Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
– US Constitution, First Amendment.

Judge DelRicci began the short list conference by asking Robert Angst if he had heard of the First Amendment.

Judge DelRicci then issued an order directing me to remove my son;s name from my web site. As the web site only contained truthful information about my relationship with my sons; and the actual text messages I was sending my son which were NOT hostile, threatening or intimidating, the order violated my rights.

I complied. YET, Angst & Angst again petitioned the court that I was in contempt of the unconstitutional order of Judge Del Ricci.

In a hearing before Judge Bertin, I explained that I did indeed comply; that Angst & Angst did not provide any evidence of non-compliance; and that the order was in violation of my right to freedom of speech.

I assured Judge Bertin that i did not control the indexes of search engines on the internet, and that I coul dnot contropl how often those indices get updated. Angst & Angst only evidence of my non-compliance with the unconstitutional order were the outdated printous of search engine listings.

Angst & Angst also refused to indicate when they might have visited my web site. Since February 2008, any records of their IP Address were removed from the site history, and any future activity seemed to be the result of their using an anonimizer to hide their access. Why would they have to conceal their access to a web site?


New Jersey police misuse and abuse informants: ACLU report
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, June 27th, 2011 — 5:34 pm

The use of confidential informants by New Jersey police leads to violations of civilians’ rights and botched investigations thanks to inconsistent polices and insufficient oversight, according to a study by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project.

The report (PDF) found that some departments throughout New Jersey failed to put agreements in writing, circumvented search warrant requirements, used juveniles improperly, and insufficiently checked the reliability of information given by confidential informants, who can be motivated by financial incentives or fear of prosecution to fabricate information.

The report, released Monday, is based on information gathered from law enforcement and citizens.

In addition, the lack of a clear single state policy regulating the use of informants by law enforcement “has led to inconsistent and ethically questionable practices, and in some instances downright corruption and serious criminality,” the report found. “Whether intentional or inadvertent, the unregulated and unsupervised use of informants causes harms that must be addressed through training and enforcement.”

Many police departments reported that no policies existed concerning the use of informants, while other departments believed the mandatory protocols issued by the New Jersey Attorney General were merely advisory.

“Because the practice of using informants in criminal investigations has such a long history with support from state laws and judicial decisions, we were surprised to find that the policy governing informant use in the state is so disorganized,” said Professor Delores Jones-Brown, co-author of the report and a former Monmouth County Assistant Prosecutor. “Though our sample size was small, it was disturbing to find that half of the officers surveyed were unclear about the requirements for the proper use of informants.”

The report called on New Jersey to adopt a confidential informant system that “does not prey on the poor, the weak, or communities of color that can also adequately protect the interests of civilians who have been accused of crimes.”

A similar report released by the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi in March found that “the widespread recruitment of community members as informants, coupled with aggressive police tactics and excessive sentencing policies, results in a ‘police state’ atmosphere that should not be tolerated anywhere in America.”


Who are you? Why did you try to gain access to my web site in January 2011?
If you had any reason to access the site, why didn’t you call me?

Does anyone know who this is and why they are sneaking around behind my back?

Related post: UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS to RitaCoolidge.com

telephone number
I called and a guy answered and said it was none of my business who it was that has that tel number.
No Answer left message.
%d bloggers like this: