“Polo Mogul” John Goodman is facing a retrial on charges related to a 2010 accident that resulted in the death of Scott Wilson. To claim first degree vehicular homicide, the prosecution must prove that Goodman caused Wilson’s death by “… the operation of a motor vehicle … in a reckless manner likely to cause the death …” and that “At the time of the accident, the person [Goodman] knew, or should have known, that the accident occurred; and … The person [Goodman] failed to give information and render aid as required by s. 316.062.”
Goodman was driving a 2007 Bentley GTC when the accident occurred. During the first trial, Goodman’s defense claimed that his vehicle”surged” without his manually employing the throttle, which led to the collision. The reported speed at impact, by both the prosecution and the defense experts, clearly suggests that Goodman never “stopped” at the stop sign. But according to the state-provided 911 transcripts, Goodman told a 911 dispatcher that he had stopped. Could he have suffered a concussion and not known exactly what happened? Absolutely.
Guilt is supposed to be determined by an impartial jury of our peers. Today, however, guilt is generally assumed upon the reading of charges and state-authorized and released details in the local daily paper, national tabloids if you’re “worthy” enough, and/or online on Facebook or Twitter. This poisoning of the jury pool is a delight to every prosecutor’s office across the country. However, fact is often very different from the state’s accounting of the details and, once revealed, paints a much different picture — often resulting in a truth-based perception that the charged person is not guilty or, in other words, innocent.
Now, you will finally be able to read about “Polo Mogul” John Goodman’s case from a significantly unique perspective based on the evidence. This is not what the assigned West Palm Beach prosecutors and a few deputies have reported to the mainstream media to pass on to the public. This reporting is the result of months of digging through evidence, testimony and communication with eyewitnesses and experts. More so, when the research began, the presumption was that Goodman was guilty. What I uncovered was that there is more than enough evidence to elicit a preponderance of innocence, not guilt, and that unless the state continually lies about the facts, or the jurists have a vendetta to convict, Goodman cannot be found guilty. Quite simply, there is no definitive evidence that can be considered beyond a reasonable doubt in favor of a guilty verdict; it is quite the opposite. Remember, the burden of proof is the state’s, not Goodman’s.
After the sudden loss of her mother in 2011, then-3-year-old Roselynn Sanchez became the unfortunate pawn in a custody battle between her living relatives. Roselynn’s biological father, Ryan Sanchez, who had separated from Roselynn’s mother prior to her death, was issued a court order to appear in Montana regarding custody of his daughter.
Roselynn’s two maternal grandparents, who were divorced, wanted Roselynn to remain in their custody and filed for custody in Montana, despite Roselynn’s only living parent (Sanchez) residing in Kansas.
King George III once believed that America was his land, the land of the crown of England, to be ruled over without the consent of the governed. His powers, even though partially limited by England’s ruling-class parliament, were sweeping through the use of royal proclamations, much like today’s executive orders.
It was one such decree that created further animosity between the colonists and the crown and is said to have contributed to the rising conflict that would later flare into the Revolutionary War: The Royal Proclamation of 1763. In effect, the king sought to manage the expansion of the colonists as well as control the headwaters of all rivers that flowed into the Atlantic by forming a line along the Appalachian Mountains. It was a line the colonists were forbidden to move beyond.
Who are we anymore? Do we even know?
America has changed, folks. And though many people would like to pretend our society’s newfound political correctness has fostered a worldly humanity, nothing is further from the truth. This “correctness” has literally destroyed our own sense of belonging to, what was once, the greatest nation on the Earth. It has, literally, stripped us of the ability to unite in one American spirit.
Oklahoma, 1970 – President Nixon sent combat troops to Cambodia to destroy the North Vietnamese headquarters. The Kansas City Chiefs beat the Minnesota Vikings in Super Bowl IV. It was the year of the first Earth Day and New York Marathon. Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin died. Zip-Loc bags were invented. Violence erupted at Kent State University resulting in the death of four students. Former Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry was in the first grade. 1970 was also the year that Reno Francis, a young Native American man, was wrongly convicted of a crime he didn’t commit and sentenced to life in prison.
In the small eastern Oklahoma town of Holdenville on an August evening of the same year, Cathy Scott was murdered. Reno 23, had been at a party where Cathy was also in attendance. After leaving the party, Reno was arrested by local police while trying to use a pay phone in a nearby parking lot under suspicion of being “high on an unknown substance.” It wasn’t until two days later that Cathy’s parents reported their 13-year-old daughter missing. Her body was discovered shortly thereafter in a storage shed near the party site. Reno, who was in jail at the time, was charged with the crime.
After a fun-filled week of camping for spring break, “Sarah” and her children unknowingly returned home to what she could only describe as “a real-life nightmare.” While Sarah and her family were away, the Oregon Department of Human Services received an anonymous “call of concern” regarding her children. According to documents, the anonymous caller alleged that Sarah’s children “were filthy and living in unsanitary conditions.” After attempting to contact Sarah, a DHS employee left a message with her parents. Shocked at the allegations, Sarah rushed to defend herself and her children against the horrific allegations.
It was too late.
On Feb. 12, 2010, billionaire John Goodman was in an automobile accident that resulted in the death of 23-year-old Scott Wilson. In a highly publicized trial, Goodman was convicted. But the conviction was overturned due to jury misconduct. As Goodman prepares for retrial, the US~Observer is investigating his case.
The Federal trial of a completely innocent and elderly Nebraska resident, Donna Kozak, is scheduled to begin on July 28 in Omaha, Neb. Kozak is represented by Omaha attorney David R. Stickman.
As previously reported in the US~Observer, “Donna Kozak is currently charged with nine felony crimes. Two counts pertain to tax crimes and seven counts pertain to filing false liens into the public record regarding an unrelated event. The U.S. Attorney’s Office via their indictment sums the tax charges up: ‘Beginning as early as 1997, and continuing until at least on or about December 13, 2012, in the District of Nebraska and elsewhere, the defendant, DONNA MARIE KOZAK, corruptly endeavored to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws by not filing federal individual income tax returns.'”
On June 5, Jamie Clark was finally given another chance to prove his innocence. After nearly three years in prison, Clark was granted a bond, giving him temporary freedom to work on his DUI Manslaughter appeal. Clark has maintained his innocence for almost eight years. In a very complicated case, with twists and turns that have basically left everyone involved speechless, Judge John Kastrenakes unexpectedly approved Clark’s bond at his most recent hearing.
Kastrenakes had already ruled against a previous bond for Clark, so this news was shocking. Prior to the bond being granted, Clark’s father said, “The only punch that is sure ‘not to land’ is the one you don’t throw. So, we are still throwing as many punches as we can.”
We, as a society, have been made to believe that if you are arrested and your picture appears in the local paper as having done something, you must be guilty. This is simply a tactic used by the state to get convictions. Another such tactic, which has swept the country, deals with false sex-abuse charges; children are being made to invent testimony.
After an initial allegation, children are assigned advocates or investigators who promote to the child that the appropriate behavior is to give them the information they are wanting, which might not necessarily be the truth. The result is a false allegation: the child caving in to what the authoritative figure wants. The allegation quickly turns into a charge, an arrest and then prosecution.
Property disputes between neighbors just outside of Grangeville, Idaho, began in 2009 and they escalated, until a lawsuit was filed by Sydney (Butch) and Dorothy Walker in late 2011. The Walkers named Bessie Harmon, Etta Harmon, Ellan Hoiland, Thain Hoiland, Elvin Hoiland and the Grangeville Highway District as defendants in their suit. However, our current US~Observer investigation is uncovering what appears to be a history of possible out-and-out fraud, as opposed to a dispute.
The Walkers were represented by attorney Dennis Charney until he filed a declaratory judgment motion, which, according to the Walkers and experts we have consulted with, basically gave away a good portion of their land. The Walkers fired Charney and demanded he withdraw his “ill-conceived” motion. Much more can be written on this issue if the need arises.
The Walkers have since hired attorney Wes Hoyt.
As a writer for the US~Observer, I’m accustomed to finding injustice within government and the justice system. But one injustice among many from the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is particularly shameful.
I’m talking about the fines that people will have to pay for not signing up for having their money taken and receiving little, if anything, good in return from Obamacare. Many people who didn’t have healthcare before the implementation of Obamacare either didn’t want it or couldn’t afford it.
Armando Garcia’s last year of high school was abruptly put on hold for what could have been his last year of freedom. Instead of the little things most teenagers stress about, like what to wear tomorrow or studying for a test, Armando was facing myriad stacked rape charges — all while not being allowed to attend his senior year of high school. Why? His ex-girlfriend accused him of rape shortly after her parents found out vivid details about their intimate relationship via Facebook.
Armando’s innocence was easy to prove — especially given the mountain of evidence in his favor. But the evident things in life do not initially matter in a courtroom. His ex-girlfriend, her parents (her father is a sheriff’s deputy) and the prosecution pursued the freedom of young Armando at all costs. All that was needed was an accusation. That’s it. There is no more innocent until proven guilty — technically. Today’s court’s put the burden of proof upon the defendant, despite what the Constitution says. The Constitution is a valid argument, but it gets you almost nowhere in a court of law today. The courts have police power, and that is all that is needed.
While recently watching the sci-fi classic “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” I couldn’t help but notice the parallels in the movie of the goals of the aliens from another world to the goals of modern liberals/socialists/Marxists. If you remember the story, the extraterrestrials take over people’s bodies and minds in order to create a utopian society that is devoid of worry, want, love or hate. Sound familiar? Does Marxist propaganda come to mind?
And like the body snatchers in the movie, the peddlers of such utopian ideology — or the mind snatchers of today — transform perfectly normal minds of the wide awake but sleeping and replace them with stupid gullible ones. The main departure from the movie is that today’s liberal mind snatchers transform their victim’s minds by disseminating a constant stream of lies and politically correct claptrap. The methodology is different, but the end result is the same: functionally brain-dead adherents.
UTAH COUNTY, Utah — Blending a family isn’t always easy. In fact, it can have disastrous effects, as Rob and Nedra McKell have found out. It has been alleged that several of Nedra’s children conspired to remove Rob from the family because they felt he was overbearing and “mean.” Their actions, along with those of several overzealous victims’ advocates, sheriff’s deputies and county attorneys, have left Rob facing multiple sexual abuse charges, and Nedra facing charges of neglect and of violation of a restraining order, among other things. Exemplifying the allegations of the children conspiring was when Nedra’s son, Brooke, said in a phone conversation to her that it (the charges) could all go away for $10 million. It’s a statement he verified later on the court record.
Waukesha County, Wis. — District attorneys and government taxing authorities throughout the country are repeatedly coming down hard on individuals and entities they view as lawbreakers attempting to sidestep their taxation responsibilities. In most cases they are attempting to make an example out of them as a deterrent for others.
Often, these individuals are anything but lawbreakers; they are merely patriotic people who have allowed themselves to become conned by a growing list of individuals and organizations spewing propaganda that the U.S. taxation system is unConstitutional and that, even according to Internal Revenue tax code, the average citizen is not subject to the income tax.
Oklahoma — It was 1970. President Richard Nixon sent combat troops into Cambodia to destroy the North Vietnamese headquarters; Super Bowl IV was played; the first Earth Day and the first New York Marathon were held; Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix both died; Ziplock bags were invented; violence erupted on the Kent State University campus, resulting in the death of four students; and former Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry was in the first grade. It was also the year a young Native American man named Reno Francis was sent to prison for life for a crime he did not commit.
Holdenville, a small town in eastern Oklahoma, was the scene of the tragic murder of 13-year-old Cathy Scott. Cathy and Francis, then 23, attended the same party on a hot August evening. Later, Francis left the party and was walking in a local parking lot, where he had gone to find a pay phone. He was arrested under suspicion of being “high on an unknown substance.” Two days later, Cathy’s family finally reported her missing. In a very short time, her body was discovered in a storage shed near the site of the party. Francis, who was already in jail, was charged with the crime.
Ironically, when Governor John Hickenlooper’s 2002 conservation easements (CEs) underwent an Internal Revenue Service review, it resulted in Hickenlooper paying the IRS $52,000 in a settlement agreement in 2010 (in the midst of his gubernatorial campaign). Nowhere does it appear that the Colorado Department of Revenue (CDOR) questioned the IRS’s determination or sought repayment of Hickenlooper’s State tax credits, reportedly in the range of six figures.
In an effort to reach an equitable resolution of the dilemma for the farmers and ranchers, as well as the CDOR, State Representative McKinley offered a very reasonable bill in 2010. HB1208 simply stated the CDOR must produce prima facie evidence of fraud within one year, else the conservation easements be accepted. It was defeated by intense lobbying from the Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts, an alleged front for the brokers and water lobby (special interests).
This is the second installment of a three-part investigative report from US~Observer.
At the onset (2003) of the impending controversy, now spanning a decade, J.D. Wright (land owner/CE donor of Olney Springs, Colo.), was told by a tax credit broker that his conservation easement (CE) tax credits were unsellable. Wright then called State Representative Spradley, only to be informed that all questions should be directed to Larry Kueter. When Wright inquired of Kueter to find out who in State government he could contact for resolution, Kueter reportedly replied, “No one. We designed it (the legislation) to avoid a bunch of bureaucrats looking over our shoulders.”
According to an appraiser who attended a public meeting in Golden, Colo., Kueter (the influential lawyer and chief architect who developed the Colorado conservation program), told the attendees: “…the program was never designed for the ‘hicks’ who farmed and ranched to the south, it was designed to benefit rich Coloradans like ‘John Elway’ who didn’t have enough deductions to give them tax breaks.”
Imagine you use a licensed tax preparer to file your Federal income taxes, just as you have for the past 10 years. Using standard lawful deductions, you have always gotten some money back or at least reduced your taxes. The economy crumbles and Congress re-writes the tax code. You subsequently receive a letter from the Internal Revenue Service that states you are responsible for paying back all the money you have received over the years (resulting from deductions), plus multiple years’ worth of interest and penalties. Crazy? You would think.
Now imagine that it is a State land scheme you are dealing with and that your property, previously appraised at highest and best use for conservation easement (CE) purposes, has just been revalued by the State (which has no authority to do so) at “zero” and that you are being ordered to repay tax credits legally given to you over the past years, plus penalties and interest. Welcome to Colorado’s CE program. Under the guise of conserving land and natural resources for future generations through CEs, the State of Colorado has abused and bankrupted law-abiding citizens in a bait-and-switch scheme worthy of national attention.
The right against self-incrimination comes from the 5th amendment and it is as follows:
… [No] person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…
The right is more broadly applicable than it may seem on its face. Clearly, the right provides protection for a person to refuse to take the witness stand during a trial in which he is the defendant. However, this right also protects a person’s right to refuse to answer questions posed by government agents at any time, except in very limited circumstances (e.g. you should provide your driver’s license, registration, and insurance information to a police officer upon request if you’ve been pulled over in your vehicle).
“Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.” — John Basil Barnhill (1914)
This quote is so simple and yet so profound in its truth. How then do we, the people, cause our government to “fear” us so that we may maintain liberty and live free? I believe the answer is in becoming educated about our rights as they are memorialized under the law, especially under the U.S. Constitution. Without knowledge and exercising of our rights, there is no incentive for the government to honor them.