King David’s Army

Who knew the National Basketball Association was so prepared for Al-Queda, Black Panthers, and Mafia types?

From TheStartingFive:
(David Stern’s Transcript concerning NBA official Tim Donaghy, etc.)

“We have a security department that is large. It’s headed by Bernie Tolbert, the senior vice president of
security, former FBI, head of the Buffalo office second in command at
Philadelphia who has a background in undercover work. We have in house
representatives that are from Secret Service, U.S. Army, New York
Police Department, and New York State Police Investigation.

Mr. Bernie Tolbert

We, in addition, have a security network that includes a security
representative with respect to every NBA team. Those security
representatives are routinely judged and either changed as appropriate,
and instructed on the ground to be listening to what goes on, what they
hear, what they see, what they can observe. And those security
representatives are for the most part either FBI retired, local police,
in some cases DEA. And we are permitted by work rules, some of them are
actually functioning in their regular capacity for local PD and working
for us at the team level.

In addition to the constant communication with our security
represents of what goes on in the cities, we are in continuous
conversation with DEA, the FBI section on organized crime which deals
with sports betting, and with the Homeland Security Department. Our
security department operates rather extensively, and has actually been
beefed up more recently with respect to its activities in connection
with Homeland Security, which occupies since 9/11 a more substantial
time, a more substantial amount of its time.”

Bernie Tolbert, leader of the Stern Gang…outstanding.

Powered by ScribeFire.

4 comments

  1. Posted this response to your last comment about my ability to draw conclusions. Wanted to make sure you didn’t miss it.

    Go Bucks Says:
    July 25th, 2007 at 4:40 am
    Temple3,

    I appreciate the sarcasm, I enjoy using it myself. Here is the problem with your statement, although SportsDiva does a much better job of making the point. All the situations that you address, individuals rights and freedoms were violated without due process. By my making a conclusion that he is probably guilty, in no way causes harm to Mr. Vick unless I am on the jury and refuse to consider any alternative. This is very different from events like the salem Witch trials, where people were killed. I guess to make a fair comparison to your short sited argument, you would have a point if I had incarcerated Mr. Vick for 6 years and fined him 350K without having the trial.

    Then you say, something about “you shouldn’t take offense to others exercising their right to assign foul motives to YOU without evidence.” So I can assume by this statement that there is no evidence against mr. vick. If this were the case, there would be no indictment. I have drawn the conclusion that from the evidence provided in the indictment, that he is probably guilty.

    Obviously this is a forum where most people do not share my beliefs, but I enjoy coming on here sometimes and reading how people can draw such conclusions. I find it amusing. Temple 3, you should be honored, I find you amusing, in the way that things that are small and harmless are amusing.
    As for the asshole comment, hilarious. I never really thought about how I was entitled to have an asshole, I always just kind of taken it for granted.

  2. Buckeyes and Wolverines will never, ever get along! So be it.

    I’ll repost – AND – then I’m gonna reeeeaaaal sloooowwwwww, okay…M-kay.

    “Why is everyone here so quick to condemn people for assuming that he is guilty? Don’t I have a right to determine whether or not I think he is guilty? Innocent till proven guilty governs the courts, not me as an individual. On this site, many people have labled others as racist for their opinions or wrong for saying he did these crimes. Have those individuals actually been convicted of being racist, or has a court determined that those posters are wrong?”

    I think you SHOULD be quick to assume he’s guilty. There are charges. There are media reports. There is a grand American tradition of premature vilification. Even before the Salem witch trials began, people didn’t need evidence. The same was true with the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII. It was definitely true during Joe McCarthy’s heyday. Whether the case has been situated in Scottsboro, Philadelphia (Mississippi) or anywhere else, folks have every right to gather up a lynch mob (whether real or imagined). And you cannot EVER gather up a lynch mob unless some brave soul jumps the gun. There is nothing wrong with asserting a man is guilty of a felony without evidence to support that claim. Lynch mobs are an inextricable part of the fabric of American life. It is absolutely acceptable and part of the nature of Americans. You’ve done an excellent job of laying out YOUR rights.

    Certainly, you shouldn’t take offense to others exercising their right to assign foul motives to YOU without evidence. They too, would be in their rights.

    At the end of the day, everyone should say what they want and not worry about what anyone else thinks. Aren’t opinions like assholes. You’re certainly entitled to have one – but not all will be as appealing. It really depends on your audience. You may have stumbled into a place where people believe you to be more an asshole than you perceive yourself to be.

    Imagine that…the conclusions people can come to without evidence.”
    ————–
    1) At the top of this piece, I’m not being sarcastic at all. I believe you are well within your rights to argue his guilt without having seen a shred of evidence submitted on his behalf OR having seen evidence submitted against him subjected to cross-examination. I don’t believe I need to say how absurd that proposition is for a society – but for you…it’s fine.

    2) You wrote: “All the situations that you address, individuals rights and freedoms were violated without due process. By my making a conclusion that he is probably guilty, in no way causes harm to Mr. Vick unless I am on the jury and refuse to consider any alternative. This is very different from events like the salem Witch trials, where people were killed. I guess to make a fair comparison to your short sited argument, you would have a point if I had incarcerated Mr. Vick for 6 years and fined him 350K without having the trial.”

    Answer: If you understand the concept of a slippery slope and that of a community, I don’t need to say anything further. I suspect you don’t – so I’ll add a bit. Frankly, each of those events which culminated in tranvesties of justice began as discussions among people very much like yourself…people with a sense of entitlement to finish the work begun by justice. Your conjecture online is a modern variant on the theme. You’re within your rights to walk out onto that slippery slope and conjecture in a manner that essentially eliminates the right of the accused. You reside in an ethical abyss. In fact, there can be no rational discussion with you because the counter-argument has not been revealed. All that is left if your decision to throw American jurisprudence under the bus for the sake of shits and giggles. You’re in a different time and space, but you evince the heart of the lynch mob. You’re a thug with a keyboard.

    3) You wrote: “Then you say, something about “you shouldn’t take offense to others exercising their right to assign foul motives to YOU without evidence.” So I can assume by this statement that there is no evidence against mr. vick. If this were the case, there would be no indictment. I have drawn the conclusion that from the evidence provided in the indictment, that he is probably guilty.”

    Answer: No you cannot assume there is no evidence against Mr. Vick. I’m not arguing that. I would argue that you haven’t seen the evidence and you, at this time, cannot vouch for the quality of that evidence. When I studied logic in middle school, we had to use diagrams. Perhaps you should snatch up a pen…no, make that a pencil. I know you’re prone to error.

    I am sure someone somewhere can scrounge up evidence that you’re not an asshole. The issue is that no one here has seen it. Moreover, if an employer or boyfriend/partner asserted you were totally cool, it would be little more than a testimonial without empirical support. And if everyone here was like you, they would neither wait to see it nor ever expect it to materialize. In other words, you’d be branded an asshole for life – if folks here were like you.

    In the absence of empirical support, all you are left with is conjecture and a propensity for premature ejacu-judgment. Assholes traffic in conjecture because it suits the profile of disseminating unsubstantiated opinion. Inexperienced dicks traffic in premature assessments because they unable to be cool – to be in the moment – and respond accordingly. In a manner of speaking, you should pick yourself up off the floor or, at least, get a towel. If that is to be your lot in life, do you.

    Now, I’ve done you enough favors for one lifetime. There are far too many things for you to brush up on for us to attempt this type of dialogue. If you’d like to continue, you’ll have to abandon your irrational thuggish ways and get some of those issues off your chest and out of your heart. I recommend martial arts and meditation. In any event, don’t step over this line again until you’ve decided to act more responsibly and logically.

  3. Are you really a wolverine? If that is true, then I withdraw that last few comments I made where I was simply insulting you to insult you.

    Go Bucks Says:
    July 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
    Sir Temple 3,

    1) At the top of this piece, …

    Agreed

    2) “Answer: If you understand the concept of a slippery slope … to finish the work begun by justice. Your conjecture online is a modern variant on the theme… You’re in a different time and space, but you evince the heart of the lynch mob. You’re a thug with a keyboard.”

    I like the “thug with a keyboard” comment. I agree that all the events listed did begin with those who felt it was there responsibility to “finish the work that justice began”. I think that is a very good point. The problem is that you are making the leap and assuming that I want to actually “finish the work”. I don’t really want any harm to come to Mr. Vick unless convicted by the court of law. Personally, if I were the NFL, I would not suspend him. So once again, let me reiterate my point (I assume that you are used to making people repeat things too you, it’s a common characteristic of the righteous) my personally believing that he is guilty in now way limits his “right to pursue happiness” and I don’t want any bad things to happen to the man unless convicted. Hence, why the situations you bring up are not valid (on a side note, my grandparents were actually in the Japanese camps). I would also again like to point out that you have drawn many negative conclusions about myself, and once again based simply on evidence that you have drawn from this site. I would say that is very similar to the same types of conclusions that I have drawn about Mr. Vick. So I would assume that you are also a “thug with a keyboard”.

    3) Answer: No you cannot assume there is no evidence against Mr. Vick… When I studied logic in middle school, we had to use diagrams…

    Couple points. First, I doubt you ever actually passed middle school. (Ok, that was childish, I am sorry) Second, if you did not intend to argue that point, then the placement of your statements was poor. And you are correct; I can’t vouch for the quality of the evidence. I can assume that the evidence must have some merit, otherwise it would have been thrown out, but as has been stated several times on this board, the defense has no opportunity to rebuke such evidence.

    “I am sure someone somewhere can scrounge up evidence that you’re not an asshole…

    Once again, very eloquently put. Couple issues though. How does one define an asshole, and how does one provide empirical evidence to support such a claim? Also, if everyone here were like me, I would have no reason to visit this site. And finally, I can only assume that you are stating that I “would neither wait to see it (evidence to support Vick) nor ever expect it to materialize”. I can promise you this; I have no problem when admitting that I was wrong (this is a requirement for dating) and would gladly come on this site and admit as much if Mr. Vick turns out to be innocent. In fact, I wouldn’t even wait for a court to verify this; all I would need is some evidence that supports him. Until that time, I am still going to believe that he is probably guilty.

    “Now, I’ve done you enough favors for one lifetime…

    I think you have a very effective way of trying to degrade and talk down to opponents. It causes them to become angry or lose their cool. This causes them to slip up and make mistakes. Here is the problem. See, I think you are a fool, although probably well educated. You make very valid arguments against points that I am not trying to make, and declare that you are a winner, although without actually saying it. This is your right, and I respect this. But you should know one thing; I take your comments with a smile because I truly think you are beneath me. That is why I am an asshole.

    (And I’ll post this over at your blog – just to make sure you see it.)

  4. #2. “The problem is that you are making the leap and assuming that I want to actually ‘finish the work’.”

    No I’m not. I haven’t assumed any such thing. In fact, were you born in another era, it would have been sufficient to fuel the fire without ever getting on your horse. You could have stayed behind in the saloon drinking whiskey – or – you could slink off to mask your cowardice (if applicable) at a house of ill repute. You would have all manner of options – but I wouldn’t assume you’d actually engage in the violence. I don’t have any indications on that.

    #2a. “I would also again like to point out that you have drawn many negative conclusions about myself, and once again based simply on evidence that you have drawn from this site. I would say that is very similar to the same types of conclusions that I have drawn about Mr. Vick. So I would assume that you are also a ‘thug with a keyboard’.”

    Actually, the principle conclusion that I’ve drawn is that you have a believe it is acceptable to presume guilt based on charges presented by one side – in this particular case. I cannot assume you believe your grandparents should have been stripped of their freedoms, forced to sell their homes at a below market rate or robbed of their employment. Perhaps you feel it was justified (if all that happened). Perhaps you don’t. In any case, if I were to hazard a guess, I’d say that your grandparents emerged from those camps with a steely resolve that contributed greatly to your material well-being. Continuing along the guessing lines, if you attended OSU as an undergrad, that resulted from one of several causes – you family sought to get away from the East or West Coast for either employment or social reasons (sound decision); or you’re a bit of an underachiever. If you were a grad student there, you’re probably better than average at what you do – but you’ve derived a sense of entitlement from the struggles of your immediate ancestors…very little of that is actually attributable to your own effort – hence your clear revulsion at MV7 based on allegations. But, I digress.

    #3) “I can assume that the evidence must have some merit, otherwise it would have been thrown out”
    You could assume that – however, that would be obfuscation at its best. Your position is that Vick is guilty based on the quality of unseen evidence. Backtracking to the low standard that this unseen evidence has “some merit” is the equivalent of dumping the reasonable doubt standard which attends felony trials. “Some merit” is appropriate for civil trials, backyard barbecues and shits and giggles. It is not okay for presumptions of guilt or innocence in felony trials.

    #3a) “I am sure someone somewhere can scrounge up evidence that you’re not an asshole…

    Once again, very eloquently put. Couple issues though. How does one define an asshole, and how does one provide empirical evidence to support such a claim?
    –Actually, in your scenario, there is no reason to define asshole or gather evidence to support that claim…you haven’t seen the evidence against Vick and the claim itself is sufficient. The lever for you (help me out here) is either trust you’ve placed in “the state” (the government) or in the grand jury or the grand jury process or some combination, thereof.
    If I wanted to embark down the same road, I would need only trust myself (I would be the equivalent of the state). If I can convince folks at TSF (the grand jury) that you’re an asshole, that would be equivalent to the position you’ve arrived at. I would simply use your presumptive posts and smug attitude (which is improving, I must say). That’s the indictment. The evidence can wait until the trial – which you certainly have no use for.

    #3b) “I have no problem when admitting that I was wrong (this is a requirement for dating) and would gladly come on this site and admit as much if Mr. Vick turns out to be innocent. In fact, I wouldn’t even wait for a court to verify this; all I would need is some evidence that supports him. Until that time, I am still going to believe that he is probably guilty.”

    You think it’s a requirement for dating…wait till you get married!! You don’t have to admit you’re wrong if Vick is innocent. It’s immaterial. I don’t have an opinion or preference with respect to MV7. The issue at hand is the implication of assuming his guilt BEFORE evidence in favor or against has been reviewed and subjected to tests of evidence and counter argumentation. Exhibits and testimony submitted in evidence by prosecutors get challenged all the time…what looks like evidence to the public before a trial may be stricken by a judge during a trial. You don’t need to come back to talk about Michael Vick.

    #4) “See, I think you are a fool, although probably well educated. You make very valid arguments against points that I am not trying to make, and declare that you are a winner, although without actually saying it. This is your right, and I respect this. But you should know one thing; I take your comments with a smile because I truly think you are beneath me. That is why I am an asshole.”

    I don’t know what any of your rambling here means – and neither do you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s