An elderly woman got on a bus and sat down. At the next stop, a strong, grumpy
young woman climbed up and sat down sharply beside the old woman, hitting her with her numerous bags.
When she saw that the elderly woman remained silent, the young woman asked her why she had not complained when she hit her with her bags.
The elderly woman replied with a smile: ′ ′ There is no need to be rude or discuss something so insignificant, as my trip next to you is so short because I am going to get off at the next stop. "
This answer deserves to be written in gold letters: ′ ′ There is no need to discuss something so insignificant, because our journey together is too short. "
Each of us must understand that our time in this world is so short, that darkening with struggles, useless arguments, jealousy, not forgiving others, discontent and an attitude of constant discovery is a ridiculous waste of time and energy.
Did someone break your heart ?. Stay calm.
The trip is too short.
Did someone betray you, intimidate, cheat or humiliate you? Relax. Excuse. The trip is too short.
Did someone insult you without reason ?. Stay calm. Ignore it. The trip is too short.
Did a neighbor comment on the chat that you didn't like ?. Stay calm. Ignore him. Forgive that. The trip is too short.
Whatever the problem someone has brought us, remember that our journey together is too short.
No one knows the length of that trip. Nobody knows when it will arrive at its stop. Our trip together is too short.
We will appreciate friends and family.
Let us be respectful, kind and forgive, we will be filled with gratitude and joy, after all our trip together is very short.
Sandwich road rage incident brings town official's spouse, citizen to magistrate hearing
Rachael Devaney
Cape Cod Times
Published Dec 22, 2022
SANDWICH — At about 8:15 a.m., Nov. 2, Cara McNeil sang along to the radio as she drove her 18-month-old twins from her Sandwich residence to daycare. She had no idea, she said, that the trip through her neighborhood would end with a slap.
"I cut through Anthony's Way and Triangle Circle to avoid traffic," said McNeil, who recently moved from Sandwich to West Barnstable. "A white Nissan started following me. The driver was laying on the horn, driving up the sides of the neighbors' yards screaming, and flailing her arms out the window."
To document what she called aggressive driving, McNeil said she recorded two videos, which she provided to the Times.
In the first 36-second video, a Nissan sedan pulls near McNeil's bumper, and then drops back. The car can be seen following McNeil.
According to a Sandwich Police Department police report, provided to the Times by McNeil's attorney Brendan Burchell, the driver of the Nissan sedan was later identified as Jeanne Pozerski of Sandwich. Pozerski is the wife of Peter Pozerski, a captain with the Sandwich Fire Department.
Within a few minutes, the two women were parked next to one another, arguing, and Pozerski allegedly assaulted McNeil.
The Sandwich Police Department and the Barnstable District Court clerk's office declined to provide the police report to the Times.
Now, both women face clerk-magistrate hearings in Barnstable District Court.
What happened when the two cars ended up parked next to each other?
In the second 31-second video, Pozerski pulls her car next to McNeil's, and the two begin arguing when McNeil asks Pozerski if there is a reason she is following her. After McNeil dares Pozerski to get out of the car, Pozerski exits her vehicle and approaches McNeil's driver-side window.
Pozerski can be heard accusing McNeil of blowing through a stop sign. The argument escalates, with Pozerski telling McNeil that she doesn't belong in Pozerski's neighborhood. McNeil then informs Pozerski that she drives through the neighborhood every day.
That will be the last time, Pozerski says to McNeil in the video, using an expletive.
After McNeil calls Pozerski a derogatory word, Pozerski can be seen in the video appearing to reach toward the open driver's side window to take some kind of action but then the video ends abruptly.
McNeil told the Times that she was slapped by Pozerski.
While police weren't present at the time of the incident, it's noted in the police report that McNeil's lip appeared red once officers arrived on the scene.
McNeil provided photos to the Times, taken Nov. 3, which showed her lip swollen and cut.
During the incident, McNeil told police the impact of Pozerski hitting her knocked her sunglasses off her face.
In the police report, Officer Marc Peterson noted that two responding officers — Sgt. John Manley and Sgt. Paul McCarthy — found the sunglasses in a grassy area. Petersen wrote that McNeil told officers her glasses were damaged, but they were found intact.
In the report, Petersen suggested McNeil was lying to the officers.
McNeil maintains that it was Manley who acknowledged the sunglasses were broken and took a picture of them with his phone.
Directly following the incident, McNeil called 911. When she told Pozerski that she called the police, she said Pozerski left the scene before Sandwich officers arrived.
Neither Jeanne or Peter Pozerski could be reached by the Times for comment.
Police interviewed Pozerski at her home after the incident
Police officers found Pozerski at her home at 9 a.m. the day of the incident by using license plate registration information provided by McNeil, according to the police report.
In the report, Pozerski admitted she was present during the incident and agreed to speak to officers. At about 8:15 a.m., she said she left her home to buy a coffee. As she approached Anthony's Way and Triangle Circle, she observed McNeil's white Chevrolet Traverse fail to stop at a stop sign. Pozerski stated that she hit her horn to gain the attention of the operator of the vehicle, but the vehicle continued down Triangle Circle at a high rate of speed.
Pozerski followed the vehicle, she said, and honked her horn. She also told officers that she "lost her cool" and slapped McNeil's phone out of her hand, according to the report.
Both women will face clerk-magistrate hearings
The police report noted that Pozerski will be charged with assault and battery, and negligent operation of a vehicle.
According to the police report, McNeil was charged with negligent operation due to not stopping at a stop sign, and "almost hitting" Pozerski. McNeil was also charged with negligent operation for pulling her phone out to film the incident.
While Lt. Bruce Lawrence of the Sandwich Police Department said he wouldn't speak to specifics of the investigation, he said Pozerski's actions are considered a simple assault. Because officers didn't see the assault happen in real-time, it's not an arrestable offense. The video evidence of the assault, he said, only gives officers probable cause to issue a complaint, Lawrence said.
Because of the circumstances surrounding the incident, neither party was arrested and both Pozerski and McNeil will face clerk-magistrate hearings at Barnstable District Court.
"In some circumstances, we send it to a clerk magistrate so they actually make a determination," Lawrence said.
What is the purpose of a clerk-magistrate hearing?
Marion Broidrick, clerk magistrate for Orleans District Court, said clerk-magistrate hearings are used to determine probable cause for complaints to move forward to court. While assault and battery charges can be presented at a hearing, Broidrick said, the misdemeanor charge isn't often heard by a clerk magistrate.
"You don’t see a whole lot of them in magistrate hearings. Usually, when it’s an assault, somebody calls the police and the police make their own determination about probable cause in their arrest," she said.
While a video recording of an incident could help police make a decision about probable cause, if the police aren’t there to make an arrest, they can file an application for complaint, which the clerk magistrate can use at the hearing, said Broidrick.
The problem with the clerk-magistrate hearing, said McNeil, is that proceedings are private. With Pozerski being the wife of an officer at Sandwich Fire Department, McNeil said she thinks the public should know about what charges Pozerski is facing.
If the complaint moves forward to court after the magistrate hearing, details regarding the incident will be open to the public. If it's resolved in a hearing, details remain private, said Broidrick.
"That’s when you can make a request based on public interest," she said. "If it looks like something is happening that’s not proper, they (the clerk magistrate) have to explain themselves."
McNeil and her attorney try to obtain police report but were delayed
For a month following the incident, McNeil and her attorney were denied the police report by Sandwich Police, before Burchell obtained the report from Barnstable District Court on Dec. 9.
"I just wanted to know who I was dealing with for my own safety and the safety of my children," said McNeil. "I was looking for guidance from the police. I didn't know if I shouldn't drive through that neighborhood anymore. I was met with silence."
Lawrence said there are certain exemptions within the public records law that allows police to deny information to the public, even if a person is directly involved in an incident.
"One of those (exemptions) is the investigatory clause. The case is considered still under investigation at this point," he said.
McNeil said that Petersen, the police officer who wrote the report on the incident, left her a voicemail, which she made available to the Times, saying the investigation was concluded. Petersen left the voicemail after hand-delivering McNeil's citation to her residence on Nov. 6.
"His (Petersen) investigation is over but there is still a judicial process that takes place and that falls under that exemption," said Lawrence.
The time and date of the incident listed on the initial citation was incorrect, and delivered to a home McNeil owns in Sandwich, but no longer lives at. McNeil said she provided officers with her new address at the time of the incident.
McNeil said there are also significant errors within the police report, which she reported to Manley in an email, dated Dec. 15, which she provided to the Times.
Burchell, who is a former Barnstable police officer, said the police report also contains a significant amount of opinion.
"The report should be facts — that's it," said Burchell. "There is a lot of commentary and the report is slanted to make it seem like Cara was the aggressor."
Lawrence said the police report stands.
"That's what was sent down there (to the court) and that’s the way it’s going to stay. And that’s what a court is for. They battle it out down there," said Lawrence.
'She is the wife of someone who is in a position of power.'
For McNeil, the level of anger and aggression Pozerski exhibited throughout the incident is cause for concern for the entire Sandwich community.
"She is the wife of someone who is in a position of power. She shouldn't behave that way," McNeil said. "She was clearly in a rage."
In an email to the Times, John Burke, chief of the Sandwich Fire Department, said the incident involving Capt. Peter Pozerski's spouse has no relevance to his department because Pozerski was not present during the incident.
"He was not on duty at the time of the incident, and the incident did not occur on FD (Fire Department) property," Burke wrote. "This is a private matter that I will leave between the two parties involved."
McNeil said she will continue to push the issue until Pozerski is held responsible for her actions.
Jan. 6 witness recounts pressure campaign from Trump allies Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson described to the House Jan. 6 committee a wide-ranging pressure campaign from Donald Trump’s allies aimed at influencing her cooperation with Congress and stifling potentially damaging testimony about him.… [more]
In thinking about the vast ethical sucking noise that’s consumed virtually all of the federal government, it’s easy to feel hopeless as 2022 grinds to an end. Donald Trump’s taxes, years ahead dedicated to Benghazi-style hearings, Supreme Court justices partying with election deniers—Bah, humbug, rinse, repeat.
And yet, there is something that feels entirely unsatisfying about celebrating this as a landmark win. Two years after we watched the crime happen in plain sight, and the criminals fêted and enriched, we now see criminal charges humbly suggested, for a handful of people?
It’s at least possible to surmise that the biggest winners after the committee finished its superb work would be Ron DeSantis, the Murdochs, Liz Cheney, and all those advocating that the GOP dump Donald in favor of literally anyone who can push wildly conservative outcomes without the added peril of his bottomless unhinged-ness. By that token, Monday was a very good day for the GOP, as measured by the opening of yet another offramp for anyone still in search of an offramp.
Instead, no matter what they may tell you about the rule of law and the need for consequences and accountability, absolutely nobody in the GOP as it is currently constituted has any interest in stopping the goose that has laid the conservative legal establishment’s golden egg. Love him or hate him, Thomas has been the single most effective jurist in modern history, and even those conservatives who deplore Trump’s incitement and violence and threats will gleefully turn a blind eye to Thomas’ ethical lapses if it means securing enduring wins on abortion, guns, massive deregulation, and ascendant corporate power. Virtually nobody who is winning at the Supreme Court in a decades-long conservative legal project aimed at dismantling environmental protections, subverting minority voting rights, and imposing theocratic supremacy is going to take seriously the myriad ethical conflicts and structural failings that plague the current court. Better to keep pretending that Donald Trump is the problem than concede that the problem is actually that both Trump and the Thomases operate as if the law is for the little people, and the law lets them.
Clarence and Ginni Thomas were ultimately untouchable for the Jan. 6 investigators for the same reason they are untouchable for purposes of Supreme Court ethics reform: When you’re a justice, they let you do it. And when you are delivering long-sought victories, even ethical Never Trumpers like Liz Cheney will let you do whatever it takes to deliver the goods.
I’ve been struck that in recent reporting on ethical lapses at the high court, conservative legal enthusiasts have begun to advance the claim that there is no need for binding ethics rules because conservative triumphs are so plainly and self-evidently correct that there can be no other outcome. Here’s a version of that argument applied to Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society assisting Kellyanne Conway in selling her polling business while she was lobbying the Trump White House in its judicial selections: “It seems bizarre to think that any possible lobbying by Kellyanne Conway would have added to the force of [the court’s] commitment or to the influence that Mitch McConnell and Don McGahn had already wielded,” said Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Antonin Scalia. And here’s Mark Paoletta, the former Clarence Thomas clerk who worked on Thomas’ Senate confirmation and who now represents Ginni Thomas in Jan. 6 matters testifying in opposition to Supreme Court ethics reform earlier this month: His argument was that a campaign in which big donors forked over cash to the Supreme Court Historical Society in order to put pressure on justices to overturn Roev. Wade was not an ethics problem at all. Why was that? Because pushing Alito, Thomas, or Scalia rightward was laughable, you see, since their opposition to Roe was already known. They’re so conservative, it’s not possible to corrupt them with money.
Wait. So the justices who swore at their confirmation hearings that Roe was binding precedent were in truth so in the tank for overturning Roe that no amount of pressure to do so would have made a difference? Since everyone knew that overturning Roe was why they were appointed? Got it. No wonder Supreme Court ethics reform is a dumb idea. If a code of ethical conduct isn’t necessary because conservative legal thinkers are impervious to influence and bribes from those with whom they are in lockstep, there’s no need for any limits on who they party with or travel with or accept gifts from. Of course at that point, we should probably stop characterizing the place as a “court.”
In thinking about the ethical emptiness that’s swallowing all three branches of our federal government, I’ve been revisiting the speech that Rep. Gerald Ford, then House minority leader and future president of the United States, gave when he attempted unsuccessfully to impeach Justice William O. Douglas, in 1970. While Ford’s efforts to impeach the wild man that was Douglas failed, and are largely derided as motivated by political partisanship and score settling, the text of his speech is illuminating.
His neglected children found him “scary” and noted that he spoke to them only when “press photographers wanted a picture.” They also resented his treatment of their mother, his first wife, whom he threw over after 28 years of marriage for a series of younger women. He left his third wife for a high school student who had asked him to sponsor her senior thesis, and then divorced her after 24 months for a college student whom he had met while she was a waitress in a cocktail lounge. He kept a room at the University Club, to which his messenger would drive Supreme Court secretaries who caught his fancy. In his sixties, he routinely invited flight attendants to visit him at the Court, where he would lunge at them in his chambers.
Most of Ford’s speech was devoted to the proposition that Justice Douglas was a dirty, dirty boy, who wrote for dirty, dirty magazines and dabbled in some kind of “international gambling fraternity,” and palled around with dubious sorts of former casino owners and “young hothead revolutionaries.” It’s mostly very silly. But it’s pretty striking that in 1970, a purely partisan witch hunt against a liberal jurist for alleged pornographic violations was taken more seriously by Congress as an ethics scandal than one involving a Supreme Court justice whose wife was involved with an attempt to subvert a presidential election.
Republicans, for all their past sins, did in relatively recent history say that there were lines that people in power could not cross. As a result of the conduct of Ford’s immediate White House predecessor, many voted to say that orchestrating and covering up the Watergate break-in crossed a line. With Ford’s crusade against Douglas, a justice’s alleged sexual impropriety had crossed a line. Today’s GOP—be it at the Supreme Court or in Congress or in the White House—proved once again this week (and in the months and years preceding it) that there are no real lines between its dreams and its victories. Judicial corruption, a violent coup attempt—whatever. For every working Republican power player, including the two Republican members of the Jan. 6 Committee, accountability stops at the courthouse door.
Pay very close attention as you read the final report, to where the bipartisanship around the Jan. 6 Committee recommendation begins and ends. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have done yeoman’s work to shore up the rule of law and accountability for Donald Trump and the worst of his confederates. But the work will also provide a pretty flawless map to which legal and ethical lapses are disqualifying and which are tacitly encouraged. One branch of government is checked and the other is given a pass. It’s clear that whatever part law enforcement, House Republicans, MAGA election deniers still in office, and particularly any Supreme Court justice or their spouse may have played in an attack on the republic in 2021 will be forgiven and forgotten. They’re still all on one team, and—law and ethics notwithstanding—that team is all in on winning the fights that really matter.
