Oneofthree’s Musings

The ramblings of a 20 something lawyer


Posted by oneofthree on September 28, 2009

Well, it’s been awhile. I’m not even sure when the last time I posted was……I suppose I could start all over, I guess I should – as my title, oneofthree will no longer be valid soon. Hrm, I shall be filing for divorce soon. A little over two years into a marriage, and it’s being reduced down to about 20 papers and a whole bunch of numbers. Sigh.

I know it’s for the best, I know that, but it doesn’t make it easier. I just can’t live with him anymore. For the past 8 months I’ve tried to tell him – I’ve tried to have the “I’m not happy” conversation, and he buried his head into the sand and ignored it. My uncle past away, and he refused to go to the funeral with me. My mom got sick, and he didn’t want to go to the family reunion which was the first time I would have seen her since she really got sick – or at least, the first time after they figured out what was wrong with her. And he’s not a nice person when he’s drunk. He’s one of those, I can say anything when I’m drunk, and it shouldn’t matter – you shouldn’t hold it against me the next day b/c I was drunk……well, for awhile I attempted to go along with that, until about a month ago when he said something that just couldn’t be taken back. Something I could never and will never forget, nor forgive. And I know, I know, you are supposed to forgive. And perhaps, perhaps in time I will, but not now.

I went back to the house today. My intention was to grab some more things to tide me over until I get my own place. I’m staying with a co-worker at the moment. And he left me a letter on my jewelry box. Why is it now that he realizes everything that went wrong? Why is that. Why do people take others for granted, and ignore symptoms that could have been corrected and solved months ago – why do they wait until it’s gone to a place where you can’t take it back? So I ended up curling up on my side of the bed – which is still made up as I left it, and balled for awhile. I think today was the first time I really cried over the failure of my marriage. And I feel like a failure. I’ve never really failed at anything before. And I sure didn’t want to start with my marriage.

Ah to be 30 and divorced. What a fabulous time in my life. I must admit, I am having some fun being able to reconnect with friends and co-workers that I ignored by request of the soon to be ex. And it is a little freeing to be able to go back to doing what I want, when I want to. But that freedom isn’t perfect. I would much rather go back to a year ago when I was happy, when we were happy. I would trade all the freedom and fun in the world to go back to that place.

I miss him. I miss his smell. I miss his face. I miss laughing until 4am on the weekends, or the random weeknight. I miss us, the us that left over a year ago.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Two FSU Football Players Arrested

Posted by oneofthree on September 21, 2007

foot.jpgfootball.jpg TPD arrested Geno Hayes and Joe Surrattlast night on College Avenue around 1:45 am this morning.  Apparently Hayes resisted, or got into an altercation with TPD and was tased.  

With the must win against UAB coming up soon, the fear is that these arrests were justified (I haven’t seen the police reports) and they will both be suspended from the game.

During the Colorado game last weekend, “Geno Hayes finished with six tackles, including two for a loss. Hayes’ effort helped limit the Buffaloes to minus 27 yards rushing and Colorado’s running backs to 25 yards on 17 carries.”

Surratt was out during the game against Colorado with a fractured right fibula.

** UPDATE ** 3:11pm – apparently the two players were arrested for their altercation with law enforcement.  It seems that Hayes was outside Potbelly’s with his shirt off screaming, after being involved in a fight inside the bar. 

Posted in arrested, fsu football, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

we is smart

Posted by oneofthree on September 21, 2007

Take this quiz and tell me what you scored.  Regrettably, I scored an 80%, but hey, you don’t need to know history to practice law, right?

Posted in civics, work | 3 Comments »

Ahmadinejad (I think that’s how you spell it)

Posted by oneofthree on September 21, 2007

The President of Iran is in the US, visiting the UN, and wants to visit ground zero.  Not sure how I feel about this, among allegations that he supports, financially and otherwise, terrorist organizations.  This was an interesting reaction from Hot Air

if this Holocaust-denying terrorist filthbag is allowed to use the remains of the Trade Center for a photo op, the rage on the right will burn so white hot that even the anti-amnesty activism this summer will pale by comparison.

And for Michelle Malkin’s response – oh holy hell

My response was some of the sort, but then I thought about it, how can we dicate where someone visits?  Can we remove a foreign national’s (no matter how much we hate him) visa?  The husband tells me that he didn’t want to visit the site itself, but wanted to go beyond and into the restricted construction zone.  Has anyone found that anywhere?

 ** UPDATED 9/21/07 ** Michelle Malkininforms us that Ahmadinejad is invited to speak at Columbia University.  (About what I wonder?)  Some students are holding protests.  (seems like a month for protects, isn’t it?)

Posted in Ahmadinejad, ground zero | Leave a Comment »

Jena 6

Posted by oneofthree on September 21, 2007

For those of you unaware, the fabulous Rev. Al Sharpton is at it again.  Apparently in Jena, Louisiana 6 black people were arrested for beating up a white kid.  This small town has been simmering in racial tension for at least the past 8 months which climaxed with this beating.  Which prompted Rev. Jesse Jackson criticized Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday over his reaction to the arrest of six black juveniles in Jena, Louisiana, on attempted murder charges, accusing the Illinois senator of “acting like he’s white”.

From what I can gather, this started when a black student sat under what has been known as the “white tree”.  Either the next day, or a few days later, nooses showed up on that tree.  The white students were found, and suspended for three days and allowed to return to school.  For roughly 8 months afterwards, several incidents happened.  Fights, shotguns, arson. 

One incident is that a black student attempted to attend a “white party”.  The student was attacked.  Later, that same black student, along with others attacked a different white student.  The white student went to his truck and pulled his shotgun.  The black student took it away.  The white student was not charged, the black student was charged with theft.  Now – I can kinda understand why they didn’t charge the white student – self defense – although I question whether pulling a shotgun is allowed -even if you are presented with several other attackers.  If he could get his gun, couldn’t he get in his car and leave?  But I can understand, somewhat.  I do not understand the charge of theft. 

About 4 days after the arson of the school, 6 black students,  Mychal Bell, Robert Bailey Jr., Carwin Jones, Bryant Purvis, Theo Shaw and Jesse Ray Beard — were originally charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy, according to LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters, for attacking a white student, Justin Barker -what the police originally charge someone with, is not necessarily what they will go to court on.  The prosecutor changed the charges to Agg battery with a deadly weapon.  Barker ended up in the hospital and was released several hours later.  Parents of the 6 defendants claim that Barker was using racial slurs against the 6.  Barkers family argues this point.

The prosecution claimed that a shoe was the deadly weapon.  Before you complain, there is caselaw (at least in Florida) that a shoe can be a deadly weapon.  Of the 6, Bell, one has been convicted of aggravated battery, but the conviction was vacated and he remains in jail awaiting a decision from the prosecution.  There is to be a hearing withing 72 hours.  The judge originally refused to reduce his bond citing his prior record, including battery.

There have been several outcries that this is racially motivated as the original white kids were not charged.  My understanding, from Florida law, is a hate crime can only exist when a crime has been committed.  It’s like a label that is applied.  (If I’m wrong, please point me in the right direction)  Hanging nooses, while disgusting, is protected speech.  (just like the KKK can yell whatever they want, if they do not make a move towards anyone they are allowed to preach whatever beleifs they want) I cannot think of a criminal offense that it applies to, neither did the state prosecutor, or federal prosecutors who looked into the case.

What concerns me is that people are using the race card.  If roles were reversed, and it was 6 white kids who attacked a single black male – the NAACP would still be involved, but they would be screaming for prison as a hate crime.  And if someone came along and claimed the 6 white kids shouldn’t be charged b/c the victim called them crackers, the NAACP would run that person out of town.  So why is it ok when it’s a white victim?

While I do not condone the nooses, it was my understanding that part of the original civil rights movement was to make sure the justice system is color blind.  Not blind to only one color.  I don’t agree with anyone claiming that because a racial slur was used, justifies physical aggression – esp 6 on 1.  (those of you who complained about the police being 6 on 1 on the gater fool, think about it.  cake and eat it?)

I do not agree that these kids, or anyone regardless of their race, should be allowed a free pass b/c a victim used a racial slur.  That is something that can be taken into account at the time of sentencing not the actual trial.  It is not a legal defense.

Posted in al sharpton, fears, first amendment, jena 6, jesse jackson, race crimes | 7 Comments »

The First Amendment is NOT absolute

Posted by oneofthree on September 20, 2007

Contrary to what a lot of people believe, the first amendment is not absolute.   I have pulled some federal caselaw from the Supreme Court to validate what I have posted on other sites, and within my own 

 US v. Albertini., 472 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1985)

” The First Amendment does not bar application of a neutral regulation that incidentally burdens speech merely because a party contends that allowing an exception in the particular case will not threaten important government interests. See Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 296-297, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 3070-3071, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984) (“the validity of this regulation need not be judged solely by reference to the demonstration at hand”). Regulations that burden speech incidentally or control the *689 time, place, and manner of expression, see id., at 298-299, and n. 8, 104 S.Ct., at 3071-3072, and n. 8, must be evaluated in terms of their general effect. Nor are such regulations invalid simply because there is some imaginable alternative that might be less burdensome on speech. Id., at 299, 104 S.Ct., at 3072.

Or specifically in Florida, dealing with student’s First Amendment rights (this may or may not be directly on point, I’m not sure if the rally was held on school property or not…) M.C. v. State., 695 So.2d 477

We therefore first consider whether the statute is violative of M.C.’s First Amendment rights or is overbroad in the sense that it inhibits protected First Amendment rights of others. M.C. asserts that under this court’s decision in L.A.T. v. State,650 So.2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), her loud verbal protests in the school’s office was constitutionally protected free speech under both the federal and Florida constitutions. We disagree and find M.C.’s reliance upon L.A.T. to be wholly misplaced.

In L.A.T.,this court reversed a juvenile’s adjudication of delinquency for disorderly conduct which had been predicated upon the juvenile’s screaming obscenities to police officers who were arresting the juvenile’s friend in a shopping center parking lot. This court found L.A.T.’s conduct to be specifically protected by the First Amendment where L.A.T.’s verbal protests neither “inflict[ed] injury or tend[ed] to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” 650 So.2d at 217 (quoting Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 133, 94 S.Ct. 970, 972, 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974)). While L.A.T.’s loud verbal protests of police actions may be constitutionally protected in the setting of an open public shopping center parking lot, those same protests may not enjoy such constitutional protection in other settings.

The nature of a place, ‘the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable.’ Although a silent vigil may not unduly interfere with a public library, Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 86 S.Ct. 719, 15 L.Ed.2d 637 (1966), making a speech in the reading room almost certainly would. That same speech should be perfectly appropriate in a park. The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2303, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)(footnotes omitted).

The obvious intent of section 877.13 is to ensure that the educational institutions and their administrators are free to perform their lawful functions without undue or unwarranted interference or disruption from others. We note early on that this statute does not seek to proscribe or regulate the content of any particular speech; rather it seeks to regulate expressive activity or conduct which significantly interferes with lawful educational functions. We do not believe that M.C.’s obstreperous protests in the school office were compatible with its normal functions.

*481 [5] Link to KeyCite Notes[6] Link to KeyCite Notes “While it is true that rights protected by the First Amendment are not magically lost when one steps upon school property, ‘neither teachers, students, nor anyone else has an absolute constitutional right to use all parts of a school building for unlimited expressive purposes.’ ” McCall v. State, 354 So.2d 869, 871 (Fla.1978) (quoting Connecticut State Federation of Teachers v. Board of Ed. Members, 538 F.2d 471, 480 (2d Cir.1976)). Contrary to M.C.’s assertion on appeal, she did not have an unlimited right to verbally protest her brother’s arrest while on school property. “Time, place, and manner regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests and are permitted.” McCall, 354 So.2d at 871. In assessing the reasonableness of the statute before us, we must determine whether it is narrowly tailored to further the state’s legitimate interest in having the educational institutions of this state function or operate smoothly without material disruption. Id. We find that is does. Our touchstone in making this determination is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. 733, 736, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969) wherein the U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to harmonize or reconcile the First Amendment rights with the special characteristics of the school environment. In Tinker, the Court held unconstitutional a school regulation which prohibited students from wearing black armbands on school property in symbolic protest of the Vietnam War. While expressly acknowledging that expressive activity could be restricted in the school setting, the Court announced the test as being whether the forbidden conduct or expression “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others….” Id. at 513, 89 S.Ct. at 740. The Tinker Court found the wearing of armbands to be constitutionally protected because “[t]hey neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder.” Id. at 514, 89 S.Ct. at 740.

The clear factual distinction between the statute challenged in Tinker and section 877.13 is that the prohibited conduct in Tinker addressed pure controversial expression which was entirely divorced from actual or potential disruptive conduct by those participating in it. Id. at 505, 89 S.Ct. at 735-36. For that reason, the Tinker Court concluded that the students were entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. Id. at 505-06, 89 S.Ct. at 735-36

We conclude that section 877.13does pass constitutional muster and is not violative of the First Amendment under the Tinker test because its intended purpose is to prevent only that expression or conduct which materially disrupts or interferes with normal school functions or activities. Unlike the passive, expressive conduct of the students in Tinker, M.C.’s boisterous tirade brought the school office’s normal activities temporarily to a halt. Moreover, but for M.C.’s outburst, the students who joined her in the office would have presumably been involved with their other normal school activities at the time. M.C. thus interfered or disrupted with their normal school regimen as well. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that M.C.’s activities were entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment.

And, if you are still reading, Resisting an Officer with Violence is a felony in most states, including Florida.  The statute 843.01 reads –

whomever unlawfully, knowingly and willfully resist, obstruct or oppose a law enforcement officer in the lawful execution of a legal duty, by offering violence or by doing violence is guilty of a 3rd degree felony.

You can commit Resisting with Violence without actual hitting or laying hands on an officer.  That’s why the statute says “by offering violence OR by doing violence.

Posted in first amendment is not absolute, life | 2 Comments »

Talk like a pirate day

Posted by oneofthree on September 20, 2007


Today is talk like a pirate day.  What’s amusing is it was started in 1995 – I thought it was some random holiday that Hallmark created of some sort.  My husband fancies himself a modern day pirate, so you can imagine what I came home to.  :o) 

Also today is the premiere of Kid Nation on CBS.  A few weeks ago I remember reading a lot of bad press on this new show.   40 kids without parents or guardians.  Interesting.  Like a baby survivor.  Plus, giving kids $20,000?  Does that go to their parents?  Should be fun to watch!

Posted in kid nation, marriage, pirate | Leave a Comment »

update to tasing kid

Posted by oneofthree on September 19, 2007

Michelle Malkin updates us on the story – Andrew Meyer, professional taunter

I must say, I ran across her website today for the first time, and I am impressed.

or check out:

tazed and confused


“You, as an American, have a constitutional right to speak. However, you do not have a right to be heard.”

Posted in fears, first amendment, life, police | Leave a Comment »

FU Tasering Student = media whore

Posted by oneofthree on September 19, 2007

I am sick and tired of hearing about police brutality, etc over this whiny, media whore of a kid.    Here’s an article that doesn’t immediately jump to calling for protests at UF (which there were)  fairly interesting.

Here are a few things I would like to add to the mix –

 1.  All these free speech screamers need to realize, the government CAN limit your speech at a public forum.  It’s called time place and manner restrictions.  It is my understanding that this kid, Andrew Meyer, jumped ahead in line to ask his questions.  If that is true, that is a violation of the procedures set up for that question and answer period.  While I’m not saying that leads automatically to being tased, I am saying that if a person violates a procedure that is in place, they can be removed and their speech limited. 

2.  if this kid violated the procedures then LEO had the authority to remove him from the hall.  They have the right to place hands on him, if he does not leave on his own.  Immediately this whiny little chump starting yelling and crying.  Seems to me that he’s being a little media whore trying to get attention.  LEO did nothing wrong at that point by simply placing hands on him.

3.  He beings to resist.  It’s called resisting an officer with violence.  classic case.  that’s a felony people.  at that point leo has the authority to place him under arrest for a felony.  if you listen, while he’s on the floor, leo tells him to stop resisting and warn him that he will be tased if he continues to resist.  What I think is interesting is you see him continuing to struggle, but you don’t see exactly what happens.  he could be kicking the officers, he could be trying to reach for something else – we don’t know – but we do see him continuing to resist arrest and at that point, after warning him, leo has the authority to tase him.

is it fun to see someone tased?  no – ive seen it in court.  it’s scary.  but he wasn’t hurt – he screams like a little girl which just sounds so fake – the topic of police brutality is something that people find sexy, same thing as free speech violations – what you should do before going off the deep end and automatically determine these officers were blatantly wrong is look at the law, look at the video and use your common sense. 

Interesting – this website claims to have the actual police reports.  True that police reports, once a case is filed, is public record, but I wonder how she got them so fast?

 Also – this fellow wordpresser has an interesting quote from someone who claims to have been at the rally when the kid was tased –

if the quote is correct, that would confirm that the kid originally violated the procedures laid out by rushing ahead of everyone, and it makes sense that people started taping him at that point – and also explains why law enforcement was behind him and were so quick to remove him.

Posted in fears, first amendment, life, police | 2 Comments »


Posted by oneofthree on September 18, 2007

randomly browseing through myspace – looking at the people who are listed as graduating from my high school the same year i did – odd – about 95% of the people remained in the same state, and 70% of those are still within 40 miles of my old highschool.  my class had a pretty high college percentage, so why would most people, with a college education, remain within 40 miles of where they went to high school, where they grew up?  just seems odd to me.

Posted in fears, life | Leave a Comment »