Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Above and Beyond Average Bullshit

The porch project is coming along just fine.  For those that missed this Saturday morning post, here's a link to the article I posted titled "Go Paint a Porch."

The above article was written just before I went back to scrapping, sanding, and painting the porch I'm trying to bring back to life.  Yes that project has consumed some of  my time but while toiling there I have been doing some thinking on my cause at the Casino Gaming Oracle.
 During my research for an article released there entitled "ExposingThe Judicial Niggard's" I came across a very profound article on "Bullshit."  No, this is no oxymoron, someone has actually written a 20 page paper on bullshit.

Okay, think I'm bullshitting you? Well see for yourself. [On Bullshit,by Harry Frankfurt, Princeton University] Mr. Frankfurt opens his article by stating: "One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share."
 I pondered this statement because many of you know that I am revealing what I have termed as "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics" or "JSHIT"  at my casinogamingoracle blog.  So I began thinking, was this just my contribution to our cultures vast array of bullshit?

Well upon reading his article further, I surmised that it would be left of to you, my audience to decide whether (JSHIT) is bullshit or not.

In developing a meaning and or putting "On Bullshit" in context, Mr. Frankfurt directs us to one of his sources, which happens to be an essay by Max Black, entitled "The Prevalence of Humbug."  Mr. Black defines humbug as, deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, of somebody’s own thoughts, feelings, or attitudes. [See page 2/20 of On Bullshit]
 Having becoming  use to reading legal papers on various subjects, I became skeptical of this article by Mr. Frankfurt because it lacked the feel, and form of a legal paper.  But, I continued reading and found that he says: "Lying and bluffing are both modes of misrepresentation or deception. Now the concept most central to the distinctive nature of a lie is that of falsity: the liar is essentially someone who deliberately promulgates a falsehood. Bluffing too is typically devoted to conveying something false. Unlike plain lying, however, it is more especially a matter not of falsity but of fakery."

No bullshit folks, the above statement opened my eyes and made my (JSHIT) acronym more meaningful.  Why? Well, just as Mr. Frankfurt sets out to define bullshit, then compares it to a more pleasant term "humbug," and then he shows the divergence of the two terms, bringing to life a thought that most would think has no real meaning at all.  The reader would be expecting, just as I did, that Mr. Frankfurt's entire article would lead nowhere, and turn out to be a hoax.  But, that was not the case here so...
 If you have a few minutes check out Mr. Frankfurt's article, then revisit "JSHIT: Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics" and "JSHIT: Corruptions Acrimonious Acronym." Now if a Princeton University paper "On Bullshit" can fly and stand on it's own, it surely can support a term coined in the same vein, but having more substantial and documentary proof's.

But, you know by now that I just give you the fact's and ask that you be the judge. Spread the word, tell a friend or two. 

 Thanks, for viewing,
Gaming Oracle Observer!

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Go Paint A Porch

I'll be the first to admit that my vision has deteriorated somewhat since I've become addicted to blogging.  But guess what I found a great outlet.

Yes, you rocket scientist already know, and the title of this blog sort of gave the secret away.  So if you ever find yourself in need of a break from you computer screen, "Go Paint A Porch."
 STOP! Conundrum #1, do porches still exist, or is that thing I'm painting considered my front yard deck? Hmm? Conundrum #2, why am I painting in the first place, don't they have painters that do that?  Lastly, why didn't I solve the problem the old fashion way with some careful planning, by way of having offspring that I could assign the chore of painting the porch? Double, even triple Hmm?
 In this day and age the first two problems are easily solve by the number one answer solution on the planet today.  Do porches still exist, and are there painters out there that will paint them for a fee? Google it! No, I won't  be waiting this time while you sort through the pages upon pages of matches, and that's just on your google search.
 In response to the third conundrum above, please.  You can't assign kids chores anymore.  We all know, but hate to admit it.  First you'd have to sell them on the idea that it's not a punishment.  That way they won't call the local Department of Family Services on you.

Next you'd have to actually go out and show them how to use sandpaper, scrappers, and a hammer.  Then after you're so fed up with the mess that they are intentionally making to get out of the job, you finally send them up to their room, and you wind up finishing the job your doing by yourself anyway.

But, you see that how things progress now-a-days, I could have told you a about a child that kept lamenting, "oh please don't send me to my room, I wanna paint the porch."  But, those of us baby boomers would see through that scam, because we learned that in the children's tale of Peter Rabbit, "oh please don't throw me in the briar patch."
 So, I guess I win, because I'm getting my break, just so happens I only have one child, and I enjoy the manual labor anyway.  There I said it, "manual labor," what a dreaded word to those not wishing to get their keyboard punchers dirty. 

My viewers know that I could go on and on this for day's but it's 6:39AM, the coffee is ready and I only have a few hours left till the morning dew dries and I can get back to painting the front deck.  Don't knock it till you try it, and if your blessed with kid's, it's a great thing the family can do together.  So, "Go Paint a Porch."

Thanks for viewing,
Gaming Oracle's Observer!

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Adjudicating "Likes" & "+1's" Via JSHIT

District Judge Raymond A. Jackson used a play on words to protect a band of wrongdoers in Bland v. Roberts Civil Action No. 4:11cv45.  Some may see through District Judge Jackson's  opinion of April 24, 2012, others may not.  But,  that's where the American Judicial System can become a quagmire of "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics."

Many know that I am not an attorney at law.  The Gaming Oracle has not  graduated from a law school.   But, as a pro se litigant I have come to understand the law, and I can make my own interpretations of the law just as all are allowed too.   You may not agree with my interpretations, and you have every right to do so, but check my record, and you will find that my presentations are based in fact and law.
 Upon my observation of a recent news story on Judge Jackson's ruling I was compelled to investigate the case.   The issues just didn't sit right as they were reported by the media.  Why?  Well the media reported that this judge ruled that what one "likes" and "+1's" on Facebook and G+ are not Constitutionally protected speech.
 Let's take a look-see.  After the "lookie-lookie" I will show you where, and how the "JSHIT" slinging begins. (Newbies to Gaming Oracle's articles should bring themselves up to speed as to what "JSHIT" is by viewing: "JSHIT: Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics."

Are actions we take on the internet protected speech?  In Gresham v. City of Atlanta, 1:10-CV-1301-RWS-ECS, 2011 WL 4601022, (N.D. Ga. Aug. 29, 2011), District Judge Richard W. Story stated under the heading "1. Did Plaintiff speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern?" that:

The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff's Facebook posting addressed a matter of public concern, specifically, "the integrity of the law enforcement services" provided to the public by the Atlanta Police Department (APD). Although the Court considers this a close question, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Plaintiff's speech did pertain to an issue of public concern and thus is entitled to First Amendment protection.

Give or take a day or two, from the above ruling in Georgia, the District Court in Arkansas held within Mattingly v. Milligan, 4:11-cv-00215, under section "III A. Free Speech" that:

And as noted, the termination decisions were a matter of public concern. The Court cannot grant summary judgment on the ground that no reasonable person could have understood Mattingly's Facebook posts to be speech on a matter of public concern because there is evidence in the record to the contrary.

Before December 2010, it was clearly established that a public employer may not fire an employee for speech relating to a matter of public concern where that speech causes no disruption to the workplace. See Pickering, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S. Ct. 1731; Connick, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S. Ct. 1684. Milligan is not entitled to qualified immunity for retaliating against Mattingly because of her Facebook posts.

Okay, from the above two cases we see that those courts have said that speech on a Facebook page amounts to matters of public concern if they are in the context of expressing a matter of public concern.  Some may want to read the above cases in their entirety, so that they can fully understand how the context and the number of people seeing the evidence is applied, and what is a matter of public concern. But…
 In order for me to relate how JSHIT is brought into the Bland v. Roberts case I'll have to show you how Judge Jackson relied upon obscure language, and or intentionally skirting around, and or making an issue out of a non-issue regardless of the facts,  here as I want to reveal that his opinion resounds in JSHIT.
 To understand my argument, consider this.  What if a dictator of a country with nuclear weapons gets pissed when the  United States  enacts an embargo against his country, and he presses the launch button.  Question, is that an expression of war against the United States, or an oop's, because the dictator did not post his intentions to bomb the U.S. on Facebook, nor let any one else know how pissed he was?

Well the above is similar to what Judge Jackson is saying in his opinion.  He has the hubris to say that:

These illustrative cases differ markedly from the case at hand in one crucial way: Both Gresham and Mattingly involved actual statements. No such statements exist in this case. Simply liking a Facebook page is insufficient. It is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection. The Court will not attempt to infer the actual content of Carter's posts from one click of a button on Adams' Facebook page. For the Court to assume that the Plaintiffs made some specific statement without evidence of such statements is improper. Facebook posts can be considered matters of public concern; however, the Court does not believe Plaintiffs Carter and McCoy have alleged sufficient speech to garner First Amendment protection.

Here is where we all need understanding of the law so that we understand the differences between matters of first impression, stare decisis, and that of creating conflicts between the circuits.  If Judge Jackson was not sure as to how to apply the law correctly he should have deferred the case. Or he should pray that our hypothetical never occurs and his house doesn't become ground zero of the dictators non-expression of intent.
 Instead of deferring Judge Jackson's current opinion is replete with what could be construed as obscure statements. From my interactions with our legal system I have learned that our law makers have become versed in the art of obscure language.  They use this tactic to skirt precedents, and conceal corruption and plunder in legislation and common law that they assume no one will take the time to read and analyze.

You don't have to agree with my assessments above, but those in doubt can refer to the statements of some of our past legislators and lobbyist's own  discourse on the subject as I have shared within an article entitled "Abramoff Should Be Flattered."  In that article I shared links to actual video's wherein Mr. Abramoff and former congressmen actually stated that this practice of using obscure language was the norm.

Hence, you will note that Judge Jackson actually cites the Gresham and Mattingly cases but explains them away by saying that the pressing of a "like" button on Facebook can not be construed as expressing ones intent. Being that you are reading this on the internet, can you imagine the millions on contracts that can now be deemed void, because by pressing an accept button we should not be held to have shown our intent to accept the terms of the countless agreements we enter on the millions upon millions of offers and agreements we click upon.

Not all will be in a position to agree with this article, because they can not write a comment below due to that same comment exhibiting their agreement.  This especially holds true for all of the lawyers that follow my blogs.  They can not run the risk of ratifying the words of a pro se litigant, and come under the whip of judges and colleague's that see such affiliations.

So this type of behavior goes on and on.  No one has the courage to stand up for the truth, and thousands of judicial officers shirk their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, and further inhibit the advancement of the law.  Again, lawyer's are supposed to seek this according to the Rules of Professional Conduct, but then again I guess not at the risk of ridicule.

Lastly, in closing, let me point out to you that judge Jackson also says:

"The Sheriff alleges that one of the reasons he terminated Dixon was for violating the Standards of Conduct when he used profanity towards a co-worker. See Def.'s Mem. Law Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 9. The Sheriff alleges that "[w]hen Dixon exited the election booth, in referring to Sheriff Roberts' campaign literature, he told Frances Pope, `you can take this f____ing s____, and throw it in the trash can.'"
 Technology will be the downfall of many judicial officers, why?  Copy Bland v. Roberts from this link, and you will find that judge Jackson fills his opinion with references to the various depositions taken in the case.  But when one does a search for "Dep." he or she will find 35 matches yet none corresponding to a deposition of Frances Pope, whom the sheriff says that he fired on of the plaintiff's for use of profanity directed towards Ms. Pope.  Hmm?

Thank you for viewing and I welcome any comments, and I will do my best to meet any cross-claims based in fact and law to my above argument.

Gaming Oracle Observer!

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Truth Of The Matter Is

Most of the time when a lie is told, at some point in time some one gets caught in the lie, or they get caught up in the lie.

No one can say that we were not fore-warned not to tell lies.  Our parents tell us this and most of the religious edicts discuss the topic of "bearing false witness."  However, not to many sources discuss the fact that we learn on our own that lies have a way of perpetuating themselves.
 How, well think about it, the one initiating the lie does not want to be found-out, so what must he or she do to protect his or her false integrity that is grounded in the lie.  Yes, you guessed it, they have to tell another lie to conceal the falsity of the first lie.  And so on, and so on.

Let's look at an example. This father has a son that has autism, and he nor I know of any studies that have shown that those having autism are prone to lying.  Hence, logic tells us that if you are limited in you ability to communicate, nature might have you lean towards telling the truth.
 This father began to notice a change in his sons behavior, and the school that he was enrolled in began to tell him that his child was disrupting the class and attacking the staff.  Knowing that this was not a description of the child that he knows and loves, this father wanted to know the truth.
 But this single parent faced a huge problem because his son lacked the communication skill's to articulate what was actually happening in this school.  So, with no other recourse after attending several meetings at the school, this father took action and sent his son to school "wired."

I'm writing this because I feel this fathers frustration, yes he, as well as I, know that there will be many that will question his act of wiring his child, but before you become judge-mental, watch the video, and put yourself in his shoes.  Can you honestly say that you would not protect you child to the best of your abilities?
 I would have done just as this father did.  I know the frustration he faced before learning the truth, and then I can understand his emotions after learning the truth and wanting to put an end to this blatant disregard for his son, misconduct by those we trust to serve, and further cover-up by those getting caught up in the lie once there is proof of the truth.
 Some may be familiar with my other blog "" where I am chronicling and sharing the injustice within the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Yes, I am seeking damages for the 10 day's that I was kidnapped and falsely imprisoned, wouldn't you?

But, the father in the video below want's a public apology from the teacher that tormented and scared his son. The fact that only one person heard on the six hours of video tape was reprimanded  is a crying shame. But, the truth of the matter is that we as a society will allow this cover-up to go un-checked. Watch this video and take action, help bring out the real truth in this matter.

Teacher/Bully: How My Son Was Humiliated and Tormented

Thank you for all your views, comments, +1's and support.
Gaming Oracle Observer!

Friday, April 20, 2012

Cooperating, Who Do You Like?

I'm no expert, I don't have a degree in psychology. I did get a "B" in Psychology 101 and an "A" in Philosophy 101, but again I'm no expert, and I could only hope to share my own beliefs.

What about a six-month old infant?  Can he of she share his or her beliefs?  Not just the usual, I'm hungry, wet, or frustrated because this parent figure is failing to grant my every desire.  Well they can, and I'm about to share with you how I know this for a fact.
 I saw an amazing video that shows we are born wanting to be among or like to associate with those that are like us.  Not like us in all physical attributes, but preferring those that cooperate like us, like what we like and so on.

The researcher's have conducted their study and appear to present their data and conclusions form a religious stand point.  I found this video to be quite interesting. Why?  Well for one, the study was conducted at Yale University, here in the United State of America.
 Respecting the fact that the researchers, while attempting to be as neutral as possible, they themselves must admit that this research can not walk the tight-rope of being completely neutral. The researchers themselves admit in the video that their findings are useful in the realms of religion, race, and other social behaviors.

The most compelling observation for this writer was in watching the six-month-olds choosing to interact with characters and objects they perceived as cooperative.  Well if we are talking six-month-olds, I'll guess we must say, perceived as willing to "play nice."
 To watch these six-month-old children dispel any thought that we are born with prejudice's is amazing.  The saying: "from the mouth's of babes" is a little miss place here, because the babes never utter a word, and their actions tell the whole story.

Watch the video, then see if you too, don't wonder what happens to us as we get older.  Better yet, why do some cling to such un-natural feelings and beliefs. It's never too late to get back to that state.  Maybe this internet venue can help us get there by open up the world, seeing more people cooperating and wanting change like we do.
 I like the babes in this video, how about you?

Thanks for viewing,
Gaming Oracle's Observer!

Sunday, April 15, 2012

"The Social Network," A Gallimaufry of Views

Senior Circuit Judge Selya wrote within CONNECTU LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F. 3d 82 that: "The seeds of the global controversy were sown in a Harvard College dormitory room. Tyler Winklevoss, Cameron Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra (the Founders), then Harvard undergraduates, hatched the idea of creating a social networking website for college students."

For those that believe that "the law" is boring, I posit that the opposite is true. If the law was as boring as some think, then what was all the excitement surrounding the movie "The Social Network?"
 The movie says the same thing that the above judge says, the difference being, the judge only took a few pages to relate what he believed to be the facts of the matter before him and the other appellate judges.  According to ChaCha the movie took 121 minutes to tell it's version of the story. 
 Yet one digging a little deeper into the makings of the move would find that it is based upon Ben Mezrich's book "The Accidental Billionaires." (Maybe it's just me, but "accidental" and "billionaires" sit funny in the same sentence. You may slip onto the idea, but hard work takes it to that level.)  But that's what Mr. Mezrich called his book.  It is said that he was able to get material for the book from  Eduardo Saverin, but Mr. Saverin broke off contact with this author after he settled the case with Zuckerberg.
 As an outsider looking in I'd have to say the Mr. Saverin left Mezrich hanging. I guess the saying "money will make people change"  appears to hold true, but in Mr. Saverin's defense I could further say that maybe there was a stipulation within the settlement that caused him to take those actions. The movie seems to support this theory as well.

To find out if the above is true, you'll have to sit through the entire 121 minutes of the movie.  Then again, if you listen to those that say the law is boring you won't bother right? Why watch a boring movie based upon the application of law.  Who are we kidding, you seen this movie already, and now you're making plans to watch it again or...
 You can read judge Selya's opinion and get the legal history of the formation of the giant we now know as Facebook. Or, then again you may choose to read Mr. Mezrich's book, which is based on his research, and facts related to him by one of the parties with direct connections to the birth of Facebook.

By whatever means that you've heard the story, we all know that Facebook has changed the face of  advertising, marketing, and above all that thing we call "social networking" itself.
So within the above you have the Gaming Oracle's hodgepodge of views as to the beginnings of that entity we all know and love as "The Facebook."  Yeah I know drop the "The."  But, nobody told judge Selya to drop "gallimaufry" and just say "hodgepodge" so it's all good.

Thanks for viewing, and tell a friend or two if your so moved.
Gaming Oracle's Observer!

Friday, April 13, 2012

Acknowledging the Sharing (Post 1)

Those that have read and or viewed any of my blogs know that I always strive to give credit where credit is due.  I give thanks to express my appreciation, and with this blog I will acknowledge one that has shared so much of her knowledge that she now receives blessings for such selflessness.

If you are a member of the blogging community or have a website, you may already know of, or heard this young ladies name.  I'm talking about Ms. Lisa Irby. 
 This young lady does so much yet all of what she does is from her heart.  She teaches her craft with such a passion that some of the most complex aspects of her subject matter just sink into your brain. You come to understand the concepts she teaches due to her love, understanding, commitment, and God giving gifts that she utilizes in sharing all that she knows.

I say "sharing" because Ms. Irby is not some online marketer, hell bent on clearing out a warehouse of useless products to the masses. No, she has learned how the world's newest marketing tool has changed the landscape of marketing, and she is committed to sharing what she has learned with the rest of the world.

 I was inspired to thank Ms. Irby in this post while watching one of her video's like the one above. I said to myself "damn this young lady really knows what she is talking about, and wow the way she presents it is not of this earth."  For those caught up in the things of this earth, that is called by most "the selfless giving of one's self."  It can't be taught it's a gift from above.

In all of my fifty years, this young lady truly stands out as an inspiration to all, young, old, rich, poor, and all in between.  She never talks down to her viewers, yet she can break down any subject matter. She is humble and appreciative of her gifts. 

I could go on-and-on but if you watch one of her videos, or view one of her sites you will know why.  So, since Lisa Irby speaks for her self through her work allow me to introduce you to her and her main website at She can handle it from there.

If you have a website or a blog that you want to improve, you now have the address where you can go to.  You'll see that Lisa is one of the top experts in this area.  My blog was born to make injustice known, and with Lisa's help I've been able to improve my delivery of this message plus expand and share other things that I have learned.

Once more I say: "Thank you from the bottom of my heart Lisa, and keep doing what you are doing, we appreciate you."
 As always thank you for all your view's and comments.
The Gaming Oracle Observer!