Mrs. B.

Please watch...

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:04:32 GMT

Writer's Block: Teen Time Machine

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:38:31 GMT

If you could be a teenager living in any decade, which one would you choose?

This is a really easy one for me. I'd time it so that I came to be an "adult" late in the summer of love. I have always felt that I was born in the wrong era. If I could have my way, I'd dress like a "hippy" now. (To the extent that I can, I do already.) I've also always been very sympathetic (though not without my criticisms) to the general politics of the time/group. Of course, pot does nasty things to me so not sure how that part would work out.

If it wasn't for how horridly women (and lower classes) were treated in the Victorian era, that would be my time as I just love the formality and style and grace of the time.

Randomness

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:33:45 GMT

For some reason, the "intellisense" ad at the top of my Gmail home page decided to be for Smucker's Instant/pre-packaged grilled cheese sandwich (no I'm not gonna link as that would count as a hit).

So I'm left wondering two things:

What in the world made that come up as something in which I'd have an interest?

Whose brilliant idea was it to prepackage grilled cheese sandwiches and who is lazy/dumb enough to buy them?

Ick.

This makes me sick on so many levels...

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:09:52 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7926694.stm

"A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

The girl, aged nine, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, became pregnant with twins. "

It gets worse.

Tomorrow is a big day in CA...

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:12:39 GMT

Tomorrow is the day that the California Supreme Court will hear arguments on Proposition 8. They will then have 90 days to arrive at a decision.

Sending good thoughts for a positive outcome.

Writer's Block: Jackpot

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:11:53 GMT

If you won the lottery, what would you do with your newfound riches?

Submitted By kimbereli09

View 500 Answers

Pay off all of our debts.
Sell this POC house and move somewhere we both like.
Set up a trust fund / guardianship for disabled brother so he'll be taken care of.
Help out our parents as needed.
Go on a real, honest to goodness vacation (or two or three).

This is way cool

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:22:59 GMT

Gigapan image of the inauguration:

http://www.davidbergman.net/blog/2009/01/22/how-i-made-a-1474-megapixel-photo-during-president-obamas-inaugural-address/

happiness

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:40:18 GMT

I was just fooling around on the web and discovered that Rogue (who carries my most favorite beers) has a restaurant/public house down here in San Francisco. Yay!!!!

A Reader's guide...

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:07:43 GMT

Below are the addenda from the closing argument (other than spreadsheets with numbers - let me know if you want to see those too). The main key (of who is who) is in addenda #1. Probably best to read them in numbered order / earliest post to most recent.

Addenda #5

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:56:47 GMT

One of the things he sued me for was several thousands of dollars worth* of credit card charges. He and his girlfriend testified that they only included charges they were "absolutely certain" were my responsibility. The charges below were included in this and their assertion (in deposition) was that they drove the car from Portland to Boise (where I was supposedly working) so that I could have it while I was there. There's a couple of problems with this:

1) Look at the dates and locations. It's clear the charges were for a trip from the east side of the US to the west side of the US

2) I was not working in Boise, nor had I ever been to Boise when these charges were made. I started mid-March.

3) At the time, L and his girlfriend were in the process of transporting his Acura from Tennesee (via Chicago where girlfriend had a teaching engagement) to Portland.

Date[1]	Description/Merchant[2]	Location[3]	Amount[4]
8-Feb-06	START OF TRIP	Portland OR
8-Feb-06	Clark #88889	Evanston IL	12.80
9-Feb-06	Amoco Oil	Colfax IA	14.20
10-Feb-06	Amoco Oil	Lexington NE	17.59
10-Feb-06	Bosselman Truck Plaza	Big Springs NE	39.01
10-Feb-06	Pine Bluffs Co	Pine Bluffs WY	10.20
10-Feb-06	Motel 6	Laramie WY	41.79
11-Feb-06	Flying J	Rawlins WY	47.66
11-Feb-06	TA #188	Ft Bridger WY	19.32
12-Feb-06	TA #183	Troutdale OR	13.75
12-Feb-06	TA #167, END OF TRIP	Boise ID	56.73

[1] Ex 6, confirmed by Ex 7

[2] Ex 6

[3] Derived from Ex 7 after comparing data from Ex 6

[4] Ex 6 & Ex 7

There were several more like this (i.e. charges made at restaurants in Portland when I was in Boise), this one is just the most patently false.

Addenda #4

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:43:21 GMT

TESTIMONY REGARDING CREATION, SIGNING, & DISPOSITION OF

ALLEGED MOTOR VEHICLE LEASE AGREEMENT OF 12 JANUARY 05

	“L”	WITNESSES
What prompted creation of the Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement of 12-Jan-05?	30-May-08 [2:34:01] Agreement of 12-Jan-05 was prompted by “L”’s mother. “I talked to my mother and she was concerned that I was not taking care of myself and I needed to be responsible, to make sure nothing happened to the car.”	“H”: 29-May-08 [11:53:45] “H” instructed “L” to come up with some kind of car lease agreement to protect himself, shortly after he moved to PDX “H”: 29-May-08 [2:17:51] “H” had no communication with “L”, right after he moved to PDX, until pretty much the time they bought the house.
What prompted inclusion of Promissory Note addendum in Ex 2?	30-May-08 [2:36:46] “Crystal was looking at the debt that Pam was accumulating and she said, “you know, Pam owes you a lot of money and you really need to put this in writing.” And, I said OK. And so Crystal found this promissory note.”	“S”: 9-Jul-08 [4:02:33] Wrt Ex 2: “this isn’t something that I have ever seen”
Who came up with the amount of $26,910?	30-May-08 [2:39:48] “S” totaled up the amount and showed it to “B”. The actual amount was more than the $26910 shown in the lease 2-Jun-08 [10:08:07] The amount of debt was derived with help from “S” from receipts and credit card statements “L” had 2-Jun-08 [10:10:20] “S” was in charge of keeping receipts	“S”: 9-Jul-08 [3:50:50] “S” did not keep any kind of ledger. “S”: 9-Jul-08 [3:53:02] “S” was involved more in Master / slave contracts than in financial arrangements. “S”: 9-Jul-08 [4:02:33] Wrt $26,910 “this isn’t something that I have ever seen and that amount was never something that was a part of any exchange, oral or otherwise” “S”: 9-Jul-08 [4:39:40] “S” heard verbal exchanges between “L” and “B” regarding debt of around $2000 - $3000 “S”: 9-Jul-08 [4:01:40] At that time, a loose estimate of the debt was a couple of thousand dollars. Any more than that would have caused concern.
Signing of Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement	30-May-08 [2:38:49] “L” witnessed “B” sign on 12‑Jan-05 30-May-08 [2:41:59] “S” may have been present 2-Jun-08 [9:54:30] “B” signed Ex 2 in the living room on Sherman, in the evening	“H”: 29-May-08 [11:54:02] “L” emailed Ex 2 filled out, including page 6, promissory note. No signature. Received the email shortly after “L” had moved to PDX “H”: 29-May-08 [11:55:27] “L” told “H” that Ex 2 had been signed “H”: 29-May-08 [2:17:51] “H” had no communication with “L”, right after he moved to PDX, until pretty much the time they bought the house. “M”: 30-May-08 [11:52:18] “M” has never seen an actual written motor vehicle lease contract between “L” and “B” until court proceedings.
Disposition Original	30-May-08 [2:38:58] “B” had original. At one point it was in the big brown desk on 79^th. After Mrs. “B” and Mr. “B” came and got a bunch of stuff the first time, it disappeared.	“W” 29-May-08 [11:04:33] Assumed to have seen original under “B”’s arm in January 2005 since “B” had gone out to make copies of Ex 2
First Appearance of Copy	30-May-08 [2:42:34] “B” brought him a signed copy in Feb 05 at the house on Division; “W” witnessed this	“W”: 29-May-07 [11:04:15] In Jan/Feb 2005, “B” left and came back in specifically to say Ex 2 was signed and gave copy to “L” “S”: 9-Jul-08 [4:08:22] “L” spent a great deal of time with her in Jan 2005 “S”: 9-Jul-08 [4:09:04] “S” knew most of “L”’s friends in Jan 2005 “S”: 9-Jul-08 [4:09:30] “S” has never met or heard of “W” in the past or present “B” 9-Jul-08 [11:33:22] “B” first met “W” in late March, early April 2006. Recollection prompted by Live Journal postings as well as memories of all of the comings and goings of the various visitors and prospective members of the house.
No Mention of Written Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement Until Court Proceedings		“H”: 29-May-08 [11:55:08] “H” never saw signed motor vehicle agreement until court proceedings “H”: 29-May-08 [11:55:12] “B” did not make any reference to any motor vehicle lease agreement on 28-Aug-06 “M”: 30-May-08 [11:52:36] “M” has never seen an actual written motor vehicle lease contract between “L” and “B” until court proceedings “BV”: 29-May-08 [3:21:28] “Bv” was unaware of any written financial agreement between “L” and “B” until around Apr 07

Note: "W" is another member of "L"'s "House"/"Leather Family". Some of you know her. She's the one with the terminal illness who needs to be on oxygen. I have no idea how "L" got her to lie like this. It just breaks my heart that she did.
"S" is "L"'s former girlfriend / "House" member.

Addenda #3

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:33:21 GMT

CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF ALLEGED PROMISSORY NOTE OF 28 AUGUST 06

“Bv”

29-May-08

“L”

8-Jul-08

“H”

29-May-08

“M”

30-May-08

When did you first hear of any written financial agreement?

[3:21:28] “Bv” was unaware of any written financial agreement between “L” and “B” in Feb 07

[3:21:37] “Bv” became aware of written financial agreement in Apr 07

[2:32:43] “L” and “B” signed Promissory Note at kitchen counter (island). “H” witnessed on 28 Aug 06

[11:35:20] “M” was present when the Promissory Note was signed at the island in kitchen

What happened to the original document after it was signed?

[11:46:53] From “L”’s deposition: as soon as document was signed, “L”’s mother took it right then, and then brought it back and gave it to “B”

[11:47:20] “L”’s explanation of deposition: “L” and his mother went and made a copy and brought it back and mother gave the original to “B”

[1:43:50] Original was given to “B” when they returned from Home Depot on the same day

[2:34:16] “I know Pam took this and said that she was going to get it notarized, type it up.

And, I think she actually took it with her.”

[11:36:04] Not positive what happened to Promissory Note after it was signed - Went to either “B” or “L” and “H” to make copies.

What happened to the copies?

[11:47:14] “L” gave his copy to “B” and asked her to file it in the desk; mother took her copy down to the room she was staying in

[1:44:11] “L”’s mother took one and put it with her stuff in the house; “B” filed “L”’s copy in his desk

After 28 Aug 06, when was the first/next time you saw the document?

[4:06:12] After “B” moved out, “L” couldn’t initially find the original, but his mom had found a copy and “L” showed “Bv” the copy his mom had found

[4:07:13] “Bv” found a cut piece of paper excerpted from Ex 1 in a shoe in “B”’s old room, after literally seeing the entire Ex 1 not 5 minutes prior

[1:45:48] about 1-2 MONTHS after the document was signed, “L”’s mother told him she had left her copy at the house, so “L” had “B” send the copy to his mother

[1:46:24] Original was put in a folder in desk drawer; he saw the folder several times and could see the edge of piece of paper in the folder, but he didn’t specifically look at the agreement

[2:35:12] After the signing, “H” never saw Promissory Note again until court proceedings, but may have been given a copy.

[11:36:35] Next time “M” saw the Promissory Note was before or after FAPA hearing. Somewhere in that time frame. Does not remember the circumstances. Does not remember if it was original or copy

Note: "Bv" is a member of "L"'s "House"/"Leather Family"

Addenda #2

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:29:57 GMT

TIMELINE OF MRS. “B”’S ACTIVITIES ON 28 AUGUST 06[1]

Time	Activity	Basis
8:00 am	Woke up and took care of dogs and bird, prepared breakfast	Morning routine
9:00 am	Served breakfast to Mr. “L”, Ms. “M”, and Ms. “H”; cleaned up kitchen; Mr. “L” et al went out to celebrate his birthday	Mr. “L”’s preparation to go out for his birthday
9:45 am	Worked, did research for Mr. “L”, got ready to run errands	Regular work day
*9:58 am[2]	Sent Koi care email to Mr. “L”’s gmail account	28-Aug-06 time-stamped email
11:00 am	Chevron: Had to get gas because the car was empty. Filled up tank.	Ex 245, p 46: $37.50 Transaction posted in Aug 06 bank statement
11:30 am	Lloyd Center, Mastercuts: Haircut for birthday	Ex 245, p 46: $14.95 Transaction posted in Aug 06 bank statement
*12:32 pm	Lloyd Center, Van Duyn Chocolates: Bought chocolates for Mr. “L”’s birthday gift	Ex 4, p2: Credit card receipt from Van Duyn Chocolates Ex 245, p 46: $5.98 Transaction posted in Aug 06 bank statement
12:45 pm	Hawthorne District, Presents of Mind: Purchased a birthday card for Mr. “L”	Ex 245, p 46: $5.75 Transaction posted in Aug 06 bank statement
1:00 pm	Trader Joe’s: Bought groceries, some perishables	Ex 245, p 46: $19.56 Transaction posted in Aug 06 bank statement
2:00 pm	Home: Went back to work on computer, get ready for dinner celebration	Regular work day
6:00 pm	Dinner at Todai	Celebrated Mr. “L”’s birthday with Mr. “L”, Ms. “M”, Ms. “H”

*denotes exact time

[1] “B”, 9-Jul-08, 1:48:19 pm

[2] “B”, 9-Jul-08, 1:54:58 pm

More stuff from the closing - Addenda #1

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:26:09 GMT

As the closing argument was written, we relied upon addenda rather than in-court charts and diagrams. Below the cut you'll find a comparison of the testimony regarding the production, signing, etc. of the "Promissory Note". It's fairly evident that the three witnesses contradict themselves.

Chart is a summary. Below that are the witnesses' actual words. "L" is the guy who sued me. "H" is his mother. "M" is his girlfriend. "B" is me.

“L”, ET AL TESTIMONY REGARDING PREPARATION, SIGNING, & DISPOSITION OF ALLEGED PROMISSORY NOTE ON 28 AUGUST 06

	“L” DEPOSITION	“L” TRIAL	“H”	“M”
Where were “L” and “B” during preparation of Promissory Note?	“L” and “B” both sat down in living room to write the document. Both went into the kitchen a couple of times to ask “L”’s mother if she agreed with the language in the document.	“L” and “B” were in kitchen. “B” was coming and going from kitchen for 10-15 minutes to find her ledger (in her room), receipts, credit card statements	“L” and “B” were in sitting at the kitchen table during the entire time they were preparing the document.	“L” was in the kitchen the whole time. At some point, “B” went traipsing through the house to gather documents and make calculations.
When did preparation take place? How long did it take?		“B” left the house around noon	10:00am – 1:00pm. They didn’t get away until later in the afternoon.	Started late morning. Took an hour or so. Ended close to noon. Left early afternoon.
Where were “B” and “L” when they signed the document? Where was the witness?			“L” and “B” signed the document at the kitchen counter (island). “H” was facing them.	“L” and “B” signed the document at the kitchen island. “M” witnessed.
What happened to the document immediately after it was signed?	After the document was signed, “L”’s mother took it right then, and made a copy of it on the way to Home Depot.	“After we signed it, there was a discussion about who was going to Home Depot….My mother and I went – we first were going to Home Depot but we decided to stop at Kinko’s…to make copies of the agreement”	“B” took document and said she was going to get it notarized and typed up. “B” took it with her.	Not positive what happened to document after it was signed. It went either to “B” or to “L” and “H” to be copied.
What did the parties do after the document was signed?		“L” and his mother went to Home Depot. “B” went to Lloyd Center.	“L”, “B”, “M” and “H” went to the museum and then dinner.	“M” stayed home. The others went out.
What happened to the original?	“L”’s mother gave it to “B”.	“B” took the original and put it in “L”’s desk	“B” took the original.
What happened to the copies?	“L” gave his copy to “B” and asked her to file it in his desk. “H” took her copy down to the room where she was staying.	“L” gave “B” his copy to file in his desk drawer. “L”’s mother put her copy in with her things, but left it at the house on 79^th.	“H” may have been given a copy.
After 28-Aug-06, when was the next time you saw the document?		About 1-2 months after it was signed, “L”’s mother told him she had left her copy at the house, so “L” told “B” to send copy and send it to his mother, which “B” did.	“H” never saw the document again until the court proceedings.	“M” saw the document again sometime around the FAPA hearing. Not sure if it was a copy or the original.

Kaye “H”, 29-May-08

[2:28:20] Preparation of document occurred in kitchen; “H” was there in kitchen
[2:29:21] Both “B” and “L” were in kitchen during entire creation of Promissory Note
[2:32:01] “L” and “B” sat at kitchen table when Promissory Note was drawn up
[2:32:31] “H” doesn’t remember parties leaving the table while it was being prepared
[2:32:44] “L” and “B” signed Promissory Note at kitchen counter (island). “H” witnessed.
[2:34:16] “B” took Promissory Note and said she was going to get it notarized, type it up; “B” actually took it with her.
[2:34:29] “B”, “L”, “M” and “H” went to museum and then dinner after the signing of the Promissory Note
[2:35:12] After the signing, “H” never saw Promissory Note again until court proceedings, but she may have been given a copy
[2:39:39] Preparation of the Promissory Note occurred between 10:00am-1:00pm; "Didn't get away until later in the afternoon."

Kate “M”, 29-May-08

[4:44:09] “L” stayed at the table while “B” went "traipsing through the house" to gather documents and make calculations

Kate “M”, 30-May-08

[11:31:14] “L” and “B” started writing in late morning
[11:32:35] “L” and “B” sat at table together
[11:32:50] “B” needed to get up and find some financial records to come up with $10641
[11:33:03] Creation of document took an hour or so, maybe two – finished close to noon time
[11:35:20] “M” was present when the Promissory Note was signed at the island in kitchen
[11:36:04] “M” is not positive what happened to Promissory Note after it was signed – It went to either “B” or “L” and “H” to make copies.
[11:36:35] Next time “M” saw Promissory Note was after FAPA hearing or before, somewhere in that time frame. Does not remember the circumstances. Does not remember if it was original or copy.
[11:37:10] There was a trip to Kinko’s and Home Depot next to Kinko’s that day. “M” did not go. “M” is not sure who went with whom.
[11:37:44] Parties left the house in early afternoon.

AM “L”, 2-Jun-08

[11:05:00] “B” went to find the ledger and find updates to the ledger; “L” thinks he saw the ledger that day; ledger was kept in “B”’s room; “B” went to get ledger, credit card statements, receipts; then “B” added them together; “B” did some calculations in front of “L” and some down in her room;
[11:07:09] “B” went to her room to get ledger and receipts, coming and going for 10-15 minutes

AM “L”, 8-Jul-08

[11:41:02] “L” testified in deposition that “L” and “B” sat down in living room to write Promissory Note and both went into the kitchen a couple of times to ask “L”’s mother if she agreed with the language in the document
[11:44:40] From “L”’s deposition p 21: after document was signed, mother took it and made a copy of it on the way to Home Depot
[11:46:53] From “L”’s deposition: soon as document was signed, “L”’s mother took it right then, and then brought it back and gave it to “B”
[11:47:20] “L”’s explanation of deposition: “L” and his mother went and made a copy and brought it back and mother gave the original to “B”; “L” gave his copy to “B” and asked her to file it in the desk; mother took her copy down to the room she was staying in
[1:41:02] “After we signed it, there was a discussion about who was going to Home Depot….My mother and I went – we first were going to Home Depot but we decided to stop at Kinko’s…to make copies of the agreement”
[1:43:50] Original was given to “B” when they returned from Home Depot on the same day; “L”’s mother took one and put it with her stuff in the house; “B” filed “L”’s copy in his desk
[1:45:48] about 1-2 MONTHS after the document was signed, “L”’s mother told him she had left her copy at the house, so “L” had “B” send the copy to his mother
[1:46:29] Original was put in a folder in desk drawer; he saw the folder several times and could see the edge of piece of paper in the folder, but he didn’t specifically look at the agreement

What I've been waiting to do...

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:52:58 GMT

This is all public record. I've only held off on posting this because I wanted to wait for the judge's decision. Due to the circus that the trial became, we wound up going with written rather than oral closing arguments.

INTRODUCTION: Throughout the course of this 4-yr relationship, Mr. “L” contributed a down payment on the house and his “wisdom” on financial management. Ms. “B” contributed every asset she could get her hands on. All her money went to support Mr. “L” well in excess of any amounts reflected even in the alleged written contracts. She paid for his food, food for his girlfriends, his “submissives,” his dogs. She paid for medical expenses, trips with his girlfriends, gas for his car. She paid for “toys” and “training” and “punishments” and whatever else he wanted for his “House of Cosmic.” She gave him cash whenever he demanded. , But it wasn’t enough. The budget, under his control, was under constant strain, and how Ms. “B” would pay Mr. “L” for the chronic shortfalls was a topic of constant discussion in the “House of Cosmic.”

Mr. “L”’s solution was to appoint himself Ms. “B”’s bookkeeper, and charge her for that. When Ms. “B” expressed concern about their unworkable budget, Mr. “L” told her to get her priorities straight. He told her that it would be to her financial benefit to purchase a house, and mortgage payments would be credited against the personal debt he claimed she owed. Mr. “L”, noting that houses in Portland were appreciating, thought he could get 8% to 20% return on his investment. It was never clear how he was going to get that return. They didn’t talk things out. Things like who would own what part of the house or how Ms. “B”’s payments would be applied toward various parts of the alleged debt. They didn’t track their transactions – the credit card charges, cash payments, lease payments and payments for things that clearly arose in the “Master/Slave” context, and the line between different kinds of agreements quickly faded away. When Ms. “B” finally saw the light and got the courage to leave the situation, he demanded money. She was his slave. But she wanted to know what the money was for. Realizing that she was no longer under his control, and knowing that none of the slave agreements or their various addendums were real contracts, he set about concocting some: exhibits 1, 2, and 247. But he did a pretty poor job. The numbers just don’t add up. He has to explain why the terms on these documents contradict each other, the testimony and other documentary evidence. He has to explain why these documents don’t mean what they say. There are discrepancies, he says, because: Ms. “B” is dyslexic; he used different numbers to be nice. He was tracking debt; he wasn’t tracking debt. Ms. “B” was tracking debt; she wasn’t tracking debt. No one was tracking debt; Ms. “S” was tracking debt. Ms. “B” took the car in August and we wrote down the odometer reading. She took it in July and we wrote down some other number as if it were the odometer reading. He doesn’t remember if he gave her $10,000 cash; he specifically remembers every charge on his credit card since 2004. They didn’t put their agreement with respect to the house in writing because of the [August 2006] move and the [2006] holidays; they put their agreement with respect to the house in writing in August 2006. He saw Ms. “B” sign the Motor Vehicle Lease, he didn’t see her sign. He might have had a witness; he didn’t have a witness. He doesn’t know. He doesn’t remember. He might be mistaken. What are we to believe? What a tangled web.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: This claim is based exclusively on the alleged promissory note. Without this note, there is no writing as required by statute of frauds. The first question is: Did Ms. “B” sign the note? All the evidence says no. The second question is: Whether she signed it or not, what did the parties agree to? There was clearly no meeting of the minds on the necessary and substantial elements in order to form a contract.
The testimony: There were four witnesses and five different versions of the day the note was allegedly signed. All had clear memories of this day since it was Mr. “L”’s birthday, but they tell materially different stories . Mr. “L” testified in deposition that he and Ms. “B” sat down in the living room to write the majority of the note and went to the kitchen a couple of times to consult with his mother. In court, Mr. “L” stated that they were in the kitchen with the exception of the time Ms. “B” left the kitchen for 10-15 minutes to look for her ledger. , His mother, Ms. “H”, testified that both parties were in the kitchen the whole time . His girlfriend, Ms. “M”, testified that Mr. “L” remained in the kitchen while Ms. “B” went “traipsing about the house” gathering financial records . Ms. “B” testified she went about her day: working on the computer, getting a haircut, buying Mr. “L”’s birthday presents, and running errands during the time the note was allegedly being written, signed, copied and delivered to her for filing. She was able to recreate this time line by referencing an email she had written to Mr. “L”, her bank statements and her debit card receipts showing charges made during the day. Testimony regarding the chain of custody of the alleged promissory note – original and copies – conflicts. Mr. “L” testifies that his mother took the original to Kinko’s on the way to Home Depot, then returned and gave both the original and one copy to Ms. “B” . His mother, when prodded what happened to the document after signing, responded, “I know Pam took this and said that she was going to get it notarized, type it up. And I think she actually took it with her,” and she never saw the document again. Mr. “L” testified that the original, along with his copy, was given to Ms. “B” and was kept in the brown desk in a folder. But, Ms. Belvett testified that Mr. “L” got the document from his mother sometime in April. If Mr. “L” knew of the existence of the document, why didn’t he ever mention it to Ms. Belvett – the accountant’s daughter, when she was “always getting on” the parties about not putting things in writing? What he showed her instead was a single page with random scratchings. Mr. “L” says this was the third page of his accounting, which was lost between his meeting with his attorney and the discovery process. The first two pages disappeared from that brown desk. If there was a promissory note, why wasn’t it mentioned in February? In March? In April? In May? Through all the negotiations and demands between the parties and their attorneys? Why wait until 1 June to produce it for the first time in a demand letter? Same goes for the car lease – if there were written agreements, and Mr. “L” knew there were written agreements, why were ALL communications about oral agreements? About NOT putting things in writing? What about Mr. “L”’s e-mail acknowledging the lack of written agreements except for a car lease, and then referring to an indebtedness of around $8K, and not the $29,000 debt specified in the MVL?
The experts: The original was not produced. Both handwriting experts agreed that the copy produced was of poor quality, making the analysis very difficult. The exemplars used by Plaintiff’s expert were also of poor quality – copies of copies, perhaps of copies or faxes. Both experts stated that their analysis was particularly difficult because Ms. “B” signs her name so differently each time. Plaintiff’s expert testified that she wondered “. . . if they were all verified that this person had signed those checks because they all varied so much one to the other . . .,” and “the only real consistency is the inconsistency of all the standards.” In other words, she could find no significant forensic evidence that the exemplars were from the same person. How can she then testify in rebuttal that those exemplars together provide forensic evidence that the same person “probably” wrote the signatures on the questioned documents and the exemplars? Initially, both experts agreed that Ms. “B”’s signature could have been cut and pasted onto the alleged contracts. In rebuttal testimony, plaintiff’s expert changed her mind. She found the distance between the questioned signature and the second line of text above the signature is the same at each point along the signature line. She concluded that it would be nearly impossible to cut-and-paste that precisely. The precise measurement points exactly to a cut-and-paste. You would have the upper edge of the signature page more or less aligned with a row of text to paste it on. If it's unlikely that someone could intentionally make it perfect, it’s even more unlikely that it could accidentally be perfect when the parties casually scratched it out while sitting on the couch or at the kitchen table. Plaintiff’s expert admits knowing nothing about computer generated documents or forgeries. Mr. “L”, a former director of a software company, who did Ms. “B”’s taxes, collected her documents for mortgage applications and routinely wrote checks from Ms. “B”’s checkbook, had plenty of access to Ms. “B”’s signature.
The text: The text of the note is inconsistent with testimony and evidence introduced by Mr. “L” and other witnesses. First, the amount of the personal debt referenced in paragraph two is $10,641 “at this time.” Mr. “L” elsewhere claims the amount of the debt was $41,869.46 at this time, and who knows if this includes the dogs or not. Mr. “L” claims in his statement on 2 March 2007 that the debt was “over $8k,” and not $34,910 (the amount on EX 2 plus charges on EX 6 from the date of EX 2) was because he was trying to be nice. Then, there’s the “monthly lease agreement” referenced in paragraph four. Mr. “L” claims that this was added, even though there was already a written lease agreement, because his insurance premium for the car was lowered to $120 per month and he wanted to pass the savings on to Ms. “B”. But, documentary evidence and testimony shows that the amount Ms. “B” had been paying Mr. “L” for insurance on the car was, and always had been, the same - $120 per month.
Then there are the mortgage payments. We know they were to come out of Pam’s salary, but how did that fit in to the whole “who-owes-who-what” scheme? Mr. “L”’s own words in his on-line chat of June 16, 2006 indicate that the mortgage payments made by Ms. “B” were to be applied to the money Ms. “B” owed him. He knew that that was the only way “they” could afford to buy the house. Ms. “B” made the mortgage payments as long as she was in the house. Was her debt satisfied by those payments? Was she obligated to make payments even after Mr. “L” had gotten all his money back? And why, outside of the role-playing agreement, would Ms. “B” agree to support not only Mr. “L”, but also Mr. “L”’s girlfriend, and pay for anything Mr. “L” wanted to do to the house? Mr. “L” wants us to believe that the clause for Ms. “M”’s support was added at Ms. “B”’s insistence.
The Breach: Even if Ms. “B” had made the agreement Mr. “L” claims, he has failed to show that she, not he breached that agreement. After Ms. “B” left the house, she made clear her intention to use the house during her visits to Portland up until the house was sold, and that she intended to continue to make mortgage payments on that basis. , Mr. “L” responded by intentionally and effectively ousting Ms. “B” from the co-owned property for all purposes. In this communication, he referred unambiguously to HIS house, and let her know that she would need a court order to return to his house. Mr. “L” also attempted to force Ms. “B” out of the property through his FAPA application of 23 March 2007. Although Mr. “L” now claims he ousted her because “things were turning up missing,” there was no mention of any missing items in this or any other communications between the parties until Mr. “L”’s demand letter of June 1. Mr. “L”, not Ms. “B” breached whatever co-tenancy agreement the parties had.
Damages: Mr. “L” claims that Ms. “B” owes him the approximate equivalent of mortgage payments from April 2007 until December 2007. Mr. “L” did not make these payments, and in fact lived in the house rent and mortgage free during that period. He has not suffered any damages during this period. Mr. “L” claims that Ms. “B” owes him the amount budgeted for utilities from February 2007 through December 2007. He has produced no evidence of actual costs for those utilities and states that Ms. “M” (who was also living there) not he, paid utilities. Mr. “L” demands one half the amount of an “agreed upon amount” of $3,000 per month for January 2008 through August 2009. He has not introduced any evidence that there was an agreed upon amount for these months. If this amount is intended to approximate the damages Mr. “L” suffered because Ms. “B” did not make mortgage payments after the house was sold in foreclosure, he has not shown any evidence of what these damages are. He has made no claim with respect to his alleged down payment. He has not claimed that, because of Ms. “B”’s alleged breach, he has had to make any mortgage or rent payments he would not otherwise have had to make. Given the totality of the testimony, it is reasonable to assume that Ms. “M” is now providing Mr. “L”’s housing and, having fully mitigated his loss of free rent from Ms. “B”, Mr. “L” has suffered no loss whatsoever.
Mitigation of damages: Mr. “L” claims that he attempted to mitigate his damages by selling the house either on the open market or by having Ms. “M” purchase it, but Ms. “B” refused to cooperate. It is not clear how either of these actions would have mitigated the damages claimed – free housing and utilities until June 2009. In any event, the evidence shows that when it became clear that the parties could not reach any other agreement, Ms. “B” expected the house to be put on the market and communicated this to Mr. “L” repeatedly, beginning 3 March. , Ms. Andrews, the realtor, testified that Mr. “L” contacted her in March but made no indications of wanting to put the house on the market at that time. The evidence shows that Mr. “L” proposed selling the house on 12 March, but took no steps to actually get it on the market until May or June, and then took until July to get it actively listed. In the meantime, Mr. “L” continued to make demands for settlements that all involved her paying the mortgage, AND giving him large amounts of money, while he lived in the house and she had no access. Ms. Andrews testified that Ms. “B” wouldn’t agree to a potential short sale with Ms. “M” as the buyer. Ms. Andrews didn’t hear that from Ms. “B”. Ms. “B”, after researching all the ramifications, did agree to the short sale. Plaintiff’s attorney told Ms. “B” that the “short sale is off the table.” Ms. “M” had changed her mind and was concerned that she couldn’t afford it. Ms. “M” says plaintiff’s attorney did not hear that from her. Ms. Andrews, Ms. “M” and Ms. “B” all seem to be telling the truth. Ms. “M”, as Ms. Andrews testified, “. . . remained an outsider to the short sale.” Every communication went through Mr. “L”. What we heard from him is that “Pam adamantly refused” to let Ms. “M” buy the house because he was involved with Ms. “M”. Mr. “L” didn’t hear this from Ms. “B”.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: This claim is based on the alleged written Motor Vehicle Lease (MVL). Ms. “B” acknowledges that she leased Mr. “L”’s car for a term of six months starting 1 August 2004, and then on a month-to-month basis. The parties agree that a car lease form was taken off the Internet and used as a format to negotiate the initial lease. Even though the parties never completed and signed the initial six-month lease, Ms. “B” used the car and paid the monthly amount, including insurance. She denies signing EX 2, the 36-month lease document, or otherwise executing a subsequent term-lease. The evidence supports her contention.
The testimony: Mr. “L” contends that the original was kept in that same, brown desk as EX 1 until Ms. “B” came to move some of her items out of the house in March 2007. But, until just prior to the court proceedings, none of the witnesses ever saw a signed lease. Ms. “H” never saw it. Ms. “M” never saw it. Ms. Belvett never saw it. Ms. “S”, whom Mr. “L” claims helped him negotiate and transact it and “may have been” present when it was signed, never saw it. Ms. “S” testified that on the date the alleged car lease was allegedly signed, she did work with the parties to get a contract in place, but she never saw anything remotely like EX 2 – in substance or form. Mr. “L” says he saw Ms. “B” sign the MVL on 12 January. The only other person who acknowledged ever seeing this document was Mr. “L”’s “submissive,” Ms. Woolum who testified that in January 2005, Ms. “B” left the house on Division Street and came back “specifically to tell Mr. “L” that the lease had been signed” and to give Mr. “L” a copy of it. She says “Sir,” as she refers to Mr. “L”, asked her to look it over. Why would Ms. “B” come back to tell Mr. “L” that the lease had been signed if he had already witnessed her signature? Why would he ask Ms. “W” to look it over after the fact? Besides, the parties didn’t even know Ms. “W” in 2005. , And, despite extensive communications regarding any debt between the parties starting in February 2007, including a formal demand from Mr. “L”’s attorney in June 2007, why is there no mention of the MVL before the complaint was filed in August 2007? Mr. “L” claims that this document is referenced in the alleged promissory note, EX 1. But EX 1, like all other supervening documents referencing a car lease agreement, identifies a month-to-month lease, not a 36-month term lease.
The experts: Like EX 1, this document is a very poor quality copy. The original was not produced, and no chain of custody established. Initially, both expert witnesses testified that a cut-and-paste of the signature on the document could not be ruled out. Mr. “L” testified that this was a computer-generated document created by cut-and-pasting from an on-line form, and the original form had boxes, not lines, for signatures. His expert witness admitted “Great things can be done on computers. And, I just don’t get into that field at all. And, I think that’s why the handwriting experts aren’t quite as busy as we used to be.” Still, in her opinion, the signature line could not be cut-and-paste because it is too well aligned on the page.
The text: The mileage shown on the alleged lease agreement signed 12 January 2005, for a lease starting 1 August 2004 is 38,898 miles. According to communications between the parties regarding the Taurus on 30 September 2004, the odometer showed 51,027 miles. In the draft agreement produced by Mr. “L”, the mileage was 48,898 miles as of August 2004. In testimony he admits that 48,898 miles was indeed the actual mileage on the car during that time. Mr. “L” explains the fact that the mileage written in the document allegedly signed on 12 January 2005 is lower than the actual mileage in August and September 2004 by telling us, for the first time in these proceedings, that the parties agreed to put the WRONG mileage on the 12 January 2005 document because Ms. “B” actually had the car in July 2004, and not August 2004, as all other testimony and evidence shows. , He testified that during the whole month of July 2004, Ms. “B” put 10,000 miles on the car when she drove from Texas to Portland [2,353 miles], commuted daily [20 work days] from Hillsboro to Portland, sometimes 2-3 times a day [34 miles round-trip], drove to the beach, drove from Portland to her house in Olympia [230 miles round- trip], and drove several times from Portland to Seattle [352 miles round-trip]. Ms. “B” would have had to drive to Seattle and back at least 15 times during the month of July in order for Mr. “L”’s testimony to make sense. Again, Mr. “L”’s numbers don’t add up. Nor do his facts. The evidence shows and Mr. “L” testified that he and Ms. “B” had already moved her out of Olympia in June. Evidence also shows that the trip from Texas to Portland occurred in early August 2004. Throughout the period Ms. “B” was paying for the use of Mr. “L”’s car, he remained in control of its use. He used the car for his own trips, , , and withheld the car if he felt she had not made the monthly payment. Although no record was kept of who put what mileage on the car, he says he credited Ms. “B” 5,000 miles for the times he used the car and allowed others to use the car, and to be nice. Even if Ms. “B” had signed this lease, it was a completely illusory contract and lacked the essential element of a meeting of the minds. What ever the words in the document say, Mr. “L”’s intent was clearly something else. The renewal of the car lease was a punishment, made in the context of the Master/Slave relationship. Further, by maintaining possession and control of the car during and after the end of the relationship, Mr. “L”, and not Ms. “B”, breached any agreement they may have had. With respect to the alleged damage, the condition of the car was not recorded at the time Ms. “B” began driving it or when Mr. “L” took possession of it in 2006. There was no evidence produced connecting Ms. “B”’s use to Mr. “L”’s repair estimate.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Again, this claim is wholly dependent on the alleged Motor Vehicle Lease. In addition to the evidence above, the inconsistency in the amount of the personal debt shown on this document makes clear that the document is completely fictitious. Mr. “L” claims Ms. “S” was in charge of tracking personal debt. Ms. “S”, who is a wholly disinterested third party, denies that. Mr. “L” claims that Ms. “S” was the one who found the template for the promissory note. Ms. “S” denies that. EX 2 shows a debt of over $26K, but Ms. “S” says the debt being discussed at the time of the alleged signatures was more like $3,000. EX 204 supports that amount. The e-mails sent between the parties, with Ms. “S”’s assistance, shows that the exact amount of debt had not yet been determined at the time the document was allegedly signed. , The amount of debt shown on this document appears completely random, and at odds with all other evidence in this matter. , The alleged MVL agreement with the promissory note addendum was undoubtedly fabricated after the 1 June demand letter, to account for his statement in his email of 2 March 2007: “. . .We planned on putting our financial agreements regarding the house and other debts in writing but with the move immediately followed by the holidays, we kept putting it off….We didn’t put all our agreements down on paper, although we did a few (e.g. the car lease).” The parties did have a written month-to-month car lease agreement as part of the Master/slave agreements. Mr. “L” claims that there was a written promissory note already written and signed. What other agreement could he be talking about?
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: There is no basis for this claim. Opposing counsel objected to testimony regarding individual charges comprising the alleged debt in EX 1 and EX 2, which seems to be the same debt in this claim, although Mr. “L” states that he doesn’t know what debt is included in either of those documents. , Mr. “L” produced no receipts to support his claim. Ms. “B” produced evidence of payment for items that were hers , , , and showed that some of the items charged could not have been hers. , Ms. “S” confirmed that Ms. “B” was not responsible for Ms. “S”’s travel expenses as Mr. “L” claims. It just doesn’t make sense. None of Mr. “L”’s accounting makes sense. Every witness on this matter testified that during the course of the relationship no accurate record was kept of parties’ financial dealings.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: It’s Mr. “L”’s burden to show that Ms. “B” took these items and he has produced no evidence what so ever regarding any of the items except the carpet cleaner, which Ms. “B” freely admits she took. It is also undisputed that she bought the carpet cleaner. Ms. “B”’s removal of items from the house was monitored. Mr. “L” was allowed to inspect boxes of items being removed. He found a set of DVD’s, which then remained at the house. The only thing he can say with respect to the remaining items is that he can’t find these items – he even had a search of his home in Texas done – so he concludes Ms. “B” must have taken them. Maybe this is what his witness, Ms. Skinner, meant when she testified that Mr. “L” has trouble tracking items in space.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: One last item – the dogs. The parties agreed that Ms. “B” would purchase the dogs for $1,200 ($400 for each of the three dogs) and Ms. “B” did purchase the dogs for that amount. There is no basis for increasing the price of the dogs by 750% over the agreed price for purposes of damages. At the end of the relationship, Mr. “L” wanted Ms. “B” to take the dogs with her. Ms. “S” testified to having seen Ms. “B” make cash payments for one of the dogs more than once. With the exception of a few individual payments, , Ms. “B” was making combined payments to Mr. “L” for debt, for punishments, for the car, for whatever. Mr. “L” cannot show that all of the checks and untold amounts of cash Ms. “B” gave Mr. “L” over the years didn’t cover the dogs.
CONCLUSION: This is Mr. “L”’s case. It is his burden to show, by a preponderance of evidence that Ms. “B” owes him anything at all. He hasn’t even come close. Because he can’t. Because she doesn’t.

I can post a copy of their closing argument if anyone is interested. I also have a copy of the entire audio transcript. Those are really big, though. It's in bits and pieces.

The judge's findings

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:40:08 GMT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
him, ) Case No. 0708-09600
Plaintiff,
v.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
me,
Defendant.
Holding:
I find that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was not sufficient to carry the burden of proof as to any claims delineated in the complaint.

(First Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract-Exhibit 1)
Specifically, as to the contract in Exhibit 1, I find that the evidence presented is not convincing regarding the signature being valid. I find the handwriting expert testimony unconvincing; the witnesses regarding observing the signature were not credible. The argument that the contract, if not valid as a written contract, was valid as an oral contract, also fails as the terms as testified to are too vague to determine consideration, specific obligations as to amounts to be paid, and the duration of such payments. The testimony of the parties also makes it clear that there is not a “meeting of the minds” as to the terms of this “oral” agreement. Additionally, the testimony of the parties, and the witnesses, is replete with examples of Defendant paying bills and giving money to Plaintiff, and void of any credible accounting by either party. Hence, the Plaintiff has not carried his burden of proof regarding the existence of the contract or the failure of the performance as alleged.

(Second and Third Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract-Exhibit 2)
I find that the evidence regarding the contract in Exhibit 2 is insufficient regarding the breach of performance as to that contract. The evidence presented by Plaintiff is not convincing regarding both the validity of the contract and as to whether it was signed by Defendant. Defendant acknowledged signing this contract as an addendum to a “master/slave” contract sent via e-mail; therefore the validity of the contract itself is in question. However, the almost complete lack of accounting for money spent and/or repaid in relation to this contract leaves the court unconvinced that even if the contract was valid, that any money was owed by Defendant to Plaintiff pursuant to that contract. I also find that the witnesses as to this contract testifying for the Plaintiff, are essentially the same witnesses testifying regarding the first claim, and I find their testimony to be unconvincing on this issue also. The Plaintiffs
testimony regarding the mileage and use of the car subject to Exhibit 2 is not credible.

(Fourth Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract: Credit Card Payments)
I find that Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof as to the non-payment of these expenses.

(Fifth Claim for Relief: Dissolution of Domestic Partnership)
The above findings apply regarding the two contracts found in Exhibit 1 and 2. I do not find that those contracts reflect a domestic partnership agreement. The description of the relationship, to the extent that it exists, is found within the e-mails and “master/slave” contracts between the two parties, and I find those to be not enforceable in the context of this lawsuit, and therefore find the Plaintiff has not proven his case for this claim.

(Sixth Claim for Relief: Conversion)
I find that the Defendant had an ownership interest in the dogs, and therefore did not convert the dogs. Plaintiff agreed to sell the dogs to Defendant for $400/each, Plaintiff has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the dogs were not paid for by Defendant.
Date Signed: /.2 - ii °,?
Hon. Alicia A. Fuchs

Rambly thoughts on Prop 8 and California

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:39:51 GMT

Hate to break it to you, but California is not the great promised land of equality and tolerance and love. There are teeny tiny pockets where this seems to be the case, but step outside those areas and you’re right back into the same crap you see everywhere else – it’s just sunnier. I’ve lived in California (this go-round) since late February 2007. The area where I live is within reasonable driving distance (30 minutes to an hour depending on traffic) of San Francisco. We’re considered part of the “Bay area” and have many people who commute into the city. We also have lots of people that don’t.

Our neighborhood, as I posted yesterday, is quite racially diverse. On just our little block we have an old first-generation German (?) immigrant couple, two Mexican families, a Chinese couple, an out lesbian county official, an Indian family, a very blue-collar white family, another white family with solar panels and a wind turbine, then Hubby and me. We don’t really talk politics – in part because of Daddy’s practice. Nobody had any yard signs out for the election and I didn’t notice any bumper stickers. Most of the people right around us aren’t even registered to vote (possibly because they’re not citizens).

Most of these people knew Daddy before he started transitioning. While some have expressed confusion at various times, most have fairly quickly moved to using his new name. The town where we live still has a “small town” feel to it. People know each other, many of these people grew up here. Daddy still sees many of the people that went to school with him.

Yet, when it comes right down to it, I know that most of these people are bigots. They’re “OK” with the people that they know (at least to their face) but anything beyond that is not OK – especially when it comes to the LGBTQ stuff. Hell, Daddy’s own sister didn’t come to our wedding – she and her husband chose to play/gamble in Reno instead. If you pay attention and step outside of the bubbles (which most visitors don’t) you can really see this.

For some reason, many (most?) people feel that they need an “other”, a “bad guy” if you will. This becomes their standard against which they can judge themselves. “I’m a good Christian because I’m not like them. I’m living the right life, they aren’t.”

The yes on 8 campaign was very intelligent. They knew the strengths / weaknesses of Californians and played right into them. Sure, they used the morality argument, but the campaign was mostly about protecting children and family. They also asserted (very wrongly of course) that this was a matter of religious freedom and freedom of speech. Somehow they convinced people that churches who chose not to perform gay marriages (I really hate that term) would lose their non-profit status.

So am I surprised that Prop 8 passed? Not in the least. Saddened, yes, but not surprised.

California leans Democrat, but from what I've seen that's only because of white guilt about helping out "the less-fortunate" combined with a rather ethnically diverse population that supports social programs. There's also the "green" factor.

On the other hand, we now have a President-elect who made a point of including sexuality diversity in his victory speech. While it was far from perfect, it is now out there explicitly.

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:53:32 GMT

"It's 'femicide,' " Ensler says, using another word to describe the treatment of Congolese women. "It's the systematic destruction of women. It's an economic war fought on the bodies of women. It's the destruction of the Congolese people and life itself."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/10/15/congo.women/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Insanity, thy name is politics

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:51:12 GMT

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/mccain-camp-releases-ad-claiming-debate-victory/

In brief:
"The Washington Post reported Friday that the campaign was running an online ad featuring the headline: 'McCain Wins Debate!' and a photo of a smiling McCain and an American flag background. Another featured a quote from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis: 'McCain won the debate — hands down.'"

This from the guy who said he didn't want to debate.

For all the music geeks

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:43:13 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7623663.stm

"A previously unknown piece of music by Mozart has been discovered at a library in western France.
...
"His handwriting is absolutely clearly identifiable," he added. "There's no doubt that this is an original piece handwritten by Mozart." "

Oh wow. This makes me want to re-learn the piano just so I could play it.

QOTD

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:31:14 GMT

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
- John Adams

must read

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:02:53 GMT

I listened to part of Fresh Air on the way home today. This guy had some very interesting notions:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94385403&ft=1&f=13

For example, did you know that because of the Reagan era's energy "policies", the innovative solar and wind power companies that were started right here in the US with US dollars (including our own tax dollars) went bust. They were bought up by companies in Japan and Denmark and are now market leaders.

Also, did you know that there is a direct inverse relation between levels of freedom/democracy vs oil prices? That the "real" reason the Soviet Union went bust was because of oil prices?

Thomas Friedman. Book is Hot, Flat and Crowded. He is quite passionate, but also very pragmatic in his approach and his ideas.

I think this is a must read.

speechless

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:09:49 GMT

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/27/lesbian.activist.dies/index.html

"Lesbian activist Del Martin, at the forefront of the battle for same-sex marriage in California, died Wednesday in San Francisco. She was 87."

From Phyllis Lyon:
"I am devastated, but I take some solace in knowing we were able to enjoy the ultimate rite of love and commitment before she passed."

Rest in Peace.

I've not been living under a rock...

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:59:08 GMT

So why is this the first I've heard of this - and only as a link on a totally unrelated blog I read?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1825801,00.html

"Today Congress is holding its first hearing in 15 years on the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy barring bisexuals, gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The hearings, called by a House Armed Services subcommittee, are likely to be more notable for the fact that they are being held at all rather than anything of substance they may produce..."

on the bandwagon

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:03:33 GMT

Create your own family sticker graphic at pYzam.com