On Tuesday Nov. 17, the Madison Common Council Chair of the Public Safety Review Committee decided to take the night off. The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

The members in attendance noted the group had four quorum members present and would need a fifth to log in to begin the Zoom meeting.

The meeting addressed public comments regarding agenda items like not having safe school grounds at Madison East and the ongoing issue with homelessness at Reindahl Park.

Parents of students at East High School showed up to speak about the fights breaking out on campus in fear of escalated violence.

The Madison chief of police, assistant chief of police and fire chief lost 15 minutes of their life they cannot get back. Email requests went out Thursday morning to interview these key figures regarding their frustration with the mayor’s absence. All parties ghosted the following day without their response for interview.

Where was the mayor? Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway’s office did not respond to a Madison Common Council interview request.

Looks like jaded patriotism is on the menu for the homeless this Thanksgiving, and Madison East High School will be put on hold in the meantime.

As a disabled veteran student journalist in the community, I have been tasked to survey the ongoing traffic problems in Sun Prairie.

I started walking to the gym from Gateway Terrace to explore Sun Prairie this summer and am extremely concerned.

Periodically, I walk to the library to take a moment to recognize those who gave their all at the Veteran’s Monument.

I cannot begin to share with you the tragedy I have witnessed over my time during the summer experiencing Sun Prairie crosswalks.

Several pedestrians have been struck and killed even when the lights are flashing on Main Street or must cross Windsor Street when crosswalk lights fail to work.

As a veteran and member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I have watched our community drive down Church Street during the rerouting from the Sun Prairie Explosion, where I noticed the hostility and passive aggressive drivers blocking resident’s driveways and those who speed down a street where kids must cross to play with their friends.

Enough is enough. We need to cultivate unity in our community when turning left at lights or driving down unlit streets.

We need to stop turning left when we see the crosswalk light turn green and the pedestrian crossing.

I have been grazed on several occasions from behind with road raged drivers. How many more citizens must die before our city will take action?

Change starts with habits. Make it a habit to put your pedestrians first Sun Prairie. Save your Sun Prairie Explosions for the gym and be kind to your fellow pedestrian.

Respectfully Submitted,

Robert Cobert

Larry Flynt delivered happiness to American soldiers through Hustler Magazine in the combat zone. Flynt’s passion for free speech oftentimes went misunderstood.

Flynt’s published magazines in the ’70s pushed the envelope of appropriateness.

Flynt’s impact on Jaded Patriot deployed soldiers, like me, through mail order brought hope and comfort in times of grief.

We always had a ruck sack or duffle bag stashed for morale that brought our minds comfort and ease away from home. In many ways, Larry Flynt represents the lonely soldier.

After witnessing countless servicemembers receive letters that their partner was seeing someone else, Flynt’s Beaver Hunt knew just exactly how to lift our spirits.

We would joke and laugh at Hustler Magazine comics while pulling guard tower duty, which brought me to check out his Las Vegas establishment out of reverence for saving lives in dark times.

Flynt worked hard for decades on the frontlines keeping pornography alive standing firm as the federal lobbying resistance. Flynt’s efforts with keeping soldier’s morale high fought in federal court on the frontlines of pornography.

Flynt understood the value of fear and loathing with the reputation of the adult entertainment industry in America. His brand lives on long after he is gone.

Hustler as a brand works to provide the ultimate experience for both patron and performer.

Larry Flynt’s Hustler Clubs bring prosperity through adult entertainment entrepreneurship. Flynt’s clubs offer opportunities to all pursuing a lucrative career through the Hustler brand’s development as dancers.

Hustler as a brand carried many of my counterparts through combat by publishing calendars, centerfolds, short stories, and smut cartoons that built morale in the combat zone.

Just like on base at the local strip club, I knew I was in for an unforgettable experience visiting the establishment in Las Vegas for the first time.

The Jaded Patriot Stands at Full Attention

The Jaded Patriot Press review sought to relive the glory days of deployment by purchasing a $100 two-drink pass, which included one lap dance.

My first impression of Flynt’s Hustler Club had me completely in awe—like a tractor beam of purple haze met with plumes of irresistible perfume.

I was introduced to a sassy little number. Her name was Strawberry.

Her invitation to join her jellied my soul with delight who jammed along to some house music while inviting me to join her on a house VIP tour while we interviewed each other.   

Upon meeting Strawberry, one thing became clear with our icebreaker conversation—I was about to be fully entertained with full arousal.

The Elevator Doors Opened to the Second Floor

Strawberry’s VIP guided tour, her persuasive sparkling smile, and her seductive voice provided the highest standard of customer service as a top-notch brand representative.

She sat down and interviewed me and asked what my fantasy was. After feeling delightfully nervous, I picked up folded piece of paper and wrote her a poem while she spoke with her manager about bringing me on a house VIP tour.

Dancers like Strawberry unlock the key to the labyrinth of Flynt’s Hustler Club elevator, which allowed a chance for me to check out her moves and grooves before spending my lap dance card.

I punched the ticket and took the ride and viewed an entirely new world never witnessed before. We headed down the corridor.

The poem went something like this:

Strawberry Loves the Ivory Pole

I was the first person in the club.

The door greeters welcomed me with kindness and respect

I punched the ticket and took the ride of my life

The moments of ebony artistry I would never forget

The universe and the greatest gift I could never expect

I felt awkward at first

Being the only one watching women dance

After talking to a dancer, I felt a weird vibe and began heading for the door

I grabbed my ticket and smart phone to exit stage left

I felt Strawberry approach me raising goosebumps on my neck

The ticket was a $100 for a two-drink minimum to include a lap dance show

Strawberry’s VIP Experience opened every window of her soul

Being in the moment felt like a trance watching her glow

The ride was about to begin

Strawberry greeted me with her radiant adorable face gleamed with her grin

No hesitation she knew she wanted to show me around

I felt like the luckiest man in town

She turned my frown upside down

The taste and sample of Strawberry’s VIP tour

Her Aura Had Me Hooked

From the moment we met, I could see into her eyes. A world of perfection and artistry caught me by surprise.

Every curve, contour and angle met with her breath tickling my neck.

Her body swayed and bounced capturing every sexually driven moment teasing every inch. Her stare captivated my soul from the glow of her radiant aura.

Could this be the dream come true needing a pinch?

Strawberry took me to heaven and back. Her lap dance and tour ended with a treat. The limo ride home could not be beat.

She gave me a world never viewed before. Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club Experience will take you on a ride of inclusion and respect. From the punch of the ticket to the desert oasis. Strawberry gave me all she could. I woke up the next day with morning wood.

-Robert Cobert

The ongoing dilemma amongst American’s pertains to the governing of free speech through community standards on social media platforms.

See the source image
Photo Credit: Scary Momma

Facebook and Twitter banned President Donald J. Trump’s accounts after the United States Capitol insurrection yet continues to tolerate the exposure of street violence during riots by unethically referring to rioters as “violent protestors”.  

The means of rioting are never justified on any societal front in any pragmatic setting. As a citizen journalism medium, community standards allow for lopsided favoritism between extremist movements.

Professional journalists spend countless hours amongst editors and content producers analyzing the ethical exposure of graphic content.

Social media governance continues to censor presidents yet allows citizen journalists to produce graphic imagery in the moment without question.

Community Standards and the Fourth Estate of the Constitution

 The ongoing ethical dilemma circumvents around foreign interference with American elections, clickbait headlines from bloggers who are not trained as journalists, and social media marketing bleeding into the journalism field.

Journalists protect viewers and subscribers through John Rawls’ Doctrine of Double Effect allowing the viewer the opportunity to decide the truth. 

Social media bleeds into journalism ethics polluting the sanctity of the minds of the reader.

Facebook community standards exempts politicians from community standards and journalists are setting the record straight to protect the Fourth Estate of the Constitution.

Saving the Institution of Democracy on Social Media Platforms

The first step to saving the sanctity of the viewer would require journalists to take a stance and report objectively.

Unfortunately, the current state of the media tolerates a private opinionated platform through unregulated social media. The solution starts by regulating blogs through categorization for publishing.

As a professional journalist, credentials determine online identity. Facebook requires all journalists to provide their credentials when registering for their Facebook business page.

All who post blogs should be required to provide their status as either a blogger or online journalist. Trolls and spambots impersonate people. Community standards ought to invest in vetting each account through internal audits to reflect whether the person is credible.

The Dilemma

From an investigative journalist standpoint, social media confuses the reader through misleading headlines and slang forms of persuasion.

Journalism prides itself on objectivity yet social media continues to pollute the craft of truth seeking falling under the constructs of running as a tabloid.

Censoring the president never considered the various world leaders who launch nerve agent gas on their own people or tyrannize the innocent through black hat tactics who are allowed to continue using the service committing ongoing atrocities against humanity. Why aren’t they being banned?

Weighing the Merits of Presidential Banning

David L. Hudson Jr. of the First Amendment Watch of New York University points out, “Trump and others have described the social media black out as a direct assault on conservative points of a view and a draconian target of only certain types of free speech.”

Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court responded to the black out of Trump’s accounts in an interview by Politico Reporter Josh Gerstein stating, “we will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

So, the social media dilemma pertains to how Americans regulate the sharing of content that is misleading, which supports the dire need to invest in the beefing up of Fourth Estate protections. Even Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders shared with Gerstein that he “doesn’t like giving that much power to high tech people.”

In the Constitutional arena, Americans face losing their rights to the hybrid platforms of social media.

Weighing the merits of ethical balance falls on the platform of community standards. How can anyone follow unethical rules?

Didn’t Twitter and Facebook require certain policies already in place as the ends in every social media contract?

Or are lawyers the ones responsible for holding Big Tech to respectable standards superseding community standards unjustifiable means as a black hat platform favoring one ideology over another?

Lastly, Florida sought to create laws to govern social media to restrict social media corporations from governing politicians.

Forbes Contributor John Brandon’s column discussed Governor Ron Desantis signed a bill fining social media companies $250,000 per day for banning candidates; $25,000 per day for those seeking local office.

The bill received criticism stating the Florida law violates the Constitution. How can American lawmakers close the flood gates on privately regulated content?


First off, we cannot speak diversity in one breath and act as a gatekeeper through cancel culture with the other.

Diversity does not welcome adversity. We live on social media as double standards. Community standards should promote the end and never the means.

Censorship has been an ongoing issue since Tipper Gore’s attack on the band Twisted Sister.

We, the people of the United States, need to radically shift our approach to the undermining of Big Tech through social media. The people choose the content they follow, which is protected by the Fourth Estate of the Constitution the media chooses not to disclose.

We, the people, freely choose what we endorse. Big Tech does not decide what is fact and fallacy. Social media continues to corrupt and distort the reality of how good-natured human beings see the world.

“Fact-checkers” are simply speaking from the element of what they believe as fact, which is not truth.

Truth is the protection provided by the Freedom of Information Act that fact-checkers choose to ignore.

The hyper politico agenda through social media endorses corporate control and access of all communication resources.

Endorsing brands as truth equates the allegiance to an ideology not self-researched truth. Broadcasting graphic imagery during riots and censoring a president qualify as the means and never the ends.

The ends would seek to ensure the truth is protected in every social media moral contract.

COBB-ED—In 1992, Pepsi launched a bottle cap lottery in the Philippines that sparked death and rioting. Pepsi printed the winning number on select bottle caps resulting in a printing error.

After investigating the fiasco deeper, the results from a Google search revealed Pepsi resolved their public relations disaster by offering 500 pesos ($18.50 U.S. currency) as a gesture of goodwill after receiving numerous lawsuits.

The lottery printer published the number 349 redeeming 480,000 caps with a sum of $8.5 million paid out to date to fix the issue.

See the source image
Photo Credit: news.com.au

The Aftermath

The Google search eventually turned into a discovery session uncovering a blog with a picture of the bottle cap by the Representative. The discovery revealed an in depth look at the third word marketing viral travesty. In response, Pepsi did not want to own their printing mistake.

A simple two-party audit prior to publishing could have saved the company millions. In the print industry, managers schedule the work, reporters find the anecdotes and write the rough copy, and editors ultimately represent decisions on behalf of the brand.

The mistake cost Pepsi 150,000 pesos payable to the Department of Trade and Industry. Rioters tossed a grenade in anger into a distribution plant killing three employees.

The international decision by the United States’ decision to pull out bases in the Philippines already had the nation in a state of anger and upheaval that witnessed a spike in violence once the lottery mistake unveiled the payout would be null and void.

The core issue of the Pepsi bottle cap lottery marketing campaign elevated an entire nation who believed Pepsi’s word. Pepsi made the marketing mistake of flashing large sums of money across a third world nation. Ultimately, the strategy cost millions of dollars, the loss of life, and the upheaval of a nation.

Publishing Standards of Print

The root of the issue stemmed from inventory control. As the CEO, the first item up for business would have sought to fly to the Philippines to host a press conference to take responsibility for my brand.

The company hid behind the mistake made by the supply chain who did not conduct a test run. Back in the ‘80s, Pepsi initiated the taste test challenge to market their product against their rival Coca cola.

The first run of bottles, let us say 100 for example, could have been sent to a taste test challenge to write off for tax deductibility. When I worked in the papermaking industry, we called these items “broke.”

Broke consists of the first reel of paper that comes off an order change. The paper can be repulped, sold to other paper mills for pennies on the dollar, or stored for making items like pellets for stoves.

As a print editor and past general manager of broadcast for Clarion Radio, my job created checklists, open channels of communication and lines of sight, and to set up meetings to triple-check items in question. Pepsi just ran the campaign unethically as a lottery.

The first mistake started in the approval of the brainstorm. They should not have used the parameters of a lottery on the grounds money creates conflict amongst poverty. Pepsi toyed with the hearts and dreams of the oppressed.

Winning the lottery is like opening a portal through an ecstatic form of trance and possession. Pepsi invoked a demon that possessed an entire nation to revolt and commit acts of violence believing their prayers were answered and would never be poor.

As the CEO, I would enforce a two-party audit like print newspapers use to regulate the campaign by opening every 100th bottle in lots of 100 checking the first bottle of each run prior to packaging.

Three opened bottles would have revealed the printing mistake. Ultimately, the printer is responsible. The mistake made was printing inhouse. Outsourcing would have freed Pepsi from any responsibility and could have sued for damages.

VetsCAN of Madison, Wisconsin president Connie Walker puts her 501 c 3 collective bargain on the line without the assembly of a public relations committee Sunday May 22.

The enclosed letter details a hyperpolitical rant directed at a political party through the WDVA Women of the Year’s credentials. The newly formed group is fiscally represented by the Bob Woodruff Foundation and NAMI of Wisconsin.

Walker openly admitted to her carelessness in an email with board members.

Yesterday I wrote a letter to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal.  In drafting it I was flipping back and forth between two versions (see attachments) and released the second attachment – which should not have been sent without vetting it for review and approval (or not) by the Board.   

Walker said.

Walker learned the value of the first mistake—include your organization first. Her email contained loaded comments blowing off steam like a boiler on a Navy ship attacking Republicans.

As a collective bargain, she retracted her first letter and fired back with another only to inform VetsCAN through email that she wasn’t thinking. Wisconsin 501 c 3’s do not represent political parties, only 501 c 4’s—strike two.

I know better than that.  My only defense (it’s a poor one) is that I wasn’t thinking about process.  I was thinking about another lie making the rounds as truth, when I heard the majority party in the Joint Finance Committee patting themselves on the back for voting to give the state Veterans Homes (there are three) $10M in new money.  

Walker pleaded with her costly mistake.

Walker’s Rant-to-the-Editor

May 21, 2021

Letter to the Editor

Wisconsin State Journal

1901 Fish Hatchery Road

Madison, Wis. 53713

Dear Editor:

Do the Republican members of the Wisconsin Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee really care about Veterans?

Some GOP members of JFC and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, have touted their state budget amendments as investing in Wisconsin’s Veterans. A more discerning look at the Republican budget motion related to Veteran services reveals a “shell game,” and suggests some members are pandering to a “we’re more patriotic than you” political base.

While the committee provided nominal increases in spending for Veteran suicide prevention, payments to County Veteran Service Offices and groups such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, Republicans are crowing the loudest about an alleged $10-million bump in spending for the state Veterans’ Homes.

That is downright false. Republicans simply repackaged money the state Veterans’ Homes have already generated through existing skilled nursing operations, payments from Medicare and Medicaid, and from the Veterans who already live there. Meanwhile, Republicans simultaneously reduced spending on direct aid payments to needy Veterans.

Unless you’re a budget analyst and follow these kinds of things closely, you might think the GOP majority on the budget committee just approved a big increase in spending for Veterans. All they did was vote to move money from one pocket to another.

Constance A. Walker, CAPT, U.S. Navy (Ret.)

Veterans Community Action Network (VetsCAN) of South-Central Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin

Heavy-handed Wording with an Iron Fist

Walker’s exhibit demonstrates a lack of professionalism and autonomy. She will have a hard battle appeasing her investors who work nationwide as well-known philanthropies.

As a president of a 501 c 3, Walker admits she made a rookie mistake. Mistakes cost 501 c 3’s lots of money with audits. Hopefully Walker will work to build a press release business model to protect her agency’s best interest. Strike three.

Please leave a comment below with your thoughts or send this blog to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal to help Walker publish her rant.

When painting the portrait of the model judge for a murder trial, one could select from a palette of attributes like meticulous calculation, attention to detail, objective listening, fair-minded reasoning, problem solving, and critical thinking blended with hues of virtuosity in contrast to decisiveness.

See the source image
Courtroom portraits paint judges historically. The media paints the view. Photo credit :famoustrials.com.

Society paints portrait judges based on their ability to effectively discern the weight of the merits with justice.

Democratic societies paint portraits of their judges at their courthouses who exhibit dedication to protections of freedom and jurisprudence not media prestige.

From the portrait vantage point of Judge Peter A. Cahill, the picture painted an authority figure who flip-flopped his decision to allow broadcast media in the courtroom, which opened the flood gate to new ways of covering murder trials. Cahill’s reverse decision landed Court TV over 22 million viewers the day of Derek Chauvin’s verdict.

The State of Minnesota selected Judge Peter A. Cahill as their Court TV world ambassador. Cahill resided over the Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin Trial viewed across the globe.

As Minnesota’s top pedigreed judge, Cahill’s career portrait showcases all forms of law demonstrating decades of dedication to his profession as a lawyer, professor, and critical thinker. Cahill, with grey splendor, did not anticipate biased trial coverage, setting the precedence of the United States Constitution’s discourse, which skated on the thin ice of juror exposure to Court TV ‘s commentary that exploited the fourth estate.

Court TV’s coverage appeared more like a sheriff of the wild west wrangling a runaway bandit wanted dead or alive. Cahill’s venue turned a blind eye to biased coverage and Constitutional ignorance.

Court TV’s trial by media sought to bring down Derek Chauvin like a town sasquatch on the run. Court TV anchors made sure to bring the opinions of expert witnesses to seal Chauvin’s fate during sidebars and deliberation.

In the meantime, Judge Cahill’s reverse decision painted the self portrait of second guessing across the globe. The only means to save face with justice would have been to only allow closed circuit view and no media at all.

From the vantage point of textbook decision-making, Cahill’s last-minute decision to allow courtroom coverage took high-stakes risks in a high-profile trial by endorsing Court TV’s subsidized commentary.

The George Floyd Murder Trial coverage painted the future of courtroom past practice line-by-line. Cahill’s social distanced portrait of a judge during a pandemic ruminated around second guessing where the trial was heading.

Cahill sat behind plexiglass, masked, and robed, mumbling into a microphone. Cahill’s selection of Court TV tolerated a broadcast service with a reputation for favoring the prosecution.

Judge Selection

The State of Minnesota selected Judge Peter A. Cahill to oversee the George Floyd murder trial at the Fourth District Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis.

Cahill grew up outside of Milwaukee, Wisconsin graduating from Oconomowoc High School in 1977. His father, Jerome Cahill, served twice as District Attorney as both Republican and Democrat.

Judge Cahill was appointed May 30, 2007, elected in 2008, 2014 and 2020 whose current term expires in January 2027.

Cahill received his Juris Doctorate Degree through the University of Minnesota Law School graduating magna cum laude in 1984.

Cahill also received his Bachelor of Arts through the University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts in 1981.

Cahill’s resume portfolio exuberates a variety of experience ranging from teaching, serving as a public defender, Domestic Abuse Prosecution Clinic Supervisor, County Attorney for the Violent Crimes Division, Managing Attorney for the Juvenile Prosecution, Chief Deputy Hennepin County Attorney, who taught legal writing, and lectured trial practice in Criminal Procedure and Advanced Trial Advocacy.

Cahill’s selection meant his career hung in the balance of public opinion as an elected official, while following in the footsteps of his father, which spotlighted his decisions, especially with jury selection.

Judge Cahill’s weighing of the merits over jury selection and the bystander footage risked exposing potential jurors to Court TV commentary. Although Cahill carefully examined each witness, their response to social media bias, their affiliation with groups, and their stance in the community, Cahill forgot to check the manual on screening for an unbiased media source for coverage.

Jury selection made for difficult decisions after realizing the impact of the bystander footage.

From a balanced and merit-weighted measure of integrity, the judge centers the defendant’s right to a fair trial as the fulcrum of jurisprudence.

The judge makes decisions like calling a mistrial, sequestering the jury, overruling objections, and determining whether to allow reporters in the courtroom. Judges’ decisions discern what ought to be allowed during trial. Judges select jurors during cross-examination. Jury selection during the trial inspected the beliefs of all those who were questioned based on their stance with bystander footage and social media.

Jury Selection

From the examination of a citizen journalism vantage point, the Cup Foods bystander footage argued the national riots were justified by the media as “violent protests.” Reporting riots as “violent protests” would be considered unethical based on the virtues of the Society of Professional Journalists.

The SPJ Code of Ethics states, “never deliberately distort fact or context. To be accountable and transparent. Journalists should explain ethical choices to audiences.” Violent protesting defuses all forms of moral code in a society.

Judge Cahill made decisions centered on social media organizations and their alliance with bystanders demanding justice.

Had Judge Cahill dismissed bystander footage as evidence, the fulcrum of justice could have favored the defense. Bystander footage became the fulcrum of jury selection.

Jury selection by Judge Cahill carefully examined the potential of social media influence affecting his trial as his second job.

The defense argued that jury selection would be too difficult with the bystander footage zooming in on Officer Derek Chauvin with a biased view. The defense spent each day questioning potential jurors regarding their stance with bystander footage.

Attorney Eric Nelson, Chauvin’s defense attorney, cross-examined jurors regarding the bystander footage.

The likelihood and stakes were high that potential jurors had been exposed to the ballooning of the footage by social media.

Prior to the trial, the media rarely disclosed the nature of the arrest stemming from Floyd purchasing cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill, which started the chain-of-events. Judge Cahill’s jury selection faced the uphill battle of a hyper politicized trial, which made for a lengthy jury selection.

Judge Cahill made clear the jury would be required to view civil unrest as wrongdoing and those who believed violent protests were justified would be excused.

Rioting is civil disobedience and should never be tolerated according to the scholars of philosophy.

From a judicial vantage point, the decision to allow coverage assumed Court TV would cover their end as the means with their social contract with viewership. In retrospect to the national riots, the judge’s stance not to allow the broadcast of his trial was ironclad.

The decision to allow media coverage began with the defense’s request to petition the judge’s original order not to allow coverage, which changed the trial’s historical outcome. The defense’s request eventually argued the televised trial would not allow fairness.

Attorney Eric Nelson is responsible for his client’s decision and ultimately his future law practice. Judge Cahill remined jurors routinely that bias would not be allowed in his courtroom.

“Bias can affect our thoughts of who and what we see and hear,” Judge Cahill expressed to the jury unaware of the commentary happening on Court TV.

From the vantage point of viewers, watching through Court TV, Cahill was not about to let anything slide on his watch.

His job directed both the prosecution and defense to ask pertinent questions, limiting the scope of the cross-examination of jurors, and to dismiss potential jurors who would demonstrate a biased view towards police. Jury selection ended on March 29, 2021.

From a jurisprudent vantage point, once a judge commits to a ruling, the decision seldom gets overturned. Cahill’s reversing of his order affected trial coverage, evidence submission, media viewpoints, sidebars, and historical moments, allowing Court TV commentary lacked objectivity.

The judge’s primary job weighed the merits of expert opinions, witness testimony, and evidence to ensure Derek Chauvin received a fair trial, which required his focus, not inspecting journalism ethics.

Ironically, the defense’s request for trial coverage persuaded the judge to think twice. All parties of the trial were unaware of media coverage ethics. Court TV was their aggregating medium as the ends in their social contract to remain unbiased as a journalism normative standard.

Trial Coverage

Upon thoroughly investigating the background of Cahill, an open records request revealed on June 29, and September 11, 2020, the defendants brought motions before the court requesting audio and video broadcasts of the trials.

The state would not concede nor allow any audio or video coverage. After careful consideration, Cahill released his report to allow broadcast coverage. Cahill was not about to allow the jury to be scrutinized by a packed courtroom.

“Bias can affect our thoughts of who and what we see and hear,” Judge Cahill expressed to the jury unaware of the commentary happening on Court TV.

Court TV’s coverage of the trial did not offer an objective view, due to Judge Cahill’s decision, which dismissed journalism integrity.

The judge’s disregard to the fourth estate of the Constitution did not protect the journalistic interest of the viewer. Commentary tainted the altruistic view of the press.

Judge Cahill’s third job weighted the decision whether or not to sequester the jury daily. Cahill’s decision not to sequester until the end of the trial ran the risk of juror exposure. Jurors willfully admitted when questioned that family viewers watching Court TV had messaged them.

From the argumentative inspection of the defense attorney’s viewpoint, the trial was highly publicized, which would not allow his client a fair trial.

Nevertheless, the trial pressed forward once jury was selected by Judge Cahill. The court allowed three cameras: one in the back with the vantage point facing the witness stand, one mounted to the wall behind the jury box, and one “on or near the bench facing lectern where counsel examines witnesses,” as noted by Judge Cahill’s order.

The judge examined evidence through slide presentations during trial coverage. Aside from slides, the courtroom camera vantage points outlined by Cahill restricted viewers to a limited view.

Vantage points from bystander, body worn cameras, security cameras, and cell phone footage entered as evidence required Judge Cahill to determine their fitness in relation to the cause of Floyd’s death recorded on the scene.

Evidence Submission

Vantage points from bystander cameras provided jurors with a biased view of Officer Derek Chauvin allowing for prosecution and defense to recall through instant replay, which ran the risk of mistrial.

Watching George Floyd die over-and-over felt like backing up and running over roadkill. Where is the jurisprudence in that?

Judge Cahill’s decision to allow the prosecution to call several experts who recalled the footage led to the prosecution’s beating of the dead horse of redundancy called out by Cahill.

The security camera footage from inside the Cup Foods market told a different story. The security camera showed Floyd putting something in his mouth.

Cahill’s job sought to determine whether to allow evidence, to examine interpretations, and to call out any opinions presented by either party overruling objections that presented speculation.

The defense claimed Floyd put a pill in his mouth, whereas the prosecution objected, stating the footage would be too hard to tell, which Cahill sustained.

Upon deliberation, Cahill decided to convene for the day. Cahill appeared stoic at times, concerned with the statistic of a mistrial while dismissing the jury. 

On April 5, 2021, at 4:53 PM Eastern, Judge Cahill stated, “just remember, don’t talk to anyone from the media about the case,” laughing after removing his battleship grey face covering.

Media Viewpoints

The media’s viewpoint through Court TV, anchor Vinnie Politan examined the weighing of the verdict throughout the trial as a columnist. Politan brought in experts to weigh in on Cahill daily anticipating a mistrial.

The jury continued to remain free from sequester despite several close calls. Did Cahill make the right choice?

The court teetered at times over the consideration to sequester regarding the role social media played outside the courtroom. As protests formed throughout Minneapolis, crowds anticipated the judge’s decision to call a mistrial standing at the ready to develop into civil unrest.

From the authoritative vantage point, the judge shoulders the crux of accountability in the media for acquittal and mistrial sought to paint him as a failure. Judge Cahill’s decisions determined the outcome of a “blue-on-blue” controversy, which bared the weight to assign sentencing of a former police officer upon guilty verdict.

During the trial, citizen journalists on social media continued to comment to the world what they believed was unjust, which opined based on what was heard from Court TV, who acted as instigators. Citizen journalists use cell phone vantage points to skew their Facebook live view to persuade viewers to act.

Media reporting sources like the Star Tribune spotlighted Cahill’s dismissal of requests from state Attorney General Keith Ellison advising him not to stream the trial. Ellison argued forcing witnesses to expose themselves would invade their privacy leading to controversy.

Ellison felt threats and intimidation would result.  Ellison argued, “Cahill’s order sets a wider precedent that could require the broadcasting of all high-profile criminal trials.”

Vantage points become viewpoints. Viewpoints influence the masses through the media. The masses organize protests. Protests develop into civil unrest.

Judges face harsh criticism by the media as a part of their vocation. Public opinion and public approval determine the length of the judge’s career.

Vantage points by the media during trial coverage limited the amount of exposure members of the media would be allowed.

On April 14, 2021, WCCO 4 CBS Minnesota reported Cahill denied the request to acquit Derek Chauvin sharing vantage points from the trial. The reporter outlined key points regarding the odds of acquittal, which were presented by Attorney Eric Nelson on day two.

The spotlight shined on the opinion of Chauvin’s training steering away from Cahill’s decision-making ability. The coverage of the case provided viewpoints of the prosecution and defense who argued over the relevance to establish the use of force and whether it was reasonable.

Attorney Nelson attempted to raise ongoing concerns regarding media exposure through sidebar. Sidebars address the bench to cross-examine courtroom protocols during the discovery phase of the trial.


Trial coverage on Court TV presented a social distance view. One view showcased the judge, the next was the defense, and the third view shared the prosecution. When Cahill called for sidebar, all parties covered their mouths, as if they were calling an audible like a fourth down last-minute decision.

Side bars from trials in the past showed the attorneys approaching the bench. The George Floyd murder trial presented many new ways of approaching the bench.

This new method of sidebar changed the future of court vantage points by the media. Sidebars consider items off the record. Minnesota Court Rules require protocols when approaching the judge’s bench.

After the final sidebar, the defense called for another mistrial, which Cahill overruled. Derek Chauvin invoked his fifth amendment and Judge Cahill had the Hennepin County Court transfer evidence to laptop computers prior to closing statements.

The decision to sequester the jury came into play after the breaking news revealed Duante Wright had been murdered accidentally by Minneapolis police, which led to sequestering the jury finally.

The judge left jurors free to leave for the weekend who would be sequestered the following Monday.

Controversy broke out in the media with Congresswoman Waters demanding a guilty verdict. Cahill continuously cautioned jurors not to watch the news when they went home for the weekend.

Sequestering in the beginning would have shielded the jury from making biased decisions based on the probability of media exposure.

Judge Cahill’s job as an authority figure from his bench and plexiglass vantage point observed the pressure to finish the trial. From the media viewpoint, Cahill’s decision to allow media coverage tolerated the skewed view of his trial with Court TV viewers through commentary, which tampered the outcome.

Cahill’s decision to trust that his jurors would avoid the media after being called out several times walked the tightrope of mistrial. Cahill’s dismissal of the fourth estate tolerates courtroom paparazzi according to the Society of Professional Journalists.

Was commentary even considered when selecting Court TV?

Judge Cahill’s media selection indirectly exposed him to biased decision-making. One could argue and say Cahill would be protected under the Veil of Ignorance. The original position of Judge Cahill’s decision would not entertain any request to broadcast his trial.

Had he known about biased commentary examination by the Society of Professional Journalists, he could be liable. Ultimately, Cahill’s decision entertained the defense’s motion through Attorney Eric Nelson.

He was not advised of journalism ethics as a decision maker for the court. The broadcaster is responsible.

Court TV’s trial by media corrupts the Constitution, the justice system, and denied Derek Chauvin a fair trial. Judge Cahill’s leniency with commentary indirectly endorsed the double standard of Court TV’s biased coverage.

Weighing the merits of justice would rule Derek Chauvin could be considered the Court TV media’s Nelson Mandela. Shackled before the world like David Walker, masked like Bobby Seale, intimidated by Rainbow Push through Jesse Jackson by Congresswoman Waters, and put on trial by the Court TV expert commentary, paved the road to contempt without due process as a televised event.

Chauvin responded to a dispatch call reporting Floyd to the police for purchasing convenience store items with a counterfeit $20 bill. The security camera vantage point spoke the truth about Court TV’s trial by media, which wasn’t released when America began protesting with scattered incidents of rioting and looting.

Judge Cahill’s job from the slam of the first gavel sought to give Derek Chauvin a fair trial who let everything go ruling not to sequester. When one protected class attacks another there is a cancellation of civil rights when the media edits footage and dismisses objectivity, which is the Society of Professional Journalism Ethics perspective of the fourth estate’s vantage point in reverence to protecting the doctrinal authority of the Constitution.

-Robert Cobert

Columnist—The Capitol Capstone Journal

The Cahill Worker Profile Project for client:

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Feature Writing 303

Former Deputy Director Brian Seamonson of Madison NORML appeared before Jefferson County Family Court Commissioner Jennifer Weber Monday for initial appearance.

Seamonson appeared before the court to face charges entered by the Lake Mills Police Department. Seamonson claimed the patrol officer did not want to charge him for possessing Cannabis passing the decision on to their lieutenant.

Seamonson entered a not guilty plea seeking legal counsel.

Seamonson faces multiple charges to include:

  • Operating While Revoked 343.44(1)(b)(Rev due to alc/contr subst/refusal 4th+)Misd. U2946.49(1)(a).
  • Bail Jumping-Misdemeanor Misd. A3961.41(3g)(e).
  • Possession of THC Misd. U4961.573(1).
  • Possess Drug Paraphernalia Misd. U.

Jefferson County Assistant District Attorney Garret Johnson recommended a $500 signature bond to include restrictions.

The court ruled the Lake Mills PD criminal complaint demonstrated probable cause. The court could not respond to Seamonson’s questioning during the hearing advising them to seek a public defender if eligible.

Seamonson’s signature bond restrictions include:

  • No possession or consumption of controlled substances without a valid prescription.
  • Take prescription medications only as prescribed.
  • No possession of any drug paraphernalia.
  • No operation of a motor vehicle without valid drivers license..

Seamonson approached the court seeking a doctor’s excuse for his Cannabis use despite Wisconsin’s current status with prohibition. The court could not honor the request.

Seamonson’s next Pretrial Conference on May 19th at 8:30 a.m and Status Conference June 25th require appearance or will issue a warrant for their arrest.

Source: Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Website

Secretary of Northern Wisconsin NORML under the guidance of Regional Chapter Jay Selthofner unethically published blogs making false claims regarding harassment February 23. Those allegations went viral spreading malicious falsehoods costing us chances to pursue freelance opportunities.

Complaints have been filed and now we wait. In the meantime, Selthofner’s group stands poised to strike again selling sophistry in the form of false accusations as bloggers. These infractions constitute retaliation that violate Caveat Emptor Law and hope to educate those who speak out against the National Organization of Reforming Marijuana Laws.

The malicious falsehood by Selthofner’s chapter sent a shockwave wrongfully accusing individuals they suspect are the admins of a page titled “the Shoelace Express.” The Northern Wisconsin NORML blog administrator wrongfully accused Bradley J. Burt, our editor-in-chief, and Jennica Stein of being admins. The truth? You are making false claims. Mary Jane Jones is not Jennica Stein. Mary Jane Jones is still at-large and we have nothing to do with your belligerent accusations.

If you have information as to the identity of Mary Jane Jones, please let us know. We have no control over any of those accounts and are working to put the word out through members of the NAACP to bring this culprit to light. We do not represent the posts published on those Facebook pages.

What lengths will Jay Selthofner and his Northern Wisconsin NORML chapter go to diffuse their whistleblowers?

Mr. Selthofner lacks merit after publishing his organization’s retaliatory blog. Northern Wisconsin NORML called out Bob Cobb and Madison NORML founders February 23rd, citing harassment over a Facebook page titled, “the Shoelace Express.” For the sake of law review we respond to address their malicious falsehood claims.

Some could say Mr. Selthofner runs an ethical operation. Some may even try to support Mr. Selthofner’s opinion working as attorneys for the National Organization for Reforming Marijuana Laws. Sadly, opinions are not credible even though they represent the brand Northern Wisconsin NORML. The activists of the Wisconsin chapter lack merit. Malicious falsehoods claimed by Mr. Selthofner’s chapter should be recognized as retalitory, which are under investigation.

 The argument centers around ethics.
How can a nonprofit organization reform law without addressing ethics they represent in their bylaws and constitution? Just to be clear, Mr. Selthofner’s organization’s false accusations violate NORML’s policies. From the minute Selthofner recruited members of our firm, to the time our editor-in-chief left their organization as the Madison NORML Enforcer, Mr. Selthofner sought to silence him and even stooped so low to make malicious falsehood claims on his website about being a racist and a homophobe. Those claims are most definitely libelous and have zero control over what another admin does. Jay Selthofner is the exhibit A NORML Executive Director brooding toxicity in Wisconsin. Can you understand why Wisconsin is not budging with legalization?

Online harassment by Mary Jane Jones acted alone. Northern Wisconsin NORML does not reserve the right to assume the identity of their harasser, which they did with the intent to justify their means to retaliate. Retaliation found on the Northern Wisconsin NORML website clearly demonstrates Mr. Selthofner’s organization’s claims are false. He cannot prove the identity of his sole harasser Mary Jane Jones. Instead, they take it out on someone they suspect is responsible who has no affiliation as an admin. Does he have concrete proof of the admin of the Shoelace Express page and does he know that the University of Wisconsin offers a course through the Wisconsin Eye Watchdog Network? No. Mr. Selthofner withholds pertinent information that would support his website’s claim through Northern Wisconsin NORML.

Malicious falsehood claims require the burden of proof. After being gas lighted by members of NORML, which openly admits in our exhibits, the damage is done. The group relentlessly seeks to diffuse anyone who steps in their way without regard to the law.

Mr. Selthofner’s claims made on his organization’s website contain heresy. The evidence represented with our rebuttal offers accuracy and proof. His organization wants desperately to point the finger but lack the evidence we present through our exhibits. The argument would require merit. Mr. Selthofner uses gas lighting tactics to turn away viewers. Mr. Selthofner sent his wife Narin to retaliate against his whistleblowers the day his chapter published the blog featured below.  

Bob Cobb Freelance Ink LLC is a hyperlocal multimedia aggregator consisting of freelance journalists who share information for piece work. We are not in the business of pointing fingers like Mr. Selthofner. When Mr. Selthofner recruits new members he speaks gossip of Gary Storck, founder of Cannabadger.com and Madison NORML assisted by Greg Kinsley whom Mr. Selthofner attacked through Alan Robinson. Mr. Selthofner’s motive loosely brags about taking the group down who did so by grooming Alan Robinson.

The evidence presented to the viewer is unadulterated screen shots of Mr. Slethofner’s back alley lobbying tactics who teaches recruits how to gas light people behind their back, which violates Wisconsin Ethics Commission’s rules for lobbyists. Mr. Selthofner sent Alan Robinson to Madison NORML to develop a troll blogger to spy on Gary Storck, write Op-eds to Cannabadger.com and oust Greg Knisley. Mr. Selthofner broke every ethical code in the book as a lobbyist. Mr. Selthofner is not trustworthy.

We turned over the Madison NORML blogger.com to Homeland Security. Bob Cobb became a Consumer Protection Reporter to track claims made by Phillip Scott that Dan Connors and Brian Seamonson stole Hemp for Harvest Fest 2018, which Selthofner knew at the time.

Madison NORML Says-“Vote Yes for Cannabis Nov. 6th” by Bob Cobb | the 4:22 Chronicles (commandercobb-422.blogspot.com)

Selthofner continues to cover for Robinson’s jeapordizing of NORML Wisconsin. Selthofner knows we are blowing the whistle on them. Hence, Bob Cobb, the carrier pigeon being media leaking service, which was created by NORML with the permission from Alan Robinson carried out his orders. The conspiracy to overthrow Madison NORML happened and you tried to manipulate new members into buying your toxicity. We refused. We chose ethics instead. Victim blaming your past members by blasting them on your website invites rogue behavior. We are a legitimate investigator for the Watchdog 101 community with the Center for Investigative Journalism to examine the lobbying methods of the NORML organization. The Shoelace Express featured refers to Alan Robinson’s exhibit. We have nothing to do with anything other than continuing our investigation.

Harassment is a result of attack. When a group calls them out, they are whistleblowers, not harassers. In closing, instead of spending time trying to cancel our firm’s culture, spend some time taking a few ethics classes and be an upstanding lobbyist Mr. Selthofner. Organizations like NORML seek to reform the law. Mr. Selthofner’s protégé and Wisconsin NORML Executive Director Alan Robinson breaks into the Wisconsin State Capitol, receives allegations of sexual assault and rips people off with false promises. Watchdog journalism informs the community when lawbreakers seek to reform laws. When a nonprofit organization attacks individuals through blogs, who call out your behavior, you fulfill your legacy as a toxic lobbyist. Watchdog journalism prevents lobbyists like you from retaliating against people who speak up.