Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
Black (Pearl Jam Cover)~That I’ve never shown before
Title: Staind - So Far Away lyrics
Artist: Staind
Visitors: 65137 visitors have hited So Far Away Lyrics since Feb 12, 2007.
Print: Staind - So Far Away Lyrics print version
Artist: Staind Lyrics
Song: So Far Away Lyrics
This is my life
Its not what it was before
All these feelings I’ve shared
And these are my dreams
That I’d never lived before
Somebody shake me
Cause I, I must be sleeping
(chorus)
Now that we're here,
It's so far away
All the struggle we thought was in vain
All the mistakes,
One life contained
They all finally start to go away
Now that we're here its so far away
And I feel like I can face the day
I can forgive and I’m not ashamed to be the person that I am today
These are my words
That I’ve never said before
I think I’m doing ok
And this is the smile
That I’ve never shown before
Somebody shake me
Cause I, I must be sleeping
(chorus)
I'm so afraid of waking
Please don't shake me
Afraid of waking
Please don't shake me
(chorus)
The hottest songs from Staind
# Staind - Fray Lyrics
# Staind - Outside Lyrics
# Staind - So Far Away Lyrics
# Staind - Right Here Lyrics
# Staind - Black (Pearl Jam Cover) Lyrics
# Staind - Its Been Awhile Lyrics
Sunday, June 24, 2007
republic of texas: According to the Sentence Ramsey is to be Confined in Texas
Former Raza Unida gubernatorial candidate Ramsey Muñiz has been transferred from a federal corrections institute in Three Rivers six months after arriving at the facility.
Muñiz, who ran for governor of Texas in 1974 and 1975 under the Raza Unida Party, was transferred from Three Rivers on Tuesday.
Mike Truman, spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, said Muñiz is being housed in the Federal Transfer Facility in Oklahoma City until he can be transferred to another facility.
Truman said he could not release where Muñiz would be transferred or when, citing security concerns. He also said he did not know why Muñiz was transferred.
Muñiz, 64, is serving a life sentence for three felony drug convictions.
The Three Rivers Federal Correctional Institute, 77 miles northwest of Corpus Christi, has been the closest the former Miller High School football star and local defense attorney has been to home since his 1994 conviction.
Under the banner of Raza Unida, a political party shaped and led by Hispanic activists seeking a political voice, Muñiz earned support from 6 percent the state's registered voters.
Muñiz's wife, Irma Muñiz, said she was surprised to learn of the transfer especially because senators, congressmen and civic groups have written letters to the Federal Bureau of Prisons on her husband's behalf.
Irma Muñiz said her husband had hoped to be housed at the Three Rivers facility because of its proximity to his family in South Texas.
Since he was transferred there in December from an institute in Colorado, Irma Muñiz has made frequent trips to visit her husband.
She likened Muñiz's transfer out of Three Rivers to the treatment of Hispanic Civil Rights figure Felix Longoria.
Longoria, a U.S. Army private killed on-duty in the Philippines in 1945, was refused a proper funeral in his hometown of Three Rivers because the only funeral home in town didn't allow Hispanics to use its funeral chapel.
Civil Rights hero Dr. Hector P. Garcia interceded and U.S. Sen. Lyndon Johnson arranged for Longoria to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
Joe Ortiz, League of United Latin American Citizens district director and national and state civil rights director of the American GI Forum, helped organize letter-writing campaigns when Muñiz was in Colorado asking for his transfer to Texas.
Ortiz didn't know about the transfer out of Three Rivers but said both LULAC and the American GI Forum will work toward getting Muñiz returned to Texas.
"We are going to petition our legislators to see if they can do anything to bring him back," Ortiz said.
Contact Adriana Garza at 886-3618 or garzaa@caller.com
Posted by geomatica on June 21, 2007 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am certain that Ramsey Muniz was falsely imprisoned, but no matter what you believe, he was and is a model prisoner, and it is a complete waste of taxpayer money to be moving him all over, when it makes the most sense for him to be here near his family. He didn't kill anybody, and his treatment has been nothing but inhumane. Something has to be done about the inequities in our prison system. His punishment certainly does not fit his supposed crime. When is his mistreatment and that of his family going to end?
Posted by colorderosa on June 22, 2007 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Only in America does a convicted murderer, chlld rapist, or other harden criminal walk free, while a supposed drug dealer gets life in prison.
colorderosa
Posted by sosiouxme13 on June 22, 2007 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In my opinion, someone convicted of dealing drugs, can be likened to a murderer...
Posted by dannoynted1 on June 23, 2007 at 5:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is retaliation for the "scared status quo". They are afraid if he is in Texas he just might get out.
Only in Texas can this happen.
Eureka~ perhaps Jurisdiction resides in Oklahoma?
or is it Louisiana, where i hear Hayden Head is sending our Federally convicted non white americans as of late?.
Is that legal?
Why would you send a texan to another state unless you want to keep them from their family.
Posted by gmikedear1954 on June 23, 2007 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a career Federal Agent living in Detroit, Michigan, I find it silly to deny this man the opportunity of being close to his family. As one person stated earlier that far worse criminals are given the option to be close to their family. Also, The whole war on drugs is nothing more than a farce to make contractors rich.
Posted by chuco11 on June 23, 2007 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ram, you were the impetus for the movement that slowly is gaining speed. Maybe not in our lifetimes but down the road there will be Spanish spoken along with English in the schools, businesses and professional sports, to name a few, all across America not just Texas. "The Man" sees this and doesn't like it! But he can't stop the ineviteable. What was that old adage...."GOD grant me the serenity....... Irma, you are a model of a loving wife. All men should be this fortunate!
Friday, June 22, 2007
I. DID THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS ERR: The Texas Fair Defense Act Here is a Perfect Chance to Show Your Teeth
1. Appellant demands this appeal be abated and this court direct Appellant’s Attorney to represent her.
2. Appellant request legal representation as her request to oral argument is forbidden without it.
3. Appellant apologizes for any error committed as a Pro Se Defendant (Layperson) and for any reversible error committed; to be informed and given the opportunity to correct the error. Appellant at this late hour realizes she never signed the PDR she submitted and moves to correct at the Court’s discretion.
4. Appellant has had ineffective assistance of council. Jill Williams still represents appellant because she has never ask the courts permission in writing or in open court to withdraw. (List crucial periods without representation like when the state originally confessed) (error during the period immediately following submission to the clerk of the 13th COA until the Court began to consider it.) (See Letter from Attorney)
5. Appellant request this court order a TWC investigation into this “comedy of errors”, “confession of errors” and “peculiar circumstances”. In the Alternative it is requested that all TWC subject matter be forwarded to the appropriate entities, The Governor of Texas, the Attorney General of the State of Texas and the Texas Workforce Executive Staff.
6. Appellant request this court order both administrative and criminal hearings to assist fact finders in the imminent TWC investigation. See attached TWC letter dated June 20, 2007.
7. Appellant invites TWC to submit a friend of the court letter.
8. Appellant request this court engage the TWC and conduct a hearing on this matter before ruling on the motion for rehearing
9. The 13th Court of Appeals erred by excluding statements made on the (MFNT) record. The State did file a reply brief. This demonstrates that the court has not made its decision based on a whole record.
10. The Failure of the State to file a reply brief is treated as a confession of error per Siverand v. State 1. As grounds for this cause Appellant respectfully request this Court take Judicial notice based on intervening Supreme Court precedent per Saldano v. Texas, 530 U.S. 1212 (2000) 2 and grant this petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment and remand the case for further consideration in light of developments during the pendency of this appeal. Specifically, it is requested this Court require such further proceedings (remand to trial court for the State to correct the error and file its reply) to be had as may be just under the circumstances.
11. The 13th COA erred in it’s ruling, “any opposing arguments are limited to those advanced by the State in the trial court”.
12. Appellant relies on the complete appellate record.
13. The 13th Court of Appeals made arguments on behalf of the state by technically censoring actual confessions of error in the Hearing on the Motion For New Trial. The confessions by the state are muted under the confession of error per Siverand Limiting the appellate record on behalf of the state to the trial court setting. Limiting the appellate record on behalf of the state to the trial court setting, the state’s side of the record that has vanished, when appellant relied on crucial testimony in the MFNT Hearing.
14. The 6th Amendment not a waivable right. It stands independent of ineffective assistance of counsel? The State needs to legitimize how State employee can be under subpoena as a witness for the State’s Adversary in a criminal proceeding and the state cannot compel her to appear. Then not file a reply brief in effect quashing the first opinion and censoring the confessions of error committed by the State during the Motion For New Trial.
15. The Failure of the State to file a reply brief is treated as a confession of error 1; in this case the States Confession of Error is a "fundamental error" requiring correction. Although this court “may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review” it may also remand for further consideration in light of the confession of error 3. From the beginning this case has presented a comedy of errors and in particular some very peculiar circumstances. The States failure to file a reply brief deprives the appellant of crucial statements made by the State 2 (by limiting any opposing arguments to those advanced by the State in the trial court. Id). It is this appellant’s belief the error is a tactical approach to disenfranchise Appellant of her right to fully supplement the record in her motion for new trial. Benefit from committing an error or committing an error so as to benefit from. Sounds like a Texas criminal style legislation to me
16. The decision of the Appellate court conflicts with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1(h) and 38.2(a)(1) 4 and Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) 5. The Appellate Court unequivocally has advanced arguments on behalf of the state. Not only have arguments been made on behalf of the state there are arguments made by the Appellate Court that are completely inaccurate: The 13th COA makes the statement “The record reflects that counsel exercised his ten peremptory strikes and, therefore, did not have an available strike for Ruff”. (Vol. 2 RR p,3 @3-6) (Vol. 1RR p.114). Is this court reading the same court record that this Appellant possesses? Appellant challenges the record furnished to the Appellant court as the record clearly reflects in direct contradiction of the 13th Court of Appeals record. There were available strikes, Appellant’s Counsel exercised ZERO peremptory strikes. This shows there could be other mistakes or misreadings. Justice in this case requires that the Appellate Court did not understand the facts of the case well enough to properly and justiciably make a decision. The Confession of error by the State and blatant errors committed while reviewing the record as a whole in the appellate court. There is too much error and all of it is harmful. Appellant waives no error known and unknown.
17. The decision of the Appellate court contradicts itself with respect to its decision in Siverand.
18. Limiting the states record advances arguments on behalf of the state
19. The 13th Court of Appeals relies on an incomplete record and has quoted the record inaccurately. This means either the record is either incomplete, inaccurate or the Independent Jurist did not take their duty seriously. The timing is highly suspicious being that two of the three Jurists were involved in campaigning, political maneuvering, schmoozing and networking and concentrating on their JOB.
20. Procedural Posture is faulty in light of confession of errors once the state confesses errors the errors need to be corrected.
21. The decision of the Appellate court contradicts itself with respect to Saldano v. Texas, 530 U.S. 1212 (2000) 2. In light of the confession of error the case should be “remanded for further consideration in light of the confession of error”.
22. The verdict in said cause is contrary to the law and the evidence and there is newly discovered evidence touching the issues involved in said cause. Below is the controlling administrative law. This makes the entry Legal and TRUE. This is a WIA, TWC And Texas Department of Human Services directive per Standard Operating Procedure.
TEXAS WORKFORCE APPEALS POLICY AND PRECEDENT MANUAL
TOTAL AND PARTIAL UNEMPLOYMENT
TPU 105.00
TPU 105.00 CONTRACT OBLIGATION.
INCLUDES CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT'S CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS HAVE AN EFFECT ON DETERMINING HIS UNEMPLOYMENT STATUS.
Appeal No. 82-4799-10-0782. Substitute teachers may have reasonable assurance of continued employment within the meaning of
Section 3(f) (now codified as Section 207.041) of the Act. In determining whether such reasonable assurance exists with regard to
substitute teachers, the following criteria should be utilized: The school district must furnish to the Commission written statements which provide facts that the substitute teacher has been asked to continue in the same capacity for the following academic year. Simply placing the substitute teacher on a list for the following year does not establish reasonable assurance. It must be shown that both parties expect the relationship to resume at the beginning of the following year. The assurance must also be based on past experience with regard to the number of substitutes needed in the past.
23. The trial of the above cause was not had before, nor was the verdict therein rendered by "an impartial jury."
24. Appellant’s right to the Compulsory Process was and continues to be thwarted. Material Witness Mary Cano never appeared to any of the proceedings in which Defendant’s / Appellant’s Counsel subpoenaed her. A subpoena was issued for Mary Cano directing her to appear before the same court proceeding (MFNT) in which the State claims it can get her there if she is needed. The State admits knowledge of Mary Cano’s whereabouts and goes on to boast of her being easy to find; yet whether willfully or inadvertently LeeAnn Haley’s 6th Amendment right to Compulsory Process was violated.
1. ”When confronted with this situation, we treat the State's failure to file a brief as a confession of error. Siverand v. State, 89 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.)."
2 Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 99–8119. Saldano v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari
granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of the confession of error
1. ”When confronted with this situation, we treat the State's failure to file a brief as a confession of error. Siverand v. State, 89 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.)."
2 Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 99–8119. Saldano v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari
granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of the confession of error
3 Pursuant to Siverand, we will make an independent examination of the merits of appellant's points of error and any opposing arguments are limited to those advanced by the State in the trial court. Id.
4 The rules of appellate procedure require the parties to advance their own arguments. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h) and 38.2(a)(1).
5 Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) Finally, decisional authority prevents us from advancing arguments on behalf of either party.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the court will:
1. Abate the Appeal, order a hearing to conduct a TWC administrative investigation and hold a hearing to conduct a Criminal Investigation and appoint counsel.
2. Remand this case for a new trial, or
3. Grant Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
4. Grant Appellants Motion for Rehearing, vacate the 13th COA opinion and remand for New trial and court appointed counsel.
5. Grant Appellants Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Rehearing before ruling.
Respectfully submitted,
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Due Diligence
Calvin Coolidge
http://www.inet.ba/~admahmut/quotes/MOTIVATIONAL-QUOTES/