Wikipedia would consider the LA Times to be a “reliable source” in their category “Biographies of Living People”. After all, they were the only ones attending the trial to report on it. So let’s analyze the newspaper’s report, forensically, for the sake of the record, just to investigate whether they are reliable. This is what I wrote immediately after the news appeared:
March 13, 2001
These were the low-lifes that the Los Angeles Times was responsible for concocting this story, although only Roug covered our trial.Continue Reading ANN O’NEILL, LOUISE ROUG, GINA PICCALO

I am frequently contacted by pro se (aka pro per) would-be litigants, asking for advice. Of course, I tell them I am not an attorney and cannot give advice. That market is cornered by licensed attorneys. However, there are numerous "self-help" sites, claiming that if you get the procedures right, you’ll be fighting your opponent

Spent the day before the long Labor Day weekend in traffic court. I had received in the mail a picture of me at an intersection at the wheel of my car, from the front and rear, showing the license plate number. There I was, stopped behind the line, as the light had turned red. Next picture was of me making a right hand turn, (from Sunset on to Cahuenga, which was permitted). This was witnessed, and the fine was $436, send it in by (date). The witness? 2, maybe 3, video cameras.

I spent half a day in the line down at the courthouse giving them a check, and a demand that I wanted to go to trial on this. I felt, and continue to feel strongly, that we do not (yet) live in a police state. If it’s ok to put its citizens under surveillance, I’m not so sure I wish to continue to live here. Continue Reading The $436 question