294:

 I really do not feel the energy to argue even about things like this. Most recently I wrote a post at this same number about this corruption guy @#$%#$% then deleted it. The post was connected to my shopping on Amazon. After that post I found that Amazon put an arrival date of about a week long to every thing I see on its websites. What is even stranger is that today, five days from that shopping date, in addition to finding almost everything arrives within the delivery time usually expected by a prime member, I still could have ordered the same thing I order then and with the same delivery date I got then. Anyway, I tried to ignore that and continue to my shopping but then no matter how many times I tried I still continued to receive THIS and even though in every time the item I was trying to buy (coconut flour) was listed as "in stock".

This corruption guy makes psychotic connection to people. They are to him like objects to manipulate. It seems that he often try to satisfy external demands to make things more convenient for me by blocking the less convenient options I have. He deals with me like water, you block its flowing from one path it has to go through the other. Last year he tried at the beginning of that mask in grocery stores joke, apparently because of similar pressure, to make me shop from inside those stores by messing picking up orders from the outside for me. Anyway, although I of course appreciate the caring thought, the end result of unnecessarily requiring this idiot to improve things for me is for me to be in a difficult situation even though the original inconvenience did not matter to me, and may end up spending my time writing things like this. I think that I have already shown how much I do not shy from making demands for myself if needed.              

293:

  I do not see anything obligating me not to sue this corruption guy for other things he did even if I win my current issue with him at the court. One special thing for which I do not intend to give him a free pass is the issue of the tracking device in my car if there is one, and I think there is. I think he did that as a substitute to tracking me through my cell phone after I discovered that and began carrying the phone and its battery separately (this option is not available with my current cell phone). And if the audacity of doing that when I was publicly bringing the attention and posting about being tracked by him is not enough, the level of his disregard to the system and the consequences seems to have been making him enjoy messing things for me at my target destinations and in a way that has nothing for him but affecting me personally (even with taking into account the ridiculous way he has been claiming to serve his purpose). Otherwise it is very probable that he could have kept tracking me (and even use detecting the radio stations to which I tune while on a long distance travel, to convey to me the fake reality and news he has been conveying) without being detected even anywhere close to how I see things now.               

292: Original Prosecutor On Jon Bennet Case

  While trying to see what powers the position of Colorado State attorney general could have been giving to those occupying it to react to how that case was handled, I found this. This is the original prosecutor apparently Then, and This in 2018. As if there is any more room to see more corruption here, could anyone avoid seeing there an intentional effort to sedate the people? 

Of course I realize that, with the earth shaking level of clear corruption related to handling this case, I could be pointing out the relatively minor before the major.  

291: The Outrageous Silence And Tolerance

This is completely unacceptable. Even if we assume we are legally helpless against corruption like that to which the preceding post refers, why is it being passed by with this low level of publicly pointing it out? The need to be restricted by a law should not be confused as implying that it is better not to criticize a thing as long as it does not violate the law. The power a society has through public shaming and preventing the unjust conduct or behaviour from mixing itself with the rest and appearing undistinguishable should be far from being ignored or underestimated like this, especially wherever and whenever the law cant reach or fails to reach. Beginning with those who are closest to the field where the wrong was done, making such criticisms with their unofficial capacities could be even more required from those who themselves are employed by the government. For example,  what prevents honest prosecutors from voicing out their true opinions about such an outrageous dealing with a case, to the maximum allowed by law? Do they think that the system as a whole is served better by extending the restriction of having an official role to include their views and opinions regardless of the level of corruption they see in other jurisdictional domains?

290: Boulder Colorado, Seriously?

I just want to know if the people there think that there is a competition for voting the lowest human beings as district attorneys? Otherwise why have they been keeping for twenty four years now those who conspire on the blood of that six years old whose skull was fractured with a baseball bat then finished off by strangulation like something that does not count?    

289

 To all those corrupt prosecutors and media who pretend otherwise to hide reality with regard to the killing of JonBenét Ramsey, there isn't even a shadow of reasonable doubt that that six years old was killed by those living with her inside that house, period. Things fit in this direction and against that joke intruder claim to the level that it feels even the walls are about to scream and say what was just pointed out here and if there were a reasonable doubt in this case then nobody would have been convicted in any other case.

288

 What is in the preceding post seems to fit with similar effort but from the other side which I have mentioned before. I am referring to how the view of corruption of officials seems to be limited to situations of bribery and exclude favoritism, here. Both, the thing in the preceding post and this one seems to be related to losing the meaning of corruption but one through over expanding that meaning while the other through over limiting it. Although the group identity issue seems to have a noticeable big connection with how much favoritism is underestimated as corruption in this country.

287

There is a TV show called Corrupt Crimes which I have seen other episodes of it without having any problem in seeing that title fits the stories. But I have watched two episodes of it today where the story has nothing to do with what one may categorize as corruption.  I wonder if that is to push people away from recognizing corruption even more than how the group identity issue seems to have already taken away feeling corruption here?

It just occurred to me that I could have been thinking mostly about the show titled American Greed when I wrote that I saw other episodes of this show before. Nevertheless, the problem could be even bigger if the corruption category is applied like this for no ulterior motive. 

286

Related to THIS case was the claim of death (suicide) in jail sufficiently verified? It is not just the claim itself but also how the behavior of the guy fits that of someone backed by some power that can pull corruption at such level for him. He did not show efforts to provide an alibi and hide evidences even close to that which someone in his position would do. And the killing he did was also not far from reflecting how dare you double cross me attitude that fits being in such position of power.

Related to a different case, although I may come back to it at some other future time, I still want to ask how often the prosecutor overrides indictment by its grand jury like the prosecutor of the JonBenét Ramsey case did? Unless I am missing that that grand jury had the power to indict on its own, why then did he go there in the first place? How much any other explanation can compete with that of someone seeking an excuse to serve some corrupt purpose but that effort made things worse for him and he was forced to show his original  intention even clearer?          

285: How About This Deal?

  Apparently it is not good enough for THIS guy that he easily  won the fight and beat the other guy but he also runs over the other guy back and forth with his car and then drive with the body of that other guy dragged with the car and finally finish things off with hitting or dropping a concrete block on the head of that other guy when this guy arrives at his garage. Then after what seems the result of special dedication by the honest part of law enforcement there, which involved dismantling the car piece by piece to finally find DNA evidence, this guy gets a deal of 12 years or less of imprisonment. Yes, finding the body of the victim and the concrete block thing came after the deal. But why would one want to make such a deal that early after discovering that incriminating evidence? All what was in the video does not counter the appearance of corruption there and in fact may actually make things fit that view better. Although I am not sure it will appear like that to anyone who really thinks that the allegations of Epstein death and Zimmerman court looked enough as not fake.      

284

Actually, related to the preceding post, even assuming the deal I criticized in that case was surely not needed, I do not know that the entity I criticized has the final authority for making such deals. 

283: Correction

 I insisted on criticizing the handling of that case about the guy whose company claimed false sales to Walmart and Costco, by the FBI, and the silence of congress on that handling, because I ignored the possibility that if the CEO claims not knowing these things it could be seen as casting reasonable doubt. But at least based on some other case I watched on TV, it seems I shouldn't have taken such a position.   

282: Epstein vs. Zimmerman

 Who wins for maximum return on effort, Epstein with his bearded look for suicidal depression or Zimmerman with his injuries for killing another person as self defense? 

And by the way, aside from other things about Zimmerman's case, why should the injuries of Zimmerman be seen as  justifying a self defense claim but the fear of a teenager who finds himself suddenly being approached by an adult and the teenager reacts by running away then gets chased by that adult should not be? If the answer is that that fear could have also supplied justification for a self defense claim then what if the killing had happened the other way around? Should we not care about that and just rule in favor of the survivor like a jungle?   

281: Corruption And Congress

 Believe it or not it seems that the charges brought against Epstein were Federal charges. So this extremely suspicious situation of acting as if the claim that he died in prison did not sound like made up show belongs proudly to the head of our government here. On the other hand they broke the record of the shortest silence time with the two trillions they authorized at the beginning of this corona virus exaggeration scam. The speed with which that was done makes it hard to avoid thinking that it was not done for the people but to make things run smoothly for the scam. And it does not even appear that they gave close to that  level of decisiveness and actionable care with regard to this matter throughout the preceding time. So which path is more believable, the one suggesting sudden change or the one providing better connection by suggesting a planned thing?

   

280: Zero Calories Same As 1/3.2 The Calories?- 2

 I wonder if the other side may argue that using the product as a substitute to table sugar is itself what fits the "amount customarily consumed" regardless of what uses exist for the level of sweetness provided by that amount.  

But again the most important thing is for the FDA and other agencies not to override or disable the common law and language people use, in the information presented from the maker to the consumer, without requiring the signaling there for dependency on their rules.   

279: FDA Got Nothing Better To Do?

Related to the preceding post, even if that rule was made for amounts customarily used in life and were applied correctly, still, why would we need such a rule? How can the customer be better protected here? How good is it to read nutrition information thinking that the maker is responsible for its claims, but then it turns out that the FDA allows different thing without the knowledge of the consumer? I have always wondered about food labeling rules like this one where the common law and language render them completely unnecessary. Regardless, that could still be done with much less harm and betrayal to the consumer if the FDA were to require the maker of the product to mention that such information (like, for example, here, calling the calorie amount, zero calorie, if it is less than 5 calories) is according to an FDA rule if that maker is depending on that rule, instead of communicating to the consumer through a new language known only to the FDA itself and the maker of the product. Otherwise, how can what is going on in such cases be seen but fraud supported by the government?

278: Zero Calories Same As 1/3.2 The Calories?

Apparently that is what the math of Splenda sucralose packet sweeteners and/or the math of the FDA says. Take a look at the "Energy (caloric) content" section of this Wikipedia Page on Splenda. What does "amount customarily used" mean? If it is something the maker of the product sets on its own, then one can also take table sugar itself and market it in packets as zero calorie sweetener. Otherwise, in what customarily uses one packet of Splenda gives the needed sweetness? So what is going on here? How can a product be marketed as having zero calorie content when it in facts has close to one third the calories? Is this corruption at the rule making or at the lack of enforcing that rule level? Or both?