Sex, Spice, and Small-Town Texas Justice: The Purple Zone Raid
A Rogue Prosecutor Makes the Drug War Personal
On the morning of May 7, 2014, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) launched Project Synergy Phase II, a national "day of raids" in 29 states, with the goal of taking down purveyors of synthetic drugs who funnel their proceeds to Middle Eastern terrorist organizations.
The Purple Zone, a smoke shop in Alpine, Texas, owned by 29-year-old Ilana Lipsen, was the target of one of these raids. This particular raid was so heavy handed and its aftermath so clumsily handled by law enforcement that it drew national attention as a symbol of police militarization and the vagaries of laws pertaining to drug "analogues." Analogues are chemicals that are not prohibited but are similar enough to controlled substances that they become illegal depending on who interprets the data.
Even worse, The Purple Zone and its owner may have been targeted because of the personal vendetta of a single prosecutor.
A Safe Little Town, Filled With Cops
Alpine, Texas has a population of a little more than 5,000 residents. It is quite literally in the middle of nowhere, more than 200 miles from El Paso, home to the nearest major airport, and 75 miles from Mexico. Because of the town's proximity to the border, it is classified as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), which along with the relative isolation, makes it an attractive home to a great many in law enforcement, including members of federal agencies such the DEA and the Border Patrol. Sul Ross State University, the town's signature institution, hosts a law enforcement academy.
Alpine evokes the Texas libertarian ethos of a quiet, safe town where you can expect to be left alone. It's what draws both bohemian artists as well as culturally conservative folks. How one feels about Ilana Lipsen and The Purple Zone represents the schism between the two camps.
"You either love me or you hate me," says Lipsen. "I've received anti-Semitic hate emails. I've been told to 'go back to Jew York.' I've had people come in my store and tell me it was 'fucked up" and that I was poisoning the youth of the town—even though I have a big sign that says '18 and Over' and I have an ID scanner. The bars here in Alpine don't have ID scanners, but I do!"
Originally from Houston, Lipsen arrived in Alpine in 2003, when she enrolled at Sul Ross University to pursue her interest in Arabian horses by studying equine science. Though she would leave school before graduating, she still loved the wide-open spaces of Alpine and decided to make it her home, purchasing a ranch for her horses and going into business for herself.
After antique furniture and pet supplies failed to keep her balance sheet in the black, she wracked her brain thinking about what was missing from the marketplace of this West Texas railroad town. The answer she came up with was sex toys and smoking accessories. And it worked. She called her store The Purple Zone, which thrives to this day thanks to a loyal, mostly college-aged consumer base interested in hookahs, vaporizing, and e-cigarattes.
Raids and Chemical Analogues
In March 2012, "10-12 men came in, SWAT team style" to the Purple Zone, Lipsen recalls. They told her she was not under arrest, but cuffed her and threw her in the back of a police van while they searched her store, seized personal property including computers, a cell phone, and hard drives. They also took numerous packets of what Lipsen sells as potpourri in the incense section of the store, adorned with the colorful brand names such as "Dr. Feelgood," "Scooby Snax" and "Bomb! Marley."
Brewster County District Attorney Rod Ponton insists these items are "spice," or synthetic cannabanoids. But Lipsen notes, "You can buy these products online or in any gas station or smoke shop in Texas." She says that she throws out anyone who insinuates these products are used for anything other than making your house smell good.
Eight months after the 2012 raid, police returned to arrest Lipsen and her mother, Rosa (who is not an owner or an employee of the store, but frequently visits to help clean the store and tend to her daughter's many pets) on felony charges of "possession and distribution of a controlled substance."
Though the the Alpine PD and the DEA would make many undercover purchases at the Purple Zone over the next two years, lab tests turned up no controlled substances except for "MAN-2201," "XLR-11," and "UR-144," all of which were legal in Texas at the time of the raid. In fact, they would only become illegal in January 2013 when the federal government's Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act, signed by President Obama in July 2012, went into effect.
The DEA insists the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 affords them the power to prosecute possession of these substances because they are "similar to controlled substances." It is this enforcement of "analogues" that landed Lipsen with a felony indictment for products she believed to be legal.
That wasn't just her opinion. Lipsen spends thousands of dollars having all the products she sells lab-tested for controlled substances and has the documentation to prove it. Prosecutor Ponton also knows how expensive drug testing can be. In March 2014, he went before the Brewster County Board of Commissioners, pleading for thousands of dollars of funds for additional testing on the seized potpourri packets but was refused out of hand.
Out of resources but intent on proving Ilana Lipsen's criminality, he would find a willing partner in the DEA, an agency without his office's budget limitations.
The Project Synergy Phase II Raid
On the morning of Wednesday, May 7, 2014 Project Synergy Phase II came to Alpine. Led by the DEA and armed with a Brewster County search warrant (which Ponton had requested), officers from the Border Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, the Brewster County Sheriff's Office, and the Alpine PD broke down the front door of The Purple Zone with their weapons drawn, turned all the security cameras against the wall, and tore the place to pieces.

Nicholas Branson, a geology student at Sul Ross University who rents an apartment from Lipsen in a neighboring house, returned from a trip into town to find agents searching his home. He pointed out that the two buildings had different addresses, both clearly marked. Branson told the Big Bend Courier, "When I told them this was my house, they said, 'Well, that's the price you pay for choosing to live where you live.'" When he asked to see a search warrant, he claims a rifle-bearing DEA agent replied, "What are you, a fucking lawyer?"
The agents seized all of Branson's hard drives, as well as a shotgun given to him by his grandfather. They also took what they called "suspected mushrooms," which he says is a bag of frankincense he kept with some of his geological collection. Still, as a college student, he's rightfully terrified at the prospect of a drug charge. Branson told the Big Bend Courier, "If I get indicted I lose my Pell grant, my scholarship money, my student loan money. If they charge me I will lose everything I have been working for the last five years." A warrant would eventually be issued, hours after the raid began.
After finding his home upended by body armor-clad agents of the state, Branson saw Lipsen's sister, Arielle, arguing with Leticia Carrillo, the Alpine PD's liaison with the PD. According to Ilana, Arielle told Carrillo they should be chasing cartels and human traffickers rather than harassing her sister.
Then, a large male DEA agent told Arielle to stop raising her voice and leave the premises. Arielle replied "What are you going to do, shoot me?" The agent then put her under arrest. According to Branson and the Lipsens, after being thrown, Arielle's leg flew up and inadvertently struck the agent in the shin, after which the agent pinned her to the ground with the butt of his rifle.
The DEA did not respond to our requests for comment, but Laila Rico, a representative from the DEA's El Paso office, told the Alpine Avalanche, "If you don't do what you're asked to do, that's what you're going to run into." Rico also says Arielle kicked the officer and was thrown to the ground in the process of being taken into custody.
The store was searched for several hours, by which time Tom Cochran, owner of Big Bend Screen Printing and an acquaintance of Ilana Lipsen's, came to the scene and started taking photographs.

Cochran posted his photos of the scene, as well as a rectangular-shaped injury on Arielle Lipsen's neck, to his Facebook page. The DEA called the injury on Arielle's neck "a scrape" and denied that it could have possibly come from the agent's rifle.
When it was all said and done, Arielle was indicted for assaulting a federal officer and Ilana was indicted for "receiving ammunition while under indictment," a federal charge so rarely enforced in a state with as many guns as Texas that Ilana's lawyer, a well-known Texas defense attorney, told me he had never heard of it. Lipsen says the ammunition in question was given to her by a friend, the box of which included a receipt dated after her state indictment following the 2012 raid.
As a Texas rancher, Lipsen has always owned firearms to protect her horses and other animals from predators. The cruelest irony of the ammunition indictment is that no products seized from the 2014 raid turned up any controlled substances or even analogues of controlled subtances; they were all herbs and tobacco alternatives. Had Lipsen not been under indictment for the questionable analogue charges from the 2012 raid, there would have been nothing to indict her for following the 2014 raid.
After learning that she had been swept up in a terrorist-hunting, Obama administration dragnet, Lipsen was incredulous. She speculated that her Turkish ethnic background, her affection for Arabian horses, and the fact that she buys a lot of her electronic cigarettes from China made her suspicious to the feds. Still, as a Jewish woman and self-professed supporter of Israel, she hardly fit the profile of a financial supporter of Islamist terrorism.
Lipsen suspects that the relentless harassment from law enforcement stems from an encounter dating back to when she first arrived in the town as an 18 year-old college freshman.
"I was introduced by a mutual acquaintance to a man who had Arabian horses."
The man was Rod Ponton, then an attorney in private practice.
"He had invited me to meet his horses at his house, and possibly work with them. I thought, 'Great! A job opportunity.'" She says that after sharing a bottle of wine with him, "one thing led to another and I was involved sexually with him."
Though Ponton offered to give his horses to her as a gift, Lipsen says she was "disgusted with herself" and declined to have any further involvement with Ponton or his horses after that. She claims to have seen Ponton drive slowly past her house "almost like he was stalking me."
Drawing a line from her brief fling with the man now intent on putting her in prison, a man who in a 2013 court motion referred to her "singular incorrigibility" and accused her of "poisoning the youth of the town," Lipsen says, "That was so many years ago. I didn't think that not calling someone back would get me into all this trouble."
The Optics of the Aftermath
Lipsen was set to sit in jail for months when her court-appointed attorney presented her with a most unusual bond document. As requested by U.S. Attorney Jay Miller, the federal magistrate on the case hand wrote additional conditions for her release:
"Will request Tom Cochran retract his blog on Facebook. Will provide a letter of apology to both local newspapers in Alpine, TX, advising DEA had a legitimate reason to execute a warrant at her business. Will advise newspaper A warrant was not executed at her business because she was Jewish, owned Arabian horses, is of Turkish decent or because she visited Chinese websites. Will advise media (KWest 9 news) that her sister, Arrielle Lipsen, was not beaten by agents carrying/using a M16 rifle, and her sister instigated/assaulted agents."
Faced with the prospect of spending months in jail until her trial, Lipsen signed the written retraction, which the Brewster County Sheriff's Department promptly posted to its Facebook page with the message, "Due to the incredible amount of disinformation being spread through the internet we have decided to publish this letter. We hope this answers some of the questions citizens may have regarding the DEA and all law enforcement in Brewster County."
The Border Patrol's local union followed suit, adding that its members voted to boycott Tom Cochran's screen printing business. "We hope our brothers and sisters in law enforcement in the Big Bend area will join us in our stance against this business, owned by a purveyor of misinformation, and misleading photographs," read the union's statement.
For his part, Cochran says he was visited by Ponton, who called the photos "inaccurate" and implored him to take them down, to which Cochran says he replied: "They can't be inaccurate, they're photos." Cochran thinks what law enforcement really objects to is how ridiculous it looks for a tiny smokeshop to be stormed by a paramilitary force. "They looked like thugs. That's what they didn't like."
Bryon Garrison, editor of The Big Bend Courier, described the town's reaction to the raid this way: "Shock. Why is this being done? Who would be stupid enough to have illegal drugs when they've already been raided?"
Ponton declined to be interviewed, saying he would not make any public statement about the case. An earlier press release from his office states that "assertions previously made in this matter by Ilana Lipsen or Tom Cochran are not true." He added that products previously seized from The Purple Zone "tested positive for 'Spice,' a derivative of methamphetamine." To add flourish, he offered this unverified anecdote:
"('Spice' has) caused numerous Big Bend area residents to have severe reactions, they have gone to the emergency room, one man hallucinated, stole a Ford Ranchero, then flipped it, killing himself. This illegal drug is worse than meth, similar to cocaine, meth or heroin."
Ponton was not yet finished in his efforts to control the narrative of the case. Scot Erin Briggs, then a reporter for the Alpine Avalanche, wrote an article called "Long Arm of Law Reaches into New Territory," published eight days after the raid. The article includes quotes from the DEA, Brewster County Sheriff Ronny Dodson, and information provided by Ponton. It also includes detailed research into the legality of synthetic drugs and makes clear that the Lipsens have their side of the story and law enforcement has theirs. In other words, it is serious, inquiring journalism. Ponton was not pleased with the balance.
According to Briggs, Ponton visited her at the Avalanche's office saying "I'm not here to threaten you." He added that local law enforcement did not appreciate the article and "we don't consider [the Lipsens] a credible source." He also scolded her for not grasping how bad "spice" is. Briggs offered to have Ponton write a letter to the editor, which she promised to publish. Ponton declined and told her that he had contacted the paper's owner.
Shortly thereafter, Briggs says the paper's owner told her that while her facts were sound, "her tone was all wrong." The Avalanche, like all of its affiliated papers, runs a tag line that reads "Thank a veteran, member of armed services or law enforcement every day."
A followup article published with Briggs' byline, "Women Arraigned in Drug Raid Case," presented only law enforcement's side of the story. It featured a quote from the DEA's Laila Rico boasting "It was a good day for us" and using Lipsen's "apology" letter as evidence that "DEA acted professionally at all times." Rico hoped that the letter would receive "the same attention you gave (the Lipsens') misleading statements and that of the Facebook account of Tom Cochran." The sole quote from Ilana Lipsen was taken from the letter she was forced to sign under duress in order to secure her release from jail.
Briggs says she barely had a hand in writing the followup article and asked that her byline be removed (it was not). After that, she says she had to run everything she wrote by the paper's owner and lawyer, a process so convoluted and frustrating that after three months she decided to leave her position as managing editor.
But try as he might, Ponton could not control the narrative for long. After being initially published by the Big Bend Courier, and covered extensively by Reason's Brian Doherty, actor Wil Wheaton posted Lipsen's document to his Tumblr account. The bizarre conditions of her release gained national attention, including that of Washington Post free speech blogger and constitutional lawyer, Eugene Volokh, who wrote:
"This seems to me clearly unconstitutional: It's an order compelling speech, on threat of imprisonment, which would itself normally be a First Amendment violation; but on top of that, it was issued without a trial, and thus without any final factual findings supporting its validity. I'm aware that, once someone is convicted, courts have considerable latitude to impose speech restrictions as a condition of parole or probation, and might even be able to impose speech compulsions. But that is after someone's guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. The defendant here hasn't been convicted of anything; she continues to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
And courts have held (quite rightly, I think) that the government has quite limited powers to restrict defendants' speech as a condition of bail. The proper purposes of bail conditions are to assure the defendant's presence at trial, to prevent the defendant from attacking witnesses or victims, and to prevent the defendant from committing further while released; any speech restrictions must therefore be tied to those purposes."
The Vagaries of Prosecuting the War on Drugs
The Purple Zone case is a microcosm for a number of things wrong with the prosecution of the war on drugs.
First, the arbitrary enforcement chemical analogues means that a person can be in possession of a product they believe to be perfectly legal, only to be charged with a felony depending on who is interpreting the chemical makeup of the substance.
As Lipsen points out, some of the packets seized by law enforcement can be found for sale in gas stations across Texas, as well as on the Internet. But in Alpine, "spice" carries a similar connotation to "bath salts," where unverified anecdotes of people doing crazy, violent things have led to unscientific pronouncements such as "worse than meth." Lipsen says, "People come into my store and ask 'Can I smoke this?' or 'Will this get me really high?' I tell them, 'You need to get out of my store.'"
Second, given how small a community Alpine is, and how well-acquainted law enforcement is with the store and its owner, there was no obvious justification for a militarized raid on The Purple Zone, to say nothing of the warrantless search of Nick Branson's apartment. With no reason to suspect an ambush or violent resistance, the agents came braced for battle and ransacked the premises until they were done.
"They came in and made this a violent situation when they didn't have to," says Tom Cochran. "That's why I took the pictures. We need to have a discussion about this. There's no need for a militarized raid on a smoke shop."
Third, when taking into account the bond conditions compelling an apology from Ilana Lispen, the Border Patrol union and Brewster County Sheriff's Office's publishing Lipsen's coerced letter (which may have been against DOJ guidelines), and Rod Ponton's strong-arming of the Alpine Avalanche's reporting, law enforcement's attempts to control the public's perception of the case can be generously described as ethically questionable.
Of her reporting on the raid, Scot Erin Briggs laments, "The job of a local paper is to get at the truth the best we can, not be the voice of those in power."
Finally, there is a problem with how easy it was for a local prosecutor to glom onto the DEA's resources. The warrant to search The Purple Zone came from the locals, yet the feds were in charge of the raid. Briggs reported speaking with a former Brewster County attorney who said it was "highly unusual for the federal government to cooperate on a warrant with the district attorney." As Briggs pointed out, "It seemed like a strange use of taxpayer funds to have a HIDTA task force as part of the raid. We have access to these funds because we are close to the border, [but] the funds were never intended to raid the local head shop."
The DEA was supposedly hunting for drug-dealing, money-laundering terrorist supporters, but instead appears to have been roped into one district attorney's personal crusade against a woman who jilted him years earlier.
Nobody Can Fight the Government Forever
In September, Lipsen pled guilty to first-degree felony manufacture, delivery, and possession of a controlled substance. The substances in question were the chemicals found in packets from the 2012 raid, which were not illegal in Texas at the time. In exchange for her plea, the charges against her mother were dropped, and all federal charges stemming from the 2014 raid against her and her sister were dismissed without prejudice.
The deal includes a deferred adjudication, meaning that the case goes away without a conviction if Lipsen stays out of trouble for 10 years. However, if she violates any of the terms of her probation, she could be subject to the "full range" of punishment, which could be anywhere from 5 years to life in prison.
Why would Lipsen plead guilty to selling controlled substances that were not, in fact, controlled substances at the time of her arrest? Perhaps to save her mother and sister from prison, perhaps to avoid prison, perhaps because her legal bills are in the tens of thousands and growing by the day. Perhaps because she just wants to move on with her life.
Lipsen is selling The Purple Zone and moving back to Houston, where she will own open another store specializing in vaping accessories. Referring to Alpine, Ilana says, "I love this town. It's beautiful. I have a lot of friends here. But it's become toxic. I never wanted to aggravate anybody. I don't do this for fun. This isn't a hobby, this is how I support myself. This is how I live."
Pointing out the polarized opinions of Lipsen and The Purple Zone among the Alpine populace, Bryon Garrison of the Big Bend Courier says, "Any freedom-loving person needs to ask, could this happen to me, if I was unpopular? That shouldn't cause a bias, as far as your freedom is concerned."
He adds, "Nobody has the ability to fight the government for too long."
Reason TV contacted the Drug Enforcement Administration's El Paso Bureau, the Alpine Police Department, the Brewster County Sheriff's Department, and the National Border Patrol Council Local 2509 for comment. In each case, calls and emails went unreturned. Management at the Alpine Avalanche offered no comment.
About 10 minutes.
Written and Produced by Anthony L. Fisher. Camera by Todd Kranin. Additional camera by Fisher. Additional graphics by Meredith Bragg.
Music: "Wet Socks" by Jahzzar (http://www.betterwithmusic.com)
Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live. Scroll down for downloadable versions.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
More news on the Gay Illuminati Conspiracy
http://m.cdapress.com/news/loc.....l?mode=jqm
The funny thing is, the second paragraph should render the first paragraph completely redundant.
Your form of corporate organization has (or should have) exactly zero impact on your rights.
ATTENTION: LAZY REASON EDITORS. OLD COMMENTS.
Land. Of. The. Free.
The DEA did not respond to our requests for comment, but Laila Rico, a representative from the DEA's El Paso office, told the Alpine Avalanche, "If you don't do what you're asked to do, that's what you're going to run into."
Urge to smash things.... rising...
Hi Anthony,
This article is infuriating. Alas, it is unlikely to generate much debate in the commentariat as it is not about the majesty of rand Paul, the totalitarian tendency of the government giving someone, somewhere a subsidy to get an education or put solar panels on their roof, or the splendor of the idea of giving gazillionaires a tax cut. I thought in Texas of all places, where politicians talk about big government, that the chances of a DEA goon splintering your front door would be zero, but then there's this.
Here's an idea for libertarians... Stop voting for right-wing Tea Party reactionaries.
Do you have any more new ideas like this that no one has ever thought of before?
"New ideas"
I have one. Why not start voting for liberals, who have opposed the drug war from the beginning.
Like the two in the White House now?
Brilliant suggestion.
I'm a libertarian socialist so I view Obama as insufficiently radical on both those terms. It should be said, in his defense, that he did end the Iraq War, ended DOMA, and ended the bigoted Don't Ask, Don't Tell policies.
By liberals, though, I was referring to people like peter defazio, Jim McDermott, and deval Patrick-- just to name a few that I admire.
"I'm a libertarian socialist"
Is that akin to an endearing prick?
No, it's more like a Reason.com commenter who prefers to engage in polite debate.
Socialism, by its very definition, strips liberty from the individual by way of force. Other than by engaging in Orwellian double-speak I have no idea how you cognitively can connect "libertarian" and "socialist."
It's someone that wants government to stay out of all personal matters including all drug laws while maintaining that the government should have a role in regulating the economy, enforcing environmental laws, and building infrastructure. I'm also concerned with vast inequities in wealth and think the government should pay for all of the above through a redistributive income tax.
So you like the idea of stealing other people's property at the point of a gun, you'd just rather the government do the dirty work for you. I guess that's only "personal" to the people you're stealing from.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Your comments on Socialism and it's (seemingly) obvious shortcomings are appreciated. Your lampooning of your debate opponent here had me laughing out loud. Thanks for that.
The "economy" is the aggregate of what individuals do with their money; this is incredibly personal (and sometimes involves drugs and the bedroom). All things you mention involve personal acts done with personal property. You want to fund this by stealing money from one group who has "too much" (because they earned it or stole it through governmental misuse).
You cannot separate "personal issues" and economic ones. Go tell someone that you don't like his choice in Chevy or Ford (or Honda) for proof.
You are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong.
It's someone that wants government to stay out of all some personal matters including all drug laws while maintaining that the government should have a role in regulating the economy, enforcing environmental laws, and building infrastructure other personal matters.
Helpful. Very helpful.
Did I mention that as a socialist I enjoy overwrought arguments by right- wingers about how taxation equals theft? You mean people who cheat on their taxes end up going to jail (usually after a decade or so of procedural pretty-pleasing). Poor them. Poor cliven bundy. He's such a victim.
You really are upsetting some of the no-minds here!!
I was going to say that this is great evidence that you've got the IQ of a very stupid squirrel, but that second exclamation mark and bizarre hyphenated neologism convinced me you're right.
If you just added an LOL ROTFLMAO to the end of that abortion of a sentence, it would have really been a thing of beauty.
Yes, there is nothing theft-like about people taking 50% of someone's income and then using that money to give it all to other people.
How is that stealing? Like, if I came and took your wallet because the government said it was okay, it's only fair that you go to jail if you don't give me your wallet. After all, everything the government says is moral is moral. Only teathuglicans think differently!
I think it's amazing that people like you think flat out stealing from one person and giving to another is moral provided 51% of people think it's okay.
Hi, dipshit!
"I'm a libertarian socialist"
You're a lying piece of shit.
libertarian socialist
These two words cannot be a single term. Here's why: The foundation of Libertarian ideology is that of voluntarism and that the initiation of force is immoral. On the other hand, socialism requires the initiation of force.
I'm a libertarian socialist.
Your chosen name decribes you perfectly.
You are a "socialist" who identifies with a "nationality".
AKA "Fascist".
Trouble is, the police unions are in the Democrats' camp along with those liberals. And they loves them some Drug War.
I sympathize with the Purple Zone folks, and it sucks that they had to buckle under the heel of these mafiosos. But until we can kick all the law-and-order and religious-nut Republicans out of the Legislature, I'm afraid our wonderful state is a lost cause.
I would love to see an actual statistical analysis between the GOP who are law-and-order and religious ("nuts" as you call them, kind of unnecessarily). I would wager that they aren't even correlated that much...
The most onerous GOP I can think of only mention their... beliefs would be too strong a word... when it's election time.
Then again, there's Santorum... I really can't stand him or his accolades. I point out he voted to use taxpayers' money to fund Planned Parenthood and they actually defend him. Disgusting.
I'd love to, but all the Democrat party runs are those filthy Progressives.
liberals, who have opposed the drug war from the beginning.
Liberals like FDR, who supported the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act and the Marihuana Transfer Tax Act?
Or liberals like Bill Clinton, who signed the National Narcotics Leadership Act establishing the ONDCP, and presided over an increase in drug enforcement arrests (from wiki "In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes had risen by 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%")?
Those liberals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
Your problem is that you don't know that bill Clinton isn't a liberal
But is he a true Scotsman?
It's pretty interesting that right-wingers have to come up with a Leftist president who died in office in 1945 and a "Southern leadership council" Democrat to support the thesis that liberals and Leftists are drug war nanny staters. Call me unconvinced. I hang around lots of liberals. Not one of them thinks we should punish people that smoke pot. I think its fine if you want to smoke crack. Not my business.
There's a Democratically sponsored bill on congress right now that can't get outside of committee in a Republican controlled House. Maybe you guys are just too carried away that someone is getting a Welfare check somewhere to pay attention.
Tell us about all the non-violent drug war prisoners that Obama has pardoned. Oh, wait. He hasn't done that, and you're full of shit.
-jcr
You seem to be mixing up liberal citizens with "liberal and Leftists" politicians. And while I'd say that 70% of the R politicians are against decriminalizing recreational drugs, there are few in the Democratic ranks who support it.
You failed to provide a link to "a Democratically sponsored bill on congress" so I will: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....23528.html
From my perspective, most politicians in both parties don't want to legalize drugs, because it reduces their power. Power they'd like to use for their personal reasons against others such as women who've rejected their advances.
Joe Biden and Barrack Obama would count as good lil' drug warriors. But they probably are not liberal in your book so I guess they would not count.
Is Dianne Feistein of CA a liberal or leftists? Nancy Pelosi? Barbara Boxer, Gavin Newsome.
All of those high profile democrat officeholders in CA fought like hell against the marijuana legalization initiative a few years ago.
Or maybe you me liberal and leftists like they have MA,NY and Il again all of whom have fought off legalization.
Or maybe you mean the lefties in CO who went down in flames for ramming through gun control. Also opposed legalization and are working to undermine it.
The claim that the same Dems that want to outlaw Big Macs, e cigs and guns are so onboard with legalization mj is and always has been a huge fucking lie.
None of them are liberals, they're all progressives, the opposite of liberal.
yes, yes in the pure meaning of the word. In common American though liberal = progressive. It's a battle that was lost a loonnggg time ago, and while I'd like to reclaim the original meaning of liberal doing so depends on society at large and not likely to happen. Especially when progressives will start calling themselves liberal now that the public is onto the progressive scam.
Which Liberals? The Democrats who have been just as happy to play the Law N' Order card to their working class constituents every chance they get? The Obama administration, which insists on attempting to carry on the War On Drugs in States that have given it up?
There are rank-and-file types on the Left who are for legalization, but the Democrat Political Class is about evenly divided between the "whatever gets me elected" and actual fascists.
I'm not saying that ANY other parties are better, at least here. But on the War On Drugs the Democrats have the moral stature of slime mold ? and on a lot of other subjects.
Seems I recall one very progressive, liberal Democrat William Randolph Hearst having a big in stirring up anti-drug paranoia in the very beginning. When one considers, as the article stated, much of the young lady in the article's misery has resulted from a 2012 bill signed into law by the ultra-liberal messiah residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC, and taking into account the very long, unbroken lineage of rabid liberal drug warriors from there all the way back to Hearst and the beginnings, one can only assume you're either trolling or about as ignorant as they come.
I've got news for you, leftard. Prohibition started out as the third great crusade of the "progressives", coming on the heels of the genocidal rampage against the plains indians.
The left wing talks about ending the drug war, but when push comes to shove, the last thing any leftard politician is willing to do is REDUCE government power.
-jcr
"Why not start voting for liberals, who have opposed the drug war from the beginning."
Perhaps you can name one liberal who supports decriminalizing the use of drugs to support your allegation?
I can name a faction that supports this, the libertarians and libertarian leaning Republicans. From what I see, liberals support more government, just like Obama/Holder support raids of medical marijuana clinics when Obama said he wouldn't. You apparently believe what they say, rather than what they do.
Lol, what? GTFO troll.
You're right. No one on this site has ever commented on the atrocities of the WoD, the regular affronts to the Fourth Amendment or the way due process is circumvented through abusive prosecution, overcharging and the plea bargain process.
Mouthbreather.
And you think this is the central focus of people in the Republican Party, who have been telling people for the last 40 years that they want to get the government off people's back?
There are plenty of people who call themselves libertarians who buy that bullshit. Maybe it's time for them to start demanding some results or, at the very least, start getting incredulous looks from people who care about limiting government when they say that voting for Republicans is about promoting liberty.
And you think this is the central focus of people in the Republican Party, who have been telling people for the last 40 years that they want to get the government off people's back?
I would say that every single regular commenter here realizes fully that the Republican Party has no inclination whatsoever to "get the government off people's back."
There are plenty of people who call themselves libertarians who buy that bullshit.
I agree - there are many people out there who call themselves libertarians without even realizing what the word means.
"I would say that every single regular commenter here realizes fully that the Republican Party has no inclination whatsoever to "get the government off people's back."
Right. I'll keep your comment handy for all the predictable harrumphing I see on this website on the morning of November 5.
there are many people out there who call themselves libertarians without even realizing what the word means.
[whoosh]
I really don't see that, it seems like most of the commentators here are just extreme Republicans. I am amazed by how little discussion there is of actually electing Libertarian party candidates. I don't believe any one who operates under a major party label has the independence to really, and consistently, govern as a Libertarian. Most of the commentators here sound like Bill O' Reily or some jerk like that
Yeah, extreme Republicans who consistently advocate the end of the drug war, the legalization of prostitution, and are generally non-interventionist in foreign policy.
Since those are all Republican positions, you've got us. This reminds me of when a conservative came on here and claimed I was a leftist for saying mean things about the police. If actual Republicans call me a leftist, it's a pretty good sign that I'm not an arch-Republican.
Yep. Extreme Republican. I'm like Santorum on sterroids.
That's me.
Hurrrm ... let's to through the list.
* Small, powerful, non-interventionist military.
* End corporate welfare (particularly for financial institutions.)
* Open, though controlled, borders.
* Pro-choice.
* Pro Gay marriage, "thrupple" marriages, line-marriages, group marriages, etc. (I'll approve it as quickly as you can think of a name.)
* End the drug war.
* Decriminalize posession of controlled substances.
* Legalize (and allow to self-regulate) prostitution.
* End subsidies for professional sports teams.
* Demlitarize the police and all of the other paramilitary governmental organizations.
* Term limits across the board, and short ones
* Legalize most of the "big scarry" drugs.
Wait -- this isn't going like KissAss above said it would. Now I'm confused.
* Term limits across the board, and short ones
This is my favorite. What better way to be a government "of, by and for" the people if not high turnover?
poguemahoney|10.21.14 @ 10:02PM|#
..."Most of the commentators here sound like Bill O' Reily or some jerk like that"
From and idjit who posts like commie-kid?
Sorta like associalist.
You're conflating the points in your original post. You said that the article "is unlikely to generate much debate in the commentariat as it is not about the majesty of rand Paul, the totalitarian tendency of the government giving someone, somewhere a subsidy to get an education or put solar panels on their roof, or the splendor of the idea of giving gazillionaires a tax cut."
I refuted your ridiculous position by pointing out the issues raised in this article are RED FUCKING MEAT for the "commentariat" at Reason.
american socialist|10.21.14 @ 4:03PM|#
..."There are plenty of people who call themselves libertarians who buy that bullshit."...
There are plenty of imbeciles who buy into being proggies, too. Like you, you stupid pile of shit.
MENDACIOUS. CUNT.
Go back to Slate and spit your vitriolic nonsense at your own echo chamber.
Please. WTF does this have to do with "tea party reactionaries?" This Ponton dude is a thug. Us right wing guys are all about less, smaller government. It is unconscionable that a small business owner , doing everything she knows to do to stay within the bounds of the law should be hammered by the DA in conjunction with the DEA. You are illogically smearing conservative people. What crawled up you and died?
"Us right wing guys are all about less, smaller government"
And the person you vote for thinks smaller government includes reigning in the DEA?
Obama certainly doesn't.
That's certainly true about all libertarians. Do you know where you are, or are you lost? Do you think this is Fox News? I wouldn't just reign in the DEA, I would abolish it.
Steam pressure got too high around page 3, so I stopped reading. Tar and feathers would have been applied long before things got that bad, back in the day.
Immunity for this kind of shit is the enabler. If they had to pay through the nose, and with jail time, for their common thuggery, it would stop in a heartbeat.
Tar and feathers?
You're too kind. I'd like to see the sons of bitches sentenced to 20 years with the letters L-E-O tattooed on their foreheads.
Tattooed?
Oh, because branding is too good for them?
kwitcherbellyakin and respond yourself. Arsenic in bulk isn't too hard to find, which takes care of the dude's horses. For a tenth the amount the court appointed attorney is charging she can hire from El Paso a Mexican beating of the fuck so severe he'll eat from a straw for two months.
Aresnic? Why go to that trouble when you can get standard antifreeze anywhere. Just pour it in the horse's water and they'll drink it right up.
Tattoo on the forehead.
Branding on both butt cheeks, so the other prisoners can be reminded who they're raping.
There's evil and then there's Rod Ponton and the DEA.
Wow. Are these cunts and sonabitches EVIL.
I'm speechless. In America.
Speechless is just the way the proggies want you. It is when you START speaking that they flip out. "Stupid, crap ass first-ammendment getting in the way of our utopia whever everyone thinks like me."
Tough work (harassing and ruining citizens), vital mission (except the dangerous ones.
Assholes.
Sorry. 'Tough work, vital mission' is on the DEA website.
Does anyone read the comments on Reason's youtube link?
Quite a few idiotic trolls.
Does anyone read the comments on Reason.com?
Quite a few idiotic trolls.
Grab your foam donut. The nut-punches come fast and furious in this one.
Try me. Please try me. See how I fight. I fought the Marine Corps (while they were convinced they owned me) to a standstill.
Shoot my dog. Attempt an arrest while I'm hurting no-one. Stage a no-knock raid. Don't make me show you what you've taught me (and what I've learned since then). Threaten my family.
You don't have a monopoly on force; you just think you do. Don't make me prove how wrong you are.
So you'd last indefinitely if the EPA were fining you $250k per day?
I don't have that much to begin with. So one day, 100 years, no real difference.
'There is no man so free as one with nothing left to lose.'
Except your public defender will be too busy to care about your case. Unless you can afford a really expensive attorney (like me) you will lose. Sorry.
Well, that was pretty much a full-on nut punch.
Between this and the puppycide article earlier, I'm not sure I can walk for the rest of the day, and I don't even have the requisite equipment.
Riven-
As others among the female commentariat have mentioned, a "cunt punt" has the same effect.
Learn The Simple Secret To Making Money From Home , Work From Home Safe And Easily
Check Out======= W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?
Arielle's leg flew up and inadvertently struck the agent in the shin, after which the agent pinned her to the ground with the butt of his rifle.
So Sis tried to Sweep the Leg?
I have one problem with this article, and it is tangental to the story; the quote about "a small town paper's job"
I'm sorry, but a small town paper's job is to sell advertising, thereby making money, or to disseminate the bias of whoever is supporting it while it loses money. The idea that "Journalists" have some higher calling to The Truth is so much bilge, as the current crop of Obama sycophants in the media clearly demonstrate. I acknowledge that the author did not say that bit himself; he just quoted it with implied approval.
No paper is EVER free of bias. If it hasn't the bias of its owner, then it has the biases of its editors, reporters, and so forth. Anybody who believes that any media outlet is free of bias is too naive to be allowed out in the big wide world without a keeper, and probably believes that PBS at some time "kept the networks honest"? and in the Easter Bunny.
This^^^^Our little failing progressive rag teh Missoulian has a "city beat" reporter whose stories read like press releases from our 500 lb mayors "communications director" as he tries to steal a private water company through eminent domain.
He claimed he could accomplish this theft for 500 k a year ago. Legal bills are already over a million and since the city is liable for all legal fees in these proceedings we are on the hook for far more. He's fucking with the Carlyle Group and their 2 grand an hour lawyers haven't even gotten close to entering the fray. I'll be laughing when this walrus get's bitch slapped and his proggy minions get hit in the wallet. Sadly lots of fixed income seniors home owners will be fucked by his chutzpah.
Not ironically, said "cd" used to have the same job at the afore mentioned local rag. Investment advice, stay away from Lee Enterprises, their bankruptcy is only a matter of time.
You live in Missoula? Poor fella. Nothing like drowning in a sea of some of the creepiest liberellas festering between the two coasts.
That's puzzled me also. How is it that states populated with individuals who (outwardly at least) embody an aura of self determination and self dependency succumb to the liberal fucks that move in for the view?
And if it's so easy for so few to drive an entire state's agenda, direction and very purpose; how is it we are not all moving to "our" new Free State?
Leftists find it very important to be surrounded by other people who hold the exact same views, so you end up finding enclaves of radical leftderpery in otherwise red or purple states.
It doesn't seem to matter to most non-leftists what their neighbors think. They seem to prioritize family, safety, quality of life, and jobs.
My guess based on experience living in a leftist enclave.
It seems very unlikely that the purpose of protecting free speech and freedom of the press was to create a high-priesthood of holy journalists to aid their masters in achieving absolute control over we politically unconnected commoners.
Interesting article, however, by the fourth page a little attention to the sex toys angle could've broke the monotony a bit.
When he asked to see a search warrant, he claims a rifle-bearing DEA agent replied, "What are you, a fucking lawyer?"
So much for DEA's pretense of being a law enforcement agency.
-jcr
Small towns can be the worst places for libertarians.
You said it. At least in this country. I can't remember where I heard the quote, but someone said something like 'God save us from nice little towns'.
"Political tags ? such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth ? are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
? Robert A. Heinlein
I live in a small town full of surly curmudgeons. I like it.
So much for the progressive Obama administration being easier on drugs than his predecessor. No one loves a police state more than a progressive.
Yeah, somehow I doubt the abuses of police forces in small town Texas are the fault of the Obama administration.
Not that the Obama administration would be any different.
Obama would say he's setting up a commission to study the issue and report a recommendation to his AG in a year.
prohibits purchasing ammunition while under indictment
I though you were only supposed to lose rights upon conviction of a crime by a jury of your piers in open court.
*peers, even.
It's one of those things where you can't challenge it until you go to court, and as soon as you go to court it goes way giving you no standing to challenge it.
Current rocket scientists need to learn the H&R secret for folding space.
The American Civil Liberties Union: On the front lines of defending religious freedom!
"Despite gay marriage rulings, some Elvis-themed Vegas chapels doing it their way...
"According to the American Civil Liberties Union, for-profit wedding chapels that turn away gay couples could be charged with a misdemeanor. The organization explained exceptions to the law only apply to religious institutions. "The difference between a church and a place of worship and a wedding chapel is that a wedding chapel is a business so that is covered under the Public Accommodations Law of Nevada," Tod Story of the ACLU told News 8."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....marriages/
It appears Nevada does not have a RFRA law, so they're probably right as a free exercise matter.
Good thing the legislature of Nevada rejected such an Act last year - there was no need for it:
"nor were there an outpouring of concrete examples of violations that the Nevada Preservation of Religious Freedom Act was designed to cure."
http://rfraperils.com/2014/03/.....in-nevada/
Here's a fun exercise - find the provision of the state public accomodation law which applies to wedding chapels -
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-651.html
" (n)?Any other establishment or place to which the public is invited or which is intended for public use"?
bingo!
Other service establishment probably also covers it
I think RFRA's are Establishment Clause violations.
Laws like these violate free speech rights. And anti discrimination laws generally should be struck down as violating a substantive due process right of free association that would treat religious and the non religious equally in their associations.
All right, but free speech so far hasn't protected the bakers and photogs.
And I'm not sure the wedding chapel owners will be sitting around waiting to assert their rights until Lester Maddox is allowed to re-establish his race-segregated restaurant.
Those cases haven't been ruled on by SCOTUS yet. Denial of cert isn't necessarily a comment on the merits.
Either way, I'm not sure ushering a system of two tiered legal system with special privileges for the religious not existing for the non religious isn't a cure worse than the disease.
The religious conservatives didn't pass these laws - it's not as if they sat around saying, "let's require all the secular people to recognize same-sex unions while giving ourselves an exemption!"
They would love to have these laws repealed altogether - but until the public gets enlightened on this, religious dissenters will at least want to take advantage of laws giving them "special privileges" - laws like the First Amendment.
The militia laws and draft laws - going back to before the country was founded - gave "special privileges" to religious dissenters known as conscientious objectors.
They also had in England and in some states laws allowing only Protestants (or in some places only Christians, or only theist) to serve on juries, certain offices, etc.
RFRA laws apply not in a few sensitive areas, but across the board of the laws. They create one legal system for the religious and another for the non religious institutionally.
The First Amendment establishes a regime of freedom for the religious - including nontheists whose belief system can be considered religious.
We seem to agree that many of these laws, as applied to non-religious people, are wrong or unconstitutional. But telling the religious to wait until the seculars get their rights means, IMHO, ignoring the First Amendment.
But the First also has an Establishment Clause which I think frowns on institutionally favoring religion
But it doesn't seem to have frowned on the militia and conscsiription laws which exempted religious pacifists from military service. Under your reasoning, the Establishment Clause would require Quakers, Mennonites, etc. to be drafted whenever there's a draft.
I think the differences are explained at least in part in Scalia's opinion in Smith (which talked about how the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause being limited comports with our history of occasional legislative exemptions in areas like CO's)
I think Scalia dropped the ball in that case - the various RFRAs were meant to reinstate the very constitutional precedents he wanted to overrule.
Unlike you, though, he would allow legislatures to enact religious exemptions.
Sometimes Homer nods, and sometimes Scalia messes up.
Funny, I thought of a broken clock concerning his opinion in Smith
I thought of a working clock which sometimes gets dropped and has to get taken to the shop.
So they're like the businesses that didn't push for crony laws, but since those laws exist they figured they might as well take their place at the trough?
Conscientious objectors are pigs at the trough?
People advocating for their group to be included in the non discrimination laws are.
"Trough" suggests people lining up for government benefits. Being left alone isn't a government benefit.
Like renewable energy firms seeking tax breaks for their part of the industry only?
Lots of businesses try to get out from under oppressive taxes - that's not the problem, the problem is when they want their competitors taxed at a higher rate.
So if we have a case of a church asking that its members be exempt from SSM laws while imposing such laws on people outside their church, you might have an analagous problem.
I see selective tax breaks as at least potentially problematic. YMMV of course.
I'll end by saying this, it's the exact same thing I tell gays pushing to be included in non discrimination laws: apart from the philosophical issues, do you really think it's good for your group to be seen as pushing for special treatment? I'm partly opposed to a two tiered legal system for religious people and the non religious because I think it will ultimately foster animosity towards the religious and a sense of entitlement in them. As a religious person mysel I don't like either.
Well, I'll just conclude by saying that the religious better get accustomed to being disliked.
"If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Rom. 12:18)
But sometimes there are people who don't want to live in peace, but to tell you how to practice your religion. I'd say lovingly protest in hopes of being permitted to live peaceably, or even to familiarize other people with the tenets of one's religion. Teachable moment.
Again:
"Wedding chapels can't say no to same-sex marriages, ACLU warns...
"...chapels are public accommodations and have to follow the public accommodation law, [Clark County Clerk Diana] Alba said....
"Reno resident and licensed minister George Flint, who has been performing weddings for 53 years, said those licensed by counties to perform weddings have to follow the law. He suggested that minsters who do not do so could have their licenses potentially voided for failing to perform same-sex marriages."
http://www.reviewjournal.com/n.....aclu-warns
This kind of thing increasingly makes me think civil marriage should be totally divorced from religious (or non religious) ceremonies. If ministers don't want to be held to the standards of civil license issuers they shouldn't be doing that.
You mean that marriages solemnized by a religious minister shouldn't be recognized by the state? Or recognized only if the minister is a SSM supporter?
Mark 12:17 ( I know you know that one)
You want to codify religious doctrines in the law?
Call it a policy preference for, well, let's call it a 'separation of church and state'
By treating people married in church the same as fornicators?
How does the government treat fornicators?
Bo's solution is fine with me. Let everyone go to the courthouse and file a marriage and as a separate issue let people conduct marriage ceremonies however they see fit. People won't automatically have a civil union as a consequence of a religious marriage ceremony and visa versa.
They have been for as long as law has existed.
Last I checked, perjury and murder are illegal
Hth
"VIDEO: Atheism is winning, says Dawkins"
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/ne.....-1-6376419
Thank God!
I see what you did there
Admit it...you laughed.
Dawkins problem is he is a New Atheism (tm) tool, and can't handle the superior NOMA arguments
He is just a craptastic representative for atheism, whether he's spouting nonsense or drilling Ms Garrison in her constructed snizz
The artist known Dunphy|10.25.14 @ 11:22PM|#
"Dawkins problem is he is a New Atheism (tm) tool, and can't handle the superior NOMA arguments"
NOMA "arguments" are bullshit.
You aren't Dunphy.
NotDunphy.
NotDunphy
I've thought that as well; close though, he seems to have done some research.
Not enough. He gets basic biographical facts about dumpster completely wrong. I always believed that dumpster wasn't actually a cop, just a toady with a badge fetish, but he was really consistent. It's pretty obvious this is just a dumpster impersonator.
The fact that he has conspicuously avoided the cop shoots/beats/tazes people/dog/child threads since his arrival is a dead giveaway. Dumpster was on those threads like stink on shit.
Repairmen scribbled messages inside President Lincoln's watch -
http://mashable.com/2014/10/23.....t-message/
Who cares? Spam elsewhere, cunt.
"Gino's bringing its deep-dish pizza to Mexico City"
http://www.chicagobusiness.com.....exico-city
No one loves you. Fuckface.
"Ah'm pressin' all the right buttons, Cap'n, but I'm nae gettin' any response!"
Fucking spice hysteria is insane
It's one of the latest raisons for this kind of overkill idiocy
my co-worker's mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here
----------------http://shorx.com/onlineatm
My roomate's aunt makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her income was $12021 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
You can try this out. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com
my co-worker's mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here
----------------http://shorx.com/onlineatm
my co-worker's mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here
http://shorx.com/onlineatm
Now if Ms. Lipsen had moved to Comfort, Texas, she might have had an easier time of it, since that town was founded by German immigrants who were freethinkers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort,_Texas
Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.
http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey
Where is FdA to demand his money back?
I will stand in for him: Reason, stop posting articles with old comments in them. Just DELETE the old comments and post the article. Is that hard? I will seriously re-consider donating to you guys again if you can't even do this for us.
#OLDCOMMENTSLIVESMATTER!!
Thanks for picking up the slack Joe.
Just DELETE the old comments
But then we lose some real gems from the comments, such as Harvey Birdmans' kind words to Eddie upthread.
I dont think that dude has a clue man.
http://www.Way-Anon.tk
my best friend's step-aunt makes $67 hourly on the internet . She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her check was $20596 just working on the internet for a few hours. you can try this out.............
????? http://www.netjob70.com
Teexas people are jsut funny like that.
http://www.Way-Anon.tk
my best friend's mother-in-law makes $68 /hour on the computer . She has been fired for 10 months but last month her payment was $15958 just working on the computer for a few hours. view it now.......
?????http://www.netjob70.com
My best friend's step-mother makes $88 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for seven months but last month her paycheck was $14014 just working on the computer for a few hours.
Why not check here ==~+~+~+~+~== http://www.jobsfish.com
I lived in Alpine for 7 years and was briefly married to Rod Ponton. While married to Ponton and for a short time before, I was addicted to cocaine. On September 2, 2011, Ponton, the city attorney for Alpine, lied to the cops, telling them that we hadn't spoken in over 24 hours,that he was concerned for my safety and instructed officers to check on me at my friend's house. Ponton and I had spoken less than an hour before he called the cops. The cops surrounded the home, handcuffed and detained my friend and I. THEN one of the Sheriff's deputies called someone to request a search warrant. My friend and I were made to wait, handcuffed outside, while the warrant was prepared and brought over. Once officers had the warrant they searched the home and my friend and I were arrested.
In my experienve Ponton uses the law to get revenge. Ponton could have helped me seek treatment, he preferred to have me arrested, humiliating me and my children. I went treatment and Ponton wrote my psychologist claiming horrible things about my character. Having known and treated me for a month before telling me of Ponton's letter, my psychologist commented that anyone who would attempt to undermine the drug treatment of another person is unethical.
I believe Ponton manipulated any resource possible to go after Ilana and shut down her store. Ponton hated the store from its beginning. In my opinion Ponton doesn't worry about collateral damage; Ponton cares about revenge more than justice.
I lived in Alpine for 7 years and was briefly married to Rod Ponton. While married to Ponton and for a short time before, I was addicted to cocaine. On September 2, 2011, Ponton, the city attorney for Alpine, lied to the cops, telling them that we hadn't spoken in over 24 hours,that he was concerned for my safety and instructed officers to check on me at my friend's house. Ponton and I had spoken less than an hour before he called the cops. The cops surrounded the home, handcuffed and detained my friend and I. THEN one of the Sheriff's deputies called someone to request a search warrant. My friend and I were made to wait, handcuffed outside, while the warrant was prepared and brought over. Once officers had the warrant they searched the home and my friend and I were arrested.
In my experienve Ponton uses the law to get revenge. Ponton could have helped me seek treatment, he preferred to have me arrested, humiliating me and my children. I went treatment and Ponton wrote my psychologist claiming horrible things about my character. Having known and treated me for a month before telling me of Ponton's letter, my psychologist commented that anyone who would attempt to undermine the drug treatment of another person is unethical.
I believe Ponton manipulated any resource possible to go after Ilana and shut down her store. Ponton hated the store from its beginning. In my opinion Ponton doesn't worry about collateral damage; Ponton cares about revenge more than justice.
I lived in Alpine for 7 years and was briefly married to Rod Ponton. While married to Ponton and for a short time before, I was addicted to cocaine. On September 2, 2011, Ponton, the city attorney for Alpine, lied to the cops, telling them that we hadn't spoken in over 24 hours,that he was concerned for my safety and instructed officers to check on me at my friend's house. Ponton and I had spoken less than an hour before he called the cops. The cops surrounded the home, handcuffed and detained my friend and I. THEN one of the Sheriff's deputies called someone to request a search warrant. My friend and I were made to wait, handcuffed outside, while the warrant was prepared and brought over. Once officers had the warrant they searched the home and my friend and I were arrested.
In my experienve Ponton uses the law to get revenge. Ponton could have helped me seek treatment, he preferred to have me arrested, humiliating me and my children. I went treatment and Ponton wrote my psychologist claiming horrible things about my character. Having known and treated me for a month before telling me of Ponton's letter, my psychologist commented that anyone who would attempt to undermine the drug treatment of another person is unethical.
I believe Ponton manipulated any resource possible to go after Ilana and shut down her store. Ponton hated the store from its beginning. In my opinion Ponton doesn't worry about collateral damage; Ponton cares about revenge more than justice