And I don’t mind the picture. Seriously. I don’t always link to him when I’m referring to him, but Meatbrain is here. I have had an ongoing war with that guy because he seems to devote his entire blogging existence to harrassing the members of the Wide Awakes; using Media Matters and related leftist websites as the sources to attack. He hasn’t done it lately, but that could be because I’ve publicly posited the notion that he is in fact the openly socialist science fiction writer, Terry Bisson.
Some time ago when I was battling with Mike Whitney who then was the loser blogging as the Aggressive Progressive, I myself put up a picture like that.
Joe Cafasso has said in the past that I like to ‘ride the bull!’ So the Annie Oakley type of character is just fine by me.
Am I on a crusade to ’save Larry Sinclair’s life’? I suppose you could think of it that way, when considering he’s facing a life sentence in Delaware for charges that have not been explained to him, fitting under the category of Delaware’s “Habitual Offender Code”. One has to ask questions about things, and look a little deeper, but you don’t have to look too deep to see that Sinclair has been facing a tremendous amount of ever-changing criticism by people who hide under rocks and behind threats and intimidation. I don’t know how else to describe the emails from “Phil” and “Excaliber” who wanted him to give them information with the vague promise that they would pay for his legal defense and give him a generous monthly stipend.
Since as far as I can tell, they succeeded in getting his social security benefits terminated because of malicious lies they sent to the social security administration, I suppose they thought he would think the offer might be worth the risk.
But he didn’t think he should place his life in the hands of people who wouldn’t identify themselves.
Would you?
Not to mention the fact that what they’re offering is ILLEGAL since his income was and will soon be again, social security disability. And isn’t what they’re offering a bribe and illegal regardless as to what his situation is? Quid pro quo?
The more that comes out on this, the longer this goes on, and the longer this train builds up speed and momentum, you have to thank desperate deranged individuals like that who themselves seem to need some mental help, drugs and hospitalization to cope with what they’ve done.
It may come flying back at them; because everyone makes their own karma.
More on my battle with Mike Whitney here and here.
Battles like these help us understand the enemy and we’re better equipped to fight their stupidity.
I’ve read this over, and I’d like to see how Sinclair’s offenses apply to this in any way shape or form. From what I gather, the charges have already been proven false - the one of paying for a hotel room with money orders (which didn’t happen), and something about a car (which also didn’t happen).
If the charges were invented, or if they’ve borrowed charges against someone else with a similar name or the same name, then he should have the opportunity to - at the very least - defend himself. What are the rules of a sealed grand jury?
I hope the grand jury is allowed to hear both sides of this thing; up until this point, Sinclair doesn’t even know what the charges are. That is really odd.
RULE 9 WARRANT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INDICTMENT BY THE GRAND JURY ID #0712005646
The Grand Jury charges Lawrence W Sinclair with the following offense, a Felony:
THEFT, in violation of Title 11, Section 841 of the Delaware Code of 1974, as amended.
LAWRENCE W. SINCLAIR, on or about the 16th day of October, 2007, in the County of New Castle, State of Delaware, did take, exercise control over, or obtain property of ************************, or another person, consisting of United States Currency or other miscellaneous property valued at $1000.00 or more, intending to deprive that person and/or owner of same, or to appropriate same.
A TRUE BILL
(FOREPERSON)
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III
ATTORNEY GENERAL
According to the Delaware website for grand jury hearings, much of this falls on the State’s attorney general.
Matters may be brought to the grand jury’s attention in three ways: by the attorney general, by the court, or by a member of the grand jury. In all cases, the grand jury must hear evidence before taking action.
In this case, it was the Attorney General, if I’m not mistaken.
An indictment or information is merely an accusation and is not evidence or indication of guilt. At trial, the defendant is presumed innocent and may not be found guilty unless the State meets its burden of proving to the satisfaction of the petit jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well he hasn’t been ‘presumed innocent’, just go over and read at the Mitch and Nan Show - the people who are responsible for this.
All criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the State. The person charged with a violation of law is the defendant. The charge against the defendant may be brought in two ways: by indictment or by information.
An indictment is a grand jury’s formal written accusation charging one or more identified persons with the commission of a criminal offense. Each offense charged is stated in a separate count of the indictment.
To my knowledge, there has not been an indictment, and there has not been information…except for the malicious stuff put out there by the Mitch and Nan Show. Yet, they The Mitch and Nan Show claim to be the authorities on this; and individuals hiding behind fake names have claimed they have access to the information and even FBI files. This is ridiculous even on its face.
Upon entry of a plea of not guilty, the defendant must stand trial.
To my understanding, Sinclair has entered his ‘not guilty’ plea, so it should follow that whatever this is will go to trial.
But after reading this over, I don’t see how you can get a life sentence from being a ‘habitual offender’.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
III. GRAND JURY, INDICTMENT, INFORMATION > Rule 6.
Delaware Habitual Offender Code
§ 2802. “Habitual offender” defined.
An “habitual offender” shall be any person, resident or nonresident, whose driving record, as maintained in the office of the Division of Motor Vehicles, shows that such person has accumulated convictions for separate and distinct offenses described in subdivision (1) of this section during a 5-year period or subdivision (2) of this section during a 3-year period, provided, that where more than 1 included offense shall be committed within a 24-hour period, such multiple offenses shall be treated for the purposes of this chapter as 1 offense:
(1) Three or more convictions. — Three or more convictions, singularly or in combination of any of the following separate and distinct offenses arising out of separate acts:
a. Manslaughter resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle;
b. Using a motor vehicle during the commission of a felony;
c. Driving or having actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of any drug, in violation of § 4177 of this title;
d. Driving a motor vehicle without a license to do so, in violation of § 2701(a), (b) or (c) of this title. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the judge determines that the sole reason that an individual was convicted of a violation of § 2701(b) of this title was because the individual’s driver’s license was suspended, revoked or denied for a failure to pay a fine for a traffic offense which is eligible for voluntary assessment (whether or not the voluntary assessment procedure was offered or used), then that violation of § 2701(b) of this title may not be considered to establish habitual offense status pursuant to this paragraph of this subdivision;
e. Driving a motor vehicle during a period of suspension or revocation, in violation of § 2756 of this title;
f. Driving a motor vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, in violation of § 4175 of this title;
g. Failure of the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in apparent damage to property to stop at the scene of such accident and report the driver’s identity in violation of § 4201 of this title or otherwise report such accident, in violation of § 4203 of this title;
h. Failure of the driver of a motor vehicle involved in any accident resulting in injury or death to any person to stop at the scene of such accident and report the driver’s identity in violation of § 4202 of this title;
i. Knowingly making any false affidavit or swearing or affirming falsely to any manner or thing required by the motor vehicle laws or as to information required in the administration of such laws;
j. Attempting to flee or elude a police officer after having received a visual or audible signal from the police officer as provided in § 4103(b) of this title;
k. Driving any motor vehicle upon the highways of this State contrary to the restrictions placed upon an occupational license during the period of such occupational license as provided in § 2733(i) of this title.
(2) Ten or more convictions. — Ten or more convictions of separate and distinct offenses involving moving violations singularly or in combination, in the operation of a motor vehicle which are required to be reported to the Department and the commission whereof authorizes the Division or the court to suspend or revoke the privilege to operate motor vehicles on the highways of this State for a period of 30 days or more for each offense and such convictions shall include those offenses enumerated in subdivision (1) of this section when taken with and added to those offenses described.
(3) Inclusions. — The offenses included in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this section shall be deemed to include offenses under any federal law, any law of another state or any valid town, city or county ordinance of another state substantially conforming to a state statutory provision.
(4) Conviction. — For the purpose of this chapter, the term “conviction” shall mean a final conviction, a plea of guilty or a forfeiture of bail or collateral deposited to secure a defendant’s appearance in court, which forfeiture has not been vacated. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2802; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 61 Del. Laws, c. 285, § 1; 66 Del. Laws, c. 231, § 1; 69 Del. Laws, c. 390, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 74 Del. Laws, c. 134, § 1.)
§ 2803. Certification of record to Attorney General.
The Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles shall certify the conviction record, as maintained in the Division of Motor Vehicles, of any person whose record brings that person within the definition of an habitual offender, as defined in § 2802 of this title, to the Attorney General of the State. The certified conviction record or abstract may be admitted in evidence and shall be competent evidence that the person named therein was duly convicted of each offense enumerated therein. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2803; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 66 Del. Laws, c. 231, §§ 2, 3; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 2804. Attorney General to initiate court proceeding; petition.
The Attorney General, upon receiving the abstract from the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, shall forthwith file a petition against the person named therein in the Court of Common Pleas in and for the county wherein such person resides or, in the case of a nonresident, in the Court of Common Pleas in and for New Castle County. The petition shall request the Court to determine whether or not the person named therein is an habitual offender. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2804; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 66 Del. Laws, c. 231, § 4; 69 Del Laws, c. 333, § 5.)
§ 2805. Service of petition; order to show cause.
Upon the filing of the petition, the Court of Common Pleas shall enter an order incorporating by attachment the aforesaid abstract and direct the person named therein to appear at the next criminal session of the Court and show cause why the person should not be barred from operating or driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this State. A copy of the petition, the show cause order and the abstract shall be served upon the person named therein either by personal delivery thereof or by deposit of such in the United States mail in an envelope with postage prepaid, addressed to such person at that person’s address as shown by the records of the Division of Motor Vehicles. The service of the petition, order and abstract by mail is complete upon the expiration of 4 days after such deposit of those documents. Service thereof on any nonresident of this State may be made pursuant to § 3112 of Title 10, except that any fee for such service shall be taxed against the person named in the petition as a part of the cost of such proceeding. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2805; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 69 Del. Laws c. 333, § 6; 70 Del. Laws, c. 136, § 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 2806. Hearing; procedure.
The matter shall be heard by the Court without a jury. If such person denies that that person was convicted of any offense shown in the abstract necessary for a holding that that person is an habitual offender, and if the Court cannot, on the evidence available to it, determine the issue, the Court may require of the Department certified copies of such records respecting the matter as it may have in its possession. If, upon an examination of such records, the Court is still unable to make such determination it shall certify the decision of such issue to the Court in which such conviction was reportedly made. The Court to which such certification is made shall forthwith conduct a hearing to determine the issue and send a certified copy of its final order determining the issue to the Court of Common Pleas. The Court, at its discretion, may rely upon certified copies of convictions adjudged by courts outside of this State or federal courts or may request such a court to make a determination. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2806; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 69 Del. Laws, c. 333, § 7; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 2807. Court’s findings; judgment; Prothonotary to submit copy.
If the Court finds that the person is not the same person named in the abstract, or that the person is not an habitual offender under this chapter, the proceeding shall be dismissed. If the Court finds that the person is the same person named in the abstract and that the person is an habitual offender, the Court shall by appropriate judgment direct that such person not drive or operate a motor vehicle on the highways of this State and to surrender to the Court all licenses or permits to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this State. The Prothonotary shall forthwith transmit a copy of such judgment together with any licenses or permits surrendered to the Department. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2807; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 2808. Appeals.
An appeal may be taken from any final action or judgment entered under this chapter in the same manner and form as appeals in civil or criminal actions. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2808; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416.)
§ 2809. Prohibition against issuance of driver’s license or operation of motor vehicle; restoration of privilege.
No license to operate a motor vehicle in this State shall be issued to an habitual offender nor shall a nonresident habitual offender operate a motor vehicle in this State:
(1) For a period of 5 years from the date of the order of the Court finding such person to be an habitual offender as defined in § 2802(1) of this title and for a period of 3 years from the date of the order of the Court finding such person to be an habitual offender as defined in § 2802(2) of this title;
(2) Until such time as financial responsibility requirements are met; and
(3) Until, upon petition and for good cause shown, the Court, at its discretion, restores to such person the privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this State upon such terms and conditions as the Court may prescribe, subject to other provisions of law relating to the issuance of operators’ licenses.
(4) Unless the Attorney General moves the Court for restoration of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this State of any person declared to be an habitual offender as defined in § 2802(1) of this title after 3 years from the date of the order of the Court declaring the person to be a habitual offender. In the event of such a motion by the Attorney General, the Court may in its discretion restore the driving privileges of the person in whole or in part only if the person also meets the obligation set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this section. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2809; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 70 Del. Laws, c. 136, § 3.)
§ 2810. Driving after judgment prohibited; penalty; jurisdiction.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any motor vehicle in this State while the judgment of the court prohibiting the operation remains in effect. Any person found to be an habitual offender under this chapter who is thereafter convicted of operating a motor vehicle in this State while the judgment of the court prohibiting such operation is in effect shall for the 1st offense be fined not more than $1,150 and imprisoned not less than 90 days nor more than 30 months. For each subsequent like offense, be fined not more than $2,300 and imprisonment not less than 180 days nor more than 5 years. The periods of imprisonment required under this section shall not be subject to suspension and if the judgment of the court prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle was based in whole or in part upon a conviction of the person for a prior or previous driving under the influence-related conviction or offense as defined in § 4177B(e)(1)a.-d. of this title, or in whole or in part upon a conviction under any criminal statute pertaining to injury or death caused to another person by the person’s driving or operation of a vehicle, the period of imprisonment shall, notwithstanding any provision of this section or title to the contrary, be served subject to the provisions of § 4205(c)(2) [repealed] of this title. The Court of Common Pleas shall have original jurisdiction of violations created by this section.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, any offense, other than a felony, which is within the exclusive or original jurisdiction of another court and which may be joined properly with violations created by this section, shall be deemed to be within the original jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2810; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 69 Del. Laws, c. 333, § 8; 70 Del. Laws, c. 136, §§ 4, 5; 70 Del. Laws, c. 528, §§ 1, 2; 74 Del. Laws, c. 106, § 32.)
§ 2811. Determination by the Attorney General.
In any case in which a person is charged with driving a motor vehicle while that person’s license, permit or privilege to drive is suspended or revoked or is charged with driving without a license, the Court shall require the Attorney General to determine whether such person has been adjudged an habitual offender and, by reason of such judgment, is barred from operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this State. If the Attorney General determines that the person has been so adjudged, the Attorney General shall cause the appropriate criminal charges to be lodged. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2811; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 2812. No existing law modified.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as amending, modifying or repealing any existing law of this State or any existing ordinance of any political subdivision relating to the operation of motor vehicles, the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles or providing penalties for the violation thereof or shall be construed so as to preclude the exercise of the regulatory powers of any division, agency, department or political subdivision of this State having the statutory authority to regulate such operation and licensing. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2812; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416.)
§ 2813. Computation of number of convictions.
In computing the number of convictions, all convictions must result from offenses occurring subsequent to June 8, 1972, except that convictions for offenses designated in paragraphs j. and k. of subdivision (1) of § 2802 of this title shall only be computed if the offenses giving rise thereto occur subsequent to July 1, 1977. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2813; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 61 Del. Laws, c. 285, § 2.)
§ 2814. Additional penalty when convicted of an offense which would render an individual an habitual offender.
If any person shall be convicted in this State of an offense which would render that individual an habitual offender as defined in this chapter, the person shall, in addition to the penalty otherwise prescribed by law for such offense, be fined not less than $115 nor more than $1,150 and confined in jail not less than 30 days nor more than 12 months, provided, that no such sentence shall be executed until the individual is finally adjudged an habitual offender. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 2814; 58 Del. Laws, c. 416; 68 Del. Laws, c. 9, § 18; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
NOTICE: The Delaware Code appearing on this site was prepared by the Division of Research of Legislative Council of the General Assembly with the assistance of the Government Information Center, under the supervision of the Delaware Code Revisors and the editorial staff of LexisNexis, includes all acts up to and including 76 Del. Laws, c. 246, effective June 19, 2008.
DISCLAIMER: Please Note: With respect to the Delaware Code documents available from this site or server, neither the State of Delaware nor any of its employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. This information is provided for informational purposes only. Please seek legal counsel for help on interpretation of individual statutes.
Look at the size of the drumsticks on this thing. And it’s not even full-grown. My husband calls these Canadian Geese flying rats. When we were on the Spirit of Chicago, there were Canadian Geese swimming in Lake Michigan. I looked over at him and expressed my surprise, and he shrugged. “Flying rats!” he said. They’re worse than rats; they take up more room, and they eat a lot of grass, -not quite as much as sheep do, but they still take it down far enough that if left in one place too long to graze, they’ll kill the grass.
I paid a little visit to this lady today to check on the wounds she’s been inflicting on herself. I saw a program the other day about pet psychics, and this buffalo could use the help of one. She has a nervous habit of licking her fetlocks raw. The blood attracts the flies, the flies irritate the area, and then she licks it some more. She’s now starting to do it to her other legs. You have to wonder what it is that’s bothering her, and why she is doing this to herself. The veterinarian is aware of it, so hopefully the vet will arrive at some sort of a solution that will help her out.
She has some buddies hanging out with her, and they seemed fly-free in comparison to how many bugs she was battling. All of the animals were having quite a time of it, and it wasn’t even that hot outside. The pigs in particular were having a problem with flies; but flies are attracted to their stench and they stink to high heaven. The sheep also smell, and they were staying in the shade, as were the elk and white tailed deer. The cows were also having a problem with flies, and I was wondering…can’t they spray for bugs around here, or is that against environmental regulations? The pigs were the most aggravated. But they seem to have aggravated temperments and aren’t as chilled out as the other animals seem to be.
