Anti-War Protesters Rally In Federal Plaza
Expiration Date: An interview with Undateable’s Anne Coyle
Review: Revolution Brewing
Where Are You Going? Hyde Park Mural Asks Big Questions
Bookstores We Love: The Book Cellar
Last week, we mentioned ex-model Jeanette Sliwinski, who killed three local musicians in a suicide attempt car crash, was set to be released. Today, her day of freedom has arrived as the Morton Grove woman was released from the Lincoln Correctional Center this morning. While we do have some sympathy for the mental illness that Sliwinski suffers from, to say that the time she served for killing three people is just a slap on the wrist is still a gross understatement. While Sliwinski spent a little over two years in jail awaiting trial, she ultimately served only 10 months of her four year sentence. Michael Mette, the Chicago Police officer who was arrested in Iowa on assault charges and is now free, received a longer sentence for punching a guy in the face. Michael Dahlquest, John Glick, and Douglas Meis are not coming back and someone should have to answer for this. But we guess it won't be the person who killed them.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Please help!
http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/rnr/1651849242.html
[more]
Fuck her. I'm bipolar too, doesn't mean I ever killed anyone.
That didn't deserve it, at least.
Um, So she ended up serving almost three years of a four year sentence? Yeah, that is totally unreasonable.
She has a mental illness, which means she didn't fully understand the nature and consequences of her crime. What good would it do to punish her?
Isn't it slightly cruel to punish someone for a crime they don't understand? And what purpose does it serve in society?
Perhaps she'll finally receive treatment for her disorder now that she's out of jail.
People died, I know that, but jail is not going to 'correct' her.
Let's see if she gets the help she needs.
I saw the episode of Snapped about this case -- very difficult to watch. She was going over 90 MPH when she hit those guys.
Um, So she ended up serving almost three years of a four year sentence? Yeah, that is totally unreasonable.
Um, if you bothered to read the article, it says right in the first sentence that she served less than a year of an eight year sentence.
Um, if you bothered to read the article, it says right in the first sentence that she served less than a year of an eight year sentence.
Um, if you had bothered to read beyond the first sentence of the article, you would see that she was credited with over two years of time served. That's pretty standard stuff, slappy.
It cracks me up when they call this Bimbo an "ex-model."
I once dressed up as an astronaut. Does that make me an "ex-astronaut"?
Jennyblur and others of the same mind, the fact that she served her sentence to the letter of the law does not mean justice was actually served. She killed three people in an act that she knew would cause harm to herself and others. Do you honestly believe serving one year in jail for each life she took was just? Bullshit.
What really bothers me about this case is the fact that her defense attorneys claimed mental illness in order to get a more lenient sentence, but she is not required to undergo any sort of mental health care once her parole is up in a year. So she's well enough to reenter society but not well enough to receive a fair sentence for her crimes? The judge could've and should've put more restrictions on her parole.
I mean, maybe her family is awesome and supportive and they'll help her get the help she needs, but maybe they aren't, and she'll be just as fucked up as she was when she killed one of my friends.
Mental Illness? Please.
How you can see this woman as a victim of bad neurological wiring and give her the lightest of taps on her dainty little ex-model wrist and yet DEMAND that black kids on the west side who grow up with nothing, suffer unimaginable abuse and neglect, never see a therapist and end up committing some horrid act of violence upon a kid in the same boat gets thrown in jail forever and always. BULLSHIT.
There are millions of people with severe mental illness, with far fewer resources than this spoiled little girl had at her disposal, who would never commit an act of violence. They get care, they manage their illness and find support systems. At some point, you are responsible unto yourself, even if you are ill.
There are people in jail for decades for selling pot or stealing cars. This woman is a murderer. My only hope is the public scorn and shame drives her to finish the job she started three years ago. This time without any innocent bystanders.
It always amazes me what unforgiving and brutal hearts people have.
I can speak from personal experience (that I won't go into), but I will never understand this lynch mob mentality. I wonder how many of you call yourselves Christians? (I don't, but I wonder how many of you do).
She got into her car that day with the intention of killing herself, not 3 other people. And you all act like she's going to hop out of prison with her party hat on.
Sure, Albany...there are people in jail now for having marijuana or stealing tires, but there was that case not so long ago concerning a girl who was texting while driving and killed a man on his bike.
That is a much more insidious crime to me and this girl walked out of the courtroom with a slap on the wrist and not even 3 seconds in jail. I saw no public outrage over this. And this is something that happens all over the country, all day, every day.
I just don't have that kind of heart that says to throw a person who is mentally distressed in jail for years on end. And I can guarantee you that if it were my child or brother or husband or son she killed, I would feel the same way.
Ingrid: Yeah, it amazes me, too, what brutal hearts people have when while deciding to end to their own stupid and meaningless lives they opt to take other innocent people out with them.
Anyone who slams into a car full of people has chosen to kill other people, not just herself. How is her act any different than a terrorist driving a vehicle into a building? She wanted to destroy the world.
I really hope she spends every minute of the rest of her stupid life bettering the lives of others. And I too can guarantee you that if it were my brother or sister or parent who tried to kill innocent people, I would feel the same way.
She has a mental illness, which means she didn't fully understand the nature and consequences of her crime. What good would it do to punish her?
She was competent enough to earn a driver's license, competent enough to drive a car, competant enough to know that crashing that car into another object might do the trick.
Unfortunately, she chose to crash that car into another car with other humans inside.
How you can see this woman as a victim of bad neurological wiring and give her the lightest of taps on her dainty little ex-model wrist and yet DEMAND that black kids on the west side who grow up with nothing, suffer unimaginable abuse and neglect, never see a therapist and end up committing some horrid act of violence upon a kid in the same boat gets thrown in jail forever and always. BULLSHIT.
Albany, just this week one of your poor misfortunate black kids who tried to kill a cop once before by shooting at him and has since been convicted of 2 burglaries killed a chicago police officer. For the previous attempted murder and 2 burglaries he did a grand total of 5 years. No one is getting thrown is jail forever on there first 2nd or third conviction. But it's a nice angle to try and make this racial. Try looking up the actual time served in ILL. for a murder, not the sentence the time served less than 10 years. Guess what in many instances crime does pay.
What would be just, tankboy? Capital punishment?
She served almost three years in jail and she has to live with the knowledge that she is responsible for the death of three innocent people. She wasn't out to kill other people... what good does it do to keep her in jail? It doesn't bring Michael Dahlquest, John Glick, and Douglas Meis back. Instead it burdens the state (the cost of locking her up) and she doesn't get to contribute to society and try to atone for what she's done.
I'm not saying it's just that she's being released... just that if you think the only form of acceptable "justice" or atonement for what she did is to sit in jail, I think you need to open your mind a little.
Just because she's out of jail does not mean this incident is put behind her. She still has to live every day, not only with her personal demons that drove her to attempt suicide, but with the knowledge that she killed three innocent people. Maybe *you* think that would be easy to put behind you and move on, but somehow,*I* don't think it's that cut and dried.
Dave,
I dont know if having to live with the crime you committed is going to be much of a detterance. That type of thinking means drew Peterson is facing enough punishment he has to wake up every day and live with himself. If thats true look for a lot more women filing for divorce to go missing.
Whenever a story like this breaks out, I can ALWAYS count on someone like Ingrid or JennyBlur to rush to defend the actions of some nutty bitch. For every offense a woman makes, there's usually an audience of other women willing to defend her (a stranger) no matter what.
P.S. Let's not forget what happened to Jennifer Stark after she killed Matthew Wilhelm. Is anybody really surprised at court rulings like this when the defendant is a young & skinny blond-haired woman?
Fed Up: I'm not claiming having to live with having committed a crime is always a deterrence. Certainly, in the case of a sociopath (think John Wayne Gacy, etc.) it's no deterrence at all.
We aren't talking about that. We're talking about a girl who was suicidal, went about it in fantastically stupid way, and in the process killed three people.
Completely different cases.
this is very difficult. i agree with the person who said that she should have strict terms on her probation which include mandated psychiatric care. it's shown that manic-depressives are the most likely to kill themselves -- we get really depressed, but we have the energy to do something about it when in a mixed episode.
however, i don't know what long-term jail time would do for her, either. this is a really difficult thing ... very gray.
After reading your comments on here, I didn't even know this episode of "Snapped" existed. I just found the link online if anyone wants to watch it. After watching the forensic animation, I think you may see things differently.
http://o2.oxygen.com/player/?id=284454
2 years after parole, she'll be eligible to receive a drivers license again. That to me is terrifying.
3 people are dead by her hands and although 2 years and 10 months in prison may be sufficient to some, it's in my opinion that she's not rehabilitated in the least. I hope she gets treatment so she doesn't do anything like this ever again.
P: I don't know if she's rehabilitated or not... I don't really think jail offers much in terms of "rehabilitation". Look at recidivism rates in this country... not very supportive of the idea that prison rehabilitates, but that's not really the issue here...
And who cares about the drivers license. Are you trying to say that if she were to snap and try to kill herself by motor vehicle again, she'd pause and say, "Well, I guess I won't since I don't have a license"??!
I *do* think that the court should have ordered more in the way of counseling and psych care for her. I suspect *that* would do a lot more towards rehabilitation than sitting in a jail cell. And I think she should have to do a whole lotta community service/outreach...
I am not defending her at all.
I think that this begs a lot of questions about the justice system in general and our ideas collectively about deterrence and rehabilitation versus retribution.
1) She is mentally ill. The fact that a court made that finding means that they are saying inherently that she does not understand the difference between right and wrong. You can't punish someone who doesn't understand the nature of their crime. What is the point?
2) Following that, because she is mentally ill, a million years in jail wouldn't rehabilitate her because arguably she is not sane enough to understand the link between her crime and the punishment.
3) If you have a problem with the lack of oversight, or terms of her probation, take it up with the legislature. This is not the judge's fault. Start writing letters people.
This is a systematic problem that is being graphically and unfortunately illustrated in a single case that gets people's emotions boiling.
@Ingrid:
I wonder how many of you call yourselves Christians? (I don't, but I wonder how many of you do).
Ah, I see. Because someone who is a Christian should accept that a murderer can go free after serving a joke of a sentence? Illuminate me with your knowledge of Theology? Do you draw on Aquinas? Do you seek a city of God and a perfection of the spirit?
Or are you simply trying to call people hypocrites to bolster your weak and broken argument for mercy?
I'd have ample pity for her, if she pled guilty and spent the rest of her life making amends. She murdered three young men, fathers, brothers and sons. Men who had deep connections to this community, men with promise who you'd have to work hard to find a bad word about from what I've seen and heard. But even if she murdered the meth-head dumpster diver down the alley, it's human lives ended because of her selfishness.
Forgiveness? That's not mine to give. She's 26, she's quite young a perhaps she can atone for what she's done. But her track record thus far ain't great.
For the record, I'm not a Christian. I don't support the death penalty. But if you murder someone you spend the rest of your life away from society. You've stolen something precious that cannot be replaced. She did it three times.
First
I'm going to ignore what Albany Park said, not because its wrong, but because I don't want to deal with the truth of some of it at this point. See even when I'm inconsistent, I'm honest about it.
Second Tank Boy should be given a butcher knife and allowed to go at her with with a group of Chicagoist whom he selects. Then he would not be so angry about this. The only thing he actually gets angry about except when a suburbanite at the Burlington asked for his autograph mistaking him for a member of Ah-Ha.
Happy Hunting, Hi and low Tank Boy
Point of information:
She did not actually murder anyone. She was convicted of reckless homicide. The word "murder" carries with it the idea of intent. Clearly here there was no intent to kill, which is why her sentence was so light.
And I think Ingrid's point was more to like, the Christian idea od forgiveness and mercy. Like, "turn the other cheek" or whatever. Which is certainly not happening on this board.
I feel terribly sorry for all parties involved in this situation.
She did not actually murder anyone. She was convicted of reckless homicide. The word "murder" carries with it the idea of intent. Clearly here there was no intent to kill, which is why her sentence was so light.
Spav1 does a marvelous job of reminding us why the bard called out "First, kill all the lawyers."
Equivocation is the road to damnation Spav1, just remember that.
Like, "turn the other cheek" or whatever. Which is certainly not happening on this board.
Likely because this murderer, oh, I'm sorry, "accidental manslaughterer", already had her cup of forgiveness and then some. Save your mercy for those who warrant it.
I feel terribly sorry for all parties involved in this situation.
For me, and the sensible amongst us, that does not extend to some drug-addled ex-model with clever lawyers and plenty of money to pay for them. Your heart is bleeding all the blood from your brain.
Dave! No, I don't support capitol punishment, but I do support a much longer jail time for people that take the lives of others as a direct result of their intended actions.
Spook "Take On Me" rules.
Fed up: I'm sure Albany Park is not referring to POS trash with a history of mayhem and shooting people; he's referring to the teens and young adults of color living in the city who get much harsher penalties for first time offenses rather than the probation and lighter sentences that their White Surburban counterparts get for committing the same crimes.
Getting back on topic now:
There are mentally ill people that every day get up, take medication and live their lives. There are people who get up in the morning depressed as hell. Some of those people live through the day to see better times, while others decide to sadly take their lives. What all of these people have in common is that whatever they choose to do they do without oh, let's see...MURDERING PEOPLE WITH A MOTOR VEHICLE. This is an insult to bipolar individuals everywhere. There's already a great stigma against people suffering from mental illness, and cases like this make things worse.
I seriously doubt that this woman is mentally ill; otherwise there would have been some sort of treatment while she was behind bars and it would have been made a condition of her parole. This smells of fuckery that her team of expensive lawyers cooked up.
She is mentally ill. The fact that a court made that finding means that they are saying inherently that she does not understand the difference between right and wrong. You can't punish someone who doesn't understand the nature of their crime. What is the point?
There's no one size fits all solution for horrors like this. In 2003, a sociopathic thug shot and killed a friend of mine for no reason. The killer was smiling when he pulled the trigger. I have no doubt that he's mentally ill and doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong.
Sliminski shouldn't be in prison with robbers and violent criminals but she should be in a mental health facility, removed from society.
Whether your a sociopathic home-grown inner-city terrorist or a troubled vehicular homicide killer, our society needs to step up and value our innocent lives enough to protect us from you. Right now, our criminal justice system also badly struggles to perform as a mental health system. It doesn't work, and sooner or later, they all end up back on the street on a corner (or driving down a street) near you.
After my friend got killed, I went to a few survivors support group meetings. I stopped going because it made me angrier. One woman was very kind and religious, and she was really struggling with trying to "forgive" the person who'd gone on a killing spree and murdered her son. Her priest told her she was obligated to forgive him, which for me goes against the entire theology of forGIVEness. Another guy's wife was killed by a drunk driver who fled the scene and only got caught because he was injured and ended up in the same hospital as the victim -- he got time served (less than a year) because he was young and "had a future."
Spav1 does a marvelous job of reminding us why the bard called out "First, kill all the lawyers."
While I share your disdain for lawyers, there is ample philosophical and ethical differences between murder and reckless homicide (and, for that matter, manslaughter). Don't believe me. Read one of those books you are always talking about.
Let's be honest, too: The level of outrage over this case on this blog is more than normally seen for other dim acts in Chicago. I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the victims were musicians who likely looked, acted and talked like many of the posters and writers on this board. Not saying that is wrong, only pointing out reality. Let's not act like some of us are suddenly hard-hearted when it comes to criminals and sentences that are far too short.
Plus, matilda, a number of us actually knew the victims so it's hard for us to distance ourselves. It's one reason I ceased writing about the murder on the site ... it was impossible for me to be objective about the whole thing.
Tank Boy I have no clue what you're talking about or the "things that you sayyyyy". Because I only listen to real hip hop. To admit listening to any thing else( except of R&B songs in which is sampled) would ruin my reputation
p.s. hummmm look what it takes to get folks talking about mental illness of which 20 million people( that we know of) have in America.
Maybe we could move next to funding, although we won't be able to afoard any new funds after we keep bankers safe, warm and dry in thier mansions with our 700 billion public aid check
Actually, spook, while i got nothing but love for a fellow new orleanian, i need to point out that in that really weird washington way, the 700 billion bailout plan is attached to a bill that actually addresses mental health issues. my brain is too tired right now to explain it but i'm sure someone else can.
Let's not act like some of us are suddenly hard-hearted when it comes to criminals and sentences that are far too short.
I didn't know them, but I know those who did and they're simply gob-smacked. A guy at my job is a musician and he was screaming about this over lunch.
Violent criminals who come from privileged backgrounds and have ample opportunity prior to their offense to get help or seek another path? Yeah, that's always going to illicit the "Fuck off." response from me.
This is a case where the punishment was infinitesimal compared to the crime. Going beyond it being some nice white people who had their lives cut short, it's offensive to anyone with a sense of justice.
All the letter of the law, that's the system people just don't get it. This woman is walking free after killing three people after serving a joke of a sentence and getting some 'counseling'. If that doesn't make you ill you've made a religion of the law.
She didn't mean to kill them...so I don't really think that it is that "unjust" a sentence...for what is basically an accident.
I hope that none of you punch someone in the chest who has a heart condition unbeknownst to you. You will most certainly be singing a different tune then.
Sorry for the double post, but it is nothing compared to what Albany usually spews out...
This woman is hardly a violent criminal. There is a difference between making a legitimate point and climbling onto a pulpit and screaming as loud as you can.
Albany,
You're acting like her life as a free woman is something to be envied. Like she is now free to run through the daisies, get rich and feast on caviar forever.
I don't think that anyone envies her. She has to live with this personal hell. And yeah...I know...you'd prefer she'd live it behind bars. Would that make you happy?
Eye for an eye, eh?
Even Steven.
Tit for tat.
So, in your world...if she had purposely set out to kill herself AND the three other men...what should her punishment be?
Should it be worse than life behind bars or equal to it?
How about hanging her up by her toes and peeling the skin off her body til the ants eat the exposed muscle and sinew away?
What she did was the equivalent of jumping off a 30 story building onto a crowd of people. There are murderers in prison who made the wrong choices in life, got involved in drugs and gangs, and in moments of stupidity and bravado made irreversible mistakes that haunt them ... they scare me less than this woman does.
So that we're at least *somewhat* mindful of tossing these terms around...here's some clarification. I do think it matters that we use them correctly.
There are 3 classes of Homocide:
1. Justifiable
2. Excusable
3. Criminal
Murder is a Criminal Homocide. In order to meet a case for murder, you have to show malice aforethought.
Malice aforethought can be reached by reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life - in which case, the malice is considered 'implied'.
Then we use the term reckless homocide.
Now, unless I'm missing something...that's also murder. It's just reached through a different class of malice aforethought (most people think you must have intent to kill to get to Murder - that's not the case).
Regarding this:
"She is mentally ill. The fact that a court made that finding means that they are saying inherently that she does not understand the difference between right and wrong."
That may not be the case - you're talking specifically about the M'Naghten Rule which says that the defendant, at the time of his action, did not have the ability to kow the wrongfulness of his action or to understand the nature and quality of his action. That test is usually applied when one tries to use the insanity test. I'm not sure she claimed insanity so I'm not sure we can say this is the test and definition they used. There's also Irresistible Impulse, the Durham Test (which says that the crime wouldn't have been committed but for the mental disease), etc. I think there's also an ALI test. The point is - let's not assume that the court must have meant something about the defendant simply because they think she was mentally ill (if, in fact, the court thought this).
Finally...the quote from the bard is taken out of context.
If you re-read Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene 2 - you'll see that Shakespeare was paying homage to attorneys and was not speaking pejoratively against them.
The person who says it (Dick the Butcher) is leading an "army of rabble" and is "a demagogue pandering to the ignorant" - and so he says his first step is to kill all the lawyers who might stand in his way of becoming a tyrant because lawyers are defenders or freedom.
Thank you and goodnight.
-L.
Um, L-
Thanks but no thanks. For the court to find her mentally ill, they would have applied one of these rules you so thoughtfully explain. They just can't say "Hey, you know, we think she didn't understand the nature and consequences of her actions". For the court to say that she is mentally ill, it means that LEGALLY they believe she didn't understand the nature between right and wrong.
And if the court didn't make that finding, and it was just used as a mitigating circumstance, then still the crime that she was convicted of suggests that there was no intent and so in this case, still, the punishment was just.
Yeah, I use wikipedia too.
I hope that none of you punch someone in the chest who has a heart condition unbeknownst to you. You will most certainly be singing a different tune then.
Spav1: You're made of FAIL here. Punching someone with a heart condition is comparable to plowing into a car going 90mph? You're a defense lawyer's dream.
You're acting like her life as a free woman is something to be envied. Like she is now free to run through the daisies, get rich and feast on caviar forever.
No, but she's alive. Period. She can move far away from here once her parole is over, and build a whole new life.
I don't think that anyone envies her. She has to live with this personal hell. And yeah...I know...you'd prefer she'd live it behind bars. Would that make you happy?
Not happy, there's no HAPPY here for anyone. But damn if it isn't JUST that she lose her freedom for a good long spell, maybe the rest of her days.
Eye for an eye, eh?
Even Steven.
Tit for tat.
No, I don't support the death penalty in the slightest.
So, in your world...if she had purposely set out to kill herself AND the three other men...what should her punishment be?
Should it be worse than life behind bars or equal to it?
Life in jail. Can you think of a worse fate?
How about hanging her up by her toes and peeling the skin off her body til the ants eat the exposed muscle and sinew away?
Oh please. There's a huge difference between a lengthy prison sentence and being torture.
Well, if we're gonna get technical about it, L and Jennyblur...
Illinois follows the Model Penal Code definition of "insanity" which generally states that a person isn't responsible for their criminal conduct, if AT THE TIME OF THE CONDUCT they lack the capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct OR TO CONFORM THEIR CONDUCT to the law, DUE to mental disease or defect. Also, in Illinois, you can be found *guilty* but mentally ill, which has bearing on sentencing.
So someone like Sliwinski, if they are overcome with suicidal impulses due to being bi-polar *could* have a legitimate defense. The burden gets placed on her... And if you look at the definition used in Illinois, you can still *know* the difference between right and wrong, but if you can't control your actions, that's a measure of mental illness as well.
And no, I'm not a lawyer... yet. But not all lawyers are bad, just like not all doctors are good. Some lawyers are even musicians, care about the Chicago scene, and think events like this one are tragic all around. But don't think sending a suicidal bi-polar woman to prison for life really accomplishes anything except revenge. And if that's what you're after, fine. But if you want to see _rehabilitation_ or _redemption_ then you need to start looking beyond the bars.
Albany,
I don't think that either Jennyblur or I are defending her.
What she did was appalling. But I fail to see how life behind bars, in a situation like this, is going to give anyone any justice.
The only purpose I see in a life sentence for her is that it would somehow make your life complete.
Not everything is black and white.
JennyBlur - I don't think we actually disagree and so I don't believe we are arguing each other and thus, I don't understand why you would respond defensively. Frankly, I think you are correct in that more jail time won't help a person whose criminal act was brought about by mental illness.
I didn't say that the court found her mentally ill because, frankly, I don't know that they did. That's why I said:
"...let's not assume that the court must have meant something about the defendant simply because they think she was mentally ill (if, in fact, the court thought this)."
Emphasis mine.
My point was only to say that we should not assume that if a court finds someone mentally ill, they've applied the M'Naghten test. Which, I believe was implied in your comment: "She is mentally ill. The fact that a court made that finding means that they are saying inherently that she does not understand the difference between right and wrong."
I hope my point is more clear. I don't offer any of it as an argument for whether or not her sentence was just.
I have to say, I think you have a keen mind but your comment was defensive when you really don't have to defend yourself because I'm not attacking you. We're not on opposite sides of a fence here and I don't disrespect your knowledge or your expression of your opinion. My comment wasn't in some attempt to "put you in your place" but your comment (especially the wikipedia one) seems to attempt to do that to me.
I think, honestly, we rather agree on this topic and I have no beef with you. This kind of back and forth is interesting and good and as long as we're respectful, I think we could both learn a lot.
I did not use wikipedia, actually. I went back and looked at my barbri materials on criminal law to make sure that I was correct in my understanding of reckless homicide and that took me down the path of mental illness and tests for insanity.
Hell, JennyBlur, like I said, I've got no beef with you - I'd buy you a beer and have fun hashing it out with you. It's always good to have an in-depth, well informed conversation with someone who likes to bat it around.
Best,
-L.
Excellent comment, Dave!
And to clarify - I was not stating what the Illinois test is (as I'm not sure as I don't practice criminal law) but only stating that I thought the assumption in JennyBlur's comment was not correct because it assumed which test the court applied and that varies from state to state.
And I'm one of those lawyers who thinks this whole thing is tragic all around.
I dig the comment, Dave.
-L.
Marc G.
Actually that's the Tax plan added on to pass the Corp Wellfare Bill, I don't consider them the same because they should stand alone instead of holding tax benifits to poor and working people and mental health funding hostages to welfare to the mega rich
p.s is Jenny Blur Spav1! Ha! a new identity! I should have known!
Anyone who drives a car 90 mph down the street knows that they are going to take some innocent people down with them.
If she was so hell bent on just killing herself, she should have floored it into a brick wall of an abandoned building or off of a bridge.
Finally...the quote from the bard is taken out of context.
Ah good eye, every person I know in the legal profession (bastards all, but loveable) loves that to put that quote in it's proper perspective.
Though I tend to like it in spite of the context, being something of a fan of Jack Cade and his inspired little tantrum during Henry IV's reign.
Albanyparkour - Just taught me something new. :) I had to look up Jack Cade.
Long live us loveable bastards! ;)
-L.
Jack Cade, Guy Fawkes, William Wallace and Johnny Rotten, a long tradition of trouble-makers around the sceptered isle.
Well, William was from that barren wasteland to the north...
Thanks, L... just passed the July bar... waiting for the swearing in ceremony in Nov! :)
Dave! Congratulations! That's fantastic! Yeah, I remember finding out on...I think it was October 3rd in the year that I took the bar. Dude, that's awesome news. I still have my letter. heh.
Welcome, counselor.
-L.