[Vision2020] [Spam] Re: attacks that really matter

Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 18 12:50:45 PDT 2006

  You wrote,
  "You are deliberately confusing defending people in court, or defending 
the rights of all individuals, with the defense of someones actions."

So now you know my intentions and what is in my head Joe?

No, others are confusing that as my argument. I am clear on my argument, it
is you that are confused by the rhetoric of your friends that cannot understand the
concept of defending a person but disagreeing with their actions. 

I have said repeatedly that I did not think Sunil supported child molestation or terrorism.
I said he defends child molesters and terrorists, how else would you put it Joe? 
Is that clear now, Joe? I hope so. 





Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:  My original comment was pretty clear, Donovan. 

You  are deliberately confusing defending people in court, or defending the  rights of all individuals, with the defense of someone's actions. If  using the ambiguous phrase "defender of child molesters" is not an  instance of name-calling, what is?

Best, Joe

---- Donovan Arnold  wrote: 

  What names have I called Sunil, Joe? It is your friends that are the ones calling people names.
  In terms of the issues, sometimes people are the issue. As with you and  Doug Wilson, you and Gary Crabtree, and a host of others. 
  I simply stated that Sunil does in fact defend child molesters. That is an indisputable fact, or do you disagree with that?
  I also stated that I think Sunil defends terrorists. I think that to be  true. He has repeatedly made posts for the benefit of those that  attacked this country. And has never praised this country for anything.  
 Why is that an issue? Well, I think that when people make  excuses to release child molesters into the public and as a result  children are placed at risk, that is an issue. You might not. But I am  willing to bet if you read the stories of released child molesters and  what they have done with children when released unsupervised, you would  be horrified. 
 Trying to put blame on the "legal system" and  not the people that do it I think doesn't solve the problem and is a  cop out. If a lawyer advocates for the release of a self admitted child  molester to roam unsupervised, I think all those involved in that  decision are responsible for the consequences.
 I call people  of power and position on their actions Joe. I will not stop doing that.  "it was my job" just doesn't cut it for me. If it makes people mad,  good, maybe it will make them think why they do what they do. 
  Best to you Joe,

Joe Campbell  wrote:  Dear Donovan,

No  one is trying to prevent you from expressing your opinions, at least  your opinions on specific topics as opposed to specific people. But  when you confuse the defense of the rights of terrorists and child  molesters with a defense of their actions, you have just gone too far.  You're no longer engaging in debate, nor are you encouraging it.

I'd  like to tell you why I think your views on this topic are wrong, but I  have no desire to get caught up in another name-calling battle.

Best, Joe

---- Donovan Arnold  wrote: 

One  way I confirm that I am on track is when the Collective Authoritative  Elitists, who mistakenly identify themselves as liberals in this town,  start telling me to shut up and re-frame from expressing my opinion. 
  I am saddened but not surprised how they are defending the point that  self admitted and convicted child molesters have rights and that  representing those rights and fighting for their unsupervised release  from prison is an honorable profession. It just exposes their true  selves. Letting child molesters and other predators out of jail to do  harm is exactly what is WRONG with this country's judicial system. They  are more concerned about the rights of men that molest little six year  old girls then the little six year old girls. What a sick and twisted  way to set priorities!
 Who's fault do you honestly think it  is when a convicted child molester is freed and gets a hold of another  child? Who argued for his release? I will tell you who, lawyers that  think they got rights and argue for their release, that is who. Those  lawyers decide and take those actions. It is messed up I tell you. And  I'll bet $100 that was not what the founding fathers had in mind when  they wrote the Constitution. 
 I also am ashamed of their  defense of terrorists that have murderously killed thousands of  Americans, men, women, and children. It shows their total reckless  endangerment and lack of concern for the well being for this nation and  those in it. Are they on our side? There is a huge question mark as to  who's side they are on. Were they cheering or crying when the twin  towers fell? I wonder. 
 Just once I would like to hear some  of these elitists express their hatred towards others that have wronged  this nation, rather then defend them. Just once I would like to hear  them praise the United States, admit there is a God above them, and  that terrorism is always wrong. They instead declare themselves as  Gods, demand their way of thinking be the only way of thinking, their  form of justice be the only justice even if it results in the death or  molestation of the innocent, and their opinion be the only one that be  expressed.
 What I say may be chilling and dreadful, but it is  not slanderous, because it is true, it is true because that is what is  typed from finger tips and spoken from their lips. 

Betsy Dickow  wrote:              Donovan,
  You are more and more shrill and it is chilling to read the slanderous  and dreadful things you think. Please pull yourself together and try to  be civil.
      ----- Original Message ----- 
    From:     Donovan Arnold 
    To: keely emerinemix ; sunilramalingam at hotmail.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
    Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 3:30     PM
    Subject: [Spam] Re: [Vision2020] attacks     that really matter

Keely writes:

"We fear dark-skinned men of Middle Eastern descent because of the vicious 
actions of a few, but most of white America would be loath to hold Anglo men in 
wary suspicion, even though white youths are the ones committing school 
shootings and middle-aged white men are looting the pensions of American workers 
through Enron and other white-collar acts of economic violence."

What race baiting bullshit! When you are losing on a issue blame it on discrimination?

This has nothing to do with any person's race. It has to do with people being terrorists and
killing other innocent people. Terrorists come in all races.

And for your information, I am too much of an idiot to know what race Sunil is. 
I still don't, and you know what, I don't care. It is not the issue at hand. 

And yes, I do think Keely caused the defeat of the MSD Bond. I had
people all over this town telling me, by email, in person, etc,
cannot stand her and that is why they voted against the school levy. Dale Courtney
loves her because she is the one that lowered his taxes. 

Maybe she can link that to discrimination against women, or housewives or something. It
doesn't have to make sense, nothing out of her ever does. 



keely     emerinemix  wrote:    People       write me off list or call me to ask why I ever respond to Donovan,       
particularly when he goes off the edge and accuses me of things like       
destroying MSD by turning two-thirds of our neighbors against public       
education -- singlehandedly. (Gee, and I had hoped to use my powers for       
good, not evil. Bummer it didn't work out that way. Dang.)

On a       more serious note, let me just say that I am disinclined to respond to       
Donovan when he writes about me, or about things that have no real       
consequence. But there are things that Donovan says via Vision 2020 that       
could, potentially, result in very real consequences. One of them is his       
slanderous attacks against Sunil Ramalingam.

The political       climate of the day is dangerous. It's dangerous to engage in 
public       criticism of our government, it's dangerous to defend people at home 
and       abroad who are victims of any form of oppression the White House doesn't       
recognize as terrorism, and it's dangerous, frankly, to be very       different 
from your neighbor. By "dangerous," I don't mean that       jack-booted thugs 
will automatically drag you from your house, or that       roaming bands of 
vigilantes will beat you to a bloody pulp. I do mean       that there is a 
climate of hatred and hysteria in the U.S. now that       makes speaking out 
against any part of our "war on terrorism" risky to       one's reputation, 
livelihood, and perhaps even one's physical safety in       some communities.

We've defined the "other," and we presume to know       who he is simply because 
of a facet of "otherness" that we believe we've       identified. We fear 
dark-skinned men of Middle Eastern descent because       of the vicious actions of 
a few, but most of white America would be       loath to hold Anglo men in wary 
suspicion, even though white youths are       the ones committing school shootings 
and middle-aged white men are       looting the pensions of American workers 
through Enron and other       white-collar acts of economic violence. Even people 
I had considered to       be liberals acknowledge their unease and disgust with 
"them" (Muslims,       Middle-Eastern men, foreign students, Sikhs, or anyone else 
who looks,       believes, and acts differently while possessing skin darker than       
theirs), and they do so with only the vaguest sense of remorse. It is       wrong 
in this or any other political climate to accuse someone of siding       with or 
defending terrorists without clear, incontrovertible proof that       that is, in 
fact, true. But if Sunil were, say, a freckled guy named       Kevin O'Reilly, I 
doubt that the sneering accusations would gather much       traction. That he 
isn't a towheaded Anglo guy ought to be neither here       nor there, but Sunil 
has volunteered that he has been called many ugly       things because of his race 
and coloration, and in a country obsessed       with finding "them" -- those 
seemingly normal-looking people who are       really out to hurt us -- such 
accusations of sympathy for terrorists are       particularly odious and 
particularly damaging. Read Dick Sherwin's       comments earlier today: the 
idea that perhaps Sunil is showing "his true       self" is, frankly, chilling in 
the context of the day.

I have       stated before that Sunil doesn't need my defense, nor has he ever 
asked       for it. I've seen Sunil twice in my life, and the most recent was 
last       month, at the sentencing of my friend Bob on drug charges. I love Bob       
and I'm grateful for Sunil's work on his case; more than that, I think       that 
the work Sunil does represents the very best part of what makes       America 
different from nations groaning under the burden of fascist,       theological 
oppression. I would be morally wrong to remain silent when       his character is 
attacked -- even if it means engaging with Donovan. I'm       sorry he's as angry 
with me as he is, but he has my prayers anyway;       other than that, I spend 
little time thinking about it all.

The       stakes in this game are high, too high to assume that the maturity or       
intelligence of the accuser in any way negates or mutes the effect on       the 


From: Donovan Arnold       
To: keely emerinemix , sunilramalingam at hotmail.com,       
vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Keely -- not a       wielder of great power
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 01:56:34 -0700       (PDT)


For someone that claims they do not care what I       think or say you sure 
spend a lot of time addressing my       comments.

I NEVER referred to Sunil's defense of terrorists in       reference to his 
workplace. I was referring to his defense of terrorists       on Vision2020, I 
think I made that clear, repeatedly. If you read my       entire email and 
clicked the links I provided you would know       that.

As to the defense of already convicted child molesters, Sunil       has already 
stated that he does that. You agreed that was great and       important, that is 
your right, I don't agree with that.

As to       your ability to wield power, I think you have demonstrated a great 
deal       of power to destroy the Moscow School District and enrage its       
supporters. MSD lost revenue and support to replace Russell and West       Park 
by attaching it to a financially irresponsible plan, that to me is       a great 
deal of power. I haven't know anyone to turn 63% of Moscow       against 
education, but you have that power       Keely.



keely emerinemix wrote: Donovan,

I couldn't care less what you think of       me, and I'm sure Sunil is not
terribly bothered by what you think of him.       And I am well acquainted with
the definition and criteria for slander. It       is slanderous for you to say
that Sunil "defends terrorists,"       particularly given his position as a public
defender. The context of       "defending" is, in this case, that he works as an
attorney and "defender"       of those accused of crimes. Should you ever be
accused of a crime, I       would presume that you would be cognizant of the
importance of his       work.

I am a "master" of nothing, really, and if I wielded the power       to make
people believe the sun really does come up in the West, my       kitchen would be
a helluva lot cleaner right now, such would be my       influence over the
teenagers living with me. Frankly, the only thing I       would do if I had such
tremendous powers of persuasion would be to offer       to meet with you to
discuss real issues like real adults. However, I       suspect that would be as
fruitful as my clearing my plugged kitchen sink       by inhaling the contents of
the drain, and only slightly less       unpleasant.


From: Donovan       Arnold
To: Sunil Ramalingam , vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re:       [Vision2020] Sunil and His Defense of Terrorists
andConvictedChild       Molesters
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:02:45 -0700       (PDT)


I never stated that Sunil supports terrorism and       child molestation, that
is preposterous, re-read what I wrote. I said he       defends those that do.


The definition of slander is the       saying of something that is false and
damaging. If it is true, it isn't       slander. Sunil himself admits to
defending convicted child       molesters:

"It is true that I defend convicted child molesters at       sentencing

hearings that occur after a client has been convicted by a       jury"

Sunil       Ramalingam--


I       am not going to try and argue with you. For you are the master       of
convincing the jury that the Sun really rises in the West depending on       ones
point of view.

I am sure that you can argue that I got the       context wrong in some of 
posts, but after 20+ such posts over       2.5 years it is hard to write all them

FYI, I did support       Sami Omar. He was living in UI Family Housing at the
time he was       abducted. I represented Family Housing in the UI student
government at       the time. I defended Sami in student council and even brought
his family       there, which was even aired on public television. I kept in
contact with       John Dickinson about what was going at the trial in Boise.
That case is       different, because it was a domestic case and there was no
evidence       whatsoever that Sami was a terrorist, in fact it all pointed in
the       opposite direction. Further, Sami was not saying he was planning       on
killing Americans when he gets out like those detained overseas. And,       at
least one member of Sami's family was born right here in       Moscow.

I don't think the government can detain someone forever       without at least
trying to find out if someone is guilty. But letting       them go if they say
"Death to America" is just to risky when they are       capable of acting on it.

My disagreement with you Sunil, is that you       clearly are brilliant, yet
rather than using your talents to defend       victims in our society, you use
your wit and experience to defend       convicted child molesters.

I am not arguing you are not doing your       job, or you are not good at it.
I am arguing that your job should be       something more productive and
meaningful then the release of child       molesters and the scum of the earth
when you know they are       guilty.

I am sure you with your big brain will justify that in your       own mind. 
I think anyone with a heart will ask WHY the child       molesters get a good
lawyer and trial when there are so many other more       deserving and wronged
people with their rights being stepped on. They       should be a higher priority
to you and any lawyer concerned about       justice.



Sunil Ramalingam wrote:       Tom,

It is true that I defend convicted child molesters at sentencing       hearings
that occur after a client has been convicted by a jury (or a       judge in
juvenile cases) at the sentencing hearing and in subsequent       legal
proceedings, or at a post-conviction hearing filed by a client who       is
usually in prison. If a convicted child molester is charged with a       new
crime, then I may defend that person. As a public defender I don't       judge my
clients; there is no shortage of people ready to do this       (regardless of how
much or how little information they have about the       crime or the criminal)
and it's not my place or job to do so. I try to       represent them to the best
of my ability, and I don't apologize for       this.

I have never represented a convicted terrorist as a lawyer,       though I would
were I to be appointed to do so or if I were retained to       do so. I did
represent a witness in Sami al Hussein's case, and am happy       I was able to
offer him assistance. Perhaps Donovan would like to insult       me for doing so.

As one who believes our judicial system has       underlying principles, I believe
that all people who are held have the       right to due process and a fair and
proper hearing. I do not believe that       we have the right to imprison people,
no matter what we label them,       forever, or to try them in kangaroo courts.
This is a defense of legal       principle and human rights. I consider it a
defense of our country, and       the notion that we have enduring principles
These are beliefs that       Donovan neither shares nor supports. He is a fan       of

Though Donovan does not support the Iraq war, he       appears to find the Bush
Administration infallible once they arrest or       confine a Muslim. At that
point he believes it is appropriate to hold       that person indefinately. I
find this position shameful and disgusting,       and Donovan finds me repugnant
because of this, I am willing to live with       the loss of his approval.

It is interesting to note the subject line       of Donovan's most recent post.
He has claimed he only attacks those who       attack him. Most recently he
incorrectly made fun of Keely's spelling; I       asked him if he wanted the same
done to him. Since we all post all too       quickly, we all make spelling
errors, and few of us would really want to       have our own posts criticized for
our typos. This is the point I was       making.

Donovan, in the thoughtful and Christian response we have all       learned so
well, responds by attacking my character in a way that has the       smallest germ
of truth but is intended to be a slur. I have written him       offline and
pointed out that hatred of Middle Easterners has often       resulted in racial
slurs and threats being directed towards me; I have       told him that I consider
his calling me a defender of terrorists could       actually be harmful to me.
You see the effect (or is it 'affect'       Donovan?) my request has had on him.

Of course, this is the man, or       aging adolescent, who has suggested it would
benefit the gene pool if       children were to die playing in construction sites
that should be       off-limits if their parents fail to provide proper
supervision, so I       would be foolish to expect better of him.


>From:       "Tom Hansen"
>To: "'Donovan Arnold'" , "'Sunil
>Ramalingam'"       ,
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Sunil and His Defense of Terrorists       and

=== message truncated ===

Do you Yahoo!?
 Everyone is raving about the  all-new Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060918/ba2fc8e3/attachment-0001.htm 

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list