Martinez prefers to stick to issues

Martinez prefers to stick to issues

There are 6843 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Jun 8, 2010, titled Martinez prefers to stick to issues. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez is traveling around New Mexico this week to meet with constituents and listen to their concerns.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#6209 Jun 21, 2013

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#6210 Jun 21, 2013
Hmmm I just read my own post and while saying Atomic Cafe is stupid I made several typos. That's hilarious. So they'll return and try to demean me by calling out my grammatical errors. Ah whatever least I never charged somebody falsely. Least I never lied about someone trying to get them in trouble for no damn reason.

At least I never committed a crime in order to cover up a crime committed by someone who worked for me.

Somebody tell Susana it's not my fault that house fell on her sister.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#6211 Jun 21, 2013
Atomic Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever heard of protesting too much? You got off on a technicality because of the change in prosecuting attorneys due to Susana Martinez being overwhelmingly elected governor. You got lucky. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Wait. This post is down right amazing.

You do realize the phrase you closed with "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" means do not question the value of something you got for free. Basically that's the meaning, so the question is do you even know that because by your comment you're saying that the criminal justice system screwed up and let someone you think is a criminal go free and you're basically saying "hey alleged criminal they gave you a gift don't question it"

What freaking gift did the prosecutors give me? 4 years of a false charge? That's a freaking gift? Defamation of character that's a freaking gift? Libel committed by the Sun News, that's a freaking gift?

Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud, False Arrest, Aggravated Kidnapping, Extortion, Impersonation of a Public Official, Fraud, Tampering with a Government Record, Tampering with a Witness, Racketeering, Misprision of a Felony, and you consider all that a gift.

I did not ask for any of that to happen nor should any of that have happened.

But you'll justify anything when you hate someone enough. And that's the only thing that brought about the false charge, hatred.

Ignorance and prejudice and fear, walk hand in hand.
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#6212 Jun 22, 2013
justice is just a choice wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I was going to say that I thought you were a decent person, but now you've made a truly stupid comment.
"got off on a technicality"
So the prosecution admitting no crime occurred is a technicality?
So the case goes to trial and the judge says there's absolutely no evidence is a technicality?
No crime, no evidence and that's a technicality?
You find that to be lucky? You;re more stupid than I was going to sat, but now you're gone well passed stupid. You've unveiled a new level of stupidity. Gone beyond any perceived plateau of stupidness.
You are the stupidest stupid to ever stupid.
Now that I've established that fact and since you are running around the internet trying to find information then why don't you take the time to watch these 2 videos. It'll clearly explain to you how false the charge was.
Oh wait that's right you only believe the sun news...funny considering the article says there was a restraining order and yet if you watch the videos you'll see that there never was one. So that means the Sun-News committed libel. It was already on the trial court record that no order existed and that occurred November 24, 2008 and yet strangely in February of 2012 the sun news implies/states that a restraining order was filed.
That's clearly false information. Libel.
But as I said earlier you'll believe them even though facts prove they're lying...so what does that really say about you? Go back to the 7th section of my comment for the answer.
Decent person? Me? No. I'm mean and evil, nasty, mean spirited, cranky, and vile old man. But I've still never been accused of stalking, or as an adult written a love letter to a 14 year old girl. So the newspaper libeled you? How's that lawsuit coming along? Gonna win big and become a millionaire? The judge never said a crime wasn't committed. The judge said that the prosecutors who appeared in court didn't correctly provide the evidence necessary to move forward with a trial. Susana Martinez wasn't one of them, since she wasn't a prosecutor anymore, she was governor of the state. You were lucky. I guess after Susana Martinez resigned as DA to become Governor of the whole dang state, the folks who took over really screwed everything up. I'm "running around the internet" looking for information? I typed in one search, and read the first things that popped up, and that was YOUR webpages. Took maybe 30 seconds. I also found posts all over the internet from you defending yourself going back for years and years. Your not doing yourself any favors by keeping the spotlight shined on you. You wanted attention from a 14 year old girl. Maybe getting attention is your thing.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#6213 Jun 22, 2013
Atomic Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
Decent person? Me? No. I'm mean and evil, nasty, mean spirited, cranky, and vile old man. But I've still never been accused of stalking, or as an adult written a love letter to a 14 year old girl. So the newspaper libeled you? How's that lawsuit coming along? Gonna win big and become a millionaire? The judge never said a crime wasn't committed. The judge said that the prosecutors who appeared in court didn't correctly provide the evidence necessary to move forward with a trial. Susana Martinez wasn't one of them, since she wasn't a prosecutor anymore, she was governor of the state. You were lucky. I guess after Susana Martinez resigned as DA to become Governor of the whole dang state, the folks who took over really screwed everything up. I'm "running around the internet" looking for information? I typed in one search, and read the first things that popped up, and that was YOUR webpages. Took maybe 30 seconds. I also found posts all over the internet from you defending yourself going back for years and years. Your not doing yourself any favors by keeping the spotlight shined on you. You wanted attention from a 14 year old girl. Maybe getting attention is your thing.
If I say I love my friend who's male doesn't make me gay. I say I love my mom doesn't mean I want to commit incest. If I love my dog doesn't mean I'm into bestiality.

You read something that says "love letter" and to you, you draw a conclusion without having any other facts. So then every Valentine's Day when a teacher delivers candies or cards to students does that then make them all pedophiles?

When you don't have all the facts it's easy to conclude what ever you want, but the reality is the "alleged victim" didn't see it as a love letter. Matter of fact at trial evidence was introduced where she had written "I love you" to me, but I didn't take it as overwhelming passion. We were friends and the matter actually came down to the mother did not want her daughter to be friends with a black person. When the mother spends around 10 to 15 minutes in her interview with the police trying to explain away why her son asked her if she was a racist, that really says a lot about what really motivated the criminal charge.

Libel exists when a publication is made that accuses someone falsely of criminal conduct. Since the paper more than once stated that a restraining order existed when in fact there never was one, that is false information and the publication of a libelous statement. You might want to research the law.

Actually the judge said precisely "what you did was inappropriate, but it was not criminal." I have the entire transcript. I've said repeatedly that the prosecution, they themselves admitted that no crime occurred. Again it's in the trial transcript. You can go to the court and request a copy.

As for Susana Martinez I'm going to explain this to you one more time.

Lisa King, secretary for Amy Orlando, on June 8, 2007 called me claiming she was Susana Martinez. She demanded that I stop contacting a child. Demanded that I cease going to games. Demanded that I have no contact with her friends. Demanded that I not contact any student in the Gadsden District. Demanded that I not write any songs about the child. Stated she would notify anyone I work with that I was a child molestor. Then said "You know what you are you're a pedophile. People like you need to be locked up and put away for good."

I immediately called the Dona Ana DA's office to verify the phone call and was told that Susana Martinez was not there nor would she have made such a call. I contacted local PD, Sheriff, and the El Paso DA and each agency told me that the District Attorney would never personally call anyone they were seeking to prosecute. With the El Paso DA telling me that in no way would Susana Martinez call me.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#6214 Jun 22, 2013
Atomic Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe getting attention is your thing.
Continued...

As I've repeatedly stated from the time I was suspended from the school til the date of the charge I saw the alleged victim 5 or 6 times. All at sporting events where I was watching my other players. And at the basketball events I was there to watch and recruit and gather information that I pass on to coaches. Out of those one was the NMSU team camp an event I had attended several times before.

Now over one year later I was arrested for violating a court order that did NOT exist. Procured by Oscar Ferralez and authorized by Lisa King who was directing everything as both Amy Orlando and Susana Martinez.

I tell you this because I have it on record Amy Orlando is on record saying she was never involved with my case. Susana Martinez is on record saying she took the case at a specific time, well after the alleged phone call.

From that evidence it's easy to see Lisa King did these things without either of Orlando's or Martinez's knowledge. After posting bail Lisa King took it a step further and tried to defraud me by delivering to me a criminal summons with the wrong date. Gad I missed my date I would have forfeited my bail and been incarcerated to wait out the entire duration of the supposed trial.

On December 10, 2008 Susana Martinez sings on as lead prosecutor. She holds a hearing and tries to tell the judge that I failed to pay my bond and should remanded. She repeated the information saying I had a callous attitude and willfully ignored the court. Judge Driggers told her, "The bond's been paid." and then told her basically she should have known the bond was paid because in NM law it is the prosecutors duty to close out the case once the bond has been paid and transfer the bond to the district court. Susana Martinez them scrambles through a ton of paperwork with an extremely dumbfounded look on her face.

She was lied to. Someone at her office, probably Lisa King, told her I hadn't paid my bond so she comes to court ready to light a fire only to be told she was wrong. Hearing after hearing the same thing would happen. She'd be proven wrong and then for the longest period there was silence. No action at all on my case, why?

Lisa King was probably asked to resign from the DA's office and then relocated to the District Court where she works under Lisa Schultz. Sound familiar?

So the case lingered because if the true fact came out that a secretary was breaking the law in pursuit of vigilante justice how would that then look upon Susana Martinez. So they pursued the false charge in hopes of getting a conviction. If they got a conviction then no one would believe a word I said, granted few do now, but upon conviction all hope would then be lost and the whole Lisa King thing gets swept away and no one is none the wiser.

However it goes to trial and as I stated the prosecution admitted no crime occurred. The truth came out about a few other things like the fact that I did not send hundreds of text messages nor that I attended every game. Granted the mother still tried lying about somethings, but none of it was criminal conduct which is why the judge asked the prosecutors if they knew the elements of stalking.

Maybe Lisa King and the girl's mother were friends. I don't know, but I do know they broke the law and they should answer for it, but if it means tarnishing Susana Martinez, not gonna happen. Her image is more important than the law.

I could've sworn America was better than that.
Michael Morris

Carrizozo, NM

#6217 Jun 22, 2013
Don't look for much from Martinez. She thrives on bringing in compromised people with few options. For instance Scot Key
Convicted http://tinyurl.com/mjzbwn3

The people didn't seem to care much since we elected him DA after that conviction and resignation. Once the people figured out his character he was unable to even get enough signatures to get on the ballot.

Then he turns up in Martinez office as the 12th highest paid government employee in DA County

"12. Scot Key 3rd Judicial District Attorney's Office Chief Deputy District Attorney $110,001"

When you operate the way she does you need smart people with no reason to ever do the right thing when it conflicts with the mission.

You probably find a lot of people working for her with limited options and significant obligations.
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#6218 Jun 22, 2013
justice is just a choice wrote:
<quoted text>
If I say I love my friend who's male doesn't make me gay. I say I love my mom doesn't mean I want to commit incest. If I love my dog doesn't mean I'm into bestiality.
You read something that says "love letter" and to you, you draw a conclusion without having any other facts. So then every Valentine's Day when a teacher delivers candies or cards to students does that then make them all pedophiles?
When you don't have all the facts it's easy to conclude what ever you want, but the reality is the "alleged victim" didn't see it as a love letter. Matter of fact at trial evidence was introduced where she had written "I love you" to me, but I didn't take it as overwhelming passion. We were friends and the matter actually came down to the mother did not want her daughter to be friends with a black person. When the mother spends around 10 to 15 minutes in her interview with the police trying to explain away why her son asked her if she was a racist, that really says a lot about what really motivated the criminal charge.
Libel exists when a publication is made that accuses someone falsely of criminal conduct. Since the paper more than once stated that a restraining order existed when in fact there never was one, that is false information and the publication of a libelous statement. You might want to research the law.
Actually the judge said precisely "what you did was inappropriate, but it was not criminal." I have the entire transcript. I've said repeatedly that the prosecution, they themselves admitted that no crime occurred. Again it's in the trial transcript. You can go to the court and request a copy.
As for Susana Martinez I'm going to explain this to you one more time.
Lisa King, secretary for Amy Orlando, on June 8, 2007 called me claiming she was Susana Martinez. She demanded that I stop contacting a child. Demanded that I cease going to games. Demanded that I have no contact with her friends. Demanded that I not contact any student in the Gadsden District. Demanded that I not write any songs about the child. Stated she would notify anyone I work with that I was a child molestor. Then said "You know what you are you're a pedophile. People like you need to be locked up and put away for good."
I immediately called the Dona Ana DA's office to verify the phone call and was told that Susana Martinez was not there nor would she have made such a call. I contacted local PD, Sheriff, and the El Paso DA and each agency told me that the District Attorney would never personally call anyone they were seeking to prosecute. With the El Paso DA telling me that in no way would Susana Martinez call me.
Sure, sure. Your diggin' a hole, my man. How's that libel lawsuit coming along? You gonna be rich or what? If you believe someone named Lisa King called you impersonating Susana Martinez, then why do you have such an irrational fixation upon Susan Martinez? Is it because this "Lisa King" isn't any kind of public figure and won't garner you as much attention? Or are you just fixated upon Susana Martinez like you were fixated upon a 14 year old girl? It's all an old story, what if I agree with this "Lisa King"?
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#6219 Jun 22, 2013
Michael Morris wrote:
Don't look for much from Martinez. She thrives on bringing in compromised people with few options. For instance Scot Key
Convicted http://tinyurl.com/mjzbwn3
The people didn't seem to care much since we elected him DA after that conviction and resignation. Once the people figured out his character he was unable to even get enough signatures to get on the ballot.
Then he turns up in Martinez office as the 12th highest paid government employee in DA County
"12. Scot Key 3rd Judicial District Attorney's Office Chief Deputy District Attorney $110,001"
When you operate the way she does you need smart people with no reason to ever do the right thing when it conflicts with the mission.
You probably find a lot of people working for her with limited options and significant obligations.
Blah blah blah. No one but you leftists care about your nonsense. Susana Martinez is already doing the job as Governor far better than any one expected, and the majority of the people of New Mexico are happy with the job she's doing. So keep spouting your BS. We'll re-elect her next year!

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#6220 Jun 23, 2013
Michael Morris wrote:
Don't look for much from Martinez. She thrives on bringing in compromised people with few options. For instance Scot Key
Convicted http://tinyurl.com/mjzbwn3
The people didn't seem to care much since we elected him DA after that conviction and resignation. Once the people figured out his character he was unable to even get enough signatures to get on the ballot.
Then he turns up in Martinez office as the 12th highest paid government employee in DA County
"12. Scot Key 3rd Judicial District Attorney's Office Chief Deputy District Attorney $110,001"
When you operate the way she does you need smart people with no reason to ever do the right thing when it conflicts with the mission.
You probably find a lot of people working for her with limited options and significant obligations.
If you haven't seen this I think you'd find it interesting. It's an FBI special agent's view of Susana Martinez. It starts around page 80.

http://www.nmlea.dps.state.nm.us/leaBoard/age...

Now this again is an FBI special agent and this document is from an NM law enforcement agency site. That should say a lot.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#6221 Jun 23, 2013
Atomic Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, sure. Your diggin' a hole, my man. How's that libel lawsuit coming along? You gonna be rich or what? If you believe someone named Lisa King called you impersonating Susana Martinez, then why do you have such an irrational fixation upon Susan Martinez? Is it because this "Lisa King" isn't any kind of public figure and won't garner you as much attention? Or are you just fixated upon Susana Martinez like you were fixated upon a 14 year old girl? It's all an old story, what if I agree with this "Lisa King"?
Funny you say sure, sure when I have the evidence to support everything I've stated. Now consider that the case against me was thrown out because they had NO EVIDENCE. So the fact is I have evidence, they didn't and yet you believe them and you dare say I'm irrational.

The facts are simple Lisa King severely broke the law and upon discovering it Susana Martinez broke the law in order to cover up what Lisa King did. So by the law she is just as liable and responsible, as an aider and abettor, an accomplice to the crime that Lisa King committed.

I guess you chose to not watch the videos. You don't want to see how wrong you are.

I'll restate the main example. In the video at my arraignment James Dickens tells the judge that "hr continues to violate the order that is out there." Then my attorney basically tells the court there's no protective order. The judge asks if there is one and Dickens replies AND I QUOTE "I apologize your honor I thought there was one."

So it is on record as of November 24, 2008 that there never was a restraining order, no protective order of any kind and you can even hear the mother say "It was denied."

So when the Sun-News in February of 2012 prints the article that you've linked to stating "that resulted in a restraining order" that information is diabolically false and libelous.

"'(w)here the words published tend to injure a person libeled by them in his reputation, profession, trade or business, or charge him with an indictable offense, or tends to bring the individual into public contempt,' they are 'libelous per se'" New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)

"A false statement which charges a person with the commission of a crime is libelous per se." Chang v. Nguyen, 76 S.W.3d 635 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002)

I realize you are like most people, you foolishly assume that someone charged with a crime "must have done something" and everyone who does get charged always says they're innocent.

Well, fool, I've never really said I was innocent. I said it was impossible for me to do the things claimed of when the facts are the majority of it never happened. Hugh difference between, "I'm innocent" and "no crime occurred."

For instance in the video you'll her the mother tell the grand jury that I went to a game between Chaparral and Las Cruces High.

Strange those two schools never played each other. So how the hell can I "stalk" this girl when she herself wasn't even at this specific place? And mother went into detail on 5 other games that neither school ever played.

The mother under oath told the grand jury that I sent hundreds of text messages, that she saved them all, that she reported them all to the police and yet at trial they presented I believe 6, SIX, text messages and none of them said what she claimed they said. It's in the transcript.

It's called perjury, it's a felony and guess what knucklehead. Susana Martinez directed that grand jury so by law she suborned perjury, a felony.

So you were saying?
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#6222 Jun 23, 2013
justice is just a choice wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny you say sure, sure when I have the evidence to support everything I've stated. Now consider that the case against me was thrown out because they had NO EVIDENCE. So the fact is I have evidence, they didn't and yet you believe them and you dare say I'm irrational.
The facts are simple Lisa King severely broke the law and upon discovering it Susana Martinez broke the law in order to cover up what Lisa King did. So by the law she is just as liable and responsible, as an aider and abettor, an accomplice to the crime that Lisa King committed.
I guess you chose to not watch the videos. You don't want to see how wrong you are.
I'll restate the main example. In the video at my arraignment James Dickens tells the judge that "hr continues to violate the order that is out there." Then my attorney basically tells the court there's no protective order. The judge asks if there is one and Dickens replies AND I QUOTE "I apologize your honor I thought there was one."
So it is on record as of November 24, 2008 that there never was a restraining order, no protective order of any kind and you can even hear the mother say "It was denied."
So when the Sun-News in February of 2012 prints the article that you've linked to stating "that resulted in a restraining order" that information is diabolically false and libelous.
"'(w)here the words published tend to injure a person libeled by them in his reputation, profession, trade or business, or charge him with an indictable offense, or tends to bring the individual into public contempt,' they are 'libelous per se'" New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)
"A false statement which charges a person with the commission of a crime is libelous per se." Chang v. Nguyen, 76 S.W.3d 635 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002)
I realize you are like most people, you foolishly assume that someone charged with a crime "must have done something" and everyone who does get charged always says they're innocent.
Well, fool, I've never really said I was innocent. I said it was impossible for me to do the things claimed of when the facts are the majority of it never happened. Hugh difference between, "I'm innocent" and "no crime occurred."
For instance in the video you'll her the mother tell the grand jury that I went to a game between Chaparral and Las Cruces High.
Strange those two schools never played each other. So how the hell can I "stalk" this girl when she herself wasn't even at this specific place? And mother went into detail on 5 other games that neither school ever played.
The mother under oath told the grand jury that I sent hundreds of text messages, that she saved them all, that she reported them all to the police and yet at trial they presented I believe 6, SIX, text messages and none of them said what she claimed they said. It's in the transcript.
It's called perjury, it's a felony and guess what knucklehead. Susana Martinez directed that grand jury so by law she suborned perjury, a felony.
So you were saying?
So who's going to jail for all these violations of law? You gonna win big in the lawsuit against all them libelous newspapers and stuff? Or you just gonna continue to blow smoke up your own ass here on Topix? You ain't foolin' me.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#6223 Jun 23, 2013
Atomic Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
So who's going to jail for all these violations of law? You gonna win big in the lawsuit against all them libelous newspapers and stuff? Or you just gonna continue to blow smoke up your own ass here on Topix? You ain't foolin' me.
Actually you're fooling yourself.

See you believe because I was charged with a crime I must have done something. I must be guilty. A prosecutor wouldn't charge an innocent man with a crime knowing he didn't do it. Strange, America is full of cases where innocent people have been charged and convicted of crimes they did not commit. Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_Jog...

The prosecutors knew these teens did not commit the crime but went after convictions anyway. And to this day the prosecutors will not admit they were wrong. Ah but you'll come back and say it's Wikipedia, well take the time to review the references.

Your fault lies with the assumption that I must have done something else Martinez would have never charged me.

That's where you are astoundingly wrong.

The alleged victim never testified that I sent her hundreds of text messages. The alleged victim never testified that I went to every game. Matter of fact during her grand jury testimony Susana Martinez asked her "has he said or done anything that made you feel uncomfortable?" and she replied "No." Then the biggest contradiction was the mother said that I tried contacting her at the NMSU team camp. Susana Martinez asked the alleged victim, "did he approach or try contacting you at the team camp?" and she replied "No."

It's all on record. So by the evidence I did not do anything to deserve a criminal charge.

The other thing you believe is the information in the news article. Again you foolishly think they wouldn't print something that wasn't true. Again it's on record that there never was a restraining order, so for the paper to print that one was filed or that my alleged actions resulted in one 4 years after it was clearly stated there wasn't one IS FALSE INFORMATION.

You just don't get it. Do some research it's kind of strange that the person who wrote that article is no longer at the Sun-News or at least not reporting. Definitely not reporting anything having to do with the courts. If you did some research you'll discover that this person was accused of writing slanted articles in favor of the prosecution during Martinez's reign. Several other people have accused this reporter of not reporting the news fairly, something technically by law they are supposed to do.

Now in my case the article this report wrote was based off a criminal complaint written by Oscar Ferralez. So in other words it's not a factual article, but a rehash of fabricated allegations made by Ferralez. Also strange seems Ferralez was demoted, was it for his actions on my case or has he done stuff like this before and the Chief finally tired of his fraudulent actions and demoted him.

However even in the criminal complaint there is no mention that a restraining order was filed, there's no order on record in the court, but there is a written order that their attempt to get one was denied for there was nothing to support granting the order. They were even told "he hasn't done anything criminal."

So for the Sun-News to print that an order existed and then to imply that I committed other actions implying criminal conduct is Libel.

I have no need or desire to fool you, you're doing that to yourself.
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#6224 Jun 23, 2013
justice is just a choice wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you're fooling yourself.
See you believe because I was charged with a crime I must have done something. I must be guilty. A prosecutor wouldn't charge an innocent man with a crime knowing he didn't do it. Strange, America is full of cases where innocent people have been charged and convicted of crimes they did not commit. Here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_Jog...
The prosecutors knew these teens did not commit the crime but went after convictions anyway. And to this day the prosecutors will not admit they were wrong. Ah but you'll come back and say it's Wikipedia, well take the time to review the references.
Your fault lies with the assumption that I must have done something else Martinez would have never charged me.
That's where you are astoundingly wrong.
The alleged victim never testified that I sent her hundreds of text messages. The alleged victim never testified that I went to every game. Matter of fact during her grand jury testimony Susana Martinez asked her "has he said or done anything that made you feel uncomfortable?" and she replied "No." Then the biggest contradiction was the mother said that I tried contacting her at the NMSU team camp. Susana Martinez asked the alleged victim, "did he approach or try contacting you at the team camp?" and she replied "No."
It's all on record. So by the evidence I did not do anything to deserve a criminal charge.
The other thing you believe is the information in the news article. Again you foolishly think they wouldn't print something that wasn't true. Again it's on record that there never was a restraining order, so for the paper to print that one was filed or that my alleged actions resulted in one 4 years after it was clearly stated there wasn't one IS FALSE INFORMATION.
You just don't get it. Do some research it's kind of strange that the person who wrote that article is no longer at the Sun-News or at least not reporting. Definitely not reporting anything having to do with the courts. If you did some research you'll discover that this person was accused of writing slanted articles in favor of the prosecution during Martinez's reign. Several other people have accused this reporter of not reporting the news fairly, something technically by law they are supposed to do.
Now in my case the article this report wrote was based off a criminal complaint written by Oscar Ferralez. So in other words it's not a factual article, but a rehash of fabricated allegations made by Ferralez. Also strange seems Ferralez was demoted, was it for his actions on my case or has he done stuff like this before and the Chief finally tired of his fraudulent actions and demoted him.
However even in the criminal complaint there is no mention that a restraining order was filed, there's no order on record in the court, but there is a written order that their attempt to get one was denied for there was nothing to support granting the order. They were even told "he hasn't done anything criminal."
So for the Sun-News to print that an order existed and then to imply that I committed other actions implying criminal conduct is Libel.
I have no need or desire to fool you, you're doing that to yourself.
So, you gonna be a rich man from all the libel lawsuits you've filed? Are all your persecutors in the Dona Ana County District Attorney's office goin' to the hoosgow? Your mistake is that I actually care what you have to say, or even care if you are innocent or guilty.
Gorky

Albuquerque, NM

#6225 Jun 23, 2013
Our criminal justice system is occupied by some who are criminal. Power, it seems, corrupts.
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#6228 Jun 23, 2013
Michael Morris wrote:
<quoted text>
And you may do just that. The downside is it will give her another four years to keep finding her Democratic roots. With her support of the ridiculous spaceport and the expanded state subsidy of private business she is almost indistinguishable from Richardson. How do you guys get right on the socialist statist bandwagon and still have any room to call anyone a leftist. The Republican Party in NM is to the left of half the dems in this country.
I never thought I would see Republicans for paying companies to open and drive up the cost of labor and Republican groups leading the charge for higher taxes until I came here. here is laughing at you!
You must have just moved here? Don't know much about New Mexico, or Governor Martinez then. Havn't been keeping up with the news either, have you? If you can't tell the difference between Bill Richardson and Susana Martinez, then you don't know what's going on here. The Democrat legislature makes the decisions concerning the Spaceport, and the Governor must abide by the decisions the Democrat legislature makes. And expanded state subsidy of business? You are quite mistaken about that. The left in New Mexico has been pissing and moaning about Martinez reducing the government subsidy of their pet projects like Hollywood and "alernative" energy, and vetoing a statewide increase in the minimum wage. Guess once you've been here a while you'll get up to speed, don't worry.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#6230 Jun 23, 2013
Atomic Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you gonna be a rich man from all the libel lawsuits you've filed? Are all your persecutors in the Dona Ana County District Attorney's office goin' to the hoosgow? Your mistake is that I actually care what you have to say, or even care if you are innocent or guilty.
Hmmm if you didn't care then you wouldn't reply.

If you didn't care then you wouldn't have done an internet search.

I don't think you realize, but from your own words, your very own words you do care:

"I actually care what you have to say" Your sentence read as written is saying I was wrong in thinking you don't care, "your mistake is that I actually care what you have to say" that's funny.

So thanks for caring.
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#6231 Jun 24, 2013
justice is just a choice wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm if you didn't care then you wouldn't reply.
If you didn't care then you wouldn't have done an internet search.
I don't think you realize, but from your own words, your very own words you do care:
"I actually care what you have to say" Your sentence read as written is saying I was wrong in thinking you don't care, "your mistake is that I actually care what you have to say" that's funny.
So thanks for caring.
OK. Whatever you say. I think I'm getting insight into how convoluted your thinking is. So, you gonna get rich from all those libel lawsuits against all them papers who lied and libeled you? Anyone from the Dona Ana Country DA office, past or present, going to jail because of how they "persecuted" you? Susana Martinez lose the governorship because of your "whistleblowing"? Ain't seen non of it happen yet, but I'm sure the whole things about to blow wide open, right? I'll keep watching statewide news, but I won't be holding my breath for sure. I've asked the same questions over and over, but don't get any answers from you.
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#6233 Jun 24, 2013
Michael Morris wrote:
<quoted text>
When she recently came to Alamogordo she went out of her way to commend the 3 largest recipients of state handouts for their commitment to Alamogordo. At the same time she told us how her administration had saved 30 of these subsidized jobs from moving to Houston over what she called a licensing issue. Upon closer inspection Precheck, the 20th century relic that hasn't met 1/3 of its job promises while taking in millions in tax subsidy, was threatening to relocate 30 of its employees and workstations to houston to save about $2300 a year in detective licensing costs.
What do you suppose the cost of moving 30 jobs and infrastructure to Houston? More than $2300? How many years or decades would it take to see a return on that considering they put the pricetag on the smaller move from Houston in 6 figures. All BS all the time. Saved jobs? No, her RLD is working on a new license for investigators that have access to an awful lot of personal data that will cost much less than the current type but still require the same work as the more expensive license meaning this latest ass kiss will be funded by full price licensees.
Now if that isn't a Richardsonesque scheme I don't know what is. The part that still amazes me is the critics of the Richardson subsidy now understand the unquestionable righteousness of the Martinez subsidy which consists of the continued Richardson subsidy plus undignified misrepresentations like this red tape red herring to disguise another handout to these leeches and painting herself pro business red tape cutter while sucking more out of the businesses and citizens here without a bribe.
NM is a RINO preserve. To top it off you can bet King wants to run against Martinez far more than John. Scandal ridden and liberal with the tax handouts is better than clean and motivated and smart. If the dems disavowed gays and abortion this state could hold its R convention in a coat closet.
You certainly put your own spin on stuff, don't you? Jobs saved? Yes. Business taxes cut? Yes. Business licensing requirements reduced? Yes. All good. You must be a liberal, because only liberals call lower taxes and reduced licensing requirements a subsidy.
Wondering

Los Angeles, CA

#6234 Jun 24, 2013
Atomic Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
You certainly put your own spin on stuff, don't you? Jobs saved? Yes. Business taxes cut? Yes. Business licensing requirements reduced? Yes. All good. You must be a liberal, because only liberals call lower taxes and reduced licensing requirements a subsidy.
And only a conservative would consider feeding starving kids and providing grandma with her medicine a waste of YOUR HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS! Money that if you had kept, could have been used to buy more GUNS!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mesilla Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr operation greylord 72,026
please come see me Wed Yes Baby - No 24
News DASO under scrutiny over service cuts (Sep '15) Apr 30 chip 13
News Undersheriff slides into new position with OCSO (Apr '13) Apr 28 Knowing Is Believing 39
News Records show missing equipment, contraband at D... Apr 26 chip 1
Anal or vaginal?? (Sep '15) Apr 23 Comic Book Harlot 3
www.kathkylynmbeck.blogspot.com - New Mexico'... Apr 19 demosthenes 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Mesilla Mortgages