Thursday, June 29, 2017

taking fearless and searching personal inventory ain't at the top of the hit parade and other politically incorrect street law and 1st Amendment entrapments

Dreamt last night of sleeping on my rubber yoga mat on a bench in the front lobby of the Key West Police station in an open air insane asylum, and I was shaken awake by three people, two women and a man, each of whom had different things to say to me. 

Woke up from the dream at 4 a.m. Was unable to get back to sleep. Was thrilled.

My sense is, the two women were trying to get me to look differently at stuff going on in my personal life. More about that at the end of today's musings.

The dream man, however, said something about psychoanalysis, and inasmuch as Naja Girard had chastised me in a comment under her and hubby Arnaud's latest illegal Hispanic immigrant article at Key West the Newspaper (, about it not being my proper role to psychoanalyze her motives for that article, and inasmuch as I told the fellow in the dream that I didn't think I liked him, I checked out that article again and found more comments to and about me from Naja, who should be a lawyer, and from Dickford Cohn, who is a lawyer but not practicing as far as I know. 

That's all below this link, which should take you to the entire article and the volumes of reader and editor comments.

Naja and Arnaud Girard

dickford cohn says:
Dear Sloan,
My opinion of the SCOTUS decision yesterday differs a bit from yours: It preserved the Constitutionality of the president’s unilateral authority to issue that Executive Order…and the authority of the responsible government agencies to carry out the order.
The issue of “national security” is only tangential…and is expected to be debated during the next session. I believe that the SCOTUS is reverting to the “handling” of FDR’s EO issued during WWII, under which over 60,000 American CITIZENS of Japanese ancestry were imprisoned on the West Coast, as an example.
Ultimately, the government issued a formal apology and distributed $1.6 billion in “reparations” (a pittance)…nearly four decades later.
As for the rest of your post…I (mostly) agree. Naja keeps going back to “the Constitution” for strength. To which I say “which Constitution”. She also looks to “the courts” for solace…and the very same question applies: Which courts?
Finally, she insists that a “political agenda” should not be evident in government business. A wag summed it up well:
“All politics is local”. Yes, like it or not, she (and the rest of us) ARE paying people (including government employees), irrespective of their political agenda. All of the laws, including the Constitution itself, are the product of a political agenda. All government offices…at all levels, especially the courts and the legal system, are servants of a political agenda.
Reality bites!
My response, Dickford, addressed something Naja had commented days ago about me ignoring court opinions which had not yet been tested by the Sup. Ct. I imagine this is far from over up there in the stratosphere court. In time of war, things are different. That’s just how it is. Law enforcement in Key West and nationally has been wound tight since 9/11. That’s how it is. This is way beyond political. I hope this crusade does not result in Sheriff Ramsay telling his deputies to call Border Patrol about all suspected illegal immigrants. Who will file a federal lawsuit challenging that? Something you and I both heard plenty of in law school was predicting the outcome of litigation can be hazardous to lawyer’s health, welfare, happiness and pocketbooks. Gosh, while Naja is quoting law like there is not tomorrow, the US Supreme Court crashed the picture show.
Excerpts from syndicated news article:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to forge ahead with a limited version of his ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to the U.S. Trump hailed the decision as a “victory for national security,” but it’s likely to set off a new round of court disputes over anti-terror efforts and religious discrimination.
The justices will hear full arguments in October in the case that has stirred heated emotions across the nation and pointed rebukes from lower courts saying the administration is targeting Muslims. Until then, the court said Monday, Trump’s ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced if those visitors lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
The ruling sets up a potential clash between the government and opponents of the ban over the strength of visitors’ ties to the United States. A senior official said plans already had been written to enforce the ban aggressively. But immigrant groups said relatively few people try to enter the United States without well-established ties. Those groups said they will be sending lawyers and monitors back to American airports, where the initial, immediate implementation of the ban in January caused chaos and confusion.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the ban would be implemented starting 72 hours after being cleared by courts. That means it will take effect Thursday morning.
§  dickford cohn says:
Naja, we’re not talking about the Constitution or the courts in any of the incidents you’ve publicized, are we? Of course, the courts have the ultimate say…should any of these cases get that far. But, even in the courts, political agendas and discretion are both integral factors in any proceedings. You cannot deny that fact.
As for “clear policies”? Well…when you run across one of those rare gems, please let us know, eh?
Yes, I am being cynical.
As for Sloan and his “mat”, I guess you haven’t given much attention to his adventures WRT sleeping in the KWPD’s parlor: That “mat” is his bed…
Semantically yours, 

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You and I make a great pair, Dickford. You, a lawyer, selling newspapers on US 1/Stock Island just above Key West. Me, a former practicing attorney sleeping nights in the police station at night, gathering morsels for my love and light touchy feel good politically correct we are all one human family mother may I are terminal spiritual diseases blog when I’m awake.
Back when I practiced law in Birmingham, I sometimes had the romantic notion of being a street lawyer. Little did I imagine how that be careful what you wonder for might turn out.
If my sleeping on a picnic table grossed you out in this ocean of far worse filth, then you are as anal retentive as that bantam rooster Hispanic Fish & Wildlife officer who told me I could not sleep on the picnic table. The rubber yoga mat had nothing to do with it. He would have gotten onto me if I had been sleeping on the bare wood table top, which is mostly how it goes. It just so happened I had the rubber mat with me on that day.
I wonder when I read what all you write holding forth in legal scholar fashion, if you should be practicing law? I wonder why you are not practicing law? I quit because practicing law was killing me, and I was not making a living at it. Not news. I published that many times at my politically incorrect blog.
When you told me the lady who filed notice of suing me for libel was not going to actually do it, I thought perhaps you were not walking with both, or either, of your feet in reality. She already had sued me. That was why I got the notice from the Florida e-filing portal. I just had not yet been served with the glad tidings.
For the longest time, I was the only journalist around who covered her suing me, Naja, Rick Boettger and the owner/publisher of’s Coconut Telegraph. As far as I know, only the Key West Citizen also covered those lawsuits late in the game. You ran for cover. Wanted me to stop publishing what you wrote to me about it. A lawsuit attacking the First Amendment. Which is how Naja won the lawsuit against her. The First Amendment permitted her to state her opinion of the plaintiff, no matter how awful that opinion was.
Why don’t you submit an article to the blue paper telling its readers about yourself, how you became a lawyer, and how that went?

Blue Paper Editor says:
To Dickford and Sloan,
1. It remains perplexing to me that you are both [sort of] “fighting” the legitimacy of our reporting on this subject and the concept of our Sheriff guiding his officers on the subject of local enforcement of immigration law.
As to my take – since Sloan thinks its all about my motives: There is nothing wrong with enforcing immigration law as long as it is done within the confines of a fair and constitutionally valid policy/method and as long as those enforcing it are properly trained and are empowered to do so. I say, bring on the policy – whatever it may be. Once it exists then it can be examined.
2. Dickford, Yes, of course, this is about civil rights. When looking at specific police action any questions that come up are usually somehow or other about civil rights. Some of these cases show people being detained for prolonged periods of time. Three of those people were not “illegal aliens” when that occurred and they were not detained because of any other criminal activity. That raises issues of civil rights. Perhaps those rights were properly respected, perhaps not. We have brought you the fact that this incident occurred and it left a 17-year old and his family with the belief that they were targeted because of their ethnicity. This kid believes we are all “Racistas!” Right or wrong — That is a fact. It may be an amusing exercise for us to go back and forth over whether there are legal issues or not and what they are; but it is not so amusing for those three immigrants, and not so amusing for the immigrant community in general not to know whether they are going to also be subject to these prolonged roadside fishing expeditions based on how thick their accent is, and also not so amusing [from what I hear from the family who was on scene] for the Border Patrol agents.
3. Which Constitution you ask? There is only one official US Constitution that I know of – along with the Amendments to it that make up The Bill of Rights. All legislation must conform to those basic rights. Government must use SCOTUS’ interpretations of what does and what doesn’t violate those rights to guide legislators and government agents in their use of police powers. When SCOTUS has not spoken on an issue then government does its best to follow the opinion of the lower Courts in its jurisdiction and if there is no opinion to be found on the subject then government must use it own reasonable interpretation – always using the Bill of Rights to guide them when it comes to police action. You know all this. This is why you studied law, I presume, because you have [or had] some respect for the system that exists and how important it is for all of us to have those rights and those judicial system safeguards in place to protect us. Scoffing it all off as useless – well that’s somewhere I’m not willing to go.
4. As to how ‘everything is political’ being the answer to anything. Yes indeed – everyone has their own little agenda. But that is precisely why laws and policies are written and are needed – to ensure that one individual person to whom we have given police power is not going to be able to go off on his own little crusade. It is important that our law enforcement personnel act in a concerted manner, in a transparent manner and that someone, a final policymaker, will ultimately be able to answer to individuals and to the public as to the actions of his subordinates. Subordinates who – hopefully – will have been properly educated and guided. I will repeat for emphasis: Sheriff’s Deputies have reached out to Commissioner Kaufman thanking him for pushing this issue and stating that they would like to be better informed on the topic of local law enforcement of immigration law.
5. In the realm of immigration enforcement there is a very specific body of federal law found in the US Code. I have provided the text of some of it here in the comments section. Local governments should [in my humble opinion] know what it says and should guide its employees in understanding what it says about federal v. local police power to act if local government is giving its officers a green light to meddle in that area of law enforcement. No, these incidents have not been limited to “see something, say something.”
6. Sloan’s insistence that the focus of discussion of The Blue Paper coverage of immigration law enforcement in our own little town should be the psychoanalyzing of the reporters who exposed it – in my view – serves no useful purpose whatsoever. The reporters are not writing “editorials” telling the Sheriff what his policy should be. The reporters are showing the community what is happening on the streets. Our City Commissioners just weeks ago met and discussed this very issue and at least 3 or 4 of them, at the time, believed that “This is not happening. We don’t have an issue. No officers are asking people about their immigration status anyway so why should we have this “don’t ask” policy?” That is what they said. Well, when our first story was published about a week later – it became apparent that it is indeed happening. Think of it what you will – but now no one can simply say ‘it is not happening’. The Blue Paper is not strategizing – playing some chess game – in an attempt to influence the Sheriff’s policy. Any such policy should be carefully crafted, after consultation with attorneys who have analyzed all of the laws and jurisprudence available. Whatever it is it must be in accordance with law.
7. Dickford, Simply saying it is impossible to write “clear policies” so don’t bother and thus the better way to go is to have a “no policy” policy and give a wink of an eye and a thumbs up with no guidelines [the status quo] – even when deputies themselves are asking to be educated and guided on the topic – is non-sensical – in my opinion. Shall we just not have our government write any laws at all, then? Discard all laws and written policies guiding the people and those with power because they can’t possibly be perfectly written and because we know we might [and often do] end up with some ambiguity? That’s just silly.
8. Sloan, we are covering immigration stories that are LOCAL. We live in the Keys. I speak to many people. No one EVER tells me they are “terrified” of our local immigrant population because they might be “islamic terrorists” so I do not see that as the most important element in covering what is happening LOCALLY with immigration enforcement by LOCAL sheriff’s deputies who are acting under color of law based on their own “political views” vs. a Key West policy of “don’t ask”.
In sum. I think you are both protesting way too much about our simple coverage showing you and other readers what is happening in our little town in terms of immigration enforcement.
What have we found out about what is happening?
These are the observations stemming from the public records provided by the MCSO.
A. One deputy chose to callously ask an injured immigrant laying on the ground just after being in an accident with a truck, whether or not he was “illegal” before even asking about his medical needs.
B. The same deputy asked a Chef [in the City of Key West shortly after it adopted its “don’t ask” policy] about his legal status during a routine traffic stop and gave him a lecture about it before calling Border Patrol. The Chef is accused of violating a civil section of the immigration code. We saw that in that case the Deputy was entirely uninterested in the same set of code when it came to the employer of that allegedly undocumented immigrant. He did not report the employer to Border Patrol when he made the phone call.
C. Another set of Sheriff’s deputies held a group of three LEGAL immigrants [one a minor] for about 1.5 hours to await Border Patrol to “make sure” they weren’t illegal. The minor’s parents were not called to the scene immediately by the deputies. They were [finally] released after Border Patrol came to the scene.
D. A local employer insisted that an allegedly undocumented immigrant worker drive the company van without a driver’s license [making any accident uninsured under most insurance policies] despite the immigrant having protested – because he knew he was not allowed by law to drive that van. The deputy arrested the immigrant but did not pursue investigation or arrest of the employer. [It is a second degree misdemeanor to knowingly allow someone to drive your car without a license.]
We don’t need to “throw away” the Constitution as non-existent, nor discard as futile the idea of “clear policy” nor probe the inner workings of the reporters’ mind. How about we just take in what has been observed and attempt to better understand the laws that apply to these situations?
Naja, perhaps I should take a different tack.
You are not in charge of this situation. You never will be in charge. If you bring a federal lawsuit, you still won’t be in charge, a judge then will be in charge. And even that judge might end up not being charge, because there are levels of federal appeals, as we are seeing recently.
I hope you have not pushed Rick Ramsay to order his deputies to call in Border Patrol everytime they suspect they have found an illegal alien.

Blue Paper Editor says:
Of course I am not “in charge of this situation”. What sort of a remark is that? My understanding [from speaking with family who was at the scene when the three LEGAL aliens, including a minor, were detained to await Border Patrol] is that Border Patrol was not too thrilled about being called to travel 1.5 hours to satisfy the curiosity of the two deputies who had summoned them – needlessly – to the scene. Unfortunately, with a bodycam video described as evidence in the incident report somehow turning out to “not exist” – we may never know exactly what that interaction between the two agency representatives looked like. Look Sloan, many Americans are crying out: “The law is the law!” Yes it is. Part of “the law” is called civil rights law. Part of the law is the federal code that spells out when and how local law enforcement can intervene in matters of immigration law. If Sheriff Ramsay wants to issue an order directing his deputies to call Border Patrol every time they come into contact with someone who speaks English with an accent – to alert Border Patrol that another “foreigner” is present in the Keys – so be it. I have an idea as to where that could lead considering just how many foreign born residents live in the Keys – especially in Key West and Stock Island. There simply is no justification [in my mind] for an argument against educating and guiding Sheriff’s deputies in this realm – especially since some of those deputies are ASKING FOR guidance. This “discretion” policy could stand, educating and guiding deputies as to the applicable law does not preclude a “discretion” policy per se. It’s pretty simple if we want to remain in good faith: We have immigration laws. Enforcing them needs to be done in an honest straightforward and transparent manner pursuant to existing LAWS. Local law enforcement agencies may not discriminate – if they do they are jeopardizing their federal funding. If the policy is ‘do whatever you want’ in the realm of immigration law enforcement, an area of law that necessarily triggers grave concerns over discrimination on the basis of race and/or national origin, then there should, without question, be some education and guidelines for local law enforcement personnel as well as reporting and tracking requirements to ensure there is no impermissible discrimination occurring. The Supreme Court is not looking into the issues we are talking about here. This has nothing to do with the ultimate decision on a ban on allowing persons from certain muslim majority countries that have no pre-existing ties to the US to visit here.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Naja, back a ways in time, in your living room, after you had published the article about the illegal immigrant Hispanic bicyclist being struck in a pedestrian crossing, you and Arnaud asked me what was my take on what was really going on? I said it dated back to 9/11. From that date, law enforcement was wound tight in Key West, which every homeless person knew. My position has not changed since I told you two that.
Although many Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job, because there were far too many suspicious facts and unanswered questions, the general view in America is 9/11 was a Muslim terrorist attack.
That is what every illegal alien, of any skin color or ethnic origin, is up against in America. It just happens that most illegal aliens, probably by a large percentage, are Hispanic.
The Hispanic Siboney chef, in my opinion, was asking to be deported, by driving a car without a driver’s license, And, I suppose, without insurance?
Any illegal Hispanic in America has to know that an arrest or stop for anything likely will result in immigration problems.
Whether you agree with me or not, you have a huge charge about these three cases. You wrote to me somewhere in all of this, if your immigrant parents, who became American citizens but spoke English poorly until they died, were alive today, you would not want them to be “profiled” by law enforcement as potential illegal aliens.
Well, they just might have that experience if they were alive today. Arnaud might have that experience if he were to drive to Orlando, or Georgia, and get caught speeding. But he would not have a problem if had his Florida driver’s licence. Even better, his naturalization papers.
Beyond all of that, your tone throughout all this discussion is polemic in my opinion. As if you have personally identified with the “victims”. As if what happened to them was done to you. As if you must protest to save yourself.
In AA, NA and ALANON circles, that is called “the rescue syndrome”. Recovering addicts are frequently cautioned by old timers in AA, NA, ALANON, and by addiction counselors to be careful not to get caught in the rescue syndrome. To instead, keep doing the 12 Steps, one of which is to keep doing a fearless and searching personal inventory of oneself.
This might irk you even more than what you just read. However, it looks to me you are screaming for help. To be saved, rescued. But from what?
Beyond that, I wonder if deep down inside you wish you had finished college and gone to law school and were practicing law today?
You are really smart. You impressed me in your pleadings in the lawsuit the nice lady filed against you.
Perhaps you should toss or sell or give away the blue paper, which is wearing you out in lots of ways, including you and Arnaud not being financially supported by what I imagine are thousands of devoted blue paper readers.
Perhaps you should go to law school, pass the state bar and practice immigration and civil rights law.
Even when I practiced law the “normal” way, I often sized up my clients. Psychoanalyzed them. Tried to understand what made them tick. What was really driving them. And, how honest they were. About what they came to see me about. About themselves.
After hearing what they had to say, I talked with the other side’s lawyer, to hear what he/she had to say. I talked with the witnesses. And even then, I didn’t always get to the bottom of what really had happened. Sometimes that waited to come out in court, when it was too late to deal with effectively.
I imagine every lawyer I ever knew, including government and in house corporate lawyers, went at it and experienced much the same.

A real irony for me here, could be called poetry, too, is many times Naja has declined articles from me because they included email or Facebook back and forth between me and my blogs' readers. Not journalism, not her kind anyway, Naja said. 

To me, it is the cutting edge of journalism. Publishing verbatim what other people write to me, even if they slam me, and what I write back to them. To me, it is the First Amendment at its finest.

Of course, it got me sued. It got Naja sued. It got Rick Boettger sued. It got the owner/operator of's Coconut Telegraph sued.

Sued by someone who had published on her own blog that she was a nationally-recognized journalist and news commentator.
As for what the two dream women had to say to me in the open air insane asylum last night ...

I was not entirely sure ...

However, it seemed I need to take a hard look at the fact that I paid what the seller was asking, $375,000, for that trailer and lovely wooded acre of land on Little Torch Key in May 2006, as I recall the date, which I later was forced to sell for $90,000 net to me in August 2013, as I recall that date. 

Me, who once had advised homebuyers and sellers, who had written popular books for homebuyers and sellers, had paid the seller's asking price. No negotiation. 

For a fact, if I had not bought that place, if I had just rented, paid, say, $1,200 a month for an efficiency in Key West until now, 11 years and one month, 133 months: 

133 x $1,200 = $264,000 in rent paid

$375,000 - $264,000 = $110,000

Do I feel like an idiot?


Has anyone else ever beaten me up for it?


I was beaten up plenty, though, for giving around $300,000, over time, to a younger woman, who was half crazy and unable to care for herself, and who had many dreams about me, which I needed to be told by her.

Even so, when she bitches to me today over how hard her life now goes, I remind her that she is the reason I am homeless. I do not blame it on having bought the trailer and land.

Having similar discussions with Kari Dangler. 

Not possible for me to live with someone regularly impaired by alcohol.

Not possible for me to help her get off the street if she is drinking, even if I have the money to do it.

I gave her all the legal help I could. I persuaded the local criminal justice system to end her probation, so she would not be in constant violation of it because she was drinking or being trespassed by overzealous police officers. 

I gave her the legal ability to leave the Florida Keys and start over somewhere else. 

That's what Kari told me at the outset she wanted more than anything else.

I did not know then that we would become a couple. 

I did not know then that her falling in love with me would hinder her getting the hell out of the Florida Keys.

I did know all along that if she did not stop drinking it didn't matter where she lived.

I didn't know if I simply did what was given to me to do, in the way that I was trained and guided by the angels to do it, I would end up living on the street again.

I have learned the hard way it don't seem to be more blessed to give than to receive. At least not for me.

I can't help but wonder if this personal inventory is preparing me for negotiations and/or litigation looming regarding my father's estate?

And there is this text message to me just a bit ago from my mainland hoodoo spellcasting witch amiga:

"Very brief dream: Judith Haney was chasing you, as you were walking away, with a long wooden stick, which looked like a broom handle wielded like a weapon. You looked like you could care less."

Haney is the nice self-proclaimed nationally-recognized journalist and news commentator who sued me, Naja, Rick Boettger and the owner/operator of's popular Coconut Telegraph public forum.

I dunno, perhaps this is where I should say, stay tuned?

No comments:

Post a Comment