Privacy Act Statement Authority 5 U: Fill & Download for Free

We recharge and update our mobile phones regularly to keep them active and last longer; otherwise, our phones will slowly grow vulnerable and become useless. In the same way, our hearts and souls need regular recharge and updating to keep it alive and useful for God.Our daily Quiet time or Devotion Time in the morning is a time of spiritual recharging and Spiritual updating for our hearts and souls to lead a life with God.The Quiet Time referred above is a time of meditation: a time to fill our minds with God’s Word, a time to worship and pray, and a time to confess our sins and seek forgiveness. It is also a time to learn from the Bible and grow to know who God is and what He wants us to do in our lives.South African author and Pastor Andrew Murray has defined the act of meditation as “holding the Word of God in the mind until it has affected every area of one’s life and character”. This spiritual discipline has a profound impact on our lives.Why morning?It doesn’t matter how much time we take for Quiet Time, but there should be enough time to meditate on what is read. Early morning is the best time for a perfect Quiet Time because in the morning we are fresh and calm and these quiet moments in the morning can set you up for a great day.We read that many godly men and women in the Bible rose early to meet God. For example, Abraham (Gen 19:27), Job (Job 1:5), Jacob (Gen 28:18), Moses (Exodus34:4), David (Psalm 5:3, 57: 7-8) and Hannah and Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:19) and the list goes on. In Psalm 5:3, King David narrates his daily morning appointments with God, “In the morning You hear my voice, O Lord; in the morning I prepare [a prayer, a sacrifice] for You and watch and wait [for You to speak to my heart].”People who work on night shifts and students who sit at late night for studies find it difficult to have an early morning Quiet Time. In those situations, fix your daily quiet time in the evening or at some other time during the day, and be consistent at the fixed time.How to do Quiet Time?Here I present you a simple and proven step by step method that will help you know God better and enjoy His presence every day.1. Start with prayer· Spend a few minutes in prayer and prepare your hearts to receive God’s blessings.2. Read a Bible passage· Select any book of the Bible, (for example, start with the Gospel of Mark) and read about 8-10 verses or a paragraph. (Better you avoid reading the whole chapter, because you may not be able to find time to cover it all).· Follow the ‘ASPECT*’ method given below, that helps you to be focused on what you have read and guide you to get a complete understanding of the passage.· Read the passage slowly, “Read the Bible not as a newspaper, but as a letter from home. If a promise lies on the page as a blank check, cash it. If prayer is recorded, appropriate it and launch it as a feathered arrow from the bow of your desire. If an example of holiness gleams before you, ask God to do as much for you”. —F.B. Meyer4. ASPECT Method of Bible MediationWhile you are reading the Bible passage try to find out ASPECT and write down the thoughts that occur to you. These need not be-long. Short statements are better and more easily remembered. You may not find out all the answers for the ASPECT method in every single passage you read.ASPECT is an abbreviation for· A – About God or Attributes of God– What can you learn about God through this passage? (This leads us to worship God)· S – Sin – Does it talk about any sin? (This leads to repentance)· P – Promise – Is there any promise in the word? (Promises reveal the character of God)· E – Example – Is there any example, I can follow or avoid? (Good or Bad)· C-Command – Any commandments I need to obey?· T – Teaching –What do I learn from this passage?There are different explanations for T. One is ‘Things that are new’ another is ‘Theme of the passage’. A good explanation I heard recently is that T means ‘Tell others the new things you have learnt” What are the new things I have learned in my quiet time? TELL IT TO OTHERS.5. Conclude Quiet time with PrayerFinish your quiet time by· Thanking God for the guidance in your Quiet Time· Worship God for his character and attributes (A&P)· Pray for deliverance from any sin in your life (S)· Ask for the strength to obey His commandments (E&C)6. How can difficulties be handled?Many people ask me “What if,I don’t have time?”, “What if, I can’t get up early? I’m not a morning person.”, “What if, the Bible confuses me?”, “What if I have no privacy?”, “What if, I think about God during the day, even praying on and off? Won’t that be enough?”.The above-said stumbling blocks to a successful personal quiet time every day are mainly mental or attitudinal so deal them separately.Where there's a will, there's a way, if you have the desire and determination to do something, you can find a method for overcoming the above-said difficulties.My simple advice is that you should set apart every day at least 15 minutes for your regular Quiet Time. If it is morning it is good, morning quiet time will help you to have a ‘filled start’, Remember David, Daniel and the other busy people who met God daily at regular hours.“We fail in our duty to Quiet Time or Study God's Word not so much because it is DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, not so much because it is DULL AND BORING, but because it is WORK. Our problem is not a lack of INTELLIGENCE OR A LACK OF PASSION. Our problem is that we are LAZY.” — R.C. Sproul7. ConclusionYour quiet time experiences will vary; it will have its ups and downs so, Do not expect a mountaintop experience every time. Do not expect every day to be equal in satisfaction, insight, vitality or meaning. Expect gradual, persistent growth. Renew your mind with the knowledge on Scriptures daily and you will be better equipped to handle any situation in life.Let me close this with an advice from George Müller, “The vigour of our spiritual life will be in exact proportion to the place held by the Bible in our life and thoughts… The first great and primary business to which we ought to attend every day was, how our inner man may be nourished…I saw that the most important thing I had to do was to give myself to the reading of the Word of God and to meditate on it.”.So, start your day with God, you will never be the same.God bless [email protected]*N.BYou can also follow an alternative method, abbreviated as QUALITY if you find the ASPECT method difficult to follow.Read the passage and note these following things:1. Q= Quality (Attribute) of God in the passage for which I can praise andadore him2. U= Undertaking (Promise) of God in the passage which I can praise him andask for it3. A= Action (Command) in the passage which is inspiring, which I need to carry out.4. L = Lesson to learn from people’s lives in the passage (from both good and bad examples)5. I = Iniquity/sin in my life which I need to confess6. T= Things I learned today from this passage which I can share with others (believers/unbeliever)7. Y= Yield (Produce) to God by obeying His words and following what God taught you through the passage.

Are the Republicans "The party of No!"?Are the Democrats the party of "It's Bush's fault."?Let's examine that and where that answer takes us.PROLOGUEThere is a Presidential election in 2016, and it is not too early to start thinking about what is happening today. A full throated debate that will begin early in 2014. The Congressional mid-terms occur 04 Nov 2014. Republicans need to prepare. America needs to decide. Maintain course or make an adjustment. Both sides of this debate have their reasons for staying the course or making a hard turn.This map shows the Senate by party and by state. PPACA was passed under some chicanery by the Senate Democrats, with no Republicans voting in the affirmative. More on that in a moment. This type of legislation has been pushed by Republicans in some form, notably Rommey Care in Massachusetts, and in more dynamic forms by Democrats, for over the last 75 years. Since the New Deal under FDR.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••The bill sent to the Senate, by the House, had the original House language in the bill gutted. The Senate had the language replaced and sent back to the House. All spending must originate in the House, and this bill fundamentally violates the Constitution."A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...http://cookpolitical.com/file/20...•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Here is some Senate math on the seats as the 2014 mid-term elections approach.House seats in play:http://www.centerforpolitics.org...Senate seats in playhttp://rothenbergpoliticalreport...•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••15 Democrat Senate seats (*) are competitive, and 2 Republican(**) seats are competitive.(*) Oregon,(*) Alaska,(*) Hawaii,(*) Montana,(*) Colorado,(*) Minnesota,(*) South Dakota,(*) Iowa,(*) Missouri,(*) Louisiana,(*) Michigan,(*) West Virginia,(**) Kentucky(**) Georgia(*) North Carolina,(*) New Hampshire,(*) Massachusetts,http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...CHAPTER ONEThe debate on who should be elected, and how to secure a dominate party to ease this country away from the Progressive movement that has been underway since 20 Jan 2009, needs to begin yesterday!Will the Republican's blame Obama, since the Democrats can't blame Bush anymore in 2014? Will the Democrats be blamed for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, since "the bloom was off this rose" before it was jammed down our throats? The Republicans will be blamed for not helping fix something they vehemently disagreed with, never voted for, and tried to compromise on or defeat, but were rebuffed at every opportunity. It was going to be the Progressive's moment, finally, after scores of years. Generations of effort. Now was the chance, with a "Manchurian Candidate" to have a true "Mission Accomplished" moment!What will be the key issues after all the finger pointing is dismissed by both parties, and the media ignores the entire story as Republican obstruction?It should be the economy. It should be jobs. It should be energy; finally—no more "put on a sweater (Jimmy Carter) turn down the thermostat policy", for energy independence. We have the energy, we just have too many modern day "Luddites" who are afraid their "save the planet" jobs and the Earth will be destroyed. We will only be able to "save the planet" when we restore science and remove politics from the debate. Until then, the hateful ads that depict Santa as being melted out of the North Pole, and thus no more Christmas for the kids, is deplorable. This does nothing to advance the Environmentalist's cause.There should be a debate on privacy and the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."It should be about the separation of powers, the "take care clause" in Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 7"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""There has been an erosion of the separation of powers under the current administration, and were outline in a Dec.4, 2013 House Judiciary hearing. See below for additional statements from that hearing.Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob GoodlatteFull Committee Hearing “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws”Chairman Goodlatte: Today’s hearing is about the President’s role in our constitutional system.Our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws; the Congress with writing the laws; and the Judiciary with interpreting them.The Obama Administration, however, has ignored the Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement.This raw assertion of authority goes well beyond the “executive power” granted to the President and specifically violates the Constitution’s command that the President is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”The President’s encroachment into Congress’s sphere of power is not a transgression that should be taken lightly. As English historian Edward Gibbon famously observed regarding the fall of the Roman Empire, “the principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost, when the legislative power is dominated by the executive.” Although the President’s actions may not yet amount to the executive’s powers overtaking the legislative power, they are certainly undermining the rule of law that is at the center of our constitutional design.From Obamacare to immigration, the current administration is picking and choosing which laws to enforce. But the Constitution does not confer upon the President the “executive authority” to disregard the separation of powers by unilaterally waiving, suspending, or revising the laws. It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the President must “faithfully execute” Acts of Congress. The President cannot refuse to enforce a law simply because he dislikes it.Certainly, presidents have from time to time made broad claims of executive power. However, assertions of executive authority have traditionally been limited to the area in which presidential powers are at their strongest—foreign affairs.The Obama Administration though has been equally assertive in the realm of domestic policy, routinely making end runs around Congress through broad claims of prosecutorial discretion and regulatory actions that push executive power beyond all limits. Indeed, President Obama is the first President since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly-enacted law simply because he disagrees with it.In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer” and that “where [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn’t get his way.For instance, while Congress is currently debating how to reform our immigration laws, the President effectively enacted the DREAM Act himself by ordering immigration officials to stop enforcing the immigration laws against certain unlawful immigrants. When he couldn’t get his preferred changes to the No Child Left Behind education law, he unilaterally waived its testing accountability provisions. When he objected to the work requirements in the bipartisan welfare reform law, he granted waivers that are specifically forbidden by the statutory text. Instead of working with Congress to amend federal drug enforcement policy, he’s instructed prosecutors to stop enforcing certain drug laws in certain states and mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses.And, most notably, the President has—without statutory authorization—waived, suspended, and amended several major provisions of his health care law. These unlawful modifications to Obamacare include: delaying for one year Obamacare’s employer mandate; instructing States that they are free to ignore the law’s clear language regarding which existing health care plans may be grandfathered; and promulgating an IRS rule that allows for the distribution of billions of dollars in Obamacare subsidies that Congress never authorized.The House has acted to validate retroactively some of the President’s illegal Obamacare modifications. However, rather than embrace these legislative fixes, the President’s response has been to threaten to veto the House passed measures.The President’s far-reaching claims of executive power, if left unchecked, will vest the President with broad domestic policy authority that the Constitution does not grant him.Those in the President’s political party have been largely silent in the face of this dangerous expansion of executive power. But what would they say if a president effectively repealed the environmental laws by refusing to sue polluters or the labor laws by refusing to fine violators?What if a president wanted tax cuts that Congress would not enact? Could he instruct the IRS to decline to enforce the income tax laws? President George H. W. Bush proposed, unsuccessfully, a reduction in the capital gains rate. Should he have instead simply instructed the IRS not to tax capital gains at a rate greater than 10 percent?The point is not what you think of any of President Obama’s individual policy decisions. The point is that the President may not—consistent with the command that he faithfully execute the laws—unilaterally amend, waive, or suspend the law.We must resist the President’s deliberate pattern of circumventing the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision making.We cannot allow the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution to be abandoned in favor of an undue concentration of power in the executive branch. As James Madison warned centuries ago in Federalist 47, “the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”http://judiciary.house.gov/heari...Written Statement Jonathan Turley,Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University"The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws" Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives 2141 Rayburn House Office Building December 3, 2013http://judiciary.house.gov/heari...Two recent rulings from a District Judge lay a heavy emphasis on these complaints above. They go directly to the encroachment of a President on the separation of powers, and diminish our freedoms.Judges rulings against OBAMAJudge orders Obama foreign aid order releasedRejecting one of the Obama White House's most aggressive attempts to preserve executive branch secrecy, a federal judge Tuesday ordered the disclosure of a government-wide foreign-aid directive President Barack Obama signed in 2010 but refused to make public.The Justice Department asserted that the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development was covered by executive privilege, even though it is unclassified and reflected standing guidance to agencies rather than advice given to the president.Acting on a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the Center for Effective Government, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle concluded that the presidential order is not properly within the bounds of the so-called "presidential communications privilege." The judge went further, calling "troubling" the sweeping nature of the government's argument's in the case."This is not a case involving 'a quintessential and nondelegable Presidential power' — such as appointment and removal of Executive Branch officials...where separation of powers concerns are at their highest. Instead, the development and enactment of foreign development policy can be and is “exercised or performed without the President’s direct involvement," Huvelle wrote in her opinion.Huvelle noted that she ordered the document delivered to her under seal last month and said she disagreed with the government's contention that the order is "'revelatory of the President's deliberations' such that its public disclosure would undermine future decision-making." She also found that "'the President's ability to communicate his [final] decisions privately' ... is not implicated, since the [order] was distributed far beyond the President’s close advisers and its substance was widely discussed by the President in the media.""Here there is no evidence that the [directive] was intended to be, or has been treated as, a confidential presidential communication," wrote Huvelle, a Clinton appointee.The Obama Administration argued that the distribution of the document was restricted to those with a "need to know," but the judge dismissed that contention as "amorphous.""The government has not, even after plaintiff raised the issue...defined what 'need to know' means," Huvelle wrote.The judge also suggested the administration had lost sight of the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act and transparency itself."The government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight ... to engage in what is in effect governance by 'secret law,'" Huvelle said.The White House referred a request for comment on the ruling to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a query about the case.http://www.politico.com/blogs/un...•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutionalThe ruling is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program.A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely unconstitutional.U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to violate the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the information had helped to head off terrorist attacks.Acting on a lawsuit brought by conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, Leon issued a preliminary injunction barring the NSA from collecting so-called metadata pertaining to the Verizon accounts of Klayman and one of his clients. However, the judge stayed the order to allow for an appeal.“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,” wrote Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush.The preliminary injunction Leon granted Monday does not require him to make a definitive ruling on the constitutional questions in the case, but does take account of which side he believes is more likely to prevail.Leon’s 68-page opinion is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program since it was disclosed in June in news stories based on leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. For seven years, the metadata program has been approved repeatedly by numerous judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and found constitutional by at least one judge sitting in a criminal case.The Justice Department persuaded those courts that the collection of information on the time and length of calls, as well as the numbers called, did not amount to a search under the Fourth Amendment because that information is routinely available to telephone companies for billing purposes and is shared with those firms voluntarily.Government lawyers and the judges who found the NSA program legal pointed to a 1979 Supreme Court ruling, Smith v. Maryland, which found no search warrant was needed by police to install a device which recorded the numbers dialed on a particular phone line.But Leon said the three-decade-old precedent was not applicable to a program like the NSA’s because of its sophistication and because telephone use has become far more intense in recent years.“The ubiquity of phones has dramatically altered the quantity of information that is now available and, more importantly, what that information can tell the Government about people’s lives,” the judge wrote. “I cannot possibly navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell phones.”The judge went on to conclude that the searches involved in the NSA metadata program were likely not permissible under the Fourth Amendment in part because there was little evidence the program has actually prevented terrorism.“I have significant doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism,” Leon wrote. “The government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”Edward Snowden himself praised the decision.“I acted on my belief that the NSA’s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.”The judge’s ruling was issued just before White House press secretary Jay Carney took the podium for the daily press briefing. Carney said he was unaware of the decision and he referred inquiries to the Justice Department.“We are reviewing the court’s decision,” DOJ spokesman Andrew Ames said.Similar lawsuits challenging the program are pending in at least three other federal courts around the country. In addition, criminal defendants are beginning to challenge the program after the Justice Department disclosed it had played a role in investigating their cases.Critics of the NSA program leapt on Leon’s decision as evidence that the legal foundation of the surveillance effort is deeply flawed.“The ruling underscores what I have argued for years: The bulk collection of Americans’ phone records conflicts with Americans’ privacy rights under the U.S. Constitution and has failed to make us safer,” Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said in a statement urging passage of legislation ending the so-called bulk collection program. “We can protect our national security without trampling our constitutional liberties,” he added.At a hearing last month, Leon said he knew that his decision would be far from the last word on the issue, which is almost certain to wind up at the Supreme Court.However, he added some flair to his opinion Monday, referring at one point to the Beatles and at another to Federalist Papers author James Madison, who later became president.“Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power’ would be aghast,” the judge wrote.http://www.politico.com/story/20...There is little doubt that the public's appetite for this level of overreach will help the Democrats position in the next two election cycles ('14 and '16), and this is central to this discussion here.CHAPTER TWOVarious other "phony scandals" according to President Obama that the American public is not buying.(1) Obama, without Congressional approval or consideration, unilaterally chose to specifically violate the oath of office (see quoted above) and by deferring the implementation of the ACA for the employer mandate did extend it by one year. This is a clear violation of the constitution.(2) The President did not seek Congressional approval to invade and subsequently overthrow the President of Libya.(3) CENSUS.gov Mess in 2012 where election was influencedByron's Blog: Which are the phony Obama scandals, and how do we know which is which?(4) IRS.gov Mess in 2014 where TEA Party was blocked from approvals.Malik Obama: The IRS and Health CareLois Lerner: Tom Byron's answer to The White House: What are examples of US administration officials having been rewarded in spite of their incompetence?(5) Healthcare.gov Mess since 2010Mandate or pay fine? NoKeep your doctor? NoKeep your insurance? NoKeep your hospital? NoKeep you drug plan? NoHigh deductibles? YesHigh policy premiums? YesCHAPTER THREERepublican alternatives that aren't anywhere nearly as many pages, nor as complex or intrusive as ACA:http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/upl...And also we have over 100 members of Congress now (Nov. 2013) that have co-sponsored it. And we had medical doctors who serve in Congress, like Dr. Phil Roe, help write this bill. This is a bill based on putting patients back in charge of their health care and lowering the cost and getting government out of health care decisions.http://m.cnsnews.com/news/articl...John Podesta will help Obama extend the President's executive power. Congress will become even more irrelevant.Why didn't Obama know about various issues? Podesta will help clear this problem by advising the Chief of Staff for Obama. No more secrets will be kept from the President!KEILAR: Obama was unable to. And with the window closing on his chance for second term achievements, Democratic sources tell CNN Podesta's expertise is much needed.As President Clinton's disciplined chief of staff, Podesta guided that White House through a sex scandal, impeachment and a war in Kosovo. He was known for cracking the whip, one former Clinton colleague telling CNN his co-workers made him a name plate. On one side, "John D. Podesta."http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANS...CHAPTER FOURBlacks used to be Republicans, but in the years since FDR, they have, sadly, become a group of voters the Democrats have exploited. If you are a Conservative Black in America, you get the full wrath of of the left. You get audited if you speak out (Dr. Ben Carson). http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#s...Additional reading on this topic.http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...Compare the rhetoric of these politically active individuals and how the media treats them:Alan West v. Al SharptonJC Watts v. Jessie JacksonCondie Rice v. Sheila Jackson LeeREPUBLICANS NEED ANOTHER MARGARET THATCHER OR MAYBE ANOTHER RONALD REAGAN.

First of all please forgive me for my post here. I was posting my point and suddenly I lost my entire posting. So here go again;While reading all the comments it struck me that the initial comment about the police officer lying. Then how they could have drove him home then the suggestion that he was arrested because he is Black and worst that the Cop is racist.That initial statement caused the direction of the posting to steer off into left field and come up with the blame game. The true is that none of us know the facts of the incident but everyone acted as though they knew everything and treated that as fact.All of this is speculation, hearsay, innuendo, gossip, interpretations of the mine, made up non-information inserted, jumping to conclusion, prejudging, and basically making ASS U ME-ptions to be the facts.Oh yea the Facts. The fact are that ugly little mouse looking creature that comes around and appears in front of people causing them to scream and run away because it is soooo ugly.You don’t know what it is but it is so ugly it must be bad. So the defense lawyer will do everything he or she can do to redirect, smoke screen, vilify the police officers and attempt to make the witnesses look like l liars.This shell game looks like fun, it looks pretty and its captivating, its habit forming, and it can be as large as desired and take any shall that will cover that ugly creature.Think of the OJ Simpson case.This is exactly why there are many innocent people and many others walking the street who are guilty. This is why police separate witnesses to interview them. Then ask them to repeat their observations. Then the media puts in their false facts.By this time the racist police has arrested a man because he is black. Then the lawyers come out of the woodwork and display the family as a victim. The BLM terror group comes out marching and politicians say this is awful and there will be an investigation.Finally, the FACTS are:We do know that Tiger was under the influence of some drug. What and how we don’t know. We don’t know his demeanor when approached by police. We do know by law if you are in your vehicle with the motor running it is considered operating a motor vehicle. We don’t know the state of mind of the officer nor do we know his level of experience Is he a DRE (Drug Recognition Expert). We don’t know if he is racist and a card-carrying member of the KKK or any other group.This articles I posted will illustrate my point and give you a complete picture of my post.Originally posted by Grog_280:Picture1.jpgHe was being cross-examined by a defense attorney during a felony trial. The lawyer was trying to undermine the policeman's credibility...Q: "Officer -- did you see my client fleeing the scene?"A: "No sir. But I subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender, running several blocks away."Q: "Officer -- who provided this description?"A: "The officer who responded to the scene."Q: "A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?"A: "Yes, sir. With my life."Q: "With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?"A: "Yes sir, we do!"Q: "And do you have a locker in the room?"A: "Yes sir, I do."Q: "And do you have a lock on your locker?"A: "Yes sir."Q: "Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with these same officers?"A: "You see, sir -- we share the building with the court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room."The courtroom erupted in laughter, and a prompt recess was called.The officer on the stand has been nominated for this year's "Best Comeback" line -- and we think he'll win.Cop Gumbowith Val Van Brocklin5 ways defense attorneys try to trip up cops (and how to beat them)Cops are frustrated to learn that defense attorneys have no obligation to the truth in defense of their clients, but take solace in the fact that it frustrates an attorney when they’re unable to rattle youJun 25, 2014To win in the courtroom arena, it’s essential to understand the criminal defense attorney’s job. The duty of any attorney is to represent the interests of their client, and defendants are interested in getting off — regardless of whether they committed the crime.There are rules that limit what a defense attorney can do — they can’t falsify evidence or counsel a witness to lie, for example — but, they have no obligation to the truth and I continuously see officers shocked when they learn this firsthand in court.Don’t blame defense attorneys. In U.S. v. Wade (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court told them:“Defense counsel has no obligation to present the truth. …If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course.”Why would our highest court sanction defense attorneys subvert the truth by attacking a truthful witness? Because, also in Wade:“Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State's case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth.”Here are five common tactics employed by defense attorneys to try and get their clients off. More importantly, here are some strategies on how to beat them.1.) Putting Everyone on Trial Except the DefendantDefense attorneys will attack an officer’s credibility more often and harder than other prosecution witnesses just because you’re an officer. They know if they can raise a doubt about your credibility, it may cause a judge or jury to doubt the credibility of the entire case (remember Mark Fuhrman?).Defense attorneys want to put you on trial so the jury will be distracted from who is actually on trial.They don’t want to spend time on the evidence. The evidence proves their clients are guilty.On days you are scheduled for court, put a QTIP in your pocket. If you feel yourself becoming defensive on cross examination, squeeze the QTIP to remind yourself:QuitTakingItPersonallyYou’ve got to master this at a Zen level. You can’t let yourself even feel defensive.If you feel defensive, you’ll appear defensive. And what kinds of people are defensive? Guilty people.And if you let the defense attorney have their way, that’s what the jury sees.Your big power play is to understand defense attorneys can’t make you feel defensive — unless you let them.2.) Miscasting the Officer’s TrainingDefense attorneys will commonly ask an officer if he/she received training in the academy (or otherwise) on how to sound believable on the stand. The purpose is to suggest the officer is practiced at deceiving and appears credible because of special training in how to act, not because she’s testifying truthfully.Be prepared to distinguish that you received training on how to testify professionally (not truthfully, that goes without saying) — to present information logically and concisely within the parameters of courtroom rules.3.) Demanding a “Yes or “No” Answer to a Question that Needs ExplanationCross examination mostly consists of leading questions. A leading question tries to put words in the witness’ mouth and limit the response to confirming or denying the statement phrased as a question. For example:“Officer, you neglected to lift any fingerprints from the glassine bag, isn’t that correct?”The examiner wants to prevent the jury from hearing pertinent, explanatory details. To be completely truthful, you must provide such details. If the defense attorney interrupts by asserting the question calls for a simple “yes” or “no” answer, tell the judge you can’t answer in the manner defense counsel is trying to make you without misleading the jury or violating your oath.Wait for the court’s instruction. If the court punts to the defense attorney, advise the defense attorney the same thing.If the defense attorney insists, he will be clearly communicating he intends to mislead the jury.4.) Miscasting the Officer as BiasedIf you don’t work days and receive overtime pay for court appearances during business hours, be prepared for the question,“Officer, isn’t it true that you receive extra money every time you come to court?”The intent is to suggest some perverse incentive to charge as many people as you can. Your response is that you get paid for court appearances during the day because you work nights and the pay is the same regardless of the verdict.5.) Pursuing Repetitious QuestionsDefense attorneys will commonly ask the same question several times just slightly rephrased. They’re hoping to obtain inconsistent or conflicting answers from the testifying officer.If the prosecutor doesn’t object (they may have a good reason not to, like you’re doing a great job and the jury is getting frustrated with the defense counsel), listen carefully to the question and respond respectfully, “I believe I’ve already answered that question.”The respect part is the key. It frustrates a defense attorney when they’re unable to rattle you. Furthermore, your show of respect enhances your credibility with the jury.A Winning Mindset is the KeyReview your report, meet with the prosecutor to prepare, and remember: you’re not on trial.Accept that defense attorneys are just doing their jobs and QTIP.About the authorAs a state and federal prosecutor, Val’s trial work was featured on ABC'S PRIMETIME LIVE, Discovery Channel's Justice Files, in USA Today, The National Enquirer and REDBOOK. Described by Calibre Press as "the indisputable master of entertrainment," Val is now an international law enforcement trainer and writer. She’s had hundreds of articles published online and in print. She appears in person and on TV, radio, and video productions. When she's not working, Val can be found flying her airplane with her retriever, a shotgun, a fly rod, and high aspirations. Visit Val at www.valvanbrocklin.com and [email protected] IssuesEvergreenRECOMMENDED FOR YOUBlack judge refuses to step down from white officer's trialWhat does the Constitution say about the rights of law enforcement to obtain private data?Facial recognition technology and a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'Oakland to pay nearly $1M to teen in police sex scandalSCOTUS sides with police in Calif. shooting casePolicing Matters Podcast: Why 4 a.m. last call is a bad ideaBlack judge refuses to step down from white officer's trialWhat does the Constitution say about the rights of law enforcement to obtain private data?Facial recognition technology and a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'Oakland to pay nearly $1M to teen in police sex scandalSCOTUS sides with police in Calif. shooting casePolicing Matters Podcast: Why 4 a.m. last call is a bad ideaprevnextJOIN THE DISCUSSIONPoliceOne comments can only be accessed by verified law enforcement professionals.Please sign in or register to view or write your own comments below.SIGN INREGISTERPOLICEONE TOP 5Officer who fatally shot Tamir Rice fired (60)Video: Woman punches cop during stop, gets TASERed (23)Video: Felon attacks cop, tries to grab service weapon during stop (31)Police: Tiger Woods arrested in Fla. for DUI (64)Oakland to pay nearly $1M to teen in police sex scandal (8)MORE POLICEONE ARTICLESLEGALOakland to pay nearly $1M to teen in police sex scandal(8)SCOTUS sides with police in Calif. shooting case(7)Policing Matters Podcast: Why 4 a.m. last call is a bad ideaMORE LEGAL NEWSLATEST PRODUCT NEWSThe newest in LEO style: The cop romper(4)Boy dies after being hit by wounded suspect in police pursuit(1)Torches and saws: The one-two punch in correctional breachingNew police bodycam video released from Pulse nightclub massacre(3)How to wear hard platesMORE PRODUCT NEWSLEGAL VIDEOSNJ cop charged with slapping man dressed as bunnyApplying the DRM in use-of-force incidentsApp records police-driver interaction, summons lawyer during traffic stopMORE LEGAL VIDEOSAbout PoliceOneAdvertiseContact UsMember SupportMy ProfilePrivacy PolicyCopyright © 2017 PoliceOne.com. All rights reserved.PoliceOne is revolutionizing the way the law enforcement community finds relevant news, identifies important training information, interacts online and researches product purchases and manufacturers. It's the most comprehensive and trusted online destination for law enforcement agencies and police departments worldwide.