Repost: What Is With Everyone Suing and Prosecuting Everyone Nowadays?

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011

What Is With Everyone Suing and Prosecuting Everyone Nowadays?

For example, Dr. Conrad Murray-- who should've lost his license but not been prosecuted. What; are my family going to be prosecuted for my aunt Mary Carole's death in 2008 when she decided not to take her insulin that day and was a determined alcoholic, anyway? We couldn't have done anything about her. And Justin Bieber-- honestly, don't sue the woman. Besides, you, Mr. Bieber, pulled a Herman Cain-- responded to legitimate allegations too late and amatuerly.

Save the prosecution for those like my granddad who ought to be prosecuted for the 2007 malice-murder-intent scenario and Social Security fraud regarding my great-grandmother Mary Trudnak Czarnecki. Save the suing for real discrimination, theft, and other lawsuit-worthy cases. Don't be frivolous or unjust in suing or prosecuting. The Criminal Justice and Corrections System in America is clogged up enough. Also-- as with Mr. Bieber--, why not resolve matters as soon as possible instead of a long time later if you have nothing to hide and something legitimate to contend?

Besides, 1 Corinthians 6 reads in part:

 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? ² Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? ³ Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? ⁴ If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? ⁵ I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? ⁶ But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
⁷ Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? ⁸ No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you dothese things to your brethren! ⁹ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,^[a] nor sodomites, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Second Draft of My Essay for Criminal Justice

In regards to Introduction to Corrections, I still maintain that the class could have been taught with much less book learning and more "chit chat", or engagement of and with the material. Engagement of and with the material would not only have supplemented the book learning, but applied it and made it easier to remember. The field events were a fine application; but the engagement known as "chit chat" would have also helped, and frankly helped apply to the field experience what we learned in class.

I also maintain that Drako did not apply "the punishment fits the crime" first, and the Ancient English did not apply lex talions and wergild first. The Hebrews did, and Genesis 9:6 applies one of the first-- if not the first of the-- Drakon-associated codes. As for lex talions (family justice) and wergild (restitutive sanctions-- e.g., blood money), the Hebrew Torah gives cases in which each are to be applied. For example, if a man accidentally kills another and does not flee to a marked city of refuge allows for lex talions, or if he must make restitution for a baby who he caused to be miscarried during a fight allows wergild.

I respectfully bring to point that I did not like the mockery of Christianity. Being a Messianic Jew and now understanding that (as far as I can tell) you are a Non-Messianic Jew, I fully respect your right not to believe in Jesus. However, I did not like the mockery of, incidentally, what the Quakers themselves based their rehabilitative, reformatory, and penitentiary models on. To them and me, Jesus would not just have been another high for drug and alcohol addicts, let alone one comparable to work and other addictions for the same. I also did not like the "Lazarus has risen" joke regarding Cameron. To me, Lazarus' resurrection was a sacred even and nothing to make light of, let alone to use as a metaphor for Cameron finally coming back to class after car problems.

I myself do not seek to proselytize, but hold strong Evangelical Christian, Messianic Jewish views. As the Quakers did with the views, I apply my views to my life and every aspect thereof, including an Introduction to Corrections class and corrections themselves. On that point, I found the Drug Court to be consistent with a Quaker-Christian view of saving the lost, rehabilitating, reforming, and bringing to penance. As a Messianic Jew, I look forward to seeing the Drug Courts-- and now the Mental Health, Veterans', and other Specialized Courts-- increase in number and effectiveness in decreasing the backlog in the Criminal Justice System.

In conclusion, I learned much about corrections and how to strengthen and apply my views to corrections in Introduction to Corrections, but I still would have liked to engage more with the material to supplement it and the applications of it (e.g., the field trips). I also, as I said, would've liked to see less mockery of Christianity, although I understand your views and certainly do not seek to proselytize. However, as aforementioned, I will do my views as the Quakers did with their views-- that is, apply them to corrections, and learn about other views in light of how to examine and strengthen my own.

Draft of My Reflection Essay For Criminal Justice (It'll Be Easier To Write It This Way First)

In regards to Introduction to Corrections, I still maintain that the class could have been taught with much less book learning and more "chit chat", or engagement of and with the material. Engagement of and with the material would not only have supplemented the book learning, but applied it and made it easier to remember. The field events were a fine application; but the engagement known as "chit chat" would have also helped, and frankly helped apply to the field experience what we learned in class.

I also maintain that Drako did not apply "the punishment fits the crime" first, and the Ancient English did not apply lex talions and weirgald first. The Hebrews did, and Genesis 9:6 applies one of the first-- if not the first of the-- Drakon-associated codes. As for lex talions (family justice) and weirgald (restitutive sanctions-- e.g., blood money), the Hebrew Torah gives cases in which each are to be applied. For example, if a man accidentally kills another and does not flee to a marked city of refuge allows for lex talions, or if he must make restitution for a baby who he caused to be miscarried during a fight allows weirgald.

I respectfully bring to point that I did not like the mockery of Christianity. Being a Messianic Jew and now understanding that (as far as I can tell) you are a Non-Messianic Jew, I fully respect your right not to believe in Jesus. However, I did not like the mockery of, incidentally, what the Quakers themselves based their rehabilitative, reformatory, and penitentiary models on. To them and me, Jesus would not just have been another high for drug and alcohol addicts, let alone one comparable to work and other addictions for the same. I also did not like the "Lazarus has risen" joke regarding Cameron. To me, Lazarus' resurrection was a sacred even and nothing to make light of, let alone to use as a metaphor for Cameron finally coming back to class after car problems.

I myself do not seek to proselytize, but hold strong Evangelical Christian, Messianic Jewish views. As the Quakers did with the views, I apply my views to my life and every aspect thereof, including an Introduction to Corrections class and corrections themselves. On that point, I found the Drug Court to be consistent with a Quaker-Christian view of saving the lost, rehabilitating, reforming, and bringing to penance. As a Messianic Jew, I look forward to seeing the Drug Courts-- and now the Mental Health, Veterans', and other Specialized Courts-- increase in number and effectiveness in decreasing the backlog in the Criminal Justice System.

In conclusion, I learned much about corrections and how to strengthen and apply my views to corrections in Introduction to Corrections, but I still would have liked to engage more with the material to supplement it and the applications of it (e.g., the field trips). I also, as I said, would've liked to see less mockery of Christianity, although I understand your views and certainly do not seek to proselytize. However, as aforementioned, I will do my views as the Quakers did with their views-- that is, apply them to corrections, and learn about other views in light of how to examine and strengthen my own.

A More Specific Example of Frivolous Lawsuits-- re The Papua New Guinean Who I Mentioned....

I am under persecution from HAYRIPITIR1/JLO801. He's threatening me with a frivolous lawsuit. He claims to be simultaneously in Papua New Guinea (as HAYTRIPITIR1), California (as JLO801, on his YouTube profile), and Maryland. His latest threat under his second username:

I ask you nicely to remove the video. since you do not want to do it, that is find with me. Im currently station in Andrews Air force Base in Maryland, since you live in Maryland too that is perfect for me. I will sue you... for violated my privacy. So you think I'm in overseas and not in the State lol we are in the same State. So I gave you 48 hours to get that video remove or i will contact my local police get you arrested. take you to court. read the law about violating person privacyrivacy is the expectation that confidential personal information disclosed in a private place will not be disclosed to third parties, when that disclosure would cause either embarrassment or emotional distress to a person of reasonable sensitivities. Information is interpreted broadly to include facts, images (e.g., photographs, videotapes), and disparaging opinions.surreptitious interception of conversations in a house or hotel room is eavesdropping. See e.g., N.Y. Penal §§ 250.00, 250.05
one has a right of privacy for contents of envelopes sent via first-class U.S. Mail. 18 USC § 1702; 39 USC § 3623
one has a right of privacy for contents of telephone conversations, telegraph messages, or electronic data by wire. 18 USC § 2510 et seq.
one has a right of privacy for contents of radio messages. 47 USC §605

I did nothing wrong. I merely mentioned his name since he commented re a video which I made. Besides, NY penal codes don't apply in MD.

I Should've Mentioned This In My Last Video...

If I sued for all of the times that I've had legitimacy to sue (and I've had plenty, including against Mia Danilowicz for her frivolry-- and I could've easily countersued for her attempt to defame me, misrepresent me and herself, and attempting to stifle legal and acceptable freedom of speech and expression of information), I could've sued.

But I haven't sued? Why? As I mentioned in my last video, a person who brings themselves into a matter needs to deal with whatever arises because of the matter. I, for example, have dealt with Mia-- I've called for any boycott for Marcela "Mia" J. Danilowicz until she gets her act together and starts treating people right. I'm not reaching out to befriend her again and apologize for anything that I may have done-- she added me as a friend in the first place, anyway, then removed me; and I have nothing for which to apologize to her.

Also, suing for selfish reasons is not Christian-- or even good Non-Messianic Jewish-- behavior.

Dr. Conrad Murray: Prison Is Enough? Maybe Loing His License Was...

And since losing a license means no income, the taxpayers will be taking care if Dr. Murray, anyway. Prison or welfare? Either way, he'll end up on welfare. So, with Dr. Murray, Michael Jackson already picked his poison (since he was a druggie, anyway). We may as well pick ours-- and not prison. Losing a license was enough for Dr. Murray.

I Know That Shabbat's Today & That I'm Not To Hold A Grudge, But...

Since "Marcela" is trending on Twitter, I'm going to take the opportunity to remind everybody why my cousin Marcela J. "Mia" Danilowicz needs to be boycotted. By the way I didn't even write that Pop-Pop is a murderer when I mentioned him as being related to us; and as I've said, all I did was say that he was an IRS Agent who served tax papers to Nixon (which is true) and that Marcela's our cousin and a fashion designer (which is true).

I forgive and don't begrudge, but I don't pretend that the incident never happened or make the incident a repressed memory or memory to be wiped out of my memory bank. Besides, those posts promoted Mia and said that we're also not related to that Anti Semite Stefan Czarniecki-- and I'm a "fucking psycho"?

I'm not supporting or promoting anyone-- especially any family member-- who treats me and others like crap, and who threatens frivolous and unnecessary legal action against someone. By the way, using a lawyer as a threat is not cool-- our legal system is clogged up enough and has real problems to deal with.

January 6, 2010

Nicole Czarnecki

How Are We Related?

My understanding (given your last name) is that we're related through my great-granddad Czarn(i)ecki's paternal grandmother, Katarzyna Danilowicza Czarniecka. But I'm wondering how we're specifically related through her or her family line. In other words, are we both descended from her (meaning we'd be x-degree cousins or x-times-removed cousins, like 4th or 4-times-removed cousins) or descended from her dad or granddad (meaning we'd be like 5th or five-times-removed cousins)?

I understand that you've seen that I'm looking for Danilowicz, Czarniecki, et. al. relatives (which is why you added me as a friend?); and I'm just trying to (if you will) connect the dots, and I honestly thought that my chances of connecting with a Danilowicz, or Czarniecki, or other cousin who's from or even still over in Poland were probably little to none (especially at this point).

By the way, correct me if any of my understanding is wrong and/or totally missing the mark. Thanks.

Nicole Czarnecki

November 7Sent from Mobile

Marcela J. Danilowicz

Hi you need to delete my name from all of the posts you made on urban dictionary, I cannot have anything like that on the Internet because of work, please do it now or I will contact urban dictionary and my lawyer.

November 7

Nicole Czarnecki

There's no way that I can delete those posts-- I tried to, but I can't. I, with all due respect, see no reason to contact your lawyer. However, I can see reasons for you to contact Urban Dictionary.

Thank you for letting me know about the consequences of the posts ahead of time before any adverse action was taken.

November 7

Marcela J. Danilowicz

Why did you write these posts. You are fucking psycho.

November 7

Nicole Czarnecki

If you feel that way, then you shouldn't have added me as a friend or acknowledged me as a relative in the first. Also, everything that I wrote is true to the best of my knowledge.

The Statute of Limitations For Rape May've Expired for Natalie Wood, But Who Else Has Kirk Douglas Raped?

Back in his day, Kirk Douglas could've easily gotten the death penalty for rape, particularly child and adolescent rape. But then-16-year-old Natalie Wood was afraid to report him, and eventually went to her grave without doing so. But who else has Kirk Douglas raped in his day? He can't get the death penalty for any crimes after Coker v. Georgia (1977) and Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), but ex-post facto applies only as it says that it does-- "ex-post facto-- after the fact". So once Coker and Kennedy came down, Douglas escaped the death penalty for any crime that he committed after each of the respective rulings were made. In other words, once the death penalty for rape was banned, it was banned for the here- or there-after.

But the question remains: since Kirk Douglas raped Natalie Wood and got away with it (before Coker and Kennedy), what did he do after Coker and Kennedy? And even since he got away with raping Natalie Wood, who else did he rape before Coker and Kennedy?

Since they can reopen the Natalie Wood drowning case, they can investigate Kirk Douglas to make sure that he hasn't done anything else since getting away with his own crimes against Natalie Wood-- and there's always probable cause to at least investigate someone who got away with rape once, no matter how long ago the statute of limitations on that particular rape expired.

No Matter Who In the Family Abuses or Persecutes Me, I Won't Be Quiet or Self Defenseless Anymore

I'm not a Chamberlain. I'm not a Dubeck. In fact, Great-Grandma Gaydos was enough of an American Chamberlain and kapo, and she cost many of our family members' lives by refusing to help them make aliyah. As for Dubeck, he led then Czechoslovakia but cowed to the then USSR, making Czechoslovakia a USSR state-- part of which made life harder for remaining Ashkenazic Jews in the Diaspora, my Anusi mishpacha included.

I will do as Great-Grandma Czarnecki did-- "talk about it". "It" is our family history; good, bad, and ugly, and redeemable and irredeemable. I'm not going to lie or stay silent when I find something out if I don't have to (and there are two matters which I wish that I could discuss; but for the sake of the family members who told me of the matters, I am keeping quiet until they talk about them or let me talk about them).

I will not be abused, persecuted, threatened, or otherwise mistreated (Matt, Marcela, and others, pay attention; you will find me defending myself against any tactic that you try to use against me. Jesus-- Yeshua veyn kol 'am-- defended Himself and turned the other cheek, not only turned the other cheek.). I will not be silent about any matter that comes to light because of another family member or another person: if the matter needs to be confirmed, I'll confirm it; if denied, I'll deny it. I'm going to be truthful whether you like it or not.

And if being truthful includes boycotting the professionals in our family for being untruthful, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate, so be it.  

I Urged a Boycott of My Cousin Matt Turner (mjturner916), So To Be Fair...

I'm going to urge a boycott of another cousin: fashion designer Marcela J. Danilowicz. The following conversation and explanatory posts will underscore why:

Marcela J. Danilowicz

Hi you need to delete my name from all of the posts you made on urban dictionary, I cannot have anything like that on the Internet because of work, please do it now or I will contact urban dictionary and my lawyer.

 

Nicole Czarnecki

There's no way that I can delete those posts-- I tried to, but I can't. I, with all due respect, see no reason to contact your lawyer. However, I can see reasons for you to contact Urban Dictionary.

Thank you for letting me know about the consequences of the posts ahead of time before any adverse action was taken.

 

Marcela J. Danilowicz

Why did you write these posts. You are fucking psycho.

22 hours ago

Nicole Czarnecki

If you feel that way, then you shouldn't have added me as a friend or acknowledged me as a relative in the first. Also, everything that I wrote is true to the best of my knowledge.

There is no lie whatsoever in the Urban Dictionary posts, which read as follows...

Never mind. She did contact Urban Dictionary. If she contacts her lawyer, I myself will contact a lawyer in turn and work to have those Urban Dictionary posts reinstated. She has no legitimate case, and no legitimacy shall be given to her. I simply explained the etymology and history of Danilowicz, of Czarnecki (Chernetski), and of my family history in connection to those two-- in which she was mentioned as an aspiring fashion designer and a relative of mine.

As hard as boycotting and encouraging boycotts of family members is; immoral, unethical, and otherwise-inappropriate behavior will and should not be encouraged by me, or encouraged by anyone else. Boycotting mjturner916 and Marcela J. Danilowicz as, respectively, a musician and a designer will show that the public (including family members) will not tolerate or accept immoral, unethical, and otherwise-inappropriate-- including unjust-- treatment of family members or others by professionals in any field, including music and fashion design.

What Is With Everyone Suing and Prosecuting Everyone Nowadays?

For example, Dr. Conrad Murray-- who should've lost his license but not been prosecuted. What; are my family going to be prosecuted for my aunt Mary Carole's death in 2008 when she decided not to take her insulin that day and was a determined alcoholic, anyway? We couldn't have done anything about her. And Justin Bieber-- honestly, don't sue the woman. Besides, you, Mr. Bieber, pulled a Herman Cain-- responded to legitimate allegations too late and amatuerly.

Save the prosecution for those like my granddad who ought to be prosecuted for the 2007 malice-murder-intent scenario and Social Security fraud regarding my great-grandmother Mary Trudnak Czarnecki. Save the suing for real discrimination, theft, and other lawsuit-worthy cases. Don't be frivolous or unjust in suing or prosecuting. The Criminal Justice and Corrections System in America is clogged up enough. Also-- as with Mr. Bieber--, why not resolve matters as soon as possible instead of a long time later if you have nothing to hide and something legitimate to contend?

Besides, 1 Corinthians 6 reads in part:

 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? ² Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? ³ Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? ⁴ If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? ⁵ I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? ⁶ But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
⁷ Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? ⁸ No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! ⁹ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,^[a] nor sodomites, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

So I Get Blamed For What That Felonous Croatian Did...

Edit

Best answer - nitecruzr (Top Contributor)

Well in order to report him as a felon you need to figure out a few things first.

1. He probably found your blog because he was searching for [an illicit item].

Having titles in your blog such as http://thenicolefactor.blogspot.com/2011/10/im-not-abdl-but-i-dont-see-infantilism.html which of course does discuss [part of what he searched for] is going to show up in search results. Now granted you have to dig pretty deep on google to find it as you are not high up on the search results but rule number 1 of not showing up on search results for infantophila is to not blog about [part of what he searched for].

2. He may in fact be a troll. There are trolls on the internet who just like to annoy people and nothing gets people madder than a [n illicit] reference.

3. If you do wish to report him you first need to figure out what country he lives in. Perhaps corresponding with this person might get you some more details. Of course never forget rule 29 of the internet. There are no women on the internet and all kids are FBI agents. So talking to him might actually get you into trouble.

My best advice is to block this user. Any sensible pedo knows to hide behind a dozen proxxys and you would never find him anyway

Did you find this answer helpful?

Yes

No

Report abuse

Nickidewbear Level 1 6:32 PM

Edit

All I was saying was that infantilism (which is what ABDLs have) and [what he searched for in an illicit way]  are not the same. Also, I just feel like reporting the guy, not talking to him; and I don't know how to block him.

Edit

You claim the searcher is a felon. How do you know he is a felon? After all, it might be a search performed by a police officer who is part of an International police effort searching for [guys like this Croatian felon].

You state on your blog that the search was illegal. Under what statutes of Croatian law would that be?

And the term appears on your website, in an article, so I am somewhat bemused as to the point you are trying to make. Else the search would not have steered the searcher to your site.

.

Did you find this answer helpful?

Yes

No

Report abuse

HappyCabbie Level 3 6:41 PM

Edit

Well it turns out according to this thread I found http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/blogger/thread?tid=64dddc884aa057de&hl=en

That there really is no way to block someone on blogger. Which is odd because just about every other social networking site that Google has offers this. I did find this old tutorial which shows you how to block someone if they decide to follow your blog http://www.wchingya.com/2009/05/how-to-block-blogger-followers.html

However it appears that tutorial is outdated. As I can't replicate the steps outlined. If I ever do find a way to block someone I will let you know.

Did you find this answer helpful?

Yes

No

Report abuse

Nickidewbear Level 1 6:48 PM

Edit

Searching the term which I mentioned is a violation of international law, not just Croatian or American law.

As I said, personal responsibility has been kaputed out of the window. I get chauvinistically blamed for talking about a subject that needs to be talked about in order to help ABDLs and others, and the felonous Croatian gets away with violating international law.

Leave Conrad Murray Alone!

I agree with those who say that Michael Jackson was a drug addict who'd've obtained drugs anyhow and killed himself with them. If Conrad Murray said "No", Michael Jackson'd've found someone else who'd've said "Yes". Severely-addicted people-- especially celebrity or other money-and/or-power-endowed addicts-- work like that.

We've lost such a sense of personal responsibility in this culture, just like the high-school-aged young men and the professor with whom they had sexual intercourse. Instead of suing everybody for everything from statutory "rape" to drug-addiction-affected death, take personal responsibility. As I've said, the time for personal responsibility has come and recome: blame yourself if you give yourself away to your high school professor, drugs, or who- or what-ever else.

Part of My Correspondence With a True Reform Jew (i.e., One Who's Really Reforming Modern Judaism)

However, I'm going to censor out his or her name for the interim, since he or she has not yet responded to this:

Hey... (v'Shabbat Shalom!):




Thanks for the response, and I apologize for delaying in my own response. Meanwhile, I think that a good topic to cover at present would be the Casey Anthony case and the death penalty; especially because a prominent fellow Jew of ours, Geraldo Rivera, seems to unfortunately be in lockstep with URJ policy per the death penalty and is forgetting how Torah and arguably tikun ha'olam (which certainly includes tzedek) requires that Casey be convicted and get the death penalty per nefesh l'nefesh- and how any other premeditating and remorseless murderer should get the death penalty.



I think that one of the things that many- including the URJ (including Geraldo) forgets is that the death penalty is not a bloodlust-based idea or easy sanction to carry out for any Jewish or gentile person who loves Torah. To carry out nefesh l'nefesh is killing someone, and taking a life of even the most vile person is hard especially because we're all family (per Adam and Eve, and Noah) and there is a special kind of "What could have been?" heartbreak in having to execute a fellow family member who could have chosen to do the right thing instead of murder someone and attempt to evade and/or pervert tzedek (and Casey obviously chose to pervert tzedek instead of love and raise Caylee).



Nicole Czarnecki

To Geraldo Rivera's Producer, Christina Timothy

CT, morality sometimes takes precedence over the Constitution and other US law (and obviously is not in line with it at the time). Especially as a Jew, Geraldo ought to know that. In this case, he's behaving to a lesser degree and in a different but parallel way to my great-grandmother Gaydos- that is, Great-Grandma Gaydos cost the lives of relatives who died in the Holocaust because she followed US isolationist policy and did not send them the help which they requested; and in a similar way, Geraldo is costing Caylee's life and justice all the more.

The Cops Listened In Illegally On Casey Anthony's Conversation? Re Roy Kronk

In the words of Jose Baez, "The answer is simple": the cops listened in legally either way; whether the way be that an inmate heard the Baez-Anthony conversation and (in street talk) snitched (By the way, I'm 21 and had no idea that "Zani" is street talk for "Xanax"- which goes to show how worldly Casey Anthony is compared to me. Anyway, either an inmate heard and snitched), or the cops (or corrections officers or whoever else) had a classified (secret) warrant from Judge Perry (since judges issue warrants, and Judge Perry would've had to have issued a non-Terry or  -Pringle, or other circumstanial or circumstance-mandated warrant).

Either way, Roy Kronk's girlfriend had the right to hear the police-given information and tip off the county (or community; either way, public worker) meter reader.