http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/flying-solo/Content?oid=2094887 Comments On: Flying solo by Pam Zubeck en-us Copyright 2013 Colorado Springs Independent. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Colorado Springs Independent readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Colorado Springs Independent. becca@csindy.com (Colorado Springs Independent Webmaster) Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:01 -0600 Mon, 20 May 2013 11:45:00 -0600 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Donnie]]> Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:22:06 -0700 Colorado Springs Independent
Fact : The Colorado appeals court overturned the child support issue for several reasons , one , the Judge in this case cited facts and evidence that were not true , never any part of any record and just plain and simple lies ... Made up facts . Score : two points for John H

Fact : the Colorado Appeals court cited a well known case known as "Martinez " , which clearly articulates what is considered reasons for imputing and on what parameters a judge can impute . This judge has a "bent of mind " and has failed to follow any law , has made up evidence , sent a man to jail illegally by not following the courts rules , and failed for 28 days after being told by a superior Judge to release him to follow the law . I 'm not a fortune teller or a rocket scientist ... but I conclude the judge is either completely incompetent or as I suspect ... biased like many of the people who have commented in this case . Score , hell three more points here .
Fact : Just like in this contempt case , the wife and the government could have hired their own experts to rebutt all of McKenzie's experts ... they could not find anyone who would or could dispute the facts , sadly even the Airforce's judge showed extreme prejudice after all of the experts concluded he acted as is expected behavior for someone with his particular mental illness who was intentionally undermedicated by his doctors for reasons that defy all logic and point to something very sinister . Hell , do I still need to add up all the points here ??
Grant has a wonderful wife , who has also undergone sex offender specific training by an expert on how to supervise sex offenders with children and she will always be there to supervise them . Another point .
Hell LAW , ya need to beat another horse , this one is long been beaten to death by you . This guy and his children desereve to normalize their lives now that he has been medically stabilized , has a proper chaperone , has a long history of NON OFFENDING and is making every effort to create a stream of income to support his children . CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS !!!
Posted by rob]]> Sun, 17 Apr 2011 08:30:35 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent
Actually, I’d like to congratulate YOU on changing the subject and not addressing my salient points. (You insist, however, that YOUR points must be addressed.
Posted by JohnH]]> Sat, 16 Apr 2011 13:10:27 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent
Nice try at changing the subject, but you still have not addressed any substantive point of my last post. There's no question that McKenzie actively sought these pictures.
Posted by LogicAlwaysWins]]> Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:55:42 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Posted by JohnH]]> Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:43:28 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Posted by re:flying solo]]> Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:08:09 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent
You are correct in your assertion that Ms. Zubeck (not Zubick) did not explicitly say that this guy actively sought out child pornography, but your conclusion does not flow from that assertion. You will note the Ms. Zubeck never said explicitly that this guy 'accidentally' got the pictures as part of a big group.
Posted by LogicAlwaysWins]]> Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:29:35 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Posted by maybenot]]> Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:55:54 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent
After reading your link to the Appeals Court ruling (United States v. Captain Grant D. McKenze), I was a bit surprised that the following information was omitted from Ms. Zubick’s article:

• The accused (Mr. McKenze) admitted that he actively searched for child pornography websites and downloaded images onto his government computer.
(Gone is this innocent depiction of a few pictures that just happened to be mixed in with some adult pornography. Gone is the assertion that he just wanted to sort and categorize a batch of pictures.)

Based on McKenzie’s own admit ion that he actively searched for Child Pornography websites, can anyone blame the former wife for trying to protect her children?
Would anybody here be willing to drop their little girls off with him for an “over nighter”?

Honestly?
Really?

It seems quite reasonable that Mr. McKenzie can visit his child in a supervised environment.
Posted by JohnH]]> Sun, 10 Apr 2011 08:32:11 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent ________________________________________________
What a shame.
Attack those that hold a differing opinion with personal slander.
Posted by JohnH]]> Sat, 09 Apr 2011 20:48:18 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Posted by re:flying solo]]> Sat, 09 Apr 2011 08:55:23 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent
If Logic always wins, you lose.

#1 Once again, #1 is 100% correct on my part.
#2 LAW= Logic Always Wins.
#3 (You) “Since you responded directly to Ms. Zubeck regarding this particular post”.
(Me) Let me say it again.
Posted by JohnH]]> Sat, 09 Apr 2011 06:02:44 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent
In response to #1 - In order for there to have been misinformation, there has to be a difference between what you said and what markgreen said. You quoted the article as saying "1716 pictures, including..." while markgreen said "1716 pictures, and some of them..."
Posted by LogicAlwaysWins]]> Fri, 08 Apr 2011 21:59:49 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Not.buying.it ------ You need to get over yourself. This article isn't about the ex wife it is about a young man with a mental illness called Bipolar who has lost everything!
Posted by re:flying solo]]> Fri, 08 Apr 2011 21:43:22 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Let me address your lack of logic and hopefully unintentional adversion of the truth:
1) I corrected Mark Green’s misinformation and addressed his childish name calling. (Calling people Moron doesn’t usually advance one’s position.)
Posted by JohnH]]> Fri, 08 Apr 2011 17:17:29 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Posted by LogicAlwaysWins]]> Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:36:25 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent http://www.docstoc.com/docs/52175818/Contr…

"Between (Grant's) governement issued laptop, his home computer, and various storage devices, 1,832 pictures, 705 web pages, 32 Usenet with picture attachments, and 1 video file were found that were suspected to be either obscene material or VISUAL DEPICTIONS OF MINOR ENGAGING IN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT ACTIVITY. The accused ADMITTED THAT HE ACTIVELY SEARCHED FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WEBSITES AND downloaded images from the onto his government computer.
Posted by Not.Buying.It]]> Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:50:17 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Posted by Not.Buying.It]]> Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:30:48 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent
First, I don't see any real difference between "1716 pictures, including..." and "1700+ pictures, some of which..." The second is merely a paraphrase of the first.
Posted by LogicAlwaysWins]]> Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:43:48 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Before resorting to the childish name calling (“Moron” / “Learn to Read”), you should check your own facts and/or glasses.
Here is what the article said: “1,716 obscene images on his computer, including pictures of "naked or partially clothed young girls in sexually suggestive positions alone or with other young girls,"
It is quite a bit different after, dare I say it, YOUR “cherry picking”: (You speaking) Nowhere did it say there were 1000 pictures of underage girls. It said “there were 1716 pictures, and some of them were young girls.” I assume this was just an honest mistake on your part.
Posted by JohnH]]> Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:18:23 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Posted by LogicAlwaysWins]]> Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:29:20 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Posted by markgreen]]> Tue, 05 Apr 2011 23:49:22 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent
Thank you for your concern, Rob, but I am not bi-polar, I just posed a question.
Posted by JohnH]]> Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:34:47 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Posted by rob]]> Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:12:56 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent Posted by Not.Buying.It]]> Tue, 05 Apr 2011 07:41:08 -0600 Colorado Springs Independent