Not to mention his poor spelling (listserve sherriff). It should be "listserv sharrieff".
-- Sam Nicolary On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, S. Sharrieff Ali wrote: > Bruce..what are you..a bully? You continue to make references > to me on this list trying to goat me into an argument or somehow > insinuate that I am watching everyone's post, well..you are wrong > again. You have already embarrassed yourself through your private > post to me and your past list references to me so I suggest the > following: > > Simply said...Don't make references to me at all. > > That is all I am going to say for now..no need for a reply..just stop. > > Here is a web-site you will probably enjoy: > > www.moveon.org > > Best! > > S. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of B Andersen > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:47 AM > To: UnivCity@list.purple.com > Subject: Re: [UC] We're Paying This Loopy Bryn Mawr Student $180,000??? > > > Look, we know that Ross won't make any apologies for his seemingly > insensitive remarks. What surprises me is that the listserve sherriff > hasn't called him to the carpet for posting non-UC related topics to the > UC list. > > This whole saga is a story of bad judgement all around, and is a good > example of how draconian our law enforcement can be. The student in > question may have made a silly choice by putting the stuff in her > baggage, but it's pretty clear that law enforcement over reacted and got > their facts wrong. Was she targeted because she was Asian, maybe. Did > she get different treatment afterwards than others may have because of > who she was, probably ... but that's all speculation. > > In Philadelphia, we tolerate poor political leadership and management - > and this is just another example of how it comes back to haunt us. > > > On 1/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Please keep on trying to mold your assumptions into a logical point. So > now you're saying flour filled condoms should have been erroneously > ID'ed as bomb materials if she perhaps was wearing a head covering and > looked "Arab?" And that if that were the case, you'd criticize her for > being so stupid as to cause officials to make a mistake. Oh, and by the > way, David Oh is not some tall building fat cat lawyer. In fact, he > lives more in Craig's territory than UC. > > And please don't forget Wen Ho Lee, who's eyes and lawyers did not > suffice to keep him out of isolation, without bail, as a bona fide > national security threat for nothing. It was pretty apparent that his > being Asian was a key piece of evidence against him. > > And did you note the equally off base comment to the blog saying the > inflexible city solicitor would not settle anytime soon? So did that > person retract? > > To be on target, you have to go after the city first, really. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com > > Sent: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:15 PM > Subject: Re: [UC] We're Paying This Loopy Bryn Mawr Student $180,000??? > > > She is of the Asian persuasion -- (see story below). My point is and > was that if she had looked anything like an Arab, Homeland Security > would have whisked her off to Gitmo without further ado. The issue was > not so much that she might have been carrying drugs as that she might > have been carrying bomb materials. But those hotsy-totsy princesses with > the Mongolian eyefolds and expensive lawyers who go to Bryn Mawr get > special treatment. I still say she should apologize and give back the > money. "Stress bag" and "hall tea" my ass. > > > December 29, 2005 > > > A Philadelphia Story > > > posted by Dave Hoffman > > airlinetoy6.jpg > This story <http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13504147.htm> from > the Philadelphia Inquirer caught my eye. (And gave me an opportunity to > steal a picture from Dan's airline screening playset post.) Janet Lee, a > Bryn Mawr student, was on her way home from the holidays. At the > Philadelphia Int'l Airport, she was arrested because her checked bags > contained condoms full of flour, which the police mistakenly identified > in two field tests as cocaine and amphetamines. According to Lee, she > and hall-mates had created the bags as stress balls as an exam-time gag. > The system held Lee in jail for three weeks on $500,000 bail: > > Lee acted tough to protect herself. She did modern-dance moves to keep > limber. Inmates saw this and gossiped: "Everyone thought I knew karate > because I'm Asian." She certainly didn't discourage the stereotype. > Inmates saw the high volume of visitors and figured she was important. > Again, she did not discourage the notion. She did not tell her cell > mates that the visitors were actually volunteers from Catholic churches > in Philadelphia who had taken up her cause. > The volunteers helped her hire [a lawyer, and former prosecutor, named > David] Oh. > "I believed her story because things just didn't add up," Oh said. For > one thing, Oh said, the field tests were odd because they detected the > presence of not one drug but three. > "People don't mix drugs like that," Oh said. > First, Oh contacted Bryn Mawr and confirmed that Lee's dorm mates had, > in fact, made the condoms together during a pre-exam session they call a > "hall tea." > Then, Oh said, he called Assistant District Attorney Charles Ehrlich, > who agreed to expedite laboratory tests. Ehrlich also agreed to help > seek reduced bail, Oh said. A day after the new test came back and > confirmed that the substance was flour, Lee was released. > She flew home first class. > > There are a few notable things about this story. The draconian D.A.'s > office (all considered) gave Lee a huge break because of her connections > - a social capital that most defendants do not have. It is also > surprising (and heartening) that Philadelphia Airport is screening > luggage well enough to catch this (potential contraband). I also wonder > about the remarkably high bail set for a college student who had no > prior record that we know about, and the jail authorities apparent > decision not to put her into protective custody. On the other hand, I'm > not surprised at all at the error with the tests. I wonder if the police > department has studied the false positive rate carefully. > Needless to say, Lee has now filed a civil rights claim against the > police (and probably a claim against the city for their poor > drug-testing training). Given her story, the City should settle. But > knowing the City Solicitor's inflexible litigation strategy, I doubt > they will anytime soon. > Posted by Dave Hoffman at December 29, 2005 11:20 AM > > Trackback Pings > > TrackBack URL for this entry: > http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/381 > > Comments > > Maybe she was held with such a high bail because her story is so stupid. > I understand that I've been out of college for awhile, but I find it > strange that college women would put flour in condoms to make "stress > balls" and then be so enamored with them that they packed some to take > home for the holidays. > Would we be so sympathetic of a different defendant held for having a > homemade non-bomb in his suitcase that looked a lot like a homemade > bomb? Why do you think she should have been put in protective custoday? > Because she's a college girl? If all defendants held in jail are > presumed innocent, why would some be more presumed than others? > Posted by: Christine <http://www.theconglomerate.org/> at December 29, > 2005 01:11 PM > > > > http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/a_ > <http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/a_philadelphia.html> > philadelphia.html > > > On 1/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, that may well be true, but my point was we should proceed from > facts, not assumptions. And please don't forget the really erroneous > assumption was that made by the police. As you no doubt know very well, > people make lots of stupid mistakes that trigger more stupid police > mistakes, except the police are the ones with the badges, guns and > cuffs. So the question is, even if someone makes a "stupid" mistake, do > you go after her for being stupid (and doing nothing illegal), or the > cops for making a bad bust (or worse)? > > If I had a choice between criticizing a civilian for being naive vs a > police department and DA for getting the facts wrong, I wouldn't go > after the civilian first. > > For all you know, she is Black and that is why they didn't believe her. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: univcity@list.purple.com > Sent: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 2:47 PM > Subject: RE: [UC] We're Paying This Loopy Bryn Mawr Student $180,000??? > > > I think the point of the complexion remark was that had she been Black > she would still be incarcerated and we would not have heard her story. > And as far as income: if the cross section of gender and income are > obvious, then it is obvious that it is something that you don't have to > think about in your daily life. As a AFAM woman I would have never > taken a chance like that, that my life might not have recovered and in > addition have been rewarded for my own stupidity. > > Wendy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:22 PM > To: UnivCity@list.purple.com > Subject: Fwd: [UC] We're Paying This Loopy Bryn Mawr Student $180,000??? > > At the risk of taking a Ross message seriously when it's not: > > 1. Your city's police lab erroneously thought flour was coke, and has > yet to explain how they messed that up, which as I understand it is why > she was held that long in custody. Maybe the police chemist was the one > who was stealing drugs from the cops. > 2. She's a Bryn Mawr student from California, which really tells > you nothing about how privileged she is, at least in conventional usage. > 3. How did you figure out her complexion? > > Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com > Sent: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 9:49 AM > Subject: Re: [UC] We're Paying This Loopy Bryn Mawr Student $180,000??? > > On 1/8/07, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Remember when you had to be smart to get into college? > > Well it's not just that. It's the idea of MY city paying money we > desperately need to some overprivileged Main Line floozyette with an > expensive lawyer who, had she been the wrong complexion, would now be > spending time in Gitmo for pulling a trick like that. > > > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
