Blog

I feel I have made some progress on this gender role thing.  Throughout I have openly stated that I would like to find a woman who will create a life with me.  This is way more dubious than I thought.  (“Dubious isn’t the right word, nor is “controversial.”)  I have always thought that women and men can do the same things, even be the same if they wanted to.  I still think this can happen but it is much more rare than I thought.  I have been wrong.  I have been hard-headed and stubborn.

I have met women who more or less fit this ideal of mine but for other, unrelated reasons it has not worked.  They had a strong desire to have a successful relationship and be with a man (me); they had a can-do attitude, as well as a desire to put other (perhaps less conventional things for a woman) first.  Perhaps I got hung-up on the wrong things.

For me the problem is that if I just put a normal profile out there I get all kinds of interest from a slew of women I am ambivalent about.  Usually I try and communicate and it doesn’t work.  I feel stress because we are at this tacit, ingrained impasse.  I don’t want to stereotype or denigrate but I feel they are average; I believe they can have more but they don’t see it.  They don’t have my ambition and they don’t get me; or, rather, they do but they just…  The status quo is okay.  It isn’t wrong it is just different:  They are happy with the kids (in the past; now grown and gone, yet still of course family), parents, ex, neighbors, etc. life that is not me.  I want to a) have a really close relationship and b) change the world.

I need to keep telling myself that.  It isn’t wrong it is just different.

There has to be a better way to market to it.

It has to start with personal responsibility.  Call it law, fiduciary responsibility, ethics, or just good management.  The people in charge are responsible.  This means responsibility for every person, action, and dollar.

Can these individuals avoid it legally?  Maybe, or likely even probably they can.  But can they avoid the wrath of public opinion or the political process to expel them?  This is a higher standard.

Top-notch CEOs and presidents sometimes say things like ‘the buck stops here’ and ‘there is no one to blame but me.’  Someone has to be in charge and in Jefferson County it is the board of commissioners.  The triumvirate is the CEO.

During the Rupert Murdoch phone hacking and bribery scandal James Murdoch found himself in a heap of trouble–he later resigned–because of specifics in the law.  People in charge have a responsibility to know.  You are guilty if you knew.  If you didn’t know and, by virtue of your position you should have known, you are guilty.

And of course every employee is responsible too.  It is not okay to say ‘I was simply following instructions.’  Illegal orders are illegal.  One of the first times this concept was invoked was during the Nuremberg trials following World War II:

“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

 

This is it, an attack against dissidents, dissidents who want safety, crime-free neighborhoods, and an end to local government waste (and corruption).

Syrian (alleged) chemical weapons attacks…  THE POST and THE TIMES.

The Syrian president simply cannot deal with opposition.  It is the reaction that gets you in trouble.

 

This is the first time I have bought something of this magnitude on eBay.  They have become so much better with their guarantees and reigning in unscrupulous–or just error-prone– sellers that I decided to do it.  Plus, there was six months to pay (interest free) and $10 off through their financing arm.

Still, it is weird.  I don’t know the sellers name, phone number, or e-mail address.  Computer configurations vary.  The description didn’t mention an HDMI port but it seems all the ones sold in the U.S. have it.  We’ll see about that, and other things.

It is an Acer Aspire X1700.  Acer, a Taiwanese company, owns the Gateway and eMachines brands; eMachines has been discontinued.  Each of these brands includes models that are relatively inexpensive, small (SFF), have large hard drives, and have HDMI out.  There is a new buzz-acronym “HTPC”–home theater PC, and that is what I want if for.  This one is used, aka, “refurbished.”

There are things I still don’t know, including:

1. The desktop’s condition (e.g., scratches)?
2. Is a keyboard and/or mouse included?
3. Does HDMI work (apparently, at worst, there is some set-up involved, per my research)?
4. is Vista still there, perhaps partitioned?
5. Is there a product key for Win 7?
6. Where exactly is the WIFI and how does the extendable antenna work?
7. Is the hard drive really 320 gb (most seem to be 640)?
8. What exactly will Roxio do?
9. Are any cables included?
10. Is it in original packaging?
11. What about manual(s)?
12. I found two different dimensions for the desktop computer, which will it be?  (I am hoping 3.9″ x 10.4 x 12.4.)
13. The “ad” says “seller refurbished.”  How capable is the seller at this?  What exactly was done to it?

Shipping was prompt and supposedly it will be here tomorrow.  Most important, is it bug-free and will it work?

 

BURT WOLF:
“When the war ended the city was chosen as the site of the War Crimes Tribunal. Their
work became know as the Nuremberg Trails. Leading Nazi war criminals were tried for
conspiracy and crimes against world peace, the rules of warfare, and humanity. The trials
became a milestone in judicial history as the birthplace for a new law of nations: For the first
time in history, sentences were pronounced according to the principle of personal
responsibility on the part of the individual. It was the end of “But I was only following
orders”.

(From Nuremburg to Linz, 2012)

“The great goal of Nuremberg was the amplification and clarification of international criminal law, to strengthen the foundations for world peace and order for the future. I believe the major legal significance of the Nuremberg trials lies in those portions of the opinions, which deal with the area of personal responsibility for international law crimes. The Nuremberg Tribunals, themselves international, applied international penal law to international crimes.”  (Link)

From Wiki:

Principle IV states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.

This principle could be paraphrased as follows: “It is not an acceptable excuse to say ‘I was just following my superior’s orders’”.

Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as “Superior Orders“. After the prominent, high profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as “Nuremberg Defense“. In recent times, a third term, “lawful orders” has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.

Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.

Other links:  legal dictionary; expanding the concept of personal responsibility.

This morning I spent over a half hour speaking with Rafael and “Mr. Bernard Olsen” (boss/manager; unsure of exact name).

Later today I sent this:

Hello,

RE the above-referenced order…  Once again I spoke with several people at TigerDirect this morning and got nowhere.  Trying to sell me a different, grossly inferior product (used, with no HDMI port!) instead was particularly disturbing.  This problem is not due to a “typo.”

Yesterday “Angel” (#492014) assured my the product would be “brand new” and I would receive a shipping update.  This was after he verified the purchase.

I have spent significant time following-up on this purchase and informing TigerDirect personnel of the potential web problems, all with no recognition or thanks at all.  Most upsetting of all is that no one took the time to research the situation and provide a solution.  The web pages and my account information still have not been corrected.

Today I am writing Google Trusted Stores regarding my efforts and failures associated with this purchase.

I suggest the following as a solution.  Assuming the product I ordered cannot be obtained and shipped, I suggest TigerDirect provide me with an appropriate gift card so that I may shop for a suitable replacement.  This will also provide an opportunity for TigerDirect to win back my business.

I hope someone will call me as soon as possible.

Peter Pfeiffer
Evergreen, CO
xxx/xxx-xxxx

————————————

This past Sunday I ordered this laptop computer.

The webpage said “usually ships within 48 hours.”  My first concern came when I checked the TigerDirect order status and it said “please allow 7-10 business days” for shipping.  Monday after the order I called TigerDirect to ask when, and from where/whom it would be shipped.  The account information only said “third party” vendor/warehouse.  After two attempts and long hold times “Angel” told me he would check into it and I would receive an e-mail within “24 to 48 hours.”  I told him I had concerns with the product–I thought, based on web searches, that it might be a discontinued model; one concern was that it would have an old/poor battery.  I even said I wasn’t sure “if it even exists.”  Angel assured me it was real, would be “brand new,” and would ship directly from the third party.

The TigerDirect website now said “Currently Out Of Stock!” and the price (approximately $146.-) was removed.  The complete description of the laptop computer remained on the site.

Further research made me even more concerned.  I searched the model numbers contained in the product description.  There was evidence that the computer–despite the detailed description–may not be a computer at all.  The Lenovo model number seems to correspond with an extended/on-site service agreement.

This (Tuesday) morning I called TigerDirect again.  I spoke with “Raphael” who would not connect me with a supervisor/manager per my request.  I recounted the whole story and was put on hold three or four times.  I asked again for a manager and Bernard Olsen (don’t know exact name) came on the line briefly; I asked for a suitable/similar replacement if the item I ordered is unavailable.  He suggested a used HP laptop with grossly inferior specs and immediately connected me with Raphael again.  Raphael asked me for a credit card number.  Of course I said “No.”

I told Raphael that I have seen numerous computers on the TigerDirect website that may indeed be service plans and are unavailable.  He said something about over 500,000 products and blamed incorrect information on suppliers.  I received no thanks whatsoever for helping the company with this huge problem affecting me and others.  I repeated:  please do some research and recommend a suitable replacement; I was put on hold again.  I ended the call.  I have not heard from anyone.

This really upsets me.  I have spent major parts of two days on it.  I have nothing at all to show for it.

I recognize that TigerDirect “terms and conditions” absolve liability for “typos.”  This is not a typo.  Further, the terms allow the company to cancel an order at “any time” for “any reason.”  But the company also claims to review all orders thoroughly; this was not done (I was sent confirmation).  This confirmation was repeated by Angel the next day.  With Raphael I had to start over (again) and explain the multiple errors TigerDirect (personnel) had made.  Yes, they may cancel, but is that a trusted store?

I believe this Google program is supposed to require the prompt shipping of the item as ordered.  And the service I have received in attempting to obtain that has been deficient.

 

crs 30-10-506

“sheriffs responsible for the official acts of their deputies and undersheriffs.”

Interesting:  statute was amended in 2006.  Responsibility of sheriff all behavior not changed; purpose was to limit sheriff’s right to fire without some due process.  More.

Policy and procedures documents for Colorado sheriffs.  Jeffco has none publicly available.

To Casey Tighe, Jefferson County Commissioner via e-mail:

The issues I see and experience in my neighborhood with the Jefferson County sheriff’s department could hardly be more serious. Today I am asking the FBI to investigate color of law abuses and I will additionally contact my U.S. attorney and the DOJ if necessary.  Evidence/allegations include fabricated evidence, false arrest, no/extremely adversarial complaint process, lack of proper supervision/monitoring, lack of/improper training, failure to protect/provide safety, repeated threats, name calling, personal visits, unsolicited/unwanted calls and e-mail, illegal search, suppression of legal rights (e.g., access to property), systematic failure to respond to crime reports, and falsified public records. Efforts to have the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office investigate have been unsuccessful and some of these allegations may apply to that department as well.  I strongly request that the Commission/county investigate so that these matters may be handled “in house” and…

1. fabricated evidence;
2. suppression of evidence;
3. false arrest;
4. no/extremely adversarial complaint process;
5. lack of proper supervision/monitoring;
6. lack of/improper training;
7. failure to protect/provide safety (more generally:  neighborhood law enforcement);
8. repeated threats, name calling, personal visits, unsolicited/unwanted calls and e-mail;
9. (suspicious search and confiscation methods);
10. suppression of legal rights (e.g., access to property);
11. systematic failure to respond to crime reports;
12. falsified public records;
13. Interference with U.S. Postal Service operations;
14. obstructing legal/civil actions;
15. repeated/systemic failure to identify themselves;
16. interference with First Amendment/right to petition;
17. failure to respect citizens’ right to report crime.

‘I am interpreting a law how I want and you are accused.’  This could even include ‘making up’ a law.  The inverse or opposite is also true:  ‘I say this law doesn’t mean that therefore it is not illegal.’  This second or inverse application results in a lack of protection or a harm to society.  Law enforcement and other public employees cannot do this.  People’s rights are violated as a result.  This is what is known as a “color of law” violation.

It does not matter whether it is individual or organizational.  Individuals can’t do it.  Organizations have a responsibility to stop it.  Obviously, organizations cannot support it or create a culture that allows it.

The FBI website provides information to help understand the organizational aspects these civil rights violations.  The individual violations are related-to, caused-by, or explicitly or tacitly supported by top officials within the organization.  This is where things like training, supervision, and complaint procedures come into play.

I strongly believe that the systemic, long-term implicates the organizations top executive, sheriff Ted Mink.  Specific communications directed-to and ignored by him support this conclusion.

In this case the examples–they are many, with multiple,  specific pieces of evidence to support each one–are based on my personal experience.  This must not be reason to discount the extreme severity of the abuses.  There are virtually no government-supported avenues for others to come forward:  the local district attorney and attorney general have refused to even look into it and Colorado has no state police.  Information provided to the sheriff’s department is, in reality, used to suppress the abuses; there is absolutely no public, accessible disclosure forum.

 

 

 

1. Where to Start?
2. Knowingly Poisoned
3. Tarbell and Rockefeller
4. The Basics in Colorado
5. Ted Mink I
6. Ted Mink II
7. The List
8. EPRD
9. Local Journalism
10. The County
11. Stats
12. Planning and Zoning
13. Ed Renals
14. Extreme Secrecy
15. Pics
16. Politics and Elections
17. Don’ts; Lessons Learned
18. Selective Enforcement
19. Civil Rights

Following are the facts of the case.

For over two years the neighbor behind me has disturbed me by shining lights into my home and lighting up large portions of my backyard.  Oral requests and numerous letters have been ignored.  Given the impasse, on several occasions the local police department has been called.  The behavior has persisted.

Employees of the police department have refused to explain, in writing or otherwise, why they will not correct the abuse.

On approximately two dozen occasions employees of this same police department have harassed me for reporting crimes.  This harassment has included coming to my home for no legitimate reason; outrageous–always oral–allegations of alleged crimes committed by me; name calling; unsolicited calls; and caller-ID blocked calls.  Several internal affairs complaints by me have been ignored.  E-mails and letters to Sheriff Ted Mink have been ignored (i.e., not responded-to).

 

These are the implications and conclusions based on the case.