The state of Florida just did what the city of Sanford and Seminole County wouldn’t do: investigate the death of Trayvon Martin, and file charges against his killer, George Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman Arrested for 2nd Degree Murder
Reuters | Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:31pm EDT

George Zimmerman is under arrest, charged with second degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a Florida special prosecutor announced Wednesday.

Angela Corey

Zimmerman, 28, who’s been in hiding since news of Martin’s killing gained worldwide attention, turned himself in on an arrest warrant, called a capias, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey said at a news conference.

“I can tell you we did not come to this decision lightly,” Corey said in remarks broadcast live on TV and online. “We do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition. We prosecute based on the facts in any given case, as well as the laws of the state of Florida.”

I gotta tell you, this feels much better.

I look forward to hearing Zimmerman’s side of the ‘confrontation’ between him and Martin under oath. I fully expect the jury’s bullshit meter to be pegging the dial. I hear that the maximum sentence for second degree murder is life in prison. Good. Meantime, I continue to welcome the sparkling commentary, redolent of Africans!, from you law and order types . .

The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling on Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriages in California, came down today. By a vote of two to one, they ruled it was unconstitutional.

National Review were outraged (gotta love this headline):

Ninth Circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You Are Irrational Bigots
By Maggie Gallagher | February 7, 2012 1:50 P.M

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Boy, you couldn’t be more wrong there, Maggie. It was an illegal exercise in rational animus, otherwise known as legislated homophobia. Are all you misanthropy-flogging lessons in un-Christ-like behavior really so shocked? You must know an historically un-American law like this won’t pass judicial muster. Yet you shove it down our throats. Aren’t you wise? Too bad there’s no way to construct legal bigotry so that the Constitution won’t tear it pieces. To quote another famous document, the court said: “All Men Are Created Equal.”

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State or any other authorized party, an important right — the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less . .

. . Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).

I’m no legal scholar, but as far as seeing through the pretense of the legislation, the majority hit center bullseye. The NR headline was spot on, as well.

Just in:

President Barack Obama’s name will remain on the Georgia primary ballot after a state law judge flatly rejected legal challenges that contend he can not be a candidate.

In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

This is interesting to me. The human mind can wage war with reality. These folks are sure that Barack is a super-something. Tentacled acrobat-cypher. Sneaky black martian. Cloud computer. How is anyone sure a Social Security number is fake? If it doesn’t have, say, an ampersand in it? Or Zeus’ dick? It’s all reassuringly pathetic.

Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,” Malihi wrote. Accordingly, Obama is eligible as a candidate for the upcoming presidential primary . .

So ordered: Judge Malihi Ominous Cello Nyah-Huh-Huh.

Oh, how I loathe the future. Months and months of Jerry Sandusky reports, the lurid trial dragging on and on, the sight of grown men crying on the stand, the replaying of heartbreaking testimonies on the nightly news. Please spare us, it’s all too horrible.

I fear particularly for what’s approaching given the newest, most reckless player in the tragedy: Joe Amendola, Sandusky’s lawyer. He is flawed, cavalier and stupid:

“Anyone who is naive enough to think for a minute that Tim Curley, Joe Paterno, Gary Schultz and, for that matter, Graham Spanier, the university president, were told by Mike McQueary that he observed Jerry Sandusky having anal sex with a 10-year-old-looking kid in a shower at Penn State . . “

“10-year-old looking kid”? Maybe pint-sized twinks cruise the Penn State locker room? How can we be sure, after all? The whole thing might be a misunderstanding of local gay culture that happens to overlap the football program. Hell, even straight guys like Jerry Sandusky might enjoy “anal sex.” I’m getting nauseated by my own snark.

Joe: we know who the victim was. And 10 year-old boys (and girls) do not engage in “anal sex.” They get raped.

” . . and their response was to simply tell Jerry Sandusky that, ‘Don’t go in the shower room any more with kids.’ I suggest you dial 1-800-REALITY. Because that makes absolutely no sense.”

. . so, somebody dials 1-800-REALITY. And it’s a gay sex line, the “hottest place for triple-X action.” We’re back to hot sexy square one, and the bile is rising.

Is this the worst lawyer? Hard to imagine a more despicable choice. Let’s see: as a 49 year-old, Joe represented a 16 year-old teen seeking emancipation, had sex with her and got her pregnant. They later married, had another kid and divorced, which is excellent. Before you start holding your head, let’s be fair: while she was one-third his age, Sandusky’s victims were one-fifth his age. So there’s really no parallel. I see no reason to worry about having an attorney like that maintain your innocence.

After taking this case, Joe thought it would be a good idea to have Jerry defend himself on TV. That effort produced two of the most horrifying defendant’s clips ever seen. So that was a fine strategy.

Tuesday: Joe, his defendant, the prosecution and the victims all showed up for the first big day of the long legal process, the preliminary hearing. Seeing the media circus, Joe stepped inside and suddenly waived the proceeding. Nothing to see here today, people, no reason to hang around, ‘bye. That, of course, produced a media circus. Victim four:

“This is the most difficult time of my life. I can’t put into words how unbearable this has been on my life, both physically and mentally. I can’t believe they put us through this only to waive the hearing.”

Joe, again, allowed his client to comment:

“We fully intend to put together the best possible defense that we can do, to stay the course, to fight for four quarters.”

Ready for months of football metaphors from the Penn State child rapist? Ugh.

Memo to Clarence Thomas:

Could you now please STFU until the end of time?  THIS is what a  “high-tech lynching” looks like . .

Hey, Rep. Tim Scott from South Carolina. If the president invokes the 14th Amendment, if he says the nation’s debts are constitutionally barred from default, what will you do?

This president is looking to usurp congressional oversight to find a way to get it done without us. My position is that is an impeachable act from my perspective… This is catastrophic. This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our founding fathers over something this significant.

The debt ceiling, heretofore a bottle of Ambien, is now a giant blangor of plutonium. Incidentally, re the ‘oversight’ thing — as per the Constitution, all spending in the federal government originates where, again? Up a congressman’s ass, that’s correct.

Rep. Pete Olson of Texas: you hear what Tim Scott said? Are you guys seriously talking impeachment?

A little bit… He’s not a lonely voice.

You’re right. Not the only voice, ever, since when, still, and forever. Back in March: Rep. Trent Franks of Texas. If Obama won’t press the Defense of Marriage Act in court, Republicans should impeach him, right?

If it could gain the collective support, absolutely.

A year ago, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas. If Obama doesn’t do better on immigration, that’s impeachable, right?

I think we’re on the verge of being there right now. … Whatever law they’re not enforcing, I think it comes awfully close to a violation of their oath of office.

Whatever law that law is. Like the whatever law that says “A president must violate the 14th Amendment or he will have fondled Tim Scott’s oversight unicorn.”

Last October, Former Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan. If he won’t show you his birth certificate, Tim, what can you do?

The Executive has an awful lot of power to keep from showing certain things unless the courts will stand up to him. Or unless Congress in majority will stand up, up to and including impeachment.

Right: show me yours or I’ll Senate-testify you broke the law. Lastly, all-around Colorado whack-a-loon Tom Tancredo last year. Hey Tom, didn’t Obama pull down the fences on the border? Isn’t he shuttling Mexican homosexuals into your town?

Mr. Obama’s most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border… That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution.

I don’t imagine you made that up?

Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda.

The Senate will now hear President Mohammed Chavez testify in his own defense.

“Yes! I admit it!”


H/T Think Progress

. . posted @ 6:30, breaking 1 hour ago:

Self-help guru convicted in Arizona sweat lodge deaths
By Nicholas Riccardi | June 22, 2011

A jury in Arizona on Wednesday convicted a bestselling author and self-help guru in the deaths of three clients during a sweat lodge ceremony in 2009 that was intended to help participants overcome adversity to reach their full potential.

After hearing four months of testimony, the eight-man, four-woman jury deliberated for fewer than 12 hours before finding James Arthur Ray guilty of three counts of negligent homicide. The panel acquitted Ray of the more serious charges of manslaughter.

Wearing a dark jacket and dress shirt, Ray sat silently in the courtroom, his face breaking into relief when the manslaughter charges were rejected, only to swallow hard when the clerk announced that the jury had convicted him of the lesser charges.

New York Times:

New Age Guru Guilty in Sweat Lodge Deaths
MARC LACEY | June 22, 2011

. . A motivational speaker and author, Mr. Ray seemed to breathe a sigh of relief when he was found not guilty on the first manslaughter charge. But he looked stunned a moment later when the guilty verdicts came in. Watching the verdict were relatives of Mr. Ray as well as family members and friends of the victims, many of them holding hands as the decision was read . .

The defense said the three victims were not coerced by Mr. Ray and may have died from unknown toxins in the sweat lodge, a round wood-frame structure covered with blankets and tarps. Besides the three deaths, numerous other participants were injured during the ceremony, which was intended to push people to conquer their limitations. All had signed waivers warning that death was among the risks, Mr. Ray’s lawyers noted.

“You will have to get to a point to where you surrender and it’s O.K. to die,” Mr. Ray said in a recording during the ceremony that was played at the trial. After he spoke, a chaotic scene took place, according to witnesses at the trial, who described severely ill people being dragged out of the lodge.

My original coverage of the tragedy and aftermath:

–Greedy, callous self-help guru James Arthur Ray conducts “Spiritual Warrior” sweat lodge, kills three
–Greedy, callous self-help guru James Arthur Ray tweets of glorious death and sacrifice before fatal “Spiritual Warrior” sweat lodge
–Greedy, callous self-help guru James Arthur Ray conducts shocking conference call with survivors, says his victims “transitioned”
–Survivors’ tales: Was James Arthur Ray creating some sort of cult? Is that why his followers died?
–Is James Arthur Ray’s self-help empire just a personal money machine?
–Sidney Spencer, flown unsconcious from James Ray’s death lodge, recounts events
–Former James Arthur Ray follower recounts ‘reckless’ arrow point incident: “We could not tell if his eye was intact. It was a bloody mess.”
–Self-help guru James Arthur Ray sold self-reliance to millions with an image created by multiple steroids and mountains of pills
–Self-help guru James Arthur Ray got his steroids from an anti-aging website called All Things Male
–BREAKING: Self-help guru James Arthur Ray arrested, charged with three counts of manslaughter

Some cops are better than others. These are worse.

In Miami, on Memorial Day, Raymond Herisse allegedly struck an officer with his car and narrowly missed up to four others. When they finally located and detained him, it was 4 a.m.. 12 officers fired 100 rounds into his car, killing him.

Bystanders report that, after the shooting, some officers intimidated and harassed them, even destroyed their cell phone recordings of the event.

But one citizen’s recording survived:

We have that eye witness and his girlfriend who was with him at the time. They’re at our Miami bureau. CNN has purchased the video from Narces Benoit and his girlfriend, Ericka Davis.

Narces, can you tell us what the Miami Beach police said and did to you when they first approached you?

NARCES BENOIT, SHOOTING WITNESS: “It was like, get the “f” away from you. Get back to your car. That’s what I did. I walked back with my hands up. I turned around. Officer had a gun to her head.”

Benoit says the police got him out of the car at gun point, handcuffed him, made him lie face down on the ground, grabbed his cell phone, threw it on the ground and stomped on it then placed it in his back pocket.

Narces saved the sim card by putting it in his mouth. Here’s his video:

Several bystanders were wounded in the shooting.

Thirty-year-old Cedrick Perkins, an engaged father of two, came to Miami Beach over Memorial Day Weekend to have a good time. He left with a bullet lodged in chest courtesy of the police. Perkins was one of four innocent bystanders who was hit by a bullet during an incident in which eight Miami Beach and four Hialeah police officers unloaded more than 100 bullets into the car of now-deceased Raymond Herisse. He tells The Miami Herald he now plans to sue.

Next: This Niagara Frontier Transit Authority cop doesn’t like being recorded, so he tells the citizen, “I’m gonna fucking break your face.”

He didn’t mean it as a police officer, so it’s jinks, no backsies. What a terrific guy.

Seems to me like the eye-borne infliction of “emotional distress” would be a perfectly reasonable thing to outlaw. I don’t imagine anything going wrong once law enforcement insists upon access to everybody’s sketch pads and Google caches . .

Tenn. law bans posting images that “cause emotional distress”
By Timothy B. Lee | June 8 2011

A new Tennessee law makes it a crime to “transmit or display an image” online that is likely to “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to someone who sees it. Violations can get you almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines.

It’s not even images “. . intended to frighten, intimidate . .” someone. It’s images “likely” to frighten, intimidate, etc. How the hell are you supposed to anticipate a particular person’s reaction?

. . for image postings, the “emotionally distressed” individual need not be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you “should have known” that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

Loki. It’s anybody’s reaction. This is patently insane.

Speaking of which, I have a family member who’s mentally ill. Her episodes of “emotional distress” reach depths that would terrify anybody, but they’re impossible to predict. Unfortunately, I’m aware of the illness. If we were living in Tennessee, I suppose I’d have to lock myself in an internet-free bunker.

You know where this is going: this is Southern Taliban stuff. If you post an online image of Jesus they don’t like, if you paint Christ as a bearded terrorist, they’ll haul you before a judge.

It could go far beyond that. Remember when, after months of Sarah Palin carrying poor Trig around as a pro-life prop, someone photoshopped an image of the two? The right-wing howled over the sacrilege. Of course, then it was ON:

. . and on . .

. . and on.

No doubt these pics precipitated “emotional distress” because we heard the loons go sideways.

Can you imagine your freedom being dependent on the emotional underpinning of a wingnut’s brain? The emotional fragility of Tennessee’s social Conservatives is now the personal responsibility of their fellow citizens? For this . .

. . they get a mug shot and a public trial? Hard time?

On the morning of May 5th, a Tucson, Arizona, SWAT team descended upon Iraq veteran Jose Guerena’s home to serve a search warrant. Immediately after breaking down the door, they saw Jose standing with an AR-15 assault rifle and shot him 60 times. Even though paramedics arrived on scene, police refused Jose medical treatment for over an hour and ten minutes. Jose Guerena bled to death, alone, inside the home he thought he was protecting from invasion robbers. Pima County law enforcement has yet to come up with a credible story to explain why they blasted a war veteran guilty of nothing, breaking no laws, inside his own home. Whatever excuses they offer constantly change.

Jose shot at us:

At first the Pima County Sheriff’s Office said that Guerena fired first . .

Or . . not:

. . but on Wednesday officials backtracked and said he had not. “The safety was on and he could not fire,” according to the sheriff’s statement.

While PCSD initially claimed Guerena fired the weapon he was alleged to have been holding, the department now says it was a misfire by one of the deputies that caused this deadly group panic inside a home containing a woman and a toddler:

A deputy’s bullet struck the side of the doorway, causing chips of wood to fall on his shield. That prompted some members of the team to think the deputy had been shot, [PCSD spokesman Michael] O’Connor said.

Jose was a drug dealer:

The May 5 shooting lasted only ten seconds. SWAT burst into a Tucson man’s home on a drug search warrant, fired more than 70 rounds, and left the Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran lying on the floor, fighting for his life. Guerena’s wife, Vanessa, emerged from the closet she was hiding in with her young son and called for help. She was left alone in the house with her dying husband . .

Or . . not:

The man shot and killed by Pima County SWAT officers was linked to a home-invasion crew, the attorney representing the officers said Thursday.

Attorney Michael Storie said authorities found rifles, handguns, body armor and a portion of a law-enforcement uniform inside the house where Jose Guerena was shot by officers serving a search warrant May 5.

“Everything they think they’re going to find in there they find,” Storie said . .

Jose was Tony Montana:

One officer began shooting after Guerena placed the rifle in front of him and said “I’ve got something for you, I’ve got something for you guys,” Storie said.

The other officers at the front door of the house, also fired striking Guerena.

Storie has revived the detail that Guerena shouted “I’ve got something for you, I’ve got something for you guys” before he was shot . .

Or . . please. We’re not stupid.

The cops approached with lights and sirens blazing:

According to the SWAT members’ statements all law enforcement vehicles approaching Guerena’s home had lights and sirens on and parked in the driveway, Storie said.

. . which, of course, terrified the Guerenas into fearing they were about to get hit by home invasion robbers?

Guerena’s wife, Vanessa Guerena, who was inside the house with their 4-year-old son, has said she did not see or hear lights and sirens and that Guerena thought they were being targeted for a home invasion, which is why her husband grabbed his AR-15 rifle and told her and their son to hide in a closet.

Whenever I hear sirens outside my home at 9:30 in the morning, I think “Here come robbers.” And when I hear silence but see people with assault weapons on my lawn, I think, “The police are here. I should open my door and talk to them.”

After Jose was shot 60 times, he ran away and hid in another room. That’s why SWAT cops figured it was a stand off and didn’t call an ambulance:

When asked why SWAT members did not rush in to render medical aid to Guerena, Storie said officers on scene “have to assume that there are other people with guns and that there are other people with body armor inside the residence.”

He said officers could not conclude Guerena was incapacitated because he fell into a room after he was shot and officers could not see him from the doorway.

Or . . not:

Based on a photograph of a large bloodstain inside the home, Scileppi said, Guerena fell down in clear view of the front door and officers could see him.

At some point, will SWAT team members get rushed to the hospital? Will Jose Guerena attack from the grave?

This is an appalling story. These things don’t happen here in America, you think. They happen in third world countries, with their shoddy, clownish police squads and mindless paramilitary drug enforcements.

No, they happen here — it happened in Tucson. This is the American truth: cops hear the word ‘drugs,’ and bad things happen. In American law enforcement, ‘drugs’ is automatically equivalent to ‘evil’ and ‘violence,’ and the police feel it’s their responsibility to wipe all of it out. It provides a rare opportunity when they’re green-lighted to unleash violence of epic proportions.

In this tragedy, a Tucson SWAT team descended upon the home of Jose Guerena, 26, and his wife, Vanessa, on May 5th to serve a search warrant.

“She saw a man pointing at her with a gun,” said Reyna Ortiz, 29, a relative who is caring for Vanessa and her children. Ortiz said Vanessa Guerena yelled, “Don’t shoot! I have a baby!”

Vanessa Guerena thought the gunman might be part of a home invasion — especially because two members of her sister-in-law’s family, Cynthia and Manny Orozco, were killed last year in their Tucson home, her lawyer, Chris Scileppi, said. She shouted for her husband in the next room, and he woke up and told his wife to hide in the closet with the child, Joel, 4.

It’s a good thing Vanessa took Joel and got in the closet. The SWAT team was about to start as violent a one-sided firefight as one could imagine.

Guerena grabbed his assault rifle and was pointing it at the SWAT team, which was trying to serve a narcotics search warrant as part of a multi-house drug crackdown, when the team broke down the door. At first the Pima County Sheriff’s Office said that Guerena fired first, but on Wednesday officials backtracked and said he had not. “The safety was on and he could not fire,” according to the sheriff’s statement.

SWAT team members fired 71 times and hit Guerena 60 times, police said.

In a frantic 911 call, Vanessa Guerena begged for medical help for her husband. “He’s on the floor!” she said, crying, to the 911 operator. “Can you please hurry up?” . .

A report by ABC News affiliate KGUN found that more than an hour had passed before the SWAT team let the paramedics work on Guerena. By then he was dead.

The Tucson Sheriff’s response to the shooting death of Jose Guerena has been shocking and insulting. They appear to be more interested in covering their asses, fighting it out with the media and dirtying the dead man’s name than assessing the catastrophe.

In a statement, the sheriff’s office criticized the media, saying that while questions will inevitably be raised, “It is unacceptable and irresponsible to couch those questions with implications of secrecy and a coverup, not to mention questioning the legality of actions that could not have been taken without the approval of an impartial judge.”

Mike Storie, a lawyer for the SWAT team, said at a press conference Thursday that weapons and body armor were found in the home as well as a photo of Jesus Malverde, who Storie called a “patron saint drug runner,” according to KGUN.

Storie defended the long delay in allowing paramedics to enter the home, saying of the SWAT team, “They still don’t know how many shooters are inside, how many guns are inside and they still have to assume that they will be ambushed if they walk in this house.”

Storie here won’t even acknowledge that the SWAT team had obviously already been inside the home. This is the level of discourse emanating from Pima County law enforcement.

Whose decision was it to let Guerena bleed to death on the ground? Why didn’t they call for help? Why pretend it took so long to secure the location?

“It is my understanding, and considering what happened and the size of the house, that wouldn’t have taken very long at all,” [Guerena family attorney Christopher] Scileppi said, adding that his biggest concern is that Guerena wasn’t given medical care after he’d been shot. “I think it’s tragic on so many levels. On a human, level, it’s tragic. My biggest question is, why was he denied medical attention?”

Paramedics were standing by, but were not allowed to enter the home, despite Vanessa’s pleas to a 911 operator. After an hour and 14 minutes of waiting, emergency responders received word that Guerena was deceased.

“His last thoughts were, ‘I’m defending my home, my wife and children from a home invasion.’” Scileppi told KGUN9.

Having seen these stories so many times before, I think I know what the cops are doing: they’re digging into Guerena’s background. They’re hoping to get even one hint that he was a bad guy, especially hoping he were a drug user. American law enforcement know that the public are okay with the violent deaths of druggies — especially the deaths of casual drug users. Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik is crossing his fingers that even the death of an Iraq veteran will be acceptable if he smoked a little pot. Then, it’ll have been perfectly okay to shoot and kill him.

More on the Jose Guerena SWAT shooting:

–Tucson law enforcement’s lame excuses
– A case of “Death by Address“?
– The insulting SWAT lawyer
– Jose’s death captured on SWAT video

MA lawmakers are considering legislation to make it illegal for a divorcing parent to have sex inside the family home.

Huh? Take two: in Massachusetts, it would be a crime for a divorcing spouse to engage in sex inside the dwelling where the children live. Senate bill 851, here it is:

Section 31 of chapter 208 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph:-

In divorce, separation, or 209A proceedings involving children and a marital home, the party remaining in the home shall not conduct a dating or sexual relationship within the home until a divorce is final and all financial and custody issues are resolved, unless the express permission is granted by the courts.

Oops, I shortchanged the legislation slightly. You also MAY NOT DATE inside the family home while divorce proceedings are underway. Whew, that’s better.

WHAT? Jonathan Turley:

[Robert] Leclair and other supporters in the town of Wrentham insist that the ban could cut down on domestic abuse. Of course, it also denies consenting adults of the choice over their intimate relations. It is clearly unconstitutional and a denial of privacy rights.

Leclair hardly improved things when he was quoted as saying “It’s not intended to abridge the rights of anybody. If they want to have an extra-marital affair, just get away from the home.”

What percentage of dating is talking on the phone? 5 percent? You can forget about using landlines, that’s jail time.

And I don’t imagine an aggrieved spouse would ever punish their ex by refusing to grant a divorce. Naw.