAGO, Feb. 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- President Obama has made a major mistake and put America's families at risk by selecting David Ogden to become Deputy Attorney General, says Fidelis, a pro-family organization.

"David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and the ACLU. He can't run from his long record of opposing common sense laws protecting families, women, and children. The United States Senate has a responsibility to the American people to insure that Mr. Ogden's full record is fully reviewed before any vote on his nomination," said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis. Ogden's confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.


"Ogden's record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos. He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children."

"David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine -- at taxpayer expense, of course," said Burch.

As a lawyer in private practice, Ogden has argued for an unlimited abortion license, gays in the military, and has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.

"A vast majority of Americans support parental notification before a minor's abortion and protecting kids from Internet pornography in our libraries," continued Burch. "Yet David Ogden has fought tooth and nail against these common sense laws protecting our children from harm. At a time when America's families are under increasing assault, Mr. Ogden is a dangerous choice for a position whose responsibilities include the enforcement of our nation's laws."

For a full report on David Ogden's disappointing legal record, visit http://www.fidelis.org.

This news release is available online at: http://www.fidelis.org/press.aspx?pid=45

[rbain]

Uh oh. What ever will Obama do without the support of the radical religious right?

I wonder what child welfare organizations will say?

"Mr. Ogden's impressive career as a litigator, leader of the legal community and great public servant will serve the Justice Department, law enforcement and America's families well," wrote the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

BTW, the whole "gays in the military" thing is a dead issue. Obama said "don't ask- don't tell" will go down. Feel free to use it to fuel your right-wing rage, though.

[apatriot]

Protecting children has nothing to do with religion?  does it?

[rbain]

Protecting children has nothing to do with religion?  does it?

The article you cited is from a religious right website, and the issues raised– pornography, abortion, and homosexuality are the trifecta of rightwing Freudian obsession.

[k6s2zvfw]

fyi-

i was reading espn the magazine today.

some computers apparently replace the word "gay" with "homosexual"

espn reported an article about the olympic sprinter brian gay was written as
"brian homosexual"

i thought that was pretty funny



mike

[apatriot]

rbain, i know.  I just used what was handy, but the same info is being reported on TV.

The man defended on child porn.  We don't need a guy like that in justice dept.

[Ana]

Can you explain "rightwing Freudian obsession", please?

[apatriot]

Ana, I believe he means "pornography, abortion, and homosexuality" =  rightwing Freudian obsession

Apparently, rbain approves of child porn.  I don't.  Because if he didn't approve, he wouldn't defend a man that served as attorney for those that would distribute/sell child porn.

more specifically, cause I found rbain's quote,

Ogden argued, on behalf of several media groups, against a child pornography law that required publishers of all kinds to verify and document the age of their models (which would ensure the models are at least 18). The provisions were struck down.

[rbain]

Apparently, rbain approves of child porn.  I don't.  Because if he didn't approve, he wouldn't defend a man that served as attorney for those that would distribute/sell child porn.

more specifically, cause I found rbain's quote,

Ogden argued, on behalf of several media groups, against a child pornography law that required publishers of all kinds to verify and document the age of their models (which would ensure the models are at least 18). The provisions were struck down.

I'm surprised that a self-described "patriot" has such a poor understanding of our judicial system. Ogden is a lawyer, and a very good one. He is particularly interested in areas concerning censorship. These cases are vital to establishing exactly where lines are drawn regarding censorship. We Americans are blessed with a system where EVERYONE is entitled to an attorney, and the attorney is not hanged along with his defendant, but understood to be a professional whose job is to serve the interest of his client. I'm sure you could find a regime where unsavory people are denied legal representation if you're unhappy with the American system.
You mention that he represented Playboy. In the same case he also represented the American Council for the Blind. Surely you're not suggesting that the American Council for the Blind supports child pornography? And librarians? THey were his client in the Children's Internet Security Act case. Surely you now avoid the library since those librarians used the same lawyer as the child pornographers?

[MRS. NORTHSIDER]

Apparently, rbain approves of child porn.  I don't.  Because if he didn't approve, he wouldn't defend a man that served as attorney for those that would distribute/sell child porn.

more specifically, cause I found rbain's quote,

Ogden argued, on behalf of several media groups, against a child pornography law that required publishers of all kinds to verify and document the age of their models (which would ensure the models are at least 18). The provisions were struck down.

I'm surprised that a self-described "patriot" has such a poor understanding of our judicial system. Ogden is a lawyer, and a very good one. He is particularly interested in areas concerning censorship. These cases are vital to establishing exactly where lines are drawn regarding censorship. We Americans are blessed with a system where EVERYONE is entitled to an attorney, and the attorney is not hanged along with his defendant, but understood to be a professional whose job is to serve the interest of his client. I'm sure you could find a regime where unsavory people are denied legal representation if you're unhappy with the American system.
You mention that he represented Playboy. In the same case he also represented the American Council for the Blind. Surely you're not suggesting that the American Council for the Blind supports child pornography? And librarians? THey were his client in the Children's Internet Security Act case. Surely you now avoid the library since those librarians used the same lawyer as the child pornographers?

I'm sure Ogden is a very good lawyer but I would expect Obama to pick someone with a higher personal moral compass to become Deputy Attorney General of the US.  There are many outstanding lawyers out there who choose not to represent unsavory people out of a sense of moral responsibility and would definitely make a better choice.  And yes I most certainly believe that in order for the American legal system to work we need lawyers like Ogden.  Just not as Deputy Attorney General. 

[Berwyn Patsy]

Mrs. Northsider, I agree with you.  Just look, at us, were going on a one for one today!  lol.

[apatriot]

rbain:  "Ogden is a lawyer, and a very good one. He is particularly interested in areas concerning censorship."

You mean hired gun, don't you.

It is some of the most ruthless of that profession that are sought out by clients, because they know the territory and fought many battles.  You talk like lawyers are gods.  They aren't.  You talk like you know the man personally to make judgment on how HE stands on the issues of morality.   Why not a successful prosecutor against child porn as an appointment?  Why is it liberals only seem to admire those that defend scum?

Shall I remind you of the dream team that was assembled to represent OJ?  All very good attorneys ... good at twisting and turning .... yes, very good at that.

Playboy braille for the blind.  LMAO.  FOR ONCE these truly are the individuals that buy Playboy to READ THE ARTICLES.  How does braille apply to the center fold out? ... or the jokes?  LMAO.  Idiots all.

If a Library hires someone like Ogden, NO, I wouldn't step foot in the library.  Speaking of library, we already have issues about the unsavory characters that go to the Berwyn Library and libraries across the nation to look up god knows what on the computers and pleasure themselves with a well placed jacket thrown over their lap, and nobody can say a word.  A library.  A place where you would expect to find children .... lots of children.  But no, we have to accommodate those that enjoy porno and cyber sex.  So if a parent decided they had enough and sue the library for allowing predators in to use the computers, OH I'm SURE they would be calling up Mr. Ogden.  No laws on porno industry for the net.  Hand your kid an iPod so when you are not around he/she can take naked pictures of themselves or others and speed them off to god knows who, and they are prosecuting these kids for child porno.  They are fast to punish the KIDS, but anyone making billions off of it, they haven't got a clue.

Mrs. N. despite the fact you are agreeing with me to a degree, I tell you liberals have no higher moral compass.  They are the anything goes party.  Child porn/child sex slaves ... is big business here and all over the world.  And I've never seen people who have the power to do something about it so unconcerned.  It's a damn shame its come to this.

Watch your kids, cause nobody else cares about em.   

As far as YOU being surprised "I'm surprised that a self-described "patriot" has such a poor understanding of our judicial system."

Our judicial system is corrupt.  It is not about law its about politics.  When you have judges legislating from the bench, and not upholding the law on the books, then you have a corrupt system.  You have judges giving a slap on the hand to child predators as if all they did was steal an apple from an outdoor fruit market.  Isn't it funny how everything leads back to politics.  Makes my stomach turn.

I could never admire anyone that defends a client that was being charged with violating child porn laws.  That's the bottom line.  Anyone involved in child porn, or in the exploitation of children, or anyone who defends them  is truly the scum of the earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq1aZlmnklE

[Berwyn Patsy]

It makes you wonder how some people can live with themselves?

[rbain]

So yes clearly  "a patriot" does need to rethink his patriotism, as it seem he doesn't approve of our most fundamental concepts of American governance, namely the system of checks and balances afforded by the separation of power into three distinct branches.
The point of a Judicial Branch of Government, as opposed to a non-governmental judiciary, is to rule on the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches. When the Legislative branch enacts laws, or the Executive branch executes them, it is up to the Judicial Branch to rule on the constitutionality of those actions. It is why they exist. Now the judiciary cannot bring a case by itself, so it is up to private citizens to bring cases to the court. Those citizens have the right to representation, and attorneys who handle those cases are fulfilling a vital role in the country. They are, in fact, fulfilling a role deemed essential to the framers of the constitution, and therefore, by taking part in the governance of the nation as envisioned by the founding fathers, they are patriots.
To disparage the role of the Judiciary, a founding principle of not just US but western democratic government dating to the Greeks and Romans, is to question what it is to be an American. To suggest that unsavory people should not be represented in court, or that those who represent them are therefore complicit in their crimes, or more importantly that the Judiciary should not rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislature is so clearly an affront to the principles on which the nation was founded that I cannot see a way to consider such opinions in any way "patriotic."
Nationalistic, perhaps, but patriotic, no.

[apatriot]

And where were the checks and balances when Maddoff made off with $50 Billion?  You had a patriot trying to tell them it was going on for almost a decade.  He was turning BLUE blowing the whistle ... but it seems the checks and balances didn't want to listen, huh?

Here's a patriot ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9spj1BjKvTU

THE SEC is CORRUPT !!!!

his testimony on the russian mob re: Maddoff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q9A1PDpg0o

Where were the checks and balances on appointments that didn't pay their taxes?

Whistleblower on voting machines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3hUPP_bdOo

shows you how machines flips the votes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9NSVUu8nk&feature=related

More checks and balances.

Former FBI - Ted Gunderson (oh yes, let's discredit him cause he is accusing government in connection with crimes against children)

FBI Senior Special-Agent-In-Charge Ted L. Gunderson who had compiled box loads of research and had assembled a number of reports in recent years which described unimaginable "operations" of treachery, sadistic savagery, degradation, abuse, and murder caused by intelligence agents of the United States government against its own citizens, especially children.---

The Finders---
The kidnapping of children for purposes of prostitution, pornography, high tech weaponry experimental abuse, mind control abuse, child slave labor for underground alien-controlled facilities, white sex slavery, and the satanic ritual murder of untold thousands of American children snatched from the streets and playgrounds of America by agents working for the CIA is the principle reason for the existence of a covert CIA operation called "The Finders". The Finders is one of the most alarming and despicable covert operations against America's children that Gunderson's investigations helped to uncover, but it's only one of many covert Gestapo-like acts committed against American citizens by government agents under directives issued, not by Congress or the President, but rather by international satanists collectively known as the Illuminati, who control the Secret or Inner government of the United States as well as every other major government in the world. The "Finders" operation began in the 1960's and continues kidnapping children to this very day.---

The Franklin Cover-Up---
The participation of persons of high position in satanic rituals and - Child Prostitution in the Omaha, Nebraska was revealed in the 1992 book, The Franklin Cover-Up, by former state senator and attorney, John DeCamp. Ted Gunderson provided a substantial amount of investigative assistance to John DeCamp in uncovering the story. The Franklin Cover-Up describes the role played by the CIA's "Finders" in the drugging, mind control, and forced coercion of kidnapped children into silent compliance to serve the pedophilic and sadistic appetites of some of the most prominent and well known people in Omaha, Nebraska and Washington, DC.---

McMartin Preschool---
Ted played a formidable role in the exposure of the satanic/sexual cover-up in the McMartin Preschool case (Manhattan Beach, California) which had involved over 450 children in the 3-5 year old range over a period of years. The story occupied national headlines for most of the 1980's and, once again, prosecutors were anxious to sabotage the investigation to conceal the identity of powerful and well connected pedophiles who were abusing these kids at off site locations and had them returned to the school before the parents arrived to pick up their children. The CIA created a front group called The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) to debunk, reticule, and defame victims (and their advocates) of Satanic Ritual Abuse, pedophilic sexual abuse, and CIA cult mind control activities. The board members of FMSF reads like a Who's Who of CIA contractors and 'consultants'. Incredibly, Peter and Pamela Freyd , executive directors of the FMSF along with FMSF founder, Dr. Ralph Underwager, have fallen from public grace because they, themselves, have been involved in the very abuse that they claim is a  result of 'false' memory' on the part of very young children. Additional articles about the McMartin Preschool case are posted near the bottom of this page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrl5Ti35Clk&feature=PlayList&p=62B97D07BFCE4FCE&index=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gunderson

In April 2008, Gunderson revealed his belief that Sonny Bono was murdered, rather than killed in a collision with a tree while sking. He claims that Bono was killed by government agents in order to prevent disclosure of government involvement in drug dealing.

Checks and balances my ass.

Spare me. 

[eno]

So yes clearly  "a patriot" does need to rethink his patriotism, as it seem he doesn't approve of our most fundamental concepts of American governance, namely the system of checks and balances afforded by the separation of power into three distinct branches.
The point of a Judicial Branch of Government, as opposed to a non-governmental judiciary, is to rule on the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches. When the Legislative branch enacts laws, or the Executive branch executes them, it is up to the Judicial Branch to rule on the constitutionality of those actions. It is why they exist. Now the judiciary cannot bring a case by itself, so it is up to private citizens to bring cases to the court. Those citizens have the right to representation, and attorneys who handle those cases are fulfilling a vital role in the country. They are, in fact, fulfilling a role deemed essential to the framers of the constitution, and therefore, by taking part in the governance of the nation as envisioned by the founding fathers, they are patriots.
To disparage the role of the Judiciary, a founding principle of not just US but western democratic government dating to the Greeks and Romans, is to question what it is to be an American. To suggest that unsavory people should not be represented in court, or that those who represent them are therefore complicit in their crimes, or more importantly that the Judiciary should not rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislature is so clearly an affront to the principles on which the nation was founded that I cannot see a way to consider such opinions in any way "patriotic."
Nationalistic, perhaps, but patriotic, no.

Rob:

I strongly agree with you on this: representation of "unsavory people"/those who have been charged with crimes (no matter how reprehensible the conduct which forms the basis for the accusation) is a (if not: the) corner-stone of our constitutional liberty; it is literally where the concept of liberty (i.e. liberty of the individual from the heavy hand of government) takes form and becomes palpable. I (now, as a criminal defense attorney, and formerly, a prosecutor) have dedicated my life to this truest manifestation of the citizen's "liberty".

To apat, I confess that what I am about to tell you may risk my losing your admiration forever, but I hope you will consider all of what I am about to tell you:

I have both prosecuted and defended citizens accused of the most perfidious crimes, including the ones you have discussed on this thread; I respect the fact that ANYONE may withdraw his/her respect for a lawyer who defends a "scumbag", but before cementing your opinion, please read the facts surrounding an accusation against a client of mine which resulted in his acquittal about 10 years ago...

My client, a young, handsome, happily married family man with two young children was accused of "predatory criminal sexual assault" in that he was alleged to have molested (in the most despicable, horrendous, and injurious way) his young nephew and niece. After speaking to him, his wife, and his own children, I agreed to defend this "scumbag".

I learned that my client & his wife had agreed to take in his wife's sister, her husband, and their two children after they had been evicted from their home. The families were very close and there was initially no friction in the arrangement, except that as almost a year passed, my client and his family began to realize that the other family had no incentive to move on and get back on their feet. Things began to get testy when my client's sister-in-law began to flirt with my client (in the presence of his wife, her sister) and my client and his wife felt that they had no privacy in their small abode. Eventually, my client & his wife agreed that the other family would be asked to leave and find their own home.

On the afternoon after my client told his sister-in-law, her husband, their children that they would have to soon find another place to live, my client was arrested by the local police and questioned regarding accusations by his niece and nephew that he had molested them over the past 8 months; my client's sister-in-law advised police that her children had told her months before that they had been molested by my client, yet she only went to the police after my client asked her and her family to look for another place; without getting into the details of the accusations, no medical evidence of molestation was found, even though the nature of the accusations would have resulted in obvious & great bodily harm! Additionally, my client's home was tiny, with no locks on any interior doors; the "assualts" were alleged to have occurred in the laundry room, where my client's wife & sister-in-law would go, willy-nilly, to do their laundry. Also, my client's young children played in that area (and observed nothing unusual).

I defended my client before a jury (of 9 women/mothers and 3 men/fathers); my client was facing a very, very, very long sentence if convicted. My client's wife & his young son (7 years old at the time) testified on his behalf; at the beginning of the trial, the jury was GLARING at me and my client as though we were devils incarnate; as they filed out of the jury room, the jury smiled at my client and me, and rendered a verdict of Not Guilty!

apat, I am not God, and I pray that I did the right thing; my client was a good man, a young, virile husband with a lovely young wife, and two children who were as innocent and beautiful as children should be. The government chose to accuse my client of a crime for which, if convicted, he would have lost his liberty for most of the rest of his natural life; if my client were your son, your brother, your husband, your friend, would you not want him to have a lawyer to defend him against the full force of the government? Would you not admire a lawyer who can put aside his personal feelings/prejudices and dedicate himself to defending his client's liberty? If not, who then shall we nominate to determine which citizen is entitled to a forceful defense?

Respectfully,
eno   

[apatriot]

Eno, every individual has the right to a defense.  We all know this.   Your demonstration was a man falsely accused, a tactic used by many to totally devastate.  Here you had a family upset that they were being asked to scram getting their nose of of joint and found this the way to exact revenge.  Men and women both use this as a tactic when they divorce or want to get a divorce.  They use the children to exact the revenge even going so far as to prepare children to answer questions and makeup stories.   

I don't feel your example of defending one man falsely accused is the same as David Ogden who has basically made his name defending the porn industry (oh excuse me, educated like to refer to it as censorship laws).  And with this big feather in his cap he is named #2 at the Justice Dept.

If an attorney makes a career defending child molesters, etc., you know, your basic disgusting scumbag, then yes, I don't have much respect for him, and I wonder how that attorney can sleep at night after he tucks his own children into bed.

My opinion has not changed about you.  You seem like a good guy to me and many times a voice of reason when ppl (like me) become passionate about a topic involving the law.

I just think that once again, Obama, in less than a month in office, has shown poor judgment, and no doubt there is more to come.  It's getting scary.  A champion of the people at the Justice Dept. would have been a better choice, since that was Obama told us he was all about.

On the topic of censorship to protect children from exploitation, ppl with children better get their opinons formed and figure out what side of this issue they are on.  This is a growing industry that makes billions of dollars and the demand for more and more children is very real and other than private citizens I see no one in government making a dent in trying to stop it.

[eno]

apat:

As you know, mine was not a defense of Ogden, but merely a defense of the right to zealous representation for the accused.

On the other points, you are correct; worse than Ogden (as deputy) is the selection of Eric Holder.

As for censorship, Rob says that Ogden's specialty is protecting against censorship; hopefully Ogden will be a bulwark against the coming tide of censorship disguised as "the Fairness Doctrine" or "radio accountability" which Democrats/"Liberals" like Michigan Sen. Stabenow are beginning to pursue:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Stabenow_wants_hearings_on_radio_accountability_talks_fairness_doctrine.html?showall

I suspect, however, that when "Liberals" inveigh against censorship, they are not at as concerned about protecting the free flow of political speech (which is toxic to them) as they are about protecting the free flow of titillating images; I have nothing against the latter, but know that the First Amendment was specifically designed to protect the former.

eno

[rbain]

And where were the checks and balances when Maddoff made off with $50 Billion?  You had a patriot trying to tell them it was going on for almost a decade.  He was turning BLUE blowing the whistle ... but it seems the checks and balances didn't want to listen, huh?

Here's a patriot ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9spj1BjKvTU

THE SEC is CORRUPT !!!!

his testimony on the russian mob re: Maddoff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q9A1PDpg0o

Where were the checks and balances on appointments that didn't pay their taxes?

Whistleblower on voting machines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3hUPP_bdOo

shows you how machines flips the votes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9NSVUu8nk&feature=related

More checks and balances.

Former FBI - Ted Gunderson (oh yes, let's discredit him cause he is accusing government in connection with crimes against children)

FBI Senior Special-Agent-In-Charge Ted L. Gunderson who had compiled box loads of research and had assembled a number of reports in recent years which described unimaginable "operations" of treachery, sadistic savagery, degradation, abuse, and murder caused by intelligence agents of the United States government against its own citizens, especially children.---

The Finders---
The kidnapping of children for purposes of prostitution, pornography, high tech weaponry experimental abuse, mind control abuse, child slave labor for underground alien-controlled facilities, white sex slavery, and the satanic ritual murder of untold thousands of American children snatched from the streets and playgrounds of America by agents working for the CIA is the principle reason for the existence of a covert CIA operation called "The Finders". The Finders is one of the most alarming and despicable covert operations against America's children that Gunderson's investigations helped to uncover, but it's only one of many covert Gestapo-like acts committed against American citizens by government agents under directives issued, not by Congress or the President, but rather by international satanists collectively known as the Illuminati, who control the Secret or Inner government of the United States as well as every other major government in the world. The "Finders" operation began in the 1960's and continues kidnapping children to this very day.---

The Franklin Cover-Up---
The participation of persons of high position in satanic rituals and - Child Prostitution in the Omaha, Nebraska was revealed in the 1992 book, The Franklin Cover-Up, by former state senator and attorney, John DeCamp. Ted Gunderson provided a substantial amount of investigative assistance to John DeCamp in uncovering the story. The Franklin Cover-Up describes the role played by the CIA's "Finders" in the drugging, mind control, and forced coercion of kidnapped children into silent compliance to serve the pedophilic and sadistic appetites of some of the most prominent and well known people in Omaha, Nebraska and Washington, DC.---

McMartin Preschool---
Ted played a formidable role in the exposure of the satanic/sexual cover-up in the McMartin Preschool case (Manhattan Beach, California) which had involved over 450 children in the 3-5 year old range over a period of years. The story occupied national headlines for most of the 1980's and, once again, prosecutors were anxious to sabotage the investigation to conceal the identity of powerful and well connected pedophiles who were abusing these kids at off site locations and had them returned to the school before the parents arrived to pick up their children. The CIA created a front group called The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) to debunk, reticule, and defame victims (and their advocates) of Satanic Ritual Abuse, pedophilic sexual abuse, and CIA cult mind control activities. The board members of FMSF reads like a Who's Who of CIA contractors and 'consultants'. Incredibly, Peter and Pamela Freyd , executive directors of the FMSF along with FMSF founder, Dr. Ralph Underwager, have fallen from public grace because they, themselves, have been involved in the very abuse that they claim is a  result of 'false' memory' on the part of very young children. Additional articles about the McMartin Preschool case are posted near the bottom of this page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrl5Ti35Clk&feature=PlayList&p=62B97D07BFCE4FCE&index=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gunderson

In April 2008, Gunderson revealed his belief that Sonny Bono was murdered, rather than killed in a collision with a tree while sking. He claims that Bono was killed by government agents in order to prevent disclosure of government involvement in drug dealing.

Checks and balances my ass.

Spare me. 

What on earth do these Gunderson crackpot conspiracy theories have to do with checks and balances?

[apatriot]

anytime someone finds the government linked to crime they are called a crackpot.   I'm sure as former FBI, Gunderson could go on about his business, make plenty of money, and let the rest of the world go by.  Call him a crackpot.  Doesn't make anything he found NOT true. 

Checks and balances, baby.  A corrupt government is not concerned with check and balancing itself.  It's a dog and pony show for the people to make them think there is something in place as a watch dog.

No one is watching anything in Washington .... they are just there for power and to fill their pockets.

What's the BALANCE on my CHECKS !!!!

Checks and balances, baby.