| |
Main
Date: 15 Nov 2006 08:42:42
From: annika1980
Subject: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Sexy antics land couple on terror charges
November 15, 2006
A COUPLE'S ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight
from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were
allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other
passengers uncomfortable", when a flight attendant asked them to stop.
Persing was seen nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck and 'elsewhere'
and was seen to be smiling, according to an indictment filed by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back
threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences'' if he did
not leave them alone.
The comment was enough to have the couple, both in their early 40s,
arrested when the plane reached its destination in Raleigh, North
Carolina, and charged with obstructing a flight attendant and with
criminal association.
They have been placed under legal surveillance until their trial on
February 5. If found guilty, they both could be sent to jail for up to
20 years.
Persing's lawyer William Peregoy said his client was not feeling well
when he placed his head on his companion's lap, and that he only
threatened the flight attendant with reporting him to his superiors on
landing.
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 11:20:01
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
As I said... the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case... it's
too severe. Some of these same heavy penalties were in effect long
before 9/11 and the Patriot Act...
sfb wrote:
> A) Prior to 9/11, the Feds and the airlines believed the best hijack
> response was to cooperate and get the plane on the ground as soon as
> possible. That strategy is but one of many things to go down the drain after
> 9/11.
>
> B) Flight attendants are the front line troops correctly believing they are
> at great risk since the 9/11 hijackers got the pilots to open cockpit door
> by threatening to kill the flight attendants.
>
> C) The flight attendant is the accuser not the judge and jury which isn't
> any different than any of us accusing somebody of a crime in our
> neighborhood.
>
> D) The guy is lucky that other passengers didn't beat the shit out of him
> which has unfortunately happened to unruly or threatening passengers.
>
> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message
> news:1163708078.633799.11990@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jack Hollis wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:49:29 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Are you insinuating that people have the Constitutional right to
> >> >>commit sex acts in public and threaten flight attendants?
> >> >
> >> >No. But I am very afraid when "National Security" is used as an
> >> >excuse to arrest people for other reasons.
> >>
> >> Excuse? It was always illegal to threaten a flight attendant.
> >
> > I think in general flight attendants have way too much power and the
> > penalties are completely out of line for shouting at one, disobeying
> > one, touching one compared to what the penalties are for doing the same
> > things to most other people (cops, etc.) excluded. The same thing with
> > police dogs. Most people will kill a dog that is attacking them if they
> > possibley can. But if it's a police dog, you might as well have killed
> > the handler. A dog is a dog (not a person)... even it it is used for
> > police work and it should be just that simple.
> >
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 19:48:19
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
It will set an example.
dsc wrote:
> As I said... the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case... it's
> too severe. Some of these same heavy penalties were in effect long
> before 9/11 and the Patriot Act...
>
>
>
> sfb wrote:
>> A) Prior to 9/11, the Feds and the airlines believed the best hijack
>> response was to cooperate and get the plane on the ground as soon as
>> possible. That strategy is but one of many things to go down the drain after
>> 9/11.
>>
>> B) Flight attendants are the front line troops correctly believing they are
>> at great risk since the 9/11 hijackers got the pilots to open cockpit door
>> by threatening to kill the flight attendants.
>>
>> C) The flight attendant is the accuser not the judge and jury which isn't
>> any different than any of us accusing somebody of a crime in our
>> neighborhood.
>>
>> D) The guy is lucky that other passengers didn't beat the shit out of him
>> which has unfortunately happened to unruly or threatening passengers.
>>
>> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1163708078.633799.11990@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:49:29 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Are you insinuating that people have the Constitutional right to
>>>>>> commit sex acts in public and threaten flight attendants?
>>>>> No. But I am very afraid when "National Security" is used as an
>>>>> excuse to arrest people for other reasons.
>>>> Excuse? It was always illegal to threaten a flight attendant.
>>> I think in general flight attendants have way too much power and the
>>> penalties are completely out of line for shouting at one, disobeying
>>> one, touching one compared to what the penalties are for doing the same
>>> things to most other people (cops, etc.) excluded. The same thing with
>>> police dogs. Most people will kill a dog that is attacking them if they
>>> possibley can. But if it's a police dog, you might as well have killed
>>> the handler. A dog is a dog (not a person)... even it it is used for
>>> police work and it should be just that simple.
>>>
>
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 12:38:17
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On 17 Nov 2006 11:20:01 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
>As I said... the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case... it's
>too severe. Some of these same heavy penalties were in effect long
>before 9/11 and the Patriot Act...
It's not the severity that bothers me so much - it's the excuse. When
a customer's threat to report to the steward's superiors is translated
as a National Security issue - then anything can be translated as a
National Security issue. And we have already seen that the
administration has decided that National Security is a valid reason to
ship at least one American Citizen away from the U.S. so that he no
longer has Constitutional protections.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 15:53:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:38:17 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>>As I said... the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case... it's
>>too severe. Some of these same heavy penalties were in effect long
>>before 9/11 and the Patriot Act...
>
>It's not the severity that bothers me so much - it's the excuse. When
>a customer's threat to report to the steward's superiors is translated
>as a National Security issue - then anything can be translated as a
>National Security issue.
Howard, I suggest that you read the affidavit in this case.
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/crim/uspersing91806cmp2.html
The first thing you will see is that there was a lot more to this than
was reported in the article. Second, you will also find out that the
charges against these people have nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
This is typical Internet misinformation that you see all the time.
People with political agendas will always try to distort or make up
things and you have to be careful not to fall for it.
>And we have already seen that the
>administration has decided that National Security is a valid reason to
>ship at least one American Citizen away from the U.S. so that he no
>longer has Constitutional protections.
Actually, it was the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the
status of Yaser Hamdi as an enemy combatant. Hamdi had the due
process afforded to every US citizen by the Constitution.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 15:01:09
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Excuse us, but only you and the simple mined author of the news article sees
this as a National Security issue. It is not. The man said something that
the flight attendant construed as a threat and she reported it to the
authorities.
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:lk3sl298to222nj9bn9u8tuteaeioito2d@4ax.com...
> On 17 Nov 2006 11:20:01 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>>As I said... the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case... it's
>>too severe. Some of these same heavy penalties were in effect long
>>before 9/11 and the Patriot Act...
>
> It's not the severity that bothers me so much - it's the excuse. When
> a customer's threat to report to the steward's superiors is translated
> as a National Security issue - then anything can be translated as a
> National Security issue. And we have already seen that the
> administration has decided that National Security is a valid reason to
> ship at least one American Citizen away from the U.S. so that he no
> longer has Constitutional protections.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 13:47:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:01:09 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>Excuse us, but only you and the simple mined author of the news article sees
>this as a National Security issue. It is not. The man said something that
>the flight attendant construed as a threat and she reported it to the
>authorities.
The exact wording of the post we are responding to is:
>A COUPLE'S ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight
>from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
>intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
If that charge was fake, and everybody except me and the author of the
article are in on the joke, well so be it.
But if that article was accurate - then what did I say that indicated
that either the author or the article nor myself agreed with the
authorities that it was a National Security issue.
My objection was in treating it as such.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 16:35:18
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
The author of the news article is trying to sell newspapers which appears
to require any and all events in this country no matter how ordinary to be
portrayed as acts against humanity by the Bush Administration.
Threatening aircrews is not a National Security issue. It is a criminal act
as defined by the US Criminal Code which happened to be included in the
Patriot Act.
May we assume if Congress choose to include these same crimes in the Clean
Water Act, you would consider that threatening aircrews as an environmental
thing?
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:qg7sl2hq2i7edhn7rgnliqt13gdph5mgkm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:01:09 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Excuse us, but only you and the simple mined author of the news article
>>sees
>>this as a National Security issue. It is not. The man said something that
>>the flight attendant construed as a threat and she reported it to the
>>authorities.
>
> The exact wording of the post we are responding to is:
>
>>A COUPLE'S ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight
>>from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
>>intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
>
> If that charge was fake, and everybody except me and the author of the
> article are in on the joke, well so be it.
>
> But if that article was accurate - then what did I say that indicated
> that either the author or the article nor myself agreed with the
> authorities that it was a National Security issue.
>
> My objection was in treating it as such.
>
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 05:55:56
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> >Have airlines cancelled all memberships to the mile-high club?
>
> Every night I go to bed at a mile-high altitude.
And you still can't get your ticket punched.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 15:52:22
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Steve S wrote:
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163646987.102532.273310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> Stemmer's here........ without Eric!!!!
> >
> > -Greg
> >
>
> I've been too busy with other crap to come by much. And like Eric, reading
> you gets old quickly.
Get use to it, cutie.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 21:29:11
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163721142.653883.58130@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steve S wrote:
>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1163646987.102532.273310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> Stemmer's here........ without Eric!!!!
>> >
>> > -Greg
>> >
>>
>> I've been too busy with other crap to come by much. And like Eric,
>> reading
>> you gets old quickly.
>
> Get use to it, cutie.
>
> -Greg
>
Nah, I didn't even read this. See, it's easy!
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 15:52:12
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Steve S wrote:
> I've been too busy with other crap to come by much. And like Eric, reading
> you gets old quickly.
Did the storms miss ya?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 21:28:34
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163721132.250635.14500@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steve S wrote:
>
>> I've been too busy with other crap to come by much. And like Eric,
>> reading
>> you gets old quickly.
>
> Did the storms miss ya?
>
Nah, hit us pretty good last night. Though we didnt' get any tornados, the
dog was under the bed the whole night. I think he's a pussy.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 03:32:21
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:28:34 -0500, Steve S wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163721132.250635.14500@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Steve S wrote:
>>
>>> I've been too busy with other crap to come by much. And like Eric,
>>> reading
>>> you gets old quickly.
>>
>> Did the storms miss ya?
>>
> Nah, hit us pretty good last night. Though we didnt' get any tornados,
> the dog was under the bed the whole night. I think he's a pussy.
Mine too. He hides in the bathtub.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 09:43:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:38:34 -0500, "FredK"
<fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote:
>
>If you sell it before you die, you would have to pay capital gains - so why
>should your death allow the avoidance of the tax? It isn't double
>taxation - and for 99% of us it doesn't apply because the exemption is high
>enough we never have to worry.
The issue is that you're not selling it, you're giving it to your
kids. So there have been no capital gains realized by either you or
your kids. Why should you be expected to pay taxes on money you
haven't gotten yet?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 10:16:22
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:rbirl2lm1176qf02q5h73kqk0d4o68sugp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:38:34 -0500, "FredK"
> <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>If you sell it before you die, you would have to pay capital gains - so
>>why
>>should your death allow the avoidance of the tax? It isn't double
>>taxation - and for 99% of us it doesn't apply because the exemption is
>>high
>>enough we never have to worry.
>
> The issue is that you're not selling it, you're giving it to your
> kids. So there have been no capital gains realized by either you or
> your kids. Why should you be expected to pay taxes on money you
> haven't gotten yet?
You can't give it to your kids while you are alive for free *either* except
in small yearly chunks.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 16:01:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:16:22 -0500, "FredK"
<fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote:
>You can't give it to your kids while you are alive for free *either* except
>in small yearly chunks.
You can give your house away to your kids if you want for "love and
affection."
In fact, this is desirable because, should you require long term care
in your golden years, you can end up losing your house in the process
and you're kids wont get it. This should be done well in advance
because Medicare wont allow you to divest your assets after you've
been deemed to need long term care.
In addition, each parent can gift up to $10,000 to each child every
year tax free.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 15:51:32
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
MnMikew wrote:
> > >
> > The point is that with the Patriot Act somebody can now get 20 years
> > for being an asshole.
> > That alone should scare the hell out of you.
> >
> I know it should scare you.
That's what draws people to this NG. Your witty repartee.
Can't wait to hear your next great comeback.
"You are, but what am I?"
"Oh yeah, well you're a bigger one."
"Now who's stupid, stupid?"
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:50:24
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
MnMikew wrote:
>
> Jesus you're dense. threatening the crew is what got them in trouble. And
> COULD being the key word here. You COULD also get 90 days in jail for a
> speeding ticket.
It appears that the guy's threat to the crew consisted of threatening
to report them to their superiors. According to one report he
threatened "serious consequences" for them.
That's a far cry from threatening the crew, the guy was just being an
asshole. It's not like he was talking about blowing up the plane or
something.
The point is that with the Patriot Act somebody can now get 20 years
for being an asshole.
That alone should scare the hell out of you.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 19:55:31
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
annika1980 wrote:
> MnMikew wrote:
>> Jesus you're dense. threatening the crew is what got them in trouble. And
>> COULD being the key word here. You COULD also get 90 days in jail for a
>> speeding ticket.
>
> It appears that the guy's threat to the crew consisted of threatening
> to report them to their superiors. According to one report he
> threatened "serious consequences" for them.
> That's a far cry from threatening the crew, the guy was just being an
> asshole. It's not like he was talking about blowing up the plane or
> something.
In some places if you act like an asshole then you get a beat down.
> The point is that with the Patriot Act somebody can now get 20 years
> for being an asshole.
> That alone should scare the hell out of you.
Nope, your behavior each day determines whether you live or die. It is
your choice.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 17:05:32
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163710224.815748.37300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>>
>> Jesus you're dense. threatening the crew is what got them in trouble. And
>> COULD being the key word here. You COULD also get 90 days in jail for a
>> speeding ticket.
>
> It appears that the guy's threat to the crew consisted of threatening
> to report them to their superiors. According to one report he
> threatened "serious consequences" for them.
> That's a far cry from threatening the crew, the guy was just being an
> asshole. It's not like he was talking about blowing up the plane or
> something.
Yeah, says his lawyer, BS. The reporting to superiors only came up after the
arrest and was not mentioned in the threat.
>
> The point is that with the Patriot Act somebody can now get 20 years
> for being an asshole.
> That alone should scare the hell out of you.
>
I know it should scare you.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 14:53:52
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On 16 Nov 2006 12:50:24 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>The point is that with the Patriot Act somebody can now get 20 years
>for being an asshole.
>That alone should scare the hell out of you.
Uh Oh. It scares me!! RSG could also be decimated by about 99%.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:14:38
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:49:29 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>Are you insinuating that people have the Constitutional right to
> >>commit sex acts in public and threaten flight attendants?
> >
> >No. But I am very afraid when "National Security" is used as an
> >excuse to arrest people for other reasons.
>
> Excuse? It was always illegal to threaten a flight attendant.
I think in general flight attendants have way too much power and the
penalties are completely out of line for shouting at one, disobeying
one, touching one compared to what the penalties are for doing the same
things to most other people (cops, etc.) excluded. The same thing with
police dogs. Most people will kill a dog that is attacking them if they
possibley can. But if it's a police dog, you might as well have killed
the handler. A dog is a dog (not a person)... even it it is used for
police work and it should be just that simple.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 17:02:50
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On 16 Nov 2006 12:14:38 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
>I think in general flight attendants have way too much power and the
>penalties are completely out of line for shouting at one, disobeying
>one, touching one compared to what the penalties are for doing the same
>things to most other people (cops, etc.) excluded.
Generally, the law will give extra protection to people who are at
higher risk. The ability for the flight attendants to keep order in
the air is crucial to safety. I have no problem with them being given
extra protection.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 15:56:52
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
A) Prior to 9/11, the Feds and the airlines believed the best hijack
response was to cooperate and get the plane on the ground as soon as
possible. That strategy is but one of many things to go down the drain after
9/11.
B) Flight attendants are the front line troops correctly believing they are
at great risk since the 9/11 hijackers got the pilots to open cockpit door
by threatening to kill the flight attendants.
C) The flight attendant is the accuser not the judge and jury which isn't
any different than any of us accusing somebody of a crime in our
neighborhood.
D) The guy is lucky that other passengers didn't beat the shit out of him
which has unfortunately happened to unruly or threatening passengers.
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1163708078.633799.11990@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:49:29 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>Are you insinuating that people have the Constitutional right to
>> >>commit sex acts in public and threaten flight attendants?
>> >
>> >No. But I am very afraid when "National Security" is used as an
>> >excuse to arrest people for other reasons.
>>
>> Excuse? It was always illegal to threaten a flight attendant.
>
> I think in general flight attendants have way too much power and the
> penalties are completely out of line for shouting at one, disobeying
> one, touching one compared to what the penalties are for doing the same
> things to most other people (cops, etc.) excluded. The same thing with
> police dogs. Most people will kill a dog that is attacking them if they
> possibley can. But if it's a police dog, you might as well have killed
> the handler. A dog is a dog (not a person)... even it it is used for
> police work and it should be just that simple.
>
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 11:05:48
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On Nov 15, 5:40 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> Brian Foster wrote:
>
> > 20 years? You just don't get it. You should just keep taking pictures.
> > Stick to what you do well. Leave the mental heavy lifting to others who are
> > better equipped for it.You guys are the one who miss the whole point. I just quoted from the
> first paragraph in the article. I'll repost it here since you're so
> slow.
>
> "A couple's ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines
> flight
> from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
> intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years."
>
> The point is, dumbass, that thanks to your President's Patriot Act you
> can now add joining the mile-high club to the list of possible
> terrorist activities, right behind checking out a library book.
Where you born this stupid or did you have to work at it?
JJVP
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 19:18:13
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> I remember my 1964 Bug that had a sunroof. My favorite position was
> in the shotgun seat with my partner sitting on top facing backwards
> with the sunroof open. Her head would actually be out of the car
> bouncing up and down. I still have a good laugh when I think about
> it.
The original bobblehead??
I must stop.
I must stop.
I must stop.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 19:16:27
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Steve S wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163608962.202470.107730@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Sexy antics land couple on terror charges
> > November 15, 2006
> >
> > A COUPLE'S ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight
> > from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
> > intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
>
> Which is EXACTLY why I fly my own aircraft. I've never arrested myself for
> lewd and lacivious acts 2 miles up.
>
> Even the times I was with someone else.
Stemmer's here........ without Eric!!!!
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 18:25:44
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163646987.102532.273310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
Stemmer's here........ without Eric!!!!
>
> -Greg
>
I've been too busy with other crap to come by much. And like Eric, reading
you gets old quickly.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 19:15:03
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:27:37 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you want to have sex on a plane, use the bathroom. It's not very
> >> comfortable, but you can manage.
> >
> >I used to be able to do it in the backseat of a VW too, but that's a
> >long time ago, and a lot less ass than now! ;-)
>
> I remember my 1964 Bug that had a sunroof. My favorite position was
> in the shotgun seat with my partner sitting on top facing backwards
> with the sunroof open. Her head would actually be out of the car
> bouncing up and down. I still have a good laugh when I think about
> it.
Gives new meaning to "shoot the moon."
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 19:51:54
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163608962.202470.107730@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Sexy antics land couple on terror charges
> November 15, 2006
>
> A COUPLE'S ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight
> from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
> intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
Which is EXACTLY why I fly my own aircraft. I've never arrested myself for
lewd and lacivious acts 2 miles up.
Even the times I was with someone else.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 16:38:31
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > If you want to have sex on a plane, use the bathroom. It's not very
> > comfortable, but you can manage.
>
> I used to be able to do it in the backseat of a VW too, but that's a
> long time ago, and a lot less ass than now! ;-)
Ah....nothing like a pair of footprints on the windshield.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 15:40:42
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Brian Foster wrote:
>
> 20 years? You just don't get it. You should just keep taking pictures.
> Stick to what you do well. Leave the mental heavy lifting to others who are
> better equipped for it.
You guys are the one who miss the whole point. I just quoted from the
first paragraph in the article. I'll repost it here since you're so
slow.
"A couple's ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines
flight
from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years."
The point is, dumbass, that thanks to your President's Patriot Act you
can now add joining the mile-high club to the list of possible
terrorist activities, right behind checking out a library book.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:06:59
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163634042.894657.240760@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brian Foster wrote:
>>
>> 20 years? You just don't get it. You should just keep taking pictures.
>> Stick to what you do well. Leave the mental heavy lifting to others who
>> are
>> better equipped for it.
>
> You guys are the one who miss the whole point. I just quoted from the
> first paragraph in the article. I'll repost it here since you're so
> slow.
>
> "A couple's ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines
> flight
> from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
> intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years."
>
> The point is, dumbass, that thanks to your President's Patriot Act you
> can now add joining the mile-high club to the list of possible
> terrorist activities, right behind checking out a library book.
Jesus you're dense. threatening the crew is what got them in trouble. And
COULD being the key word here. You COULD also get 90 days in jail for a
speeding ticket.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 23:44:09
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
MnMikew wrote:
> Jesus you're dense. threatening the crew is what got them in trouble.
> And COULD being the key word here. You COULD also get 90 days in jail
> for a speeding ticket.
And you COULD hook up with J-Lo. No wait; that's MY fantasy.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 21:06:58
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On 15 Nov 2006 15:40:42 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>The point is, dumbass, that thanks to your President's Patriot Act you
>can now add joining the mile-high club to the list of possible
>terrorist activities, right behind checking out a library book.
No actually the dumbass is the guy who wrote this article.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 11:04:04
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:oshnl2h2o4s5cp92husv85v2usfqek0e2e@4ax.com...
> On 15 Nov 2006 15:40:42 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The point is, dumbass, that thanks to your President's Patriot Act you
> >can now add joining the mile-high club to the list of possible
> >terrorist activities, right behind checking out a library book.
>
> No actually the dumbass is the guy who wrote this article.
So it the guy who posted it on Usenet.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:07:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:04:04 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:oshnl2h2o4s5cp92husv85v2usfqek0e2e@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Nov 2006 15:40:42 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The point is, dumbass, that thanks to your President's Patriot Act you
>> >can now add joining the mile-high club to the list of possible
>> >terrorist activities, right behind checking out a library book.
>>
>> No actually the dumbass is the guy who wrote this article.
>
>So it the guy who posted it on Usenet.
True, but I didn't want to say that.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 13:24:26
From:
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
:
> > "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> > Sometimes when dealing with your type I feel like
> an enema combatant.
Ah...watersports, a subject dear to my heart.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 12:28:49
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163608962.202470.107730@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> So you think it's OK to threaten flight personnel? Or didn't your Mommy read
> the whole article to you?
Mommy said that 20 years for backtalking a flight attendant is
bullshit.
Just proves that in Bush's America anyone can be labeled a terrorist or
an enemy combatant. Sometimes when dealing with your type I feel like
an enema combatant.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 23:42:33
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Just proves that in Bush's America anyone can be labeled a terrorist
> or an enemy combatant.
Bushtard could make Halicheney an enemy combatant.
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 23:07:48
From: Brian Foster
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message > Mommy said that 20
years for backtalking a flight attendant is
> bullshit.
> Just proves that in Bush's America anyone can be labeled a terrorist or
> an enemy combatant.
20 years? You just don't get it. You should just keep taking pictures.
Stick to what you do well. Leave the mental heavy lifting to others who are
better equipped for it.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 16:29:41
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163622528.914867.72810@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1163608962.202470.107730@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> So you think it's OK to threaten flight personnel? Or didn't your Mommy
>> read
>> the whole article to you?
>
> Mommy said that 20 years for backtalking a flight attendant is
> bullshit.
> Just proves that in Bush's America anyone can be labeled a terrorist or
> an enemy combatant. Sometimes when dealing with your type I feel like
> an enema combatant.
Oh like they'll get any time, get real.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 21:24:41
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:29:41 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>> Mommy said that 20 years for backtalking a flight attendant is
>> bullshit.
>> Just proves that in Bush's America anyone can be labeled a terrorist or
>> an enemy combatant. Sometimes when dealing with your type I feel like
>> an enema combatant.
>
>Oh like they'll get any time, get real.
I wouldn't mind seeing them get at least a few days in jail. I hope
they draw a judge who feels the same. I've been a frequent flyer for
over twenty years and I've seen flight attendants put up with all
sorts of ass holes. Good for this crew for following up and having
this pair arrested.
Now if it was a ticket agent, I might feel different.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 11:26:21
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2006 08:42:42 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >A COUPLE'S ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight
> >from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
> >intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
>
>
> The sad thing is these people wont do any jail time at all.
>
> If you want to have sex on a plane, use the bathroom. It's not very
> comfortable, but you can manage.
Jail time? For smooching on an airplane and telling a flight attendant
to f**k off? Get real.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 14:14:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On 15 Nov 2006 08:42:42 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>A COUPLE'S ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight
>from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
>intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
The sad thing is these people wont do any jail time at all.
If you want to have sex on a plane, use the bathroom. It's not very
comfortable, but you can manage.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 13:27:37
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
In article <phpml2195vdnoulhuvfrknijv18bc9qmsj@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2006 08:42:42 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >A COUPLE'S ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight
> >from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
> >intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
>
>
> The sad thing is these people wont do any jail time at all.
>
> If you want to have sex on a plane, use the bathroom. It's not very
> comfortable, but you can manage.
I used to be able to do it in the backseat of a VW too, but that's a
long time ago, and a lot less ass than now! ;-)
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 21:16:38
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:27:37 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>> If you want to have sex on a plane, use the bathroom. It's not very
>> comfortable, but you can manage.
>
>I used to be able to do it in the backseat of a VW too, but that's a
>long time ago, and a lot less ass than now! ;-)
I remember my 1964 Bug that had a sunroof. My favorite position was
in the shotgun seat with my partner sitting on top facing backwards
with the sunroof open. Her head would actually be out of the car
bouncing up and down. I still have a good laugh when I think about
it.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 11:03:30
From: dugjustdug
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
dug = jealous of Lloyd
On Nov 15, 9:46 am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com > wrote:
> In article <l4ednZc1fuOewcbYnZ2dnUVZ_oGdn...@comcast.com>,
>
> "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
> > That the changes to the US Criminal Code were enacted in the Patriot act is
> > totally irrelevant unless the only thrills in your sorry life is throwing
> > mud at the Bush administration. The airlines and aircrews have been in zero
> > tolerance mode since 9/11.I've gone into that mode myself. Since I've retired, time is not the
> issue it once was, so I just won't tolerate the crap at the airport or
> from the airlines.
>
> Instead I'll take a leisurely drive and enjoy the scenery and maybe just
> stop now and then and play a round at a course I see on the way.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 13:30:13
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
In article <1163617410.769065.282090@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"dugjustdug" <prestigerealty@yvn.com > wrote:
> dug = jealous of Lloyd
>
> On Nov 15, 9:46 am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <l4ednZc1fuOewcbYnZ2dnUVZ_oGdn...@comcast.com>,
> >
> > "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
> > > That the changes to the US Criminal Code were enacted in the Patriot act
> > > is
> > > totally irrelevant unless the only thrills in your sorry life is throwing
> > > mud at the Bush administration. The airlines and aircrews have been in
> > > zero
> > > tolerance mode since 9/11.I've gone into that mode myself. Since I've
> > > retired, time is not the
> > issue it once was, so I just won't tolerate the crap at the airport or
> > from the airlines.
> >
> > Instead I'll take a leisurely drive and enjoy the scenery and maybe just
> > stop now and then and play a round at a course I see on the way.
Hang in there, you'll get your turn!
I remember when Route 66 was just a hiway to get you from here to there.
I never had the time when it was in its heyday to see all the sights
along the way.
Except for the Mexican restaurant that was at the intersection of Rt 66
and Hiway 54, in New Mexico. Hottest damn tamales I've ever eaten, but
absolutely delicious.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 12:45:39
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163608962.202470.107730@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
So you think it's OK to threaten flight personnel? Or didn't your Mommy read
the whole article to you?
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 13:27:14
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
That the changes to the US Criminal Code were enacted in the Patriot act is
totally irrelevant unless the only thrills in your sorry life is throwing
mud at the Bush administration. The airlines and aircrews have been in zero
tolerance mode since 9/11.
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163608962.202470.107730@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Sexy antics land couple on terror charges
> November 15, 2006
>
> A COUPLE'S ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight
> from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
> intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
>
> According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were
> allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other
> passengers uncomfortable", when a flight attendant asked them to stop.
>
> Persing was seen nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck and 'elsewhere'
> and was seen to be smiling, according to an indictment filed by the
> Federal Bureau of Investigation.
>
> On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back
> threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences'' if he did
> not leave them alone.
>
> The comment was enough to have the couple, both in their early 40s,
> arrested when the plane reached its destination in Raleigh, North
> Carolina, and charged with obstructing a flight attendant and with
> criminal association.
>
> They have been placed under legal surveillance until their trial on
> February 5. If found guilty, they both could be sent to jail for up to
> 20 years.
>
> Persing's lawyer William Peregoy said his client was not feeling well
> when he placed his head on his companion's lap, and that he only
> threatened the flight attendant with reporting him to his superiors on
> landing.
>
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 12:46:33
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
In article <l4ednZc1fuOewcbYnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
> That the changes to the US Criminal Code were enacted in the Patriot act is
> totally irrelevant unless the only thrills in your sorry life is throwing
> mud at the Bush administration. The airlines and aircrews have been in zero
> tolerance mode since 9/11.
I've gone into that mode myself. Since I've retired, time is not the
issue it once was, so I just won't tolerate the crap at the airport or
from the airlines.
Instead I'll take a leisurely drive and enjoy the scenery and maybe just
stop now and then and play a round at a course I see on the way.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 09:48:23
From:
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
Stupid damn people dont understand there is a different set of rules at
airports and in aircraft. Threaten someone with 'serious consequences'
at the mall and nothing happens. Do it at 30 thousand feet and you go
to jail. Freedom of speech is not absolute.
Maybe they should have just squirted them with a garden hose.
annika1980 wrote:
> Sexy antics land couple on terror charges
> November 15, 2006
>
> A COUPLE'S ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight
> from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act,
> intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
>
> According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were
> allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other
> passengers uncomfortable", when a flight attendant asked them to stop.
>
> Persing was seen nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck and 'elsewhere'
> and was seen to be smiling, according to an indictment filed by the
> Federal Bureau of Investigation.
>
> On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back
> threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences'' if he did
> not leave them alone.
>
> The comment was enough to have the couple, both in their early 40s,
> arrested when the plane reached its destination in Raleigh, North
> Carolina, and charged with obstructing a flight attendant and with
> criminal association.
>
> They have been placed under legal surveillance until their trial on
> February 5. If found guilty, they both could be sent to jail for up to
> 20 years.
>
> Persing's lawyer William Peregoy said his client was not feeling well
> when he placed his head on his companion's lap, and that he only
> threatened the flight attendant with reporting him to his superiors on
> landing.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 13:24:09
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
lobshot694 wrote:
> Stupid damn people dont understand there is a different set of rules at
> airports and in aircraft. Threaten someone with 'serious consequences'
> at the mall and nothing happens. Do it at 30 thousand feet and you go
> to jail. Freedom of speech is not absolute.
> Maybe they should have just squirted them with a garden hose.
Have airlines cancelled all memberships to the mile-high club?
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 01:03:50
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:24:09 GMT, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote:
>
>Have airlines cancelled all memberships to the mile-high club?
Every night I go to bed at a mile-high altitude.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 06:46:57
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
"JJK" wrote:
> >Have airlines cancelled all memberships to the mile-high club?
"Howard Brazee" wrote:
> Every night I go to bed at a mile-high altitude.
But you know that I know that you know that is not the same thing. ~`8^)
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 21:23:41
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:48:23 -0800, lobshot694 wrote:
> Stupid damn people dont understand there is a different set of rules at
> airports and in aircraft. Threaten someone with 'serious consequences'
> at the mall and nothing happens. Do it at 30 thousand feet and you go to
> jail. Freedom of speech is not absolute.
Whereas st people do understand that if you hang footnotes, exceptions
and asterisks all over your democracy, it's no longer a democracy.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 16:35:48
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Why are you guys dogging Kenny G?
|
"Sparky" <biff@funco.com > wrote in message
news:6OydnT9Atcw_GsbYnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> On 15-Nov-2006, "Loubert" <lopcroix@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> > On 15 Nov 2006 11:31:02 -0800, "Loubert" <lopcroix@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Look, if you want to hear what a good jazz soprano sax sounds
>> > >> like, get thee to Coltrane's version of "My Favorite Things."
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Chris Bellomy
>> > >> C-List Charter Member
>> > >> http://clist.org/
>> > >
>> > >"good jazz"...isn't that an oxymoron?
>> >
>> > Only to a moron.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, I get it, "moron" is in both words!
>>
>> I think I am up against a superior wit. I have clearly underestimated
>> the cleverness of some jazz enthusiasts, though apparently not their
>> arrogance and lack of tolerance of others opinions.
>
> You know, he's not just a jazz "enthusiast".....
>
> http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/music/artist/appears/0,,454155,00.html#more
>
> me
Impressive BK. Even though I'm not a jazz fan.
|
|
