Strippers Size Growing!

            Lawyer Josh Sanford, not to be confused with Ponzi Schemer Robert Allen Stanford, has made the paper again. Lawyer Sanford has been a busy fellow. He has increased the number of strip clubs he’s suing in his hoped to be class action lawsuit by fifty percent, from 2 to 3; and increased the number of plaintiff strippers by 20%, from five to six; although one of the strippers may be double counted as being in more than one club’s list of complainants. Still you have to admire the fellow for his active pursuit to right this societal injustice. One suspects that he will visit every strip club in the state if necessary in order to ‘educate’ some additional strippers for the class action, minimum wage lawsuit. After all for Lawyer Sanford to make it a class action lawsuit one would think that he would need more than three clubs and five or six strippers, but I’m not experienced in these things; one must be a lawyer to know such.

In case you missed the prior article, Lawyer Sanford is suing these strip clubs to turn the strippers into employees instead of “independent contractors” thus allowing them to earn the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

“What Shirley? … Good Point.” At the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, the strippers are agreeing to be paid at the lowest level, equivalent to the wage of unskilled labor. Does this indicate that the strippers are acknowledging that they are unskilled labor? Of course no one is suggesting that they are inexperienced, just questioning if they are pleading their case to be recognized as unskilled workers. One wonders if Lawyer Sanford has pursued this with them.

You have to admire the pluck of this guy. Reminds one of Lawyer Daggett in True Grit. To represent Kim Darby, “a young woman just doing her best” Lawyer J. Noble Daggett was even willing to face John Wayne, aka ‘Rooster Cogburn’, to achieve the goal of his client. “What Shirley? … No I wasn’t saying that Lawyer Sanford was just like Lawyer J. Noble Daggett. Just that he sort of reminds me sort of, you know, in the same line as, so to speak. For instance, if I said that President Obama reminds me of President Jimmie Carter I wouldn’t be implying that Carter was a better President, just that they sort or remind me of each other, get it? Good.”

           Lawyer Sanford did not repeat his claim in this recent article that “ if these girls had their tops on, we would call them waitresses”. There are several possibilities for this omission on his part. First, his mother may have called and given him a talking to. Or perhaps, while attempting to order a “Grand Slam Breakfast” at Denny’s some hard working, top-on waitress may have suggested where he could place his order. Most likely some lawyer friend may have cautioned him that he had just maligned the good name and reputation of every hard working waitress in the state and that Lawyer Sanford might become the defendant in small law suit for defamation of character. Can’t you just visualize a waitress attending school on “Parents Day” and when introduced all the students start asking her if she takes off her top like Lawyer Sanford claims his "stripper like waitress" clients do. Wouldn’t it be a hoot if Lawyer Sanford had to be in court on the same day for both lawsuits; one for the stripper pseudo waitresses and one against him by the real waitresses?

           But back to this lawsuit. What if Lawyer Sanford wins, but the clubs can’t exist if required to pay the minimum for unskilled labor to strip off their clothing, and so shut down. Sort of a Pyrrhic Victory for the women “just doing the best they can to hold down a job”, but no longer having a place to work. One wonders if Lawyer Sanford has discussed this with his clients. Would they still have to pay him? Oh, wait, he gets paid by the clubs if they lose. So it could end up being a “lose- lose” situation. The clubs lose and fold; the strippers win but lose a place where “just doing the best they can to hold down a job”. But at least Lawyer Sanford can win, so it’s not a total wash out. At least something good can come out of all of this.

           Think of this though. What if Lawyer Sanford were on permanent retainer from the “Christian Coalition for Cleaner Cities” which has been advocating the shutting down of all strip clubs. He could win his class action suit and make a fortune plus be paid by the “C.C.C.C.” for forcing the strip clubs to shut down. Man, that’s a real ‘two-fer’! Of course that is too devious to have even a scintilla of truth in it.

          “What Shirley?  ….  No, despite what your Father said about your Mother’s divorce lawyer, lawyers don’t just crawl out from under a rock, like an “Orc” or something. I think that you’re confusing them with politicians. ….What? …You say that most politicians are lawyers?” Hmmm, I see your point.

Bits and Pieces of The Day March Tenth

How can you tell when a Politician is running for office?

            Well one clue might be when the politician runs a two column, half page 1,000 word self-written editorial telling the citizens what a great job he has done, as just published by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel of Arkansas. The entire article was a paean to the great job that he has done in protecting the citizens from the evil Utility Companies. Where he was during Lou Hardin’s 1/3 of a million dollar rip off of the taxpayers wasn’t mentioned. Nor why he didn’t join the other 28 states that have successfully proved that “Obamacare” is unconstitutional. Or where was he when those public servants were ripping off the state retirement system while still being paid for working full time? And what has he done in the case of all the state employees misusing state vehicles? But then when one writes one’s own paean, why bring up unpleasant things.

“Non violent” criminal Haven is in the making.

The Arkansas Senate passed the “Commit the Crime, Pay NO Time” bill 31 votes to 0. On the following page was an article about the capture of a burglar for 2 new counts of burglary. Turns out that the industrious young “non violent” criminal has been very busy and is also charged with five additional counts of residential burglary beginning last February 24^th. That’s seven different residential burglaries in three weeks, and average of two per week. One can only wonder what the record will become when the word spreads that in Arkansas such crimes won’t hurl you into the ‘hoosegow’. Unless the bill fails in the House, Arkansans better buy their weapons now; oh, wait, these are “non violent” criminals; they won’t hurt you, forget about needing a weapon. (Read Below).

Logic is how you look at it.

            The Arkansas House just passed a handgun bill that authorizes licensed handgun carriers to keep guns locked in their cars while parked at work. This overrides the employers right to prevent employees from bringing handguns onto the company premises, i.e., the parking lot, with the exception of schools and federal property.

            The bill’s stated intent is “to help workers who toil late at night and don’t feel safe in large parking lots after their shifts”.

            Fortunately I don’t ”toil late at night” but I’m trying to understand the logic of how having a handgun locked in my car makes me safer as I walk out the door and meander toward my vehicle, “late at night”. I guess that if one is accosted by a miscreant who isn’t in jail because he is officially “non violent”, one could request that said miscreant wait until you unlock your car door and retrieve your handgun. Oh well, our politicians have used worse logic to produce legislation.

U.S. Senate can’t find $61 billion of stuff to cut.

            It’s official on Wednesday March 9^th the U.S. Senate was unable to find $61 billion of stuff to cut out of this year’s budget. The fact that it’s grown over 20% (my guess) since 2007 would encourage one to believe that surely there are some things in there we could do without. Especially since we are about $1.2 trillion further in debt this year alone. But, nope the Dems can find $61 billion, might cost them votes; and the ‘Pubs can’t abide a measly $11 billion; it would cause some of them to break their promise. Result, you and I are still sitting on an economic train headed for a fiscal crash of such proportions that all tell us that it will be catastrophic, but our elected officials lack the courage, will, honesty to do anything about it. (Read below).

No needed action of political leadership will go unpunished.

            Well, they did it; the Wisconsin Republican Senators found a sneaky route around the cowardly desertion by the AWOL Democrats to pass a curb on government employee collective bargaining. Allegedly this will save the state and local governments in Wisconsin from future bankruptcy or astronomical tax increases and service cuts. The cost, government employee salary increases may be limited to CPI inflation rate and the employee may no longer be able to bargain on just what and how they will perform their job for the citizens of the state or local government.

            When one recalls the salaries and benefits being paid in California, like at the City of Bell, sounds like the Wisconsin taxpayers may have come out way ahead on this. However, there are already recall petitions and actions being mobilized against those 18 Republican Senators that voted for the taxpayer.

            It’s true, no good deed goes unpunished.

Arkansas May Change its Slogan To: “Commit the Crime, Pay NO Time”

             Arkansas’ Senate unanimously approved a bill this week to overhaul the State’s correctional system. Apparently the stated goal and intent of this 167-page piece of legislation is to “ to curb the rate of growth in the state’s prison population and the amount the state spends on lockups”. Our best minds, a group of state officials put together by the governor (think packed jury here)- called the “Arkansas Working Group on Sentencing and Corrections”, joined with a national prison overhaul group to come up with an absolutely brilliant idea on how to “curb the rate of growth in the state’s prison population”.

            Their solution – don’t send as many convicted criminals to jail!

            Ponder the brilliance of this idea. It has long lasting implementation prospects. Regardless of how many citizens, or folks traveling through, are convicted of crimes in the State of Arkansas, Arkansas will never need any additional prison space. Arkansas just won’t send them to jail. This isn’t just a short term, stopgap solution like so many political hair-brained schemes. It can last forever! And the State has saved the taxpayer vast sums of money that would have been required to incarcerate these miscreants.

            One slight concern and draw back does come to mind. As soon as the word spreads that in Arkansas you can “Commit the Crime and Pay NO Time” they could have an influx of “non violent” criminals. Oh what the heck, it will increase their population, maybe give them a 5^th U.S Congressional seat, and they’ll all be Democrats.

            According to the sponsor, Senator Jim Luker “… everybody has had ample opportunity to learn what’s in this bill and be satisfied with it”. The big ‘kahuna’ behind this unanimous vote may have been “A Pew Center On The States study released in January that found if Arkansas doesn’t make changes, it will spend an extra $1.1 billion on prisons in the next ten years and the prison population will grow 43%”. Making the recommended changes soon could save $875 million, the study by the Washington D.C-based center said. The study estimate, based on the current prison population of 16,018, would have 6,888 additional incarcerated criminals by the year of our Lord 2021.

Some less than glowing endorsements were noted. Senate President Henry Boyce said, “…the prosecutors are ‘hopeful’ the legislation will improve the criminal-justice system”. Sen. Jason Rapert said, “…that the law-enforcement community’s fears have not fully gone away”. Perhaps these reservations are partially based on the fact that the study was conducted by an organization with the name of “Pew”; or maybe because “Le Pew Center” is based in that home of all great ideas and good things for us outland citizens, Washington D.C.

Of course some of the prosecutorial and law-enforcement reservations might cluster around the concern of returning 6,888 “non violent” criminals to the streets to potentially continue to practice their profession; or perhaps even graduate into “Violent Criminals.” Seems like a logical concern to me.

But the good news is that all the cost of these additional “non violent” crimes resulting from a band of brigands wandering the streets will fall upon the individual victims and not upon the taxpayers as a whole. So if your mother has her purse snatched at the WalMart parking lot, no big deal to the rest of us. If your car disappears from the Kroger lot while you are there to take advantage of the ‘Senior Savings’ Tuesday sale, no big deal to the rest of us; after all you should be insured for that. As for the home TV and electronics that disappeared while you were on vacation, check with your Home Owner’s Insurance Company. Seems only fair to me. Put the cost squarely where it belongs, on the backs of all those rich citizens that own stuff that “non violent” criminals desire. Why should the rest of us be taxed just so you can keep all those things that the “non violent” criminal desires?

So, even if it isn’t officially changed by the State Legislature from “The Wonder State”, as soon as the word spreads across the nation and into Mexico, the unofficial Arkansas State slogan will be “ Come to Arkansas. Commit the Crime but Pay No Time.”

Hope all you citizens out there go get your concealed gun carry license, not that you will ever need it. Remember these are all “non violent” friendlier type of criminals.

Oh How The Mighty Have Fallen, Mr. Hardin

    

“You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.” Ezekiel 28:15

            Lou Hardin, the consummate career politician and peoples’ servant through occupancy of many and various taxpayer funded political positions, friend of the mighty and famous, has pled guilty to money laundering and wire fraud.

            Seems that while President of the University of Central Arkansas he lost more money gambling than he could afford. His solution was to ‘defraud’, or whatever the correct term is, UCA of some $300,000.00 in one stroke of the forger’s pen.

            To his credit he pled guilty rather put all through the expense of a mock trial. But based on the outpouring of sympathy and empathy reported in the local paper, he may have pulled the trigger too quickly.

Friends from Arkansas’s Governor Mike Beebe to former Presidential hopeful and former Governor Mike Huckabee have been effusive in their praise of Mr. Hardin. Had they been on the jury, his acquittal just might have been achieved; sort of ‘politicians professional courtesy’. After all, one never knows when one may need the same ‘courtesy’. (Do you note the curious coincidence of the names of the current and former governors?)

            In fact former Governor Mike Huckabee not only gave a glowing recommendation and endorsement of Mr. Hardin in August of 2002 to become the President of UCA; he repeated the same glowing endorsement of Mr. Hardin in 2009 for the job as President of Palm Beach Atlantic University. Curiously enough, this was well after all of Mr. Hardin’s efforts to secure funds illegally from UCA had been exposed. Well, he did pay it back after he was caught red handed so maybe that overcame his complete lack of honesty and ethics in Mr. Huckabee’s opinion. Even though Mr. Hardin  had implicated three others in his scheme, who, it turns out were not only innocent, but were victims of Mr. Hardin’s forgery. By the way this is the same Mike Huckabee who while Governor pardoned a prisoner who then proceeded to travel to Washington State where he assassinated 4 police officers in cold blood. So perhaps the folks at Palm Beach Atlantic University shouldn’t have taken Mr. Huckabee’s judgment as all that wonderful. (One wonders why the need to ensure that everyone know that this school is near the Atlantic by including that in the name. Many of us would have inferred that from the city in the title, might be a clue as to the depth of the thinking process used to hire Mr. Hardin in the first place.)

The local paper reports that maximum penalties for the crimes to which Mr. Hardin pled guilty are as follows: Wire Fraud maximum of 20 years in prison and $250,000.00 fine; Money Laundering maximum of 10 years in prison and $250,000.00 fine. Mr. Hardin faces a combined total of 30 years in prison and $500,000.00 in fines.

Care to wager on whether Mr. Hardin, friend of the powerful and famous, spends any time in jail, or whether his fine comes close to the $300,000.00 he tried to sneak out of UCA? Be careful, remember it’s alleged that it was gambling that forced Mr. Hardin to do this dastardly deed.

Strippers Seek Select Status Solution

            Reported in the Arkansas paper are two new lawsuits by local lawyer Sanford, unrelated to Standford of Ponzi Scheme notoriety, to address the poor economic treatment of the local strippers at The Paper Moon and Visions “strip-clubs”.

“What Shirley?”

Shirley wants it noted that they are no longer called ‘strippers’ but are now referred to as ‘exotic dancers’. That makes no sense to me, sounds like false advertising. ‘Exotic Dancing’ is what those Thai ladies with their pointed headdress thingies do. ‘Strippers’ do erotic dances and make their money by removing pieces of clothing one item at a time accompanied by undulating body movements in time with Ravel’s Bolero or some other non-hymnal type music. They should at least have the honesty to call themselves ‘Erotic Dancers’ if the name ‘Strippers’ offends them. Which brings up a good point, if the term ‘Stripper’ offends them, even though that is what they do in public, why do they do it? Strip, I mean. Seems to me that if you don’t want to be called by the title of what you do because it offends you, then you shouldn’t be doing it at all. And besides that the newspaper article referred to the clubs as “strip-clubs”. If the clubs are “strip-clubs” then why aren’t the ladies that work in them by stripping off their clothing, called “strippers”? But I’ve digressed.

Seems that these ladies who remove their clothing for a living want to be considered ‘employees’ of the Clubs in which they undress and not be classed as “independent contractors”. They would then be able to demand at least $7.25 per hour plus their tips for, well, for removing their clothing. Turns out the current system of remuneration of the typical lady that makes a living by removing her clothes in public places is somewhat complex and not to the liking of the ladies, per this lawyer.

This could place the Clubs in somewhat of a Hobson’s choice dilemma since about six of these ‘damsels of delight’ who worked at The Paper Moon Club were arrested last month on charges of prostitution (4) and sexual indecency (2). If the ladies’ status is that of employees, would that now make the Clubs in which they dance brothels, subject to all the laws and legal issues associated with that new business activity? These things can get pretty messy once you open up the can of worms.

The lawyer attempts to make his most telling point, that “some of these ladies are young (unwed?) mothers, just doing the best they can to hold down a job.” If one has somewhat of a suspicious and slightly dirty mind, one might opine that they might possibly be enjoying motherhood due to the things they do that are associated with their profession as dancers who take off their clothing and subsequently get arrested for sexual indecency and prostitution.

Left undefined by said lawyer is the term “best”. What “best” are they doing? Their “best” dance? Their “best” strip, excuse me, “best” removal of their clothing? Their “best” what “to hold down a job”? We need to know this to be more fully empathetic with their artistically “unstatused”  plight.

The lawyer is seeking a “class action status” for his lawsuits and already has two ladies for one lawsuit and three ladies, who do this type of “best”, signed up for the other lawsuit. I’m certain that the lawyer is doing this purely for altruistic reasons and not for money or free lap dances, but “two or three” potentially naked ladies doesn’t sound like a lot of ladies to warrant it being a “class action law suit”.

The lawyer states “are just like waitresses, except they’re topless. If these girls had their tops on, we would call them waitresses and they would be paid.” I don’t know where this lawyer dines out, but I’ve yet to find a restaurant where a fully clothed waitress, or per his specs, one with her top on, comes up to the table and begins to gyrate in all types of undulations and gyrations designed to arouse in the customer the insatiable desire to give her a large tip.

But hold on just a minute; our legal “root hog” may just have found an acorn. Now I’ve not been to the “Paper Moon” to witness the work of these two oppressed lawsuit ladies, but it has always been my understanding that ladies so engaged begin their professional act with their clothes on. The lawyer Sanford may have something here. Since they are in some degree clothed at the initiation of their public denuding ritual, could they call themselves “waitresses” per the lawyer’s above allegation and thus qualify as employees? Of course that will offend all those decent women who are employed to merely take food orders and in no way, shape, or form would ever dream of removing their clothes in a public place.

             So we need to come up with a more descriptive title for the ladies that practice ritualistic denuding in front of tipsy tipping patrons. We could call them “Waitresses Awaiting Denuding Act-Badly Oppressed Denied Income Enrichment” and refer to them by the acronym “WADA BODIE”.  Not an offensive term, doesn’t completely obfuscate their real occupation and desire, plus qualifies them for employment status per their lawyer, and seems to neatly wrap this whole thing up.

It’s amazing what we can accomplish when we put our best minds on a problem! Do you think I should run for Congress?

Are Arkansas Citizens Protected From Prosecution When Compelled To Use Lethal Force to Defend Life or Property?

In “Letters” to the Editor a recent citizen of Arkansas opined current Arkansas laws 5-2-607/620 are sufficient and Arkansas “citizen defenders” require no further “Castle Defense” legislation. Reading his references, there may be some holes in Arkansas law that would need bolstering if Arkansas is to provide full “Castle Law” protection to “citizen defenders”. As a minimum the below would seem to be real concerns and issues facing a “citizen defender” in Arkansas. This increases in importance if Governor Beebe is successful in his proposal to release current and future ‘non-violent’ criminals from incarceration.

Use of Deadly Force Issues NOT clearly provided by Arkansas Law:

1.         Doesn’t specifically protect prior to forced entry into home:

For example N.C. law states: “against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful…”

  2.           Doesn’t provide for protection of property as a cause.

Again N. C. law: “or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

3.         Removes obligation to retreat ONLY when in person’s dwelling or on ‘curtilage’. 

Doesn’t clearly state if  “Defender” can use deadly force anywhere on own property, because term curtilage historically associated with fenced enclosures and Ark law states “outbuilding directly or intimately connected with the dwelling or in close proximity to”.

4.         Doesn’t protect “defender” at place of business or in one’s car from obligation of ‘retreating’.

5.         There is no protection against subsequent civil lawsuits when deadly force was justified.

6.         Doesn’t specifically address “Stand your Ground” issue of being under assault or threat away from your home since requires obligation to retreat, even if faced with gun or otherwise armed or menacing intimidator.

7.         Law enforcement not required to have probable cause before arresting “defender”; can just handcuff and haul the citizen defender off to jail and sort it all out later, at citizen defender’s expense.

Arkansas's Governor Beebe and His Band of Free Roaming Brigands

          Arkansas's Governor Beebe is contemplating flooding Arkansas with freed friendlier felons. He has proposed that “non-violent” criminals be turned loose on the people and streets of Arkansas rather than incarcerate them. Not totally uncontrolled mind you. The worst of them would probably have to wear ankle bracelets and all would probably be required to report to their respective Parole Officer on some type of schedule; sort of an ‘Honor System’ for the nicer criminal crowd.

The basis for this recommendation is thoughtfully backed by the leading ‘Progressive” thinkers of the day. After all, perhaps less than 50% of ‘non-violent’ criminals become violent criminals if left on their own and on the streets.

           The primary purpose of freeing the felons is to save the money that Arkansas would otherwise spend on building more prisons, maintaining them, staffing them, plus the feeding, housing, and caring for ‘non-violent’ criminals. Sounds sort of appealing, making the ‘non-violent’ criminals support themselves, rather than the taxpayer having to foot the bill.

"What Shirley? What's a 'non-violent' criminal, you ask?" Well, the best definition is a criminal that has not yet been CONVICTED of a violent crime. Doesn’t mean that the miscreant hasn’t already perpetrated a violent crime, or won’t do so in the future if left to roam the streets; just means that up to this point in time, no conviction of such a violent nature. An example of a ‘non-violent’ criminal offense probably entails: drug dealers, drug pushers, drug users, ladies of the evening, and the Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanfords of this world. Of course the folks along the Mexican border might not put some of these offenses into the ‘non-violent’ criminal class seeing as over 35,000 folks have been murdered down there in drug disagreements and related activities; but that’s their problem. Governor Beebe has a great solution brewing for the citizens of Arkansas; bring on the flood of friendly felons.

But Governor Beebe, prior to flooding the streets of Arkansas with felons, give the citizens that you profess to serve and protect the additional protection of the very best “CASTLE LAW” and “STAND YOUR GROUND LAW”! Don’t save the State money at the expense of hundreds or even thousands of citizens being subject to criminal activities and the resulting cost to each of them in stolen property, emotional distress, personal injury, or death.

Currently Arkansas has weak laws protecting “citizen defenders” when the “citizen defender” is faced with using physical or lethal force to protect him or herself, or loved ones, or other innocents, or their own property.

At a minimum give the Citizens of Arkansas the added legal protection against your ‘band of brigands’ that “Castle Laws” and “Stand Your Ground Laws” provide.