The "Nicole Factor" Is Online

Welcome to the Nicole Factor at blogspot.com.

Google+ Badge

Stage 32

My LinkedIn Profile

About Me

My Photo
My blog is "The Nicole Factor" on Blogspot, my Facebook page "Nicole Czarnecki aka Nickidewbear", and YouTube and Twitter accounts "Nickidewbear."

TwitThis

TwitThis

Twitter

Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)

Views

Facebook and Google Page

Reach Me On Facebook!

Search This Blog

Talk To Me on Fold3!

Showing posts with label legal_matters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal_matters. Show all posts

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Commentary: "Conflate"? And "Plain Meaning"?

How can Kellyanne Conway as a sexual-abuse survivor herself work with an self-admitted sexual abuser? There's no conflating about it. Supporting Kavanaugh and ***** is saying to her own sexual abuser, "What you did to me is okay." After all, you can't knowingly support some unrepentant sexual abusers and not support others at the same time. If you're supporting any sexual abusers with full knowledge of what they did and/or are doing, you are by extension supporting your own if you yourself were and/or are a victim of sexual abuse. Thus, an answer like the following one to a question about your own hypocrisy would be all the more inappropriate and intellectually dishonest:
"Don't conflate that with this, and certainly don't conflate that with what happened to me."
Translation: "Stop confronting me about my hypocrisy, and certainly stop telling me to refrain from revictimizing fellow sexual-abuse victims and survivors."

Meanwhile, in regard to a case that involves hypocrisy concerning non-sexual abuse—namely, "Schreiber v. McCamet et. al." (2018)

  • At least Senator Blunt did something right for once during this whole xenophobic, misogynistic, and racist ***** Era, especially since (I guarantee you that) the same ruling would not have been made had the adoptee been a White boy or any girl that ***** and *****ites would consider (forgive the language) a token—and with the Armed Forces not being keen on *****'s plan for a military parade and the adoptee in question being a South Korean and not a North Korean (let alone one whom either escaped from or somehow got special permission to leave North Korea), ***** and *****ites are likely to all the more see adoptee as useless and even detrimental to them. As for Non-White boys, for the same ruling to have been made might've actually been possible given that ***** and *****ites would likely see no value in someone whom they couldn't try to use for a "Women for *****" schtick, especially with the current events at hand—ones that certainly make female voters and to-be voters more of a target voting demographic than male voters and to-be voters.   
  • That judge basically just sent a huge (forgive the language) "**** you. I don't care about your military service" to Lt. Col. Schreiber and his family, as well as to other military families, and an "I don't care about your service" to other Armed Forces members and their families.
  • The only "plain meaning" there, then, is that the judge would've ruled to let the delayed adoption process continue to go through now had the adoptee been a 17-year-old White boy or Non-White girl whom he found useful for "MAGA" and "America First" ends, never mind that putting America first actually includes letting Armed Forces members whom have served honorably as well as been of good character adopt any child whom wants to be adopted by him or her.
Therefore, "hypocrisy" still means "hypocrisy" just as "is" still means "is" and has a definition around which nobody can get—whether whomever tries to get around it is Kellyanne Conway, a bigoted judge, or anyone else.


PPS That I wrote about whomever ***** would nominate and included the following was surprisingly prescient, especially given that I wrote what I wrote in July(!):

"Now-Former President Obama admitted his general disdain for most conservatives as well as most moderate & leaning-moderate people on all sides—and at least he, as far as I know, doesn't have any forcibly-aborted children or sexual-harassment victims in his wake."


Dr. Blasey Ford made her allegations in July, and (as I predicted) Kavanaugh is indeed a ***** sycophant and (as I unbeknownstly-to-myself predicted) fellow sexual abuser of *****. 


(By the way, Julie Swetnick's own indiscretions do not mean that she wasn't sexually abused by Kavanaugh. So, don't automatically assume that he has only two known victims in his wake.)

Monday, August 6, 2018

Commentary: Rick Gates Just Did In Paul Manafort, Although Paul Manafort Ultimately Did In Himself & Helped To Do In Others

As I'm writing this, it's only seconds after I got the news alert that Rick Gates admitted to doing criminal activity at Paul Manafort's behest. So, Rick Gates essentially proved Special Counselor's case: that D****d ***** used Putin as his puppet to get himself illegally into the White House. This isn't to account for *****'s tweets in which he ultimately trapped himself and because of which Special Counselor Mueller ultimately had to do nothing to pull the Jenga® block out of his tower.

Try to build a ***** Tower in Moscow if Putin is willing to be used as your puppet, meet at ***** Tower HQ with your puppet's puppets to conspire to steal data and change others' votes, and commit a whole litany of other crimes, catch yourself right in your own trap in which Special Counselor Mueller and others knew that you would catch yourself.

Moral of the story: always follow the real rule of law and act ethically and morally, and you won't find yourself in legal, ethical, and moral conundrums.

PS The real rule of law always includes ethical and civil disobedience, and "civil disobedience" includes taking actions such as recording conversations about paying someone to silence her about your affair with her—so what Michael Cohen did was civilly disobedient even if it was illegal per se. 

Friday, August 3, 2018

Commentary: Imagine If...

You boss had extremely-serious allegations leveled against him or her. Imagine if those allegations included that he or she used someone within a competing organization to help him or her become the CEO by taking actions such as helping to intimidate union members whom voted on behalf of other employees—including the board of directors—and hacking their computers to change their logged votes. Imagine if the BoD wanted to investigate him or her, and he or she tried to use the legal department with the organization to stop the investigation that the BoD asked HR to undertake. Imagine if he or she also slandered, libeled, and endangered his or her apparent employees and colleagues, the BoD, and HR.

That is exactly what ***** has leveled against him and is doing, and those allegations are essentially proven by now. He used Putin to help him illegally get into the White House. He and supporters of his threatened the Electoral College and had Russia tamper with ballots. He is trying to get the Justice Department to stop the investigation that Congress asked Special Counselor Mueller to undertake, and he is slandering and libeling those whom don't support him as well as encouraging his supporters to hurt others.

A decent HR department in any given company would sanction such a corrupt and illegitimate CEO as well as turn him or her into the police, and ask the BoD, union members, and other employees to cooperate with an investigation that the police department and a DA would undertake. In this case, Special Counselor Mueller is closer to indicting ***** every day and needs the support of all of the American people to continue investigating him.

By the way, keep in mind that the all-employees-as-members BoD and union as well as the general workplace are the American people in the analogy.  

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Commentary: With All Due Respect, Nobody "Misspoke", "Pushed" You, Or Threatened "Extortion"...

You said what you said. You did what you did. You spoke for yourself, and you did the action of speaking. You sat in that Helsinki palace with Putin, and you called African Americans a racist name and brought up how many of them were mistreated for God knows what reason—"role playing" definitely wasn't it, and everybody saw right through that—everybody's (or at least my) guess is that you were trying to intimidate African Americans.

This tweet, by the way, becomes absolutely suspect in light of that: 




Are you? "Role playing" to prove that you're not racist makes your tweet sound like a classic "I am and I'm trying to pretend that I'm not" excuse. You also supported the person whom claims that he "misspoke" at Helsinki, whose the same person whom has called countries like Haiti "****hole countries", might I mention—and what does that say about what you really think of anyone of African descent?

I hasten to additionally mention that whom you supported met Putin in Helsinki, the capital of a notorious Nazi collaborator during World War Two, and about which the CIA Factbook currently says the following:

"During World War II, Finland successfully defended its independence through cooperation with Germany and resisted subsequent invasions by the Soviet Union - albeit with some loss of territory."

Meanwhile, you still won't cooperate with Special Counselor Mueller, and you somehow made time to assure that the CIA would write a pro-Nazi entry in its apparent factbook well before you met with Putin in Helsinki (and everybody can see that you illegally head an executive branch to whom the CIA answers in part).  You also projected by calling Former CIA Director John Brennan "treasonous". 

Both of you claim to be Christian, by the way. I'm pretty sure that you know, then, that Jesus told everybody:

"For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light."

Especially if you really are actually Christian, you know that Special Counselor Mueller (so to speak, and I suppose literally) has your number—you may as well at least call him and set up a time to sit down with him so that you can explain why you've done what you've done, besides that you've been among "men [whom] loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." The same goes for you: you may as well sit before your former company's CEO, shareholders, and other involved parties and state that you really messed up and exposed a really-ugly side of you.

After all, what's the holdup if you really believe that "he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God"? David, the legitimately-appointed king of Israel whom raped Bathsheba and murdered Uriah, had to turn himself in both to Nathan (since kings were as subject to Torah as anybody else, and Nathan was appointed as a prophet and counselor to David by God) and to Godand you're surely not better than David.

You've already ruined your legacy. The Trump™ brand is no longer respected, if it ever even was anything besides well known—since "well known" is not inherently synonymous with "respected". The Papa John'sⓇ brand doesn't even have the original "Papa John" associated with it in any way but for the "Papa John" nickname.

You're also looking at jail or prison time as well as more lawsuits than you've had in the past, anyway. Special Counselor Mueller is likely to indict you any day, and either he or someone else will definitely sue you on behalf of the United States Government and all Americans. One of your former employees or colleagues may press hate-crime charges against you, and someone will definitely sue you for defamation.


In conclusion, then, you might as well do what's right after you've—as the expressions go—burned so many bridges and had everything for which you actually worked go up in flames: try to make the amends that you need to make.

"If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."
"[C]ome to the light" to which your actions have already been brought and own up to them. Accept a plea deal that Special Counselor Mueller and your defense team work out for you after you've talked to him. Sincerely apologize to your former employees, colleagues, investors, and customers for even being racist, let alone supporting a racist and then using racist language that you tried to couch as something other than what you were really thinking.

Even when you're serving jail and/or prison time and/or once again facing litigation, you can still have others say about you, "At least he [or, as opposed to "he", an understandably-supplied noun] owned up to what he did—albe after a long time!"¹



¹As for Putin, incidentally, I have no idea who will prosecute and/or sue him—perhaps the UN will, and there is definitely a litany of cases that the ICC can make against him, and the U.S. could sue Russia in the ICJ—and as for Finland, they still rightly have to live with being a Nazi-collaborator state.

Monday, July 9, 2018

Of Course, Conservatives Can't Trust *****'s Supreme Court Nominee (And Of Course Can't Trust *****)!

No matter who ***** picks, no conservative can trust her (likely her) or him. Besides, she (as all indicators seem to have demonstrated so far) or he is going to be a ***** sycophant (at least initially—and who knows what's happened when Neil Gorsuch has ruled against his boss, whom is illegitimately in the White House in the first place and thus makes Gorsuch's appointment illegitimate in any case, no matter that the Senate's confirmed it for the time being)? Also, and most importantly, the following should cause everyone to consider why no real conservative is going to back *****'s SCOTUS nominee even if she or he even ends up being a he by the name of Merrick Garland(!):


  1. Real conservatives would rather have a moderate like Merrick Garland, whom was appointed by an albe-legitimately-elected president whom we generally didn't like, than a sycophant of an illegitimately-elected-president in whom no decent person can find any merit.
  2. Now-Former President Obama admitted his general disdain for most conservatives as well as most moderate & leaning-moderate people on all sides—and at least he, as far as I know, doesn't have any forcibly-aborted children or sexual-harassment victims in his wake. ***** still tries to pretend to suddenly be Mr. Reformed and Mr. Conservative when he has never even repented for—and he demonizes everyone whom calls him out on—his own immoderate and far-from-conservative actions, among which are trying to get Marla Maples to abort Tiffany Trump (and someone who really wants to overturn "Roe v. Wade" would come clean about wanting to abort his own child, not to mention his affair-conceived child—and to be fair, one now has to wonder at what point the affair stopped being an affair and crossed into Marla Maples being Stockholmed, since a man who can rape his wife and try to force any woman to abort her child probably didn't have a fully-willing partner in Marla. When he or she also considers, among other things, how ***** bragged about "grabb[ing a woman] by [her private areas]" and "mov[ing] on her like a [dog]", one has to wonder if Marla could've said "No" and had it taken for an answer.)
  3. In other words, Former President Obama is generally a "You get who you see" kind of person and was that way as a politician, even though he at least made bipartisan concessions. ***** is a "For thee and not me" kind of person, and the kind whom "narcissist", "sociopath", and "Machiavellite" only begin to describe!
  4. Especially any women and any (supposedly) pro-life nominee of ***** will be a token and a court packer—and only one SCOTUS nominee of an illegitimately-elected "POTUS" is needed to be pack a court; so, two nominees of a Non POTUS make a packed SCOTUS, even if the rest of the justices are nominees of legitimate now-former POTUSes.

Saturday, April 7, 2018

#FunnyFriday & #InspirationFromGod: Where's the Beef?

I actually thought of this on Wednesday at the moment that I saw that Special Counselor Mueller "is writing a report" on ***** in the Russian-collusion probe:

Where's the beef? Well, Special Counselor Mueller seems like he b-usted T-rump, whom made himself quite the butt of many a joketalk about being on a legal hotseat and being a subject of many a comedic toast and roast!—and besides, he treated many a woman worsely than meat, and treated many a man poorly. Treat people as literally less than cows, figuratively set up your career and reputation to be grilled like a steak for everything to come out and be fresh for the fodder picking. The grass was greener in the pastures on the side of Yehovah, I guess, but ***** chose to stall and fatten up his professional and social lives.

Friday, February 16, 2018

On Mitt Romney's Senate Run, Rick Gates' Finalization Of His Plea Deal, Etc.


  1. Good. We need a common-sense and #NeverTrump (in other words, a real) conservative, not RINOs or those whom dread Hillary Clinton more than fear God.
  2. Good. By the way, the probe that Special Counselor Mueller's conducting is (so to speak) getting down to the wire, and it's only a matter of time before ***** is indicted like his equivalent Netanyahu and his "natural partners" will be by the prosecutors in Israel.
  3. On North Korea: South Korea is either trying to trojan horse North Korea in turn or desperate to make peace and/or avoid trouble with Kim Jong-Un, and to pay North Korea for the Olympicsis a bad idea if the latter is the case.
  4. On the shooting in Florida: as someone in a Facebook group pointed out, the majority of victims of Jews and the media's hardly covering that. Sadly, that makes sense, as the shooter was a White Supremacist. Also (and forgive if I'm being racist), I think that the media would cover it a lot more if the majority of the victims were Black or Hispanic. Of course half of the media hardly to not at all cover when an Anti-Semitic hate crime has occurred. By the way, the shooter was adopted by a Hispanic family; and whether or not he himself is even ethnically Hispanic or at least has of some Ethnic Hispanic heritage, pulling the "White card" is as racist as if someone pulled an Anti-Hispanic card. Whites can't be blamed as a general rule in this (and quite frankly, I thought that the shooter was Hispanic until the news that he was adopted came out)—point being, a person of any given ethnic group can be a racist and an ethnocentrist, and the Florida shooter was clearly an Anti Semite (Incidentally, I have no idea whether his ex girlfriend or his ex girlfriend's current boyfriend is Jewish, although it wouldn't surprise me if either one of them is and were victimized for that reason—and many abusive people are also racists and ethnocentrists—hateful does and hateful is, and the Florida shooter is clearly a hateful person.).
  5. Of course the mental-illness card was pulled by the shooter—the convenient excuse that many mass shooters seems to be that ableist one—and in any case, as I said, the Florida shooter effected the clock to be set back for those of us with mental illness. Besides, he didn't have to shoot anybody even if he really does have Schizophrenia and will be found not even competent to stand trial—those of us with mental illnesses are not inherently evil just because of mental illnesses, and many of us even need guns to protect ourselves from ableist people whom would target and otherwise abuse us. In addition, I have ancestors and other belated relatives whom had Schizophrenia and never even attempted to hurt anyone—in fact, at least two of them were exploited due to their mental illness and other factors.
  6. Of course ***** the hypocrite pretends that he cares about anyone with mental illnesses. By the way, my mental illnesses have honestly flared up in part because of an ableist, racist, and otherwise-bigoted and lawless person whom is not being indicted by Special Counselor soon enough being in the White House.
  7. The most-dangerous weapons are the brain and the heart, not guns. Furthermore, no amount of gun control will change anybody—only Yehovah can change anybody. As I tweeted:

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Dealing With Sheer Libel And Slander As An Author And As A Person Overall

I've decided that I'm going to be more proactive in regards to libel and slander against myself and—when to do so is necessary—libel and slander against others. I have had being libelled and slandered over the years, and I have even confronted paternal and maternal family members over it. In fact, in my new book, I wrote the following about both lies that my maternal grandfather's mother told and a long-standing issue because of relatives whom are libelling and slandering me over it:

"Meanwhile, this alone (as I’m now realizing) helps to explain why I thoroughly and even defensively  explain quite a bit of what I explain—as if getting called “an overall liar” at Sheppard Pratt by a caseworker whom fell for my father’s lies about me wasn’t enough, having Nana Allen throw her younger children and their descendants for a loop really affected me to start laying out every detail of quite a few cases once I found out about being thrown for such a loop—and as if many of my matriarchs and patriarchs on Dad’s side didn’t do enough loop throwing, todah rabah (and their loop throwing was more understandable than her loop throwing, as—as I later read—the Inquisition ended in 1834, whereas increasing Anti Semitism still affects many of my paternal relatives loathe to admit that we’re Jewish—even to the point at which one relative is trying to paint me as an overall liar in regard to what my father’s maternal grandmother did, and notwithstanding that I can neither help what happened or conjure up evidence to fit the narrative of what he wants to believe what happened."

Here's my advice to anyone whom would be tempted to libel and slander others in the future:


  1. Remember that even in the era of *****, verbal abuse such as libel and slander is never normal—and that includes what that Mila Kunis did in misrepresenting herself and using Mike Pence's name is not normal, even if the Supreme Court should rule (and there exists a very-real possibility that the SCOTUS will rule) that what Mila Kunis did is a protest that is protected by the First Amendment, despite that she committed misdemeanor-level representation at the very least (and I guarantee that any case against Mila Kunis will be appealed up to the Supreme Court).
  2. As I've said, keep in mind I may well sue in certain cases in which I'm libelled and slandered, and I may even press charges of criminal libel and slander against those whom are libelling and slandering me—especially since some of the libel and slander that I've had directed against me has been tantamount to hate crimes and even included threats on my life.
  3. If you insist on libelling and slandering others, see how well libelling and slandering others ends up working out for you when at least one of your libel and slander victims does end up suing you and/or having you prosecuted.
  4. Remember that if you are especially trying to destroy others' livelihoods and/or reputations when you libel and slander them, you may well destroy your livelihood and/or reputation if your boss decides to fire you and you even end up not being able to find another job (By the way, Mila Kunis could well lose her career over representing herself as Mike Pence if the court of public opinion does not rule in her favor, even if the SCOTUS does.).
  5. If you are religious in any way, remember that your religion usually include libel- and slander-prohibiting commandments such as "Do not bear false witness," "Love your neighbor as yourself", and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you work in a religious occupation—e.g., as a priest, rabbi or gabbai, or moderate imam; at a YMCA branch, Jewish Community Center, or a Muslim Community Center; or for a religiously-affiliated 501(c)(3) organization—remember that you could also lose your job due to violating one of the core tenets of your religion. 
  6. If you have children and/or others for whom you have to set a good example, remember that libelling and slandering others is not setting a good example.
  7. Remember that when each of us dies, he or she will leave a legacy in which he or she probably does not want to include a reputation for having libelled and slandered others.
As for me, while I'm not perfect and without instances of having libelled and slandered others in the past, I have worked hard throughout my entire life to be circumspect in avoiding libelling and slandering others. 


Thursday, September 14, 2017

Guest Post By Rachel Wheeler: Immigration Court Trends for the USA in 2016

(Note: In light of the issues surrounding DACA and the travel ban, this post—which Rachel Wheeler wrote on July 20, 2017—is very significant and timely. Although Rachel wrote the post regarding 2016 immigration trends, the 2016 immigration trends and the then-to-be-affected 2017 immigration trends played a key role in the 2016 Election.

(Of course, the legitimacy of the 2016 Election results is another discussion—and I've made clear my positions regarding the 2016 Election results, DACA and the travel ban, and other matters regarding the fallout of the 2016 Election.)



pexels-photo-510807.jpeg

Immigration Court Trends for the USA in 2016

Each year the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) publishes a statistical year-end review on immigration court matters. Released last month, the FY 2016 Yearbook highlights several significant trends that appeared over the past 12 months.
An Increase in Matters Received
Last year, 14% more matters were received by the Immigration Courts compared to 2015. ‘Matters received’ covers a range of violations and applications pertaining to immigration law: Bonds that require payment, formal requests from deportation, and motions to reopen, reconsider, or re-calendar various applications and appeals.
More than 200,000 Matters Completed
A 4% increase in matters completed shows that the courts are effectively handling the matters presented to them. It also proves that they are processing at a faster rate than the previous year. Of all matters received, those completed fell into four main categories:

Granted some form of relief – This pertains to an immigration judge’s decision to grant relief or protection from removal to an immigrant otherwise vulnerable to forced expulsion. Roughly 17,000 individuals received such grants throughout 2016 and therefore are able to remain in the USA.

Order of deportation – After the decision to expel an immigrant has been passed, the DHS becomes responsible for their physical removal. Deportation cases generally arise when the Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) finds the country was entered illegally, or alternately entered legally yet in violation of one or more visa terms. Over 96,000 deportation and removal decisions were made last year.

Terminated Cases – Terminated cases arise for a variety of reasons. Often, they occur if the immigration judge finds that the DHS is lacking evidence for the removal of an immigrant. As a result, the decision to terminate a case is made. More than 23,000 cases were terminated by immigration judges in 2016.

Officially Closed Matters – This remaining category covers Administrative Closure of immigration cases, Failures to Prosecute, Other Administrative Completions, and Temporary Protected Statuses. The total of these occurrences in 2016 came to slightly over 48,500 cases.
Skilled Workers Choose the United States

Interestingly, inventors chose the United States as their priority destination over all other first world nations between 2000 and 2010. Recent research shows that 190,000 migrants holding global patents for a wide range of products moved to the USA. In the same period, only 10,000 brought their futures (and inventions) elsewhere.

Furthermore, 47% of the increase in the United States workforce in the past decade can be attributed to immigrants. 22% of healthcare and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) occupations were taken up by immigrants. This proves a strong tendency for people to move to the United States not only to pursue the ‘American Dream’, but also to further their career in skilled areas. In doing so, they also strengthen the domestic economy.
The Language of Immigration

Of all the completed matters presented in immigration courts in 2016, 91% came from just five of the 258 languages spoken in these courts. The highest of these was Spanish, accounting for 76% of all completions, followed by English (10%), Mandarin (4%), Punjabi (1%) and Arabic (0.6%).

Recent trends in both general immigration figures from the EOIR and Migration Policy Debate papers show the importance of the immigration vetting process. Additionally, they attest to the need for professional translation services for immigration courts and patent processing.

Friday, August 25, 2017

Originally On LinkedIn: I Don't Understand Why Some Professing Christians Don't Understand That...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly ruled in "Kennedy v. Bremerton School District".

Firstly, now-Former Coach Joe Kennedy made his praying an issue when he allowed other students to pray with him and gave them the impression that the Bremerton School District condoned it. Secondly, Former Coach Kennedy was at a public school as opposed to a religiously-affiliated one. The First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments don't allow the imposition or prohibition of any religion; and then-Coach Kennedy could've prayed privately with the students in his office. Thirdly, the United States is still relatively "a free country, [and] you can do whatever you want" within certain bounds.

Fourthly—and most importantly—professing Christians—nominal and actual Christians alike—should expect persecution in even apparently-free countries. If a professing Christian really does believe the New Testament—and as for me, I believe the New Testament and have to ask—didn't Jesus say, for example, "In this world, you will have many troubles; but take heart—I have overcome the world?" and "The Power that is within you is stronger than the power in this world"?

Besides—and I as a Jewish Christian have to say this—I would think that fellow Jewish Christians of mine and gentile Christians would understand that we'd definitely get kicked out of institutions such as public schools today since we got kicked out of batim knesset and the Temple back then.

In conclusion, then:


  1. Professing Christians like Former Coach Joe Kennedy need to get used to the facts that the Constitution doesn't give professing Christians to cry foul especially when professing Christians are the ones whom are violating the Constitution,
  2. The Bible says that Christians are to expect persecution, and that whining when we get kicked out of places for praying—especially when the people who run those places choose not to just say, "Don't do that again; and just pray privately next time."—does not help—in this case, Bremerton School District chose to not say, "Just pray privately next time—or at least don't give students the impression that we as a school district condone staff- and faculty-led prayer in a way that imposes religion on the students."
  3. Since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Former Coach Kennedy's violations of the Constitution, he ought to "[r]ender what is Caesar's unto Caesar, and render what is God's unto God."
  4. In other words—and forgive my unprofessional language—buck up, grow up, put away the childishness of crying "Unfair!" when you get rightly punished, and quit being bushot l'otem mi lo Notzrim or shandas far di vas zenen nisht Kristn.


I made this using public-domain pictures and Powerpoint. My point: keep the imposition of religion out of public workplaces, especially if you're Christian and well know that you could get persecuted even for being Christian. 


Thursday, August 17, 2017

Did Facebook Really Have To Wait Until The Murder Of Heather Heyer To Enforce Their Own TOS?

"Facebook does not allow hate speech or praise of terrorist acts or hate crimes, and we are actively removing any posts that glorify the horrendous act committed in Charlottesville."

Facebook surely has allowed other violations of their TOS for a long time, though:

"The company initially had allowed the page but decided as the event neared that it no longer met Facebook’s community standards because it was associated with “hate organizations.”

"The company said that it wants people to use Facebook to challenge ideas and organize peacefully, but draws the line when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups."

How Facebook fails to enforce its own TOS and "draws the line when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups" is beyond me. A mutual exclusivity exists between allowing "when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups" and "draw[ing] the line when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups.

Facebook has to either enforce its TOS to protect everybody against all hateful individuals and groups or not have a TOS at all. After all, Facebook shouldn't even have "allowed the page".

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

When I First Got the Fox News Alert Re the Email Chain....

I did not feel like reading about it, since I thought that Donald Trump, Jr. would release a Wikileaks-style (i.e., decontextualized) email chain. Then I saw the "New York Times" article as I was browsing. I read the Fox News article afterwards, and I realize that even newly-hired Tr**pite Cody Derespina can't spin this one. (By the way, I've noticed that the Tr**pite reporters like Cody Derespina put their names on their "hard news" articles, in contrast the objective Fox News reporters whom often—if not usually—just put "Fox News".)

Methinks that Donald Trump, Jr. passed up his opportunity to plea the Fifth on this one. He might as well testify against his father during both the Senate hearings and "United States v. Donald J. Trump"—and he'll have to take a plea deal in "United States v. Donald J. Trump, Jr." if he wants even partial prosecutorial immunity.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

"How To Get Away With Sexual [Battery]": Sponsor Bill Cosby's Tour & Set A Bad Example

If nothing else stops you from giving a venue to Bill Cosby's "How To Get Away With Sexual [Battery] Tour, think about young Black men in cities such as Birmingham (which was important in the Civil Rights movement), Chicago (where the American Giants Negro Leagues team was), Detroit (Motown), and Philadelphia (where the Constitution was written). What kind of example does violating the Civil Rights and other liberties and freedoms of women, and spitting in the face of men whom avoided couching any women as "whores" (let alone sexual-battery victims as such) set for young Black men?

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

In Response To A Friend's Facebook Post, And Then In Response Another Person's Replies (With Some Additions)

I maintain that "Coker" (1977) needs to be overturned. After all, being in support of capital punishment for rape is being pro life. As I chimed in on the original post, and then replied to the friend of the friend (names omitted):

I myself am pro life, and I guarantee that rape would happen less were "Coker" (1977) overturned. An overturn would effect an automatic overturning of "Kennedy" (2008), by the way, and I say that rapists should face the possibility of capital punishments since they've all but left their victims physically dead. Of course, the rapists who also physically murder their victims (including by effecting victims' deaths due to STDs, suicides, and fatal injuries besides STDs) also ought to face the possibility of capital punishments. 

I don't want to see rapists be able to take lives anymore, and I don't advocate capital punishment for rapists lightly. In my own families' cases:



  1. A cousin of my mom was gang raped in college.
  2.  I'm pretty sure that one of her sisters was raped either by a priest before she was a teen or even by Father Maskell himself (Mom denies the possibility since my aunt apparently defended him, though my grandmother I don't deny itI even told Mom that she could've been Stockholmed,) That aunt, by the way, died nine years and a week ago due to alcoholism that onset when she was 13 (She was born in November 1951 and was the first graduate of Keough, which opened in 1965.). She also told my sister that she liked Jesus, but not the Church. Looking back and even right after she died,  I knew that (when I saw the pictures at the funeral home) she was a pretty-enough young girl for perverted priests to want to target her.
  3. A cousin of my dad (Ziggy Churnetski) participated in a gang rape in the 1920s (and he was sadly in prison for only five years and had to pay a fine of only $500. He even eventually married, and I have no idea whether his wife was his victim.) 
  4. Another cousin of my dad raped someone else and murdered another person. (I wish that his victim's sister, Lana Wood, would come out with it, by the way—as I've said, there's something in that Danilovich water, and I should've figured that rape wouldn't escape our side of the family. Ziggy was Great-Granddad's once-removed cousin.)
  5. In short, I've heard about and seen what rapists can do to people.
I also don't find abortion acceptable in any case (though I used to find abortion acceptable in cases of rape and incest—God decided that my being fully pro life would take my now-ex younger stepsister, of all people, pointing out to me that abortion would be an unfair punishment to the baby, and she wasn't exactly the best stepsister in the world). In fact, if for nothing else, keeping a rape-conceived baby might be a practical measure in terms of getting a DNA sample from him or her to figure out or confirm who raped his or her mother. Besides, there are many couples whom want to adopt children; and my mom's cousin's husband ended up adopting her child when they as a couple could not have children.

(By the way, I hope that my now-ex stepsisters can see that my sister and I weren't talking slanderously when we pointed out what my dad is like—and even though, thank God, he never sexually abused us, verbal and other non-sexual abuse is still abuse—and my now-ex stepmother seems to have seen that. Incidentally, I feel sorry for my dad at this point—he's repeated the "Hurt people hurt people" cycle, and his life choices have caught up to him.)

Monday, June 19, 2017

Re People With Mental Illnesses Having Guns: Should We Be Sitting Ducks For Ableists?

Some people with mental illnesses actually do need guns. For example, vulnerable people who may well be targeted due to have mental illnesses need guns to defend themselves. As for Tr**p, he actually hates people with disabilities, including those whom have mental illnesses.


Thus, this ableist ploy by Tr**p to demonize people with mental illnesses may well backfire on him when his Tr**pites whom are committing hate crimes may realize that people with mental illnesses will not allowed themselves to have people step on them.

As for me, I wish that I had and could use a gun to defend myself against anyone whom would target me due to my Depression, OCD/Anxiety, and/or ADD alone (and wasn't getting a threat from a "physically fit German American" due to being a Jew with disabilities enough?).


Besides, look at how the Nazis were partly able to implement T4: they made it illegal for Jews in Europe to be armed, and (as I found out via JewishGen) I lost a cousin whom was murdered because she had Schizophrenia:

Lodz Ghetto Hospital Death Records


Searching for Surname (phonetically like) : RUSZNAK
1 matching record found.
Run on Sun, 18 Jun 2017 22:55:09 -0600

NameAddress
Occupation
BornDied
Cause
CommentsSource
List Date
Page
Line
RUSZNAK, MagdalenaV. Str. 10 
Bedienerin 
1904
Kaschau 
27-Jun-1942 
Schizophrenie 
 Hospital Records
29-Jun-1942
2
54 


 

Lumping in all people with mental illnesses with those such as Adam Lanza, whom refused to get help and whom committed a mass murder-suicide shooting, is wrong and playing right into Tr**p's hands.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

The Obvious Real Perspective Of Jacob Malone, As Put Into My Words

On April 28, 2017, ex-pastor Jacob Malone received a sentence from Chester County, Pennsylvania judge Jacqueline Cody in light of the fact that he entered a guilty plea due to intoxicating his rape victim with alcohol, exerting undue influence over her as her pastor, and forcibly getting her pregnant. I put his sorry-not-perspective in my own words:

I'm sorry...only that I got caught. Were I really sorry, I never would've planned to victimize my former charge in the first place—let alone began to carry out my plan by luring her to reside with me, Libby, and my and Libby's children. I never would've lured her into the Malone residence only to pile alcohol onto her, kiss and touch her as a starting point to commit progressively-worse acts of sexual battery, and exert undue influence over her—especially as her pastor and surrogate father, I knew that I could get her to be quiet as I intoxicated her with alcohol and sexually batter her in the name of Jesus. Besides, I got her to live with me permanently—or so I thought—and go to school in my area—and she never ratted me out to her teachers or other school staff once.

Then I forcibly got her pregnant as I once again raped her—if I were really sorry, why would I force a child, especially a pro-life one whom knows that neither she nor our child did anything wrong, to have to prepare to explain why she's not a whore or a teenage delinquent? I brazenly put that girl in a position to carry a scarlet letter on her name—she wondered if she did something to deserve what I did, and I couldn't have cared less.

Meanwhile, I didn't turn myself into the police or confess to my church—in fact, I had Libby sit with me as I made a video to tell a different story than that my church kicked me out after I raped one of my congregants and forcibly had her conceive a child. I also never surrendered my passport—in fact, I acted like an asylum-seeking victim and a refugee while my victim had to go through a painful process to find refuge in God—and I didn't pay any child support or victim compensation before I intercontinentally traveled.

I came back to the United States two weeks later to turn myself into the police only because I was a wanted man whom wanted to enter a guilty plea and craft a favorable plea deal for myself. If I were repentant in the meantime, I would've filed divorce from Libby and give her full custody of my and Libby's kids in order to protect her and them—after all, I didn't get only two years; at least 18 years and 5 months alone is a long time to not see Libby and my children, including the child of my victim; and I've lost my paternity rights in regard to both Libby's children by me and my victim's child forcibly conceived by me.

I could go on and give some other details, though you get the point—as I said, I'm sorry only that I got caught.

Monday, May 22, 2017

The Accomplishments Of Gio Managadze, (Self-Proclaimed) UMD Valedictorian Of 2017

Congratulations to Gio Managadze on the following:

  1. Proving to be an aspiring D****d Tr**p.
  2. Insulting UMD and other UMD University System Students And Alumni (myself included)
  3. Aiding and abetting the propagators of the excuse and misconception that sociopathy and narcissism are mental illnesses as opposed to evil and egoism.
  4. Aiding and abetting the propagators of the ageist stereotype that Millennials are Me-llennials.
  5. Getting your first real legal experience—looking at charges of first-degree criminal libel, theft via embezzlement and misappropriation, fraud, and conspiracy to commit all of the acts thereof—your parents and UMD have every right to press criminal-libel, fraud, and conspiracy charges against you; and your parents charges of theft via embezzlement and misappropriation against you.
  6. Getting sued along with getting criminally charged, and having either the lawsuit used against you in Prince George's County Circuit Court or the verdict in "Maryland v. Managadze" used against you in "Managadze, University Of Maryland, et. al. v. Managadze".
  7. Finding yourself in Prince George's County Correctional Center sometime down the road, and having a well-known criminal history and record thereof.
  8. Ending up as an equivalent of the guy whom berated the Chick-Fil-A® employee.
You've found yourself, alright—and you've found yourself headed down a path to being a self-made indigent prison inmate and litigatee, and a self-made and infamous loner whom lives a life of torment and misery.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Why I Won't Change The Name Of My Blog


  1. If I change the name of my blog, I'm engaging in an ex-post-facto action. Besides, keeping "The Nicole Factor" isn't like—for example and perhaps using an extreme example—if people were to name their children certain names nowadays or, in some cases, keep names that they had prior to certain events. Incidentally, to see that some parents did name and have named their children names such as "_____o" is incredibly disappointing; and I cringe when I see people with that name on Facebook.
  2. I thought that those allegations were hit jobs against Bill O'Reilly.
  3. I've called for the overturning of "Coker v. Georgia" (1977) and "Kennedy v. Louisiana", pointed out that "sexual assault" is really sexual battery—I've also not shied away from the sad reality that I'm somehow related to Natalie Wood's rapist and Jean Spangler's murderer, and I've talked about how rape did not escape our side of the family: in fact, I was surprised that rape seemed to escape our family and should not have been surprised when I found out that one of Great-Granddad Czarnecki's second cousins was involved in a gang rape (Somehow, the Chernetskis and Daniloviches are related in more ways than one, and both have roots that go back to Chavusy; and every single generation has had to live with whatever started with some Danilovich.).
Point being, then, I'm not going to change the name of "The Nicole Factor" just because the now-ex host of "The O'Reilly Factor" became the worst factor in his and others' lives, since I had nothing to do with what Bill O'Reilly did and I've spoken out against sexual exploitation (including that of the would've-probably-been-raped-anyway Jean Spangler) even within my own family history (and since Natalie Wood's rapist murdered Jean Spangler after she exposed their affair via a note to him, he would've raped Jean Spangler and any other women whom'd've said "No"—that's sadly a pattern among Daniloviches whom continue the family dynamics on any side, sexual and non-sexual dynamics alike.).

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Why Sexual "Assault" Isn't Really Assault—It's Worse!

"Sexual assault" is actually sexual battery. When I read the news about Abigal Breslin having spoken about being "sexually assaulted", I thought back to my days in criminal-justice college classes—and if only she had been assaulted as opposed to be both assaulted and battered!

Sexual assault—threatening any form of sexual harassment, including any form of sexual battery—is bad enough. Sexual battery is worse, and intentionally or unintentionally calling sexual battery "sexual assault" is mitigating what sexual battery, which is often to almost always preceded by little to no sexual assault whatsoever, is—and sexual battery (which I myself almost mistakenly just called "sexual assault" just now) can happen in the smallest amount of time and totally unexpectedly on the part of the victim.

For example, a woman who's walking up to her apartment complex may not see her rapist assault her as he stalks her—especially as he swiftly and forcibly grabs her, batters her, and physically batters her separately from having physically battered her when he sexually battered her. Similarly, the middle-school student at her locker may not see her perverse male classmate assaultingly hover behind her and reach his hands out to commit battery against her. Jennifer Christie had the first kind of case happen to her (except for that she was in a hotel and battered prior to being grabbed); and too many a female student has the second kind of case happen to her in real life, which is why "Malcolm In the Middle" demonstrated another art-borrows-from-life episode.

By the way, as I recall, I had an experience in which a middle-school classmate put his hand on my backside without my permission or before-it-happened knowledge; although I don't know who he was, and I just frankly nervous-laughed it off, as he did so when quite a few people were walking in the middle-school halls. With a crowded hall and the school being (at the time) Owen Brown...I'm lucky that it wasn't worse, as some forms of sexual battery are worse in degree and form than, notwithstanding that no form of sexual battery is lucky—and I was walking with a walker, so I wasn't exactly going to have time to fully deal with it.

In conclusion, then, let's stop being incorrect about what sexual assault and sexual battery are, since the only way that calling sexual battery "sexual assault" is correct is that it's politically correct—or at least what's thought to be correct in a politicultural or culturopolitical sense.


Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Though I Forgive And Don't Begrudge, I Don't Forget

I'd be absolutely foolish to let my guard down and pretend that someone didn't wrong me when he or she did wrong me, especially when he or she comes back to slander and/or libel me about what he or she said and/or did. In fact, as I've come to know because of how I was abused during my childhood, one's placement of blame on his or her victim of slander and/or libel is abuse on top of abusethat kind of abuse is known as verbal abuse and/or emotional/mental abuse:

  • Verbal Abuse occurs when one person uses words and body language to inappropriately criticize another person. Verbal abuse often involves 'putdowns' and name-calling intended to make the victim feel they are not worthy of love or respect, and that they do not have ability or talent. If the victim speaks up against these statements, they are often told that the criticisms were "just a joke", and that it is their own problem that they do not find the joke funny. They may also be told that no abuse is happening; that it is "all in their head". Verbal abuse is dangerous because it is often not easily recognized as abuse, and therefore it can go on for extended periods, causing severe damage to victim's self-esteem and self-worth. Damaged victims may fail to take advantage of opportunities that would enrich their lives because they come to believe they are not worthy of those opportunities.
  • Psychological Abuse (also known as mental abuse or emotional abuse) occurs when one person controls information available to another person so as to manipulate that person's sense of reality; what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. For example, [a form of the most-extreme kinds of] psychological abuse [occurs] when a pedophile tells a child victim that [he or] she caused the pedophile to abuse [him or] her because [he or] she is a 'slut' who 'tempted' the pedophile. Psychological abuse often contains strong emotionally manipulative content designed to force the victim to comply with the abuser's wishes. It may be emotional abuse in this sense when it is designed to cause emotional pain to victims or to “mess with their heads” in attempts to gain compliance and counter any resistance. Alternatively, psychological abuse may occur when one victim is forced to watch another be abused in some fashion (verbally, emotionally, physically or sexually). Like verbal abuse, psychological abuse is often not recognized as abuse early on and can result in serious sequela (psychological after effects) later on.


You'd be foolish to think that I won't call you out on it or take other actions of admonishment regarding you, and I have even reported threats of violence on Twitter to both Twitter and the authorities. Imagine, then, what actions of admonishment I'd take offline if I'm willing to report threats that are seemingly small because they are online—for example, I'd threaten to sue you if I had to do so, whether I'd get a pro-bono lawyer or ask the court to make you pay legal costs and any necessary damage payments. By the way, ask a few people whom I had to threaten with legal action for their clear violation of the ADA—once I threatened the action and reaffirmed my threat, they suddenly decided to make the accommodation which they needed to make.

In conclusion, I remind you that "forgive and forget" means "forgive and don't begrudge"—not "forgive and pretend that it never happened".