Tampa Tribune concedes that Dr. Rex Curry's work is correct ! http://rexcurry.net/elaine-silvestrini-tampa-tribune.html
Photo http://rexcurry.net/elaine-silvestrini-benito-mussolini.jpg Daniel Ruth http://rexcurry.net/silvestrini-elaine-tampa-tribune-pledge.jpg Elaine Silvestrini
Daniel Ruth LaRouche publicly humiliated (again!). Ruth canned & Tribune collapsing http://rexcurry.net/daniel-ruth-tampa-tribune.html
For more on Ruth's defeat in a public debate challenge see http://rexcurry.net/ruthmore.html
For a blog about Ruthless stupidity see http://www.getruthless.blogspot.com
DANIEL RUTH & PRICE GOUGING: One of the first "media debate" dares occurred when Dr. Rex Curry publicly challenged newspaper columnist Daniel Ruth to debate Ruth's column in which Ruth condemned economic freedom (what Ruth calls "price gouging"). http://rexcurry.net/ruth.html The response against Ruth from the general public was so great that Ruth said he was labeled a "Dork, anti-free market statist $#@%!&@, Dummkopf, liberal, daffy, dolt, stupid, dunce and, oh by the way, socialist." In a second column Ruth, humiliated by Curry's debate dare, wouldn’t debate and issued a public apology to Curry regarding Ruth's earlier column. The link in this paragraph is the famous parody/rebuttal of Daniel Ruth's loopy attack against a free market economy.
IS DANIEL RUTH A SOCIALISTIC SPORTS NERD?
For more on sports nerds see http://rexcurry.net/sports.html
For more on Ruth's defeat in a public debate challenge see http://rexcurry.net/Ruth.html
For a blog about Ruthless stupidity see http://www.getruthless.blogspot.com
Ever notice how the stereotypical newspaper op-ed columnist will harp on a topic repeatedly, but not come to any conclusion? That is a demonstration of the lack of philosophy and principle that characterizes modern journalism. Take newpaper columnist Dan Ruth (please, take him). Ruth ridicules the owners of a professional football team and the government's multimillion dollar "deal" that resulted in new taxes for a socialized football stadium. But anyone who is mildly libertarian notes that Ruth never pens any clear opposition to new taxes for socialized stadiums and Ruth doesn't call for an end to government ownership of the stadium.
Here is an excerpt from a Ruth column:
Next up was the chap from the BBC London, who also apparently had done an Internet search and discovered that this space and the Glazers have shared nearly 10 years of bliss rivaling Jonathan and Liz Alpert's love affair that makes the "Taming of the Shrew" look like Nick and Nora Charles.
"Let me see if I have this straight,'' the BBC reporter asked. "The citizens of Tampa built a stadium for him?''
"That's incredible. Nothing like that would ever happen here, and we're a socialist country.''
How is it possible that Ruth can write the above, yet Ruth does not oppose the fact that taxes are used to build stadiums, rather, Ruth simply thinks the stadium “deal” with the current owners was “unfair.” (Ruth has made this glaring omission so many times that this columnist has stopped paying attention -if anyone knows whether Ruth has ever publicly stated opposition in principle to taxes for sports and/or government-owned stadiums, and for ending government ownership of sports venues, then please alert me). Ruth simply engages in personal ad hominem attacks on particular persons, and cannot think philosophically about the issue at hand.
That's as good as it gets with the stereotypical “journalist” today. Everyone is left to wonder whether he/she would be any better off if Ruth's idea of a "perfect stadium deal" had been enacted into law. Under Ruth's vague vision, the government would be even more involved then it is now. In other words, (and Ruth always fails to see or address this issue) Ruth would have a stadium deal that was even more socialistic than what already exists. The government would be even MORE involved in private enterprise, the economy, the “special interests” (as Ruth calls them). Does Ruth evade the obvious question of his stand on taxes for a socialized stadium because Ruth hides the unseemly hypocrisy of his own views. Does he support taxes for government-owned venues for professional sports? Is Ruth a socialistic sports nerd?
The media prove that the separation sport and state is as important as the separation of church and state. The media prove that the separation of school and state is as important as the separation of church and state. The media prove that government schools are unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment as a violation of free speech and a free (intelligent) press.
Ruth LaRouche was notorious for his nazi-style name-calling. That flaw is shown below in a quote from the St. Petersburg Times after Ruth LaRouche was canned at the Tribune. The quote shows that Ruth was incapable of critical analysis in that Ruth was always too gutless to state whether the government should be involved in sports at all. Ruth could only evade the real topic with Ruth's nazi-style name-calling. The quote also shows that The St. Petersburg Times (and its writer) evades the real issue; cannot muster critical analysis; and instead is dazzled by nazi-style name-calling.
Here is the quote from the St Petersburg Times: "He homed in on gazillionaire Bucs owner Malcolm Glazer after taxpayers were on the hook to buy the team's new digs. So forever after in Ruth's space it was not Raymond James but Helloooooo Sucker Stadium, or Wanna Buy A Duck? Stadium.
Glazer's (for the record, grown) sons Joel and Bryan were a running theme: "Glazer and his kiddos, Spanky and Alfalfa," they might be, or "Ne'er and Do Well," "Turner and Hooch" or "P and Diddy."
He came up with 400 variations. And he knew
he was onto something when a stranger in the car next to him recognized his
mug and called out, "Hey! How are Maalox and Kaopectate today?"
The above is remarkable from Ruth, the Tribune, the St. Petersburg Times (and its writer) in that none of them actually oppose government involvement in sports, nor oppose government money for stadiums, and they hide their intellectual dishonesty with nazi-style name-calling. That is why the Tribune is known as Helloooooo Sucker News and the St. Petersburg Times is known as the Wanna Buy A Duck? Paper and both papers in the Tampa bay area are known as "Spanky and Alfalfa," and "Ne'er and Do Well," "Turner and Hooch" and "P and Diddy" or "Maalox and Kaopectate."
Daniel Ruth: A Statist, and a journalist, too! -by Rex Curry. Additional info is at http://rexcurry.net/ruthmore.html
If you read newspapers for as long as I have then all manner of ditzoid craziness slops its way over the journalistic gunwales -claims of UFO abductions, the conspiracy theorists, Nazis cabals, deranged threatening environmentalists and people who believe monkeys are taking over the world.
And those are just some of the serious news stories I've read over the years. There have been some newspaper columnists, too, who have been really weird.
But for all the black helicopter sightings and arguments Shecky Green and the Jewish lobby control the government and Y2K means the end of the world, this had to be not only the most certifiably insane, but perhaps the most twistedly entertaining.
Daniel Ruth - a newspaper columnist - weighed in with one long sputtering bluster against free market economics (what Ruth calls “price gouging” - a term Ruth never defines). Ruth wanted to comment on disaster conditions such as those after Hurricane Andrew devastated the city of Homestead in south Florida.
You have to wonder what schools Ruth went to. Government schools? The government taught him everything it knows and he is still stupid. But that is statist quo.
Ruth is also one of the most visible local disciples of the Tampa Tribune, which ought to have his embarrassed fellow travelers donning Groucho Marx disguises around the office and about town.
Responding to a recent criticism of the filing of more than 500 price-gouging complaints to Florida law enforcement after Hurricane Floyd, Ruth asked a supporter of free market economics the following question:
“If Tampa had been devastated by a hurricane and you had to stand in line for three hours to buy ice for $50-a-bag, or sit in line for four hours to buy gas at $5-a-gallon, I wonder just how devotedly Libertarian you would be.”
Ruth demonstrated by his question his utter lack of comprehension of the issue. Thereafter, Ruth fell into his ruthless mental silence when the free marketeer attempted to show Ruth the stupidity of Ruth's question by asking Ruth: “If Tampa had been devastated by a hurricane and you had to stand in line for 6 hours (instead of 3) to buy ice for its government imposed price, or sit in line for 8 hours (instead of 4) to buy gas at its government controlled price, or if you actually had to go without the above, and building materials, bread, etc, because there wasn't any to buy at government imposed prices, I wonder just how devotedly socialistic/statist (or however you describe yourself) you would be.”
By the way, Ruth also seems to believe that people who hoard goods in advance of a disaster should be arrested. Why? It's just too ... too ... loopy. Reached by phone, Loopy Ruth did his mental blank out when asked whether his support of arresting price gougers also translated into his support for arresting hoarders. Of course, Ruth's reasoning against his perpetually undefined “price gouging” does justify (and has justified) prohibiting hoarding, arresting consumers who hoard, confiscating their goods, and imposing rationing and general economic socialism, with any disaster as the pretense. Ruth's brain doesn't travel that far, though. Indeed, it doesn't even travel far enough to suspect that some people who hoard before a disaster are the people who are gouging after a disaster.
This space was curious. Since Ruth, the lazy statist from hell, thinks laws against price gouging are so swell, how would he feel if he had to wait longer hours to buy a bag of ice for a government-controlled price, or discover that there was no gas at the government-controlled price?
The Karl Marx of the Twilight Zone responded with a bunch of journalistic babble about injustice in modern America and an attack on free market economics, concluding by accusing this space of being libertarian. I assume that's bad.
Still the Felliniesque Fidel Castro had never answered the original question.
Ruth pondered another simple query: How would he feel if he personally knew of people taking goods into a disaster area to sell them at prices that were higher than before the disaster? He'd be happy to see them arrested, or to see them personally suffer violence at the hands of statist vigilantes (or maybe both?).
Indeed, it was evident that it had never entered Ruth's mind, after Hurricane Andrew, to load up a truck with a bunch of necessities, rush into a disaster area and sell people whatever they needed and wanted for whatever they would gladly pay.
This proves three things. A) Statists are greedy, lazy %$#!@?$!#+ who won't help others, and who will take property from others, and they are nasty people who will use government to get their way. And B) For all his economic claptrap, Daniel Ruth is completely clueless if he thinks no one can go into a disaster area to charge people extra for goods for which they would gladly pay; and C) There is a reason why it never occurs to people like Ruth to load up a truck and drive into any disaster area --but Ruth will never figure out what that reason is, or how it is related to his naive, statist keister and his willingness to kick others around while he whines for more government, in the safety of his cubicle, far from any disaster area.
As well, irrespective of inane statist economic theories or statutes, all laws against price gouging are simply morally wrong because they worsen the circumstances of people when they are at their lowest emotional and financial ebb, forcing them to go without or to endure longer lines and bigger shortages.
It is an essential cornerstone of statists to promote and defend the role of government in virtually all aspects of life. That sounds fine until the socialist bureaucrats arrive to pick away at human pride with their economic disasters before, during and after a natural disaster.
The irony, of course, is that one of the reasons we have so much prosperity and abundance, even with Ruth's perpetually undefined “price-gouging”, is because a free market protects the public against the likes of the Daniel Ruth's of the world.
For not only is Ruth a writer with a big public forum, his reasoning is that of half-baked socialism/statism. Terrifying.
for more about libertarians debate victories over media socialists visit
and contact Rex Curry for help with any media debate.
Daniel Ruth learned a lot from RexCurry.net
Daniel Ruth, Tampa Tribune was exposed by Dr. Rex Curry who handed Ruth a humiliating defeat in a public debate dare. Ruth publicly apologized to Dr. Curry for Ruth's errors.
The response against Ruth from the general public was so great that Ruth said he was labeled a "Dork, anti-free market statist $#@%!&@, Dummkopf, liberal, daffy, dolt, stupid, dunce and, oh by the way, socialist." http://rexcurry.net/ruth.html
Ruth's use of "socialist" is very telling in that Ruth continues to cover-up for the National Socialist German Workers Party and its deadly dogma. Ruth writes flippantly about mass torture. Ruth is notorious for his Nazi name calling. Good Grief, Lyndon LaRouche was not as delusional as Ruth is. For many years, Ruth has flittered about the fringes of political life in the Tampa Bay area as a sort of scary class clown, although one suspects that Ruth's flatulence worsens every time Ruth tries rubbing his brain cells together. Both of them.
Ruth's insane clown posse act is like something out of "Apocalypse Now" meets "A Clockwork Orange."
Ruth is still jealously mad about Dr. Curry's success in exposing Ruth and that explain's Ruth's pirouettes of linguistic blather. Recently, Ruth was educated by RexCurry.net about the Pledge of Allegiance. Ruth was very ignorant about the Pledge but, after viewing the RexCurry.net web site, he learned a lot.
In a recent article about the web site Ruth did not dispute the work of the noted historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets"). http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg
Previously, Ruth has proven his supreme economic ignorance. Recently, he has proven his historical ignorance and his legal ignorance.
As a career move, Daniel Ruth should not become a lawyer. His
"journalism" might cause some people to wonder if he is competent
even to write about legal issues, or to write at all about anything.
If Ruth is considering a career change to law then here is a Memo to
Daniel Ruth: Don't start packing your bags.
If there has ever been an article about Francis Bellamy (author of the Pledge of Allegiance) in Ruth's newspaper it repeated the usual shallow propaganda common to most "news" outlets. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
In that way, the Tampa Tribune promotes and perpetuates flag fetishism by repeating the tired propaganda through touch-holes such as Ruth. Now Ruth can no longer use the defense of unintentional ignorance, as he might have in the past.
Ruth remained unable or unwilling to state the simple issue: The Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Is Ruth dense or does lack of integrity and honesty make him unwilling to provide simple accurate reporting?
Ruth failed to discuss nor even enumerate the six or more issues that Curry's appellate brief argued on behalf of the defendant in the case. Ruth has the ability to let his audience decide for themselves because Ruth could post Curry's brief on the web site of the Tampa Tribune or TBO.com, but Ruth did not do so and will not do so because the brief would expose his inane comments, omissions and cover-ups.
Ruth learned to write in the government schools of Planet Zircon
9. Ruth's name is longer than his writing career highlights. It is
no wonder that Ruth's columns never state any qualifications he has to
write articles about the topic (or any articles). Only Ruth's
phone number and email address were given with no biographical or
background information (nor any link to such information). There
is a complete lack of disclosure of whether Ruth has any licensing
or educational acheivement that qualifies him to write on such
a topic, how she was selected, nor how much Ruth was paid to write
Ruth knows that the media debate challenge that was issued by Dr.
Rex Curry as quoted by another Tribune reporter ( Elaine
Silvestrini ), is also available to Ruth and Ruth knows that everyone
else knows that Ruth has always been too much of a cowardly to do it
over the many years he and never will.
Ruth's comments raise the question of whether Ruth is unable to recognize any meritorious arguments in the six or more issues raised on behalf of the defendant in the brief. One of those issues was "insufficiency of the evidence" which is probably the most common issue argued in appeals of criminal cases.
Ruth's comments are especially odd considering that similar appellate issues were raised and argued in six issues raised by another attorney in a related case involving Scott Schweickert, charged as a co-conspirator.
Was Ruth saying that he would provide ineffective assistance of counsel to a defendant by waiving / abandoning all the issues? Was Ruth saying that Ruth would file an Anders brief for both defendants (in an Anders brief a defense attorney openly states that he believes there are no meritorious issues to argue for a defendant)?
Ineffective assistance of counsel is shown primarily by waiving and abandoning issues. Not by having an extra issue that is not victorious. Most appeals are unsuccessful, meaning that all arguments made in most cases are rejected by the appellate court.
Here is other information that was known to Daniel Ruth and that he omitted from his article: The issues raised in Dr. Curry's brief are not uncommon and similar to most of the issues raised in other briefs, such as that of the Defendant Scott Schweikert (for example, insufficiency of the evidence). Some of the issues were also raised in articles in Ruth's newspaper (the Tampa Tribune) about the case and are also supported by comments made by some judges, jurors and other observers concerning the charges, the trial and the sentence (and some of that is in the brief). The issues are also supported by other people such as the former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi (author of the book "The Prosecution of President George W. Bush for Murder"). It is also consistent with what has been the law historically in the U.S.A.
Some of the issues have also met with some success in United States v. Stewart 348 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003) an opinion by Judge Alex Kozinski (who
will be speaking in Tampa to the Federal Bar Association during the same month as this communication to Silvestrini). The Stewart case is available at various locations on the web including http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/348/348.F3d.1132.02-10318.html
Similar arguments were made unsuccessfully in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (the medical marijuana case cited in the government's brief and in Dr. Curry's brief). United States v. Stewart is a case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922o under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that mere possession of homemade machine guns can not be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause. Upon granting certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling and remanded the case back to the court for further consideration in light of its ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) where a new decision was issued in Stewart. see http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/315E1DE83
Ruth's uninformative writing is especially odd in light of an earlier Tampa Tribune article concerning Chief Judge Alex Kozinski being accused of posting sexually explicit material onwebsite. On the same topic see
Ruth's inability to undertand the jurisdictional argument on appeal (that the federal government lacked jurisdiction in the case) is bizarre in light of the May 1, 2007 article in the Tampa Tribune reporting that Judge Merryday "...said the federal government is 'not situated to prosecute the real offense, which prosecution is situated in the state of Florida.' "
The Tampa Tribune also wrote, regarding Curry's client: "In sentencing
Lorenzo last year, U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara
said that if he were a circuit judge [state level] and the
prosecution had brought capital murder charges, the government
would have no trouble establishing the presence of four aggravating
factors - facets of the case legally required for a death sentence."
Ruth is guilty of ineffective assistance of reporting.
Every landmark decision by a federal appellate court or the Supreme Court (e.g. Miranda, or the recent case finding the sentencing guidelines unconstititional) is a "landmark" case because it was unanticipated by most people, including such as Ruth and his ilk.
Ruth is ignorant about the topic of articles that he writes. Although he refused to include it in column, Ruth was aware of Dr. Curry's famous drug-dog case resulting in the suppression of evidence. The government unsuccessfully tried to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the government's petition on Oct. 31, 2005 in case # 04-1668. Search for "Matheson" on this web page http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2005/103105pzor.html
The government also unsuccessfully appealed to Florida's Supreme Court to overturn the victory. Also see the Second District Court of Appeal opinoin at
Ruth deliberately leaves pertinent information out of his columns to make his columns misleading. Although he refused to include it in his article, Ruth was aware of another case in which a prosecutor wanted Dr. Curry to abandon an issue and withdraw a motion to suppress evidence. Instead, Curry's motion was granted and the government dismissed the charges against Curry's client as well as two other defendants.
Here is another victory by Dr. Curry in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. http://rexcurry.net/lawcunningham.html
And another victory by Dr. Curry in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. http://rexcurry.net/romanoappeal.html
And other courts.
LAWYERS, GUNS (& MONEY) - gun returned after illegal carry charge is defeated. http://rexcurry.net/gunbeeson.html
DRUGS, GUNS & BAD POLICE SEARCHES - another victory for liberty & peacful conduct. http://rexcurry.net/lawWhite.html
ORJALES v. FLORIDA - a 3 year minimum mandatory gun sentence is overturned. http://rexcurry.net/laworjales.html
BALDWIN v. FLORIDA - another 3 year minimum mandatory gun sentence is stricken. http://rexcurry.net/lawbaldwin.html
PEACEFUL COCAINE SALE WITH BAD PURSE SEARCH - lady is free to go. http://rexcurry.net/law%20graphics/tara.html
COPS: THEIR OWN ANONYMOUS TIP SOURCES? - not in this cocaine case. http://rexcurry.net/lawJohnson.html
SELF-REPRESENTATION IN COURT - a lawyer preserves the right to be lawyerless. http://rexcurry.net/lawNeeld.htm
People of Ruth's ilk were completely discouraging about Curry's drug-dog case at the trial level and then wondered why Curry bothered to initiate the appeal. Later, the same people all expressed amazement at Curry's victory and cited his case.
All "landmark" cases are cases that seemed pointless until the unexpected happened.
How would the Supreme Court ever reverse itself (and it has done so) if no one ever bothered to try and keep raising issues upon which the Supreme Court has already ruled?
Even President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's court packing scam was unexpected as was the Supreme Court's "switch in time that saved nine" (also known as the "switch in time that socialized nine") that drastically changed the course of the federal courts.
Ruth doesn't try. Ruth is ineffective and unable to do anything but give up and bend over for the government/prosecution. Ruth would provide ineffective assistance by deliberately NOT raising issues on appeal because they don't want to "distract" from other arguments. That is a complete waiver / abandonment of the issues.
There are many REAL examples of ineffective assistance from people who DID abandon issues, using Ruth's reasoning.
The opposite can also occur with a good lawyer: Give the judges a unique issue so that they think that the brief is interesting and they want to have oral arguments, unlike the thousand boring briefs that all sound the same that are filed by the people of Ruth's ilk, and that aren't set for oral arguments.
Dr. Curry's appellate brief was set for oral argument by the appellate court.