There is an appeal filed in Dallas by a teacher, Resa Woodward, 38, who was fired because of her prior work in the adult film industry almost two decades ago. We have previously discussed such cases, which I find troubling because these are people who worked in a lawful industry. It is even more concerning when, as here, the individual claims that she was forced into the industry as a form of “sex slavery.”
Woodward taught sixth-grade science at an all-girls STEAM academy at Balch Springs Middle School. However, someone exposed her work some 16 years earlier in pornography and she was fired. She has appealed to the Texas Education Agency.
She has explained that she was in an abusive relationship and eventually walked away from the relationship and the industry. She turned her life around as a teacher in in North Carolina and Florida and later Texas. Along the way, she earned a master’s degree.
As a teacher, she earned the highest rating of “exemplary” in the schools distinguished teacher program and was a nominee for district teacher of the year. She achieved other recognitions for her teaching skills. She begged for people to show a modicum of understanding and mercy: “Please tell me this is not the end. Do not penalize me for a dark saga in my youth that was not of my making.”
While I understand the difficulty presented by such cases for schools, I find it problematic that schools can fire people for their work in lawful industries due to the objections of some to the underlying morality of the field. In her termination letter, the district said that she was fired because her previous work “in adult content media” was accessible on the internet and available to the public. It added that such access “casts the District in negative light and adversely affects the District.”
Adding to the difficulties for Woodward is the fact that she missed a critical deadline and failed to properly appeal the decision.
Both teachers and even students have faced such disciplinary actions for work in the industry. Even a lunch lady was subject to such discipline. Some teachers have succeeded in challenging such decisions. This may be my libertarian tendencies but I find punishing people due to their lawful lifestyles or professions to be troubling. I have previously written about the increasing monitoring and discipline of teachers for conduct in their private lives. I recognize the disruptive aspects of having a teacher with such images on the Internet. However, we have seen teachers disciplined for images of drinking wine in Florida or engaging in dancing deemed inappropriate. The question is how much discretion is allowed in barring people who have committed no crime or simply engaged in activities that some consider immoral. Is it enough for a district to declare that something you have done in the past would be disruptive? What is the activity was more artistic like nude acting scenes or interpretive dancing? My concern is always focused on how to draw such lines and who is given such authority.
What do you think?
On balance, I say judge her for her work as a teacher not for her previous work. Many people enter one profession after having been in another.Should the mortgage bankers who contributed to the financial crisis not be allowed to teach if they changed careers? They made decisions that bankrupted families- why would we trust them to care for our kids.Recovering drug addicts and alcoholics are teaching, and many probably harmed others including their own families when they were activel using- should we stop them from teaching? And what about all the people watching the teacher online or who went to the club, should they be penalized for enabling her?
Trust me, I missed nothing.
There are lawyers, for example, who lose their licenses–they lose them for various reasons. In some instances, attorneys have been convicted of crimes and have served their sentences. Done their time.
Following me, so far?
Even after serving time and paying their dues to society, how many of them get those hallowed law licenses back after those prison stints and felony convictions, where they are able to return to the practice of law? How many? Is it unjust to deny them those licenses after they have done their penance? Where is the forgiveness? The possibility to redeem themselves? The Jesus admonition of not casting the first stone?
I use this reference regarding lawyers to make my point. While those lawyers, post conviction and after prison time, are, technically, free individuals, who have paid their dues, they are, by the multitude of bar a associations, deemed unfit to practice law. License to, once again, return to the field of law, are denied. Why? It has to do with a level of trust. It has to do with character. It has to do with integrity. It’s not about forgiveness or redemption. What is had to do with is protecting future or potential clients from someone who has demonstrated such poor judgment, albeit poor judgment which occurred in the past. Do you get it? Certain occupations, by their very nature, carry varying levels of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. While the porn star’s activities didn’t rise to the level of a crime, it does show judgment. Character. Integrity. Or, should I say, the lack thereof. If future or prospective clients, who are adults in the community, need to be protected from those attorneys who have demonstrated poor judgment, in the past, how much more so should a school district look to protect the children of its schools?
Licenses to, not license to. . .
Has to do, not had to do. . .
Bill Clinton was suspended from practice for five years for being less than forthright in a deposition about the intern dressed in blue. He admitted he “knowingly gave misleading and evasive answers,” and paid a $25,000.00 fine, but maintained he did not intend to lie. He got away with it. Why shouldn’t this former porn actor, who had the fortitude to find herself a more socially constructive and better job?
People who live in glass houses . . .
To be blunt the crime that cost him his law license, got him fined and impeached and should have ended in conviction was , lying to a federal judge while under oath.’
Why they spent all that time onthe salacious did nothing but have peopl eask whose going to play the part in the porn film?
Grand Jury is the equivalent of an impeachment and resulted in an indictment.
The other house did a dog and pony show for unknown reasons that had not much to do with anything substantive.
Why they spent all that time onthe salacious did nothing but have people ask whose going to play the part in the porn film?
We never guessed it would be an ongoing series that ended in the victimizers of women being indicted, tried, convicted, and sentences to the dustbin of history by the Jury Of The Whole. the self governing citizen voters.
Which reminds me we finally got a statistic on the amount of people that came out of ha ha nowhere and kicked ass. 40%.Remember the percentages with the Crone sinking in to the single digits and asking why aren’t we at 50%? Because four fifths of that number were getting ready to vote guilty as charged. that figure came out of a discussion on the economy as it happens.
It was a good verdict I believe we should do it again.
Recalls, initiatives primaries and 10 more senate 15 to 20 more representatives in 2018.
But we have to wait for the end of the investigations and see if we agree. Otherwise their future candidates can pay the price.
You use faulty reasoning by saying, BUT WHAT ABOUT HIM? The fact that Billy Boy Clinton, and his cohort, Hickory, have managed to avoid criminal charges, convictions and long prison terms, doesn’t mean that schools have no right to deem who, and, more importantly, what occupies its classrooms as instructors. Referring to certain privileged individuals, who have, miraculously, gotten away with any variety of crimes, doesn’t make what Linda Lovelace any more palatable as a teacher for youngsters. Pedal off that foolishness–about glass houses–somewhere else. There’s only one point here, and that is that an applicant and/or employee purposely chose to hide her prurient past from her employer. She lied by omission, thereby denying her employer the opportunity to make an informed decision as to her appropriateness to teach children. While you, personally, seem to have no objections to her mingling and associating with young and impressionable kids, others do. Your glass house sh@t doesn’t fly. Not everyone is acceptable for every job. Don’t kill the messenger. Those are the facts. Live with them.
What you’re saying is partially true. I agree that that palate is different in everyone, but everyone has a past. As Michael wrote, no one – not even bam bam – is perfect, and this teacher has met the academic criteria and has no blemish on her record as a teacher, except for those being imposed on her those who believe there’s such a thing as a perfect human being.
There’s the state of being human, which, by definition includes the concept of imperfection. We are all imperfect. All works in progress. No doubt about it. Do not assume to know what I think, especially since I never revealed anything contrary to the above-referenced beliefs.
Now, compare and contrast the concept that all human beings are imperfect with the notion of unsuitability. You should be capable of comprehending the distinction. Perhaps I assume too much? While all human brings are flawed and imperfect, not all of those human beings are, by definition, unsuitable for various types of employment. We see this played out in a myriad of professions–in the areas of law, medicine and, yes, even, God forbid, in the field of education. Lawyers, who wish to work in the profession, are held to account for their conduct, both past and present. Ever hear of something called “moral turpitude” and the consequences for such alleged behavior? Look it up. I didn’t write the rules. Your inability to grasp that not everyone is suitable–SUITABLE–for every occupation, is baffling. Suitability doesn’t necessarily equate to education or talent. You appear to think that it does. It does not. There are seasoned attorneys and physicians, whose skills and knowledge are, without question, extensive, yet they have been deemed incapable of representing clients or treating patients, respectively, due to their questionable behavior. Claiming that the Whore of Babylon is a great teacher doesn’t answer the most important question, which is, of course, SHOULD she be teaching young and impressionable kids?
“compare and contrast the concept that all human beings are imperfect with the notion of unsuitability.”
She wasn’t unsuitable to the school district when she qualified as a teacher, and there have been no problems until someone found out about her past work history. She turned that work history around and should be given credit for doing so.
You’re acting like she’s on the felony sex offender registry or that there should be Texas porn registry prohibiting educational credentialing. She isn’t and there isn’t. You want teachers to be clean enough to fry an egg on their arses, when we allow our President – who has more responsibility for children than this teacher ever had – to engage prostitutes at pee parties for crissake.
There are three types of people in any discussion. The debaters trying to score style points. The righteous with their myopic tunnel vision and the group that rolls up it’s sleeves and goes outside to fix the leaky roof. You already know which one you are – each and every one of you.
correction
There is a fourth type pre-programmed stooge repeating everything on the hour and half hour.
You forgot the fifth type of contributor.
The one who spends his entire day and night, maniacally and fervently writing nonsensical comments which, for the most part, are unintelligible, irrelevant and delusional.
I didn’t want to forget you.
Way to go, bam bam He’s a complete loon.
Right with ya, Steve—well, except for the pee party part which is, as far as I know, unproven (though it wouldn’t surprise me if the evidence turns up sometime soon).
Mark, you’re right. I should have written that our president prefers to handle women women as he would six-pack plastic wrap. 🙂
Couldn’t find it anywhere even in the fascist media? Not even at DNC in the press releases. At least noting factual with a reputable source but did you hear the one about the Democrat Supreme Court Justice wanting to make hookers out of12 yearold girls? Now THAT is interesting. .
Nope, can’t say that I have. Got a link to the story? Or did you just pull that out of your ass in a bid for equal time for my Trump comment?
You don’t think this is interesting:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/cia-presented-trump-with-claims-that-russia-compromised-him.html
No wonder he’s trying to trash CNN.
Sorry, Steve; that memo remains unverified at this time—but yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if CNN (and Buzzfeed’s) publication of it drove him a bit nuts—well, more nuts than he already is.
Mark, you’re probably right, but the Wikileaks emails remain unverified too, but you believe ’em. Don’t you?
That fact of the matter is that we have a shi’itehead for a president.
If you’re talking about the Clinton campaign emails, I’d look at the Wikileaks postings in the same way—if the Clinton campaign hadn’t essentially admitted they were accurate, which they have. And my “faith” in Wikileaks has dropped considerably since Assange stated that he didn’t get his Trump emails from a Russian source, in what apparently was an attempt to get the U.S. off his back over those espionage charges for posting the Manning documents.
Time for some new topics but before we do where’s the facts and proofs you owe us. Lost in your cheetos bowl? Repeating the same BS doesn’t turn it yellow nor make it true it’s the cheetos stains your fingers and it’s allllllll fairy tails.
New topics please .
Got any facts, proof, sources, resources, cites, sites. Your getting waaaaayyyy behind which is an apt choice of words.
As of today the official as can be statement to a question on why not a special prosecutor was ‘ What for it keep coming up but there’s never any proof and the FBI openly said the the whole thing was bogus. Did the media go ask the FBI? Right. Sure. uh huh….
CNN trashed itself I would have said Communist News Network except Clinton NNN for No News Network fit so well. Small difference if any. It’s either National or International Socialism .
It would be more interesting if anyone could divine what he’s supposed to have known or done. In it’s current state, it’s a fart in the ballroom.
It’s so sad to me that people who made bad decisions years ago are punished when they’ve clearly changed their lives. Unfortunately, the world isn’t as kind as the Lord I serve who does forgive and forget as if our mistakes have been erased from His mind.
Chelsey: Wonderful post. I’m not religious at all, but I sure like what you wrote as well as this song:
Thanks from me to and to finish keeping Chelsea’s post on track The way to not be sad is fix sad to glad by changing the bad and not putting up with what is a counter productive sexist attitutde. I wonder how many of those who tossed her out could stand a close scrutiny of their video collections.
Michael: Is there a peyote button floating in your coffee this morning?
Drugs are NOT the answer. That includes nicotine and………… caffiene…. Shoot i’m not perfect.
Michael Aarethun – I consider caffeine more like a necessary daily medicine.
Nectar of the Gods! Whew thanks! I’m off the hook.
” … I consider caffeine more like a necessary daily medicine.”
One of the essential food groups.
Article in another URL stating Trump will end u saving Obama’s legacy on health care? Nothing more was said on the subject in the written non lead line area.
Maybe the writer was trying to tell us something. As it is it’ s not funny enough to be a joke and if it’s not a joke it makes no sense. Obama HAS no legacy to save.
Going to Mardis Gras last day tomorrow. Happy Fat Tuesday I hear Pelosi is going to save O’Donnel’s legacy on weight loss. Or was that Moore? Or something.
That excludes Bush and Obama who have yet to give up being the left and and right wing of the left Dino and Rino joined at the hip. You Republicans take a good look at this comment. Dinos etc. have no choice they do what Soros and Carville tells them to do. Rinos can either can either become Constitutional Republic supporting party or take your lumps at the local polls along with the left wing extremists (recalls initiatives are great anti politico weapons) in 2017) and ten DInos looks like three RInos the next targets. Time for a more narrow focus of the moderate center defending our country and continuing our counter revolution. Recalls! Initiatives Waste their resources and divert their attention. Like any good counter insurgency it should not telegraph where the next punch should land as long as the target is a Rino or a Dino.
Your sentiments are indeed true. Lest we forget though, our Lord also uses us, with our warts and all, to convey His word to the world.
Its possible that she is a cautionary story to those who may be considering her previous profession. Or, serves as an example that “Wounds heal, but scars persist.”
For those who continue with the legal argument, there are all manner of legal practices that are morally wrong.
As a bit of levity, there is the rest of the story re. ye who are withiut sin, cast the first stone. What was left out was the old account of a rock sailing past Jesus and almost hitting the woman. Jesus immediatly went into the crowd to find the person. He emerged on the other side, stopped in his tracks….and said….”Oh mother.”
Again, this isn’t about forgiveness. This isn’t about redemption. This isn’t about second chances.
Anyone working closely with children, on a day-to-day basis deserves special scrutiny. Children are not social experiments. A different level of screening is mandated for those seeking employment with or near children. Had the school district and those responsible for her hiring known of her past, it would’ve been up to their discretion as to whether she was the appropriate individual with whom to entrust the students. Yes. Their decision, not yours. Their decision, not hers.
While the article doesn’t specifically explain that she chose to hide that little nugget of info regarding her life in the porn industry, cranking out a dozen or more films, from the school board or those vested with the responsibility of hiring teachers, one can easily infer that is, indeed, what occurred. That’s precisely why the school board is floored by this information. Didn’t see it coming. There was no prior notice. No chance to say, let’s give her a chance. No opportunity to be like Jesus and protect a prostitute. That is at the crux of the entire matter. Please, save us the speeches about Jesus and redemption. Her redemption and forgiveness will not come at the hands of the school board. You are so far off the mark.
Daily, we read in the papers or hear on the television about teachers, coaches, scout leaders and, yes, those in the clergy, who prey on the vulnerable. Pray on children. Those in close contact, for extended periods of time, with children, merit a special and heightened level of scrutiny. Had Lolita come clean, fessing up to her unsavory past, and the school still wanted to hire her, then fine. That’s obviously not what happened here. The school was blindsided by the revelation. A revelation which, probably, doesn’t sit well with the parents, and, deservedly so. As it always is, it isn’t the underlying behavior, it’s the cover up in which this individual wished to engage.
Wow…Bam Bam you really missed the mark in re. my comment to the poster.
Such a strong expanded response to a Jesus reference and a bit of humor is most interesting, and a bit of a knee jerk.
If you had read my previous comments, you might have had a different perspective.
“Scars” tell us a lot more than just the mark.
Wrong to fire the teacher.
Texas seems to be like that.
But it perfectly depicts how the USA is supposed to be run. Each State get’s it’s own way when powers not granted are not usurped by dictatorial actions of one black robed agent of George Soros.
The opinion of that one State stops at it’s borders. Unless the Federal Government can show powers granted, this controdversy falls under education and Education is a power NOT granted to the US Government. Texas gets to make up it’s own mind which iswhere this one might lead. If so it can go to a higher court under, perhaps life,liberty, and pursuit of…and may or maynot gain cert. They only accept 100 a year. But rights granted would have to be shown. That’s a long stretch.
Then to it’s a private school which means the left will not be pushing hard to legitimize it in the private versus public argument and the legitimacy of the Department of Education and NEA greater debate may well see that travesty of failure dismanmtled yet.
It’s only operating under the don’t ask rule of thumb. And asking might easily prove fatal with not one but now two Trump appointments in the works for this year and next.
That generalization provided a whole new layer of depth and nuance to the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to post it.
My post was in reply to Mr. Benson.
You are most welcome.
I take it, then, that you have never been to Texas?
See what happens when you assume? I live in Texas. What superior, enlightened state do you reside in?
Who are ‘some’
The elusive ‘some’
Never met one
Of the elusive ‘some.’
Or had them pointed out to me
They reside no doubt exclusively
And cast their net elusively
In a manner most mysteriously
But never appear
Personally.
The elusive
Reclusive Some.
The question is how much discretion is allowed in barring people who have committed no crime or simply engaged in activities that some consider immoral.
The real question you’re asking is ‘how much discretion is allowed to people who are not lawyers’. If you do not allow merchants or landlords or local elected officials to exercise discretion over who they will associate with, you’re transferring that discretion to the courts. Now, why would an ordinary person think that a law professor is not the most disinterested party in assessing that.
Rabbit hole. Nothing more than speculation as to whether she withheld information of her prior job, or whether it was even asked about in application process. The majority of the comments jut make up facts and run with it. Reddit is a more appropriate forum for such ridiculousness.
You said it!
Certain jobs comes with risks, working in pornography is one of them. I find it implausible that any person. working in the porn industry isn’t aware that the job carries social stigma and could present future problems. Regarding the legality of working in the porn industry I agree with Mr. Turley’s point, but consider this – Said Teacher could have worked as a Prostitute legally in Nevada and if she had never been photographed or filmed in her occupation – hence not on the internet , then could she have been retained?
This is a dangerous road to go down. As I said I worked in a liquor store during my last two years in college. If I graduate with an electrical engineering degree and I don’t mention it along with all the other irrelevant jobs I had in high school and college when I apply for an engineering position and you’re my boss, and you’re a Muslim or a Mormon who travels in circles where purveying alcohol carries a social stigma, do I still have a job?
If there a proprietor, your employment is at their discretion. If they’re a corporation employee, It’s at their discretion within the limits of company policy. They want to can a competent engineer due to their shticks about liquor, they pay the price of losing your services for extraneous reasons. Not socially optimal, but the alternative is having lawyers hash this out.
Sorry, Susan, people have rights, and Woodward didn’t break any laws by acting in porn films. You may not like that profession, the school board may not like it, the school superintendent may not like it, but it was legal employment which should have had no effect on her life after leaving the business—and certainly not **15 YEARS** after leaving the business—unless some bluenose decides it should have.
People have only the rights operationalized by positive law. If it’s not in black letters, she ain’t got no rights.
Positive law may be just or unjust or (almost certainly) a mix. In a just society, whether or not to contract for employment is properly at the discretion of the parties involved, which means there can be no tort if one party elects to withdraw from the affiliation (unless such a withdrawal is substantively or procedurally in violation of a contract freely agreed to by the parties antecedently). No one’s properly obligated to make life nice for quondam porn stars.
This is complicated by the fact that her employer is a public agency. Using public agencies to manufacture confessional establishments, abuse political opposition, or manufacture communal patronage networks is bad in a law-governed constitutional state. That’s not what’s up here, unless you fancy port performers are a subculture meriting due deference. They have standards re moral turpitude. If you don’t like the standards, apply in a district where this isn’t an issue. There are about 16,000 school districts in this country.
There’s just one problem, Susan: It was no longer a question of WHETHER to hire Woodward for her teaching position; she already WAS a teacher, and from all reports a pretty good one, and it was only when her history in porn came out that they decided that despite her excellent record as a teacher, they would fire her anyway. There ARE laws that protect against such baseless firings, and I hope Woodward sues for every nickel she’s lost due to the school district’s bias and prejudice.
They came into new information, and they canned her. If it’s a deal breaker, her performance reviews do not matter much. It isn’t a kind thing to do, but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether it should be actionable.
You’ve upgraded her from ‘pretty good’ to ‘excellent’ in just one paragraph. We really do not know what her evaluations say, or how valid they are. Teaching performance is not something one can readily evaluate in a satisfying manner. (If my own experience as a consumer of the services of teachers is any guide, about 10% or so have no business teaching, about 15% have some notable performance issues, about 10% are at least a cut above, and 5% are capable enough to so stay with you long term).
Susan: “You’ve upgraded her from ‘pretty good’ to ‘excellent’ in just one paragraph. We really do not know what her evaluations say, or how valid they are. Teaching performance is not something one can readily evaluate in a satisfying manner.”
And yet, schools do so across the country, so one has to suspect that such evaluations have some validity. And according to Mr. Turley, “As a teacher, she earned the highest rating of “exemplary” in the schools distinguished teacher program and was a nominee for district teacher of the year. She achieved other recognitions for her teaching skills.” Sounds to me as if she did a pretty good, nay, EXCELLENT job, and since neither of us have met her or studied those evaluations, with only Mr. Turley’s statements to base her abilities on, unless you’re calling him a liar, she clearly was fired for all the wrong reasons.
And according to Mr. Turley, “As a teacher, she earned the highest rating of “exemplary” in the schools distinguished teacher program and was a nominee for district teacher of the year. She achieved other recognitions for her teaching skills.” Sounds to me as if she did a pretty good, nay, EXCELLENT job,
I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts the dean at that school gives every teacher at least an 8 out of 10 on a scale unless he’s gaming to get her fired for some irritation she’s caused him.
Susan: “I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts the dean at that school gives every teacher at least an 8 out of 10 on a scale unless he’s gaming to get her fired for some irritation she’s caused him.”
What insight you have into the Dallas school system and its employees! And, I’m guessing, without ever having worked in it nor knowing any of its employees! Do you also handicap horse races?
DDS – as a former teacher, I can tell you the rating sheets for an evaluation cover 6-8 pages and include everything from the cleanliness of your desk to how good your lesson plans are. At my last school, three people actually participated in the grading of the teachers: each with designated sections. Many schools have improvement areas for the next year and you are expected to have attained those goals.
Having evaluated teachers, I can tell you they all do not get top scores. However, the ones that shine stand out without having to evaluate them. Students want to be in their classes. Fewer students are thrown out of their classes. Fewer discipline problem that have to be handled by the principal. They have great classroom control. And they can teach.
DDS – if she has been getting glowing reviews, this will help when she goes to court.
What’s her cause of action?
I’d like to hear from Squeaky Fromm, Girl Reporter on this issue.
As someone who has worked in the adult video industry for 33 years, the Woodward situation troubles me greatly. I looked up her list of movies that she made during her brief stint in porn (2001-’04) as “Robyn Foster,” and the vast majority of them were made for reputable companies who would never have hired her if there were any hint that she was being coerced into appearing in them—and please believe me, if someone doesn’t want to be on a porn set, it is VERY obvious to everyone there, and I’ve seen directors send actresses home when it appeared that they didn’t want to do what was being asked of them. Now, I understand why she would lie about having been coerced into performing: It’s an easy way to avoid admitting that she once made a CHOICE to do so, and represents her attempt to find an excuse for the school board to rehire her, and I find it hard to blame her for that—but I don’t believe for a moment that she was forced to perform sex on camera. (Linda Lovelace told a similar story, but EVERYONE who worked with her has said that her claims of coercion never happened.)
But Mr. Turley makes an excellent point when he says “I find it problematic that schools can fire people for their work in lawful industries due to the objections of some to the underlying morality of the field.” And that’s the crux of it: She was fired because her work in porn “tainted” her somehow—forever. I refer to the phenomenon as “porn cooties.” A lot of people have suffered from that, including a math tutor I know in Florida who was prevented from advertising his services at local high schools because of his porn past. It’s unconscionable.
If it was gay porn she would have gotten a promotion, not fired.
“A Message to Trump from a Swede: My Real Concern is Rise of Militant Anti-Muslim Neo-Nazis, Fascists”
https://youtu.be/sFr62qf3TLI
anon, you do realize this thread is about a teacher who was fired for prior porn film work, right? Or is your hatred of our president so vicious and consuming that you just can’t even think about anything else?
FFS.
No, he didn’t. I have a tech guy that’s the same way. He goes into a trance, and you could tell him his hair is on fire, and he wouldn’t hear you. They should be careful when walking in traffic.
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/02/22/texas-teacher-fired-due-to-prior-work-in-adult-films/comment-page-2/#comment-1589574
My response is to an earlier comment about Sweden, but I posted it downstream, thinking that all of you geniuses would have read the entire comments thread.
As for “hatred”, I think you might be projecting again.
It was the one valid part in your comment why would it be rejected as the others were?
Wrong discussion thread that’s over in the one labeled Svedes perhaps it’ s language issue. Du Forstar Norske ja?
JT, this is for you. Lady Jaguars is old news. North Dakota is new news today! Raid in North Dakota will begin 2/22/17 @ 2:00pm.
A video message from SRST tribal member Chase Iron Eyes.
Note: News media journalists in camp will live stream the raid on FB.
1. Sacred Stone Camp FB
2. Oceti Sakowin Camp FB
3. Standing Rock Rising FB
https://www.facebook.com/lastrealindians/videos/1387689587919334/
This pipeline is a bad decision at the very least from an environmental perspective. But on a human side how much more are these people going to be humiliated?
What do I think? If her account of herself is truthful, they were cold to her. She shouldn’t have a cause of action though. These sorts of things are properly at the discretion of the school board, not judges.
Here’s a question–did the teacher LIE on her various applications or mislead her employer by conveniently leaving her history, as an actress in porn, off of her resume? There’s an issue of trust. An issue of honesty. And, yes, THOSE are issues which are relevant in determining whether someone should be hired as a teacher. Like it or not. I’m not referencing some obscure fact, like running track in high school, which an individual left off of an application or a resume. I’m referring to honesty. Integrity. Those seem to be issues that no one appears to have addressed. Surely, throughout the years, the teacher has had to complete various applications and submit resumes. Employers have the right to expect that applicants are providing a full and accurate application and/or resume when said applicants are applying for employment. The failure to do so is called lying by omission.
I can’t recall the exact name of the corporation, but I do remember reading a very interesting article regarding the president or CEO of some major and influential company, which was steadily declining and floundering. The president or CEO, hired to correct the problems, had, miraculously, managed to turn the company around. By all accounts, he was a success. There was only one problem. He misled his employer, via his resume, by claiming to have degrees which he did not possess. What happened to him? He was summarily fired. Why? It wasn’t about his success, which was measurable. It wasn’t about his accomplishments, which were considerable. It was about the dishonesty and the deceit. I view this woman’s past in the same manner. Fess up about your sordid past and let the chips fall where they may. To suddenly cry foul, once the sh@t hits the fan and the facts are revealed, garners little of my sympathy. Her employer had the right to know who it was hiring. Warts and all. The decision to conceal those warts is what is actionable.
And, if she spent time in the porn industry, she knows plenty about warts.
Just sayin’.
The irony is that employers demand honesty, but the People don’t when it comes to electing a president.
Why not attempt to address the issue at hand instead of referring to elected officials? This is an article about a teacher. And, yes, if you are referring to elected officials, their respective past histories do come back to bite them in the rear. So what? You have just made my point. Thank you. We’ve all witnessed political lives ruined due to past dalliances–however ” legal” they may have been. Those past transgressions painted them for life. This teacher is not above that fate.
Your irrelevant comment is false. But since you raised an irrelevant point on a subject that I’m knowledgeable about, I’ll address it. Trump has been a far more honest president than the U.S. has had in decades upon decades. That is, in fact, precisely why the American people elected him even though he never previously held political office. He told truths, whereas mainstream politicians lied . . . continuously.
The Sweden story is a perfect example of how Trump tells the truth, but the leftists and the mainstream media presstitutes lie. The leftists lie when they argue that nothing happened in Sweden, when the reality is that every single day there is a violent and/or criminal act being committed by Muslim migrants. Trump was absolutely correct about Sweden. Undoubtedly you would have been happier with a professional liar like Clinton because she shares a closer leftist vision to your own. But the American people are fed up with leftism and the lies that go along with it.
See, Ralph? Now you know why I almost never give you credit. 🙂
I was just commenting on the irony, and you’re making an orangutan look like Jesus.
I didn’t really care how incompetent he was a lottery ticket candidate had a chance of being a winner. A known quantity is a known quantity and a follower of Marxist Leninism etc etc etc to me calls for bullets not ballots. I much prefer the outcome BUT BUT BUT I’ve never heard of orangutan in a porno movie. Course there are so many from which to choos. Soros, Clooney, Podesta, Pelosillyni, Clintons, Shumer, Now that’s an all No Star cast!
Your “credit” is simply your way of saying “I agree with you.” On some things we may agree, like the case of the schoolteacher who was unfairly dismissed, but on major world events like Sweden, we’re going to disagree because you look at those things strictly through a leftist lens, which is fogged and distorted.
Well, Ralph, lucky for the Left that we have your clear, conservative vision to guide us into the future.
Do all leftists think it’s okay to mock people’s appearance?
Probably, when the mocked have more narcissism running through their veins than blood.
All politicians are narcissists. Obama was insufferable.
Come again? How does Rick Santorum get tagged as a ‘narcissist’? Bill Bradley? Anne Marie Buerkle?
bam bam – if she was a sex slave then each of those movies was not a employment but sexplotation. I have never seen an application that says list all incidences of sexual exploitation. Have you?
We have all taken various jobs for any myriad of reasons. Resumes don’t state that one worked in an ice cream shop to help pay the insurance on a vehicle. Resumes don’t state that one waitressed to pay the rent. The bottom line was that those were jobs that the individuals held at various times. The reasons for the jobs are irrelevant.
bam bam – would you put sex slave as your occupation for a job?
The new terminology is sex worker. notice it’s gender neutral.
Michael Aarethun – sex slave is also gender neutral. 😉
The Gimp did and he became a movie star. Well, one movie at least: Pulp Fiction.
Darren – let’s talk real life, please. 😉
How do you think I got into law school? 🙂
It is not uncommon for applications and resumes not to contain an individual’s entire work history, and instead contain employment history related to recent years and the profession being pursued. I know I didn’t include working in the university library, doing housecleaning and babysitting, and tutoring or any other jobs I did before passing the bar in my application materials for my present position. One issue could be whether the teacher certification process in that state required such disclosure.
True. Frankly it’s insane to think someone needs to disclose every job they ever had or did. I don’t put the fact I delivered newspapers as a kid, shoveled out stables, worked in grocery store in high school and junior college, or later worked in a liquor store through college on my resume. No prospective employer would think it’s at all relevant. It would show couldn’t prioritize; that I didn’t know what it is important. In fact, I’ve always tailored my resume to the specific position I was seeking. As someone who has been in a position to hire people I wouldn’t hire someone who would give me a book-length resume listing every job back to the lemonade stand in elementary school. Really, an effective resume should be kept to one page. At most two. If you graduated from college 30 years ago as I did that means you will not be able to mention every job you ever had. I wouldn’t expect to see a single job listed before graduating from college unless it as something extraordinary like a prestigious internship, or there was a gap of several years between high school and college. Like, say, enlisting in the service out of high school.
Good points. The resume books and other advice confirm what you say.
Not only that, after a certain point in career, some tell you flatly, don’t use a chronological resume’; use a skills resume that highlights your strengths and skills relevant to the position sought.
The only application that I ever saw that required the applicant to account for all time was the SF171 for the feds.
A pretty good rule of thumb for most situations is that aside from your most recent, relevant work experience, if they want to know they will ask you.
My sister had a very successful resume including office manager for a medical insurance company. 14 months after they closed the west coast branch not one job interview. I told her ditch the part about office manager they are afraid you will outdo them and take their next promotion. She did she got a job with Mayo Clinic outshone everyone at every level and was offered Office Manager.
“No I’m to close to retirement don’t need the money nor the headaches? Instead she became sort of chief instructor and writing procedural manuals AND retired and went back to work for even more money at 30 hours a week and full medical.coverage. But when they asked if she had done office management before she handed them the three missing pages. and said I needed the job and with these you wouldn’t have called me in AND I still don’t want Office Manager that’s why I’m helping (name deleted) who has that ability. She’s now going to quit work at 75 working three days a week and making more on a holiday weekend than her boss. PS she also does their scheduling during the quiet night hours of the weekend.
There is a time to say and a time not to say and office politics is a big issue. NOW by this time that school should have known if she was a good teacher or not and if any other interruptive issues were involved. If they didn’t those administrators should have been replaced.
In the military it was routine for those who did a good job to get the credit for it transferred to the REMFs. Our answer was set them up, watch them flounder and disappear. Which included two commissioned officers who had false college diplomas and worse one claimed miitary skills that were noticeably absent. It wasn’t and isn’t I’m sure uncommon but the further from Fort Fumble The Puzzle Palace the less it occurs? Why? That same group really shys away from places where the bullets fly my oh my close by…not to put a fine jaundiced color on it.
Most employment applications don’t ask for information more than 10 years old. I’m a federal employee and my security clearance only went back 10 years. How this teacher was employed 20 years ago wouldn’t be considered relevant.
Your security clearance is irrelevant to the discussion. Resumes usually include information that dates back decades if, in fact, the individual is old enough to have an employment history that initiated at that point in time. What is, however, relevant to the discussion is that it appears as though this individual purposely chose to obfuscate her sketchy and prurient past employment, thereby preventing her employer from making a fully informed and educated decision as to whether she would be the best candidate to teach young and impressionable students. And, yes, people routinely get fired over such transgressions, not just middle-aged and sagging former porn stars. Perhaps the school district would have hired her anyway, falling for the farfetched tale about being some sort of abused sex slave. Who knows? The bottom line is that we will never know, since Lolita chose to call the shots and make her own rules as to what she felt like revealing to the school district. This falls into the too bad, so sad, department.
“And, yes, people routinely get fired over such transgressions, not just middle-aged and sagging former porn stars.”
No, people routinely get fired for claiming credentials they didn’t earn, such as degrees, certificates, or experience they don’t have. In fact, that was the only example you could cite earlier.
“The president or CEO, hired to correct the problems, had, miraculously, managed to turn the company around. By all accounts, he was a success. There was only one problem. He misled his employer, via his resume, by claiming to have degrees which he did not possess. What happened to him? He was summarily fired.”
Yes, lying and saying you earned a degree when you didn’t, when you just bought a piece of paper from a diploma mill, is a firing offense. But that’s not what this teacher did. She simply didn’t inform a potential employer of a job she had held that was entirely irrelevant to the position for which she was applying. Nobody gets fired for that.
“Resumes usually include information that dates back decades if, in fact, the individual is old enough to have an employment history that initiated at that point in time. ”
Ineffective resumes may go back decades and list jobs that provide all sorts of detail on what you did when you were younger that is entirely unrelated to the position that’s open. But if you submit such a resume to me it’s going into the trash. All you’re telling me is that you couldn’t be bothered to learn about the company, the the job I had open, and write a resume that explained why you would be a perfect fit for us and for it. Instead you decided to let me wade through the non-applicable BS and see if I can figure out what experience you have that pertains to the position. When you write a resume you’re selling a product; you. I don’t even interview people who care so little about making their sales pitch that they would do that, let alone hire them. Every employer really has only three questions when they interview a prospective new hire. Can you do the job, will you do the job, and can I work with you. If you can’t trouble yourself to write a targeted, focused resume you’ve already failed the “will you do the job” question.
According to the self-described porn expert, who posts on here sans a shirt and with a bird sitting on his shoulder, this woman was making porn films from about 2001 until 2004. Approximately three years. A significant amount of time. If you don’t believe that starring in skin flicks, for that amount of time–three years–is relevant for an individual to report and reveal when seeking a job teaching children–children–it just demonstrates how out of touch that you are with what is and isn’t crucial information which needs to be divulged to prospective employers. You appear to have the attitude that if the prior work history isn’t relevant to the job at hand that it need not be included in the resume. You are wrong.
And that’s just it. She wasn’t applying for a job flipping burgers or or painting houses, where participation in such films would, indeed, have been irrelevant as to her ability to successfully perform those jobs. Teaching children–some of the most vulnerable in society–doesn’t fall into the same category as flipping burgers or painting houses. Your mistake is assuming that you can make a broad assumption as to ALL jobs and occupations, using a very general and misguided notion that any prior work history, unrelated to the current job opening, is unnecessary to include on a resume. Starring in porn films, for three years, is, in fact, crucial and highly relevant information which should have been revealed to any prospective employers in the educational field. Her misdeed was in not revealing crucial and highly relevant information when applying to teach children. Children. Not dogs. Not parakeets. Not Chihuahuas. Kids. Parents and school administrators should have been given the right to choose whether, given Linda Lovelace’s prior dalliances, they wanted to employ her to teach children. She deprived them of that right by conveniently retracting that bit of her tawdry past from her resume. She lied by omission. I can only assume you don’t get the error here either because you do not work in the field of education, you have no children or both.
First of all, Woodward made a total of **14** original movies over that three year period, though another 6 DVDs compiled her previously-shot footage, and during that time, she worked with ADULTS; no children were involved AT ALL. Obviously you have some problem with the idea that some people DON’T have a problem having sex on camera for the enjoyment of people who like to see other people having sex, but in reality, her work in porn is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to her life today, 13 years later—or more correctly, it is only as relevant as SHE wants to make it. So YOU are wrong: It is certainly IRRELEVANT to the school district because she’s not discussing it with her students, she’s not having sex with them, and by all accounts, she was considered very good at her job. But obviously, you think Woodward was somehow infected by her previous job to the point where she carries that infection today. As I said: Porn cooties, a real-sounding but non-existent disease.
Do you expect someone to give her a medal on her fat a$$ for showing such restraint by not having sex with children on film? You are one sick puppy. Get a life and turn off the porn. It has turned your brain into oatmeal.
If she has no problem with her past, then she should’ve had no problem relaying that to her employer. Working in the porn industry, for three years, and producing films, are two highly relevant facts pertaining to someone’s suitability in terms of working closely with children on a day to day basis. You’ve obviously decided to dedicate your life to watching said films and becoming a so-called expert in the industry, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of society treasures these products in the same manner in which you do.
By the way, put on a shirt. Your photo, without one, is not exciting anyone. Even the poor bird wishes it could find an exit.
bam bam claims: “Working in the porn industry, for three years, and producing films, are two highly relevant facts pertaining to someone’s suitability in terms of working closely with children on a day to day basis.”
No, they aren’t. A job in porn is just a job, and the people who work in porn are just people, though I’ll admit that, considering how hung up on sex many members of mainstream society (apparently including yourself) are, being able to have sex in front of the camera is one of the braver occupations a young woman may pursue. But it IS relevant that she only worked with adults, since most of society and VIRTUALLY ALL porn performers are not sexually attracted to children, as Woodward clearly was not, so her having a job teaching children is only a problem in the minds of bluenoses like yourself.
And if you don’t like my photo, tough shit: take it up with management.
If her job in the porn industry was just a job, then she shouldn’t have hidden it from her employer. She is so ashamed of her past behavior that she has had to manufacture some bs story about being forced to engage in this industry.
Perhaps if you didn’t spend your days, naked and in front of a computer watching porn all day, you would be able to afford a shirt. The bird would thank you.
bam bam: “If her job in the porn industry was just a job, then she shouldn’t have hidden it from her employer.”
Actually, there’s no evidence that she “hid” the job from her employer. It was something she did sporadically for three years—roughly 5 movies per year, each of which takes at most two days to shoot, whereas many adult actresses shoot more than 15 movies in a couple of months—and it’s not clear if anyone even asked her what work she did before being hired by the school. Beyond that, she may very well have been aware that there are people in society—not naming any names, BAM BAM—who are prejudiced against people who have different views of sexuality than she did, and feared being stigmatized for having engaged in a legal if socially deplored profession.
bam bam: “She is so ashamed of her past behavior that she has had to manufacture some bs story about being forced to engage in this industry.”
Or maybe she simply understood that sexual bigots and fake moralists exist throughout society.
You incorrectly equate the ability to choose and select the appropriate applicant for the job of educating our youth with being prejudiced. It is not PREJUDICED for schools to have the right to know the past employment history of their prospective teachers, given the unique nature of teaching and educating young and vulnerable beings. We all live with the consequences of our choices–years and decades after various choices. Welcome to the real world. The field of education, by its very nature, carries with it a different degree of care necessary in selecting those who will be granted the opportunity to teach young and impressionable minds. While you may find individuals working in the sex industry to be enlightened and progressive humanitarians, others find those engaged in the industry to be quite troubled and disturbed individuals. It’s not up to you, in all of your great wisdom, to dictate to the parents of this community, what they should, or should not, value in one of their educators. Your standards are not necessarily the community’s standards. While you may assert that porn is as American as apple pie, many do not share your belief system and they have the right to demand that their teachers exhibit a modicum of decency, which doesn’t include starring in a dozen or more porn films.
bam bam: “The field of education, by its very nature, carries with it a different degree of care necessary in selecting those who will be granted the opportunity to teach young and impressionable minds. While you may find individuals working in the sex industry to be enlightened and progressive humanitarians, others find those engaged in the industry to be quite troubled and disturbed individuals.”
Well, neither of us knows this woman personally, so perhaps we should take the word of school officials themselves who, before they knew about her porn past, rated her teaching abilities as “exemplary” (their highest grade) and nominated her for District Teacher of the Year, as well as Campus Teacher of the Year for the 2016-’17 school year. Somehow, that doesn’t sound like a “troubled and disturbed individual” to me.
“It’s not up to you, in all of your great wisdom, to dictate to the parents of this community, what they should, or should not, value in one of their educators.”
No, what’s up to me is to call out pseudo-moralistic bigotry when I see it, especially when those objecting to this woman continuing to teach have never met her, and are basing their bigotry on a choice she made some 15 years previously to work in a LEGAL profession that perhaps they themselves would not choose to work in.
“Your standards are not necessarily the community’s standards. While you may assert that porn is as American as apple pie, many do not share your belief system and they have the right to demand that their teachers exhibit a modicum of decency, which doesn’t include starring in a dozen or more porn films.”
There is no evidence that Resa Woodward lacks “decency” (which you obviously equate to “sexual activity” though others have a different definition), and in any case—and it can’t be said too often—the person she is now is clearly not the person she was 15 years ago, and there appears to be NO ONE claiming that her actions are in any way “indecent” today—and I have to wonder, what would people find if they dug into YOUR adolescence?
And by the way, not only is porn “as American as apple pie,” porn predates apple pie by several centuries, if not millennia.
Rationalism is and excuse not a Reason. It is the protective wall from taking the last step into realism and remaning in the subjective world of the world that doesn’t exist.
It is the hall mark of the insincere seeknig to exhibit his or own Nuremberg Defense and that is not a defense but a an open admission of ppublicly confessed guilt with a plea for clemency.
But none of us can grant clemency only you can do that.
It is a step in the right direction. It is not the whole journey.
I will assume that your heroine did not participate in porn films, during her ADOLESCENCE, as doing so would have included her violating the law. Gasp.
As far as my adolescence is concerned, I can assure you that it included a variety of activities, yet none of them included engaging in porn films for four years and exposing myself to every sexually transmitted disease on the planet through unprotected sex with hundreds or thousands of dirtbags sporting runny, oozing sores on their bodies and carrying HIV and any assortment of disgusting and putrid health ailments. I know. What a square. We can’t all be as well balanced as you, sitting naked all day, j@cking off to images of strangers on a computer.
and don’t forget the cheetos
bam bam: “As far as my adolescence is concerned, I can assure you that it included a variety of activities, yet none of them included engaging in porn films for four years and exposing myself to every sexually transmitted disease on the planet through unprotected sex with hundreds or thousands of dirtbags sporting runny, oozing sores on their bodies and carrying HIV and any assortment of disgusting and putrid health ailments.”
You know, I love it when people who are completely ignorant of how my industry works nonetheless pontificate on how horrible it is. Such people don’t know, for example, that performers are tested for sexually transmitted infections every 14 days; that the infection rates of performers as a group are between 1% and 2% during any given month, ALWAYS from performers contracting them in their personal lives, and that if/when such infections are detected, they are barred from performing on camera until cured, thanks to the database system the industry has set up—and there hasn’t been an HIV transmission on a California porn set in 13 years, and thanks to Truvada, we don’t expect to see another… ever. So sorry; no “runny, oozing sores” nor “disgusting and putrid health ailments” to be seen anywhere.
“We can’t all be as well balanced as you, sitting naked all day, j@cking off to images of strangers on a computer.”
You know me so well—NOT!
“And by the way, not only is porn “as American as apple pie,” porn predates apple pie by several centuries, if not millennia.”
Apparently there are examples of cave walls decorated with pictures of copulation.
Even monkeys like looking at pictures of other monkeys hindquarters. But monkeys are smarter that us. Monkeys are only interested in pictures of monkeys they already know.
I probably should refrain….but nope…just can’t.
Sooo Mark, any legal (or not illegal) prior profession/occupation should be considered as not disqualifying to be a teacher of 6th graders (girls or boys)?
It seems to me that an inherent logical extension begs the question, would any second job (legal or not illegal) also not be seen as disqualifying? For this example, I refer to the position of 6th grade teacher.
Renegade – we know you can be a convicted terrorist and go on to be a college professor. Pornography is a legal industry. Terrorism is not.
Renegade: “Sooo Mark, any legal (or not illegal) prior profession/occupation should be considered as not disqualifying to be a teacher of 6th graders (girls or boys)?”
Frankly, I haven’t given much thought to what legal jobs might disqualify someone from being a 6th grade teacher; that’s not my area of expertise; porn is—and I can’t stress this too strongly: Woodward has been out of porn for about 15 years, and when in, all she did was have sex on camera with a number of men and women—consensually, I suspect, though she’s now claiming that her husband forced her into it. But again, SHE HASN’T DONE THAT FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS! Moreover, she’s made it clear that she repudiates her former career. But apparently, that makes no difference: she has “porn cooties,” an imaginary disease I invented which A) has no symptoms, and B) is incurable in the minds of some. The other name for porn cooties is BIGOTRY.
MARKKERNESS
Please define bigotry as you see the term.
It’s pretty simple, Renegade: According to Dictionary.com, Bigotry is the “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own,” and while I’d probably consider even “less-than-complete intolerance” to qualify also, it’s pretty clear that several here are reflexively prejudiced against anyone who’s worked in the adult industry, even though they may not know anyone in the industry, have never worked in the industry, and in fact know nothing about the industry beyond what they’re read in the mainstream and tabloid press, which I think most here would understand are not the most reliable sources of information on the industry, since they almost never contact spokespersons for the industry when writing their stories about it. As for the “stubborn” part, well, feel free to read some of the discussions in this thread.
Then I guess I’m a bigot. I will not tolerate the US NAMBLA’s precepts nor the foreign religious practice of female circumcision just to name a few. The definition makes no mention of “lawful” or other common social standards—folkways and mores.
And considering your statements in response to reasoned arguments, you are a bigot as well.
bam bam – the bird may appreciate the tactile sense of claw to skin.
In fact, since I generally walk around the house in my underwear, the bird often doesn’t recognize me when I’m wearing clothes.
But has the bird been fully informed?
OK, you already failed the “Will you do the job” question by advertising the fact you’re going to submit a sloppy, unfocused resume whether I like it or not, expecting me to wade through your BS (which simply will not happen; resume, meet trashcan). Now you’ve failed the the “Can I work with you” question by being an intolerant SNL “Church Lady” parody of a Christian. Another reason you’re not getting an interview.
I realize that this will come as a shock to markkernes, because as a lifelong Catholic I disapprove of pornography. But I’m not the Saudi morals police. I have to believe in forgiveness and redemption (although I realize markkernes doesn’t think he or she has done anything that requires forgiveness or redemption). Jesus Christ would sit down with prostitutes and tax collectors. If it’s good enough for Him, it’s good enough for me. If I were her supervisor I’d have fought tooth and nail for her to keep her job.
Nobody gets fired for that I’ll take as a mental slip. Somebody did get fired for that. Otherwise there would be no discussion. Which by now should be dwelling on who is the final arbiter and that is, of course, the appropriate level of the social contract.
Since education is mentioned nowhere in the federal level Constitution except by inference as t what constitutes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and absent any granting of powers to the State level that level is the local population.
Or if was granted to the State Government the federal government has no powers granted unlless the commerce clauses are brought in to play. Apparently that is the case as it was for Same Sex and Money as Free Speech along with Article IV full faith and credit. An important and far from side point the Constitution is a whole document and that is how it lives and when cherry picked or dismembered it dies.
Cherry picking in philsophy is what gave us Hegel, Kant, Marx, Hitler eand a host of problems when all one had to do was look at the Plato line of thinking genesis where Plato himself repudiates his findings for a totalitarian government with a special exempt ruling class and states why.
For usthe question then becomes is the proposed remedy constitutinally valid?
If it in anyway grants rights not in the power of the would be grantor then no.
If it in anyway substitutes the existing rights and replaces them with the newly fabricated right then no.
Those questions are too often not addressed but ignored by these rogue federal level judges for hire and part of the judicial swamp draining..
Always examine what rights were trampled if any first. If that condition exists send back to the State level or the level of the citizens themselves.
Then ask they come up with their version and fact check it against the standards of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.–
Welcome to the second enlightment this one not hampered by the unfinished products that led us here. and led us astray.
… unless you’ve been in porn; then time is of no consequence: You’re infected for life.
The other ‘for life’ for instance is providing information that is different than the informatin provide prevously. For example 25 Libby Street instead of 250 Libby Street. and providing through any means to a federal agent or agency. It’s so bad the last time I used copies of all my old 171 etc. forms then did an update from date of retirement. That was the only way not to commit a felony. It’s called the Libby Law. amd os an intentional form of entrapment.
I can do without the mental image, thank you.