Personalized Newspapers, Magazines, Giant Checks & Breaking News Videos by Giant Checks - Fake Pregnancy Tests - Fake DNA/Paternity Tests - Fake Newspapers - FBI Wanted Posters
TrixiePixGraphics™ |
Store Rating w w w . t r i x i e p i x g r a p h i c s . c o m
Miscellaneous Wanted Poster Samples
Examples featured on this page are not for sale per se; however nothing stops you from ordering a similar custom product using the regular ordering process. Posters featured here are customer orders, previewed on this page merely to help stimulate ideas. Images are rotated periodically, automatically.
Copyright © 2002 TrixiePixGraphics.Com All Rights Reserved
Note: We did NOT "create" the above poster. It was manufactured from data supplied to us by a customer who extended permission to us to display the work as a sample. The poster is copyrighted by its creator, and we may hold some secondary copyright to the basic design, as well. The poster depicted above was ordered as a satirical statement about a local issue in which a judge, James A. Doerty (King County) sentenced a 69 year old man (Paul Trummel) to jail for 111 days for contempt of court when the man refused to remove from his website the names of a number of employees of a Government-funded senior citizen's home who were alleged to have been involved in some sort of mischief and cover-up at the home. This has become a hot and emotional issue in the Puget Sound area (as of 4-04 we've been contacted to ask for permission to allow the poster to be published in France, so it would seem it's no longer a "Puget Sound" issue). Since we've fought our own First Amendment battles (and won), we're particularly sensitive to First Amendment issues, particularly since the First Amendment seems to be taking a pretty tough beating in the Pacific Northwest of late.
In the above case, we do not have enough facts to form a solid overall opinion, though we seem to be leaning in the following direction:
Many have chastised Judge Doerty for jailing a 69 year old man. We say the man's age is not and can not be a factor in whether or not to jail him, except in extraordinary circumstances relating to health issues.
Many have denounced Doerty for restricting Trummel's supposed First Amendment right to post the names of the government employees in question. We feel Doerty is way out of line in this regard since, by so ruling, Doerty is stating that no one, not citizen, not reporter, may ever publicly disseminate the name of any other person if the person being named disagrees with the opinions being voiced. Obviously this is madness. It is not merely anti-American, it is anti-logic. It is frighteningly stupid.
One side claims that Trummel has a diminished First Amendment right because he is not a bona fide and/or employed reporter. Trummel does hold a press card of some sort---but the entire issue is moot in any case and therefore not worthy of discussion.
Many have criticized Doerty for his unquestionably biased and uncalled-for remarks to and about Trummel from the bench ([Trummel] is just a mean old man; Trummel is not a citizen of this country, etc., etc., ad nauseam; see link at page bottom). We agree: That was heinously unprofessional conduct by Doerty, and we wonder why he felt the need to say things which have no real bearing on the legalities of the case. But even if Doerty felt compelled to say such things, while realizing they should not be said, the fact that his mouth apparently works independently of his brain makes us wonder if the man is psychologically fit to sit in judgment over others---ANY others. Isn't it odd how judges feel THEY have the right to publicly demean, defame, criticize and insult with impunity and for no logical or constructive reason, yet work overtime to restrict others (read Trummel) from disseminating THEIR opinions and observations. Doerty named Trummel by name when he blasted his character in very public manner, yet Doerty put Trummel in jail for 111 days when Trummel named the objects of his ire. Should Doerty do the same jail time as Trummel? If there's a difference between the two transgressions, what is it?
Normally we are too busy to involve ourselves in political freak shows (meaning the Council House allegations and the ensuing circus in Doerty's court), and we're not going to take sides to any appreciable degree in this matter without knowing all the facts. At this point we don't know who to believe---Doerty, Trummel, the government employees, but we want to know. The very fact that we want to know makes this a newsworthy story, and Trummel is as free as anyone to report it. If he lies or defames, then he can, and should be, sued. If he does not lie or defame, if he prints only truths, and opinions based on related truths, identifying each as such, then he enjoys the protection of the Constitution's First Amendment along with the rest of us who may wish to disagree with Trummel's assessments of the goings on at Council House.
It SEEMS just that clear, but we are not prepared to say it IS just that clear because, to reiterate, we simply do not have all the facts. How are we supposed to obtain all the facts so that we may solidify our opinion and take action we feel is appropriate? We expect to have the story made available to us by a variety of sources, none of which will be dictated to, or censored for content, by the government.
THAT part IS ......just that simple.
The following link takes you to Judge Doerty's opinion in one phase of this case. It is significant to realize that this page was not "automatically" posted as some function of local government; rather, the opinion was posted voluntarily by Doerty's own hand. Apparently Doerty is proud of this document and the fact that he is free to publish HIS obnoxious opinions while jailing anyone else who dares to do the same thing. If this doesn't bring you to the brink of rage (and terror), you're taking too much Prozac. How do such illogical people weasel their ways into positions of power? Simple: They SEEK power over others, and no one stops them.
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/rulings/trummel_v_mitchell.htm
UPDATE, 4-11-04:
It's been brought to our attention that a fairly clear article discussing the Trummel case has been posted here. The piece is slightly anti-Trummel (count the derogatory adjectives when speaking of Trummel versus those used when speaking of Doerty). Still, the article has value if you can weed through the author's bias.
Return to Index Return to Wanted Poster Order Page
Key Words: More original than a musty old greeting card, the perfect replacement for birthday cards, way more fun than a silly eCard, and one or two of our selections might even get you out of writing that MUSHY LOVE POEM... fake wanted posters, fbi, most wanted, america's most wanted, roast a friend, practical jokes, for entertainment purposes only, birthday gag, office gag, movie prop, publicity stunt, personalized posters
Copyright © 1982-2002 TrixiePixGraphics.Com, All Rights Reserved