Redact Sign Presentation Myself

I’ve kept a journal for the past 11 years.It didn’t really start off as anything special. One day my mom came home with a beautiful notebook with horses on it, and I thought it’d be fun to use it to write about my life so I’d remember when I’m older. I would write a page every day about what I did that day, and with whom. Eventually it started becoming kind of a chore and I decided that I didn’t want to write every day, just whenever I felt like it.I kept writing on and off as I grew into a teenager, and writing about the things I did turned into writing about the things I felt. The merry adventures of a sweet little girl somehow morphed into dark thoughts and angsty poems. I poured soul into those pages.Sometimes I get my old journals out, and reread them. I cringe at a lot of parts, but I can feel exaclty the things I felt when I wrote the entries, and relive small moments I barely remember, like I have my own personal time machine.I could never give up journaling. It’s become a coping mechanism. Whenever I have thoughts I need to sort out, sad, or happy, or even just questions, I write it all down, I choose words carefully, kneading them like you’d knead clay to make a sculpture, until I get something structured out of all the confusing things that run through my mind.I like to think that there isn’t anything that can’t be fixed with a fountain pen and a blank page.Here’s a picture of all the personal journals I’ve had so far.My life, my joys, my sorrows, my deepest fears, my wildest dreams all written out in 6 small notebooks. I will scratch your eyes out if I ever catch you reading any one of them.

Yes, the hearing absolutely affected my opinion about the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.I have been deeply concerned about the Supreme Court since the Republican majority blocked President Obama from even having his choice of appointee be heard. It pointed out to me that we have a problem, a loophole, in the Constitution, where a sitting American President can be blocked from acting in their Constitutionally mandated role.That means I have absolutely not been an unbiased citizen regarding the question of the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh. His positions and evasions that were reported widely, confirmed my biases and I was well aware this was the case.Until today, I have therefore avoided stating my position on Kavanaugh, because I knew my position was entirely based on snippets and emotion, not on spending any time reviewing the facts.Today, September 27, 2018, I spent many hours watching and listening to Kavanaugh and to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. As a therapist and as an artist, I have built up strong skills in recognizing how people present themselves, both visually and auditorily. As the daughter of an attorney, who worked in a few law offices, and was sometimes brought to court by my father to give him feedback on the judge(s) or jury when he had tricky cases, I have some experience understanding how hearings go, and how people look and sound when they are telling the truth or lying.Blasey Ford’s story was much more nuanced and extensive than I had previously realized. Most importantly, I did not know that she had been trying to make her story known before Kavanaugh was identified as the nominee. I had believed the limited news bits I had heard, that made it sound like she jumped out at the eleventh hour.Because I believed the presentation that she had timed her revelation at the last minute, I was skeptical about what the real story was.Today I found out—and no one on the Republican side disagrees with this—that she actually began trying to get her story out while Kavanaugh was only one of a few on the short list for SCOTUS. While Ford is clearly an intelligent person, with an excellent education, and who is a professor of psychology, she is also not a particularly polished speaker, nor is she in any way knowledgeable or capable in the areas of law or politics.What I did see, was a scared person who had some trouble understanding the questions on occasion, and whose answers to those questions were sometimes slightly unclear or even slightly lacking cohesion to other answers.As a biased observer, I was frustrated, and hoping that she would be much clearer in her presentation.But as I watched for hours, I started to realize that her stumbles and very slight inconsistencies helped make it clear that she did not present a polished set of lies. She had trouble with dates, and never represented herself as someone who is good at tracking dates.I was impressed that she took a polygraph test at the suggestion of her attorneys, that the test was many hours long, and that the report said it found her entirely credible.Her concerns about not recalling dates lead her to request an FBI investigation because she does remember that she encountered one of the witnesses she claims, 6–8 weeks after the incident in 1982. She is asking to know when that boy worked at a very specific grocery store so she can narrow down the actual date the event she is reporting took place.Also, as she was told, or when she realized that there was some inconsistency in something she said, she apologized, and did her best to clarify. She never got defensive.This is to say, I found her accusation credible.I also found her trouble noting where the event occurred, how she got there, or how she got home, represents a serious gap in her accusation. But instead of this leading me to think she is lying about everything (or anything), I found her clarity of what happened in the attack itself, compared to her lack of clarity in the time and location around her central accusation, reasonable, and that kind of memory pattern is consistent with psychological science that has evaluated memory patterns around traumatic events.This means, I believe it is possible that she has the location of the event wrong, without being concerned that this possible inaccuracy reflects any inaccuracy with her central accusation.I do not believe anything in her presentation suggested that she lied or hedged about her description of the traumatic event she is accusing Kavanaugh of. To the contrary, she said all kinds of things that had internal consistency, and a few small peripheral inconsistencies that together, lead me to find her imperfections to be more compelling that she is a credible witness.Then I began listening to Brett Kavanaugh.Fascinatingly, in his initial statement, I saw in front of me a person who I found far more decent than I had expected. When he described himself as a virtuous human being with integrity and respect, I believed that he believed that about himself.For the first few minutes of his initial statement, he held himself together, and when he said things that were obviously true, he was believable. But when he said things that were potential lies (assertions that he did not do anything to Ford) he swallowed. Now, I know that swallowing is something some people do when lying, but it is by no means a slam dunk.I chided myself on oversimplifying the situation, and did my best to continue watching without making conclusions without anything conclusive. People also swallow because they have anxiety about being believed, when they are telling the truth.As he continued, he started to lose his composure. When he began speaking about his father—a man he clearly has extreme respect for—he began to cry and shake. Not terribly, but noticeably.I was surprised when I saw Kavanaugh have to turn the page of his initial statement to complete the name of the location he spent a lot of time in when he was growing up. That is, he knew that location extremely well, but could not say the next word without turning the page and seeing it. I thought that was interesting, and made me wonder why he was extremely distracted.Again, being distracted didn’t confirm that he was lying.As he continued, he did start carefully, saying things that required careful wording to make his points.For example, he spoke about his calendar pages from that summer of 1982. He avoided saying that he wrote everything down in that calendar, but said careful words that leave it open to the possibility that he did not write everything down in that calendar.By the end of his opening statement, I was convinced that he fully believed he is a good person, and that anything he did as a teen should not ruin his career at this point in his life. There is some compelling logic to that, but it is not acceptable to lie about his history, so I felt bad for him, but wasn’t impressed.Still, I listened with an open mind, looking for specific proof of prevarication.After his initial statement, he began answering questions by the Senate Hearing Committee.That was when he immediately began avoiding answering questions straight.His absolute refusal to respond to the question (asked in multiple ways by multiple Senators) if he would call for, or even want an FBI investigation so that he could have the opportunity to have his name cleared, he kept answering with words that were slippery, not directly answering the questions as posed.Senator Harris directly asked him again about whether or not he would be willing to ask the president for an FBI investigation into this specific allegation. He simply would not answer. She clarified beyond any shadow of a doubt that the question was due a yes or no, or at least a maybe. He would not, and she said, “I’ll take that as a no, then,” and he did not argue with her.Plenty of Senators pointed out that he was not answering straight. They also pointed out that the accuser is the one calling for a proper FBI investigation, while the accused is not, and that seems backwards if the accused isn’t guilty, and the accuser is lying.The other compelling thing he prevaricated on was the calendar. He actually did manage to state that he added names and locations of certain impromptu get-togethers after the fact. That is, after the events he would write a note about its location and attendees in his calendar.In other words, there were plenty of events that were not written in advance.What I did not understand, is why no one asked him the obvious question: Does it seem reasonable that someone would not write down the event and witnesses to an event where someone absolutely broke the law?Assuming he did not attack Ford, any good judge (oh, I should mention, one of my brothers is a judge) will absolutely recognize the expectation that an intelligent person who has broken the law and wants to avoid getting caught, would be very odd indeed to include the illegal event and witness list in their calendar.This is easy to say, if he indeed did not do anything wrong.When I was a girl, I kept a diary. I wrote a lot of things in it, and plenty of things that I was embarrassed by. But the night I pulled out of someone’s driveway, and in the dark did not see the metal trash cans in the street behind me, and hit them, and then drove away without leaving a note, well, that was not something I wrote in my diary.Looking back on it, I’m guessing the owners of the trashcans probably just pounded them back into shape. I was pulling out of a driveway, not going faster than five miles per hour, the damage was probably minor. But I was massively embarrassed because I was a very ethical person, and I knew that damaging property and leaving the scene was illegal and unethical.Anyone understands that.Kavanaugh described his keeping of the calendar as if he wrote everything in there, without actually saying he did. Thus avoiding lying, but trying to suggest that if there is no event matching Ford’s accusation, that there was no event.When Senator Hirono began questioning Kavanaugh, she began by saying the Republicans were using certain statements as diversionary tactics, not as honestly helpful statements and questions. When she said that, Kavanaugh found that to be a good time to look down at his papers, and shuffle them.As she began asking him questions, he continued to have a great deal of difficulty meeting her eyes. She asked excellent questions, and he would not give a straight answer. At one point she directly asked him if his college freshman roommate lied when he wrote that Kavanaugh did drink too much, more than most there, got belligerent sometimes when he drank too much, and had trouble remembering things in days following a night of drinking.Kavanaugh told her to refer to the redacted, private pages on record where he answered that question. She reasonably responded by saying that he therefore is agreeing that the roommate lied in those accusations. And Kavanaugh still would not give a straight response.There were many questions and answers where Kavanaugh would not answer straight forward questions. Like Senator Booker asking him if he ever drank during the week (not just on weekends) in the summer of the event being discussed. Kavanaugh tried to avoid answering straight, Booker clarified it was a yes or no answer that he was asking for. Eventually Booker managed to get Kavanaugh to admit he did drink during the week at some point, to which Booker pointed out that his meant his answer was yes. Kavanaugh still defended himself.Booker asked Kavanaugh if he was upset with Ford, or if he thought Ford should not have come forward. Again, a yes/no question, and again, Kavanaugh simply could not respond clearly.Kavanaugh kept harping on the idea that if the witnesses Ford listed do not corroborate what Ford said happened, then it didn’t happen. He also kept talking about his great reputation and accomplishments,.As a lawyer and a judge, he knows these rhetorical devices have logic that is entirely faulty. He knows that.Therefore, his consistent avoidance of answering questions straight, his clear prevarications that hint at him being innocent without actually proving him innocent, and his general refusal to agree to ask for an FBI investigation, lead me to the conclusion that he is lying.Kavanaugh often repeated about his reputation, and the 65 women who knew him in high school who signed a petition to claim his good character, and that he’d never do anything like he was accused of.When I was in high school, senior year I had my first real boyfriend. And I decided it was time to get a prescription for birth control pills. I went to the doctor, got the prescription, brought the prescription to the pharmacy to have it filled, and then picked it up.At that time, prescriptions were picked up at the pharmacy counter, but paid for at the main checkout counter.The pharmacist put my pills in a little paper bag, with a receipt for more money than I had anticipated it would cost. As I walked toward the front of the store, I saw a friend of mine, another girl in my high school, working the cash register. I had a flash of a thought that maybe my insurance paid for my pills. I knew that was unlikely. I didn’t want to spend the money, and I didn’t want to be embarrassed to buy birth control pills in front of that classmate.So I walked out of the store without paying.And was promptly stopped by security. At that point, my classmate came to my defense, as I claimed that I thought the insurance paid for it, and I didn’t realize I was supposed to.The adults were unimpressed, but their employee stood her ground, defended me, and I of course paid for the pills.You know why she defended me? Because no one, not anyone at that school, had ever known me to be untrustworthy. I had a reputation as a bit of a weirdo, but my reputation as an honest person was absolute.I know first hand that people can come to your defense even when you are guilty.I know first hand that people can do illegal things and lie about them, when they were a teenager, and firmly believe those things should not negatively impact their career when they are in their fifties.The difference between me and Kavanaugh is that I actually never did drink with friends in high school, and I am willing to admit I did something illegal as a teen.Kavanaugh tried to pretend he drank only legally, and never to serious excess (only minor excess), and that he never did anything illegal, and never forgot anything because of drinking. These extreme assertions in the face of how unlikely they all are, makes him not a credible witness to his own history.I believe he believes he is a good person, and belongs on the Supreme Court. I believe Ford has made some kind of mistake about the location of the event she accuses Kavanaugh of, but I believe she is a credible witness that Kavanaugh did do what she says he did, that he did try to get her clothes off but was stopped by her one-piece bathing suit she had on under her clothes, and that he did put his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming, and that she was terrified that he was so drunk he would inadvertently kill her from stopping her from breathing.I am incredibly relieved to have seen responses that proved to me that Kavanaugh is actually not credible, and that the accusation is credible. I am relieved because it suggests the press has been reasonable to have been saying Kavanaugh has not been credible several time in these hearings.Meanwhile, I am nervous that his obvious prevarications and lies may not be enough to stop him from getting confirmed.I sincerely hope that the well-being of the republic will be more important to enough Republicans to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation.I also believe that if he is confirmed, he may well spend the rest of his days working so hard to prove he is a decent man, that he might be not as terrible a judge as I fear he would be.No matter what happens, I also am of the opinion that this hearing is a tipping point, quite like Nixon and Watergate. No matter which way things go, civil trust in the political process will be damaged.

The story of uncle tupelo and the bands around it is pretty good. So uncle tupelo is the second band of jay farrar, jeff tweedy and mike heidorn along with some other guys, but that makes the main guys. They made this band because the lead singer of their first band went to college. So it's 87. Fast forward to 94 and tension between jay and Jeff is bad. The band breaks up into two bands Jay's band, son volt and jeffs band, wilco. Jeff managed to get the other members of uncle tupelo to join wilco. Son volt started over, but jay convinced mike to join. Wilco starts rehearsals a few days afte...

Marx was not an atheist. He explicitly said so. He was a Jew in Europe whose family was a victim of Christian anti semitism. It is anti semitism that has dragged his legacy through the mud. That is why he's been branded an atheist. His ancestors were Rabbis. He would have been under normal circumstances. His family was forced to convert. He was at war with the real enemy of Jews, Christianity which ran Europe. Most people don't understand Marx or Communism. They say things to sound smart based on misinformation. Marx was a great intellectual. Unfortunately, that religion is anti intelligence which is why the Communist revolution led to the Holocaust. Marx was a man of G-d. A true man of G-d doesn't spew religion. Religion is atheism. You have two religions stolen from Israel that are perversions of Judaism. Christianity is fascism and capitalism. There was no Israel at the time. Jews have always been rebels against government and capitalism. Marx was not an atheist. Capitalism is atheism.Marx Was Not An AtheistThe internet is an interesting place. Google is a massive corporation. Misinformation reigns. America is the land of capitalism. The rich now use the media as a weapon. Intellectual oppression. A fair discussion about Karl Marx and Communism is probably not possible because the internet now serves as a propaganda machine for the wealthy that now run this world with an iron fist. The rise of fascism in America and around the world. The government, the ruling class is now more powerful than ever. Karl Marx is their enemy. Karl Marx was probably the reason for the Holocaust, but not because he wanted it. Because he was a Jew and Communism largely comes from Judaism and the killing of Jews is engrained in this world. You have an entire religion on it which is why even Marx couldn't honestly discuss it. He was a Jew in Christian, anti semitic Europe whose family was a victim of Christian anti semitism. That is what you don't here about Marx. Both of Karl Marx's grand fathers were Rabbis. The Marx family were religious Jews who were forced to convert, so Marx's views on religion are skewed. He couldn't openly be a Jew and he couldn't openly attack Christianity.True Communism is not atheism. Marx actually defended Communism against charges of atheism which is why it is amazing that it has become accepted that he was an atheist. One of the jobs of corporate media now. To twist the truth if it is not in the interests of the wealthy. This society is so far from Communism it is unreal. The rich now hide behind, estrange themselves behind a wall of security while they run the government, the police, the military, and the media which now serves for nothing more than propaganda. Karl Marx is obviously their enemy. These people would have killed Marx before they would have listened. That's one of the problems. There is a direct link between Marx and the Holocaust. The sad thing is that Adolf Hitler is actually the savior of the ruling class. Hitler knew where communism really came from, Jews. He actually said that. He was going after the Jewish Bolsheviks which is why the real story of Communism and the Holocaust is not told. They knew Marx was a Jew. Most of the communists in Russia were and in Europe. Hitler and Stalin worked together to kill them. Marx, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev were Jews, Lenin was half Jewish. Stalin and Hitler were Christians. Europe was Christian which is why the Holocaust happened. Communism was largely a Jewish Revolution against Christianity, but they couldn't actually say that. They were Jews in Europe. That religion exists as the killing of Jews. Jesus was a Jew too. Something they also try to deny.Marx was not an atheist. He explicitly said so more than once. Actually, he never made his personal beliefs known. Once again, he was a Jew in Europe surrounded by rabid anti semites. I believe he actually did believe in G-d, but he was a Jew in Europe with no Israel. The entire premise of the Jewish people and Israel is difficult for that reason. The Jewish people were largely built in opposition of government and fascism which is why there is anti semitism. The biggest anti semite has always been the government and capitalism. It goes back to Abraham and Moses which is why they separated from the outside world in Israel. The world doesn't believe in G-d anyway. That is why Jews built Israel on the belief in G-d, which is why Israel is a tiny country in the Middle East.To understand history you kind of have to know Jewish history. This entire world comes from Jews and Israel. You have two massive religions that come from Jews and Israel, yet deny this fact and somehow hate Jews and Israel. The Jews in Europe were victims of this. Killing Jews has been a huge part of history which is why the Holocaust happened. Jews are the only people in history who have ever tried to make change in this world. This is precisely why most people don't even understand world history. There has been a clear effort to hide the Jewish element in history. The world is an anti Semite. You have a religion on a dead Jew and another on the plagiarism if the Torah. There is an untold story of communism and history. Jews were victims in Europe which is why all the great revolutions came from Jews, most likely. The Russian Revolution clearly came from Jews. Among the original seven on the polit beareau, five were Jews. Lenin was half Jewish. Stalin was not Jewish at all which is why he killed the Jewish communists. The French Revolution most likely came from Jews also. There were always Jews in France. They were largely persecuted in Western Europe which is why most Jews were in Eastern Europe. It led to Jewish emancipation. There is an untold story also of the American Revolution. Jews were always a big part of England, but most of them had to convert. Christopher Columbus was most likely a Jew. There is hard evidence to that fact. Most people don't understand this which only shows there's been an effort to hide the Jewish element in history. Columbus was a Jew in Spain at the time of the Spanish Inquisition looking for a way out of Europe for Jews. He actually most likely wanted to liberate Israel from the Arabs, but the urgency to get out of Europe led to the discovery of the Americas. He actually set sail three days after Jews were officially expelled from Spain which they were all throughout Western Europe which is why the communist revolution largely happened in Eastern Europe.The untold story of Europe is that Rome, the Catholic Church really runs Europe. That is why there is not an honest discussion about that religion. That religion is the epitome of capitalism. It is actually the biggest business in the world. Marx actually cryptically says this on the Jewish Question. It sounds like an attack on Judaism, but it is not. Marx could not openly profess his Jewishness. He most likely would have been killed. Jews always were in Europe. He also could not openly attack Christianity. He certainly would have been killed especially as a Jew. There is no honest discussion about that religion. It is the biggest business in the world. The media is there at this point to protect that religion and the Catholic Church. There has always been this agenda which is why the Holocaust happened. That religion literally is the killing of Jews which is why Jews have always had to hide their identity which is why the Jewish role in history if not understood.Marx was largely Moses in Europe with no Israel. The untold story of Moses is that he was the first Communist. Moses wrote the Torah so Israel wouldn't have a government. Israel only existed going back to Abraham because the outside world was fascist and capitalist. This goes back to Babylon and Egypt who both Abraham and Moses were victims of. Communism is largely a direct progression of Judaism.The problem in history is that central government takes over and fascism takes over. The Founding Fathers who were most likely hidden Jews tried to rectify this like Moses did which is why Thomas Paine actually discussed this, but they all knew that any government leads to too much government which leads to fascism which is what you now have in America. The rich and powerful in this country have done exactly what the Founding Fathers warned about. They have violated every principle the Founding Fathers built this country on including Freedom of Speech which is why the media is now a government run propaganda machine. The wealthy work for the government. Most people don't understand how a capitalist economy works. The government and the free market work together. Money runs the government which is why Jews are often blamed for the ills of government. The governments in Europe worked with wealthy Jews. They wanted Jews to be wealthy, so they could blame them for the ills of government. Jews are smart. Jews have been the most oppressed people in history, but also the most successful people in history. Which is why Jews are very prominent in capitalism, but Jews also created communism. Actually, much of this world comes from Jews, but there is an agenda to not acknowledge this. This world is largely run by Christianity and America. Jews largely created both. Actually, they were victims of the former, but it really was Jewish martyrdom. You cannot overstate the role of Jews in history.Marx was a Jew in Europe inciting revolution. If he was openly Jewish he would not have been heard from. He is actually probably the reason Israel exists today. There was no Israel at the time. Europe was a dark tunnel for Jews. The Jewish people were built for Israel. The Holocaust was only a reminder of this. There was no Israel at the time. Marx was trying to either change the world or incite Jewish martyrdom which eventually led to Israel. Marx didn't openly state this. He is often blamed for the Holocaust, but not in the right way. There is not an honest discussion about this. Israel today only exists because of the Holocaust. America sat there for thirty one years after the Balfour Declaration and did nothing until the Holocaust happened. FDR was actually complicit on the Holocaust. This country participated in World War One against Germany, but was nowhere to be found during Hitler's entire reign. FDR blocked immigration and did nothing to stop Hitler because they all knew what Hitler knew. Communism came from Jews. Marx really incited Jewish martyrdom which led to the State of Israel 1948.Marx was not an atheist. I firmly believe he was a man of G-d. He cryptically states this On The Jewish Question. He says "Money is the G-d of Israel in the face of which no other G-d can exist." What he is really saying is that money is not the G-d of Israel or Judaism. He was actually talking about what Jews had become in the Christian, capitalist world. It sounds like an attack on Judaism. It is actually an attack on Christianity and Capitalism. Christianity largely is Judaism. They use the Torah and Judaism. John the Baptist, Jesus were Jews. They were all Jews. He couldn't openly attack Christianity. He attacked Judaism to attack Christianity and Capitalism. His point was the religion of capitalism is practical need, egoism, self interest. He responds to On The Jewish Question, but makes that progression. He was not an anti semite either. The Marx family was a victim of anti semitism. He was making the point that Judaism in the outside, Christian Capitalist world had become Capitalism. Christianity comes from Judaism. He was actually attacking Christian,ity and Capitalism. There was no Israel at the time. It was change or martyrdom which led to Israel 1948.In a Communist society religion cannot exist. Religion is a business. Religion is oppression, but claims to be the solution to oppression. The whole basis of Israel and the Jewish people is problematic for that reason. It is only acknowledging the world is not of G-d. Moses was largely a communist. He was against central government, against the rich, he even said Israel should not have a king, but if they do he shouldn't have too much money. It was actually the problem with early Israel. He warned against greed and was an advocate for the workers and the poor. He wasn't a communist in the Marxist sense, but Communism is largely a progression of that belief. The evil in history has always been government and capitalism which is largely one and the same. The result was the Holocaust. The mass murder of millions of people, not just Jews. Six million Jews died in World War Two, Sixty million people died. This is what government does. It creates and commits evil. In a world of government there can be no G-d. Capitalism is largely atheist. It claims to be otherwise though. The world is largely backward. You have a religion built on murder by the government. The cross is a religious symbol. The cross was a murder weapon. Capitalism is atheism. It is the belief in money over G-d. Communism is the way of G-d. It is freedom. Freedom from government oppression, freedom from greed, freedom from religion which is largely fascism which is why the Jewish people and Israel exist. It goes back to fascist government and idol worship before even Abraham. The communist government mechanism has to exist to keep fascism from taking power.Marx was largely an anarchist as was Trotsky. They were both Jews. Lenin was a borderline fascist. He was half Jewish. Stalin was an evil fascist. He was a Christian. That religion is the religion of fascism. Anarchism is misunderstood. You cannot just have a revolution and have anarchism. A government would eventually take power. Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution addresses this somewhat. The Communist government mechanism has to be there to keep the ruling class from taking power. The basis of Communism is the abolition of private property which has to really be the only law of communism. Nobody can control the means of production, not even the government. The people would have to run communism. You would have freedom. You wouldn't have a government to protect you or oppress you which is what government does. You wouldn't have police, but you also wouldn't have capitalism which creates crime. The needs of the people would be provided for. Money wouldn't be the goal. The motivation to commit crime would be lessened, but people would have to also learn how to protect themselves absent of a government police state which only empowers the ruling class and oppresses the masses. You cannot have any government at all. Not in the sense that you have it and have had it. The beginning of government is the beginning of fascism. History only bears that out. Every revolution has led to this which is why communism, true communism will probably never exist. Because government has proven itself to be a mass murdering machine. That is why they hire police, soldiers, build weapons, hoard the money, and oppress the world. You would have to have a revolution and a righteous government mechanism to keep government from ever existing. The basis of this would be the abolition of private property forever. The world would be owned and run by everyone, not just the rich, as it is probably supposed to be by nature. Religion is only a result of government oppression. You would most likely have a world of G-d. People would probably believe in G-d because the government wouldn't be there to run their lives, to protect them and to oppress them. Free thought would exist without a religious doctrine being imposed by the ruling class. People could believe in G-d, they could not believe in G-d. They wouldn't be able to impose that on anyone else though. I believe most people probably would because the authentic belief in G-d probably exists absent of government and capitalist oppression. People would be free to believe what they want. The world would be free. The abolition of religion is very important. Religion is also intellectual and spiritual oppression. Religion is against freedom, free thought, freedom of conscience. Religion is imposed by the government. Belief in religion is not belief in G-d anyway. It is belief in government control. That is why you have a religion on the government killing of Jews. That is why you have anti semitism. The Jewish people have always been anti government. It goes back to Abraham and Babylon and Moses and Egypt who were both actually supposed to be killed by the government back then. That is what government is. That is what capitalism is. Glorified murderers.The result of Marx and the communist revolution was the Holocaust. The old trick of Christianity, capitalism, and government. Kill anyone who doesn't do what you want them to. Kill any opposition. Moses was supposed to be killed as a baby. The Egyptians were throwing Hebrew babies in the Nile. Abraham was supposed to killed by the Babylonian King Nimrod as a baby and later as an adult. Haman wanted to kill all Jews. The Greeks, the Romans killed Jews. There has been largely a two thousand year old war between Israel and Rome. The Romans were and are killers. That is why they gave the world a religion on a murdered Jew and murdered Jews. That religion was built on the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews which is why it has always been very hard to be a Jew in this world which is why Abraham wanted to sacrifice Isaac, his son from Sarah who the covenant with G-d was to go through. Jews have been history long dissenters against government and capitalism which is why Jews today are a different people. History has spent its existence killing Jews. The Jewish population has been decimated by that religion, the religion of the Roman Empire, the religion of killing Jews, Christianity. Marx couldn't explicity say this. No Jew in Europe could. The Holocaust happened because of that religion. Hitler and Stalin were instruments of that religion which is the religion of government control and capitalism. Jews are actually victims of this which is why blaming Jews for the economy is actually ridiculous. Jews have been history long victims of government oppression. The latest being Hitler who was the epitome of an anti semite. Hitler was a capitalist. He actually blamed Jews for capitalism and communism. There's truth in both, but Jews are really victims of the Christian world. It's rooted in that religion anyway. Both religions actually. Christianity and Islam. Jews have always wanted to change the world, probably in the image of G-d, the world has always rejected this, Jews and G-d, which is why Israel and Zionism exist. Moses wrote the Torah for that reason. Judaism exists for that reason. To separate from the outside, G-dless world. Marx was not an anti semite. He probably would have been a Rabbi under normal circumstances. All his ancestors were. His purpose in Jewish history was to incite Jewish martyrdom which led to Israel 1948.Karl Marx is not a small figure in Jewish history. It's a shame that he is often branded an anti semite, but you have to realize the world is as anti semitic as ever. The internet is now a tool of non stop anti semitism which is why it's probably harder to be a Jew than ever. Well, not in the same sense as history, but after the Holocaust which decimated the Jewish population, the overall population exploded, there are actually less Jews in comparison than ever. In 1939 before the Holocaust, the Jewish population was 17 million while the world population was around two billion. Today the Jewish population is 14 million while the world population will soon be eight billion. This society is trying to erase anything Jewish and it is largely rooted in the shame of history. Government spent its existence killing Jews who were trying to change the world from fascism and oppression. America came to the rescue. America is the beacon of capitalism. After the damage was done, America and Russia who both largely committed the Holocaust, came to the rescue, stopped Hitler, supported Israel because of their financial interests in the Middle East and now hold a hammer over the Jewish people and Israel for all times. The Holocaust served its purpose to protect capitalism, Christianity, and fascism. Communism would be the solution to this because the premise of Israel and the Jewish people has always been simply an acknowledgement that the world is evil and not of G-d. Communism, the abolition of all religion would be the solution to this, but mind you, capitalism and the pursuit of money and greed create a lot of things and like Christianity and Islam, Judaism became a business as well. Rabbis, like priests have to make money too. Religion is a business. It is G-d for sale. Religion is not G-d. Freedom is probably the way of G-d which does not exist via government. Goverment oppresses then calls it freedom. Safety is an illusion. The government has all the power. They control the planet through police, military force, and weaponry. The Founding Fathers knew this. Government always turns eventually to tyranny and fascism. That is what this country now is. That is what this world now is. Communism would be the elimination of government forever. No real government could take over as it always turns to tyranny, oppression, and fascism, and the world would be set free which is the way of G-d. The capitalist medical profession and population growth are also a result if this. Overpopulation serves corporate greed. More people to watch the Superbowl and go to Walmart. This would not exist in communism. In true communism. The population problem would also have to be addressed, most likely. Overpopulation only creates more poverty. The world's natural resources are not unlimited. Most of things are really just a result of capitalism, the ruling class running the world. Communism would probably be freedom, they could call it anarchy, but that is largely what freedom is. Nobody has ever killed more than the government. People could arm themselves, protect themselves, and society could police itself. Humans are not animals. The government exists under the premise that people need government to run their lives. That is probably not the case. Work is another byproduct of this. It is largely slavery. Money was created by the government to control society. The government rubs the world through force, controls the land, puts value on the things it controls, and creates greed, class division, and oppression.Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up. Communism has largely never been tried in the world. Marx gets blamed for Russia unfortunately. Marx was long dead by the time the Russian Revolution happened. The Russian Revolution happened and then fascism took over which is the way of capitalism and government. Communism really never existed in Russia. It was a guise. That is why Stalin killed the Jewish Bolsheviks including Trotsky and he and Hitler largely worked together in the Holocaust which probably started in Rome, but somehow the Catholic Church gets off scot free. In the Torah, man is evil. The world you live in is evil. Most people don't understand this because everything you hear in this world is from the rich and powerful. You don't hear from the victims or the opposition. The world today is largely as evil as it was before the flood.Most people don't understand the story of the Jewish people. It goes back to Adam and Eve. Cain killed Abel. Man is a murderer. Noah came from Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. Man was so evil, G-d wanted to wipe out the world. Noah convinced G-d otherwise. The flood probably happened, but it probably didn't wipe out the world. Genesis is really Jewish history. Moses didn't know the whole world most likely, there was no internet and as much information back then. Abraham came from Noah. The world was still evil which us why he wanted to sacrifice his son Isaac and spare his children from having to live in this world. There are parallels to Moses on Mount Sinai with the Jewish people as he warns them that they will most likely suffer in the evil world that Abraham wanted to so are his children from living in. It is in the Torah of Moses. He predicts Israel would be destroyed by a vile nation, Jews would be out in the G-dless world, they would suffer, be few in numbers, and go back to Israel. That is why Moses was a prophet. It all happened. Marx and the Jews who died in Europe were really all martyrs for Israel. Marx was a Jew trapped in Europe with no Israel which is why Abraham and Moses and G-d made Israel in the first place. The world is G-dless. The world is evil. It only proved this again during World War One and Two and the Holocaust. Marx, who was a Jew tried to change the G-dless world. That us why calling Marx an atheist is really anti semitism. He explicitly said communism wasn't atheism. The world today is still run by Nazis. The media is a vehicle of anti semitism. That religion largely is and always has been Nazism. The killing if Jews has had an important role in the growth if capitalism and that religion. Fascism is the answer which is why Jews realized why Abraham and Moses and G-d made Israel. Jews have become capitalist because that is the way of Christianity and America which now run Israel, but communism really is a progression of Judaism and it is not atheist. It is the opposite. Capitalism is atheist.Christopher Columbus and Karl Marx are probably the two most important figures in modern Jewish history. They were both hidden, converted Jews in Europe with no Israel. Columbus set sail and discovered America, but he also wanted to liberate Israel from the Arabs.I deleted some of it, but you can't post another answer and I'm not sure if anyone reads this. You get the gist. I also wrote something about modern capitalism, blacks in America and it's relationship to modern American fascism/capitalism, but again, I'm not sure if anyone reads this or cares. This society is pure evil at this point which is why the death of communism is sad. The rich are having a party.

Here's how officers will typically respond to and investigate given call types, and what you need to know about them:Assault CasesCommon Assault. This is what you likely think of when you hear the word ‘assault’ – offensive action taken by one person against another. In most cases this will be a misdemeanor unless there are aggravating circumstances (weapon used, serious injury, etc.). What you may not realize is that this goes beyond hitting and kicking; depending on the ordinance language in your jurisdiction, it may include things like being spit on or even being put in apprehension of imminent harm by something a person says. Common assaults can typically be cleared with a citation unless there is a threat of continued violence, in which the aggressor may be taken to jail (note that this is probably a book and release charge, however).Affray. This is essentially a physical fight in which each (or all) of the participants are more or less equally culpable. The most common way this played out was two guys getting into a fistfight, each getting some blows in, and a bystander (usually) calling 911. I would arrive and hear, “I want to press charges on him for assault!!” The other would then say, “No, I want to press charges on him for assault!!” I guess the assumption was that I would stand out there and have street court about who started it and who got the worst of it, but that’s not my job. Here’s my old affray speech: “Well, if you were both into it and you both want to press charges, you can both go to jail for affray tonight, and you’ll both get tickets for court dates which will each be set for mid-morning on a weekday. The judge will have discretion in how the cases are handled, but given that you each have opposing stories with no impartial third parties, you’ll both probably be found guilty, which will cost each of you I don’t know how much in fines and court costs. Or, you could both just get the hell away from each other and we can all call it a night. Ya’lls call.”As you might surmise, I never wrote an affray ticket. Both guys would usually say something along the lines of, “Forget it, you’re not worth it” while their girlfriend nursed their bruised ego and then walk away.Domestic Disturbance/AssaultThere’s no way I’m going to do this subject any justice in the space I’m working in; the Domestic Violence handbook I got during my police academy was literally a ream thick. Hopefully I can elaborate on some points that bred a bit of confusion about this area:Domestics are probably broader than you think. The classic paradigm is the beer-gutted husband in a stained undershirt smacking his perpetual victim of a wife around the house; while that definitely happens, many more relationships fall under the scope of “domestic violence.” In Missouri, the Adult Abuse Act covers spouses, former spouses, adults related by blood or marriage, adults who have co-habitated at any time (that means present and former roommates, no matter the gender), adults in a “continuing intimate relationship,” adults with a child in common, and adults involved in stalking cases.Having a verbal argument is not a crime. Just because you are having a verbal disagreement with someone, even a heated one, does not necessarily mean you need to involve law enforcement. Now, if the situation seems to be on the cusp of deteriorating into physical violence, then by all means you can involve law enforcement to defuse the situation – however, this should be a last resort and not a default knee-jerk reaction. I worked scads of “domestics” in which I fielded complaints like, “He had my keys and wouldn’t give them back,” or “My roommate wouldn’t turn the TV down while I was trying to sleep,” or any number of other petty disagreements that I would expect anyone over the age of seven to be able to adjudicate amongst themselves. Calls like that were a massive waste of time and resources.If your arguments in a relationship are turning physical, see your way out. Abusers don't typically have life-changing epiphanies about what they're doing and turn into caring, giving partners. You cannot “win them over” by attempting to love or respect them into a healthy relationship, and the level of abuse typically only gets worse as time goes on. The behavior of an abuser, despite their excuses, is not impulsive or a product of their “just losing it” or “getting their buttons pushed.” They may say that they “just lost control,” but they're controlling themselves very well – toward you. Are they hitting their friends or boss? No? Then what they're doing is systematic. Now, I know as well as anyone that the dynamics here are complicated, and extremely so if combined finances or children are in the mix. But I also know that upwards of three women are killed by their partners every day, just in the United States – and I guarantee the vast majority of those killings began with an act that the eventual victim wrote off as minor or a one-time mistake.  If police are called to a conflict between two related parties, a report and/or arrest may be mandatory. In Missouri (where I worked), state statute required that all “domestic incidents” be “documented.” The command staff of my department at the time interpreted that to mean that a formal police needed to be filed for anything classified as a “domestic” in the reporting system. If this is the case in your jurisdiction, you cannot decline a report once officers respond to the scene. Also, if there is a sign that violence was involved, officers may be mandated by department policy or (more likely) state law to arrest the 'primary physical aggressor.' Officers have discretion in some enforcement, but they typically don't here.Isolating your partner could meet the elements for domestic assault. Some domestic statutes trigger if you prohibit them from meeting with other people, or deny them access to a phone or a vehicle. That means if you get into an argument with your partner and smash their cell phone in anger, you could potentially technically go to jail for domestic assault. The purpose of this is to prevent abusers from locking victims away from the assistance of friends, family and police.Aggravating factors can quickly change a domestic assault from a misdemeanor to a felony. For instance, choking was one of the elements of felony domestic assault. Many prosecutors are very keen on this, and will charge for Second Degree Domestic Assault at the slightest whisper of a hint that an attempt to choke or throttle was made. Also, any use of a weapon during the altercation will likely bring felony charges into the mix.Demonstrated domestic assault is typically a mandatory arrest. If there was a physical altercation, someone is, with very few exceptions, going to jail. Officers are trained to arrest the “primary” or “most signNow” physical aggressor. Not the one who supposedly started it or most “deserved” it, but the one who inflicted the most signNow harm upon the other. In Missouri, a domestic assault arrest results in a mandatory five hour hold; you cannot bail or bond out of this hold. In the case of felony assault, holds are typically 24 hours or until conference with a judge, depending on the circumstances.Sexual AssaultLike other areas, sexual assault is probably broader than you think. One’s mind typically jumps to situations involving forcible rape, which isn’t incorrect, but sexual assault encompasses much more than that. A good rule of thumb is that intentionally initiating unwanted contact with an area typically covered by someone’s underwear could be considered sexual assault or sexual misconduct. That means tweaking that woman’s butt on her way out of the elevator or forcing someone into a situation in which she’s forced to graze you with her breasts could be a sexual offense.Being married is not an affirmative defense to rape or sexual assault. There is no longer a spousal exception in cases of rape; husbands and wives have the same right of refusal to sexual contact as anybody else. (Shockingly to me, this actually wasn’t the case in Missouri until 1990, and the last state to remove the spousal exception did so in 1993.)Either party in a sexual encounter can retract consent at any time. It doesn’t matter where you are in the process – if your partner withdraws consent at any time, you cannot legally continue. Withdrawal of consent needn’t be explicitly verbal, either – if your partner is struggling against you, you can bet that a court is going to consider that a clear refusal (unless, of course, it’s part of a roleplaying scenario you’ve each agreed upon in advance). Also, you’re treading on thin ice if your partner is saying something like, “I don’t know if we should be doing this,” or, “Maybe we should stop.” There is no objective threshold for how resolute or unequivocal a refusal has to be, and your continuing after something like this has been said puts you in a decidedly gray legal area should accusations arise later.A person who is not lucid and alert cannot consent to sex. It doesn’t matter if that person consented to sex before losing consciousness, passing out, or becoming highly intoxicated – they can no longer consent after that point, and sexual contact should not be initiated or continued.A man can, in fact, be raped by a woman. The male physiological response cannot alone be construed as consent. Courts recognize the fact that a man can have an erection without being sexually aroused.If you’re the parent of a teen, ensure they’re cognizant of laws regarding sexual activity. Age of consent and other related laws vary (sometimes wildly) by state, and some states don’t even allow defenses as to honest mistakes regarding a victim’s age. In Florida, it’s apparently legal for a seventeen year old to have vaginal sex with a twelve year old; in Georgia, on the other hand, a seventeen year old got sentenced to ten years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a fifteen year old. On a related note, while many teens seem to think oral sex isn’t really even sex at all, legal systems often view it more harshly than vaginal sex; oral and anal sex are often referred to in legal statutes as “deviant sexual intercourse,” and penalties can be harsher as a result. Finally, standing pornography statutes seldom take current technology into account, which means if your teenager gets a sexually suggestive text from a boyfriend or girlfriend, they could suddenly be in possession of child pornography depending on the circumstances. Don’t assume they know better or think that discussing this topic is tantamount to sanctioning such behavior – it’d be a shame for someone with great potential to enter adulthood on a sex offender registry or in prison just because the dangers weren’t addressed.Noise Complaints and Party CallsIf officers are called to a noise or party call but nobody answers the door at the target address, there really isn’t a whole lot that can be done. Officers cannot enter a residence without a warrant or exigent circumstances, and this doesn’t count.Noise ordinances usually trigger any time noise can be heard past your property line – and remember, if you live in an apartment, your apartment walls constitute your property line.Officers will not tell you who called if you’re the target of a complaint – don’t even bother asking.If you’re making a noise complaint against someone, you’ll likely be asked if you want to “sign a summons.” What dispatch or the officer wants to know is whether you’re willing to file a criminal complaint against the person producing the noise, in which case you’ll need to be willing to appear in court and testify as a witness for the prosecution. If you’re not willing to appear as a witness, do not sign the summons. When you do so, you’re agreeing to press charges, the officer has to issue the citation you signed and then write a report, the citation must be transferred to the prosecutor’s office which then issues subpoenas for court appearances, and the case gets put on a judge’s docket. Please don’t make a string of people process all of this paperwork if you were never going to show anyway. Officers can still attempt contact and make this request of the person in question absent a citation being issued.Municipalities may or may not have “noise ordinance hours” – where I worked, these hours were between 2300 hours and 0700 hours. During that time, if I as an officer observed loud noise coming from a residence, I could unilaterally issue a citation on behalf of the city (not myself – legally speaking, police officers’ peace cannot be disturbed).Some cities have ordinances limiting the distance from which a car’s stereo can legally be heard. Contrary to a clever retort I once heard through a car window, enforcement of this is not “a violation of freedom of expression.”Motor Vehicle AccidentsIf you’re involved in a motor vehicle accident, please try to move to a safe location off of the roadway, unless a vehicle is immobilized, someone is injured, or you are otherwise unable to safely do so. Officers will still be able to put the facts together based on vehicle damage, driver accounts and witness accounts – moving vehicles isn’t “destroying evidence” and won’t affect the report.You typically aren’t legally obligated to make a police report if you have a minor accident (less than a few hundred dollars of total damage, nobody injured, both vehicles mobile) – if none of the involved parties wish to do so, everyone can write it off and leave without involving police. However, it usually behooves someone involved to do so with regard to civil liability.If there is no discernible damage to any vehicle involved in an incident, it is not a motor vehicle accident. That means a bumper tap with no structural or paint damage cannot be reported as such. It also means that if someone bumps your vehicle as they’re leaving a parking lot and leave without having caused any damage, it is not “leaving the scene of an accident,” because legally there was no accident. You can file an informational report at some point if you absolutely insist on documentation here for some reason, but an officer cannot fill out a standardized accident form because it does not meet the elements of a motor vehicle accident.Officers on scene do not determine who is “at fault” in an MVA. This is a hallmark of civil liability as it relates to insurance coverage, and is not a criminal designation. The insurance companies involved make that determination, and can even assign “percentages of fault” to the involved drivers based on the facts at hand. The officer’s job is to dispassionately report on his or her observations at the scene. One or more drivers may be issued citations in response to the accident; this simply means that the officer has probable cause to believe the driver(s) committed a traffic violation prior to the accident, and does not automatically infer that the cited drivers are at fault.The responding officer will want driver’s licenses and insurance information for all drivers involved, and identifying information for all passengers, including children; having this ready upon their arrival will expedite the process. Once on scene, the officer will ask if there are any injuries and whether the occupant(s) in your vehicle were wearing safety belts or were in car seats – please answer all of this truthfully. Don’t claim a non-existent injury thinking you might be able to leverage it down the road, because you’re filing an official police report, and falsifying information on it to any degree is a crime.The officer will ask you for a statement about what happened. Make it concise – start your account immediately before the accident and note your actions and observations. Don’t presume anything about the other driver unless you directly observed it. Again, you’re making a legal attestation as to the facts of the incident, and it’s disingenuous of you to say something like “I think they might have been on their cell phone” unless you’re willing to say it later under oath in a courtroom – because it may come to that.The officer will typically not be at liberty to disclose whether other drivers were issued citations.You shouldn’t need to worry about harvesting a bunch of information at the scene; if a police report is filed, your insurance agent should be able to access it. It will contain everything that the agent needs to process the claim; the officer should provide the report number to you, but if not, just ask for it before you leave the scene.If your vehicle is immobilized and is on a public roadway, it will have to be towed as soon as possible. Officers will not be able to recommend a towing company, and can’t “just call whoever everybody else uses,” because that would constitute an endorsement of a particular company by that officer’s agency. If you have no idea, different agencies have different policies; mine had a rotating tow list that companies could sign up to be on, and if a driver had no idea or no preference, the officer would have dispatch call the next company on the list to respond. If you do that you’re at the mercy of a random tow company, so you might do a little research in advance in your neck of the woods to know which company you’d want.Unless there are serious injuries involved, the responding officer typically will not be taking pictures to attach to the report. As long as you're not impeding the officer's investigation, he or she should be fine with your taking your own pictures on scene.If you suspect another driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, don't confront them about it on scene – all you're doing is inviting them to fight you or flee the scene. If you find this out before you call for police, mention this to the call taker; if you find out after you've called, once an officer arrives, find a discreet way of alerting them to this fact.If another driver pleads with you to not call police or offers you cash to keep you from doing so, there is a signNow likelihood that they have a warrant for their arrest or have other compelling reasons for not wanting contact with police – call anyway. You can always lie and say it's a company car or that you don't own it if you're worried about their reaction; you never know who you're letting go.If another driver leaves the scene of an accident, be observant. The single best piece of information you can get is accurate license plate information; after that, an accurate description of the car (color, make, model, and a good guess at the year) and its direction of travel. Do not attempt to follow or chase the individual. There may be reasons for their flight beyond their simply having been in an accident, and you're putting yourself in considerable risk by trying to corner them. By giving the 911 call taker the direction of travel, officers can go to that area in an attempt to intercept the driver, and as long as the right plate is on the right car, officers can pull up the owner's address with the plate information in seconds.Officers typically cannot investigate MVAs which occurred on private property, unless 1) one or more drivers are under the influence, 2) an involved driver left the scene of the accident, and/or 3) there are injuries involved to a party in one of the vehicles.Civil DisputesMany to most officers will be unable to resolve civil disputes on scene. Police officers generally enforce criminal law, and have no authority in civil matters (which includes any dispute over the ownership of property, residency disagreements, or custody matters involving children, among other things). If you get into it with your roommate and she tries to leave with your property or property you have in common, officers on scene are unlikely to be able to prevent this – that’s a pure judgment call if ownership is in dispute, and we’re not paid enough to be judges. This is exactly what arbitration and small claims court is for. Same dynamic with disagreements about lease terms in a shared residence. With custody issues, in the absence of signs that the child would be unsafe or a crystal clear, signed court order to the contrary, officers are not going to take a child out of the arms of one parent and put them in the arms of the other. Again, that’s a call for a judge to make with all the facts on the bench, not for officers to make snap decisions about on scene.Be extremely cautious about who you allow to linger at your residence. This point is likely to vary from place to place, but in Missouri the tenancy laws made it extremely easy to establish legal residency: If a person had been living somewhere for more than a handful of days, and had objective signs of established habitation (clothes in a closet, toiletries in the bathroom, and so on), they were for all intents and purposes legal residents of that address. How does that affect you? Police officers cannot compel someone to leave their own residence absent probable cause they’d committed a crime, which can make for some ugly headaches. Case in point: One night I was dispatched to a call logged as trespassing. I responded to a mobile home park and met a trailer owner in his front yard who said, “There’s a guy in my house, and I want you to make him leave.” After playing twenty questions with him (I’ll spare you the transcript), I finally found out that the male in question was homeless, and that the owner had either been playing Good Samaritan (his version) or leveraging the situation for sex (my suspicion) for two weeks. Everything the homeless male owned was in the house. In that situation, he had established legal residency – it was, from a legal standpoint, his home.Upon making contact with the male, I asked him what his name was. The response? “I am the incarnation of Jesus Christ sent to a broken and dying world!” I’ll grant that he had the hair for it, but other than that everything he said made it fairly clear he was reality challenged. One of the few coherent things he said was a refusal to leave, which I had to honor. I had sympathy for the homeowner – really, I did – but at that point he had to go through the process of evicting his newfound companion, which had to be done through the sheriff’s office and took a minimum of thirty days. My hands were completely tied.The takeaway here is that, if you decide to do someone a solid and let them crash on your couch or whatever the case may be, ensure that you’ve got an exit plan in place lest you get into a similar situation. Once residency becomes established, officers can attempt to persuade someone to leave, but they cannot compel them to do so; it matters not whether they’re on the lease or whether they pay rent if the parameters for residency in your jurisdiction have otherwise been met. It also doesn't matter what their state of mind is if they're not an imminent danger to themselves or others; having schizophrenia, reality issues, or other psychological conditions is not a crime, and officers cannot whisk people suffering from them out of your life just because they're bothersome to you, because they have the same rights you do.Missing Person CasesAs a general rule, report people as missing as soon as their whereabouts cannot be determined. The time frame this occurs within will obviously fluctuate based on who we're talking about – you obviously don't need to call the police if you can't raise your spouse after two tries to their cell phone. However, if someone is actually missing, your reporting it to police puts the person's name in law enforcement computer systems, meaning that if someone stumbles upon them and runs their name, there will be a 'hit' that alerts dispatch or the officer that they have been reported missing. This is especially important for children, those with special needs, and the elderly. I once stumbled upon an 86 year old man in the middle of a multiple lane highway who was out of gas and confused; to make a very long story short, he had gotten disoriented while driving and drove aimlessly for hours across the state until he ran out of gas, thankfully right in front of me (as opposed to in a ditch down a country road). His family couldn't find him, and just looked around their city for him all day long; if they'd reported him missing instead, I'd have been alerted as soon as I pulled his information up. As it stood, I had to do over an hour of research to figure out who he was and how to get him home.Keep accurate and current information about your children on hand. This includes a recent photograph of them, and preferably a hard copy. Keep tabs on their height and weight as best you can – accurate information is invaluable on missing person reports, and all of this gets plugged into the computer system that can be searched in the event they are contacted after having gone missing.If you have a volatile relationship with a teenager, try to establish a safe place for them to retreat to. I realize this is not ideal, but if they're prone to leaving the house out of anger and they're mobile, try to negotiate a place they can go in advance, whether that's with a relative or a friend's house whose parents you know. I worked several repeat 'missing person' cases in which the teen in question left any time she got in a fight with her mother, who called police the minute she got out of sight. I'd come and take the time-consuming report, only to get called back a few hours later after she cooled off and returned home. If mom had just known where her daughter was going, there would have been no need to involve me at all, and no need to make a computer operator at headquarters enter worthless information in the state system that just had to be redacted later.Someone's failure to return a child from visitation on time is not a “parental abduction.” Someone not abiding by the terms of a custody agreement is a civil issue, not a criminal one, and needs to be taken up with your attorney. Reporting this as a parental abduction (perhaps in hopes of using officers to harass your ex by proxy) is a needless waste of resources.Traffic Stops, Vehicle Searches, and DUI/DWIIf a police vehicle activates red and blue lights behind your vehicle, the officer has developed probable cause that you have committed a traffic violation and is initiating a vehicle stop on your vehicle. By law, you must pull your vehicle off of the roadway as soon as it is practical to do so; that means you should neither panic and jerk your car onto the shoulder nor cruise along until you get to wherever you were going.At night, the officer will illuminate your cabin with a powerful spotlight on their car. This is standard practice and is done on every car stop conducted at night – don’t let this alarm you. Officers need to be able to see you and the interior of your vehicle for their safety.Most officers will wait to initiate a car stop until you’re around safe areas to pull over or exit the roadway. However, if he or she initiates the car stop where it’s difficult or impossible to pull over for some reason, activate your turn signal or hazard lights to give the officer assurance that you’re in the process of complying with the stop – if you just keep driving without such acknowledgment, at some point the officer may treat the situation as a low speed pursuit.The vast, vast majority of vehicle stops you’re likely to be subject to will be initiated by a marked patrol unit (that is, a police vehicle that is marked as such, often with a lightbar on top). If this is the case, you shouldn’t have many concerns about legitimacy – no vinyl company would outfit a private vehicle to look like a police cruiser. However, in certain instances you may be stopped by an unmarked unit.  If something about the circumstances of the stop makes you question its legitimacy, activate your hazard lights (‘flashers’) and call 911 or your local emergency number. Tell the call taker, “I have a vehicle attempting to make a car stop on me [your direction of travel] on [street name] at [nearest intersecting street]; can you confirm this is legitimate?” If the unit behind you has “called in” the car stop over the radio, the call taker will immediately be able to see the log on the officer status screen and will ask you to comply with the stop. If it hasn’t been called in yet, the call taker will have dispatch poll officers in the field to inquire: “Dispatch to any [agency] unit attempting a car stop at [intersection], your radio number?” Sometimes a unit is delayed in calling a stop in for any number of reasons – this gives them an opening on the radio to do so. Once they confirm, dispatch will inform the call taker, who will have you stop. In this instance, officers will know that you were checking the legitimacy of the stop and that this is why you were delayed in stopping.If dispatch polls officers and there is no response, you will probably be instructed to either stay your present course or to drive toward a police station; an officer will likely be dispatched to intercept you and investigate. It’s possible in this case that the unit didn’t hear their radio or is having radio trouble; if so, the intercepting unit will inform dispatch and attempt contact with the unit stopping you. However, if the officer finds it’s a fraudulent stop, officers will conduct a “felony car stop” on the fake unit, which is a bit complicated to explain at length here, but involves ordering occupants out one at a time at gunpoint (you have to assume someone pretending to be a police officer is armed). Dispatch will be giving you instructions as all of this happens – follow all of their directions.Officers will always prefer you exit the roadway during a car stop if possible (for instance, into a parking lot); every year, officers are injured or killed by vehicles hitting them and/or their patrol vehicle at the side of the road. Sometimes you don’t have an opportunity to do so – in that case, just pull as far off the road as you safely can given the circumstances.There may be a delay between the time you get stopped and when the officer exits his vehicle to approach you. There are several things that the officer could be doing – running your license plate information, waiting for another unit, and so on – so don’t read too much into it. In the meantime, you can get your driver’s license and insurance information out, because the officer will want this information every time. However, if this documentation isn’t easily accessible, don’t dig around for it, because the officer may interpret this movement as your trying to hide something or access a weapon.Car stops are a vital component of law enforcement – they go way beyond traffic enforcement, because police have found rapists, murderers, and even terrorists by conducting car stops (Timothy McVeigh was caught during a car stop for a license plate infraction). However, they are a very high risk proposition for officers, since they have no idea who they just stopped (as opposed to 911 call response, in which they have at least some idea of what they’re getting into). Every officer has seen training videos of vehicle stops during which the driver exited with a weapon or armed themselves as the officer approached. There are several things that you can do to put the officer at ease:Activate the dome light in your cabin if it’s after dark.Keep your hands in plain view, whether in your lap or on the steering wheel.Do not under any circumstances exit your vehicle at any point unless explicitly instructed to do so. If you exit without clearance to do so, you’re likely to be ordered back into your vehicle or to the ground for handcuffing (depending on the agency’s training and policies), potentially at gunpoint. If you have a compelling reason to exit the vehicle while the officer is in his or her vehicle, get their attention by summoning them with an empty hand out the window.Don’t make any sudden movements, whether before or during contact with the officer.Most ordinances and/or statutes dictate that a stopped driver must obey any “lawful and reasonable request” made by a police officer during a traffic stop. This does not mean that you have to let an officer search, because absent probable cause or a warrant such a search would not be lawful. However, if an officer asks you to exit your vehicle, you must do so; if you refuse, you will likely be forcibly removed and charged with obstructing or resisting an officer.If you are driving a vehicle, you are in legal control of it. That means if you get pulled over and the officer asks for consent to search the vehicle, you can consent or refuse no matter whether or not you own the vehicle. Conversely, if you allow someone to drive your vehicle, they can grant full consent to search it – so make sure you're loaning it to someone you're on the same page with here.Officers typically will not allow you to use your cell phone during a traffic stop – there should be no need for it, given most stops take on the order of a few minutes to complete.  Some advice on the Internet says that upon police contact, you should ask something along the lines of “Am I under arrest, or am I free to leave?” This for the most part does not have bearing on a traffic stop, because legally speaking a traffic stop is a “detention” during which you are neither free to leave nor under arrest. Now, courts have asserted that traffic stops lasting beyond a reasonable amount of time can turn the situation into what is called a “de facto arrest;” however, a car stop would need to stretch to between thirty minutes and an hour, depending on the circumstances, for this to even be in the conversation. This applies to everyone in the vehicle, not just the driver. This means passengers cannot ask this “magic question” and claim to have been arrested if they’re not allowed to leave.Passengers may or may not be asked to identify themselves during a stop; I cannot give an all-encompassing answer as to whether they are compelled by law to do so. Technically, in most places witnesses to a crime are required to identify themselves to law enforcement officers, and since passengers witnessed the infraction, the officer may have some legal standing to request identification – but that depends on case law where you live. If you are adamant about not identifying yourself as the passenger of a vehicle, you need to research your locally applicable laws to ascertain whether you can legally refuse to do so.The officer will check the information from your driver’s license either on his in-car computer or over the radio with dispatch. He or she will be able to see the status of your driver’s license (valid, suspended, revoked, expired, or no driving privilege); if you’re suspended, revoked, or no privilege you’re almost certainly getting a citation. You could get a citation if you’re expired – it typically depends on the officer and on how far expired your license is. In some places, officers can seize suspended or revoked licenses. Also, if your license is not valid, the officer may or may not let you drive away from the scene; that’s up to their discretion. If not, you’ll have to arrange for transportation from the scene.Despite apparently widespread belief to the contrary, officers cannot look up your insurance information if you don’t have proof of insurance in your vehicle; it is not paired with your driving record, and officers do not have access to insurance company databases. [Edit: Christopher Hawk has alerted me to the fact that some states are beginning to pair insurance information with vehicle registrations; however, this is not a widespread practice, and information systems can fail - I'm of the opinion that you should still keep a hard copy of proof of your being insured.] Always keep this information at hand, preferably with information both in your wallet and in the vehicle. If you don’t have proof of insurance, the officer will probably write a citation (which is permissible even if you’re actually insured, since most ordinances are for “failure to show proof” as opposed to “failure to have”). If so, judges will typically dismiss these tickets if you can prove you were covered when the citation was issued – but you must still appear at your court date unless cleared by the court or the prosecutor’s office.Officers have wide latitude in what citations they issue during a traffic stop. Based on their discretion, they can choose to write for every observed violation, selected violations, or none at all and instead issue a warning. That said, most officers will typically write the most serious violation if there is more than one (or perhaps two if there are several). This was my personal policy, unless it was a DWI, in which case I wrote every defensible citation applicable; I typically wrote over five citations to DWI drivers (in addition to arrest, of course).There is no hard and fast number of miles per hour over the limit at which officers start writing tickets. Legally, they can start at one over, but in practice the minimum is usually five (though again, an officer has every right to write for a 56 in a 55 – it’s a bright line threshold). Speeding tickets under five miles per hour over the limit are unlikely to add any points to your license.Officers do not have a “quota” for tickets during a particular time frame, because quotas are illegal. Whether a particular supervisor encourages a given general level of ticketing or for particular types of tickets to be written is another thing, but they cannot legally compel officers to write a particular number of tickets. Certain types of tickets, however, may be mandatory; I believe citations for failure to show proof of insurance were in this category for me based on statute language at the time I was an officer. Every officer has their own philosophy for different types of tickets – where I usually gave a month or two of leeway on license plate expirations, some officers started writing tickets the minute they expired, and so on.Officers cannot search a vehicle simply because they want to or they’re curious – they have to pass legal thresholds to be able to do so. Some of these thresholds (but not all – this topic is constantly changing due to judicial rulings and case law):“Plain sight” and/or “plain smell.” In simple terms, this means if an officer plainly sees or smells contraband (most typically drugs or drug paraphernalia) in your vehicle, he or she can seize it (or, in the case of plain smell, search and seize it) without consent and without a warrant. In this situation, the officer will likely have clearance to search the rest of the cabin of the vehicle, but probably not the trunk (research the term “Chimel circle” if you want the legal backstory as to why).Probable Cause. If you admit to a crime that would involve an item in the vehicle (or officers otherwise develop probable cause that you committed a crime), officers can detain you and search your vehicle’s interior for the item in question.Consent. If an officer asks for consent to search the vehicle and you grant it, the search is legal.http://...Exigent Circumstances. This is rare, but there may be a circumstance in which life or limb is in jeopardy and officers are compelled to search without consent or a warrant. In this situation, the need to protect life will have trumped any desire to bring charges, because a search like this will likely be in danger of being thrown out of judicial proceedings.If the officer suspects you are intoxicated, he or she will ask you to exit your vehicle, tell you of their suspicions, and likely ask you to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). This is the stuff you’ve probably seen on TV – looking at your eyes, walking heel to toe, and standing on one leg. It’s likely you can legally refuse to submit to these tests; however, be aware that officers will take such refusal into account as they’re developing probable cause. Given there was suspicion already, there’s a high probability that you’ll be arrested for DWI/DUI upon refusing to submit to SFSTs. The officer may also ask you to submit a breath sample to a small handheld unit called a Portable Breath Tester (PBT). Again, it’s likely that you’re not legally required to do so but, again, refusals play into the metrics of whether the officer has probable cause to arrest. In practice, officers tend to use these devices if your test results are ambiguous and they’re trying to develop a better picture of your impairment level. In Missouri as of my tenure in law enforcement, PBT results are not admissible in court unless you provide a breath sample to a PBT and later refuse to submit a breath sample to the testing equipment at the police station or jail. However, this will be dynamic based on your location.Every state in the union has some form of what are called “implied consent” laws. This means your acceptance of a driver’s license automatically implies you will consent to testing connected to a DUI/DWI arrest. As a result, if you’re arrested for DUI/DWI and an officer asks you to submit a sample of your breath or blood, you must do so – refusing to will result in your license being seized and immediately revoked for an extended period of time (in Missouri, for a year).It is illegal to drive while impaired by anything, not just alcohol. You can be arrested, charged, and convicted of DUI for driving while under the influence of marijuana (even if it is legal in your jurisdiction), illicit drugs, over the counter medication, or medication that is legally prescribed to you. You will not duck the charge just because you blow a .000 reading on the breath testing machine at the station or jail; if you exhibit impairment without an alcohol reading registering, the arresting officer will page a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) – an officer with special training in recognizing impairment by drugs other than alcohol. He or she will likely subject you to a battery of tests to either ascertain or confirm your method of impairment; these tests are likely covered by implied consent.Property CrimesThe terms for property crimes are often interchanged erroneously:A robbery is the forcible taking of property from someone’s person, whether by physical force or by coercion. The term “mugging” is just slang for a street robbery. Residences cannot be “robbed,” and you cannot be “robbed” if you’re not present.A burglary is the taking of property by unlawfully entering or remaining in a building.Embezzlement is the misappropriation of assets by means of conversion (typically corporate to private).Stealing/Theft/Larceny are somewhat interchangeable, and involve willfully depriving another of their property by means other than those listed above. Intangible things can also be stolen; if you stiff a cab driver on fare or throw your garbage in someone else’s dumpster, you’re committing what we refer to as “theft of service.”Here’s the number one piece of advice I can give you to reduce your chance of being a victim of property crime: Lock the things that hold your stuff. Lock those things every time you are not entering or exiting those things. Thieves typically look for low-hanging fruit when they’re looking to steal something.  For example, stealing from a vehicle: A thief would much rather wander through a lot surreptitiously checking door handles than he would to break a car window. Breaking a window carries a risk of injury, risk of tripping an alarm, and a risk that a passerby will be alerted to his presence. If you see someone bash a window in, you’ll immediately be suspicious; if you see someone nonchalantly open the driver’s side door of a vehicle, though, you won’t give it a second thought. That’s what the thief is counting on. You can greatly increase the likelihood your vehicle will be passed over simply by locking your doors. It’s not hard – it involves pushing a button. You wouldn’t believe the number of people who just don’t, though. We worked so many thefts from vehicles involving entry through unlocked doors that our police department started taking out PSAs in local media just to beg people to start locking their doors.Same holds for your residence – keep your doors locked. For sure keep them locked when it is unoccupied, but I keep my doors perpetually locked if I’m not in the process of walking through them. A family in a neighboring community recently had an incident during which the mother woke up to a sound in the hallway and found an unknown male standing at her daughter’s bedroom door. The male was drunk and had wandered into their unlocked house by mistake; he fled after being assaulted by the woman’s husband and was later arrested. One twist of a deadbolt would have prevented all of this. Thankfully, the man apparently had no malicious intent – but it could have turned out much, much differently if he had.I don’t know why some people have such an aversion to locking the doors to their homes and vehicles. It can’t be the effort involved. Perhaps people want to delude themselves into thinking that they live in their own personal Mayberry; maybe they have convinced themselves that the thieves win if you lock your doors, or that securing your property is tantamount to “living in fear.” Or maybe they think that their city/neighborhood/street/apartment complex is “safe” and immune from those with ill intent (unless where you live is surrounded by a laser-mounted shark-filled moat with razor wire walls impregnated with anti-aircraft batteries, this just isn’t true, and maybe not even then). Whatever the justification, it’s baseless. Your risk of becoming a victim of a property crime plummets just by locking up your things.Close behind locking up your things is not advertising the fact that you have things.Don’t leave valuables in your car. Now, with that ideal laid out there, I realize there sometimes isn’t any way around it; in those cases, ensure that you conceal those items completely, whether in the trunk, under a seat, or in the glove compartment. Don’t forget to conceal your charger, too; the presence of a 12V electronics charger suggests that a device may be present in the car. A valuable item in your seat or on the dash tells would-be thieves that a couple of millimeters of glass are all that separate them from possessing it.If you get a new appliance or gadget, don’t set the box out on the curb for pickup. It’s an open advertisement to anyone passing by that whatever is featured on the box is currently inside your house. Chop your product boxes up into pieces if you’re going to throw them away, and separate the pieces into separate bags or cans.Mind your privacy settings on social media if you want to brag about your new gizmos and doodads – again, if your privacy settings are set to ‘Public,’ you might as well have taken an ad out in the local paper about your new stuff, and probably (with a little digging) where you live and what your work schedule is. This holds for trips and vacations, too – if you advertise a timeframe during which your residence will be unoccupied, would-be burglars know exactly how long they have to work without worrying about whether someone is going to return home. Thieves are only getting more savvy – keep a lid on your business.If you have valuable items that have serial numbers, write them down. Often pawn shops and other similar businesses are required to check new inventory against a registry of stolen items; if you include an item with a serial number on a report and someone later tries to unload it at a pawn shop, it will be flagged and police will have an instant lead on your case. If you don’t have a serial number, there’s nothing to say that what they’re trying to sell isn’t another of the tens to hundreds of thousands of the items with the same model number that exist on Earth. If a valuable item doesn’t have a serial number, you can engrave or affix an alphanumeric sequence of your own on it (preferably somewhere that’s difficult to find without looking for it). These are referred to a “personal identifying marks” and can be entered into a report just like a manufacturer’s serial number.If someone tries to give or sell you something that has the VIN or serial number defaced or scratched off, refuse it. There is a high probability that the item is stolen and, depending on the circumstance, this is likely something you want to alert police to – in many to most cases, the mere possession of such an item is a crime in and of itself, especially if it’s a vehicle.  If you’re on the verge of getting a deal on something you’re buying from a private party (for instance, during a Craigslist transaction) that’s too good to be true, start asking questions. If they’re selling something for a hundred dollars that’s worth a thousand, it might be because it’s stolen and they’re trying to turn it into a quick buck – I once dealt with a situation in which a guy sold a $3,000 Vespa off of a tailgate for $30 just to unload it as fast as he possibly could. Ask them where they got it, how long they’ve had it, why they’re selling it and, for an item of value, for a receipt or other proof of their purchase. You can also tell them you’ll need a receipt for the private sale if you purchase it, with their identifying and contact information on it. If the item is stolen, the person selling it will give you vague, hesitant or conflicting answers, and will balk at giving you any personal information. If things don’t add up after asking for this information, walk away. You’re not sacrificing a deal – you’re refusing to reward someone for their stealing it (or profiting from someone who did), and the mere possession of stolen property is likely a crime in and of itself.If you’re in a public place, don’t leave your things unattended – even for a miniscule length of time. People are especially terrible about this in libraries, and especially on college campuses; they’ll get a study session going and spread their textbooks, cell phone, music player, laptop, and whatever else out on the table, and then get up and leave it to go to the bathroom, go outside and smoke, or even to go eat. Then they come back and are shocked, shocked to find it all gone. I’ve watched this happen on surveillance footage – it takes less than ten seconds to clear a table of valuables, and in the instance I watched there were people all around who had no idea a felony stealing was happening two tables over.

Note that I lightly edited the answer to remove some info that it didn't seem fair to have be public.Definitely not Zenefits.Mostly, it seems like where you really want to work is Google ("I think that [Zenefits] isn't as exciting a brand name to have on your resume when applying to the likes of Google."). You should just apply there. If you're able to pass our engineering interview, I'm pretty sure you could get a job there.There are two things about this answer that make me think you wouldn't be a great fit here....1) We really value people who "get" what we do and who *want* to work here, specifically. It's not for everyone, but there are enough ppl out there who do want to work here that we can afford to be selective. One of our company values is to have a bias towards action -- which means that when people are hesitating / going back and forth about whether they want to work here, we usually view that as a bad sign.2) We don't have terribly high regard for ppl who would choose where to work based on "buzzwords" and how big a brand it is (or simply to position themselves for later in their career) instead of something more foundational about the opportunity, the challenge, etc.Separately, I do think we have some enormous technical challenges at the company -- most things done at scale, growing quickly, present large technical challenges sooner rather than later (for example -- Uber is just a taxi-hailing company, right? What's the big technical challenge there? Of course, if you're the *biggest* transportation / taxi company in the world, suddenly these challenges reveal themselves....)

What would you do to an ex who poisoned you after stealing your money and then ran away with someone else? The police does nothing in this case; it is all up to you.I am going to tell you my story in all it’s glory - anonymously for legal reasons.I was married to a woman. It was my second marriage. She was a smoking hot Asian who could cook up a storm both in bed and at the stove. Seriously.She was poor. Had a little girl.We went on our first date, and she asked if I could show her my home. I complied. Once there, she physically restrained me, ripped off my clothes, and gave me the most passionate night of sex I ever had up to that point. But it was forceful, practically against my will (my weaker side gave in easily, but I really tried to resist with Christian intent).A few weeks later, she called me at work telling me she didn’t think I loved her because I was working. I was too stupid to realize how she was manipulating me. I seriously thought she was having a crisis, so I left work, bought $500 in jewelry, and arrived at her tenement to give it to her and assure her of my love.A few months later, she and her daughter moved into my house with me. On the first weekend, she went out for a Friday evening with an ex-boyfriend. She pleaded me to let her go. I gave in.She didn’t return for nearly 48 hours. Leaving me without ability to contact her with her five or six year old little girl.And when I became angry about it, she said not to worry. Nothing happened.We eventually married, moved across country, and one night she decided it was appropriate to publicly berate me in a grocery store for being fat, while buying a huge bottle of our stable - processed vegetable oil. Asian food she cooked was drenched in it. Yeah - it tasted good, but by this time, since I met her, a year later, I had gained 100 lbs, and she kept berating me for it.On this particular night, she decided it was wrong for me to leave her alone in the car after the public berating, so she came into the apartment, stormed into the bedroom where I was already half asleep, and she proceeded to beat the shit out of me.From that point on, she started treating me with “asian medicine” for my migraines, and was giving me medicines that, in American medical science is literally poison.Creosote was one, in pill form God help me, I probably have some form of digestive cancer building.Some sort of methylated oil of some sort - supposed to be topical on temples, forehead, neck, under nose, throat. Has a warning on bottle - DEADLY IF CONSUMED - drops in water to heal my headache. She forced me, physically restraining me, and claiming rape if I resisted, and fed it to me. Ten minutes later I was vomiting a color I could never quite understand, and it went on for days.Some years later, on 9/11, after continuing to endure this constant abuse and certain poisoning by this woman (constant gastric disturbances requiring hospitalizations or ER visits), I finally left her.She then proceeded to steal my house, worth $450,000 by arranging to have an asian mafia thug meet me in a highly public place, present me with a phony deed, asking me to sign for valuable consideration. I asked what the valuable consideration was. He said, never mind, just sign. I refused, realizing they were trying to steal my house, which was about to be foreclosed (and I was fine with it).I began contacting local police, who had a station within eyesight but no cops in sight. He contacted someone on his cell phone asking if he can kill me right there. In English. Then he suddenly put his plate-less Cadillac Escalade into gear and sped out of the parking lot, spinning his tires the entire way. My wife was in the passenger seat the entire time looking excited that I might be about to be shot, egging him on, “Ya - do it!”.The following Monday, my divorce attorney called me asking about a deed filed with the county that morning, transferring ownership of the home I owned. I also received a call from the bank confirming my call to them about a pending bankruptcy, which stopped the foreclosure auction that morning, and why didn’t I call them myself?Well, I did not sign a deed, nor call the bank, so I started freaking out at work, went to HR, explained the situation, and took six weeks off to go berserk.First order of business, in a freaked out manner:I contacted no fewer than eight local police agencies, the FBI, and finally the Secret Service to find someone to file a criminal complaint. Everyone but the Secret Service considered it a domestic situation. Secret Service invited me down for an interview, bring at least ten previously signed documents, and a copy of the deed.They took the documents, and sent them to an analyst, and took me into an interview room. They proceeded to interview me as to the events leading up the creation of the deed, and my forged signature.About forty-five minutes later, the analyst pokes his nose in, hands a stack of papers, and whispers to the agent in charge. The agent said, “Thank you”, and closed the door and returned.It was silent for about another thirty seconds as the door agent looked at me, the senior agent, and back a few times, shaking his head. He handed the stack to the AIC and said, “[redacted name] is a phantom in Detroit, and the address here is the intersection of an industrial side street and a main rail line, and this “phantom” had purchased more than a dozen homes in the county in this very distant state in the previous year. Oh, and the signature is definitely forged.I was released, and never heard a word again about the case. All my subsequent calls were ignored and not returned.Eventually I lost the 100 lbs, the six figure job, the bitch, became homeless living in my car with my cat, and went through my own little form of hell on earth.Being a Christian, the Lord kept me through it all, and strengthened me so I can face a new challenge that has come before me this past month much better prepared. I am in better health, gained back most of that weight but now losing it again, and moving forward having been able to let her go.She is still free, and will remain so. Let it and her be now. I have other people to forgive of more heinous crimes against me, and more recovery to make.Glory be to God, who as given me the ability to let her and my anger toward her go, and given me an entire new family since all this; a wife of true noble character as Solomon described in Proverbs 31:10 - 31 (end of chapter), and two amazing kids.[UPDATE: I’m not the asker of the question, but reading some of the other answers, and this one, I can clearly see why you thought I was. :p Sorry - different dude here.

As we only have the gospels, we can not establish their reliability by comparing the gospel accounts to independent contemporary accounts. However we can compare the gospels to each other and consider the literary evidence and the time interval before they were written.The one historical event that can be checked is the year when John the Baptist was executed and the place of his execution. The gospels and Josephus both agree that John was executed because of his public criticism of Herod Antipas’ marriage to his brother’s former wife. The synoptic gospels place his execution at the very beginning of Jesus’ mission and Luke 3:1 places it in the vicinity of 29 CE. However, Josephus says that the wedding took place in 34 CE and provides other evidence that makes John’s death more likely in 35 or even 36 CE. If the gospels are unreliable on the one thing we are able to check, we should assume it is also unreliable in many other cases.To be reliable, the gospels should tell the same story with no signNow contradiction but clearly they do not, in spite of the attempts of apologists to prove otherwise. For example, John’s Gospel is so different from the synoptic gospels that it was long thought to have been based on sources independent of the other gospels. However, the gospels supposedly report on the same Jesus, so the differences have to be explained. As a child I was told that the apostle John wrote “his” gospel to correct the errors he found in the earlier gospels, but that explanation is no longer sustainable. The Jesus Seminar concluded that John’s Gospel is an unreliable source for the sayings of Jesus.Mark’s Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8 with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they fled in terror, telling no one. If this, the first gospel to be written, could not provide evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead, then the later accounts in Matthew, Luke and John must be considered unreliable, as must the ‘Long Ending’ (verses 16:9–20) that was added to Mark much later.