There is not a more honesty-enforcing device in modern life than a compiler and
the attendant run-time system, nor a greater intellectual joy than the art and science that can
be created with it. But IT departments are generally managed by people
who failed programming.
C Wright Mills standard of leadership - "men without
lively imagination are needed to execute policies without imagination devised by an elite without
imagination"
From: The American Criminal Justice System: How It Works, How It Doesn't , and How to
Fix It
PRISONS AS A NECESSARY EVIL
Losing one’s freedom is
an awful condition even in a minimum security prison. Nevertheless, American society has not found
any other means of protecting normal citizens from the violence perpeby citizens who murder, rape,
assault, and rob others. It is evident, therefore, that prisons and jails are needed for the protection
of all who seek to lead a peaceful existence. It is true, of course, that imprisonment does not protect
against individuals who behave violently and are not incarcerated. In fact, criminologists recognize
that 85 percent of those who have been convicted of a violent crime come from a violent home, so
the most fruitful way of preventing violence would be to teach our citizens not to do violence to
their families, and particularly to prevent children from witnessing violence or becoming the victims
of violence. As long as education against violence does not succeed, we have no alternative but to
imprison those who harm others and endanger innocent people among us.
Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that prisons be used only
as a last resort against those who threaten our lives and well-being. Unfortunately, the people in
charge of our criminal justice system cannot always be trusted to prosecute, sentence, or imprison
only dangerous offenders. For too long, the prisons of the United States have been misused by some
people in power to imprison sick people who are addicted to illegal substances, for example, or to
incarcerate people who are innocent of any crime or those who are too poor to be defended by a competent
attorney. It is not the purpose here to seek the abolition of the criminal justice system or to claim
that all who commit violence against their fellows should go free. Instead, it is the intent here
to show how the prison-industrial complex can be improved and the criminal justice system made more
just.
THE RATE OF INCARCERATION
In 1998, Eric Schlosser,
writing in The Atlantic Monthly, defined the prison-industrial complex as “a set of bureaucratic,
political and economic interests that encourage increased spending on imprisonment, regardless of
the actual need.”
The aforementioned “interests” have succeeded in bringing about the incarceration of over 2
million Americans in jails and prisons throughout the United States. In 2007, local jails held
780,581 prisoners, and state and federal prisons held over 1.5 million prisoners. This means
there were about 750 prisoners in American institutions for every 100,000 residents. This figure
indeed reflects the highest rate of imprisonment recorded for any country in the Western world.
For example, in the United Kingdom (i.e., England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales), the
imprisonment rate per 100,000 population is 340. In France, the imprisonment rate is 93; and in
Germany, 98. Likewise, other European countries have imprisonment rates ranging from 352 per
100,000 population in Latvia to 37 in Iceland.
The argument that the United States has far more crime than other countries cannot account for
this immense rate of imprisonment because the U.S. violent crime rate has declined steadily for a
number of years. For example, in 1977, the American homicide rate was 7.7 per 100,000 population.
In 1980, that rate had risen to 10.2 and continued to exceed 9 per 100,000 through 1994. From
then until 2007, the homicide rate declined each year, reaching a low of 5.5 in 2004 and
increasing slightly to 5.9 in 2007. Similar rates of decline were recorded for forcible rape,
which decreased by 2.5 percent between 2006 and 2007; and robbery, which decreased by 1.2 percent
between 2006 and 2007 and showed a 5.5 percent decline since 2003. Aggravated assault decreased
by 1 percent between 2006 and 2007 but had decreased by 21.5 percent since 1998. Evidently,
violent crime in the United States declined mainly because the birthrate had decreased; as a
result, the proportion of young men who commit the most violent offenses was smaller in 2007 than
in earlier years.
In 1910, the U.S. birthrate per 1,000 population was 30.1. This declined to 23.7 in 1960 and
further declined to 14.0 by 2005. The rate remained there for three years thereafter.
It is debatable, of course, what categories of nonviolent offenders should be incarcerated. In the
United States, this debate has been decidedly won by those law enforcers who seek to imprison as many
citizens as possible by criminalizing all kinds of conduct that is by no means criminal elsewhere in
the world and by increasing the length of sentences handed individuals convicted of various crimes.
It should be remembered that American prisons hold innumerable innocent people as well as drug addicts
and other ill people who fill up our jails and prisons, all to the benefit of the prison-industrial
complex and to the detriment of tax-paying citizens.
New construction of prisons is not related to a reduction in crime. It is instead related to
improving the income and finances of the people who benefit from victimizing the poor, the
illiterate, the ill, and the helpless. Included in the prison population are a considerable
number of innocent people, a large number of individuals addicted to drugs other than alcohol,
nonviolent white-collar offenders, and individuals whose conduct has been deliberately
criminalized to increase the prison population.
In the early 1990s, California taxpayers spent $400 million to build two towers in downtown
Los Angeles. Both towers are used as jails. It takes over 800 employees to move more than 6,000
prisoners through these facilities every day. The prisoners are booked, fingerprinted, sorted,
and locked into cells already crowded with other prisoners, who have been there longer. Since
1980, California has built 21 new prisons, which are the ultimate destination of most of the
people locked in the local jails. This growth in the prison industry has led to a sevenfold
increase in the California prison population. Prison construction costs during the years since
1980 have forced taxpayers to spend $5.3 billion. In addition, it costs the state $4.8 million a
year to maintain these prisons. This is only one example from one state of the huge investment in
prisons that American politicians have promoted at taxpayers’ expense.6
The phenomenal growth in prison populations is not limited to California. Instead, we find that
while the U.S. population has grown by 20 percent in the past 20 years, the prison population has
doubled. Another example of the growth of prisons may be found in Oklahoma. There, five criminal
justice bills passed by the legislature in 2007 cost taxpayers over $46 million. In addition,
another bill costing $42 million more was passed by legislators who wanted to be reelected on the
grounds that they are “tough on crime,” a phrase without substance other than its effect on the
electorate. As prison construction increased, the state gained 900 new inmates in one year alone.
As a consequence, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections is seeking another $40 million in a
supplemental appropriation.7
Yet another example of the considerable cost of prison construction may be found in Dallas
County, Texas. There, the Dallas County Detention Center was built in 2007 at a cost of $61.7
million. That facility is a 330,000-square-foot, four-level, medium security prison holding more
than 2,300 inmates. Evidently, a prison of such size needs a steady stream of prisoners to ensure
that the cells are always full and politicians can claim they are protecting the public. The fact
is that as such prisons are built, more and more bodies are needed to fill them. That goal is
achieved by seizing on those who cannot pay for lawyers, who are innocent, or who are victims of
drug abuse. The Constitution of the United States is also a victim of the incarceration craze, as
the erstwhile guarantee that everyone is innocent unless proved guilty by a jury of one’s peers
appears forgotten or ignored, especially by the media.
In Arkansas, the Department of Corrections, using prison labor, is spending $40 million to
construct a 339,442-square-foot concrete addition to an existing prison; and in Louisiana, $16.4
million was spent to build a new jail in Livingston County. In Mississippi, the Adams County
Prison is being expanded at a cost of $105 million, thereby employing 450 workers who would
otherwise be unemployed as the economy suffers a nationwide downward trend.
Such spending on prisons, which can be found nationwide, began in 1963, when Senator Barry
Goldwater of Arizona sought to improve his chances of becoming president of the United States by
using the fear of crime to attract voters. Subsequently, Richard Nixon used the same tactic
during his successful 1968 campaign. Then, in January 1973, the then-governor of New York, Nelson
Rockefeller, demanded in his State of the State address that every illegal drug dealer be
imprisoned for life without parole.9
In New York, the construction of prisons on a large scale began during the administration of
Mario Cuomo, who was elected governor of New York in 1982. At that time, the prison population of
New York had increased considerably because of the Rockefeller drug laws. Seeking reelection,
Cuomo needed public approval and chose the worn-out “tough on crime” slogan to achieve this. In
view of the defeat of a $500 million bond issue to build more prisons, Cuomo used the state’s
Urban Development Corporation to build prisons instead of housing for the poor. Cuomo spent $7
billion building prisons in upstate New York, above Watertown in the rural Adirondack district.
There had been considerable unemployment in that area of New York, so the construction of 27 new
prisons in “the north country” employed many people in construction work and later as prison
guards. Since Cuomo was also opposed to the death penalty, he sought to ward off criticism that
he was “soft on crime” by increasing the prison population in his state.10
The cost of incarceration in 2008 was indeed phenomenal. On the average, it costs about $29,000 a
year to house one prisoner in a double-bunk-bed cell in a minimum security prison. The cost rises
to $61,000 for a double-bunk bed in a medium security prison and
becomes $110,512 a year to house one person in a maximum security prison. It is understood, of
course, that costs vary from state to state and from prison to prison. Nevertheless, these
expenditures are the outcome of politics in that legislators, whether county, state, or federal,
want to be reelected by shouting the “tough on crime” slogan, no matter what it costs the
taxpayer. Few voters think about these costs. Those who vote, and they are always a small
minority of those eligible to vote, make their decision on the basis of the emotion of the
moment. The majority of eligible citizens do not vote in state and local elections and therefore
have no influence on the spending habits of incumbents.
In October 2007, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia held a Joint Economic Committee hearing entitled
“Mass Incarceration in the United States: At What Cost?” That hearing revealed that the United
States spent $49 billion on prisons in 2006 compared to $17 billion in 1987. Whereas the world
average rate of imprisonment is 166 per 100,000, the U.S. average imprisonment rate (750) even
exceeds that of Russia, which imprisons 628 residents per 100,000. The U.S. imprisonment rate is
so high despite the constant decrease in the American crime rate since 1990. Evidently, the
increase in incarceration is not the result of increases in the crime rate but results from
changes in penal policy. Two such changes have brought about the mass imprisonment of Americans.
One of the changes has been the criminalization of conduct heretofore not recognized as criminal.
The other change is motivated by profit, which the incarceration of over 2 million citizens
provides for numerous politicians and greedy business establishments.
Among those who profit from the misery of the semi-slaves locked into our prisons are
construction companies and the politicians who receive financial support from them at the next
election. Then there is the telephone company, the suppliers of goods and services, private
prison corporations, and numerous residents of small towns whose employment depends on the prison
industry. Often, the town’s citizens are members of the powerful prison guards’ unions, whose
votes are needed by politicians at their next reelection effort. All those interests militate
against the reduction of U.S. prison population even as the money spent prevents the funding of
such vital needs as the education of children and young adults, the support of the homeless, and
the feeding of the poor.
THE WAR ON DRUGS
Alcohol is a drug. Therefore, the prohibition of the use of alcohol in the United States, which
went into effect in 1920 and ended in 1933, constituted a war on drugs. It is common knowledge,
of course, that Prohibition failed because Americans wanted to use alcohol and did so despite the
law. In fact, laws that are contrary to the mores of American society cannot succeed because they
do not gain support from the public. Law is but one form of custom. Other customs, or social
laws, are folkways, defined as such conduct as shaking hands on greeting someone or eating ham
and eggs for breakfast. Mores involve social conduct supported by popular opinion but not
enforced by legal means; keeping oneself clean, using polite language, respecting one’s elders,
or attending religious exercises are all mores. Laws are statutes that either order that
something be done—paying taxes, for example or prohibit such an action as stealing or using
drugs.
When Prohibition was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933, numerous law enforcement
agents and prison operators were threatened with losing their jobs and their careers. Therefore,
it became vitally important to the people who benefited from the imprisonment of alcohol
suppliers and users to continue by other means some form of prohibition, though not of alcohol.
Those other means were the introduction of laws prohibiting the use of drugs other than alcohol.
It had become evident by 1930 that alcohol would shortly be reintroduced as a legal substance
because its suppression had visibly failed by then. As a consequence, there began in 1930 a
campaign against the use of marijuana. This drug, also known as cannabis, became the target of
people who viewed it as especially dangerous because of its association with Mexicans (the term
“marijuana” is Mexican for “Mary Jane”). That this bigotry is a principal reason for the campaign
against marijuana is best illustrated by taking a look at the leading annual causes of death in
the United States. The data reveal that in the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, more
people died from tobacco-related diseases than any other category of death-inducing conditions.
Tobacco killed about 435,000 Americans in each of those years, yet tobacco has not been
prohibited. Alcohol-related deaths amounted to about 85,000 each year, and prescription drugs
killed 32,000 people legally each year. Yet, by contrast, all illicit drug uses were responsible
together for 17,000 deaths in each of the years from 2000 through 2004.11
It was also found by researchers that marijuana alone has never caused even one death, although
marijuana in combination with other drugs, notably alcohol, has killed some users.12
The foregoing findings demonstrate that the laws prohibiting some drugs other than alcohol
were not derived from scientific analysis regarding the danger of their use but are the products
of political decisions based on the interests of those who have a financial stake in having these
laws enforced.
20170503 : Truble with DNS tests and other forensic evidence tests: 90 percent of crime labs in the United States are affiliated with law enforcement agencies by scientists who seek to please the police departments employing them. One of the worst examples of the fraud committed by forensic scientists involved Joyce Gilchrist, who for years testified at trials in the courts of Oklahoma City, claiming that she had made scientific tests that proved the guilt of those accused of murder, rape, and other crimes of violence. Between 1980 and 2001, Gilchrist had testified in thousands of cases, including 23 in which defendants were sentenced to death. Eleven of those sent to death row were executed on the basis of Gilchrist's scientific evidence. In 2001, she was dismissed from her job after the FBI found that she had deliberately withheld evidence from the defense, claimed to have achieved scientific results that no other scientist had ever achieved, and failed to perform tests that might have cleared the accused. ( May 03, 2017 , www.questia.com )
"I appreciate Woody Allen's humor because one of my safety valves is an
appreciation for life's absurdities. His message is that life isn't a funeral march to the grave.
It's a polka."
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of
time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that
glorifies it."
- Frédéric Bastiat, French economist
If there is an absolute maxim by which the American government seems to operate, it is that
the taxpayer always gets ripped off.
Their livelihoods depend on towns, cities, and states sending more people to prison and
keeping them there." Private prisons are also doling out harsher punishments for infractions by
inmates in order to keep them locked up longer in order to
"boost profits" at taxpayer expense .
If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his
defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people
that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair
chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In
such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking
for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the
law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this
realm-in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or
selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest
danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies.
It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being
unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political
views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
Rep. Maxine Waters of California, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, joined
demonstrations this weekend in Minnesota. She told supporters that if the Chauvin trial
verdict goes the wrong way, "we've got to not only stay in the street but we've got to fight
for justice."
You may recall a president got pilloried a while ago for urging his supporters to "fight"
for their desired outcome. It was noted then that the term is a well-worn rhetorical phrase
that doesn't necessarily amount to a literal incitement to violence. But there can't be much
doubt about the import of what Ms. Waters said. She made her remarks in Brooklyn Center, a few
miles from the barricaded Minneapolis courthouse where the Chauvin trial is taking place and
the site of the killing last weekend of a black man by a police officer. The place has been
aflame for the past week in an orgy of rioting.
The Handler standard, or the Maxine maxim "the idea that we don't really need a trial to
know whether someone is guilty of a heinous crime" has always had its adherents. There have
surely been miscarriages of justice "acquittals of guilty people and convictions of innocent
ones" throughout history. The jury system is never perfect.
But what's frighteningly new about our current climate is that the rejection of apparently
unwelcome trial outcomes is now part of the dominant progressive critique of our longstanding
political and civic order. If U.S. institutions are the product of white-supremacist
exploitation "as is essentially the consensus of the people who run the government, most
corporations, and leading cultural institutions" then the judicial system itself is inherently
and systemically unjust. If the principle of equality before the law is to be supplanted by the
objective of "equity" in outcome, then only outcomes that serve the higher objective of
collective racial justice can be considered legitimate.
So trials that produce the "wrong" verdict are not just miscarriages of justice. They are an
indictment of the entire system.
The ascendancy of this new progressive radicalism adds a frightening element to the unease
the nation feels this week as the jury deliberates in Minneapolis. By all accounts the trial of
Mr. Chauvin has been rigorous, methodical and fair. The prosecution seemed to make a strong
case that Mr. Floyd died at least in part as a result of the officer's actions. The defense may
have sowed some doubts about whether Mr. Chavin's intent rose to the level of culpability
required of the most serious charges.
But under our new rules, the jury's verdict will be tolerated only if it goes the "right"
way.
This rejection of the legitimacy of the judicial process is rooted in the same neo-Marxist
ideology""a race- and identity-based interpretation of structuralism""that holds sway over the
minds of much of our ruling class.
To the old Marxists, the capitalists were the exploiters. In "The ABC of Communism,"
published in 1920, Bolshevik leaders Nikolai Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky used language
that sounds strikingly familiar today. They denounced the courts as instruments of "bourgeois
justice," which was "carried on under the guidance of laws passed in the interests of the
exploiting class," and recommended instead the establishment of "proletarian courts."
In one of the more savage ironies of history, some two decades later the authors themselves
were tried by such courts under Josef Stalin and sentenced to death.
Yet even Stalin thought some kind of judicial proceeding was necessary. Our modern
revolutionaries would dispense even with show trials.
E
Eli Hauser SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago (Edited)
Red Queen Rules. Sentence. Verdict. Accusation. Admission of Guilt.
Mark Robbins SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
Liberals have no need for trials with an assumption of innocence. At all times, they KNOW
what is right.
Chris Madison SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
We are living through a "throw the baby out with the bath" moment. Extremists are labeling
anything which doesn't go their way as "systemically racist." If there is no jurisprudence
and due process, no system of laws addressing a variety of crimes, but only the cry for
"justice now" without defining what justice looks like according to law, then anarchy has
taken the place of justice. Ms. Handler is entitled to her opinion. I am glad she is not in a
position of leadership. Congresswoman Maxine Waters likes to make statements which "stir the
pot," potentially raising the "rage level" across our nation. She should know better, but
doesn't. Our nation is on the cusp of a moment when we must intentionally decide who we are
legally, morally, and Constitutionally. Emotions are insufficient for this moment.
Christopher Jones SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
This essay would have tremendous weight if there was not a video of the murder. Absent that
it is stupefyingly ignorant. "The prosecution seemed to make a strong case that Mr. Floyd
died at least in part as a result of the officer's actions." Really, sir? A video literally
showing the officer kneeling on Mr. Floyd's neck until he passed out and later died. Are you
suggesting that he would have died on his own had the officer not done this?
You are attempting to seem reasonable with your pleas for due process, but you just come
across as obtuse. A video of a man murdering another man and your like, no I don't believe
it. There has to be another explanation.
Tad Story SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
So your saying Mr. Floyd's use of a Highly addictive and equally deadly narcotic on top of
already severe heart condition to which your camera did not display played no role as to the
outcome? Considering the use of Fentanyl is 900 times more deadly than crack-cocaine I feel
it needed to be discussed and weighed, to which it was but the mob had their torches ready
and that carried as much or even more weight, Maxine made sure of that..
beryl silver SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago (Edited)
The article failed to mention the words protesters need "to get more confrontational" Maxine
Waters used.
Michael Lapolla SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
It has been obvious to us that the state of Minnesota offered Derek Chauvin as a sacrifice on
the altar of expediency. Witness the immediate and joyous victory laps by the state AG. It
just took a while and a show trial. It is obvious that the jury had no stomach for another
outcome. This is what you vote for - this is what you get.
And we have a Capitol police person murdering an unarmed trespasser, but our DOJ sees and
hears no evil and utters not a word.
What a national embarrassment. Go back to sleep Minnesota.
FRANK HERMAN SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
He wasn't on his neck. Even the prosecution witness admitted, that when looked at from other
angles, that the cop was on his shoulder blade.
Tim Taylor SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
Something to think about in the current culture of policing:
Most dangerous jobs in U.S. 1. Logging 2. Aircraft pilots/flight engineers 3. Derrick
operators 4. Roofers 5. Garbage collectors 6. Iron workers. 7. Delivery drivers 8. Farmers.
9. Firefighting supervisors 10. Power linemen 11. Agricultural workers 12. Crossing guards
13. Crane operators 14. Construction helpers. 15. Landscaping supervisors 16. Highway
maintenance workers. 17. Cement masons 18. Small engine mechanics. 19. Supervisors of
mechanics 20. Heavy equipment mechanics. 21. Grounds maintenance workers 22. Police
Officers.
What Maxine does not seem to understand is that demonizing the police works against gun
control efforts.
The more that the citizenry believes the police cannot be trusted to protect them, the
more citizens will seek to protect themselves, including purchasing and carrying
firearms.
Kenneth Gimbel SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
Whew. I guess Minneapolis won't be torched tonight. Or, maybe, just a little bit to satisfy
the mob.
Verne Thibodeaux SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
There are a lot of "undocumented shoppers" who are very disappointed today.
Michael Havey SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
As I've been saying since the first day of the trial, only the dumbest, most gullible, least
informed Americans believed that Derek Chauvin was innocent.
DK Brand SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
All that without due process being applied? See, you are the problem when the vast majority
of people who saw the video were horrified and felt the officer was guilty of his death. But
we have a system of laws and due process protects everyone, even the seemingly obviously
guilty. There are people who are caught red handed every day who receive the same due
process. So stop crowing about your imaginary opponents and accept that our system has worked
as designed.
William Coburn SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
innocent
He did not need to be found innocent, just not guilty.
Nidge M SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
Talk about dark comedy ........
IF Chauvin is convicted the seemingly not very legally au fait Maxine Waters just handed
his team perfect grounds to appeal against any conviction.
The whole situation is peturbing at a frightening number of levels 'though.
What will US cities do if 10%, 20% even 70% their Cops quit?
What will they do even if they don't quit but 'work to the letter of the rules' and slow all
action to a crawl?
Its not too unthinkable given the record of violence the very large man Chauvin was
kneeling on in the course of the arrest.
And add to that the somewhat inept but from the video plausible Police woman now
incacerated for shooting instead of tasering another career criminal .......... Which from
this distance appears to be a based on political rather than legal considerations.
Would you be a cop?
Meanwhile politicians from both main US parties appear to be giving their blessing to
those who wish to userp the rule of law .......... That's viable is it?
Nidge M SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
No, Floyd was not resisting arrest actively & constantly for 9 minutes.
But
Floyd was a very large male with a record of extream violence, drug abuse and
unpredictability.
Its hardly novel for an aprehended person to fake placidity, then when their restrainers
relax to explode into extream violence.
I am not asserting what Chauvin did was right or wrong ........ But I do think its a
reaction which anyone who has had to deal with violent offenders would regard as a pretty
understandable reaction.
I also wonder might those who are so ready to jump on the bandwagon, grandstanding &
howling in condemnation precipitate something far beyond their expectations.
I wonder too what would happen if the majority of those so quick to condemn were handed
responsibility for doing the policing job people like Chauvin have to do.
How would you do it?
Lori Crossley SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
I don't think anyone wants policing like Chauvin did it. It led to the death of a man. There
were a lot of potential outcomes to this arrest. I would not blame any officer for being
overly cautious based on Floyd's arrest record - and yes, it does count.
But Chauvin was not alone in making this arrest. He had assistance which was not utilized.
Do people fake injury to get away from police officers? I am sure they do.
But there were 9 long minutes when that was not happening. There are thousands of police
officers who leave their homes each day to walk into potentially violent situations. And they
do their job and go home at night (with little thanks) and did not make the same choice
Chauvin did. His trial was fair and the verdict is in. The process worked for Chauvin - not
so much for Floyd.
Mark Allen SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
I grew up on the block where the police station is located, in an apartment often captured in
the footage of the rioting. And while it did make the local papers, the national news has
failed to report that the folks living in those apartments cannot sleep (due to the rioters)
and have to put wet towels over their windows to keep out the teargas (due to the police).
And the irony in this is that the overwhelming majority of those apartment dwellers are
working-poor, persons of color.
Let that sink in.
Scott Mote SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
For the regressives and BLMers, those apartment dwellers are just collateral damage. Maybe
BLM will move them into a BLM mansion.
John Smith SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
Great insights Mr. Baker.
Strange how video evidence clearly convicts the subject in the minds of leftists. They
appear to be able to assign motive and punishment based on their emotional appraisal. We have
a sitting California Congresswoman stating this on video tape.
Well, we are not to believe every video tape. Remember Jussie Smollett? They did the same
to the unnamed racists, who assaulted Mr. Smollett - according to his version of events. All
muscular non black males were guilty, until individually cleared. The usual leftists in
politics, media, and entertainment joined Jussie.
Unfortunately, Jussie's version of events was false. He hired two black men to "assault"
him, then put together his soap opera version of the script. Since both stories could not be
true, no one went to jail. This is what politicians with law degrees have contributed to our
Republic.
Yes, he still faces felony charges. But it is more than two years hence. Speedy trial?
Paul Stroud SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
For all of most of our lives we've been able to rely on a civil society that recognized its'
faults, if even after a period of time, and took hard steps to correct them. This is now at
risk as acceptable "civil disobedience" becomes "violent disobedience". We can no longer look
at other parts of the world that are continually wrenched apart by violent, factional
conflict and destruction and think, "oh, at least it can't happen here". It is happening
here, and it is escalating. I hope I am wrong, but I fear for our children and grandchildren.
1. at the start of jury selection in the Chauvin case, Floyd's "family" were awarded $27 million civil verdict against
Minneapolis in a highly publicized MSM "event". THEY didn't try to keep it quiet. THEY promoted it.
2. Maxine Waters
3. Doxxing of jury members
4. This BLM guy, subject of this article
Yancey Ward 9 hours ago remove link
I think the real key with this particular issue will be this- did the judge deny the
defense a dismissal for cause on this juror. There is no way this juror should have been on
the jury in a just trial, and I think the evidence is strong that he flat out lied during the
voir dire.
Yancey Ward 9 hours ago
I think the real key with this particular issue will be this- did the judge deny the
defense a dismissal for cause on this juror. There is no way this juror should have been on
the jury in a just trial, and I think the evidence is strong that he flat out lied during the
voir dire.
Hello Kitty 7 hours ago
The trial never should have been held in MN. Why couldn't it be held somewhere else? Rigged.
Nona Yobiznes 12 hours ago (Edited)
Yes, you're right. I'd even say it was impossible for him to have a fair trial. This
situation resulted in billions of dollars in property damage, dozens of murders, and
thousands of injuries. The terrorists who committed these acts were on standby during the
trial. Everyone knew what would happen if acquitted.
The situation was not framed as an unfortunate incident between police and a civilian, it
was widely taken to be symbolic of white supremacist institutional power oppressing a
helpless black man. Even if you as a juror believed in his innocence, you would be putting
the lives of your family, yourself, and your community at risk by following through. You'd be
sending a message that you're a racist, that you believe in the genocide of blacks by cops,
you'd be doxxed, and probably killed. Chauvin was never, ever going to get fairness.
Even if he did contribute to Floyd's death, the murder charges are overkill.
pfmonte1 12 hours ago
He is guilty, perhaps, of negligent homicide. Truth is though that he probably is NOT.
ZHakespeare 12 hours ago
He has a history of violent acts. Chauvin is a predator with no blue license to commit crimes anymore.
Fiscal.Enema 11 hours ago (Edited)
This has nothing to do with HIS guilt or innocence but the SANCTITY of the jury
system. There is no way this conviction stands.
There is no hope of a fair trial for him anywhere. It will be too expensive for another trial. When the verdict is overturned. The CHIMPS will riot and loot
chinese.sniffles 13 hours ago
The man was sacrificed. Guilty or not, did not get a fair trial.
GunnerySgtHartman 13 hours ago (Edited) remove link
This is shaping up to be another Lance Ito/OJ Simpson situation, the only difference being
that OJ was found not guilty at trial.
TBT or not TBT 12 hours ago
Not. The 140lb Chauvin didn't kill this 220lb man with a knee to his shoulder blade. Even
the prosecution wouldn't say it was his neck, because body cams showed it wasn't. The
evidence shows a drug overdose and health complications.
nsurf9 13 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Its called "Reasonable Doubt."
Unknown to the officers, Floyd, literally had the #1 Overdose Drug in the USA - dissolving
in his mouth - the entire time he resisted being lawfully arrested.
Never mind that the pills tested-out to be the "#1 Overdose Drug in the USA" with Floyd's
saliva and DNA on them. Never mind that Floyd literally spat-out two pills onto the
floorboard of the police SUV, precisely when he uttered "I ate too much drugs." And, never
mind that - unknown to the officers - those #1 Overdose pills were dissolving and
sublingually going straight into felony-fentanyl Floyd's bloodstream - the whole time he was
handcuffed (and likely even before he passed the $20 bill in the store and while he was about
to drive a motor vehicle) and the whole time he relentlessly resisting arrest until he died
of them - with a combined 16.6 ngs of fentenyl/norfentyl total found in his blood - which is
several-fold times more than enough to overdose and kill.
No one asked George, if he was doing drugs while in the back of the police SUV, when he
uttered "I ate too much drugs." But, that was precisely the moment when he spat-out the two
remaining remnants of the fentenyl/amphetamine pills/hits and he likely began overdosing.
No officer hit Floyd - not even once. And, Chauvin's knee . . . did nothing and the
Autopsy proves it did nothing to injure Floyd. And, further, the officers had called for an
ambulance - twice - during the arrest
If Officer Chauvin doesn't get a fair trial . . . none of us will be assured to ever get
one, because the judicial system, itself, will have already failed !!!
Dumpster Elite 13 hours ago
"...whether Mitchell "lied about, or failed to provide complete answers on whether he has engaged in public activism, or
whether he has any affiliations with BLM that go beyond the mere wearing of the shirt."
Let's say I'm on a jury. I vote to convict a black guy of murdering a white man.
Then a few weeks later, there's a photo of me with some pals. We're all wearing "Proud
Boys" T-shirts and hats, and we are photographed at a "Get out the Republican Vote"
get-together.
Do you THINK that ANYONE is gonna believe that I was impartial??? "...whether he has any
affiliations with BLM that go beyond the mere wearing of the shirt." Gee, I don't
know??? The mere WEARING of a ph ucking BLM shirt??? How much more does he have to do??? If
you think this guy was in ANY way impartial, you've got a screw loose.
Chauvin will get at LEAST a re-trial, if not a complete mistrial.
Osmium 12 hours ago
He separately told the Star Tribune that attending the August event was an
"opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of black
people" and "to be a part of something."
If he wanted to be around thousands and thousands of black people, he could visit a
prison.
chubbar 11 hours ago
Or South Chicago.
joshrandall 11 hours ago remove link
George Floyd resisted arrest throughout the process. In the police vehicle and on the
ground. There is video evidence of this.
If you don't want police using force against arrest resisters, change the law.
When criminals and police are seen equally under the law, the police will lose simply by
attrition. Add no bail laws and your place of living is truly screwed.
Savyindallas 9 hours ago remove link
The juror should be prosecuted. Chauvin should be granted a new trial in a venue that is
fair- BTW-My disclaimers: I was a prosecutor in 2 major cities for 9 years. I also despise
most cops. They are poorly trained by politician police chiefs. They don't do their job right
-- they should be trained with the unquestionable goals and beliefs of "serve and protect",
rather than fear and intimidate.
Too many abuse and disrespect white people as well as Brown and black people, but liberals
and BLM types do not care about this. Officers who do not understand their proper role need
to be reformed, retrained and replaced by men of honor, courage and who are instilled with a
proper sense of civic duty.
All being said, Derek Chauvin is a human being -- an individual who should be judged
fairly on the facts and merits of his case--not some insane political agenda of Marxists who
have brought fear and intimidation into this circus of a trial and effectively and unfairly
swayed this timid jury IMHO.
fudge punch 5 hours ago remove link
Who was murdered? Floyd died of a heart condition exacerbated by opioid intoxication. I
would think a crucial element of a murder conviction would be a murder victim. This case is
conspicuously absent one of those.
Foe Jaws 11 hours ago
First it was the White cops, next it was White Boeing and Coke employees. White Americans
better wake up fast. The USA is a viciously anti-White Stalinist Corporate Oligarchy.
the6thBook PREMIUM 9 hours ago
I doubt it. Sounds like Jurors lied and cheated to get on the Jury with the purpose of
convicting. They had one that wasn't a BLM activist, that is why it took 10 hours instead of
two. Hell maybe that was even fake to try to make it more believable. This probably wasn't
the only question he lied about and not the only juror that was bent on getting
"justice".
thezone 12 hours ago
Easy appeal. He clearly lied about his tremendous bias.
Chauvin likely gets convicted either way. But this guy definitely is on the hook for
creating the perfect appeal.
Texman 12 hours ago
This guy should be prosecuted for lying on the jury questionnaire which is a court
document. However, never going to happen.
On March 20, at the Washington, D.C. Central Detention Centre, inmate Ryan Samsel, who was
taken into custody as a suspect and handcuffed, was severely beaten by two prison guards.
They smashed his face, broke his nose, knocked out his jaw, injured his eye and brought the
man to a state of mental disorder. He spent the night following the beating in a cell
unconscious, without medical help.
A little reminder of Montecristo Navalny's pains in the dungeon
A recent interest among government officials in reducing prison populations as a way to cut
costs, stemming from the 2008 Great Recession that resulted in significant budget deficits, has
placed renewed emphasis on the importance of halfway houses. As more prisoners are released
there is a corresponding need for more post-release housing – including reentry
facilities.
Loosely defined as a "halfway" point for prisoners between incarceration and freedom,
halfway houses have experienced a number of problems that indicate the industry is in need of
systemic improvements. If states continue the trend of reducing their prison populations and
more federal prisoners are released due to sentencing reforms [see, e.g., PLN, Aug.
2014, p.26], then halfway houses – also known as Community Corrections Centers (CCCs) and
Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) – will have to increase their capacity as well as the
quantity and quality of the transitional services they provide.
An Industry Plagued with Problems
Although some halfway houses are adequately managed and staffed with competent
professionals, others are operated more for profit than an interest in helping offenders
successfully return to society. Too many incidents involving poorly-supervised halfway house
residents and indifferent, or even criminal, behavior by employees have occurred in almost
every state as well as the federal prison system.
A well-managed halfway house provides a safe environment for soon-to-be released prisoners;
some may have been in jail for relatively short periods of time while others might have been
locked up for years or even decades. A halfway house's principal goal of providing a smooth
transition back to society provides the first line of defense against recidivism. Halfway house
residents often have few current ties to the community to which they are released, and even if
they do, may not have family or friends to assist them. They need viable reentry services,
including job placement and housing assistance, and often require substance abuse programs. Too
often, though, halfway houses are viewed by their owners and operators as little more than a
revenue source.
However poor a halfway house might be in providing effectual services and programs, many
times it is the only available option. For some state prisoners nearing release, placement in
halfway houses is mandatory; other states require no time spent at a reentry facility.
According to the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts, prisoners in eight states are allowed to
"max out" their sentences with no reentry programs to smooth their return to the community. In
those states, about 40% of prisoners are released with no transitional services.
"Now, policymakers on both sides of the aisle are starting to realize that if you're serious
about public safety, you need more effective strategies," observed Adam Gelb, director of Pew's
Public Safety Performance Project.
According to an April 2014 recidivism report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 49.7% of
offenders return to prison within three years after release and 55.1% return within five years.
Clearly, most state and federal correctional facilities do a poor job of "correcting" prisoners
and preparing them for release, which puts an even greater burden on halfway houses to supply
reentry services.
If the promise of the recent flurry of prison population reductions and sentencing reforms
across the nation is to be realized, halfway houses must adapt to new challenges and increased
responsibilities. Such reforms will be rendered meaningless if a large percentage of
newly-released prisoners re-offend and are re-incarcerated.
Despite this potential crisis, there is little sign that either state corrections officials
or the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is addressing shortcomings in the current halfway house system.
Many reentry facilities are poorly-managed and monitored, with violence, drug use and escapes
that are aggravated by widespread indifference and misconduct by staff members.
Further, halfway house programs sometimes reflect a corrupt system that awards contracts on
the basis of political favoritism or cronyism rather than the ability to reduce recidivism;
halfway house contracts are sometimes seen as way for government officials to reward political
backers and campaign contributors.
In any other business or industry, the level of failure and corruption present at some
halfway houses would result in wholesale employee terminations and changes in management, but
as in many correctional facilities, there is little accountability.
Some companies and organizations that operate halfway houses try to do their best to provide
the services that soon-to-be-released prisoners need. Dismas Charities, for example, which runs
reentry facilities nationwide, has a good reputation in the industry. While even Dismas has had
its share of problems, it seems to genuinely care about the quality of its transitional
services.
According to Dismas, "Our history has taught us that, to be effective in the process of
reintegration, we need to focus on three critical areas that have proven to deliver the best
results: Education, Employment, and Support. Each program employs evidence-based practices, and
the use of validated risk/needs assessments to reduce recidivism." Additionally, "A critical
component of all our work is a focus on helping our residents obtain meaningful employment.
Through employment, our residents repay their debts to society and become responsible,
independent citizens, taxpayers, parents, and contributors to the community."
Unfortunately, not all halfway houses are focused on reentry services and programs. States
that have faced significant problems with halfway houses include New Jersey, Florida and
Pennsylvania. The federal prison system's use of contract halfway houses has also not been
exempt from criticism.
CEC in New Jersey
New Jersey has embarked on a grand experiment, shifting thousands of prisoners from
expensive-to-run state prisons into less costly, privately-operated halfway houses. The state's
prison system has under 25,000 beds while approximately 3,500 offenders and parolees are housed
in around two dozen halfway houses. But the system is not without its problems; about 5,100
residents have absconded from halfway houses since 2005, and former employees and residents
report that drug and alcohol use, crime and violence are rampant at some facilities.
The state's largest player in the private halfway house industry is Community Education
Centers (CEC), a New Jersey-based for-profit company that manages jails, prisons and
transitional centers throughout the United States. The firm operates six large halfway house
facilities in New Jersey that contain 1,900 of the state's reentry beds. CEC also runs the
900-bed Albert M. "Bo" Robinson Assessment and Treatment Center (Robinson Center), which
functions as both a halfway house and intake center for state prisoners transitioning into the
halfway house system. Prisoners deemed low risk by CEC are transferred from the Robinson Center
to other halfway houses, including those operated by other companies.
CEC is deeply enmeshed in New Jersey politics. The state's Governor, Chris Christie, was
registered as a lobbyist for the company in 2000 and 2001. He later maintained close ties with
CEC, visiting and praising the company's facilities while serving as a U.S. Attorney – a
position that has little to do with state corrections.
Further, William J. Palatucci, a senior vice president at CEC, was Christie's close friend,
political advisor and former law partner. Palatucci served as co-chair of Christie's 2010
inaugural committee. After Christie became governor in 2010, he hired the son-in-law of John J.
Clancy, CEC's founder and CEO, to work as an assistant in the governor's office.
Such is CEC's political clout that, in the 1990s, state regulators allowed the company to
set up a nonprofit organization called Education and Health Centers of America (EHCA) to skirt
the state's requirement that only nonprofit agencies receive contracts to operate halfway
houses. EHCA, which has a mere ten employees, contracts with New Jersey to provide halfway
houses, which are then managed by CEC. Clancy receives a $351,346 annual salary from EHCA,
which is required to disclose its financial reports, in addition to the salary he receives from
CEC.
The primary purpose of EHCA appears to be to funnel the millions of dollars it gets from
state and county agencies to CEC as its sole "subcontractor" to operate halfway houses.
Therefore, the vast majority of the $71 million CEC received from the state and various New
Jersey counties in fiscal year 2011 came through EHCA. In 2011, New Jersey's Comptroller
criticized the state's contracts with halfway houses and singled out EHCA, citing its close
connections to CEC. [See: PLN, July 2012, p.24].
The total state and county budget for private halfway houses in New Jersey was $105 million
in FY 2011. With so much money at stake, there are concerns whether reentry facilities are
providing competent and cost effective services. One persistent problem has been a high number
of escapes by halfway house residents.
An Epidemic of Escapes
"The system is a mess," declared Thaddeus B. Caldwell, a senior state corrections
investigator who spent years tracking escapees from halfway houses. "No matter how many
escaped, no matter how many were caught, no matter how many committed heinous acts while they
were on the run, they still kept releasing more guys to halfway houses, and it kept happening
over and over again."
The number of escapes from halfway houses astonished even people involved in the corrections
system – 46 escapes in September 2011, 39 in October, 40 in November and 38 in December.
After he instituted reforms, Governor Christie bragged that "only" 181 residents absconded from
halfway houses in the first five months of 2012.
About 10,000 New Jersey state prisoners and parolees pass through halfway houses each year.
CEC officials have used that number to claim the escape rate from their facilities is
"staggeringly low." However, that argument holds little water when one compares the escape rate
to that of the state prison system or considers there are only about 3,500 offenders in reentry
facilities at any given time.
Halfway house officials complain that residents who return late from work release
assignments or who surrender after a few days of being absent are harmless, yet are often
considered escapees. They also point out that their employees are unarmed and without authority
to stop an escape, and that they depend on educating halfway house residents as the best option
to prevent them from absconding.
Those points may have some validity, but ignore the fact that many of the escapes have
occurred at "locked-down" halfway houses – those with no work-release program – and
few escapees are prosecuted once caught. For example, the prosecution rate for residents who
abscond in Essex County has been around 10% since 2009.
Sometimes the low prosecution rate reflects a lack of interest by local prosecutors in
pursuing a relatively minor infraction that can be handled through the prison system's
disciplinary process. Yet law enforcement officials often don't even know a halfway house
resident has escaped until they commit another crime – and sometimes not even then.
Rafael Miranda absconded from a halfway house in December 2009 and was on the run for four
months until he fatally shot a man in Newark. In 2010, David Goodell, imprisoned for assaulting
his ex-girlfriend, escaped from Logan Hall, a halfway house with one of the highest escape
rates, and murdered a woman who had broken off her relationship with him. Valeria Parziale
escaped from a Trenton halfway house in 2009; nine days later she used a knife to cut off a
man's ear in a liquor store. She was charged with assault but not escape, because prosecutors
were unaware she was an escapee.
More recently, Jahmel Glanton, 19, walked away from the Robinson Center in December 2013,
just three days after he arrived at the facility; he was captured more than three weeks later
on January 11, 2014 and charged with possession of crack cocaine and obstructing the
administration of law.
Halfway houses run by the nonprofit Kintock Group have accounted for almost half the escapes
in New Jersey in recent years. CEC has used that fact to deflect criticism that there is
something wrong with the company's management of its halfway houses, but the Kintock Group
pointed out that all of the prisoners sent to its facilities first go through the CEC-run
Robinson Assessment and Treatment Center for evaluation. Only those deemed low-risk by CEC are
transferred to Kintock halfway houses.
From 2009 through 2011, 16% of escapees absconded from CEC-operated facilities but another
43% had first been evaluated as low-risk by CEC before fleeing from other halfway houses.
Therefore, it appears that improper evaluation by CEC was a contributing factor in at least
some of the escapes.
Another explanation is the growth in the percentage of prisoners convicted of violent crimes
being sent to halfway houses. That figure increased from 12% in 2006 to 21% in 2012, and
coincided with a budget-savings-driven expansion in the use of halfway houses. It costs between
$125 and $150 a day to house a prisoner in a state prison, but only $60 to $75 to put the same
prisoner in a reentry facility.
Some former halfway house residents and workers have provided a different explanation for
the high number of escapes, saying reentry facilities are often violent, dangerous and
gang-infested, rampant with drugs and other contraband, and residents are not closely
monitored.
"This industry just infuriates me," stated Nancy Wolff, director of the Center for
Behavioral Health Services and Criminal Justice Research at Rutgers University. "If you want to
go there and sit in peer-run groups – or hang out and smoke and play cards and have
access to drugs – it's a great place."
According to Vanessa Falcone, 32, there is a much darker side to halfway houses. Falcone was
assigned to a cleaning crew at the Robinson Center in 2009 when an employee ordered her into a
closet and forced her to perform oral sex.
"He took his pants off and grabbed my hair and pushed me down," she said. "That started a
few weeks of basically hell." After another staff member learned what was happening, Falcone
was moved to a different facility and the employee was fired but not prosecuted.
In a similar incident, a woman who escaped from the Robinson Center told police after being
caught that she was trying to get away from a counselor, Joseph A. Chase, who had repeatedly
raped her. When police searched Chase's car they found drugs; they then arrested him on charges
of sexual assault and drug possession. CEC officials said it was an isolated incident.
Mass Escape from Logan Hall
Hurricane Sandy and a lack of preparation or training for unusual weather allowed residents
at one New Jersey halfway house to run rampant, resulting in the escape of fifteen
prisoners.
Although designated a halfway house, Logan Hall, operated by CEC, is designed and run more
like a jail. Residents are locked into small rooms, the facility is surrounded by fences topped
with razor wire, and the doors and gates are electronically-controlled. When the power failed
as a result of Hurricane Sandy on October 29, 2012, all of the doors unlocked.
The opened doors allowed dozens of male residents at Logan Hall to get into the hallways.
Once there they destroyed furniture and vending machines, tore signs with messages such as
"Stop Lying" and "Admit When You Are Wrong" off the walls, and threatened employees and female
residents.
The CEC workers were unable to organize an effective response to the mayhem. Poorly paid,
trained and equipped, none of them knew how to start the backup generator; they didn't even
have a flashlight.
One supervisor confronted a group of male residents wearing improvised face masks who were
headed toward the rear of the building where the women were housed. While the supervisor kept
the men at bay, other staff members moved the female residents to a reception area that could
be manually locked. They stayed there until the police arrived.
Thwarted in their efforts, the masked men grabbed chairs and blankets to scale the perimeter
fence and left Logan Hall through the unlocked front door. They quickly discovered that the
front gate was open, too.
Of the 15 residents who escaped, six were recaptured within three days, another six were
caught between three and six days later, two eluded authorities for about a week and only one
remained free after two weeks.
Governor Christie was strangely silent about the events at Logan Hall during Hurricane
Sandy. Assemblyman Charles Mainor, chairman of the Law and Public Safety Committee, was
troubled by the administration's failure to disclose the incident.
"I did not know. Of course, they would not want me to know," said Mainor, referring to
Christie's strong support for CEC and his close friend, CEC vice president William J.
Palatucci, who left the company in November 2012 after extensive news coverage about problems
at CEC-run halfway houses.
Fifty officers from four law enforcement agencies, including the Essex County Sheriff's
Department, Essex County Correctional Department, Newark Police Department and New Jersey
Parole Board, responded to the incident at Logan Hall. Newark Mayor Cory A. Booker said it was
"obviously a serious event." Joe Amato, president of the Essex County guards union and an
opponent of privately-operated halfway houses, took it a step further.
"The place was turned upside down," he said. "The inmates basically rioted."
Amato's take may be an exaggeration since no one was injured at Logan Hall. But it is
probably not an exaggeration to agree with one of the responding law enforcement officers who,
on the condition of anonymity, said there were moments when the situation at the facility could
have spiraled out of control.
None of the state or county-run jails and prisons in New Jersey experienced disturbances or
escapes during Hurricane Sandy.
Violence, Drugs and Gangs
Both prisoners and former employees have described the Robinson Center as dangerous –
especially at night. Residents are housed in barracks-style rooms with only one or two staff
members to oversee each 170-bed unit. Some employees are so afraid they refuse to patrol the
halls. Thus, at night, the rules of the jungle prevail – with robberies, sexual assaults
and the weak being preyed upon by the strong. Employees have said many prisoners ask to be
returned to the state prison system because they feel safer there.
"They definitely told me, 'I want to go back to prison,'" said former Robinson Center GED
teacher Assenka Okiloff. "They would tell me that all the time."
"It's not a safe environment, not safe for inmates or for staff," agreed Robert Brumbaugh,
former deputy director of security at the Robinson Center and a 25-year veteran of the
corrections system. "It was horrendous."
The purpose of the Robinson Center and other halfway houses is to provide resources and
programs to help prisoners succeed following their release. How could it be, then, that when
Mercer County conducted a surprise drug test of 75 county prisoners held at the Robinson Center
in August 2009, 55 (73%) tested positive?
The facility is "like the projects," stated Matthew Leibe, who was housed at the Robinson
Center in 2011. "I'm walking down the hallway from mess and I'm getting approached by everybody
selling everything – 'I've got batteries, T-shirts, weed, heroin, coke.'"
One explanation given by former employees for the prevalence of drugs at the halfway house
was rampant falsification of prisoner records. The records reported drug treatment and other
classes as well as drug tests, all of which never occurred. And when classes were provided,
they were given in a haphazard manner or by untrained employees who merely read the program
materials to a group of residents.
Denette Pasqualini, 40, was hired as a counselor at the Robinson Center in June 2011. She
had what she thought was relevant experience working security at Six Flags, but soon found
things were very wrong at the facility. Supervisors drank whiskey hidden in soda bottles,
counselors were having sex with residents and when she tried to intervene after one resident
stabbed another with a pen, other prisoners held her back. She also observed counselors warning
residents of upcoming drug tests, allowing them to take urine cups into the bathroom without
supervision and simply doctoring test results so they showed prisoners passing drug tests who
had not been tested.
"The staff is from the Trenton area and know the inmates from the streets," said Pasqualini.
"They say: 'I'm not going to give her a drug test. I know her. I'll let it go.'"
Cynthia Taylor, 55, another former Robinson Center counselor, falsified records and saw
others falsify them after she was hired despite having no previous counseling experience. She
was told to give lectures on drug treatment and parenting.
"We all understood it was a numbers game," she said. "[CEC] made money not on how many
people were rehabilitated. 'How many bodies can we get in here and keep here for a certain
amount of time?' That's what they were interested in."
When these kinds of problems are brought to the state's attention they are often ignored,
according to Bronislaw Szulc, formerly a senior state official in charge of investigating
halfway houses. Szulc said he submitted extensive documentation concerning drugs, violence,
escapes and poor security at the Robinson Center and other halfway houses before retiring in
2010. But state officials rarely held the operators of the facilities accountable, instead
demanding that he soften the criticism in his reports.
"I was told to stand down and ease up – not to go after things so hard," he said.
The influence of gangs explains some of the prevalence of violence and drugs at halfway
houses. "Beyond outright threats and shakedowns, even time on a facility's pay phone was found
to be controlled and sold by gang members," said Lee C. Seglem, assistant director of the State
Commission of Investigation, which reviewed the influence of gangs in New Jersey's corrections
system in 2009. The commission found that gangs were a much greater problem in halfway houses
than prisons.
Some reentry facilities have a form of work release, which might account for the presence of
drugs and other contraband. The Robinson Center is not one of them; rather, it's a locked-down
facility. Despite its locked-down status there have been at least nine escapes since 2009, and
drug use is rampant.
CEC's hiring standards may also contribute to contraband problems in its halfway houses.
Dana Vetrano, who was hired as a counselor at the Robinson Center, had done time for robbery
– and wasn't the only ex-con employed by the company.
"They were from the streets," she said of other staff members with criminal records. "They
needed a job, they came in from the street, they were hired – that was it. They had no
qualifications, nothing."
So what is Governor Christie's administration doing to reign in the anarchy and escapes at
the state's halfway houses? According to David W. Thomas, executive director of New Jersey's
parole board, his agency conducted an inquiry. But Thomas refused to provide any details of the
inquiry and, when asked for a copy of the findings, said "There is no actual document."
In July 2012, the New Jersey legislature held two days of hearings into gang activity,
violence and drug use at halfway houses. The hearings were prompted by a New York Times
exposé that revealed problems at reentry facilities, based on a ten-month investigation
by the paper. Afterwards, lawmakers vowed to introduce bills to increase oversight of halfway
houses and improve contracting procedures.
In August 2012, $45,000 in fines was levied for nine escapes from six halfway houses, two of
which were operated by CEC. That was the largest sanction imposed on privately-run halfway
houses; the only other fines amounted to $30,000 in April 2012 for six escapes (including four
at CEC facilities).
At the same time the state was imposing fines for repeated escapes, the Christie
administration was working to reduce halfway house oversight. In June 2012, Governor Christie
issued a line-item veto to curtail new disclosure requirements and, two months later,
significantly weakened a requirement for audits of halfway house contracts.
In July 2012, Christie signed a bill to expand the state's drug court program by making it
mandatory for non-violent offenders, which was expected to vastly increase the number of people
entering drug treatment. As such programs are provided at halfway houses, the legislation will
likely increase the state's halfway house population, benefiting CEC and other reentry facility
contractors.
"You'll see an expansion of halfway houses, an expansion of opportunities in the state when
they know there'll be more people who are available to enter these programs," Governor Christie
said. "So I think you'll see an expansion of them beyond where they are now."
Litigation Over Halfway Houses
Lawsuits have further highlighted problems with halfway houses in New Jersey. The union that
represents Essex County guards filed suit in state Superior Court in August 2012, alleging that
the largest halfway house in the state, the l,200-bed CEC-run Delaney Hall in Newark, has been
operating for more than a decade without legal authority.
The suit, filed by the Policemen's Benevolent Association, claims that EHCA is "a sham
nonprofit corporation engaged solely in activities designed to generate income" for CEC. In
addition to the funding it receives for housing state prisoners and parolees, CEC also received
a $130 million contract in December 2011 to house Essex County prisoners at Delaney Hall. The
county, in turn, rents its jail beds to federal authorities to house federal prisoners and
immigration detainees, at a substantial profit.
"We need to get a judge's opinion on whether or not it's illegal," said union local
president Joe Amato, a named plaintiff in the lawsuit. "When you incorporate profits into
corrections, that's when corners are cut, because everyone is worried about the bottom line
instead of safety."
Further, former CEC chief financial officer David N.T. Watson filed suit against the company
in 2011. Watson claimed that CEC's founder and CEO, John J. Clancy, lied about the company's
financial condition when recruiting him; he also alleged he was improperly fired. Documents in
the lawsuit revealed that CEC was in crisis as early as 2009. The records showed the firm had
defaulted on its debts in January 2010 and contemplated bankruptcy that same year.
CEC's fiscal problems began when it expanded in states like Alabama and Texas; the company
borrowed heavily for the expansion but was reportedly unable to make its payments. To avoid a
debt crisis and have enough money to pay its employees, CEC laid off staff. More than 15 former
workers told The New York Times that the lower staffing levels resulted in reduced reentry
services for halfway house residents.
In December 2010, CEC obtained $235 million in financing with an interest rate of 15.25%,
which served as a temporary band-aid for the company's debt crisis. The following year the firm
received $71 million from state and local governments and had expenditures that exceeded $105
million. To forestall bankruptcy, CEC gave "investors without substantial experience in
corrections a role in running the company," according to the Times.
LLR Partners, a Philadelphia-based private equity firm, and other investors contributed $53
million to CEC, largely due to then-vice president William Palatucci's close relationship with
Governor Christie. The company has evidently weathered the financial storm, as it remains in
business and hasn't filed for bankruptcy protection.
Watson's lawsuit against CEC was resolved in October 2012 under undisclosed terms. See:
Watson v. CEC, U.S.D.C. (D. NJ), Case No. 2:11-cv-04855-WJM-MF.
... ... ...
Conclusion
...It is clear that too many halfway houses are run more with an eye on profit than on the
services and programs that prisoners need to ensure a successful transition back into society
– a process that should begin when offenders first enter the prison system, not just a
short time before they get out. Other than Pennsylvania's recent efforts to tie halfway house
contracts to reductions in recidivism rates, there has been little interest in ensuring that
reentry facilities meet the many challenges faced by soon-to-be-released prisoners.
Politics has also played a damaging role in the halfway house industry, as contracts are
sometimes influenced by political connections and lobbying rather than outcomes or performance
measures. Government officials appear to be more interested in reducing expenses by placing
offenders in halfway houses rather than investing in the resources necessary to ensure stable
post-release housing and employment.
Note: The author was assigned to a federally-contracted halfway house following his
release from the Bureau of Prisons in 2013. PLN writers Matt Clarke and Paresh Patel
contributed to this article.
Sources: www.dismas.com, www.tampabay.com, www.wfla.com, www.nj.com, www.northjersey.com,
The New York Times, http://lancasteronline.com, Palm Beach Post, www.citizensvoice.com,
www.corrrectionsone.com, www.prnewswire.com, www.cor.state.pa.us, www.texasprisonbidness.org,
Houston Chronicle, www1.koaa.com, http://qctimes.com, www.newsok.com, www.leoweekly.com,
Washington Post, Texas Tribune, www.seattlepi.com, http://ohsonline.com, www.wvgazette.com,
www.wptv.com, www.auditor.ky.gov, www.pageonekentucky.com, www.patch.com, Oklahoma Watch,
www.myfoxhouston.com, http://usnews.nbcnews.com, Denver Post, www.coloradoan.com,
www.statesman.com, http://standardspeaker.com
While others reach for easy solutions and simplistic slogans, Sharkey embraces
complexity and uncertainty.
Always refreshing to see a supposed scientist say "Occam, Shmoccam."
Their public spaces have not been maintained. Their schools are underfunded.
People lost connections to institutions of community life, which include school, summer
jobs programs, pools, and libraries.
The need to not mention the obvious about crime had been pushing liberals into cargo cult
thinking recently, basically that if they just try to copy nice things that people have
elsewhere in the ghetto, it'll rub off and make the people nice too. I shared AOC's gem from
last year that defunding the police leaves you with a suburb like the one she grew up in.
WaPo had some splashy, graphics-heavy section last week or so on crime in which the sole
discernable new idea seemed to be using vacant land for parks.
"But crime rates mostly seem to go up and down depending up what Important People want.
E.g., from the early 1990s onward, Important People were sick of all the murders in New York
City, so New York eventually became the least homicidal big city in America."
The financial crisis of the 70s onward had mostly subsided by the 1990s, those long term
bonds being refinanced at lower interest rates or paid off. The freed up money allowed NYC
more leeway, and at the state level the money paid for Cuomo I's jail building spree. Toss in
mass immigration of high class immigrants for extra taxing power. Check out Illinois and New
Jersey (and maybe CT KY) to see where problems might show up again. New York City finances
are usually separate from NY state and might be starting another financial crisis.
From a pure cost-benefit perspective, taking emotion and morality out of it, are blacks
shooting blacks in large number better or worse for society? Given the criminality of young
black men particularly might it be a net positive?
The Atlantic discounts Lead exposure as a cause of violent crime. It is even easier to
discount economic private as a cause as well. 9/11 and the tech crash as well as the general
financial crash had no impact on crime at all.
It is also worth noting that white crime peeked around 1977 and has slowly declined
even since. The late 80's to early 90's, the gangsta rap crime wave, was all black and was
mainly connected to disputes over the distribution of crack cocaine in black neighborhoods.
Call it distributor wars.
A private food service company "accidentally" sold dog food to feed prisoners mis-marked
as "ground beef for tacos." There was no punishment for the company or its executives.
A federal prison in Littleton, Colorado, 2011. (Vetatur Fumare, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)
A friend recently forwarded to me an article from The New York
Times which talked about a group of Maine state prisoners who have taken to raising
their own fruits and vegetables in the prison yard because there was literally no healthy or
nourishing food provided to them by prison authorities. One prisoner likened the daily meal to
"a ground up gym mat with spices." The article said:
"Of the seemingly endless tally of injustices of mass incarceration, one of the worst
humiliations gets little attention from outside: the food. This shadow issue -- the 3,000
bologna sandwiches, mystery meats slathered on white bread, soy filler masquerading as
chicken and other culinary indignities consumed during a prison sentence -- permeates life
behind bars and instills a nearly universal sense of disgust."
Prison food is high on refined carbohydrates, sodium and sugar and low on nutrients --
diets the rest of us have been told to avoid. Like everything about prisons, it
disproportionately affects people of color, and it has grown worse during the pandemic. With
most states spending $3 or less per person a day for meals, penitentiaries have become hidden
food deserts, paralleling the neighborhoods from which many inmates have come."
I can tell you definitively that this is true. My first full day in prison after blowing the
whistle on the CIA's torture program was a Friday "fish day." One of the members of the
"Italian contingent" warned me on my way to the cafeteria. "Don't eat the fish. We call it
sewer trout. We're not even sure if it's fish." When I got to the cafeteria and got in line, I
saw cases stacked up behind the servers. They were in plain view and were clearly marked,
"Alaskan Cod–Product of China–Not for Human Consumption–Feed Use Only." I
threw lunch away.
Mid-Week 'Tacos'
Pet food aisle in New York, 2007. (Jeffrey O. Gustafson, CC-BY-SA-2.0, Wikimedia
Commons)
Wednesdays in all federal prisons are "Mexican food days" and dinner is always what
authorities call "tacos." They're unlike any tacos I've ever seen. I realized why when I read
an article in
Prison Legal News
magazine , a publication of the Human Rights Defense Center. It said that, "a private food
service company, John Soules Foods Inc., 'accidentally' sold dog food to prisons to be fed to
prisoners mismarked as 'ground beef' for tacos." There was no punishment for the company or its
executives, other than a $392,000 fine, the cost of the investigation, paid to the U.S.
Treasury.
Prisoners got nothing. Not even an apology. And the shame of the story is that nobody could
even tell that it was dog food. It tasted the same as everything else prisoners are served.
In the two years I was in prison, for example, I never saw the crown of a stalk of broccoli.
Prisoners only get stems and only fruits and vegetables that are so damaged and ugly that they
can't possibly be sold in a grocery store. "Special meals," like those on Thanksgiving and
Christmas, called for a "selection of holiday pies," according to the prisoner handbook. Well,
the selection of holiday pies was a chocolate "Cliff Bar" that had expired a year earlier.
"Nobody could even tell that it was dog food. It tasted the same as everything else
prisoners are served."
Once we got bagels. But they were all dyed green from the previous year's St. Patrick's Day,
they hadn't sold, and they had been frozen for a year.
Things got so bad that one Iraqi prisoner and I once scoured the prison yard for dandelions,
with which we made a salad with stolen olive oil from the cafeteria and salt and pepper. It was
the only salad I had in two years. And I had to eat it secretly, lest I be sent to
solitary.
The Warden in Maine
With that said, there's a relatively easy fix to all this. The New York Times article
that I cited above introduces us to the warden of a Maine state prison, Randall Liberty.
Liberty is the son of a former prisoner who grew up on public assistance and who became a
master certified gardener and beekeeper.
When he became a warden, the article says, he was "horrified" to learn that leftover food
was being thrown away every day. He introduced a class to teach prisoners how to compost, and
he immediately instituted a mandatory composting policy. This resulted in a fertile
two-and-a-half acre garden that now produces much of the prison's food, including 77,000 pounds
of apples annually.
Many are consumed in-house, and all the excess is sent to neighboring prisons. The program
saves millions of dollars a year and it keep prisoners healthy, busy, and learning how to farm.
There's literally no downside. So why isn't every prison doing this?
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
J Joon , March 10, 2021 at 15:32
No one is surprised, are they? This is how America, as controlled by gangster-capitalist
neoliberal fascist capitalists, is operated. They will sacrifice all of you, and then
remunerate and reward themselves massively. Ever notice? No matter how incompetently,
criminally, stupidly, that neoliberal fascists run things, no matter if they bankrupt and
ruin companies and institutions, they will pay themselves more than you and everyone you know
will ever have. They never suffer, and never pay for anything in any way. I think there is a
slow genocide underway. All they have to do is call themselves "job creators". They certainly
have created a bunch of "Jobs".
Ron Linker , March 10, 2021 at 12:28
the cheapest foods, cabbage, carrots and beans are served every day sometimes for all 3
meals. When the beans tray gets low they just add water. cream of wheat was called "grits".
Another item was "Texas Hash" but there was never any hash. I think it was there way of
renaming cabbage.
Vera Gottlieb , March 10, 2021 at 11:02
Is there no end to the shamelessness of American businesses??? Is there ever an end to all
the cheating? People with no integrity, no moral compass? But honestly what is to be expected
of a mentality that believes "cheating is OK, just don't get caught".
John Rowland , March 10, 2021 at 09:50
In the 1950's in my Canadian City, our local prison was producing all of its own food, and
actually selling into the local market at a profit. The local food growers association got
into the act, and lobbied the local (Provincial) government to have the prison farm shut
down, so they did not have to compete.
More recently, the Harper Government (Federal) shut down all the prison farms in
Canada.
The irony is that now, there are no prison farms, and most of our fresh food is imported
from Mexico or California. (A small amount does come in from another province – BC)
dfnslblty , March 10, 2021 at 09:38
A good look at the inhuman result of vulture capitalism.
None should be treated in this manner.
$$$ and avarice motivate privatization by govt – prosecute legislators who persecute
We, The People.
Do you really think that saving money, or to correct criminals are motivations for the
legal system? Don't be naive. The legal system is the enforcer for the status quo:go to
college, be indoctrinated, get married, buy a house and a new car, put yourself in debt, work
for rich bossman making him richer, be obedient in every way, or you lose it all and end up
in prison. The alternative is to join the military and be a murderer for hire, or to work
minimum wage slave labor. We are a free country, and you must agree or go to prison. Prison
is in no way corrective, is not a deterrent for crime, and is mostly filled with drug-related
offenders. Many pleaded guilty to prevent worse sentences, and of them, many were innocent.
You were a common criminal, and so was I. Where I was the food was somewhat better, but being
that I have done research on the legal system, and have the courage to tell the guards what I
know, and to admonish them and ask them how they can live with themselves, I was diagnosed
with a mental illness, and forced to take chemicals which removed my appetite and willingness
to exercise. After all, us criminals must be controlled. My crime was to write a book
EXPOSING THE MONEY MACHINE which exposed who the powers really are, and which promoted
socialism, debunked the medical and psychiatric fields, and exposed some repugnant policies
of the US rulers.
Patricia Tursi, Ph.D. , March 10, 2021 at 09:15
People in prison may be guilty of a crime or not. Either way, they are humans who deserve
a healthy meal. All private prisons should be banned. Prison industries should not be free of
taxes, or the pay from the industries totally confiscated for prison charges. "The Maine
State Prison Showroom, still located on Route 1 in Thomaston, Maine (207-354-9237), is the
largest retailer of over 600 crafted products, but there are also over 60 private vendors
approved to resell prison-made goods throughout the State of Maine." This is a good shelter
for some industries who have a captive work force. It is wrong how it is handled, but working
and learning a trade is a positive. It's all in how it is handled.
Vera Gottlieb , March 10, 2021 at 11:03
The American mentality is: make a buck, not matter how.
Dwight , March 10, 2021 at 15:43
I agree. Growing healthy food would also be a positive. Artisanal organic sauerkraut, for
example, looking at an item in my frig I'm blessed to be able to buy. Let prisoners grow and
sell healthy foods to stores in their communities, and eat the same food. Feed their bodies
and souls. The punishment is incarceration, it shouldn't be malnutrition and other physical
torments.
Actually at lest some private prisons are run better and feed prisoners better than federal
prisons. So as for "Privatization of prisons has made things worse" it depends. But some private
institution engaged in "re-entry" programs are a real hell. With abusive guards and pretty
draconian control of each move of inmates.
Privatization of prisons has made things worse. Of federal prisoners, 19.1 percent are in
private prisons, as are 6.8 percent of those in state prisons. These privately run hellholes
turn a profit by jacking up fees for inmates from everything from phone calls to mail to
video-conferencing with a lawyer. They also make money by skimping on decent food and proper
medicines and have lots of other ingenious ways to squeeze dollars out of their captives.
Politically, private prisons are a reactionary force, promoting, naturally, tougher crime laws
and longer sentences. Because that's how they make money – for them, the more prisoners,
the better. Private prisons contributed to the 408 percent increase in the U.S. prison
population from 1978 to 2014.
... "In 2017, there were 219,000 women in U.S. prisons and jails, most of them poor and of
color," Kaba writes, observing that the incarceration rate for black women is double that for
white women. She argues that abuse survivors are systematically punished "for trying to protect
themselves and their children," that it is "hurt people who hurt other people," and that prison
simply should not figure in the equation.
This book recounts terrible stories of women punished for defending themselves, but one,
from Florida, presents a very bitter irony: Marissa Alexander fired a warning shot into the air
to force her violent husband to back off. For this, she faced 60 years in prison. She would
have seemed a likely candidate for Florida's infamous "stand your ground law" – right?
But the judge said no, because she had not demonstrated fear. She was found guilty and
sentenced to 20 years in prison. (After three years in prison and two under house arrest, she
was released, thanks to a national campaign to free her and to some very effective
lawyers.)
Eve Ottenberg is a novelist and journalist. Her latest book is Birdbrain . She
can be reached at herwebsite.
Back in 2015, Bill Livolsi Jr. had no trouble finding
work even though he'd been convicted of wire fraud and was upfront with potential employers about his crime.
But that was before the COVID-19 pandemic.
"I am applying to jobs left, right and sideways, " says
Livolsi, who has been looking for work since April when he was released from federal prison after serving a 13-month sentence for
the crime. "It is extremely difficult ... They're picking the cream of the crop when there are opportunities.''
Almost 1 in 3 adults in the United States has a criminal record,
and finding a job when you have a past arrest or
conviction has never been easy. But it's become even more difficult in the midst of the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19
health crisis that has left millions of Americans unemployed and significantly increased the competition for jobs, public policy
experts say.
"Because of COVID-19 ... everybody is having a harder
time, and that would be exacerbated for people who are being released from prison,'' says Kristen Broady, policy director for the
Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, which focuses on economic policy.
Low-wage positions, a lifeline for those with limited
prospects, are in high demand and short supply. Restaurants and other industries that offer lower-paying jobs have struggled amid
shutdowns aimed at slowing the spread of the virus. And with a national unemployment rate of 6.7%, employers who have their pick
of applicants may be less inclined to hire someone with a record, Broady and others say.
The hiring dip threatens to slow the progress led by
a growing number of states and municipalities to restore the rights of ex-offenders. They are passing laws that wipe criminal
records clean, allow some who've committed felonies to vote, and bar employers from asking about criminal histories early in the
hiring process.
Most urgently, the hiring slowdown may make it harder
for the 620,000 men and women released from prison each year to get a fresh start and contribute to their communities, advocates
and ex-offenders say.
"Meaningful employment is crucial,'' says Livolsi, 61,
who lives in Owasso, Oklahoma. "It's crucial to rebuild your self-esteem, to rebuild your ties with your family, and just to be
able to put food on the table.''
COVID-19 makes hiring harder
The jobless rate for those who've been incarcerated has
typically been much higher than the general population.
A
Brookings report
published in March 2018 found that 45% of those released from prison did not have any reported pay in the
first calendar year after they returned home.
The current jobless rate for those who've
been incarcerated is unclear, but placement services that work with ex-offenders believe it's risen during a pandemic that has
caused unemployment to soar across the board.
The Center for Employment Opportunities, which provides
transitional employment, coaching and job placement for those released from prison, made 368 placements in April 2019. But
in April 2020, near the start of the COVID-19 health crisis, only 140 of its applicants were able to find work.
Similarly, for the period between July 1 and Dec. 31,
2019, the center found jobs for 1,793 of its applicants, but placements dropped by half, to 900, during that same period last
year.
"We already know that in hiring, people with
convictions face tremendous hurdles and I think COVID has just exacerbated those situations,'' says Chris Watler, the center's
chief external affairs officer.
70 Million Jobs, an employment agency for those with
criminal records, says it was particularly successful in finding former offenders jobs in shipping, warehouses and food
processing plants. But as the pandemic took hold, "business dropped almost overnight, by 90%,'' says its founder Richard Bronson.
"We were doing very well and then we were virtually
out of business," says Bronson, a former financial services executive who started the agency after he served time in prison.
Will they commit more crimes?
Job seekers who are ex-offenders have to overcome
stigma and suspicions that they can't be trusted and may be prone to commit another crime, Bronson says. But historically low
unemployment rates before the pandemic, which left tens of thousands of jobs unfilled, made employers more receptive to
applicants who'd been incarcerated.
The need for workers also boosted efforts by
organizations like the Society for Human Resource Management to get employers to commit to giving qualified applicants with a
criminal record an equal chance to be hired.
But barriers to employment have remained steep. A
majority of employers still check to see if job applicants have past convictions, and a host of laws prohibit people convicted of
a felony from getting licenses necessary to work in various higher-paying fields such as health care or cosmetology.
Those obstacles have ramifications for not only the
individuals who struggle to find work but the economy as a whole, social justice experts say.
"There is a public safety angle if people can't find
jobs when released from prison,'' says Ames Grawert, senior counsel for the Justice Program at New York University Law School's
Brennan Center for Justice. "It's more likely they'll return to crime which no one wants. And there's research that homelessness
is more likely and deep poverty... Even those who do find jobs earn shockingly less than their peers."
The economy suffers
The broader labor market suffers as well. When those
with felony convictions or who've been incarcerated struggle to find jobs, the economy loses out on roughly 1.7 to 1.9 million
workers, and between $78 billion and $87 billion in gross domestic product, according to a paper by the Center for Economic and
Policy Research), released in June 2016, that examined 2014 data.
Having a job can help reduce the chance ex-offenders
will commit new crimes, though the quality of the position and the ability to earn higher wages is key to success as well,
research shows.
Getting Out And Staying Out, a New York area reentry
program, says that recidivism rates for its participants who've gone to school, undergone training, received mentorship, or
gotten jobs in the previous 90 days are 15% or lower, compared with 67% for young men in a similar age group nationwide. The
recidivism rates for its participants dropped as low as 10% early on in the pandemic, says Sonya Shields, Getting Out And Staying
Out's chief operating officer.
Eager to use new skills in jobs
Chauncey Floyd, who returned home last year after
serving nearly 16 years in prison, says that like him, many former offenders just want to move on from their pasts and provide
for themselves and their families.
Floyd says he was eager to find a job using
the computer programming skills he learned while incarcerated. But conversations with potential employers usually end when he
tells them he has a record.
"I was ... trying to find a career, not necessarily
trying to grab a job just to have one,'' says Floyd, 46, who is living with family members in South Carolina.
He's now looking for more manual positions and hopes to
eventually start his own business. "You just want to basically have a chance,'' Floyd says. "Me, going to prison, I don't want to
pay for it for the rest of my life Some people actually just want to do better.''
Don't ask about criminal records in job interviews
While hiring has slowed, larger efforts to give
ex-offenders more opportunities continue, advocates and public policy experts say.
Twenty-six states and Washington, D.C., have passed
legislation that bar employers in the public or private sectors from asking early in the hiring process if an applicant has a
criminal record, says Michael Hartman of the National Conference of State Legislature's Civil & Criminal Justice Program.
And several states, including Pennsylvania, California,
North Carolina, and Utah, have passed or are considering "clean slate'' laws that automatically clear the records of some
offenders after a certain amount of time, according to a compilation of research on reentry hurdles and initiatives by the Center
for American Progress, National Employment Law Project and Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.
On the federal level, U.S. Sens. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and
Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, introduced the "Clean Slate Act'' in December which would automatically seal the federal records of
those arrested for simple drug possession. Those convicted of such offenses would have their records sealed after they finish
their sentence.
And the legislation would also create a framework for ex-offenders to request the sealing of records for
other nonviolent crimes.
"That was a real breakthrough,'' Grawert said of the
bipartisan bill, which if passed will make it easier for people who've been arrested or convicted to find work without answering
questions about their past.
Promises after George Floyd death
Promises by many businesses to address systemic racism
in the wake of the protests that followed the killings of George Floyd and other African Americans could also open
up opportunities for the formerly incarcerated, who are disproportionately Black and Latino, advocates say.
"I'm hopeful because I see in the job seekers that I
work with a real passion to work, to contribute, to grow,'' says Watler. "And increasingly, I'm seeing employers ... waking up to
the fact that their practices have to evolve.''
Elizabeth Bartholet correctly point out blatant disregard of law and witch hunt atmosphere on MeToo movement. This aspect
is easily exploitable by female sociopaths who want to remove a men who did not reciprocate their "favors" or just represent
obstacle on their career path. Teachers are especially vulnerable to such a blackmail.
Notable quotes:
"... However, I am concerned that in the recent rush to judgment, principles of basic fairness, differences between proven and merely alleged instances of misconduct, and important distinctions between different kinds of sexually charged conduct have too often been ignored. Similar problems plagued the imposition of new sexual harassment guidelines for colleges and universities by the administration of former President Barack Obama. I was involved in attempts to push back against those guidelines and to develop at Harvard Law School our own policies, better designed to balance the important values at stake. ..."
"... My fairness concerns with the #MeToo phenomenon include the ready acceptance in many cases of anonymous complaints, and of claims made by women over conflicting claims by men, to terminate careers without any investigation of the facts. ..."
"... Sometimes the alleged conduct is so egregious, or alleged patterns so suspicious, that suspension is warranted while facts are determined. Sometimes allegations are demonstrably credible by virtue of independent evidence. But where facts are in doubt or conduct is subject to different interpretations, efforts must be made to investigate what actually happened and how the different parties understood the events. ..."
"... I am also deeply troubled by over-expansive definitions of wrongful conduct. In the current climate, men are called out for actions ranging from requests for dates and hugs on the one hand to rape and other forced sexual contact on the other, as if all are the same and all warrant termination. ..."
"... The legal definition of sexual harassment in employment and education is a helpful guide to what sexual conduct should be the focus. It is illegal to engage in quid pro quo harassment, namely conditioning an employment or educational benefit on sexual favors. It is illegal also to create a "hostile environment" through unwelcome sexual advances that are severe or pervasive and that limit the victim's ability to enjoy employment or educational opportunity. ..."
"... Finally, I am concerned with the cynical exploitation of sexual harassment cases and related scapegoating of individuals. ..."
"... Corporate and political leaders, who must have been at least generally aware of these problems, did little to address them until this moment of public shaming. Now they dismiss alleged perpetrators overnight, often with no regard for the facts but clearly with significant regard for their corporate reputations and electoral strategies. ..."
"... All this puts real reform at risk. It undermines the legitimacy of action against serious sexual misconduct and abuse of power. It creates the potential for backfire. ..."
Like many others, I am outraged by the
egregious incidents of sexual misconduct made public recently through carefully documented journalism. I applaud the removal
of many alleged perpetrators who have clearly abused their positions of power, often through force and even violence. I celebrate
those who have stepped forward to call out sexual misconduct and demand changes in the degrading culture that has characterized working
conditions for women in too many settings for too long.
However, I am concerned that in the recent rush to judgment, principles of basic fairness, differences between proven and
merely alleged instances of misconduct, and important distinctions between different kinds of sexually charged conduct have too often
been ignored. Similar problems plagued the imposition of
new sexual harassment guidelines
for colleges and universities by the administration of former President Barack Obama. I was involved in attempts to push back against
those guidelines and to develop at Harvard Law School our own policies, better designed to balance the important values at stake.
My fairness concerns with the #MeToo phenomenon include the ready acceptance in many cases of anonymous complaints, and of
claims made by women over conflicting claims by men, to terminate careers without any investigation of the facts. Some argue
that women who speak out should simply always be believed. Others argue that if some innocent men must be sacrificed to the cause
of larger justice, so be it. I find this deeply troubling. I do not contend that mini-trials should always be required before action
can be taken. Sometimes the alleged conduct is so egregious, or alleged patterns so suspicious, that suspension is warranted
while facts are determined. Sometimes allegations are demonstrably credible by virtue of independent evidence. But where facts are
in doubt or conduct is subject to different interpretations, efforts must be made to investigate what actually happened and how the
different parties understood the events.
I am also deeply troubled by
over-expansive definitions of wrongful conduct. In the current climate, men are called out for actions ranging from requests
for dates and hugs on the one hand to rape and other forced sexual contact on the other, as if all are the same and all warrant termination.
I do not believe that all touching by a man in power is the same as touching that is clearly unwanted or the deliberate abuse
of power to obtain sexual favors. I do not believe that all romantic and sexual overtures should be banned from the workplace, even
between people on different hierarchical levels. Some recent cases involve
peremptory dismissal for behavior
that may involve nothing more than that. Women are not so weak as to need this kind of protection. Banning all such activity from
the workplace would reduce the quality of life for everyone, including women.
The legal definition
of sexual harassment in employment and education is a helpful guide to what sexual conduct should be the focus. It is illegal to
engage in quid pro quo harassment, namely conditioning an employment or educational benefit on sexual favors. It is illegal also
to create a "hostile environment" through unwelcome sexual advances that are severe or pervasive and that limit the victim's ability
to enjoy employment or educational opportunity.
Objective standards apply, so the question is whether a reasonable person in the position of the alleged perpetrator or alleged
victim would have thought the conduct was sexual harassment, not simply what the alleged victim subjectively felt.
Finally, I am concerned with the cynical exploitation of sexual harassment cases and related scapegoating of individuals.
The #MeToo movement has helped demonstrate to the world the toxic level of sex discrimination and sexual misconduct that have characterized
work life for too many women in business, entertainment, media, and government. Corporate and political leaders, who must have
been at least generally aware of these problems, did little to address them until this moment of public shaming. Now they dismiss
alleged perpetrators overnight, often with no regard for the facts but clearly with significant regard for their corporate reputations
and electoral strategies.
All this puts real reform at risk. It undermines the legitimacy of action against serious sexual misconduct and abuse of power.
It creates the potential for backfire.
Elizabeth Bartholet '62 is the Morris Wasserstein Public Interest Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
"... This is the lens through which I see so-called cancel culture: there is a real problem, for ordinary people, of having your life severely damaged by a trivial offense, or by no offense at all. And of course, predictably, elite whiners want to hijack this real concern in order to maintain their impunity. ..."
"... But the elites are a parasitical epiphenomenon: they are attempting to take advantage of a pre-existing problem that hurts other people far more than it hurts them. And our justifiable contempt for the elites should not blind us to the existence of a real social problem that affects non-elites. ..."
"... So, shed no tears for Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens. They do not need protecting -- they are already coddled far too much. When the OP focuses on their plights as examples of "cancel culture," then cancel culture, so-described, looks like a well-deserved comeuppance, a refreshing chink in the armor of elite impunity. ..."
"... So, elite suffering is a side-show here (as it so often is). Focus on the lives of the non-elite. Their suffering should control our responses to the situation. Focus on the contingent academics fired from their jobs for speaking their minds. On the worker falsely accused of a white-power sign. ..."
Whenever there is a real social problem that affects many people, then rich, entitled
elites will attempt to commandeer it in order to consolidate their privilege.
If the sentencing guidelines are draconian and cruel, sending poor people to prison for
their lives, then white-collar criminals will complain that their 6-month sentence is a gross
injustice that proves they should be let out on bail.
If housing prices are so high that ordinary workers cannot afford the rent, then
millionaires will complain that they can no longer afford to keep a third home.
It's a predictable phenomenon. Elites will pretend that their minor inconveniences are
epic agonies, in order to be spared even minor inconveniences. We know this.
But we also know that the mere fact of elite whinging is no evidence that there is not a
real problem for non-elites.
In fact, the sentencing guidelines are unconscionably harsh: a man in Louisiana has
been sent to jail for life, for stealing a pair of secateurs, and the Louisiana supreme court
has declined to intervene.
In fact, housing is too expensive, and ordinary people are suffering on a massive
scale from artificial scarcity designed to entrench real-estate wealth. The rent is
too damned high.
This is the lens through which I see so-called cancel culture: there is a real problem,
for ordinary people, of having your life severely damaged by a trivial offense, or by no
offense at all. And of course, predictably, elite whiners want to hijack this real concern in
order to maintain their impunity.
But the elites are a parasitical epiphenomenon: they are attempting to take advantage of a
pre-existing problem that hurts other people far more than it hurts them. And our justifiable
contempt for the elites should not blind us to the existence of a real social problem that
affects non-elites.
The pre-existing problems are those that Natalie Wynn enumerates: assumptions of guilt,
essentializing moves from a single bad act to a wicked character, guilt by association,
impossibility of forgiveness, and so on. These patterns pre-exist the internet, and are
probably to be found in even small-scale societies. They are pathologies that are closely
related to healthy and functional mechanisms of social cohesion, as tumor-growth is related
to tissue-growth.
So, shed no tears for Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens. They do not need protecting -- they
are already coddled far too much. When the OP focuses on their plights as examples of "cancel
culture," then cancel culture, so-described, looks like a well-deserved comeuppance, a
refreshing chink in the armor of elite impunity.
Fine: I agree with all of that. I also agree that I would love to see white-collar
criminals go to jail for 20-50 years, and I'd love to see millionaires unable to afford a
third house.
But it would be crazy to move from that stance to saying, "and I'd love to see petty
thieves sent to jail for life, and I'd love to see minimum wage workers evicted from their
homes because they cannot make the rent."
So, elite suffering is a side-show here (as it so often is). Focus on the lives of the
non-elite. Their suffering should control our responses to the situation. Focus on the
contingent academics fired from their jobs for speaking their minds. On the worker falsely
accused of a white-power sign.
And what should be done after we focus on these things? Not what the right-wing zealots
say, under the false flag of "free speech": not bringing back a regime in which the powerful
can use slurs to subjugate the powerless.
No: if someone repeatedly uses the n-word in order to inflict pain and humiliation on
others, then they should suffer real consequences. I totally agree with that. If someone
repeatedly addresses a co-worker with the pronouns that offend them, and does so knowing that
it will offend them, then they should suffer real consequences.
But I reject zero-tolerance regimes. A black school-guard asking students not to use the
n-word should not be punished at all for mentioning the n-word. A well-meaning and
supportive co-worker who mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun on one occasion should not be
punished at all for that faux pas.
And along with zero-tolerance regimes, we should also get rid of the parade of abuses that
Natalie Wynn lists: assumptions of guilt without evidence, guilt by association, refusal of
forgiveness, and so on.
That's a practical agenda that allows for us to make fun of elite opinion makers as much
as we like, allows us to hurl twitter tomatoes at J.K Rowling all day long, and in no way
interferes with any notion of free speech worth defending.
"... Possibly, the model for the new economy is the prison economy where one can get away with paying subsistance wages, if that. In any case, I think many oligarchs like the idea of workers pleading for work to avoid poverty, hunger and the jackboot on their necks while they rake in the wealth. ..."
And those reading outside the Outlaw US Empire excepting most of Asia and Russia, what
Hudson describes is being done to you, too, although the mechanisms of financial control
differ somewhat. Hudson has written a lot about the EU situation, but the basic tool of
manipulation's the same--debt. Here's the
Hedges/Hudson Interview from December 2018 which is 28.5 minutes. If this were a
collegiate course, I'd assign this and all the other videos I've posted over the past week as
homework so everyone can be clear about what's being done, how and why.
I think the oligarchs and Trump are well aware of what they could do to save or improve the
mainstream economy. It seems, however, that they want to break the US economy, possibly to
bring in their own somewhat feudalistic or worse alternative.
Trump, himself, might even imagine that breaking the workers and turning the economy into
something paying third world cheap labor wages for workers will bring back manufacturing. Who
knows? MAGA for him may be meant solely for the oligarchs. It certainly seems that way.
Possibly, the model for the new economy is the prison economy where one can get away
with paying subsistance wages, if that. In any case, I think many oligarchs like the idea of
workers pleading for work to avoid poverty, hunger and the jackboot on their necks while they
rake in the wealth.
Posted by: Nemesiscalling | May 30 2020 0:46 utc | 133 Whites who run into trouble with the
law usually occur more often in rural areas where whites live in poverty.
Having been in Federal prison, I can tell you that there are five classes of Federal
prisoners:
1) Urban blacks.
2) Urban Latinos.
3) White Urban Thugs.
4) White Rural Rednecks.
5) White Middle- and Upper-Class Professionals.
And a smattering of Asians, Native Americans, and foreigners, and perhaps some other
statistically insignificant sorts.
Class 5 are a very small minority. By far 95% of the prisoners in Federal custody are in
the first four classes. Their common characteristics are poor, badly educated, stupid, and
malicious. Probably 75-85% are in for drugs - either using or selling. 75% of bank robber are
robbing banks to either buy drugs or get money to buy drugs to sell them. I was an exception
- I was robbing banks to get money to buy weapons and other resources to bury the people who
run this country. If it wasn't for the "War on Drugs", most of these guys would be stealing
hubcaps and robbing liquor stores. They aren't smart enough to do anything else.
That's it. That's American crime on the Federal level. On the state level, you can add in
your rapists, your burglars, your muggers, your armed robbers who stick up liquor stores,
etc. All of whom, I guarantee you, are in the same classes and do crime for the same reasons
(although maybe more rapists are middle-class since sex crosses demographic lines, I don't
know.)
"Rural areas are often much less densely populated and, as a result, I posit that
instances of police brutality go often unrecorded."
No one wants to offend the local sheriff in small towns. Rural redneck sheriffs in this
country are a standing joke in the movies because they're real.
"I posit that blacks being in densely populated urban areas have a much greater chance of
having their interaction recorded by bystanders than whites in rural areas who are having
trouble with the police."
Keep in mind that ghetto blacks *do* have serious behavioral problems, both in terms of
tendency to commit crimes and tendency to be unable to interact with white authority figures
or any authority figures for that matter. This is the result of generations of racism. On an
individual level, ghetto blacks can be hostile, impatient, massively ignorant of what
constitutes "acceptable behavior", and a variety of other personality issues. Again, this is
the result of generations of racism.
I have interacted with ghetto blacks on a daily basis for at least the last thirty years.
I have lived in areas and buildings where a significant proportion of the residents were
black, and I was in prison for nine years with them. Trust me when I say that many, if not
most (and certainly not all), of these people have serious social interaction problems as a
result of the same characteristics as the prisoners I described above. I've gotten along with
some, but I expend effort to avoid most, because my daily observations have proven to me that
many (again, not necessarily most - I am not a statistician - or all) have extremely bad
outcomes in interactions with each other, let alone white people.
That, of course, does not justify using excessive police force against someone who merely
bad-mouths them. Cops are supposed to be "professionals" (not that they ever have been in
history in any country that I'm aware of - even including Japan whose prisons I have read are
extremely bad). But the US population has been conditioned from school years to "trust
Officer Friendly" - along with stupid cop shows like "Adam-12" and others which either show
cops violating people's rights with impunity - to condition people to accept that as "normal"
because "they're only criminals" - or show cops as "nice guys". Then there's the old "a few
bad apples" schtick - which was disproven in New York back in the Seventies when it was
proven that *every* cop in New York was on the take, plus the vast string of thuggish
behavior recorded over the past thirty years. And again, the over-militarization of police
forces everywhere (even some small town I read about got an armored military vehicle from the
Feds.)
I occasionally read articles in Police Magazine - one of the main publications for cops.
They *always* take the side of the cops in these matters. There is a "cop mentality" which is
an "us vs them" mentality - and "we is us", to paraphrase the comic strips.
I'm always careful to read reports of police misuse of force carefully, because as having
some knowledge of police procedures, some knowledge of combat firearms use, and the like, and
what is reasonable use of force in terms of self-defense whether one is a cop or not, a lot
of times people don't get the view of the cop who views himself as under threat or to what
degree the cop might actually have been under threat. They assume, for example, that if a cop
shoots a guy with a knife who is thirty feet away it's a clear case of over-reaction (it's
not, a knife-wielder is a threat at least out to 21 feet, as has been proven in tests by cops
and martial artists.)
But that didn't apply in the Rodney King case, and from what I'm seeing in the Floyd case,
it doesn't apply here. Hopefully the facts will come out in court and the cop will go to
jail. Except he'll probably be put in isolation, so no one can shank him. Sucks for him to be
isolated, but he deserves worse.
Of course, the problem then is that the remaining cops will take it out on blacks on the
street even more than they do now.
Because it's the *system*, not just one cop. And the *system* is not just so-called "law
enforcement" or even the economic "system" (which is what cops *really* "enforce"). It's the
whole society-state system (which is also what cops *really* enforce). And in the end, as
I've said before, that deconstructs down to the "human system." Which, unfortunately, is no
"system" at all - just a mass of emotional brain biochemistry distorted by delusions and
fear.
Posted by: Nemesiscalling | May 30 2020 1:05 utc | 134 I witness poverty daily
As do I - especially since I am poor. Not as poor as some people in my building - I do get
some retirement income - but poor nonetheless.
"Part of me finds their situation detestable and self-caused."
Some of it is. But as I said above, that was caused from generations of racism. There's a
limit to "free will", if you're hammered from infancy.
"But dealing with urban blacks is no cakewalk and probably the hardest beat in policing
bar none."
True, as I indicated above.
"Anyone been to Baltimore lately or south-side Chicago. Didn't think so."
I've been to similar places in San Francisco - or rather, I avoid those places, like
Hunter's Point. But I live in the Tenderloin, often considered the worst neighborhood - but
the most residents here are Vietnamese since the Vietnam war ended, not blacks or Latinos -
but the percentage is growing.
"Bring these cops to justice, that is fine. But their faces...pure evil? I think not."
OTOH, consider the cops involved in that New York case where they sodomized a black guy
with a broomstick inside the police station. I saw a video of those guys. Those guys were
straight-out white Italian thugs. They could have been members of the Mafia.
As many people have noted in the past, the difference between a criminal and a cop is that
cops wear badges and are legally allowed to carry guns. I really don't think that most people
who become cops do so because they want to "protect and serve." Maybe some do at the
beginning, but after being in the "system" for a while they become jaded and corrupted - or
they leave. I think most people who become cops do so because they have an inferiority
complex or a fear that they can't compete in "the real world" - so they join a militarized
organization where they have authority and get to carry a gun with more or less impunity.
Everyone has probably run across a security guard with the same authoritarian attitude at
some point - it's the same mentality.
I saw a lot of different correctional officers while in Federal prison. Some made an
effort to be professional and fair in their dealings with inmates, a lot were complete
assholes who enjoyed pushing inmates around and making things worse for inmates. And some
were simply brutal thugs who were capable of killing an inmate who got in their faces - as
has happened. A lot of them were "down-sized military" - ex-military who were down-sized in
the '80's and '90's because they were too dumb to ever be promoted in the military.
A lot of cops are ex-military, too. I watch a lot of Youtube videos from preppers and
firearms people who are ex-military or ex-police, and they almost all have the same
authoritarian attitude and political views. They may have good information, but their
personal political philosophies are anathema to me.
Again, it's the "system" that produces "evil" cops. But anyone who joins an "evil" system
is either woefully uninformed - or they prefer such a system, consciously or
subconciously.
M uch has been made in recent weeks of whether or not former National Security Advisor Mike
Flynn should or should not have been prosecuted for making a false statement to the FBI in
2017.
Flynn allegedly lied to two FBI agents about what he had said in a conversation with Russian
Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak. But we know now that the FBI agents set him up,
emailing each
other in the days before they interviewed Flynn and asking whether their goal should be to
trick him into lying so that they could prosecute him or "get him fired."
The Flynn case is, in a nutshell, exactly what is wrong with our criminal justice system.
Former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson warned us
in 1940 that cases like Flynn's would become the norm:
Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson. (Harris & Ewing, U.S. Library of Congress,
Wikimedia Commons)
"The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation that any other person
in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is
that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or
unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a
citizen's friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand
jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can
cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in
which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial.
If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence, as
to whether the prisoner should get probation or a suspended sentence, and after he is put
away, as to whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one
of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives,
he is one of the worst."
The problem has become largely a bureaucratic one. Do you think prosecutors get promoted or
reelected by not prosecuting people? Do you think they get promoted or reelected by
not seeking the longest possible sentences for those they convict? Of course not. Just
imagine the trophy that Michael Flynn, a retired star lieutenant general and national security
adviser, would have been in a prosecutor's career.
PleaseContributeto Consortium News' 25th Anniversary Spring Fund
Drive
A 2012
study by ProPublica found that the Justice Department wins 98.2 percent of its cases,
almost all as a result of a plea deal. So, what strategies do prosecutors use to ensure a
conviction? There are two common ones: charge
stacking and venue
shopping .
Charge Stacking
Charge stacking is just what it sounds like. Let's say a defendant appears to have committed
a crime; let's say mortgage fraud. The prosecutor doesn't charge him with just mortgage fraud.
He'll add a couple of conspiracy charges and maybe a charge each of wire fraud and mail fraud.
The defendant is now facing 50 years in prison, rather than five. So, what does the magnanimous
prosecutor do? He offers to drop all the other charges if the defendant pleads guilty to the
original charge of mortgage fraud. It's no wonder there are so many innocent people in prison.
Most people wouldn't risk 50 years in prison if they can accept a plea, get a sentence of two
years, and make the whole thing go away.
Venue Shopping
Jeffrey Sterling in 2016. (Eleivy, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Venue shopping is another nice trick. Prosecutors will seek to charge a defendant in the
federal district where he or she is most likely to be convicted. CIA whistleblower Jeffrey
Sterling is a great example of venue shopping. Jeffrey blew the whistle on racial
discrimination at the CIA, as well as an illegal program targeting the Iranian nuclear program.
He was accused of passing classified information to then- New York Times reporter
James Risen, who then used the information in a book. Risen lived in Maryland and worked in
Washington, D.C., at the time. Sterling lived and worked in St. Louis. But he was prosecuted in
the Eastern District of Virginia, known as the "espionage court" because no national security
defendant has ever won a case there.
Prosecutors knew that Sterling couldn't win there, so they had a secretary buy Risen's book
at a Barnes & Noble in Arlington, Virginia. Bingo. They had a "crime" committed in the
Eastern District. (The feds argued that because Risen's book contained classified information,
its very existence was a crime. The secretary's purchase of the book, by this logic, caught
Sterling in the act of passing the information to the secretary through the book in Virginia
and committing espionage, the charge against him.)
Sterling insisted on his innocence and he decided to go to trial. He was convicted of nine
felonies, including seven counts of espionage. He is finally out of prison and still maintains
his innocence. But the prosecutors got their scalp.
The system is broken and there's no easy fix. Ours is an adversarial legal system. The
French and others have a magistrate system where the courts investigate crimes and work with
the defendant's attorneys to get the truth. If the person is guilty, the two sides work
together to come up with the fairest and most just solution. But in an adversarial system, one
side wins and one side loses. That's why Robert Jackson's words are so important. Remember the
power and authority of the prosecutor. And until we see real, systemic changes in our justice
system, we can only keep our fingers crossed.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
"... "[Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system." ..."
"... Federal prosecutors are equipped with a considerable range of legal weapons that can be used to compel confessions and discourage a jury trial, including charge-stacking (charging multiple criminal counts derived from a single act), mandatory-minimum sentences which eliminate discretion on the part of a sentencing judge, pretrial confinement, inordinately high bail, threats against friends and family, and the reality that any sentence handed down after trial will be substantially greater than one that could be reached via a plea bargain. ..."
"... The upside of such a process is a streamlined criminal justice system which places a premium on convictions and incarceration without the cost of a trial. The downside, however, is an unacceptably high rate of false confessions obtained by the plea deal process -- the National Registry of Exonerations estimates that as many as 20 percent of all plea deal-related confessions are false . ..."
"... The Obama national security team abused its power by unmasking Flynn's identity, then leaked Flynn's identity to the press, using this press reporting to justify the continuance of a baseless counterintelligence investigation in order to set a perjury trap intended to place Flynn in legal jeopardy. This is not how American justice is supposed to be dispensed, and the fact that Flynn had to undergo this ordeal should send a shiver down every American's spine, because if left unchecked, there but for the grace of God go us all. ..."
The Department of Justice's case against retired Army
Lieutenant General and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has exposed an ugly
reality involving the abuse of power at the highest levels of the Executive Office all the way
down the justice system this country ostensibly holds so dear.
Plea bargains are an unfortunate reality of an American system of justice which finds merit
in coercing people to admit guilt for crimes they didn't commit in order to avoid the expense
of a trial and to prevent friends and family from potential legal liability. If the purpose
behind such procedural abuse of power is to fight actual crime, the American people have grown
accustomed to turning a blind eye. But if the purpose is to exact political revenge on someone
who has incurred the disfavor of those in power, then the plea bargain system is a direct
assault on the Constitution that should insult every American, regardless where they stand on
the respective merits of the case. General Flynn's case falls firmly in the latter
category.
But in a surprising turn of events, the Department of Justice has dropped
its case against Flynn on the eve of his being sentenced in a Federal Court. In their
dismissal of the case, the Justice department concluded that the FBI's interview with Flynn was
"conducted without any legitimate investigative basis" and that the questioning was "untethered
to, and unjustified by, the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn."
Flynn's many critics have cried foul, claiming the dismissal is nothing short of a
perversion
of justice carried out at the behest of President Trump by an overly partisan Attorney
General, William Barr. Flynn's supporters have praised this outcome as a
clear case of exoneration in the face of corrupt FBI agents who abused the extraordinary
powers they wield to engage in Constitutionally impermissible conduct designed to frame the
former General.
In 2018, the Department of Justice initiated approximately
80,000 federal prosecutions . Two percent of these cases went to trial, with an 83 percent
conviction rate. Of the remaining 98 percent of the cases, some 90 percent ended with the
defendant pleading guilty; the remaining 8 percent were dismissed. The plea process is so
prevalent and pervasive in the U.S. Court system that in the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in
Missouri v. Frye , Justice Steven Kennedy, writing for the majority, quoted
a prominent law review article which concluded that "[Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to
the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system."
Federal prosecutors are equipped with
a considerable range of legal weapons that can be used to compel confessions and discourage
a jury trial, including charge-stacking (charging multiple criminal counts derived from a
single act), mandatory-minimum sentences which eliminate discretion on the part of a sentencing
judge, pretrial confinement, inordinately high bail, threats against friends and family, and
the reality that any sentence handed down after trial will be substantially greater than one
that could be reached via a plea bargain.
The reason for such a high rate of occurrence rests in the coercive reality attached to the
tools used by the prosecutor to leverage a plea in the first place. For someone who is guilty
of a crime, a plea deal that reduces a potential 20-year sentence to five is very attractive.
For an innocent person, however, the prospect of not being able to afford competent legal
representation (an all-too reality, especially in one is subjected to pre-trial confinement and
as such unable to earn a living), combined with potential threats made to prosecute family and
friends, make pleading guilty to a crime not committed a viable option.
The plea bargain process also facilitates prosecutorial misconduct. By pleading guilty, a
defendant cedes control of the processes of justice to the prosecution; issues related to
discovery -- the requirement on the part of the prosecution to turn over all evidence relating
to the charged conduct, even if exculpatory in nature -- are often brushed aside, since guilt
is admitted and no challenge to the charges will be mounted. Prosecutors more often than not
bully their way into a coerced plea agreement, even when they know that their case would not
withstand scrutiny, because simple statistics have proven that more often than not they can get
away with it.
♦♦♦
The prosecution of General Flynn is a text-book example of clear prosecutorial abuse
designed to obtain a guilty plea. The FBI initiated a counterintelligence-scope investigation
against General Flynn not because he was accused of committing a crime, but rather because he
had incurred the wrath of the Obama administration.
When the FBI opened its Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened on July 31, 2016, its
scope was limited to allegations that a Trump campaign advisor, George Papadopoulos, was in
contact with persons working on behalf of the Russian government who were involved in the
alleged theft of documents from the Democratic National Committee server. Flynn had no
connection whatsoever to this issue. However, the FBI used the Crossfire Hurricane
investigation as cover to
open a separate investigation , known as Crossfire Razor, against Flynn based upon contacts
he had with Russia Today, a state-sponsored media outlet.
William Barr has since determined
that Crossfire Razor was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation in so far as it
lacked proper predication and Flynn's Russian connections were not materially relevant.
In January 2017 the FBI was preparing to shut down Crossfire Razor when FBI Special Agent
Peter Strzok argued that it remain open so that he could conduct an interview with Flynn about
his telephone call with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016. This is where the Flynn case loses
touch with its foundation of legality. The Flynn-Kislyak phone call was monitored by the U.S.
intelligence community. Normally the identity of any U.S. citizen so monitored is "masked," or
hidden, from any consumer of the intelligence. On certain occasions, select senior officials
may request that an identity be "unmasked" to allow for a greater understanding of the context
of the conversation. Flynn's identity was "unmasked" using this procedure, most likely on the
orders of then-FBI Director James Comey.
According to Comey , he then briefed Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who
in turn briefed President Obama.
There was bad blood between Flynn, Clapper and Obama. On November 10, 2016, when Obama met
with President-elect Trump in the White House,
he warned Trump not to hire Flynn as his National Security Advisor, ostensibly because of
his behavior while serving as the Director of DIA; Trump ignored this advice, naming Flynn as
the incoming NSA on November 18. Clapper was the man who fired Flynn at the DIA in 2014.
On January 12, David Ignatius published an article in The Washington Post which
detailed Flynn's December conversation with Kislyak; Sydney Powell, Flynn's laywer, has filed
documents with the Federal Court asserting that Ignatius had received this highly classified
information in violation of the law, and furthermore that is was Clapper who
cleared Ignatius to "take the kill shot on Flynn" by publishing the details of the
Flynn-Kislyak conversation.
If the potential for collusion between the FBI Director (Comey), the Director of National
Intelligence (Clapper) and the President of the United States (Obama) to undermine Flynn wasn't
disturbing enough, the fact that Ignatius' article enabled the FBI to conduct an interview on
January 24 with Flynn that has been
described by William Barr as "a perjury trap" should seal the deal.
Flynn was subsequently fired as the NSA, charged with lying to the FBI, bankrupted in the
process of trying to defend himself, and threatened with the prosecution of his son if he opted
to take the matter to trial. Like many before him, Flynn pled guilty to a crime he never should
have been charged with in the first place. Only the diligence of Flynn's current legal team in
forcing disclosure of exculpatory information, combined with William Barr's efforts to expose
wrongdoing by the FBI and the Intelligence Community in investigating alleged collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russia, made the dismissal of Flynn's case possible.
It doesn't matter where one stands on the issue of Mike Flynn, the man. I for one am
personally disturbed by his overly partisan approach toward national security, and the liberty
he takes with facts when making an argument. I don't believe he was the right person to serve
as Trump's National Security Advisor. Apparently neither did President Obama and his national
security team. But we don't have a vote in this matter; the National Security Advisor is
President Trump's responsibility to select. Elections have consequences.
The Obama national security team abused its power by unmasking Flynn's identity, then leaked
Flynn's identity to the press, using this press reporting to justify the continuance of a
baseless counterintelligence investigation in order to set a perjury trap intended to place
Flynn in legal jeopardy. This is not how American justice is supposed to be dispensed, and the
fact that Flynn had to undergo this ordeal should send a shiver down every American's spine,
because if left unchecked, there but for the grace of God go us all.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several
books, including his forthcoming, Scorpion King: America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump
(2020).
This is a weak article. Indignation as for excesses of neoliberal social system that exists in the USA is a good thing only if
there is a plan to change the system. Eric Zuesse has none. Also for top 10% the US healthcare is very efficient; it is probably the best on the planet.
OK neoliberalism is bad. But what is the alternative? Return to the New Deal capitalism is impossible as management now
is allied with the capital owners and that destroyed fragile coalition of trade unions and apart of professional management that
existed during the new deal as a countervailing force for political power of the capital. Such coalition could exist if financial
oligarchy is suppressed and if taxes of millionaires income (especially income from stocks) were around 80%. As soon as JFK
lowered the taxed that was a writing on the wall: the New Deal is doomed. Financial oligarchy was suppressed and it did not like
it. So in 20180 they staged coup d'état and the New Deal was over.
The question is: what political coalition can take on financial oligarchy. There is no such coalition yet.
Notable quotes:
"... Americans generally are desperate to go to work even if they might be spreading the coronavirus-19. They need the pay and the insurance coverage in order to be able to buy medical care. If they don't pay for it they won't get it. So: whomever does show up for work might reasonably be especially inclined to fear likely to catch the disease from a co-worker there. This is one of the many reasons why socializing the healthcare function is vastly more efficient than leaving it to market forces . ..."
"... Furthermore, prisons are among the institutions that especially increase the spread of an epidemic such as Covid-19. And the United States has a higher percentage of its residents in prison than does any other country in the world . In fact, almost all of the Americans who are in prison are poor (since 100% of the poor cannot afford a lawyer), and the poorer a person is, the likelier that the individual is to get coronavirus-19. ..."
"... America has 655 per 100,000, or 4.5 prisoners for every 1.0 prisoner in the entire world), America has vastly more production of coronavirus-19 that's generated by its being a police-state than any other country does -- and this isn't even taking into consideration the rotten, overburdened, health-care system, and the billionaire-propagandized public contempt for the poor, that characterize America's culture, and that make those prisons, perhaps, the worst amongst industrialized nations. ..."
"... Furthermore, in America, "Approximately 95 percent of criminal cases are plea-bargained, in part because public defenders are too overwhelmed to take them to trial. 'That means the state never even has to prove you did anything. They hold all the cards.'" So, the Constitutional protections, such as trial-by-jury and all of the other on-paper protections, don't even apply, in reality, to at least 95% of criminal defendants. And, in many U.S. states, convicts -- and even ex -convicts -- aren't allowed to vote. America's billionaires also use many other ways to keep down the percentage of the poor who vote. ..."
"... In addition, prior to the coronavirus challenge, both America and UK have been reducing, instead of increasing, their social protections; and, therefore, they were the only industrialized nations where life-expectancies were declining even before the coronavirus-19 hit. The recognition and concern about this decline started in UK, but has now started to be published even in the U.S. ..."
"... In other words: coronavirus hit UK at a time when the Government was already moving away from socializing and into privatizing health care; and, as a consequence, the death-rates had already started increasing in 2015. Coronavirus kills mainly people who already have bad health; and, so, their population were maximally vulnerable to it at the time when this epidemic struck. ..."
"... Even prior to 2015, the U.S. was wasting around half of its entire public-and-private spending for health care -- it was the most inefficient healthcare system on the planet -- and therefore had significantly lower life-expectancies than all other industrialized countries did. But, now, those remarkably low life-spans are actually getting even lower. ..."
"... This is the reason why America is designed so as to fail the coronavirus-19 challenge. The power of big-money (concentrated wealth) is destroying this country. It controls both Parties and their respective media, so the public don't know (and certainly cannot understand) the types of realities that are being reported (and linked-to) here. ..."
"... The fact [the existence of ] corporate prisons exist is pretty much an open declaration that we're a kleptocracy, run by the uniparty. ..."
"... We give an EQUAL vote to children, imbeciles, hostiles, and those who don't even speak the language ..."
"... Democracy is not about efficiency but to keep a check on those in power. It preventing the concentration of powers. It all about checks and balances to preserve the citizens freedoms. ..."
Virtually all other industrialized countries have social-welfare systems in place, such as
health-insurance covering 100% of the population; and, consequently, the residents there don't
lose their health insurance if they lose their job -- they therefore aren't desperate to show
up for work even when they are sick or can spread an epidemic.
Americans generally are desperate to go to work even if they might be spreading the
coronavirus-19. They need the pay and the insurance coverage in order to be able to buy medical
care. If they don't pay for it they won't get it. So: whomever does show up for work might
reasonably be especially inclined to fear likely to catch the disease from a co-worker there.
This is one of the many reasons why socializing
the healthcare function is vastly more efficient than leaving it to market forces .
On April 23rd, Reuters
reported that, "U.S. workers who refuse to return to their jobs because they are worried
about catching the coronavirus should not count on getting unemployment benefits, state
officials and labor law experts say."
In such states, the unemployment-benefits system is being used as a cudgel so as to force
employees back to work, and therefore to increase the percentage of the population who will
become infected by the coronavirus-19.
Furthermore, prisons are among the institutions that especially increase the spread of an
epidemic such as Covid-19. And the United States has a higher percentage of its residents in
prison than does any other country in the world . In fact, almost all of the Americans who
are in prison are poor (since 100% of the poor cannot afford a lawyer), and the poorer a person
is, the likelier that the individual is to get coronavirus-19.
This is yet another reason why prisons are a prime place for the spread of the disease. And
on April 26th, the New York Times headlined "As Coronavirus Strikes Prisons, Hundreds of Thousands Are
Released: The virus has spread rapidly in overcrowded prisons across the world, leading
governments to release inmates en masse." Since America has more of its population in prison
than any other country does (lots more: whereas
"The world prison population rate, based on United Nations estimates of national population
levels, is 145 per 100,000" , America has 655 per 100,000, or 4.5 prisoners for every 1.0
prisoner in the entire world), America has vastly more production of coronavirus-19 that's
generated by its being a police-state than any other country does -- and this isn't even taking
into consideration the rotten, overburdened, health-care system, and the
billionaire-propagandized public contempt for the poor, that characterize America's culture,
and that make those prisons, perhaps, the worst amongst industrialized nations.
Taken all together (and to list the other details would fill a book), America's systematized
intense discrimination against the poor constitutes virtually an invitation to this country's
having exceptional vulnerability to any epidemic. The fact that America now has 33.3% of
the world's coronavirus-19 cases , though only 4.2% of the world's population, is actually
systemic, and not merely particular to this moment in this country, and in the entire world.
Donald Trump, and the current U.S. Congress, are part of a system of oppression, not really
exceptions to it (such as the billionaires' media pretend -- with Democratic billionaires
blaming "the Republicans," and Republican billionaires blaming "the Democrats"). The way this
Government performs is actually somewhat normal for this country since at least 1980 .
In addition, prior to the coronavirus challenge, both America and UK have been reducing,
instead of increasing, their social protections; and, therefore, they were the only
industrialized nations where life-expectancies were declining even before the coronavirus-19
hit. The recognition and concern about this decline started in UK, but has now started to be
published even in the U.S.
In other words: coronavirus hit UK at a
time when the Government was already moving away from socializing and into privatizing health
care; and, as a consequence, the death-rates had already started increasing in 2015.
Coronavirus kills mainly people who already have bad health; and, so, their population were
maximally vulnerable to it at the time when this epidemic struck.
Political-science studies that are based
upon decades of reliably reported data have established that ever since around 1980, the
United States has been a dictatorship: what the public wants (and even needs ) is basically
ignored, but what the super-rich (the country's actual dictators) simply want becomes reflected
in governmental policies. That's the very definition of a "dictatorship." The U.S. national
Government is responsive to the wants of its billionaires, not to the needs of the public (such
as protecting their health, education, and welfare, even when the billionaires don't want it
to).The findings in one of these studies are summarized well in a six-minute video, here .
Although the billionaires who fund America's liberal Party, the
Democratic Party, oppose the billionaires who fund the Republican Party (the conservative
Party -- the one that's overtly in favor of the existing wealth-inequality), this is purely for
PR purposes. Whenever the issue becomes their own wealth versus improving the wealth and
economic opportunity for the poor, they all go for expanding their own empire (sometimes by
funding a tax-exempt 'charity' that will increase, even more, their personal control over the
total empire -- by using that tax-exemption to leverage the operation, which will be controlled
by themselves instead of by the public tax-funded government). Such 'charities' are mainly
tax-dodges.
This is even proud policy ('fiscal
responsibility', etc.) in the Republican Party. Bailing-out investors is 'necessary', but
bailing out employees and consumers is 'fiscally irresponsible'. For example, on April 27th,
the Democrat David Sirota headlined "Red States Owe Workers More
Than $500 Billion -- The GOP Is Trying to Steal The Money: Trump is boosting a McConnell
plan to help states renege on promised retirement and health benefits to millions of workers
and retirees." And he is correct.
However, his Party is going to be compromising with that
(instead of adamantly refuse to accept it and then go on the political hustings shaming the
Republican President and Congress-members so as to break them on their blatantly scandalous
whoring to the entire billionaire-class, who want their investments to be bailed out before the
public is -- which might turn out to be never). It's a "good cop, bad cop," routine, to protect
the super-rich. It accepts holding the public hostage to what the big political donors want,
instead of focuses against that as being the central political issue of the moment, and of at
least post-1980 America.
They're just
trying to deceive their suckers into voting for Joe Biden, or else not voting at all; and, so,
their ad doesn't even so
much as just mention Biden. It's a Biden ad that makes no mention of Biden. It hides its true
motive. That's typical.
This is the reason why America is designed so as to fail the coronavirus-19 challenge. The
power of big-money (concentrated wealth) is destroying this country. It controls both Parties
and their respective media, so the public don't know (and certainly cannot understand) the
types of realities that are being reported (and linked-to) here.
A "good cop, bad cop" government is, in reality, all bad cop.
(I therefore proposed an Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution in order to rectify some of the reasons behind this structural failure of the
U.S. Government. Perhaps the only alternative to that would be violent revolution, but it would
probably make things even worse, not better.)
desertboy , 23 minutes ago
The fact [the existence of ] corporate prisons exist is pretty much an open declaration that we're a
kleptocracy, run by the uniparty.
Reign in Fact, 28 minutes ago
" The power of big-money (concentrated wealth) is destroying this country... This is
'democracy'-as-political-scam... "
No the scam is democracy itself. We give an EQUAL vote to children, imbeciles, hostiles,
and those who don't even speak the language, while allowing wholesale vote-buying bribery of
public unions.
No such system has ever thrived anywhere in the animal kingdom - equality without merit,
or rule by will of the laziest, weakest and dumbest - no matter how small the "society",
team, family, gang, union, band, corporation, religion or nation.
It can't and won't end well.
youshallnotkill , 15 minutes ago
Democracy is not about efficiency but to keep a check on those in power. It preventing the
concentration of powers. It all about checks and balances to preserve the citizens
freedoms.
The fact that you don't understand these where basics of why we have a republic is
testament to our failed school system.
Deep In Vocal Euphoria , 30 minutes ago
Demoracy...usa was a constitutional republic..........
AVmaster , 30 minutes ago
This hasn't been the american "design" since 23DEC1913......
Dragonlord , 1 minute ago
America's design to disable the freedom of state secession has ruined it. As a result, we
are facing the possibility of another civil war.
Female sociopath are excel in false accusations, including rape accusations. They are born actresses and have no empathy, so
framing their victim is just an easy game for them
In a fiery speech announcing her decision, Collins ripped unsupported claims by Avenatti's
client, Julie Swetnick, that Kavanaugh facilitated a Cosby-esque "gang rape" operation while in
high school.
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of
innocence is so important . I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by
Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged
multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape .
This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and
simply parroted public statements of others . That such an allegation can find its way into
the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of
innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness. -Sen. Susan Collins
I didn't really care much about the stuff alleged to have been done by Kavanaugh
thirty-five years ago. Arguing with a close family friend I stated that there was nothing
I found more tiresome than the old lawyers tactic of springing something on you at the last
possible minute, leaving a steaming pile of turds in the middle of your desk, and then
expecting to be taken seriously. Decorum? Rules of debate? How about the laws of
discovery, sharing info amongst colleagues?
Just because this was not a criminal trial is no reason to throw out the rules for policy
making, the nomination process, which both sides have adhered to in the past. People were
comparing this to the Anita Hill fiasco during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.
Delay, interrupt, stall, maximum media exposure. Never any evidence or criminal charges to
point to.
In criminal trials there is the process of discovery by which the admission of
evidence at the last minute is strongly ill advised, and can result in it being tossed out.
Sen. Feinstein would be aware of all the rules and procedures, but she feels above it
all.
Hey Avenatti! If you and your client had any idea of what the truth is no one would every
have heard of her or of you. Don't give us this ******** that you were just representing your
client. If you had a brain you would have known she was FOS from the get go, and if you were
honest you never would have represented her. So what is it? Are you just stupid or are you
dishonest, or both?
People who make salacious claims unconfirmed or outright denied by their own named
"witnesses" tend to get sued for defamation. And the lawyers they rode in on.
Michael Avenatti is not a nice man at all. He was a factor in making the accusations seem
like a circus. No one takes him seriously as he slinks around the gutters.
Avenatti is the scapegoat. The Ford story was already fast breaking down, and the secret
polygraph and the secret therapist notes and her ex-boyfriend should have made more noise in
the Senate.
They embraced this puke and revelled in his garbage accusations. Now they need a
scapegoat, and he's it. God forbid Feinstein get raked over the coals for screwing this thing
up. The was a political hit, and everyone knew it. But the GOP are so spineless that a
high-school-drunken-grope-fest brought them to their knees. Fortunately, the Dems stayed true
to form and blew themselves up.
What I do not understand is how could they be so stupid as to endorse the Avenatti slime
factory in the first place? TONE DEAF.
Avenatti needs to be disbarred. To file a complaint for his breach of professional
responsibility, suborning perjury, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude:
If enough complaints are filed with the CA state bar, he may get disbarred.
Attorneys ALREADY have a really bad rep. Part of professional responsibility is to uphold
the integrity of the legal profession. The ONLY thing Avenatti did was to make every attorney
look like a complete shyster sleazeball, which given I just took the bar exam and will
probably become an attorney soon, I find immensely offensive.
The Demonrats used false sexual allegations against Roy Moore coupled with ballot box
cheating (their typical mode) to win a senate seat in conservative Alabama. So, since their
main national platform of open borders is so repugnant to any normal taxpaying voter, this is
their only strategy. They simply got caught. All the allegations against both Kavanaugh and
Moore were fabricated and the proof is the Soros' paid lawyers who represented them all. And
Feinstein and Schumer conspired in this farce. And independent voters know it!
They're just pissed they got caught in their fraud and this energized the R. base which
will lead to a red wave in a few weeks. And just think of the political commercial
possibilities for any Demonrat senator hoping to prevail if they vote against Kavanaugh. I
expect the final confirmation vote won't as close as the vote for cloture for this
reason.
Be careful, Roy Moore was a different story. There was evidence including him saying he
liked to date high school age girls as a 30 year old along with multiple other people who
remembered what was alleged. Not just Democrat operatives. Morals were not that different
then than now. Was he guilty of a crime no, could reasonable people still dislike his morals
sure. I grew up close to that era and thought the college age kids hanging around HS girls
was nasty. Moore verified as a 30 year old he liked them young.
Ford 0 corroborating evidence. By lumping in Moore with Kavanaugh you are giving credence
to believe the victim because all you are following the "patriarchy" of believing the accused
regardless of evidence.
The Democrats have a long history of making last minute sexual misconduct allegations
against their political opponents, always without any evidence or corroboration. And sexual
misconduct allegations that pale in comparison to what a lot of Democrats have been alleged
to do (rape allegations against Clinton, Kennedy having an affair that left a woman dead,
John Conyers for settling sexual harassment allegations with taxpayer money, Hillary for
trashing victims, or consider Weinstein and other famous/rich Democrat donors or newsmen).
I'd bet most of these allegations against Republicans were simply made up for political
purposes because they were plausible, couldn't be disproven, and couldn't be proven. Ford's
allegations fit the pattern.
The charges are always last minute, to deny the accused an opportunity to defend
themselves. Kavanaugh provided an excellent defense that would be good court room drama in a
movie, when no one in the GOP was willing to defend him, and too afraid of being accused of
not believing a victim and attacking them.
What's really going on are the Democrats in charge, are looking to deflect the attention
from what they did, to Avanetti because Avanetti did the same, except the charges of his
client, weren't believable, even though they couln't be proven or disproven. They don't want
to take the blame, for what voters might do in the midterms.
One thing's for sure, you don't see Democrats calling for indicting and prosecuting false
accusers. They're teaching people to bear false witness for their personal purposes.
avenatti gave the diversion, the clutter, the political sideshow so that all charges could
be swept away and completely fake and uncorroborated. there was no provable basis for the
ford charges, but the crazy swetnick stories simplified brooming the whole thing.
we can only hope that avenatti will be back in 2020, to run for president, and to come
marching with his parade of **** stars and "wronged" women who spend all their time
performing in strip clubs.
If you are accused of harassment in the workplace, it is important to carefully consider
your next moves. Your initial reaction might be to vehemently defend yourself against the
claims; however, try to keep a cool and calm head and approach the situation professionally.
The more hotly you protest the charges and the angrier you get, the less inclined people may be
to listen to your side of the story. Talk to a Lawyer
Book a consultation with a lawyer. If the matter can't be resolved via simple mediation
within the workplace, you have to be sure to protect yourself and your job. A lawyer can advise
you of your legal rights and give you an idea of how to best proceed with such allegations
presented against you.
Write it Down
Provide a written account of what happened from your point of view. While this may differ
from the account of the person claiming the harassment, it is important that you at least get
your side of the story out. A written statement doing so gives human resources and/or
management something to refer to during the investigation.
Tell the Truth
Be honest. If you know you did what the accusers say you did, be honest and the ensuing
punishment may be less harsh. Talk to your manager about what happened, admit to what you did
wrong and provide solutions for how to avoid further incidents. Most important: stop the
"harassing" behavior immediately. The situation may worsen if it continues, whether you feel it
is actual harassment or not.
Provide Witnesses
Provide an alibi and/or witnesses, if the claims are not true. If someone says you harassed
them at a time when you know you were in a meeting or talking to someone in his office, then
say so. Supply the name of any witnesses who can provide you an alibi. If there were other
people around at the time that the alleged harassment took place, ask them to speak up on your
behalf.
Stay Calm
Avoid retaliating in any way. Particularly if you have been falsely accused, you may feel
angry, frustrated and more emotional than usual because of what you are going through. Don't
take any adverse reaction against the person that made the allegations or do anything that
might be perceived as retaliatory.
Draw Attention to Your History
Give an accounting of your track record with the company. If you've been accused of
something you know you didn't do and you have a clean personnel file, explain to your manager
that you've been with the company "X" amount of years, have never had a problem with another
employee and have always treated others with the utmost respect. Your record could work in your
favor.
Consult with HR
Consult with your human resources representative to determine how to best proceed according
to company policy. Explain your side of the story and focus on what you can do to resolve the
matter quickly and focus on your job. A human resources rep might be able to mediate in the
matter and get it settled without having to take things further; she may also advise you of the
steps you need to take or explain that there is nothing more you can do while the company
investigates.
Tip
Whatever you do, don't confront the accuser. This may provide additional fodder for the
allegations against you and anything you say might be misconstrued and used against you
later.
Also, don't discuss the case with other people in the workplace, as the gossip may in
turn spur the allegations against you.
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the
progressive agenda.
George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are
living it right now.
Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member
of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its "resistance" is undermining
an elected president. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the
proper president would be elected -- the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology.
Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy-
or girlfriend, or co-workers.
But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the
strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh.
In Orwell's world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry,
rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. Instead, regimented ideology -- the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of
one's life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality -- warps everything from the use of
language to private life.
Oceania's Rules
Senator Diane Feinstein and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had long
sought to destroy the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Much of their paradoxical furor over his
nomination arises from the boomeranging of their own past political blunders, such as when
Democrats ended the filibuster on judicial nominations, in 2013. They also canonized the
so-called 1992 Biden Rule, which holds that the Senate should not consider confirming the
Supreme Court nomination of a lame-duck president (e.g., George H. W. Bush) in an election
year.
Rejecting Kavanaugh proved a hard task given that he had a long record of judicial opinions
and writings -- and there was nothing much in them that would indicate anything but a sharp
mind, much less any ideological, racial, or sexual intolerance. His personal life was
impeccable, his family admirable.
Kavanaugh was no combative Robert Bork, but congenial, and he patiently answered all the
questions asked of him, despite constant demonstrations and pre-planned street-theater
interruptions from the Senate gallery and often obnoxious grandstanding by "I am Spartacus"
Democratic senators.
So Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed unless a bombshell revelation derailed the vote. And
so we got a bombshell.
Weeks earlier, Senator Diane Feinstein had received a written allegation against Kavanaugh
of sexual battery by an accuser who wished to remain anonymous. Feinstein sat on it for nearly
two months, probably because she thought the charges were either spurious or unprovable. Until
a few days ago, she mysteriously refused to release the
full text of the redacted complaint , and she has said she does not know whether the very
accusations that she purveyed are believable. Was she reluctant to memorialize the accusations
by formally submitting them to the Senate Judiciary Committee, because doing so makes Ford
subject to possible criminal liability if the charges prove demonstrably untrue?
The gambit was clearly to use the charges as a last-chance effort to stop the nomination --
but only if Kavanaugh survived the cross examinations during the confirmation hearing. Then, in
extremis , Feinstein finally referenced the charge, hoping to keep it anonymous, but, at the
same time, to hint of its serious nature and thereby to force a delay in the confirmation.
Think something McCarthesque, like "I have here in my hand the name . . ."
Delay would mean that the confirmation vote could be put off until after the midterm
election, and a few jeopardized Democratic senators in Trump states would not have to go on
record voting no on Kavanaugh. Or the insidious innuendos, rumor, and gossip about Kavanaugh
would help to bleed him to death by a thousand leaks and, by association, tank Republican
chances at retaining the House. (Republicans may or may not lose the House over the
confirmation circus, but they most surely will lose their base and, with it, the Congress if
they do not confirm Kavanaugh.)
Feinstein's anonymous trick did not work. So pressure mounted to reveal or leak Ford's
identity and thereby force an Anita-Hill–like inquest that might at least show old white
men Republican senators as insensitive to a vulnerable and victimized woman.
The problem, of course, was that, under traditional notions of jurisprudence, Ford's
allegations simply were not provable. But America soon discovered that civic and government
norms no longer follow the Western legal tradition. In Orwellian terms, Kavanaugh was now at
the mercy of the state. He was tagged with sexual battery at first by an anonymous accuser, and
then upon revelation of her identity, by a left-wing, political activist psychology professor
and her more left-wing, more politically active lawyer.
Newspeak and Doublethink
Statue of limitations? It does not exist. An incident 36 years ago apparently is as fresh
today as it was when Kavanaugh was 17 and Ford 15.
Presumption of Innocence? Not at all. Kavanaugh is accused and thereby guilty. The accuser
faces no doubt. In Orwellian America, the accused must first present his defense, even though
he does not quite know what he is being charged with. Then the accuser and her legal team pour
over his testimony to prepare her accusation.
Evidence? That too is a fossilized concept. Ford could name neither the location of the
alleged assault nor the date or time. She had no idea how she arrived or left the scene of the
alleged crime. There is no physical evidence of an attack. And such lacunae in her memory
mattered no longer at all.
Details? Again, such notions are counterrevolutionary. Ford said to her therapist 6 years
ago (30 years after the alleged incident) that there were four would-be attackers, at least as
recorded in the therapist's notes.
But now she has claimed that there were only two assaulters: Kavanaugh and a friend. In
truth, all four people -- now including a female -- named in her accusations as either
assaulters or witnesses have insisted that they have no knowledge of the event, much less of
wrongdoing wherever and whenever Ford claims the act took place. That they deny knowledge is at
times used as proof by Ford's lawyers that the event 36 years was traumatic.
An incident at 15 is so seared into her lifelong memory that at 52 Ford has no memory of any
of the events or details surrounding that unnamed day, except that she is positive that
17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, along with four? three? two? others, was harassing her. She has no
idea where or when she was assaulted but still assures that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge
were drunk, but that she and the others (?) merely had only the proverbial teenage "one beer."
Most people are more likely to know where they were at a party than the exact number of
alcoholic beverages they consumed -- but not so much about either after 36 years.
Testimony? No longer relevant. It doesn't matter that Kavanaugh and the other alleged
suspect both deny the allegations and have no memory of being in the same locale with Ford 36
years ago. In sum, all the supposed partiers, both male and female, now swear, under penalty of
felony, that they have no memory of any of the incidents that Ford claims occurred so long ago.
That Ford cannot produce a single witness to confirm her narrative or refute theirs is likewise
of no concern. So far, she has singularly not submitted a formal affidavit or given a
deposition that would be subject to legal exposure if untrue.
Again, the ideological trumps the empirical. "All women must be believed" is the testament,
and individuals bow to the collective. Except, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, there are
ideological exceptions -- such as Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Sherrod Brown, and Joe Biden.
The slogan of Ford's psychodrama is "All women must be believed, but some women are more
believable than others." That an assertion becomes fact due to the prevailing ideology and
gender of the accuser marks the destruction of our entire system of justice.
Rights of the accused? They too do not exist. In the American version of 1984 , the accuser,
a.k.a. the more ideologically correct party, dictates to authorities the circumstances under
which she will be investigated and cross-examined: She will demand all sorts of special
considerations of privacy and exemptions; Kavanaugh will be forced to return and face cameras
and the public to prove that he was not then, and has never been since, a sexual assaulter.
In our 1984 world, the accused is considered guilty if merely charged, and the accuser is a
victim who can ruin a life but must not under any circumstance be made uncomfortable in proving
her charges.
Doublespeak abounds. "Victim" solely refers to the accuser, not the accused, who one day was
Brett Kavanaugh, a brilliant jurist and model citizen, and the next morning woke up transformed
into some sort of Kafkaesque cockroach. The media and political operatives went in a nanosecond
from charging that she was groped and "assaulted" to the claim that she was "raped."
In our 1984, the phrase "must be believed" is doublespeak for "must never face
cross-examination."
Ford should be believed or not believed on the basis of evidence , not her position, gender,
or politics. I certainly did not believe Joe Biden, simply because he was a U.S. senator, when,
as Neal Kinnock's doppelganger, he claimed that he came from a long line of coal miners -- any
more than I believed that Senator Corey Booker really had a gang-banger Socratic confidant
named "T-Bone," or that would-be senator Richard Blumenthal was an anguished Vietnam combat vet
or that Senator Elizabeth Warren was a Native American. (Do we need a 25th Amendment for
unhinged senators?) Wanting to believe something from someone who is ideologically correct does
not translate into confirmation of truth.
Ford supposedly in her originally anonymous accusation had insisted that she had sought
"medical treatment" for her assault. The natural assumption is that such a term would mean
that, soon after the attack, the victim sought a doctor's or emergency room's help to address
either her physical or mental injuries -- records might therefore be a powerful refutation of
Kavanaugh's denials.
But "medical treatment" now means that 30 years after the alleged assault, Ford sought
counseling for some sort of "relationship" or "companion" therapy, or what might legitimately
be termed "marriage counseling." And in the course of her discussions with her therapist about
her marriage, she first spoke of her alleged assault three decades earlier. She did not then
name Kavanaugh to her therapist, whose notes are at odds with Ford's current
version.
Memory Holes
Then we come to Orwell's idea of "memory holes," or mechanisms to wipe clean inconvenient
facts that disrupt official ideological narratives.
Shortly after Ford was named, suddenly her prior well-publicized and self-referential
social-media revelations vanished, as if she'd never held her minor-league but confident
pro-Sanders, anti-Trump opinions . And much of her media and social-media accounts were erased
as well.
Similarly, one moment the New York Times -- just coming off an embarrassing lie in reporting
that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had ordered new $50,000 office drapes on the government dime
-- reported that Kavanaugh's alleged accomplice, Mark Judge, had confirmed Ford's allegation.
Indeed, in a sensational scoop, according to the Times , Judge told the Judiciary Committee
that he does remember the episode and has nothing more to say. In fact, Judge told the
committee the very opposite: that he does not remember the episode . Forty minutes later, the
Times embarrassing narrative vanished down the memory hole.
The online versions of some of the yearbooks of Ford's high school from the early 1980s
vanished as well. At times, they had seemed to take a perverse pride in the reputation of the
all-girls school for underage drinking, carousing, and, on rarer occasions, "passing out" at
parties. Such activities were supposed to be the monopoly and condemnatory landscape of the
"frat boy" and spoiled-white-kid Kavanaugh -- and certainly not the environment in which the
noble Ford navigated. Seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh was to play the role of a falling-down
drunk; Ford, with impressive powers of memory of an event 36 years past, assures us that as a
circumspect 15-year-old, she had only "one beer."
A former teenage friend of Ford's sent out a flurry of social-media postings, allegedly
confirming that Ford's ordeal was well known to her friends in 1982 and so her assault
narrative must therefore be confirmed. Then, when challenged on some of her incoherent details
(schools are not in session during summertime, and Ford is on record as not telling anyone of
the incident for 30 years), she mysteriously claimed that she no longer could stand by her
earlier assertions, which likewise soon vanished from her social-media account. Apparently, she
had assumed that in 2018 Oceania ideologically correct citizens merely needed to lodge an
accusation and it would be believed, without any obligation on her part to substantiate her
charges.
When a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, followed Ford seven days later to allege another
sexual incident with the teenage Kavanaugh, at Yale 35 years ago, it was no surprise that she
followed the now normal Orwellian boilerplate : None of those whom she named as witnesses could
either confirm her charges or even remember the alleged event. She had altered her narrative
after consultations with lawyers and handlers. She too confesses to underage drinking during
the alleged event. She too is currently a social and progressive political activist. The only
difference from Ford's narrative is that Ramirez's accusation was deemed not credible enough to
be reported even by the New York Times , which recently retracted false stories about witness
Mark Judge in the Ford case, and which falsely reported that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had
charged the government for $50,000 office drapes.
As in 1984 , "truths" in these sorts of allegations do not exist unless they align with the
larger "Truth" of the progressive project. In our case, the overarching Truth mandates that, in
a supposedly misogynist society, women must always be believed in all their accusations and
should be exempt from all counter-examinations.
Little "truths" -- such as the right of the accused, the need to produce evidence,
insistence on cross-examination, and due process -- are counterrevolutionary constructs and the
refuge of reactionary hold-outs who are enemies of the people. Or in the words of Hawaii
senator Mazie Hirono:
Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. And
I just want to say to the men in this country, "Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing,
for a change."
The View 's Joy Behar was more honest about the larger Truth: "These white men, old by the
way, are not protecting women," Behar exclaimed. "They're protecting a man who is probably
guilty." We thank Behar for the concession "probably."
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now guilty
of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17. And that reality reminds us that we are no
longer in America . We are already living well into the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell
warned us about long ago.
All Comments 30
NiggaPleeze , 10 seconds ago
National Review? Really? Does it get more evil than them?
Debt Slave , 16 seconds ago
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now
guilty of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17.
Well half the country are idiots but the important thing to remember in our democracy is
that the idiots have the right to vote. And here we are today.
No wonder the founders believed that democracy was a stupid idea. But we know better than
they did, right?
Jkweb007 , 37 seconds ago
It is hard for me to believe 50% when in America you are presumed innocent till proven
guilty. Is this the spanish inquizition or salem witch trials. If he floats he was innocent.
I am shocked that people in congress would make statements, she must be believed, I believe
he is guilty. These are people who represent and stand for the constitution that many died in
the defense of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It may be time for that mlilitia
that our founding fathers endorsed. If Kavanaugh is rebuked for these accusation our freedom,
free speech may be next.
One more confirmation that the so called "social justice warriors" -like last night's
goons' who shamefully interrupted Senator Cruz's night out with his wife at a private
restaurant- are Orwell's projected fascists!
opport.knocks , 20 minutes ago
Bush 2 was in the big chair when he and his cabinet started the USA down the full
Orwellian path (Patriot Act, post 911). Kavanaugh and his wife were both members of that
government team.
If there is any reason to dismiss him, that would be it, not this post-pubescent sex
crap.
If I was a cynical person, I would say this whole exercise is to deflect attention away
from that part of his "swampy" past.
Aubiekong , 23 minutes ago
We lost the republic when we allowed the liberals to staff the ministry of
education...
CheapBastard , 15 minutes ago
My neighbor is a high school teacher. I asked her if she was giving students time off to
protest this and she looked at me and said, "Just the opposite. I have given them a 10 page
seminar paper to write on the meaning of Due Process."
So there IS hope.
my new username , 23 minutes ago
This is criminal contempt for the due lawful process of the Congress.
These are unlawful attempts and conspiracies to subvert justice.
So we need to start arresting, trying, convicting and punishing the criminals.
BlackChicken , 23 minutes ago
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of
the progressive agenda.
This needs to end, not later, NOW.
Be careful what you wish for leftists, I'll dedicate my remaining years to torture you
with it.
Jus7tme , 22 minutes ago
>>the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell warned us about long ago.
I think Orwell was in 1949 was warning about a fascist totalitarian hell, not a socialist
one, but nice try rewriting history.
Duc888 , 29 minutes ago
WTF ever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
CheapBastard , 19 minutes ago
Schumer said before the confirmation hearings even began he would not let Kavanaugh become
SC justice no matter what.
Dems are so tolerant, open minded and respectful of due process, aren't they.
"... Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our civilisation such as the presumption of innocence. Accusers have to prove their charges. ..."
"... Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that. ..."
"... Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with this article. ..."
"... For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. ..."
Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our
civilisation such as the presumption of innocence.
Accusers have to prove their charges.
Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe
can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that.
Anyone who disagrees with him might be motivated to do that. They can suggest psychological
reasons for his atrocious behaviour. The accuser does not need to prove anything – just
some lurid details and a tearful interview are enough, and the rest of us can no longer see
his by-line without remembering all of the innocent children he molested.
See? What I just insinuated is completely untrue. Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone
can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with
this article.
Please, think about what it is like to be unfairly accused. Perhaps in the abstract you
can shrug, but talk to anyone who has actually been the victim of false allegations, and you
will realise how powerless you are in that situation. Your only protection is the civilised
idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you destroy that, well, that would be
a shame.
irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 pm
Have you ever experienced a false accusation ? I have, and I didn't even know it.
For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's
child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by
her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. You can only
imagine how this affected all my familial relationships. She never did come clean about this
situation (her thinking was affected by long term steroid use) but did eventually apologize
to me (without precisely stating why) the year our son turned thirteen, at which point he
started strongly resembling his dad (her son).
False accusations are a very serious thing, and we are accepting them all too glibly.
Female psychopath are especially dangerous as "reverse sexual predators". Assumption that all women are honest in their
accusations is extremely naive. Revenge and other inferior motives are pretty common, especially in academic setting.
"A sense of walking on eggshells" is a sure sign of unhealthy psychopath dominated environment.
Notable quotes:
"... Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and found that while it's true that women might be afraid to speak up for fear of losing their careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner, or even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or gesture could be misinterpreted. "It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan Stanley executive said. ..."
"... All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust #MeToo scandal are creating a kind of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the reporters say. ..."
"... "If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment, those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," ..."
The #MeToo movement was supposed to make life easier for women in the workplace. It was all
about respect and making real abusers pay a price for their behavior. But is it possible to
have too much of a good thing?
One of the aims of the movement was to force a change in the conduct of men who said and did
sexually inappropriate things in the workplace -- a concept which few people could quibble
with. A year on from its beginnings, however, it seems the movement has morphed into something
else entirely -- and ironically, it's hurting both men and women.
The 'Pence Effect' and 'gender segregation'
The #MeToo movement has taken down men across a wide spectrum of industries -- but so far,
Wall Street has avoided a huge public scandal -- despite its reputation for being, well, a
fairly sexist and male-oriented environment. So why has it escaped the #MeToo
spotlight?
Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and
found that while it's true that women might be afraid to speak up for fear of losing their
careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner, or
even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or
gesture could be misinterpreted. "It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan
Stanley executive said.
Bloomberg dubbed the phenomenon the 'Pence Effect' after the US vice president who
previously admitted that he would never dine alone with any woman other than his wife. British
actor Taron Egerton recently also said he now avoided being alone with
women for fear of finding himself in #MeToo's crosshairs.
I remember when a woman I was friendly/kind with perceived me as someone who wanted
"more." She wrote me a message about how she was uncomfortable. I'm gay. https://t.co/7z0X7Dwzkp
All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust
#MeToo scandal are creating a kind of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the
reporters say.
Hurting women's progress?
The most ironic outcome of a movement that was supposed to be about women's empowerment is
that now, even hiring a woman on Wall Street has become an "unknown risk," according
to one wealth advisor, who said there is always a concern that a woman might take something
said to her in the wrong way.
With men occupying the most senior positions on Wall Street, women need male mentors who can
teach them the ropes and help them advance their careers, but what happens when men are afraid
to play that role with their younger female colleagues? The unintended consequence of the
#MeToo movement on Wall Street could be the stifling of women's progress and a sanitization of
the workplace to the point of not even being able to have a private meeting with the door
closed.
Another irony is that while men may think they are avoiding one type of scandal, could find
themselves facing another: Discrimination complaints.
"If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of
being accused of sexual harassment, those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment
complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," Stephen Zweig, an employment
attorney with FordHarrison told Bloomberg.
Not all men are responding to the #MeToo movement by fearfully cutting themselves off from
women, however. "Just try not to be an asshole," one said, while another added:
"It's really not that hard."
It might not be that simple, however. It seems there is no escape from the grip of the
#MeToo movement. One of the movements most recent victims of the viral hashtag movement is not
a man, but a song -- the time-honored classic 'Baby It's Cold Outside' -- which is being banished
from American radio stations because it has a "rapey" vibe.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
If conservatives really want to fix the system, they will have to change the way criminal cases file through it.
If there is an invisible hand to the justice system, then it belongs to a prosecutor. Prosecutors stand at many of the most momentous
points in the criminal justice process, wielding the power to transform someone from a defendant and free person into a prisoner.
Yet as conservatives in state after state work to reshape the justice system, prosecutorial reform is conspicuously absent from the
agenda. Why?
The answer is surely not that prosecutors are unable to advance new criminal justice priorities. While the political right is
largely asleep on the potential of prosecutors, the left awoke to it a few years ago and embraced a vision of "progressive prosecutors."
Since then, a growing number of progressives have been
elected in urban centers and other liberal enclaves on promises to reduce mass incarceration and eliminate racial and ethnic
disparities. Many have made remarkable strides, and their successes ought to be celebrated.
But "progressive" is hardly synonymous with fair, just, or effective prosecution. Plenty of prosecutors interested in all of those
things have no desire whatsoever to wear the "progressive" label or see the world through that lens. This is what makes the lack
of prosecutorial reform on the right so glaring.
Part of the problem may well be the quintessential conservative belief that Policy with a capital "P" is exclusively for the legislature
to decide. In this view, prosecutors are little more than administrators and should not attempt to alter in any way the broader course
of the justice system. The law is the law; prosecutors are there simply to enforce it.
Except that's not how things actually work. The legislature cannot possibly outline which cases to prioritize, which charges to
file, or which plea bargains to offer -- only a prosecutor can do that. Prosecutorial discretion and the Policy it sets are inevitable.
And the system, frankly, is better for it, because discretion leads to more local control, with each prosecutor asserting the needs
and preferences of their town or city.
So perhaps the responsibility for prosecutorial reform's failure to launch on the right lies with the natural inclination of most
conservatives to support members of law enforcement. They recognize that the great majority of prosecutors are hardworking, justice-minded
individuals, and that the word "reform" implies there is a problem that needs fixing.
But if that's the case, it misconstrues the nature of prosecutorial reform and does no service to the prosecutors they are aiming
to support . It is possible to be pro-prosecutor and pro-reform; indeed, the best reforms are those that will improve the
lot of prosecutors and those with whom they interact . For example, prosecutorial annual caseloads can reach over a
thousand cases in some places. Rallying behind reforms like charging policies that can lower these staggering numbers is very
much a defense of, not an assault on, prosecutors.
Whatever the reason for their reticence, conservatives stand only to benefit by seizing the mantle of prosecutorial reform. A
prosecutor willing to
reimagine
the status quo can simultaneously advance the four priorities that have guided conservative criminal justice reform: improved public
safety, greater fiscal responsibility, stronger due process protections, and respect for life and the value of family. In many instances,
they may be able to do a better job than the legislatures upon which conservatives have thus far concentrated their efforts.
After all, while legislators can write all the criminal laws they want, it is up to prosecutors to determine how they are actually
going to play out in practice. It is possible, for instance, to try to rein in the size of the justice system legislatively by scaling
back the criminal code or sentencing ranges. Yet doing so would require dozens or even hundreds of legislators working in concert
on multiple bills. Possible, sure. Simple or straightforward? Hardly.
Consider, on the other hand, what a single elected prosecutor can do for a jurisdiction. Charging and plea-bargaining alone mean
that prosecutors effectively determine who enters the system and how roughly 95 percent will exit it. With a stroke of her pen, a
single district attorney can sign a new policy that immediately reshapes the flow of criminal cases. At the end of the day, the legislature
may wield greater power, but it is hard to compete with a prosecutor's precision and speed.
Just look at the justice system transformation that has taken place under new district attorneys in Boston and San Francisco.
In Boston, prosecutors now presumptively
divert or dismiss fifteen
low-level misdemeanors, allowing prosecutors to focus on more serious offenses, while in San Francisco they unilaterally
ended the use of cash bail so that pretrial release decisions reflect risk rather than wealth. In both instances, these changes
affected more people than reside in either North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, or Wyoming. This is the force for change that conservatives
have been neglecting.
All this speaks to why prosecutorial reform should be placed squarely at the forefront of the conservative criminal justice agenda.
If not the old tough-on-crime status quo or the new progressive prosecutor movement, what should conservatives expect from a prosecutor?
To be, in a word, productive. Rather than promoting mere illusions of success like conviction rates or sentence lengths, conservatives
should consider the actual outcomes that prosecutorial decisions produce. Do they increase safety, aid defendant rehabilitation,
and help keep families whole? In short, are prosecutors doing everything in their power to improve community wellbeing?
The rewards for embracing and advocating on behalf of a new vision of prosecution could prove great.
Polling suggests
that voters of all stripes are eager for the types of reforms that prosecutors could help deliver on issues ranging from pretrial
detention to sentencing outcomes. Early successes by Republican chief prosecutors like
Melissa Nelson in Florida and
David Leavitt in Utah show that a renewed conservative commitment to being smarter and more evenhanded than one's predecessor
can be a winning strategy.
The history of the criminal justice reform movement shows that when conservatives prioritize an issue, they are able to achieve
remarkable success. This track record makes their general neglect of prosecutorial offices both perplexing and galling. If conservatives
truly want to reshape the justice system, then it is long past time for them to put the invisible hand of the prosecutor to use.
Lars Trautman is a senior fellow of criminal justice and civil liberties policy at the R Street Institute and a former assistant
district attorney.
The theme of this article is long over due. I was a law student in the late 60's. While my law school was progressive for its
time, very few of us were encouraged to consider becoming a prosecutor. This was at a time of the civil rights, equal employment,
criticism of the Vietnam war, voter's right and the like. I obtained a job at the Department of Justice and then in the local
US Attorney's office. It wasn't long before I figured out that I could have a greater impact on the fair administration of justice
as a prosecutor than I could ever have as a defense attorney. I became one of the more active prosecutors in our office to look
more deeply into the concept of using our unique position to more fairly and equitably mete our justice. When I became a defense
attorney I found that it was more difficult to insure that the proper result was given. Usually I found myself acting more as
an insurance policy to make sure that what should happen did happen. My prosecutorial experience brought greater credibility to
the task. Even so some 50 years later we are still trying to convince conservatives that prison is not the default answer to crime
in America.
Conservatives despite proclaiming that they are the party of personal liberty seem awfully OK with depriving people of their "precious
liberty". When you have 1 out of 50 in jail it might be time to consider what should and shouldn't be illegal and how illegal.
Some folks definitely need to be locked up, but when it costs society 70000 a year per prisoner we should exercise a little more
judgement in when we decide to spend that money.
"... So we are to know nothing about an accuser, his history, his motives, his loyalties? It seems that servants of the deep state are to be believed and protected without question... ..."
"... Let's be clear ~ Whistleblower/CIA who started this plan in January 2016... probably mentored by Brennan. ..."
"... This whole impeachment is sham much like the Russian investigation, it is clear just from the actions that we all have witnessed that the US intelligence agencies are guilty of attempting to overthrow the elected government. ..."
Update (1:45 p.m.): Paul was once again denied a question about whistleblower Eric
Ciaramella by Chief Justice Roberts during Thursday's round of impeachment questions in the
Senate.
He refused to read the question @RandPaul : "My question today is
about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama NSC and Democrat partisans
conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal
House impeachment proceedings." pic.twitter.com/8FIcu47PBl
Paul then took to Twitter - writing "My question today is about whether or not individuals
who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired
with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House
impeachment proceedings."
My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama
National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot
impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
" Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close
relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you
aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to
plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. "
***
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was spitting mad Wednesday night after Chief Justice John Roberts
blocked his question concerning the CIA whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment of
President Trump.
According to both Politico
and The Hill , Roberts told Senators that he wouldn't read Paul's question, or any
other question which would require him to publicly say the whistleblower's name or otherwise
reveal his identity - which has been widely reported as CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, who worked
for the National Security Council under the Obama and Trump administrations - and who consulted
with Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) staff prior to filing the complaint.
Stunning that Adam Schiff lies to millions of Americans when he says he doesn't know the
identity of the whistleblower.
He absolutely knows the identity of the whistleblower b/c he coordinated with the
individual before the whistleblower's complaint! His staff helped write it!
A frustrated Paul was overheard expressing his frustration on the Senate floor during a
break in Wednesday's proceedings - telling a Republican staffer " If I have to fight for
recognition, I will. "
Roberts signaled to GOP senators on Tuesday that he wouldn't allow the whistleblower's
name to be mentioned during the question-and-answer session that started the next day, the
sources. Roberts was allowed to screen senators' questions before they were submitted for
reading on the Senate floor, the sources noted.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other top Republicans are also
discouraging disclosure of the whistleblower's identity as well . Paul has submitted at least
one question with the name of a person believed to be the whistleblower, although it was
rejected. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) composed and asked a question regarding the whistleblower
earlier Wednesday that tiptoed around identifying the source who essentially sparked the
House impeachment drive. - Politico
"We've got members who, as you have already determined I think, have an interest in
questions related to the whistleblower," said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD), adding
"But I suspect that won't happen. I don't think that happens. And I guess I would hope it
doesn't."
That said, Paul says he's not giving up - telling reporters "It's still an ongoing process,
it may happen tomorrow."
Does Ciaramella deserve 'anonymity'?
Of note, Roberts did not offer any legal argument for hiding the whistleblower's identity -
which leads to an
interesting argument from Constitutional law expert and impeachment witness Johnathan
Turley concerning whistleblower anonymity.
Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress -- only
protection from retaliation . Conversely, the presiding officer rarely stands in the path of
senators seeking clarification or information from the legal teams. Paul could name the
whistleblower on the floor without violation federal law. Moreover, the Justice Department
offered a compelling analysis that the whistleblower complaint was not in fact covered by the
intelligence law (the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to Congress). The Justice
Department's Office of Legal Counsel found that the complaint did not meet the legal definition
of "urgent" because it treated the call between Trump and a head of state was if the president
were an employee of the intelligence community. The OLC found that the call "does not relate to
'the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity' under the authority of
the Director of National Intelligence . . . As a result, the statute does not require the
Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees. " The Council
of the Inspectors General on Integrity and EfficiencyCouncil strongly disagree with that
reading.
Regardless of the merits of this dispute, Roberts felt that his position allows him to
curtail such questions and answers as a matter of general decorum and conduct. It is certainly
true that all judges are given some leeway in maintaining basic rules concerning the conduct
and comments of participants in such "courts."
This could lead to a confrontation over the right of senators to seek answers to lawful
questions and the authority of the presiding office to maintain basic rules of fairness and
decorum . It is not clear what the basis of the Chief Justice's ruling would be in barring
references to the name of the whistleblower if his status as a whistleblower is contested and
federal law does not protect his name. Yet, there are many things that are not prohibited by
law but still proscribed by courts. This issue however goes to the fact-finding interests of a
senator who must cast a vote on impeachment. Unless Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can defuse
the situation, this afternoon could force Roberts into a formal decision with considerable
importance for this and future trials.
Technically he's not a Whistleblower, he's an Informant. To be a whistleblower Ciaramella
would have to inform on the CIA. Because that's who he worked for.
If the Senate is truly the Chief Justices Court the Chief Justice can modify the rules
case by case. In this case he made the wrong decision and Senator Paul is concerned I agree
with Senator Paul.
I'd have double-tapped that ****** and pissed in his face while he bled to death. And I'd
have been a little bit "slow" to dial 911 after I'd dialed 9MM.
Interesting how Trump does not need to make any more appointments to SCOTUS. I figure RBG
is not long for the court, but Roberts might beat her to it. Either way, the majority
strengthens by subtraction.
So we are to know nothing about an accuser, his history, his motives, his loyalties?
It seems that servants of the deep state are to be believed and protected without
question...
The Deep State agents must be protected at all costs, including obstruction of justice and
failing to allow relevant information to be submitted without reference to a
whistleblower.
The chief justice will not allow CIA agents who conspire and plan a coup to overthrow the
president to be revealed for it would destroy any sliver of credibility they have left.
I think it's hilarious that they actually believe they can remove a President based on
nothing but hidden "evidence" and that we will all just accept that! These people are the
Alpha and Omega of stupid!
The problem is, there seems to be no court to try him. Actually SCOTUS would be that
court, but it's questionable, if the Conservative bench at SCOTUS would dare to take that
case, even though they would be in majority, since „Chief Judge" Roberts would - as
party in the case - not be allowed to vote in that matter
The problem with all these compromised a-holes, like Roberts is they are slaves to the
state. Their oath to office needs to be rewritten, with hand placed on an enormous money
vault.
Why call someone clearly guilty of sedition a whistle blower?
This whole impeachment is sham much like the Russian investigation, it is clear just
from the actions that we all have witnessed that the US intelligence agencies are guilty of
attempting to overthrow the elected government.
There is a lot of talk here and in comment sections at forums about how the American Empire
is going to collapse soon due to its blunders and Russia and China gaining military
superiority over it. This kind of talk is a type of magical thinking and has no basis in
reality. The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it
the US government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took
it off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy. The economist Michael Hudson in an article called A Note To China (link at
bottom) explains how this works:
The U.S. strategy is to control your economy in order to force you to sell your most
profitable industrial sectors to US investors, to force you to invest in your industry only
by borrowing from the United States.
So the question is, how do China, Russia, Iran and other countries break free of this
U.S. dollarization strategy?
There are a lot of articles on alt.media sites about how China and Russia are
de-dollarizing their economies in order to resist, and eventually end, the US domination of
the global economy that is preventing them from maintaining independent economic policies
that benefit their citizens rather than global elites and US central bankers.
Russia managed to put a stop to overt US economic imperialism after the looting spree in
the post-Soviet 1990s decimated Russia's ability to provide for its citizens and degraded the
country's ability to maintain economic independence. But it still ultimately got caught in
the neoliberal trap. Hudson again:
Yet Russia did not have enough foreign exchange to pay domestic ruble-wages or to pay for
domestic goods and services. But neoliberal advisors convinced Russia to back all Ruble
money or domestic currency credit it created by backing it with U.S. dollars. Obtaining
these dollars involved paying enormous interest to the United States for this needless
backing. There was no need for such backing. At the end of this road the United States
convinced Russia to sell off its raw materials, its nickel mines, its electric utilities,
its oil reserves, and ultimately tried to pry Crimea away from Russia.
China, Hudson argues, by accepting the advice of American and IMF/World Bank economic
"experts" and through Chinese students schooled in American universities in American
neoliberal theory is in great danger of falling into the same trap.
The U.S. has discovered that it does not have to militarily invade China. It does not have
to conquer China. It does not have to use military weapons, because it has the intellectual
weapon of financialization, convincing you that you need to do this in order to have a
balanced economy. So, when China sends its students to the United States, especially when
it sends central bankers and planners to the United States to study (and be recruited),
they are told by the U.S. "Do as we say, not as we have done."
He concludes that:
The neoliberal plan is not to make you independent, and not to help you grow except to the
extent that your growth will be paid to US investors or used to finance U.S. military
spending around the world to encircle you and trying to destabilize you in Sichuan to try
to pry China apart.
Look at what the United States has done in Russia, and at what the International
Monetary Fund in Europe has done to Greece, Latvia and the Baltic states. It is a dress
rehearsal for what U.S. diplomacy would like to do to you, if it can convince you to follow
the neoliberal US economic policy of financialization and privatization.
De-dollarization is the alternative to privatization and financialization.
Loosening the Empire's hold on economic and geopolitical affairs and moving to a
multipolar world order is a tough slog and the Empire will use everything it can to stop this
from happening. But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by
its armies, with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back. That's a bitter
pill for many to swallow but wishful thinking isn't going to change the world. After all, the
new world has to be imagined before it can appear and right now it's still global capitalism
all the way down.
The article in full, and Hudson's work generally, is well worth reading. He is one of only
a few genuinely anti-imperialist economists and he is able to explain in layman's terms
exactly how the US-centric global economy is a massive scam designed to benefit US empire at
the rest of the world's expense.
I was thinking about
winston2's comment in the previous thread. A good way for China and Russia to respond is
to go after those in the MIC; the CEO, lobbyists, financiers, etc... If they follow the money
and take them out, I suspect we all would see a dramatic turn of events. No need to publicize
their early retirement. Make it messy and public but not to the point of taking out
innocents.
Yes, Michael Hudson is excellent, mostly because he's rare economist, that is, one who
begins from the premise that the 'economy' is a set of historically-situated and specific
modes of exchange and forms of human relations. Aristotle located what we call the economy in
ethics and politics; we follow the fairytales of neo-classical economics and global capital
by imagining that it has some scientific autonomy from human social relations. Marx was right
in following Aristotle's insight by critiquing the very idea of an autonomous economy, which
the chief ideological fiction of late capitalism. Sam Chambers and Ellen Meiksens-Wood are
also excellent critics of this obstacle to reimagining a viable alternative to the economy as
it is propagated by the US neoliberal global apparatus.
Inkan1969 , Jan 16 2020 22:34 utc |
42S , Jan 16 2020 22:37 utc |
43
@Daniel #36:
The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it the US
government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took it
off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy.
But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by its armies,
with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back.
Exclude me from this squad. I's always from the opinion that the USA would collapse
slowly, i.e. degenerate/decay. I won't repeat my arguments again here so as to spare people
who already know me the repetition.
However, consider this: when 2008 broke out, some people thought the USA would finally
collapse. It didn't - in great part, because the USG also thought it could collapse, so it
acted quickly and decisively. But it cost a lot: the USA fell from its "sole superpower"
status, and, for the first time since 1929, the American people had to fell in the flesh the
side effects of capitalism. It marked the end of the End of History, and the realization -
mainly by Russia and China - that the Americans were not invincible and immortals. It may
have marked the beginning of the multipolar era.
--//--
The world (bar China) never recovered from 2008. Indeed, world debt has grown to another
record high:
The world governments - specially the governments from the USA, Japan and Europe -
absorbed private debt (through purchase of rotten papers and through QE) so the system could
be saved. But this debt didn't disappear, instead, it became public debt. What's worse:
private debt has already spiked up, and already is higher than pre-2008 levels. The Too Big
To Fail philosophy of the central banks only bought them time.
--//--
Extending my previous link (from the previous Open Thread) about money laundering:
The global TV subscription streaming company, Netflix made $1.2bn in profits in 2018, of
which $430m was shifted into tax havens, reports Tax Watch UK.
The estimated revenue from UK subscribers was about $860m, but most of this was booked
offshore in a tax haven Dutch subsidiary. Netflix claims its UK parent company got only
$48m in revenue. When the costs of Netflix UK productions were put against this, Netflix
was able to avoid paying any tax at all to the UK government. Indeed, it received tax
reliefs for productions in the UK from the government.
A simple question requires a simple answer. Russia's defence expenditure in PPP terms is
probably in excess of $180 billion per year which buys a shedload of "capable military
equipment".
It should be noted that the point Hudson's trying to make in his "Note to China" is to warn
China of what if faces by using historical examples. As S points out @43, Russia's Ruble is
very sound and its dollar and T-Bill holdings are extremely low. The message to China and the
entire SCO community is to cease supporting the Outlaw US Empire's military by supporting its
balance of payments by buying T-Bills. The sooner the SCO community, or just the core
nations, can produce a new currency for use in trade, the sooner a crisis can be created
within the Outlaw US Empire--essentially by turning the "intellectual weapon of
financialization" against the global rogue nation foe.
A MUST READ! Sidney Powell's book
"Licensed to Lie" reveals the strong-arm, illegal, and unethical tactics used by
headline-grabbing federal prosecutors in their narcissistic pursuit of power to the highest
halls of our government. It's terrifying–because it's true. It should be required
reading for every law student, lawyer, judge, politician, and concerned taxpayer.
Sidney Powell has written a book like no other lawyer has ever dared – and she's
pulled back the royal blue curtain of the Department of Justice.
"... Absolutely standard procedure in this case where the conduct took place openly over years would include: a. informants wearing wires; b. securing the crime scenes, including all the properties and the planes; c. simultaneous arrests of 20-50 co-defendants/conspirators ranging from Maxwell and Wexner at the top to most all staff at the properties where the crimes occurred, the pilots, etc. None of this happened. ..."
"... The Bureau of Prisons has two main operations: prisons for convicted offenders and "federal jails". They are completely separate lines of business. The purpose of the "jails" in the federal system, where each District has its own, is to obtain convictions from the detainees. The BOP staff in the jails are members of the prosecution team for all practical purposes. All mail in and out is read and copied. All calls are monitored and recorded. Detainees are placed in units after consultations among the BOP, U.S. Marshals and U.S. Attorneys for the District. ..."
"... Cooperating codefendants may all be placed on the same unit, for example, so that they get their stories straight, while those fighting cases are elsewhere. ..."
"... Snitching is rampant and good information is rewarded by downgrading of charges, lenient sentencing and assignment to sweet spots in the prison system. Berman and his team were involved in formulating and were continuously aware of the most minute details of the conditions of Epstein's confinement. ..."
skeptic23 says: September
3, 2019 at 1:00 am GMT 400 Words Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy ,
because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think
Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it, and I don't think President Trump could have
except by firing Berman. I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've heard of him
and because he instantly and publicly said he would have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept.
Inspector-General investigate Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal prison head
honcho.
The above statement re: Berman is exactly wrong. He is a Trump Appointee and transition team
member.
1. There was no real Epstein indictment/investigation , just a piece of paper
sufficient to take him into custody and institute a criminal proceeding.
Absolutely standard procedure in this case where the conduct took place openly over
years would include: a. informants wearing wires; b. securing the crime scenes, including all
the properties and the planes; c. simultaneous arrests of 20-50 co-defendants/conspirators
ranging from Maxwell and Wexner at the top to most all staff at the properties where the crimes
occurred, the pilots, etc. None of this happened.
They took computers and records from NY and visited Little St. James for a few hours 30 days
after the arrest. see Rusty Shackleford videos. The way they always build a case like this is
to get the little guys to talk and then move up the food chain to the big boys (and girls).
2. The Bureau of Prisons has two main operations: prisons for convicted offenders and
"federal jails". They are completely separate lines of business. The purpose of the "jails" in
the federal system, where each District has its own, is to obtain convictions from the
detainees. The BOP staff in the jails are members of the prosecution team for all practical
purposes. All mail in and out is read and copied. All calls are monitored and recorded.
Detainees are placed in units after consultations among the BOP, U.S. Marshals and U.S.
Attorneys for the District.
Cooperating codefendants may all be placed on the same unit, for example, so that they
get their stories straight, while those fighting cases are elsewhere.
Snitching is rampant and good information is rewarded by downgrading of charges, lenient
sentencing and assignment to sweet spots in the prison system. Berman and his team were
involved in formulating and were continuously aware of the most minute details of the
conditions of Epstein's confinement.
Berman was at the center of whatever it was that happened.
While details on Epstein death are not interesting (he ended like a regular pimp) the corruption of high level officials his case
revealed in more troubling.
Notable quotes:
"... Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence. The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. ..."
"... What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President, the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public. I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath. ..."
"... What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein, but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney. ..."
"... Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. ..."
"... Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them. Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's friends are professional networkers. One reporter said of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man. ..."
"... Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 ( as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite. ..."
"... Statutory rape is not a federal crime ..."
"... At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him. The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large. ..."
"... Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations? ..."
"... Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days at home instead of at jail. ..."
"... In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the police didn't enforce the rule that required him to check in every 90 days. ..."
"... Trafficking is a federal offense, so it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure. ..."
"... Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more leisurely task. ..."
"... Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy, because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it, and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. ..."
"... "It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska, joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried. ..."
"... President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up. ..."
"... he sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper. ..."
"... Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner? ..."
"... Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman, Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very little in the way of political contributions , though that little went mostly to Democrats ( $139,000 vs. $18,000 . I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them. ..."
"... What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this? ..."
"... Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people who asked for Rich to be pardoned . Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton to come to office and pardon them. ..."
"... "intelligence" is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure." ..."
"... James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him , and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing: The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them? ..."
"... There seems to have been an orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's been paid off. National Review had an article, "The Conspiracy Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this? ..."
"... The New York Times was, to its credit, willing to embarrass other publications by 2019. But the Times itself had been part of the cover-up in previous years . Who else was? ..."
"... Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened" to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation ..."
"... As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations. Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they die, I couldn't care less. ..."
"... We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The guards were tired and forced to work overtime. ..."
"... One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/ ..."
"... ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching teens ..."
The Jeffrey Epstein case is notable for the ups and downs in media coverage it's gotten over the years. Everybody, it seems, in
New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover
it. Articles by New York in 2002 and
Vanity Fair in 2003 alluded to it gently,
while probing Epstein's finances more closely. In 2005, the Palm Beach police investigated. The county prosecutor, Democrat Barry
Krischer, wouldn't prosecute for more than prostitution, so they went to the federal prosecutor, Republican Alexander Acosta, and
got the FBI involved. Acosta's office prepared an indictment, but before it was filed, he made a deal: Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to a state law felony and receive a prison term of 18 months. In exchange, the federal interstate sex trafficking charges would not
be prosecuted by Acosta's office. Epstein was officially at the county jail for 13 months, where the county officials under Democratic
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw gave him scandalously
easy treatment , letting him spend his days outside, and letting him serve a year of probation in place of the last 5 months
of his sentence. Acosta's office complained, but it was a county jail, not a federal jail, so he was powerless.
Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence.
The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. Two books were written about the affair, and
fell flat. The FBI became interested again around 2011 (
a little known fact
) and maybe things were happening behind the scenes, but the next big event was in 2018 when the Miami Herald published a
series of investigative articles rehashing what had happened.
In 2019 federal prosecutors indicted Epstein, he was put in jail, and
he mysteriously died. Now, after much complaining in the press about how awful jails are and how many people commit suicide, things
are quiet again, at least until the Justice Department and
the State of Florida finish their
investigation a few years from now. (For details and more links, see " Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein
"at Medium.com and " Jeffrey Epstein " at Wikipedia
.)
I'm an expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking. What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President,
the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public.
I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup
plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where
I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath.
That's what Epstein would do. What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein,
but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly
better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start
giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney.
Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. The reason people call such talk
"conspiracy theories" when it comes to Epstein is that his friends are WASPs and Jews, not Italians and Mexicans. But WASPs and Jews
are human too. They want to protect themselves. Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on
their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework
basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them.
Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's
friends are professional networkers.
One reporter said
of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know
people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least
one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man.
In light of this, it would be very surprising if someone with a spare $50 million to spend to solve the Epstein problem didn't
give it a try. A lot of people can be bribed for $50 million. Thus, we should have expected to see bribery attempts. If none were
detected, it must have been because prison workers are not reporting they'd been approached.
Some
people say that government incompetence is always a better explanation than government malfeasance. That's obviously wrong --
when an undeserving business gets a contract, it's not always because the government official in charge was just not paying attention.
I can well believe that prisons often take prisoners off of suicide watch too soon, have guards who go to sleep and falsify records,
remove cellmates from prisoners at risk of suicide or murder, let the TV cameras watching their most important prisoners go on the
blink, and so forth. But that cuts both ways.
Remember, in the case of Epstein, we'd expect a murder attempt whether the warden of
the most important federal jail in the country is competent or not. If the warden is incompetent, we should expect that murder attempt
to succeed. Murder becomes all the more more plausible. Instead of spending $50 million to bribe 20 guards and the warden, you just
pay some thug $30,000 to walk in past the snoring guards, open the cell door, and strangle the sleeping prisoner, no fancy James
Bond necessary. Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 (
as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government
incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite.
Now to my questions.
Why is nobody blaming the Florida and New York state prosecutors for not prosecuting Epstein and others for statutory rape?
Statutory rape is not a federal crime, so it is not something the Justice Dept. is supposed to investigate or prosecute. They
are going after things like interstate sex trafficking. Interstate sex trafficking is generally much harder to prove than statutory
rape, which is very easy if the victims will testify.
At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him.
The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other
culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large.
Note that if even if the evidence is just the girl's word against Ghislaine Maxwell's or Prince Andrew's, it's still quite possible
to get a jury to convict. After all, who would you believe, in a choice between Maxwell, Andrew, and Anyone Else in the World? For
an example of what can be done if the government is eager to convict, instead of eager to protect important people, see
the 2019 Cardinal
Pell case in Australia. He was convicted by the secret testimony of a former choirboy, the only complainant, who claimed Pell
had committed indecent acts during a chance encounter after Mass before Pell had even unrobed. Naturally, the only cardinal to be
convicted of anything in the Catholic Church scandals is also the one who's done the most to fight corruption. Where there's a will,
there's a way to prosecute. It's even easier to convict someone if he's actually guilty.
Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went
easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations?
Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually
went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days
at home instead of at jail.
In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified
as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the
police didn't enforce the
rule that required him to check in every 90 days.
How easy would it have been to prove in 2016 or 2019 that Epstein and his people were guilty of federal sex trafficking?
Not easy, I should think. It wouldn't be enough to prove that Epstein debauched teenagers. Trafficking is a federal offense, so
it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure.
The 2019 indictment
is weak on this. The "interstate commerce" looks like it's limited to Epstein making phone calls between Florida and New York. This
is why I am not completely skeptical when former U.S. Attorney Acosta says that the 2008 nonprosecution deal was reasonable. He had
strong evidence the Epstein violated Florida state law -- but that wasn't relevant. He had to prove violations of federal law.
Why didn't Epstein ask the Court, or the Justice Dept., for permission to have an unarmed guard share his cell with him?
Epstein had no chance at bail without bribing the judge, but this request would have been reasonable. That he didn't request a
guard is, I think, the strongest evidence that he wanted to die. If he didn't commit suicide himself, he was sure making it easy
for someone else to kill him.
Could Epstein have used the safeguard of leaving a trove of photos with a friend or lawyer to be published if he died an unnatural
death?
Well, think about it -- Epstein's lawyer was Alan Dershowitz. If he left photos with someone like Dershowitz, that someone could
earn a lot more by using the photos for blackmail himself than by dutifully carrying out his perverted customer's instructions. The
evidence is just too valuable, and Epstein was someone whose friends weren't the kind of people he could trust. Probably not even
his brother.
Who is in danger of dying next?
Prison workers from guard to warden should be told that if they took bribes, their lives are now in danger. Prison guards may
not be bright enough to realize this. Anybody who knows anything important about Epstein should be advised to publicize their information
immediately. That is the best way to stay alive.
This is not like a typical case where witnesses get killed so they won't testify.
It's not like with gangsters. Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and
rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty
of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential
informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more
leisurely task.
What happened to Epstein's body?
The Justice Dept. had better not have let Epstein's body be cremated. And they'd better give us convincing evidence that it's
his body. If I had $100 million to get out of jail with, acquiring a corpse and bribing a few people to switch fingerprints and DNA
wouldn't be hard. I find it worrying that the government has not released proof that Epstein is dead or a copy of the autopsy.
"Beyond its isolation, the wing is infested with rodents and cockroaches, and inmates often have to navigate standing water
-- as well as urine and fecal matter -- that spills from faulty plumbing, accounts from former inmates and lawyers said. One lawyer
said mice often eat his clients' papers."
" Often have to navigate standing water"? "Mice often eat his clients' papers?" Really? I'm skeptical. What do the
vermin eat -- do inmates leave Snickers bars open in their cells? Has anyone checked on what the prison conditions really like?
Is it just a coincidence that Epstein made a new will two days before he died?
I can answer this one. Yes, it is coincidence, though it's not a coincidence that he rewrote the will shortly after being denied
bail. The will leaves everything to a trust, and it is the trust document (which is confidential), not the will (which is public),
that determines who gets the money. Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably
changed that because he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the
will.
Did Epstein's veiled threat against DOJ officials in his bail filing backfire?
Epstein's lawyers wrote in his bail request,
"If the government is correct that the NPA does not, and never did, preclude a prosecution in this district, then the government
will likely have to explain why it purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like Mr. Epstein, who registered as a sex offender
10 years ago and was certainly no stranger to law enforcement. There is no legitimate explanation for the delay."
I see this as a veiled threat. The threat is that Epstein would subpoena people and documents from the Justice Department relevant
to the question of why there was a ten-year delay before prosecution, to expose the illegitimate explanation for the delay. Somebody
is to blame for that delay, and court-ordered disclosure is a bigger threat than an internal federal investigation.
Who can we trust?
Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy,
because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it,
and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've
heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate
Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often
honorable.
Someone else who may be a hero in this is Senator Ben Sasse.
Vicki Ward
writes in the Daily Beast :
"It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska,
joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried.
Given the political sentiment, it's unsurprising that the FBI should feel newly emboldened to investigate Epstein -- basing
some of their work on Brown's excellent reporting."
Will President Trump Cover Up Epstein's Death in Exchange for Political Leverage?
President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the
press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but
acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot
in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up.
Why did Judge Sweet order Epstein documents sealed in 2017. Did he die naturally in 2019?
Judge Robert Sweet in 2017 ordered all documents in an Epstein-related case sealed. He died in May 2019 at age 96, at home in
Idaho. The sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were
released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment
figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but
his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper.
Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner?
Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman,
Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who
has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken
Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very
little in the way of
political contributions
, though that little went mostly to Democrats (
$139,000 vs. $18,000
. I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them.
What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this?
Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned
by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people
who asked for Rich to be pardoned
. Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton
to come to office and pardon them.
Acosta said that Washington Bush Administration people told him to go easy on Epstein because he was an intelligence source. That
is plausible. Epstein had info and blackmailing ability with people like Ehud Barak, leader of Israel's Labor Party. But "intelligence"
is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure."
Why did nobody pay attention to the two 2016 books on Epstein?
James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him ,
and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing:
The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them?
Which newspapers reported Epstein's death as "suicide" and which as "apparent suicide"?
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug? There seems to have been an
orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's
been paid off. National Review had an article,
"The Conspiracy
Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's
assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this?
How much did Epstein corrupt the media from 2008 to 2019?
Even outlets that generally publish good articles must be suspected of corruption. Epstein made an effort to get good publicity.
The New York Times
wrote,
"The effort led to the publication of articles describing him as a selfless and forward-thinking philanthropist with an interest
in science on websites like Forbes, National Review and HuffPost .
All three articles have been removed from their sites in recent days, after inquiries from TheNew York Times .
The National Review piece, from the same year, called him "a smart businessman" with a "passion for cutting-edge science."
Ms. Galbraith was also a publicist for Mr. Epstein, according to several news releases promoting Mr. Epstein's foundations In
the article that appeared on the National Review site, she described him as having "given thoughtfully to countless organizations
that help educate underprivileged children."
"We took down the piece, and regret publishing it," Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review since 1997, said in an email.
He added that the publication had "had a process in place for a while now to weed out such commercially self-interested pieces from
lobbyists and PR flacks.""
Eric Rasmusen is an economist who has held an endowed chair at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business and visiting
positions at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the Harvard Economics Department, Chicago's Booth School of Business, Nuffield
College/Oxford, and the University of Tokyo Economics Department. He is best known for his book Games and Information. He has published
extensively in law and economics, including recent articles on the burakumin outcastes in Japan, the use of game theory in jurisprudence,
and quasi-concave functions. The views expressed here are his personal views and are not intended to represent the views of the Kelley
School of Business or Indiana University. His vitae is at http://www.rasmusen.org/vita.htm
.
Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has
been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened"
to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation
Apparently, there will always be many players on the field, and many ways to do damage control.
So the problem was finding a motivated prosecutor in case of Jewish predator with very likely links to intelligence services
of several countries. The motivation was obviously lacking.
Your "expertise" in game theory would be greatly improved if you let yourself consider the Jewish factor.
As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally
I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations.
Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the
world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they
die, I couldn't care less.
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug?
Not the National Enquirer:
Jeffrey Epstein Murder Cover-up Exposed!
Death Scene Staged to Look Like Suicide
Billionaire's Screams Ignored by Guards!
Fatal Attack Caught on Jail Cameras!
Autopsy is Hiding the Truth!
I don't hold AG Barr in the high regard this piece does. While I'm not suggesting he had anything to do with Epstein's
death I do think he's corrupt. I doubt he will do anything that leads to the truth. As for him relieving the warden of
his duties, I would hope that was to be expected, wasn't it? I mean he only had two attempts on Epstein's life with the second
being a success. Apparently the first didn't jolt the warden into some kind of action as it appears he was guilty of a number
of sins including 'Sloth.'
As for the publications that don't like conspiracy theories –like the National Review
-- they are a hoot. We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The
guards were tired and forced to work overtime. There was no camera specifically in the cell with Epstein.
In the end I think Epstein probably was allowed to kill himself but I'm not confident in that scenario at all. And yes the media
should pressure Barr to hav e a look in the cell and see exactly how a suicide attempt might have succeeded or if it was a long-shot
at best, given the materiel and conditions.
19. Why is the non-prosecution agreement ambiguous ("globally" binding), when it was written by the best lawyers in the country
for a very wealthy client? Was the ambiguity bargained-for? If so, what are the implications?
20. With "globally" still being unresolved (to the bail judge's first-paragraph astonishment), why commit suicide now?
21. The "it was malfeasance" components are specified. For mere malfeasance to have been the cause, all of the components would
have to be true; it would be a multiplicative function of the several components. Is no one sufficiently quantitative to estimate
the magnitude?
22. What is the best single takeaway phrase that emerges from all of this? My nomination is: "In your face." The brazen, shameless,
unprecedented, turning-point, in-your-faceness of it.
ER the answer is easy to you list of questions .. there is no law in the world when violations are not prosecuted and fair open
for all to see trials are not held and judges do not deliver the appropriate penalties upon convictions. .. in cases involving
the CIA prosecution it is unheard of that a open for all to see trial takes place.
This is why we the governed masses need a parallel government..
such an oversight government would allow to pick out the negligent or wilful misconduct of persons in functional government
and prosecute such persons in the independent people's court.. Without a second government to oversee the first government there
is no democracy; democracy cannot stand and the governed masses will never see the light of a fair day .. unless the masses have
oversight authority on what is to be made into law, and are given without prejudice to their standing in America the right to
charge those associated to government with negligent or wilful misconduct.
There are big questions this article is not asking either
The words 'Mossad' seems not to appear above, and just a brief mention of 'Israel' with Ehud Barak
One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist
billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many
Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney
Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/
Was escape to freedom & Israe,l the ultimate payoff for Epstein's decades of work for Mossad, grooming and abusing young teens,
filmed in flagrante delicto with prominent people for political blackmail?
Is it not likely this was a Mossad jailbreak covered by fake 'suicide', with Epstein alive now, with US gov now also in possession
of the assumed Epstein sexual blackmail video tapes?
We have the Epstein 'death in jail' under the US Attorney General Bill Barr, a former CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting
him thru night law school, Bill Barr's later law firm Kirkland Ellis representing Epstein
Whose Jewish-born ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage
teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching
teens
So would a crypto-Jewish 'former' CIA officer who is now USA Attorney General, possibly help a Mossad political blackmailer
escape to Israel after a fake 'jail suicide'?
An intriguing 4chan post a few hours after Epstein's 'body was discovered', says Epstein was put in a wheelchair and driven
out of the jail in a van, accompanied by a man in a green military uniform – timestamp is USA Pacific on the screencap apparently,
so about 10:44 NYC time Sat.10 Aug
FWIW, drone video of Epstein's Little St James island from Friday 30 August, shows a man who could be Epstein himself, on the
left by one vehicle, talking to a black man sitting on a quad all-terrain unit
Close up of Epstein-like man between vehicles, from video note 'pale finger' match-up to archive photo Epstein
The thing that sticks out for me is that Epstein was caught, charged, and went to jail previously, but he didn't die .
The second time, it appears he was murdered. I strongly suspect that the person who murdered Epstein was someone who only met
Epstein after 2008, or was someone Epstein only procured for after 2008. Otherwise, this person would have killed Epstein
back when Epstein was charged by the cops the first time.
Either that, or the killer is someone who is an opponent of Trump, and this person was genuinely terrified that Trump would
pressure the Feds to avoid any deals and to squeeze all the important names out of Epstein and prosecute them, too.
The author professes himself "expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking," but he doesn't say how his 18 questions
were arrived at to the exclusion of hundreds of others. Instead, the column includes several casual assumptions and speculation.
For example:
"Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably changed that because
he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the will."
"President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein."
"I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would
have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal
prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often honorable."
As to this last, isn't "quickly [firing] the federal prison head honcho" consistent with a failure-to-prevent-suicide deflection
strategy? And has Mr. Rasmusen not "heard" of the hiring of Mr. Epstein by Mr. Barr's father? Or of the father's own Establishment
background?
I hope to be wrong, but my own hunch is that these investigations, like the parallel investigations of the RussiaGate hoax,
will leave the elite unscathed. I also hope that in the meantime we see more rigorous columns here than this one.
...Also, subsequently, it should have been a top priority to arrest Ghislaine Maxwell but the government, justice and media
lack interest . Apparently, they don't know where she is, and they're not making any special efforts to find out.
"... It's very hard to commit suicide while on suicide watch as described. In fact, most successful suicides in jails do not happen among inmates on suicide watch ..."
"... For this reason, patients coming off of active suicide watch should always have at least one roommate, more if possible. And even more important than being a suicide "alarm" is the psychological benefits of roommates. Depressed patients need social interaction and someone to talk to. ..."
It wasn't just the guards' failure, suggests jail doctor Jeffrey Keller
by Jeffrey E. Keller, MD August 16, 2019
Jeffrey Epstein's apparent suicide while in custody at a Manhattan detention facility has focused intense media scrutiny into
jail suicide prevention procedures. Suicide is the biggest cause of death in jails in the U.S. -- by far. Because of this, all jails
(including the facility where Epstein was housed) have a suicide prevention policy. Since the process was an epic failure at that
Manhattan facility, it might be useful to discuss how a jail suicide prevention program is supposed to work.
Suicide prevention efforts begin when inmates initially arrive at the jail. The booking process includes several questions and
observations designed to estimate suicide risk. Inmates are asked point blank if they are suicidal or are thinking of hurting themselves.
Inmates who have attempted suicide or harmed themselves in the past, those who have been using heroin or other drugs and are facing
withdrawal, and those who have been off of their normal psychiatric medications all have an increased risk of suicide. Especially
important are inmates who face public shaming because of their charges (think child porn). These have an especially high suicide
risk.
Once all of these questions (and others) have been asked, a yes-no decision must be made as to whether the inmate will be placed
on suicide watch. This is often a difficult judgment call. On the one hand, you don't want to miss any truly suicidal patients. On
the other hand, suicide precautions can be harsh, even by jail standards. In Jeffrey Epstein's case, he was indeed initially placed
on suicide precautions.
The process
Let's consider a male patient charged with child abuse who says at booking, "My life is over, so I'm going to kill myself. There
is nothing you can do to stop me." This patient would, of course, be placed on maximum suicide precautions. There are two main goals
of jail suicide precautions. The first and most important is to not allow the patient to kill himself! The second goal is to get
the patient mental health counseling and treatment.
To accomplish the first goal, our suicidal patient would be placed in a cell especially designed to have nothing that could be
used for self-harm. Much care has gone into the design of these cells. The light fixtures must be recessed and inaccessible. There
can be no sharp edges or bits of metal. (I once had an inmate who peeled off a small piece of metal from a poorly designed door and
sliced open his brachial artery. He did not die, thank goodness.) Even the pegs to hang clothes on are designed so they cannot support
a person's weight.
Since regular clothes, blankets, and sheets can be torn and braided to make a noose, our patient would be issued a special suicide
garment and blanket. These are designed to be impossible (or nearly so) to be used to hang oneself. These are too tough to be ripped
into anything that could be used as a noose. The garment has Velcro stays not strong enough to support a person's weight. However,
suicide garments are certainly not comfortable. Some patients think they are demeaning, refuse to wear them, and walk around naked.
Since some suicidal patients can still find ways to harm themselves despite the special cell and special garments, suicidal patients
are usually placed under observation as well. Suicide cells typically have large plexiglass windows to allow easy observation. How
observation works varies from jail to jail. Some jails use "sitters" to observe suicidal patients. These are people whose only job
is to sit by the plexiglass window and watch, 24/7. If the patient is on the toilet, the sitter is watching. Other jails have more
informal observation of suicidal patients, usually by correctional officers who have other tasks to do besides watching the inmate.
Almost always, though, the officer must document a visual check of suicidal patients on a log every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day.
The second goal of suicide observation is to get the patient mental health treatment. Mental health professionals will typically
see a patient on suicide watch at least every day. Psychiatrists or other medical practitioners will also see these patients and
prescribe appropriate psychiatric medications. Patients who are actively a danger to themselves (think repeatedly running headfirst
into the wall) may need physical restraint, perhaps with a specially designed chair or involuntary sedation pending commitment procedures.
Most suicidal patients stabilize over time thanks to counselling, medications, and self-reflection. After three days of suicide
precautions, our patient might say, "I'm not suicidal any more. I won't hurt myself." Usually, suicide precautions are phased out
in a step-wise fashion. Our patient might be given back his regular clothes but kept under observation for one more day, then sent
to regular housing.
It's very hard to commit suicide while on suicide watch as described. In fact, most successful suicides in jails do not happen
among inmates on suicide watch. Jeffrey Epstein is a prime example. He had been released from active suicide watch. The correctional
officers were still supposed to do checks on him every 30 minutes (which they evidently did not do) but this was because he was in
a special housing cell rather than an open dorm.
Special housing cells tend to be small, typically two beds, and have small windows or observation ports on the door. The only
way to see inside is to walk up and look inside. Correctional officers are supposed to do this with all special housing cells every
30 minutes.
Of course, if you really want to commit suicide, 30 minutes is plenty of time. If the officers are not doing the checks, well,
that gives you even more leeway. However, in Jeffrey Epstein's case, the critical factor was not that the checks were not being done,
it was that he did not have a roommate! It is much harder to commit suicide with a roommate who will sound the alarm. It is even
harder when you are in a dorm with 40 others, any of whom can intercede.
For this reason, patients coming off of active suicide watch should always have at least one roommate, more if possible. And
even more important than being a suicide "alarm" is the psychological benefits of roommates. Depressed patients need social interaction
and someone to talk to. Isolation is psychologically hard, which you do not want to inflict on a patient who was recently suicidal.
According to news reports, Epstein's roommate was released and he was left isolated. This was perhaps the biggest mistake in his
case, even more than the 30-minute special housing checks not being done.
Jail suicide prevention programs absolutely work to reduce suicides when functioning properly. In Epstein's case, there were evidently
multiple failures.
Jeffrey E. Keller, MD, FACEP, is a board-certified emergency physician with 25 years of experience before moving full time
into his "true calling" of correctional medicine. He now works exclusively in jails and prisons, and blogs about correctional medicine
at JailMedicine.com .
Let's talk for a minute about the increasingly open hostilities between "get soft on crime"
prosectors from Deep Blue cities and states and an alliance of Red State and county
prosecutors with the backing of Bill Barr's DOJ.
Barr addressed the issue about a week ago in New Orleans:
And, like clockwork, a cause celebre erupts in North suburban Chicago, as a gang of street
thugs uses car stolen in the city to travel to Lake County on a nighttime spree. But as luck
would have it, a 75 year old man with a legally registered gun shot one of the gang bangers
(a 14 year old carrying a large Bowie knife) and killed him. The 18 year old accomplices took
off, and now the County Attorney is bringing charges of Felony Murder against the rest of the
criminal squad. Well, the Chicago media is outraged by this, and the pressure is building on
the prosecutor to go light on the poor dears, most of whom have a rap sheet a mile long.
In about 5 seconds, I expect Kim Foxx (of Jussie Smollett fame) to get on a very high
horse and start race baiting Lake County (largely white) in an effort to intimidate our
elected officials into adopting her "leave no criminal behind" strategy for cleaning up
Chicago's streets. I guess the strategy is to send them outside the city on raiding runs.
I'd be interested in stories from other parts of the country. Is anyone else experiencing
something similar? How do we fight this trend? What does it portend for the future?
"... A secret plea bargain and non-prosecution agreement with the federal government is what happened. It shifted the public face to the Florida state court system with Epstein pleading to two state prostitution crimes, which implied, of course, that the complainants were prostitutes. The public is now aware that the result was Epstein sleeping at the county jail and then going to his office during the day, for 13 months. Registering as a sex offender has not curtailed his travel or daily activity. ..."
"... The whole nasty business disappeared from view and would have stayed hidden in its nicely wrapped package except that two civil lawsuits have pulled some of it into the light. ..."
"... With that background, we come to the recent fascinating events, in which Epstein was arrested, and the role of Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta in this whole rotten mess was revealed to some extent. He had been the U.S. Attorney for that part of Florida at that time ..."
"... There you have it: "... this case ... had input and vetting at multiple levels of the Department of Justice." The cat was out of the bag. It was a sad sight: Alex Acosta, after achieving two significant positions in the federal government, took a dive to be the fall guy. ..."
"... The non-prosecution agreement has signature dates from 24 September to 7 December 2007, and page 3 of Robert Josefsberg's lawsuit against Epstein confirms this. The Department of Justice is a bureaucracy, and even though a U.S. Attorney has significant authority and some independence, the Justice Department in Washington D.C. -- sometimes called "Main Justice" -- ultimately controls things. In the organizational chart, the U.S. Attorneys are under the Deputy Attorney General, the number two person [6] ..."
"... The U.S. Attorney General from 3 February 2005 to 17 September 2007 was Alberto Gonzales. Michael Mukasey was nominated on 17 September and became Attorney General on 8 November 2007 until Eric Holder was sworn in on 3 February 2009. ..."
"... The FBI Director from 4 September 2001 to 4 September 2013 was Robert Mueller. ..."
"... And from July 2008 into this year, the Justice Department has resisted the CVRA lawsuit in Florida. ..."
"... This material is presented here for viewing or downloading so that you can think for yourself. Mass media has reported next to nothing about the 11-year course of the Crime Victims' Rights Act lawsuit and the detail in the first 22 pages of the trial court's opinion, other than that the court found the government violated the CVRA. I am not aware of one word reported about the 2010 lawsuit brought by Robert Josefsberg against Epstein for breaching the non-prosecution agreement. ..."
"... Jeffrey Epstein was being protected. The process and communications that accomplished it, and who did it, are not yet known. ..."
"... Why nobody is above the law! Not even a President! Oh! Wait! 23 flights! And a scion of the house of Windsor allegedly involved as well? ..."
"... "The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida immunized all named and unnamed "potential co-conspirators" in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and also any powerbrokers who may have molested them." ..."
"... Who gets a plea deal in which "all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators" get immunity? https://gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971 ..."
"... Epstein's NPA was limited to the Florida district of federal courts, hence another branch of the federal courts, the Southern District of New York, was free to re-open the issue..and did. ..."
"... Acosta says he acted in accordance with his superior's wishes at the DOJ. Plausible, but lets see some corroborating evidence. If he agreed to negotiate this NPA without getting his boss's orders in writing he is a remarkable fool. ..."
"... Arkancide? Epstein is linked with E Barak, and Nicole Junkermann, per flight logs. Presumably that is the intelligence link Acosta was babbling about. https://carbyne911.com/team/ ..."
"... Doubt if Bubba Bill was involved in any of Epstein's sexual shenanigans after being burnt by Lewinsky. Clinton always had the proverbial ability to "talk a dog off a gut wagon" and could most likely find an agreeable partner elsewhere. Might be wrong but doubt it. ..."
"... If I understand correctly, Epstein broke the agreement. Would it follow that the WTF!? immunity deal is now nixed? ..."
"... Crossing the Clinton cabal in any manner is seriously dangerous. The list of those who have and died mysteriously is very long. ..."
"... The sweetheart deal that Epstein received from Acosta and the DOJ seems rather unusual for the felony that is such a social taboo as you note. Not only did he get off extremely lightly but his co-conspirators were completely let off the hook. The way the children who were raped were also treated by the courts was also shameful. ..."
"... This case epitomizes the travesty of the current state of the rule of law. Sexual predators of children are typically thrown the book and quickly taken off the streets to serve a long sentence. Not only did that not happen but even worse he was allowed to continue his despicable behavior out in the open even when he was supposed to be serving his sentence. Clearly he had some powerful friends in the Bush administration, but even with these connections when such execrable behavior is shown repeatedly there were none with a conscience. A sad testament to the state of our justice system. ..."
"... The usual plea agreement requires the defendant to plead guilty to some federal criminal offense. The Epstein agreement did not require him to plead to a federal crime. It also did not require him to debrief or provide them with information. To the contrary, it required that the federal government do nothing to him or to other people who helped him or conspired with him to commit federal crimes! ..."
16 July 2019Alex Acosta let the cat out of the bag: the Justice Department knew all about the Jeffrey Epstein Florida
plea deal
A taboo in our culture that is also a crime is sexual contact with a child or young person -- usually less than 17 or 18 years
old -- by an adult or older person. An exception is sexual experimentation during the struggle of adolescence, when the persons are
no more than around two or three years apart in age, as long as there is consent. A greater age difference creates the crime often
called "statutory rape", in which a statute (a law passed by a legislature) says that legal consent for sexual contact cannot be
given by the underage person.
This taboo is a strong one, even more so than homicide, about which there are various levels and justifications, such as self-defense.
All over the country on a regular basis, underage sex crime cases are tried to a jury, even without medical or forensic evidence.
And with just one complainant and victim.
But then Jeffrey Epstein is named as a suspect in underage sex crimes in Palm Beach County, Florida, with not one complainant,
but with at least 20.
What was the local State Attorney, Barry Krischer, going to do? Apparently, not very much. Attention shifted to the federal U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, and the FBI. Was a federal prosecution pursued? No. Nothing.
A secret plea bargain and non-prosecution agreement with the federal government is what happened. It shifted the public face
to the Florida state court system with Epstein pleading to two state prostitution crimes, which implied, of course, that the complainants
were prostitutes. The public is now aware that the result was Epstein sleeping at the county jail and then going to his office during
the day, for 13 months. Registering as a sex offender has not curtailed his travel or daily activity.
The whole nasty business disappeared from view and would have stayed hidden in its nicely wrapped package except that two
civil lawsuits have pulled some of it into the light.
On 7 July 2008, a case under the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was filed in the Southern District of Florida by lawyers
Paul Cassell, Bradley Edwards, and two others against the federal government, with case number 08-cv-80736 [1]. Around ten and a
half years later, on 21 February 2019, the trial court judge issued a 33-page opinion and order granting a request for partial summary
judgment by two victims, ruling that there was no genuine issue of material fact about the assertion that the government violated
the CVRA by failing properly to confer with the victims, and that therefore a contested trial on that issue is not necessary. The
opinion is worth reading, and the first 22 pages are a detailed statement of facts about the non-prosecution agreement and the activity
surrounding it by lawyers for the government and Epstein, giving an insight into what was going on. The beginning of the opinion
references four startling factual assertions made by the complainants in their request for summary judgment and which the federal
government admitted without qualification in its response [2]:
"1. Between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls, including Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2,
at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, located in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere in the United States and overseas.
"2. Because Epstein and his co-conspirators knowingly traveled in interstate and international commerce to sexually abuse Jane
Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly situated victims, they committed violations of not only Florida law (see, e,g., Fla. Stat.
sections 794.05, 796.04, 796.045, 39.201 and 777.04), but also federal law, including repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. sections 1591,
2421, 2422, 2423, and 371).
"3. In addition to personally abusing his victims, Epstein also directed other persons to sexually abuse the girls. For example,
Nadia Marcinkova sexually abused Jane Doe 1 and other victims at the direction of Epstein.
"8. More generally, the FBI established that Epstein used paid employees to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein
worked in concert with others to obtain minor girls not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification
of others."
The present court activity is to figure out a procedure to determine a remedy for the government's violation of the CVRA and to
establish a remedy.
On 17 May 2010, a lawsuit revealing more of Epstein's degenerate attitude and mentality was filed in federal court in the Southern
District of Florida, with case number 10-cv-21586. It was based on parts 7 and 8 of the plea bargain / non-prosecution agreement,
that--
"7. The United Sates shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined
in 18 U.S.C. section 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the
United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative
for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the indentified individuals through that representative.
"8. [In part] If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra , elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest
damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to
proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. section 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal,
or common law."
Title 18, U.S. Code, section 2255, creates the right for an underage person (a minor) to bring a civil lawsuit in federal court
for money for personal injury suffered as a victim of certain federal crimes. The victim can seek money for the actual harm suffered,
or the fixed amount of $150,000, plus attorney fees and litigation costs. [3].
The attorney representative selected to help the females who wanted to seek compensation by that route under the non-prosecution
agreement (NPA) was Robert Josefsberg, of the Podhurst & Orseck law firm in Miami, Florida, known to have experience in litigation.
Some number over 12 of the 34 females named by the U.S. Attorney's Office as complainants against Epstein sought compensation through
the representative.
However, although Epstein agreed in the NPA to pay the attorney representative and to not contest liability in the claims the
females made under 18 U.S.C. 2255, he not only breached the agreement by contesting liability in the cases, but also he paid only
a small part of what was owed to Josefsberg, and tried to stiff the representative by not paying over $2 million dollars due for
attorney fees and costs!
For over 20 months, Josefsberg tried unsuccessfully to get Epstein to pay him under the NPA, and finally sued Epstein for breach
of contract and breach of the implied doctrine of good faith and fair dealing. Attached to the lawsuit document was a copy of the
NPA. Here are the scandalous plea bargain / non-prosecution agreement and addendum, and the informative original petition brought
by the representative for some of the victimized females:
This produced an amusing turn of events, shown by the court clerk's docket sheet. Epstein quickly settled with the attorney representative
by 8 June 2010, only 22 days after the lawsuit was filed [4]. After all, he had breached the NPA and it could have been cancelled
(and should have been) and a prosecution started in Florida.
Picking apart the NPA is in itself an interesting exercise, but looking at the agreement as a whole, you can see that it is designed
to keep his sexually abusive conduct from being disclosed, both as to criminal charges -- he pled only to state prostitution offenses
-- and as to civil cases involving females who decided to seek compensation through the NPA's representative and 18 U.S.C. section
2255. In those civil cases, Epstein agreed to not challenge his liability, so no stories would be told in court; the only issue would
be the amount of money to be paid.
With that background, we come to the recent fascinating events, in which Epstein was arrested, and the role of Labor Secretary
Alexander Acosta in this whole rotten mess was revealed to some extent. He had been the U.S. Attorney for that part of Florida at
that time. The NPA on page 2 asserted that: "On the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern
District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida,
provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below".
Well, not exactly. When publicity heated up, fingers were pointed at Acosta with the usual hollering by some that he should resign.
This produced a pathetic press conference on Wednesday, 10 July, in which Acosta tried to justify what the materials presented above
reveal [5]. On Friday, 12 July, when president Trump went outside the White House to talk to the press before leaving on a trip,
Acosta went with him. At around 1 minute, 40 seconds into this short video excerpt, Acosta says:
"I have seen coverage of this case, that is over 12 years old, that had input and vetting at multiple levels of the Department
of Justice. And as I look forward, I do not think it is right and fair for this administration's labor department to have Epstein
as the focus, rather than the incredible economy that we have today. And so I called the president this morning. I told him that
I thought the right thing was to step aside...."
There you have it: "... this case ... had input and vetting at multiple levels of the Department of Justice." The cat
was out of the bag. It was a sad sight: Alex Acosta, after achieving two significant positions in the federal government, took a
dive to be the fall guy.
"Multiple levels" of "input" and "vetting" at the DOJ, you say? Who might that be?
The non-prosecution agreement has signature dates from 24 September to 7 December 2007, and page 3 of Robert Josefsberg's
lawsuit against Epstein confirms this. The Department of Justice is a bureaucracy, and even though a U.S. Attorney has significant
authority and some independence, the Justice Department in Washington D.C. -- sometimes called "Main Justice" -- ultimately controls
things. In the organizational chart, the U.S. Attorneys are under the Deputy Attorney General, the number two person [6]
The U.S. Attorney General from 3 February 2005 to 17 September 2007 was Alberto Gonzales. Michael Mukasey was nominated on
17 September and became Attorney General on 8 November 2007 until Eric Holder was sworn in on 3 February 2009.
The FBI Director from 4 September 2001 to 4 September 2013 was Robert Mueller.
More research is needed to identify persons in various positions in the Department of Justice from 2005 through at least 2010,
when Epstein breached the NPA by contesting liability and failing to pay attorney fees and costs, and had to be sued by Robert Josefsberg
and the Podhurst & Orseck law firm.
And from July 2008 into this year, the Justice Department has resisted the CVRA lawsuit in Florida.
The CVRA opinion on page 3 confirmed that by May 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had drafted a 53-page indictment and an 82-page
prosecution memorandum about federal sex crimes committed by Epstein. The opinion on pages 5-6 quotes a letter to Epstein's counsel
that the U.S. Attorney's office did not have the power to bind the Immigration service, but that they did not plan on bringing immigration
charges against two of Epstein's female co-conspirators.
The CVRA opinion on page 7 tells us that--
"On September 21, 2007, Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer wrote the line prosecutor [Assistant U.S. Attorney] about
the proposed agreement and added: 'Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I
would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation'."
This material is presented here for viewing or downloading so that you can think for yourself. Mass media has reported next
to nothing about the 11-year course of the Crime Victims' Rights Act lawsuit and the detail in the first 22 pages of the trial court's
opinion, other than that the court found the government violated the CVRA. I am not aware of one word reported about the 2010 lawsuit
brought by Robert Josefsberg against Epstein for breaching the non-prosecution agreement.
From this information, you can see the brazen lack of a basis for the extra protection put in the plea bargain / NPA on page 5,
that--
"In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein
successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute
any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross,
Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova."
Jeffrey Epstein was being protected. The process and communications that accomplished it, and who did it, are not yet known.
[1] The Crime Victims' Rights Act, Title 18, United States Code, section 3771
[2] The request (motion) for partial summary judgment by the victims (Jane Doe 1 and 2) contained a list of what they claimed
were 157 undisputed material facts. The federal government filed a response which either admitted, or admitted with a qualification,
or denied the asserted facts. The numbered facts 1, 2, 3, and 8 were admitted.
I had hoped we would learn from today's hearings more regarding Epstein's source of wealth - and exactly how much it was. Plus
more info on his doctored passport. More about the money trail between him and various Florida officials.
Anyone new calling
the tip line - especially from during his time as a teacher at that prep school in NY? And more about the Dershowitz and Starr
involvement back 12 years ago.
Unfortunately the food fight between Trump and the four frosh sucked all the air out of the media.
Came across this site with the court documents .The FBI travelled to Australia in 2011 and interviewed ms Roberts at the american
consulate in Sydney.9 years ago then in 2015 she sued Epstein and maxwell. Only now in 2019 did Epstein fly back from Paris knowing
he was going to be arrested.
Some of those girls were collecting info for him and getting paid. The whole thing stinks time
to call in the plumbers.
Many things are disposed of by plea Bargaining. With high profile crimes, it is always difficult to know if you did the right
thing. Here, it is fairly obvious it wasn't. Acosta is a Harvard College/HLS, a very able and connected guy and his error here
has damaged his life.
The part that I haven't seen being reported or discussed:
"The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of Florida immunized all named and unnamed "potential co-conspirators" in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes
those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and also any powerbrokers who may have molested them."
Thanks for the link to the NPA I didn't realize it was in the public domain, it is an astonishing read. I'm not familiar with
NPA's (having never been party to one!) so forgive me if the following questions are uninformed:
To what extent are NPA's legally binding upon the USG, are there circumstances where a court can set one aside for reasons
other than breach of contract?
The NPA appears to try and indemnify Epstein and both known and unknown co-conspirators (Ghislaine Maxwell?) in both the offenses
prosecuted and any other offenses subject to the joint USAO/FBI investigation . In fact on page 5 the indemnity given uses
the wording "the [US] also agrees it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators
of Epstein included but not limited to.." (my emphasis) i.e. scope here appears to be unlimited. This cannot be legally enforceable
surely?
I thought NPA's were used to go after people further up the food chain. This one seems to have given carte blanche immunity
to all involved at every level. I'm astonished Acosta had the authority, merely with "consultation" within DOJ to do this. This
is a travesty and is starting to make FISA abuse look like chicken feed.
Epstein's NPA was limited to the Florida district of federal courts, hence another branch of the federal courts, the Southern
District of New York, was free to re-open the issue..and did.
Acosta says he acted in accordance with his superior's wishes at the DOJ. Plausible, but lets see some corroborating evidence.
If he agreed to negotiate this NPA without getting his boss's orders in writing he is a remarkable fool.
Was Acosta making an "error"? Looks to me he was a fully paid up member of the Swamp, doing what swampians do and he will no doubt
settle back into a Swamp law firm or Professorship somewhere. Weep not for him.
Arkancide? Epstein is linked with E Barak, and Nicole Junkermann, per flight logs. Presumably that is the intelligence link
Acosta was babbling about. https://carbyne911.com/team/
yes. I con't see him living much longer. On Morning joe today, Joe and his imbecile consort went on at length about a party
in 1992 at Mar A Lago for a bunch of NFL cheerleaders. Trump, Epstein and other me stood around ogling the ladies. So what! Not
a word was said about the absent Bill Clinton.
Doubt if Bubba Bill was involved in any of Epstein's sexual shenanigans after being burnt by Lewinsky. Clinton always had
the proverbial ability to "talk a dog off a gut wagon" and could most likely find an agreeable partner elsewhere. Might be wrong
but doubt it.
Ogling NFL cheerleaders, big deal. That seemed pretty normal to me. I'm waiting for more to come out about the 1992 private party
at Mar a Lago with Trump, Epstein and 28 calendar girls. I get the feeling Trump is going tweet crazy right now primarily to change
the subject. With Trump, Clinton, the DOJ enablers who protected Epstein and probably a host of others, Epstein is bound to be
whacked as you and walrus said.
Yes, the MSM are predictably silent about Bill Clinton and other leftists who are/were buddies with Epstein. I guess with all
of his money, he could murder someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and...
If I understand correctly, Epstein broke the agreement. Would it follow that the WTF!? immunity deal is now nixed?
What a rotten underbelly oozes out. This foul beast needs to be wrestled into the light. Where is the people's champion?
There must be some good people in there somewhere.
The sweetheart deal that Epstein received from Acosta and the DOJ seems rather unusual for the felony that is such a social
taboo as you note. Not only did he get off extremely lightly but his co-conspirators were completely let off the hook. The way
the children who were raped were also treated by the courts was also shameful.
This case epitomizes the travesty of the current state of the rule of law. Sexual predators of children are typically thrown
the book and quickly taken off the streets to serve a long sentence. Not only did that not happen but even worse he was allowed
to continue his despicable behavior out in the open even when he was supposed to be serving his sentence. Clearly he had some
powerful friends in the Bush administration, but even with these connections when such execrable behavior is shown repeatedly
there were none with a conscience. A sad testament to the state of our justice system.
Do you think the current case will also just be another white wash or do you think the DOJ will pursue the investigation with
vigor to get to the bottom of his finances and all the other sexual predators of children in his orbit?
You are perceptive about the Epstein plea bargain / non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The one for Epstein is the complete opposite
of what happens in federal criminal cases. Yes, agreements between the Justice Department and defendants are often used "to go
after people further up the food chain". There will be a plea bargain with a cooperation section in it. If cooperation is not
part of the arrangement, that section is left out.
They have a standard form they use for plea bargains, and some sections may be in or out of it depending on the situation.
Classic examples are those that were used by "special counsel" Robert Mueller when he went around putting the squeeze on people.
Here is the agreement between the Mueller group and Richard Gates, who was around Paul Manafort during the Trump campaign--
The usual plea agreement requires the defendant to plead guilty to some federal criminal offense. The Epstein agreement
did not require him to plead to a federal crime. It also did not require him to debrief or provide them with information. To the
contrary, it required that the federal government do nothing to him or to other people who helped him or conspired with him to
commit federal crimes!
I'm not a Trump supporter, but you have to say this for Trump: he banned Jeffery Epstein from his properties and made him PNG
when Trump had complaints about the man's conduct on site.
"The Epstein story touches everywhere, discredits American justice, American media, reaches into the White House, perhaps through
numerous occupants and eventually settles in, a continuing mystery, still protected by a controlled media as it leads us to not
one but 20 billionaires, a secret society tied to Epstein, that represents the power of Israel over the governments of the US,
Britain and Canada."
"What is the real story? First of all, sex with children is nothing new in America. Child sex was the norm when the Pilgrims
landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620 and little changed other than it becoming a convenient tool to smear political opponents.
For two centuries, girls as young as 12 were regularly married off, sometimes forcibly, to men as old as 70 while others were
sold into slavery to work in the mills or join the endless hordes serving in America's brothels."
By throwing millions of dollars at the legal system, Epstein successfully enlisted Alex
Acosta, a sitting U.S. Attorney who just resigned as Trump's Labor Secretary, to grant the
admitted sex offender a non-prosecution and an immunity agreement.
That deal, that a federal judge has since ruled illegal, helped conceal a vast child-sex
trafficking operation that targeted vulnerable minors by offering them $300 and then employed a
kind of pyramid scheme where victims were recruited to find new victims.
For decades now, as a general assignment reporter, I have had front row seats for a
procession of these kinds of defendants. I have seen the likes of Epstein before.
Over my life as a journalist, as the whirlwind of wealth concentration stripped so many
threadbare, these guys have prospered on an unprecedented scale. In our era of late-stage
vulture-capitalism, it is these most ruthless predators that are elevated before their fall by
our corporate media as living deities.
Rogues Rushmore
The elevation of Donald Trump to the Presidency marks the high-water mark for this
underworld crew who masterfully play the compliant corporate media that's transfixed by great
wealth and confer upon those that hold it all sorts of intellectual prowess so as to cultivate
proximity to them.
As we saw in the Federal prosecution and conviction of
Michael Cohen for his role in facilitating the payoff of Stormy Daniels, Trump knows
everybody has a price.
These great white men are their own law. They see themselves as the smartest guys in the
room. They have the cunning to know how to hollow out others so that they can own their souls.
With the precision of an acupuncturist, they pinpoint that pressure point that's the nexus of
desire, sexual pleasure or ambition.
These must be done with sleight of hand but even if you are caught red-handed, as long as
you have high priced representation on retainer, you can outmaneuver
prosecutors.
Weaponized Sex
Charles Kushner, the father of Jared Kushner, President Trump's senior advisor, is another
case in point.
Kushner, the real estate mogul and major Democratic campaign donor, was appointed by
Governor McGreevey to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 2002 and was nominated
by the Governor to be the chairman of the board of the sprawling bi-state multi-billion-dollar
enterprise in 2003.
McGreevey had to withdraw that nomination and
Kushner had to resign when allegations surfaced that the developer's massive donations to
his campaign might have run afoul of campaign finance and conflict of interest laws.
The year before Kushner's appointment, while on a trip to Israel, McGreevey crossed paths
with Golan Cipel, who was in his early 30s. Subsequent press reports boiled down the young
Israeli's bio to his being a former member of the Israeli Navy and a published poet.
In 2002, it was
Kushner who sponsored Cipel, for a hard to obtain work visa in the U.S. and gave him a
$30,000-a-year job in his northern New Jersey office after Cipel had worked on the McGreevey
campaign.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, Cipel was nominated by McGreevey to a
$110,000 job to lead the state's freshly minted Homeland Security office. Cipel's status as an
Israeli citizen and his lack of executive-level counter-terrorism experience sent up multiple
flares which McGreevey ignored.
The young Governor doubled down, as he blew through his very limited 'honeymoon' political
capital trying to make the appointment stick. But the Governor's wild overstatement of Cipel's
work experience doomed the pick and Cipel handed in his resignation in March of 2002. Yet, he
was kept on at the same salary as a "policy counselor" a position he would resign from a few
months later.
In August of 2004
McGreevey resigned from office disclosing that he was "a gay American", explaining he was
compelled to make the bombshell disclosure because Cipel, with whom he had an affair, was
threatening to sue him unless he was paid $5 million (McGreevey reportedly called the U.S.
Attorney Chris Christie to report the alleged extortion).
But as Cipel tells it on his own website he was the victim of sexual harassment.
"All those things that I rationalized to myself seemed very logical at the time, but the sad
truth is that I was acting out of confusion and fear," Cipel writes. "Like many other victims
of sexual harassment, I chose to deny what had happened."
The Art of the Deal
In August of 2004 the elder Kushner, a towering figure in both American and Israeli politics
and philanthropy, pled guilty to a long list of corruption charges that could have sent him to
jail for many years if he had been your run of the mill federal defendant of color in a drug
conspiracy case.
Kushner admitted to hiring a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, who was working with
federal investigators against him, then videotaping that sexual rendezvous and sending it to
his brother-in-law's spouse, who was Kushner's sister.
But Kushner and his lawyers would ultimately outmaneuver U.S. Attorney
Chris Christie , whose major vulnerability was his own infinite ambition for power as we
saw with Bridgegate. The night before Kushner was supposed to be in court to plead guilty, the
U.S. Attorney leaked the still un-inked deal to reporters.
But as the media waited in Newark the next day for the official deal to be confirmed in the
federal courtroom, the appointed time came and went. Behind the scenes, Kushner's lawyers and
Christie's team were going back and forth over the terms and conditions of the deal.
By the end of the day, Kushner would enter a guilty plea as advertised, but he made no
commitment to cooperate with the government or to offer up any potential co-conspirators.
According to the Department of Justice's press release, Kushner pleaded guilty to 18 counts of
filing false tax returns, one count of retaliating against a cooperating witness and one count
of making false statements to the Federal Election Commission.
By the evening news cycle, the morning's news of a plea deal was finally true, and Christie
could bask in the glory. "This is a great victory for the people of New Jersey," said the
federal prosecutor who would soon run for governor. "No matter how rich and powerful any person
may be, they will be held accountable for criminal conduct by this office."
Each of Kushner's 18 tax counts carried a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a
fine of $100,000, according to the DOJ; the witness retaliation count carried a maximum penalty
of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000; and the
false statement charge provided for a maximum prison term of five years and a fine of
$250,000.
Scroll forward to March of 2005, though, and Kushner was sentenced to just two years --
which,
The New York Times reported at the time, was the most he "could have received under a plea
agreement reached last September," with Christie.
It was clear that Christie's office had been out-lawyered by the Kushner team. And the
Christie-approved leak -- before he had closed the deal -- definitely hadn't helped. Before
sentencing, the Department of Justice wrote a letter to the judge observing that, in the final
analysis, Kushner showed a "failure to
accept responsibility" for a long litany of criminal acts that could have landed him in
federal prison for decades."
Without a truly thorough prosecution, the House of Kushner would endure and prosper and
Kushner would see his son go on to greater things sitting in the star chamber of ultimate power
deciding who the U.S. should bomb or sell weapons to.
Equal Justice Not
Our collective attention span is so short and the non-contextual way the news is reported
assures we lose track of the narrative thread so when types like Epstein and Kushner cut their
deals we miss it.
Without the candle power of the Miami Herald 's probe
of the Epstein plea deal, we remain in the dark about how every day great wealth can insulate
the guilty, no matter heinous their crime, from really being held accountable.
Meanwhile, those without means, who are innocent, are chewed up and spit out by a criminal
justice system that is neither blind nor fair.
"We have a system of justice in this country that treats you much better if you're rich and
guilty than if you're poor and innocent," said civil rights attorney
Bryan Stevenson in his TED Talk. "Wealth, not culpability, shapes outcomes. And yet, we
seem to be very comfortable. The politics of fear and anger have made us believe that these are
problems that are not our problems."
"... Mueller's deceptive edits beg the question; what else may have been manipulated by the special counsel to make Trump look guilty? ..."
"... When reached for comment by attorney 'Techno Fog' (@Techno_Fog), Dowd said of the edits: " It is unfair and despicable. It was a friendly privileged call between counsel - with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed." ..."
"... Flynn pleaded guilty last year to lying to the FBI about contacts with Russians and is currently awaiting sentencing. ..."
"... Time to lock up that big nosed sneaky ******* *** bastard Andrew Weissmann ..."
"... They were all hired under the supervision of another sneaky *** ****, "No" Rod Rosenstein...who was behind him pulling the strings, who's business was he really doing ? It sure was not the interests of Justice, nor the good of the US. ..."
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) on Saturday called for the immediate release of "all backup and source information" for the Mueller report
after internet sleuth @almostjingo (Rosie Memos) discovered that the
special counsel's office deceptively edited content which was then cited as evidence of possible obstruction.
" It's all a fraud " tweeted Nunes, replying to a tweet by @JohnWHuber (Undercover Huber), who also posted a comparison between
the Mueller report and a newly released transcript of a November 2017 voicemail message left by former Trump lawyer John Dowd, in
which he asked former national security adviser Michael Flynn's attorney for a "heads up" if Flynn was planning on saying anything
that might damage the president.
Mueller's team omitted key context suggesting that Dowd was trying to strongarm Flynn and possibly obstruct justice by shaping
witness testimony, while the actual voicemail reveals that Dowd was careful not to tread into obstruction territory in what was
a friendly and routine call between lawyers.
Dowd qualifies his request by saying " without you having to give up any...confidential information " in order to determine "If,
on the other hand, we have, there's information that...implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe
a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President but for the country
."
Once again # MuellerReport edited messages
to make them appear more damaging, full transcript of this phone call reveals Dowd's message was pretty typical for a lawyer
and he clearly states he's not interested in any confidential info. What else did they manipulate
Mueller's deceptive edits beg the question; what else may have been manipulated by the special counsel to make Trump look
guilty?
When reached for comment by attorney 'Techno Fog' (@Techno_Fog), Dowd said of the edits: " It is unfair and despicable. It
was a friendly privileged call between counsel - with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed."
Dowd told
Fox News : "During the joint defense relationship, counsel for the president provided to Flynn's counsel documents, advice and
encouragement to provide to SC [the special counsel] as part of his effort to cooperate with the SC," adding " SC never raised or
questioned the president's counsel about these allegations despite numerous opportunities to do so. "
Flynn pleaded guilty last year to lying to the FBI about contacts with Russians and is currently awaiting sentencing.
DOJ stonewalls on Flynn evidence
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has resisted a court order to release the transcripts of Flynn's conversations with Russian
officials , including former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
This raises at least two questions. First, did the DOJ give Flynn the transcripts? And second, did the DOJ violate a previous
court order from Judge Emmett Sullivan to produce evidence during discovery?
Note - per competing Orders, still not certain if Judge Sullivan will require all audio recording transcripts be filed with
court. DOJ seems to read the orders that he doesn't need them. https:// twitter.com/Techno_Fog/sta
tus/1129416066382336000
Note that the 5/16 Order required the production of "the transcripts of any other audio recordings of Mr. Flynn, including,
but not limited to, audio recordings of Mr. Flynn's conversations with Russian officials"
Compliance may be an issue. Awaiting Judge response...
Could there be exculpatory evidence in the transcript that Flynn's team never received?
Law Crime
GoldRulesPaperDrools , 4 minutes ago
Mueller was a dirty cop back from his days in Boston dealing with Whitey Bulger. Like most gubmint employees he can't be
fired when he ***** up (especially if they're a minority or if they get high up in the management pyramid). He should have been
fired from the FBI and probably indicted long before he left Boston.
Add to the fact that he's personal friends with Cankles Clinton's personal legal snowplow James Comey who got her off in
the New Square Four issue up in NY and you have a dishonest and biased party. Trump was the only one who called these fucktards
on their past. Even the rhinos were quiet and gave Mueller props. He and Comey should be looking at a date with a firing squad
along with ex-president Smirking Chimp and several of his leftist cronies.
Pinefox , 8 minutes ago
Let's hope their are some brilliant technologically savvy patriotic citizens who can unearth the corrupt manipulation of
evidence and display it to the American people.
Joebloinvestor , 9 minutes ago
Looks like Flynn got railroaded and he willingly took the trip.
pissed off american , 13 minutes ago
lisa barsoomian used to an ACTIVE undercover CIA agent/NWO lawyer and rod rosenstein wife
blindfaith , 14 minutes ago
Imagine my surprise. What else would 18 radical pro liberal Democrat lawyers do to?
Criminal behavior overdue for prosecution and prison terms, and forfeiture of assets. You know like happens to regular folks.
JD59 , 16 minutes ago
Of course it is "ALL A FRAUD" it is called a COUP, by the DEMOCRAT PARTY AND OBAMA!
It was treason and sedition. The good news is, they will never be held accountable because there is no unbiased justice system.
Just controlled chaos. /sarc
Teamtc321 , 16 minutes ago
Mueller and Clan forged 302's to charge Mike Flynn with a process Crime, FACT. Period. End of Story.
Listen to this from Dan Bongino from December, follow the proof he speaks of that is coming out as fact now. This is the
real Story and it's factual.
Ep. 865 Mike Flynn Was Set Up! The Dan Bongino Show 12/5/2018.
Long, but if you really want to understand how Flynn was set up in a perjury trap, how they did it and then charged
him with a process crime.
It's right there and proven factual. Period.
Teamtc321 , 14 minutes ago
Mike Flynn needs to be exonerated, Now. That is a long podcast from Dan Bongino but it is Factual. Not bull ****.
Flynn was set up with Fake 302's, Period.
iSage , 10 minutes ago
Well, they asked him a question and he got the answer wrong in an interview, I say he committed no crime, except to misspeak
in a FBI interview.
Hardly treason, or anything other than a memory lapse. Try remembering all your phone call details from 2 years ago?
Teamtc321 , 2 minutes ago
The written notes from the interview, the 302's were dated 6 months after the actual interview also. Bongino not only laid
it out, had the doc's to show it.............
Flynn was not only set up, he got rail roaded with the full weight and force of the Mueller Investigation.
They basically broke Flynn trying to defend himself. He lost everything trying to finance the battle.
Non-Corporate Entity , 16 minutes ago
hahahha!!!! Mueller is used to having people in place to overlook his deceptions but now they've been replaced by Americans
LOOKING for his deceptions.
St. TwinkleToes , 17 minutes ago
Note to Self:
The US Government, every local and state official, everyone working in academia, all public service employees, military command,
and all 70 plus unions representing the entertainment industry and those they employ, are your enemy. Avoid these subhuman pos
with all possible means. They are cancers of civilization, a curse upon mankind. Zombies, the walking dead.
Abaco , 20 minutes ago
The first question that should be asked is why the hell is anyone still working at DOJ who is stonewalling the courts and/or
the Attorney General. Doing so is a fireable offense and any money spent walking these schmucks through the paperwork and out
the door is well worth it. In the meantime they should be order to report to the DOJ branch office in Somalia.
Of course Mueller's team unlawfully withheld discovery evidence and of course they falsified evidence. That ******** Weissman
has a track record of doing just that. The fact that the stupid prick still has a law license is evidence enough that the entire
federal "justice" system is completely corrupt.
Robert of Ottawa , 18 minutes ago
Quite so Abaco, this is Mueller's modus operandum
johngaltfla , 24 minutes ago
Mueller is a partisan hack who is used as a hit man by the Beltway elites to attack and destroy innocent people. His track
record is an abomination and this is just anther verification of how corrupt this son of a bitch really is.
artvandalai , 25 minutes ago
I suppose somebody could still say that there is no Deep State. But nobody nowhere can say that this kind of thing isn't
what Deep Staters would do if they existed.
Harry Lightning , 27 minutes ago
Time to lock up that big nosed sneaky ******* *** bastard Andrew Weissmann. He looks like the kind of prick who
will spill his guts once threatened with a prison sentence, because he and everyone on the planet knows he would not last one
day in the joint.
Once they get him to squeal, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down on that treasonous ********** Mueller. Let's see
how tough he really is when the heat is on him for a change. My bet is he wilts like a flower in the summer heat.
They were all hired under the supervision of another sneaky *** ****, "No" Rod Rosenstein...who was behind him pulling
the strings, who's business was he really doing ? It sure was not the interests of Justice, nor the good of the US.
Only when this onion is peeled layer by l;ayer will the countrey find out who truly was responsible for this hit job on the
President, and Trump should use every available means at his disposal as President to get to the bottom of this horseshit.
Abaco , 17 minutes ago
Weissmann, Rosenstein and Mueller, at the very least should each be hanging, todya, half from the Cabin John Bridge
and half from the Woodrow Wilson bridge.
Teamtc321 , 21 minutes ago
Obama Spy Gate is unfolding...
btrp , 28 minutes ago
Mueller picked 16 democrat lawyers for his special counselors office. I'm sure those weasly wittle democrats didn't edit
those transcripts.
turkey george palmer , 29 minutes ago
Seems like they want the country to go lawless. Who would.want.tge United States to go down like that.
Britain is the culprit ultimately. Well besides the little ticks with all the money
MalteseFalcon , 32 minutes ago
The FISA system invites abuse. Get rid of it. In fact jettison all post 9/11 security constructs.
iSage , 16 minutes ago
Get rid of Patriot and NDA Acts, as a start! There are plenty more to repeal too!
Teamtc321 , 34 minutes ago
Obama Spied..............
Seth Rich Died...........
While you ******* Crooked Libtards Screech Impeach.................
Teamtc321 , 35 minutes ago
The Rats are being rolled out as the Treasonous Scum they are. Obama Spy-Gate is showing it's face..........
Flynn was set up in a Perjury Trap to get a shitty process crime charge......... Mueller is a Dirty MFER................
Mike Flynn need to be Exonerated, NOW !!!!!!
========================
Former Deputy Assistant AG Toensing: There Is Evidence Obama Administration FISA Abuse Started As Early As 2012 (VIdeo)
On Friday night Sean Hannity invited several expert sources on the Deep State spying scandal to discuss the latest developments
in the government spying on the Trump campaign, Trump Transition team and Trump administration.
With such overwhelming evidence of DOJ, FBI and IC / proprietorial fraud, if there are is no "real" investigation - which
should be a mere formality - to confirm severe malfeasance, and worse, followed up by prosecution and punishment, then I'm staying
the **** home next elections ... totally sick of this ******* two-tiered ****.
So Strzok worked with Mueller in Boston. Really close circle of friends.
Notable quotes:
"... In December 2000, Durham revealed secret FBI documents that convinced a judge to vacate the 1968 murder convictions of "four other FBI informants because they'd been framed by Robert Mueller's FBI. ..."
"... "In 2007," to help protect Whitey Bulger (that's what all those people were held in jail for) "the documents helped Salvati, Limone, and the families of the two other men who had died in prison to win a US $101.7 million civil judgment against the government." ..."
"... Durham got the two surviving framed men released from prison. Robert Mueller was knee-deep in this scandal, along with Andrew Weissman and the agent sent to prison, but because Reno gave him very limited authority, Durham was not able to prosecute Mueller, who was not in the FBI at the time. ..."
"... Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, calling Mueller a "zealot," he reminded Mueller supporters about the former FBI director's role in protecting "notorious mass murderer" Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant. ..."
"... There is also the fact that Rod Rosenstein seems to think well of him. ..."
"... You can be sure there are a lot of people losing sleep knowing Durham is on the case. You might have noticed Rod Rosenstein, the former Deputy Attorney General, is out trashing Jim Comey. ..."
"... Strzok was in the Boston FBI office at the same time. ..."
"... Mueller was the perfect choice for special prosecutor because they have so much dirt on him he'll do whatever they tell him to do. Modus Operandi in DC for many many decades. ..."
Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham was appointed to investigate the origins of the Russia-Trump probe. Apparently, he has been
on the job for weeks.
Durham is the perfect investigator for the job by all accounts and he had experience with Robert Mueller in the Whitey Bulger
case. He did not side with Mueller and Mueller's agents suffered the consequences of Mueller's, some would say, corrupt leadership.
THE WHITEY BULGER CASE
Back in the late 1990s, there were "allegations that FBI informants James 'Whitey' Bulger and Stephen 'The Rifleman' Flemmi had
corrupted their handlers. So, in 1999, Janet Reno appointed John Durham as Special Prosecutor and charged him with investigating FBI corruption in Boston.
As it turned out, FBI agents aided mass murderer, Whitey Bulger and hid his crimes. Bulger was a protected informant. Durham sent one agent involved to prison for 10 years.
Then-US Attorney, Robert Mueller is probably the one who should have landed in the pen. He allowed four innocent men to be sent
to prison for a murder he knew they didn't commit. He did it to protect Bulger. One of the four men was in Florida at the time of the murder and could not have committed the murder.
When Durham went through the documents. He found that the four men,
Enrico Tameleo ,
Joseph Salvati ,
Peter J. Limone ,
and Louis Greco, had actually been framed. Four people who were innocent were kept in jail for years in order to protect the status of Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant.
"[Mike] Albano [former Parole Board Member who was threatened by two F.B.I. agents for considering parole for the men imprisoned
for a crime they did not commit] was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller,
first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting U.S. attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board
throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while
Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset
"
In December 2000, Durham revealed secret FBI documents that convinced a judge to vacate the 1968 murder convictions of "four other
FBI informants because they'd been framed by Robert Mueller's FBI.
"In 2007," to help protect Whitey Bulger (that's what all those people were held in jail for) "the documents helped Salvati, Limone,
and the families of the two other men who had died in prison to win a US $101.7 million civil judgment against the government."
Durham got the two surviving framed men released from prison. Robert Mueller was knee-deep in this scandal, along with Andrew Weissman and the agent sent to prison, but because Reno gave him
very limited authority, Durham was not able to prosecute Mueller, who was not in the FBI at the time.
Mueller kept four innocent people in jail for years to protect the informant status of Whitey Bulger, a mass-murdering Boston
mobster who ended up dying in California, and it ended up costing the government $100 million plus in civil judgments.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ CALLED MUELLER A "ZEALOT"
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, calling Mueller a "zealot," he
reminded
Mueller supporters about the former FBI director's role in protecting "notorious mass murderer" Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant.
"I think Mueller is a zealot," Dershowitz told
"The Cats Roundtable" on 970 AM-N.Y.
". . . I don't think he cares whether he hurts Democrats or Republicans, but he's a partisan and zealot.
"He's the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an FBI
informer. Those of us in Boston don't have such high regard for Mueller because we remember this story. The government had to
pay out tens of millions of dollars because Whitey Bulger, a notorious mass murderer, became a government informer against the
mafia . . .
"And that's regarded in Boston of one of the great scandals of modern judicial
history
. And Mueller was right at the center of it. So, he is not without criticism by people who know him in Boston."
HOW DID MUELLER BECOME THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR?
There were other cases in which Mueller behaved scandalously,
here and here . Former U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Sydney Powell tells the same story. She
calls them creeps on a mission and has a website of the same name detailing the offenses of Mueller and Weissman.
How did Robert Mueller end up as the Special Prosecutor? Thank a Democrat. The Democrats insisted he was a great man of inviolable
character. They said he was the impeccable man and investigator.
There is also the fact that Rod Rosenstein seems to think well of him.
You can be sure there are a lot of people losing sleep knowing Durham is on the case. You might have noticed Rod Rosenstein, the
former Deputy Attorney General, is out trashing Jim Comey.
For his part, Jim Comey hasn't written anything inspirational or anti-Trump on Twitter for four days. He has been giving a lot
of public speeches lately. Maybe he should shut up.
Strzok was in the Boston FBI office at the same time. The entire FBI is crooked. They supposedly couldn't find Bulger for years.
Then the case was going to be turned over to the US Marshal Service. And what do you know, someone in Greenland or Iceland called
the FBI with a tip that Bulger was in California. And just like that the FBI goes and picks him up with less force than they used
to pick up Roger Stone. The FBI is dirty. Every single one of them.
Mueller was the perfect choice for special prosecutor because they have so much dirt on him he'll do whatever they tell him
to do. Modus Operandi in DC for many many decades.
What about the frame up of Edgar J Steele ? Another victim of a corrupt FBI investigation and a corrupt jewdiciary.
I used to find Edgar's "nickle rants" entertaining. What happened to him gave me the biggest red pill of my life.
"Whenever you find something foul, when you peel back the layers; more often than not you find the same maggots underneath
it all." Please forgive my quote may not be precise as I don't have my copy of Song of the Reich handy. I think you get the point
though.
Not for me. I simply assume government is corrupt beyond our wildest dreams. Remember the story of the Dutch banker who escaped
the Illuminati and his story of laundering proceeds from Iranian oil sales when Iran was, once again, under sanctions in former
years? That trucks and trucks pulled up to these German banks loaded with USD. His job was to make sure that money continued its
journey...but not in a truck.
But I'm with Team. What the **** did I just read? This is like being in a small town and learning yet another tidbit in a scandelous
affair. Soap opera-ville. Like, dude! What's goin' happen next?
Mueller appears to have been dirty for some time now. This speaks to the extent of the swamp more than anything else. Mueller
is careful enough to not break criminal law so all he'll ever suffer is criticism for loading up his team with Trump haters. None
of these people will go down for anything unless Weissman is tagged with withholding exculpatory evidence, again.
How do you cost your employer 100 million and still have a job? This is why I don't believe anything. If this true, then our
country is really in bad shape. No American would do this.
There were so many "real dirty birds", but I'd add Hilliary, Holder, Lynch, and Clapper to round out the high-profile list.
As an ex-President and the first "magic" one I expect Obama to get a pass.
Hey fellas, gee wiz. Turns out those guys we gave special rights, special power, specials guns, and special equipment too actually
hurt people with them. Who'd'a thunk?
"As it turned out, FBI agents aided mass murderer, Whitey Bulger and hid his crimes"
Over the past two years, I have heard Sean Hannity bad mouth the upper echelons of the FBI. He consistently goes on to grovel
and talk about the thousands of agents in local offices who are hard working agents doing a great job. I always though his ***
kissing was to good to be true. Now I read just how corrupt local agents are, willing to send innocent people to jail to protect
some dirt bag.
I've come to the conclusion that the FBI is full of dirty agents from top to bottom. Time to abolish the FBI.
Every government agency is. Thats the nature of it. Power corrupts. You think you can create an agency of human beings, give
them special powers, special rights, special guns, special equipment, turn them loose on society and think they are not going
to dry **** everybody who gets in their way?
The FBI (originally the BI) was first headed by Napoleon Bonaparte's grand nephew, a family not noted for republican sentiments.
It was set up as a political police to persecute communists. Fair enough! But as Ward Churchill in his book by the same name calls
the FBI, they are Agents of Repression . It could be communists one decade, conservatives the next, libertarians after
that.
The FBI's reputation as an investigative body is very poor. Its crime lab has made hideous blunders. Its fingerprint section
accused a man in Spain of finding his fingerprints on a bomb until other international fingerprint experts proved that the fingerprints
definitely were not those of the man the FBI accused. Local and state police throughout the US universally loathe FBI interference
with their cases because all the FBI does is interfere with their investigations and do it only so it (the FBI) can grandstand.
It's investigation of the false flag 9-11event was a cover-up, as was its investigation of the false flag Boston Marathon "bombing".
Two of the three "suspects" were shot to death by the FBI and the third is in prison for life for something he didn't even do.
How much did Whitey Bulger give Mueller to earn protection? Therein lies the most critical issue of all. 'How much' could be
how many mafia members the FBI brought down because of Bulger. It could also be how much Mueller benefited in other ways. Payoffs,
anyone?
However, there may be another benefit. What did Bulger know about Mueller? To be black-mailable over many years, and to be
truly effective, it must be devastating and run both ways--let's call it mutually assured blackmail.
It purports to be fiction, but DC, the Dark City is the inside story of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's
a horror story and an eye-opener, politics viewed from inside the establishment.
insanelysane
The Bulger thing gets really interesting because Bulger's brother was the President of the Massachusetts Senate during the
same time. Billy Bulger was a big time Democrat in Massachusetts, shocking of course. So you have 1 brother running the mob and
the other brother, well, running a mob at the State House.
One story, link below, has an honest State Trooper try to search Whitey's bags at Logan Airport. Whitey throws a bag to a lackey
and the lackey disappears. Trooper reports the incident and guess what happens. Trooper is reassigned to hell for interfering
with the Brothers Bulger and the FBI.
Both The Hill and CNN are now reporting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is interrogating
at least eight of my current and former associates and is asking questions about my personal
life, my political activities, my pro-Trump activism, my book sales, my personal business and
even my family relationships. Wait! I thought this was about Russian Collusion, WikiLeaks and
the bogus claim that I had advance notice of the content, source and exact release date of the
DNC emails which so rocked the 2016 Presidential race?
That the Special Counsel is now examining the minute details of my personal finances and
taxes according to The Hill and CNN proves precisely my point; this is not about Russian
Collusion or misdeeds in 2016, this is about fabricating any infraction in order to indict,
silence and punish me for my support for Donald Trump.
This comes on the heels of a fake news assault in which the Wall Street Journal's Shelby
Holliday took exculpatory e-mail I provided her that fell outside the precisely worded scope of
the House Intelligence Committee document request which confirms my claim that I never dealt
directly with WikiLeaks or Assange but had a back-channel. My September request that this
source find out if WikiLeaks had any information on the murder of Qadaffi is a legitimate
journalist inquiry that the WSJ tries to make seem improper in some way.
Adam Schiff's claim that I was obligated to turn this e-mail exchange over to the House
Intel Committee and did not is false and if he could take a five-minute break from the
television cameras he could read the wording of the Committee document request and would know
this. This Shelby Holliday is the epitome of Fake News.
Having come up empty-handed in their attempt to find evidence or proof of Russian Collusion,
trafficking in allegedly hacked emails with WikiLeaks or any advance notice of the publication
of John Podesta's emails, the Special Counsel is now clearly engaged in an effort to conjure up
some other offense perhaps even mischaracterizing independent efforts that I took to
successfully elect Donald Trump, at the same time sifting through my financial records, bank
accounts and personal and family life.
I am mindful of the Alan Dershowitz claim that the average American inadvertently commits at
least three felonies a day and I am facing an ad hoc federal prosecutorial juggernaut, with an
unlimited budget and apparently no effective limitations on anything it does nor any subject
matter or area of inquiry that it has not been broadly-empowered to aggressively scrutinizing,
picking and probing through every molecule of my personal and professional life, deploying
federal agents to conduct fine tooth microscopic review of my political and personal
activities. Including badgering at least eight of my current or former associates.
I recognized Mr. Mueller could indict a ham sandwich but I'm not interested in being his
lunch.
I recognized that this partisan witch hunt is very much driven by this fake news media
outlets like MSNBC, CNBC, Huff Po, Slate, Salon, Vice, The Daily Beast and the despicable Raw
Story engaged in a constant drum beat of misinformation in a relentless attempt to contradict
what Anderson Cooper called "total consistency" in my claims about WikiLeaks and the 2016
election. These people scream for my blood on a daily basis. Now I know how the Christians felt
in the Roman Coliseum when the crowd called for them to be fed to the lions.
In addition to badgering my associates about my finances they also seem focused on the most
intimate aspects of my personal life, my business and personal relationships. Private detective
services have confirmed that my cell phone and text messages are under surveillance and access
to my email was obtained through an illegal FISA warrant that the New York Times reported I was
subject to on January 20th of 2017. Surveillance without probable cause, hoping an offense can
be confected.
The agenda of the Mueller inquisition is clear. It is to silence me as a critic of the
partisan nature of their inquiry and the Gestapo tactics that they employ as well as their
efforts to bankrupt me and punish me solely for the act of being for Donald Trump. It is also
to issue a report that will serve for the basis for an impeachment drive in the increasingly
unlikely event that the rabidly Democratic captures control of The House. The President must
wake up to the true nature of the Mueller juggernaut which has been aided and abetted by the de
facto Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The President's enemies' enmity towards him is rank and
their resolve to remove him should not be underestimated.
Politico has introduced a new potential goal of the Mueller team, which is to threaten to
indict me unless I flip and testify against the President who has been my friend and who I have
wanted to run for President for nearly thirty years. Although the New York Times has reported
that President Trump is "afraid" of me, he has nothing to fear as I am his most loyal and
steadfast supporter.
The solution to our two-tiered justice system? More tiers!
span y gjohnsit on Fri, 04/26/2019 - 6:16pm Edward Snowden made an
observation about the Mueller Report that virtually everyone else on Earth missed.
As Motherboard reported last week, the Department of Justice says that it isn't positive that
Assange helped whistleblower Chelsea Manning crack a password hash in order to obtain cables
related to the Iraq War, but that he's being charged with that crime anyway. Snowden
juxtaposed his treatment with that of Trump's treatment in Robert Mueller's report.
"Mueller says it didn't actually result in obstruction because the people that Trump
ordered to do this simply ignored him," Snowden said. "The DOJ's defense of not charging
Trump is look he tried to commit a crime but he failed to actually do this. And at the same
time they're charging Julian Assange under precisely the opposite theory. Where they say
'Look, Julian may not have actually cracked a password -- we don't have any evidence that he
did, we're not even going to try to prove that he did, we're going to say that the agreement
to try is enough."
"So this is a real question of a two-tiered system of justice. Where if you're the
president and you try to commit a crime, you can skate," he added. "Why is it that
journalists are being held to a higher standard of behavior than the president of the United
States?"
Edward Snowden cut through all the crap and got to the heart of the matter, as is usual with
him.
Only when it comes to the wealthy and/or powerful do motives matter.
A case can be made that there are already three tiers to our
justice system.
The Untouchables
These are powerful people that can simply ignore the law. They don't even have to pretend that
they hadn't broken the law.
Examples: torturers ("we tortured some folks"), murderers ("Turns out I'm really good at
killing people"), and perjurers (in the name of national security)
The Great and the Good
These are generally wealthy people that have to acknowledge that there is a law, and that law
theoretically applies to them...but not really. They often pay token fines for crimes that poor
people would get lifetime sentences.
Examples: Too Big To Prosecute bankers, any large corporation
Apparently, robbing a bank is a criminal activity depending which side of the teller's window
you are on and whether you are upper management or a $12-an-hour cashier.
So what is there to do about this?
Since none of this is by accident, there is nothing "to fix".
The justice system is working exactly as designed - to keep the workers in their place while
robbing them.
Therefore, the way to "improve" the justice system is to create even more tiers.
Our justice system should be divided by race (even more than it already is), gender, and by
subclass (for instance the middle class vs. the poor).
That way the workers will resent each other even more than now, instead of organizing against
their oppressors.
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor has a reqasonable doubt, how can he/she
bring the case before a jury which requires twelve people to not have a reasonable doubt.
And a public admission gives the defense attorney a bulldozer - "Ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, the prosecutor has expressed doubt, how can you not do the same?
span y The Liberal Moonbat on Sat, 04/27/2019 - 12:28am
One thing worth learning from Mitch McConnell: If you know what's really on the books,
there's all kind of shit you can do!
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor has a reqasonable doubt, how can
he/she bring the case before a jury which requires twelve people to not have a reasonable
doubt.
And a public admission gives the defense attorney a bulldozer - "Ladies and gentlemen of
the jury, the prosecutor has expressed doubt, how can you not do the same?
There is no distinction between criminals and the law enforcement within such a system of
elaborately organized but senseless violence, and all law is merely politics, brute force and
cruelty. We have come to the point in America in the early 21 Century where the Nihilists and
Social Revolutionaries were under the last Czars.
Revolution finally makes as much sense as social order, and doing nothing seems to be a
senseless waste of life, itself. As people of conscience, we have nothing but bad choices
available to us. Same with those who rule us.
Joe posted about how lots of blacks in NYC were arrested for being in a gang. Not that they
committed any crimes, but just because they were or might have been in a gang. Another
unjustifiable system here in this land of the free is our bail system. Can't post bail? Tuff.
You get to spend years in jail until your trial comes up.
span y The Aspie Corner on Fri, 04/26/2019 - 10:26pm
"Our country has a 'justice' system that criminalizes poverty + disproportionately targets
race, yet routinely pardons large-scale crimes of wealth and privilege.
"Moments like these tell us it's less a justice system, and more a class enforcement
system ." [My Emphasis]
Look for her and allies to resurrect FDR's mantra from 1944 as they work to enact Medicare
For All and Green New Deal: "individual freedom cannot exist without economic security."
Indeed, there're numerous slogans from the FDR era that ought to be employed as many still
aren't fulfilled.
That's the Haynes being debunked in the twitter exchange I posted above your comment.
Ducks were involved in the initial tale/yarn/fabrication, but they weren't dead.
Tweet
reply by b about Zionistan escalating situation now that elections are over:
"That feeling [invasion of Lebanon by Zionistan] isn't unreasonable. All parties in
Lebanon rejected U.S. demand to go against Hizbullah. Trump may now well give green light to
Netanyahoo and support an Israeli invasion. High possbility of extension into Syria and
beyond."
"... While debtors' prisons are officially outlawed, poor workers are routinely held for their debts. A mother in Indiana was detained for three days in February in a squalid jail alongside convicts because of an unpaid ambulance bill, which she had never received in the mail. Such stories are common. ..."
Rapes, murders, beatings, stabbings, mutilations and arson are rampant. Pleas for help, scrawled in blood, stain the walls from
prisoners held in solitary confinement. Fifteen suicides have been recorded in the last 15 months.
This is not the description of a torture chamber in el-Sisi's Egypt or Bin Salman's Saudi Arabia. Nor is it about the abuse of
detainees at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay or a CIA black site.
These are the nightmare conditions in
the Alabama state-run prison system, described in a Justice Department report released this week. They constitute a gross violation
of the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
More than 2,000 photos of abuse in one Alabama prison given to the media by the Southern Poverty Law Center in advance of the
report's release depict the gruesome reality of the conditions detailed in hundreds of interviews with prisoners and their families
conducted by federal investigators over more than two years.
While particularly horrific, such conditions are by no means unique. They are repeated in different forms in the prisons of every
state, county and city across the United States. More than 2.3 million people are packed like cattle into America's overflowing system
of state and federal prisons, local jails and immigration detention camps. Including those on probation or parole, nearly seven million
Americans are caught up in what is absurdly called the "criminal justice system."
The US accounts for more than one-quarter of the world's incarcerated population. For every 100,000 residents, there are 698 people
in detention. More than 540,000 of those held in jail on any given day have not been convicted of any crime. Many are kept in detention
simply because they are too poor pay to pay the median bail of $10,000. Another half a million, one in five inmates, are serving
long prison sentences for nonviolent drug convictions.
Researchers estimate that 61,000 prisoners are held in solitary confinement on any given day, a form of incarceration that the
UN has declared to be tantamount to torture. At least 4,000 of those held in complete isolation from the outside world suffer from
severe mental illness. Confinement to these living coffins is known to drive prisoners to suicide.
While debtors' prisons are officially outlawed, poor workers are routinely held for their debts. A mother in Indiana was
detained for three days in February in a
squalid jail alongside convicts because of an unpaid ambulance bill, which she had never received in the mail. Such stories are common.
Under the Trump administration, extending the policies developed by Obama, the federal government is waging a war on immigrants,
holding thousands of men, women and children in degrading conditions. Some 77,000 people were detained in February for seeking to
cross the southern border. Immigrant workers are being hunted down and arrested in their homes and at their work places.
The cruelty of the American government was on full display this week when 280 undocumented workers were
detained by federal agents in Allen, Texas.
It was the largest such raid in more than a decade.
Then there is the unending wave of police killings, with more than 1,000 people shot, tased or beaten to death every year on the
streets of American cities. Criminal charges for police killings are rare and convictions almost unheard of. Cops are given a green
light to kill, maim and brutalize with impunity.
With boundless hypocrisy, Democrats and Republicans proclaim their outrage over alleged human rights violations in whatever country
the American ruling class is targeting for regime change or invasion. They proclaim one of the most cruel and unequal societies in
the world, where the three richest Americans control more wealth than the bottom half of the population, to be a beacon of democracy
to the world.
If the conditions that exist in US prisons were exposed in Russia or China, there would be a hue and cry in the press and the
halls of Congress for economic sanctions and "humanitarian" military intervention that would resound in the media.
Fifty years ago, a report such as that exposing the conditions in Alabama prisons would have been met, even within sections of
the political and media establishment, with shock and demands for action, but today it passes with barely a murmur.
The Democratic Party is silent because it is complicit in the vast retrogression in conditions in US prisons. President Bill Clinton
signed the legislation that paved the way for a historic increase in the prison population. The Democrats oversee a prison system
in California that was found by the Supreme Court in 2011 to be "cruel and unusual" and in violation of the Constitution.
The upper-middle class, self-obsessed layers in and around the Democratic Party are disinterested. The promoters of the #MeToo
campaign in the media and academia have nothing to say about sexual violence in American prisons, nor about the violence inflicted
on immigrants fleeing to the United States.
The media has made as little as possible of the report, with no coverage on the major nightly news programs. As with the photos
of abuse at Abu Ghraib and the Senate report on CIA torture, there has been an effort to suppress information of what is happening
in Alabama. The New York Times and other media outlets have chosen not to publish most of the photos documenting abuse and
death.
In the end, this is their state . The conditions of American prisons, and the overall apparatus of violence, is a noxious
expression of the reality of American "democracy." The state apparatus will be utilized in the suppression of social and political
opposition to the demands of finance capital. It is the real face of American capitalism.
"If the conditions that exist in US prisons were exposed in Russia or China, there would be a hue and cry in the press and the
halls of Congress for economic sanctions and "humanitarian" military intervention that would resound in the media"
Military intervention by the US against a powerful state like Russia is impossible. Only the Germans were foolhardy enough
to invade Russia, and lost. All post-WWII US agressions, under whatever pretext, targeted Third-World countries only, unable to
strike back.
Prisons, whether run by the capitalists or the proletariat, whomever is on top, are essentially a working class institution. There
are not too many bureaucrats or members of the ruling class locked away in prisons, anywhere...perhaps unfortunately.
"The Democratic Party is silent because it is complicit in the vast retrogression in conditions in US prisons. President Bill
Clinton signed the legislation that paved the way for a historic increase in the prison population. The Democrats oversee a prison
system in California that was found by the Supreme Court in 2011 to be "cruel and unusual" and in violation of the Constitution."
Kamala Harris was a supporter of the horrendous "three strikes" law in California. So much for women in government being "kinder
and gentler". Then again, we learned of the perfidy of women in government from Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton.
This article is an important and devastating exposure of a rotten social system. Decades ago we published a series entitled "The
Brutal Society" in the pages of the "Bulletin". Earlier still, I believe, we documented the maiming and deaths of workers in the
"industrial slaughterhouse". Everything we have documented is not only true, but has intensified in the intervening years, with
the additive of the Nazi-like treatment of immigrants and their families. These outrages reveal in all their nakedness the social
relations of capitalism. Essence is appearing. Despite the confusion wrought by Democrat's promotion of identity politics, #MeToo
and the like, millions of people are re-evaluating previous conceptions. Increasingly, capitalism is becoming a dirty word, and
socialism, the hope for the future.
Prisons are an industry which profits from the misery of the indigent and the mentally ill.
"The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate
stockholders who make money off prisoners' work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce. The system feeds
itself," the prison industry is "an imitation of Nazi Germany with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps."
In other words, US prisons are profitable concentration camps warehousing two million Americans sans the gas chambers. And
like the Nazis, the victims are carefully selected among the most marginalized by society: minorities, the indigent, the mentally
ill, the refugees, the drug addicted, etc...
In addition, statistics cite that 20% of those incarcerated are seriously mentally ill. However, I bet that percentage is considerably
greater. Prisons, have morphed into mental asylums for the poor. "In 44 states, a jail or prison holds more mentally ill individuals
than the largest remaining state psychiatric hospital; in every county in the United States with both a county jail and a county
psychiatric facility, more seriously mentally ill individuals are incarcerated than hospitalized."
In a hyper-predatory society indigence is viewed as a crime. Being POOR renders one judicially defenseless. "If you want to
stay out of prison choose rich parents. Boys from the poorest families are 20 times likelier to end up in prison than boys from
the richest families."
Only a fascist government would allow CEO's to profit from endless wars and genocide, and permit lucrative concentration camps
to warehouse its own citizenry.
The ruling class parties and the mainstream media networks that speak on their behalf are silent because they are all accomplice
in creating this barbaric justice system that normally targets the poor and working class people. So this is the outcome of a
society that has become deeply polarized in every respect.
This article by comrade Niles Niemuth on WSWS is a vindication of the fact that the US working class and its international counterpart
and youth and students in the US and across the planet need their own media organ based on Trotskysm, the Marxism today. No other
media in human world (capitalist or initiated by the pseudo left that commensurate with ISO, DSA in the US and WRP in the UK)
would be so lucid in revealing the barbarity of the capitalism/imperialism, in this case depicted by the US prison system. One
can logically conclude that in the US one has to find the planet's cruellest prison system with the knodding approval of its judiciary
due to the fact that the Material foundation of the society where the three richest men claim a wealth that is eqivalent to the
wealth of the bottom half of the population of the country. Such a disparity embeded in the material foundation of the country
in fact has to be safeguarded through a horrific anti-human legal system.
Readers of the WSWS, in my view can be proud of Niles Niemuth who contested vice presidency in the last election. Comrade Niemuth
you always live upto the expectation of the US and international working class and youth and students in the US and across the
planet.
This norm observed by you and all the revolutionaries of the ICFI is fundamental to our endeavor in dismantling capitalism/imperialism
and restructuring human society on the socialist foundation.
I know Trump is mad about the rise of socialism in the US and globally.
US capitalist/imperialist establisment has to be treated no1 enemy of the international working class and the international youth
and students. Down with US capitalism/imperialism. Victory to the revolutionary triumvirate. Thank you comrade Niles Niemuth.
In 60th a Soviet children poet Mikhalkov had published a poem about the oppression of civil right movement in USA, calling Alabama
"a feral state" for jailing children.
Now 50+ years since no much had changed.
I live in Alabama and this is an excellent analysis of conditions in the prison system here. Incarceration and police intervention
are the defacto mental health care since mental health services have long been gutted at the same time the state offers millions
upon millions in subsidies to lure already wealthy companies such as Toyota and Mercedes Benz. As this article rightly points
out, there is little difference between these conditions and those in Russian and Chinese prisons.
Frederick Douglass gave an excellent speech in 1852 called "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?", where he ruthlessly criticizes
the hypocrisy of the U.S. to proclaim its commitment to equality and freedom while simultaneously encouraging the continued enslavement
of millions of black people. If Douglass were alive today to compose the speech much of it would be the same, though it would
probably be named "What to the Prisoner is the Fourth of July" instead.
And there is an economic interest in maintaining such bonded labour, withthe incarcerated "earning' somewhere between 9 cents/hour
to about 70c per hour, depending on the state. It is a form of slavery, branded as the criminal justice system.
There's also plenty of money to be made by price-gouging prisoners when they make phone calls. Not much of the wondrous benefits
of free-market competition happening there, when you're literally a captive audience.
The Justice Department and Hillary Clinton's legal team "negotiated" an agreement that
blocked the FBI from accessing emails on Clinton's homebrew server related to the Clinton
Foundation,
according to a transcript of recently released testimony from last summer by former FBI
special agent Peter Strzok.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. has ordered the Syrian government to pay $302
million in damages for the murder of journalist Marie Colvin in a 2012 artillery
strike. The decision, issued on Wednesday, marks the first time in the seven-year conflict
that a court has declared Syrian forces loyal to the government of President Bashar
al-Assad responsible for deliberately attacking civilians.
Then there is the case of Iran's destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001.
Iran is ordered to pay "$12,500,000 per spouse, $8,500,000 per parent, $8,500,000 per
child, and $4,250,000 per sibling" to the families and estates of the deceased, court
filings say.
A 4.96 annual interest rate will also be applied to the amount, starting from September
11, 2001 to the date of the judgement.
I'm mentioning this because of a story I saw on a blog operated by the son of America's
Most Famous Jewish Orthodox Author. The fellow was gloating about the apartheid Jewish state
"...cutting terror salaries from Palestinian Authority taxes..."
The guy's smug satisfaction gave me an idea. What If the US of A chose a number somewhere
between the "life value" of Marie Colvin and the values assigned to the 9/11 victims, and
subtracted the money from the 'allowance" given to the apartheid Jewish state. Every time
they murder a Palestinian, they lose XX million dollars. Naturally the same thing would apply
to times Palestinians murder one of their occupiers.
Or is it "anti-semitic" to even compare God's Most Favorite Thieves and Murderers with the
subhuman creatures they're trampling underfoot?
Just one week ago,
we warned that the government -- helped by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing
police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the
Rapid DNA Act into
law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who
are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping
at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget) -- was embarking on a diabolical campaign
to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.
As it turns out we were right, but we forgot one key spoke of the government's campaign to collect genetic information from
as many individuals as possible: "innocent", commercial companies, who not only collect DNA from willing clients, but are also
paid for it.
FamilyTreeDNA, one of the pioneers of the growing market for "at home", consumer genetic testing, confirmed a report from
BuzzFeed that it has quietly granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation access to its vast trove of nearly 2 million genetic
profiles.
... ... ...
Worse, it did so secretly, without obtaining prior permission from its users.
The move is of significant concern to much more than just privacy-minded FamilyTreeDNA customers. As Bloomberg notes, one
person sharing genetic information also exposes those to whom they are closely related. That's how police caught the alleged
Golden State Killer. And here is a stunning statistics - according to a 2018 study, only 2% of the population needs to have done
a DNA test for virtually everyone's genetic information to be represented in that data.
Looks like the color revolution against Trump continues. What is interesting is that while
Trump position becomes more and more shaky he does not want to fight. And he suppounded himself
with people, which will sell him at the first opportunity. I means first of all this neocon
warmonger Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... It really does tell a story that exonerates Trump of the Russian collusion narrative but also exposes the desperation of Mueller to create a crime where none exists. ..."
"... Where is President Trump in all this? These are all actions taken by his DOJ and FBI appointees. Does he believe that his responsibility ends with a tweet? Why hasn't he hauled Whitaker, Rosenstein and Wray into his office and demanded equal application of the law with respect to Hillary, Clapper, Brennan and Comey lying to Congress? Why hasn't he declassified all the information around the role of Fusion GPS, Clinton campaign, FBI, DOJ, CIA with respect to interference in the presidential campaign? ..."
"... Is he not POTUS? Or is he just a character in a VR game? ..."
"... I think, for what's it worth, that the whole point to Mueller and all the legal harassment and arrests of people associated, even to a small extent with the Trump campaign, is to scare people away from working with Trump on the 2020 campaign and leave the Donald high and dry. That and create an illusion of criminality around Trump. Again, that's an uninformed opinion; just an opinion derived from what I see. Curious to know if you think there's any truth to it. Thx ..."
"... Eric, it's called "file stuffing " a bureaucratic name for assembling a mountainous pile of allegations - 99.9% of which are either trivial or false, that is too big and convoluted for any team of humans to refute in detail at one sitting. ..."
"... Mueller is following the Department of Injustice practice of throwing multiple charges at people, even though they know many of them won't stick, so as to drive up the costs of discovery. Thus looms the prospect financial ruin for all but the wealthiest of defendants. This induces them to plead guilty to lesser charges in order to preserve their retirement savings and possibly long prison sentences. ..."
"... DoJ career prosecutors are evaluated on their out-of-court settlement rates and this is how they achieve high ones. ..."
"... So much for the de facto right of a fair trial. IIRC, when the press got to stone after the court appearance he stated that he'll take this to trial. He may have second thoughts as the legal bills pile up. ..."
I have had to shut off all of the media. The media/establishment hatred of Trump and their
desire to force him from office is palpable and on near continuous display on every cable
channel, including Fox. These pundits remind me of the drowning passengers from the Titanic,
flailing frantically while immersed in freezing water but going no where but down. They are
keen on avoiding facts. Let's be clear what the facts are about Roger Stone.
FACT ONE
Roger Stone had an extremely short tenure with the Trump campaign. He served in an
undefined position as a "campaign advisor" and either quit or was fired on 8 August 2015.
Politico's account of the incident attributed Stone's departure to Trump's comments
regarding former Fox star, Megyn Kelly:
Regardless of who resigned or was fired first, the campaign shakeup was the first sign that
Trump's election effort was seriously damaged from within after his Thursday night debate
performance and his subsequent comments in which he attacked one of the Fox debate moderators,
Megyn Kelly.
Stone was never a critical component or the Trump campaign. He was not an insider and he was
not a "go to guy" for Trump's inner circle. The indictment smears Stone by an unsupported claim
that Stone had regular, continuing contact with unnamed persons affiliated with the Trump
campaign even after his August 2015 departure. Having conversations is not illegal. Moreover,
Stone was never a go to guy for the campaign.
FACT TWO
Roger Stone does have a history with Paul Manafort, who served a brief tenure as
Trump's campaign manager. They formed a political consulting firm in 1980--
Black, Manafort, Stone
and Kelly --and became known as bare knuckle brawlers in the world of electoral politics.
They worked for Reagan and for George H.W. Bush. Worth noting that Manafort's time with the
Trump campaign started off in March 2016--seven months after Stone's departure--as an advisor
on going after delegates. He was promoted to campaign manager on May 19, 2016 and resigned from
the campaign on August 19, 2016 under the cloud of
being cozy with
Putin :
The Trump campaign provided no reason for Manafort's resignation. But in the days
immediately leading up to the announcement, the
New
York Times reported investigators were looking into $12.7 million in undisclosed
cash payments to Manafort from former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, and the Associated
Press
reported he helped a pro-Russian party in Ukraine funnel money to lobbying firms in
Washington, D.C.
There is a lot of speculation about who Stone was talking to.
Person 1 in the
indictment is Jerome Corsi. Person 2 is Randy Credico. None were involved in any
substantive way with the Trump campaign. I would not be surprised if it was Manafort (or
someone acting at his behest) that reached out to Stone to see if he could get any additional
info about Wikileaks plans.
FACT THREE
Roger Stone is a bullshitter and grand raconteur. He can tell you things that
sound spot on but are not true. I have first hand experience with him on this point. I first
met Roger in the spring of 1980. I was teaching in the Washington Semester Program at American
University and he spoke to my class. I did not see Roger in person again until March of
2018--we were on the same flight from Fort Lauderdale enroute to Washington. I introduced
myself and we got reacquainted. Subsequent to that meeting I watched the documentary on Roger
Stone and was amused to see him "credited" (or blamed) for starting the Whitey rumor--i.e., the
claim that there was a video tape of Michelle Obama using the phrase Whitey in a speech before
a group linked to Louis Farrakhan. Why amused? I started that rumor at the direction of Sidney
Blumenthal (I did not believe it was a rumor but I was gamed--but that is a story for another
day).
I ran into Roger last August, again at the airport. This time it was Washington Reagan
National. I walked up to him and told him that he was being blamed for something I did. I
proceeded to tell the story and he laughed when he learned that this smear of Michelle came
from the Clinton Campaign. Roger is a connoisseur of dirty tricks.
With this background, I want you to take a fresh look at Mueller's indictment of Stone.
It really does tell a story that exonerates Trump of the Russian collusion narrative but
also exposes the desperation of Mueller to create a crime where none exists. (BTW, kudos
to Robert Willman for his excellent piece at Sic Semper).
During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials (NOT FURTHER
IDENTIFIED) about WIKILEAKS and information it might have had that would be damaging to the
Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about
future releases by Organization 1.
By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to have
communicated with WIKILEAKS. By in or around mid-August 2016, WIKILEAKS made a public statement
denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his communication with
WIKILEAKS had occurred through a person STONE described as a "mutual friend," "go-between," and
"intermediary." STONE also continued to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign about
WIKILEAKS and its intended future releases.
Here is what this really demonstrates. First, Stone was talking out of his ass. He was
portraying himself to people in the Trump campaign (probably Manafort) as a guy with inside
knowledge. Based on what I know about Stone, I am sure he was playing this angle in hopes of
getting back into the good graces of the Trump campaign. Second, if the Trump organization was
actively colluding with the Russians and Wikileaks, why were they asking Stone to find out what
Wikileaks had and what it intended to do with such material.
This is the most critical revelation, in my view, from this indictment--the Trump campaign
did not know what Wikileaks had or what it intended to do. They were reaching out to an
outsider--a third party--who claimed to have contacts with Wikileaks. But Stone did not. In
typical Roger Stone fashion, his story kept changing. Initially he insisted he was in direct
contact with someone there. Not true. He then admitted that he was relying on the word of Randy
Credico. That probably was the truth. But Credico's information was second hand. Randy Credico
knew the wife of Julian Assange's deceased attorney--Margaret Ratner Kunstler, widow of
William Kunstler.
She did have contacts at Wikileaks and was in a position to tell Credico that more dirt on
Clinton was coming. But Stone was parlaying third hand information to present himself as a guy
with inside knowledge. That's not criminal. That is typical of Washington and the world of
journalism.
What is being done to Roger Stone is wrong. He was playing politics and playing according to
Washington rules. It may not be pretty and may not be ethical. But it is not criminal and
certainly does not justify sending out a ninja clad SWAT team to take him into custody. I hope
some wealthy benefactors step up and help fund Stone's defense fund. He will win this case.
Mueller and his team are the ones who have crossed an ethical and moral line.
Thank you for that vital point that this indictment contradicts the Official Story that the
Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Russians in regards to the Wikileaks DNC info.
After Thursday's news that Trump had decided to recognize the coup government in
Venezuela, I chose to subject myself to the Rachel Maddow Show to see the official reaction
of the Resistance™. She spent the entire first section of the show rehashing a story
about security clearances from a year ago. Obviously, the MSM is confused whether to be
against it, because TRUMP BAD, or to be for it, because ST. OBAMA imposed sanctions on
Venezuela.
Mueller relieved them of the need to make those hard decisions by sending a heavily armed
swat team on a predawn raid of an extremely dangerous loudmouth old braggart. They could even
ignore the news that Elliot Abrams had been dragged back out of obscurity to oversee the rest
of the coup in Venezuela. How long before Secord and North are shipping weapons from Israel
to the noble freedom fighters of Venezuela?
RE: Roger Stone and his Pinocchio problems. To f***ing bad. As long as he has been around, if
he isn't smart enough to know that he can get his ass in a jam by lying to Congress or the
FBI, the dude isn't thinking too straight. This administration seems to have a problem with
truth telling, all the way from Trump to the numerous administration/campaign officials
indicted or plead guilty to lying to the FBI or Congress. Blaming Mueller for their dishonest
utterances is putting the shoe on the wrong foot.
Where is President Trump in all this? These are all actions taken by his DOJ and FBI
appointees. Does he believe that his responsibility ends with a tweet? Why hasn't he hauled
Whitaker, Rosenstein and Wray into his office and demanded equal application of the law with
respect to Hillary, Clapper, Brennan and Comey lying to Congress? Why hasn't he declassified
all the information around the role of Fusion GPS, Clinton campaign, FBI, DOJ, CIA with
respect to interference in the presidential campaign?
Is he not POTUS? Or is he just a character in a VR game?
Eric Newhill's comment is spot on. Why would anyone want to work for Trump's campaign and
be ruined financially and face legal jeopardy when all he does is tweet? His actions show
weakness and his opponents know it.
Jack, I'm assuming he is not doing those things because he is completely surrounded by the
Deep State who is already going after him one every front. Every time he has tried to cut
back on forever war he gets sabotaged by the Borg. The gov't is yuuuuge and Trump and his
small crew are peanuts compared to that. It's very difficult to make progress on his agenda
given the level of internal opposition he faces and how outnumbered he is.
From what I have
learned over the years the POTUS does not have much freedom. Obama talked about this too.
Why should they care when the FBI & DOJ are going after their opponent Trump's minions?
He is the one that should care that his guys are the ones being being targeted and not his
opponents.
What you say sounds right enough to me - though I kind of have to take it on faith because
I've never been anywhere near the world you describe.
However, I think, for what's it worth,
that the whole point to Mueller and all the legal harassment and arrests of people
associated, even to a small extent with the Trump campaign, is to scare people away from
working with Trump on the 2020 campaign and leave the Donald high and dry. That and create an
illusion of criminality around Trump. Again, that's an uninformed opinion; just an opinion
derived from what I see. Curious to know if you think there's any truth to it. Thx
Eric, it's called "file stuffing " a bureaucratic name for assembling a mountainous pile of
allegations - 99.9% of which are either trivial or false, that is too big and convoluted for
any team of humans to refute in detail at one sitting.
This file is then served up to a judge (or the Republican National Convention) with the
offered assumption that because the file is so voluminous, the allegations contained must be
substantially true.
I would expect to hear Trump labelled as a "troubled President" because, you know, he and
his campaign did all these illegal things, so he must be guilty of stuff, so he needs to be
impeached and can't stand in 2020, meh or whatever..........
Mueller is following the Department of Injustice practice of throwing multiple charges at
people, even though they know many of them won't stick, so as to drive up the costs of
discovery. Thus looms the prospect financial ruin for all but the wealthiest of defendants.
This induces them to plead guilty to lesser charges in order to preserve their retirement
savings and possibly long prison sentences.
DoJ career prosecutors are evaluated on their
out-of-court settlement rates and this is how they achieve high ones.
So much for the de
facto right of a fair trial. IIRC, when the press got to stone after the court appearance he
stated that he'll take this to trial. He may have second thoughts as the legal bills pile up.
The partial government shutdown has left local jails across the country scrambling to pay
their bills because they rely on money they get from U.S. agencies to house federal inmates,
and those checks have stopped flowing.
Nov 9, 2010 -- 17 charged in $42 million Holocaust fraud case. FBI: Employees at Jewish
Claims Center had people pretend to be victims of Nazi persecution so they could collect
money German funds over 6000 phony claims
Germany Seeks Compensation for $57M Holocaust Fraud -- The Forward https://forward.com › News ›
World
Apr 17, 2015 -- Germany is for the first time seeking compensation for the $57 million
lost to fraud at the Claims Conference. But the Holocaust agency says it
On Wednesday, the United States Senate voted 87-12 in favor of watered-down legislation
that will roll back a few of the most draconian provisions of the federal criminal justice
system.
The "First Step Act," short for the "Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed
Safely Transitioning Every Person Act," goes back to the House of Representatives, which
passed a slightly stronger version last May by a vote of 360 to 59.
For his own opportunistic reasons, President Donald Trump pushed Senate Republicans to
support the legislation, tweeting after the vote, "America is the greatest Country in the
world and my job is to fight for ALL citizens, even those who have made mistakes."
When it comes to locking people up, the United States does indeed stand on top of the
heap. By large margins, there are more people in state and federal penitentiaries, 2.3
million, and a larger percentage of its population incarcerated than any other nation. The
federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is the largest single prison system, incarcerating some
180,000 inmates, almost 25 percent beyond its designated capacity.
Mass incarceration is not just barbaric and cruel. It adds billions in expenses to
government budgets and deprives capitalists of a significant pool of potential workers to
keep downward pressure on wages. Efforts to reform the federal system, which can encourage
similar reforms on the state level, have been building for years.
In a second tweet, Trump added, "In addition to everything else, billions of dollars will
be saved. I look forward to signing this into law!"
Federal courts, which handle crimes such as drug trafficking, bank robbery and a variety
of so-called white-collar offenses, are governed by strict sentencing guidelines that compel
lengthy sentences. Offenders entitled to maximum "good time" credits are nevertheless
required to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
The legislation was sponsored by an unusual coalition that included the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Conservative Union, the right-wing Koch brothers and the
liberal Center for American Progress. All 12 votes against the measure were cast by Senate
Republicans.
Trump made a point of marshaling celebrity support, including a much ballyhooed meeting
last September with the renowned nobody Kim Kardashian, CNN commentator Van Jones and Trump's
son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who lobbied for passage.
The legislation funds job training and other programs for "low-risk" inmates, who can earn
time credits that reduce their sentence, and there are new provisions for "prerelease
custody" such as "halfway houses" and "home confinement." Certain categories of "violent
offenders" and some drug traffickers are excluded, however. The bill removes restrictions on
contracting with faith-based contractors, and in that manner contributes to the ongoing
repudiation of the First Amendment's prohibition against government sponsorship of
religion.
The legislation places limits on shackling pregnant inmates and solitary confinement for
children, two provisions that should never have been necessary. Another section directs the
Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate inmates in facilities close to their families when
feasible.
There are three prospective changes to sentencing laws. First, mandatory minimums for some
nonviolent drug offenses are reduced. The "three strikes" penalty is lowered from life in
prison to 25 years, a small comfort for affected inmates and their families. Second, federal
district judges will have slightly more access to "safety valves" to avoid imposing mandatory
minimum sentences. Third, "stacking" firearm possession on a sentence for another crime, like
a drug offense, is limited to offenders with prior convictions.
Generally, these provisions are not retroactive and are of no use to people now in
custody. A fourth sentencing provision, however, allows inmates sentenced before the 2010
reduction in the disparity between crack and powder cocaine to petition for re-sentencing.
Those people have already served eight years under provisions of law recognized as
discriminatory.
The changes are, as a whole, relatively minor, but that did not stop Democrats such as
Cory Booker, the New Jersey senator, from calling the bill "sweeping," "the biggest
breakthrough in criminal justice in a generation," and the like. CNN commentator Van Jones
called the Senate vote a "Christmas miracle." All of these forces heaped praise on Trump for
his support.
"... They got around lending regulations by calling what they did "merchant cash advances," not loans -- a distinction judges recognize though there's little practical difference. ..."
Look out, the stranger on the phone warned. They're coming for you.
The caller had Janelle Duncan's attention. Perpetually peppy at 53, with sparkly jewelry and a glittery manicure, Duncan was running
a struggling Florida real estate agency with her husband, Doug. She began each day in prayer, a vanilla latte in her hand and her
Maltese Shih Tzu, Coco, on her lap, asking God for business to pick up.
She'd answered the phone that Friday morning in January hoping it would be a new client looking for a home in the Tampa suburbs.
The man identified himself as a debt counselor. He described a bizarre legal proceeding that he said was targeting Duncan without
her knowledge. A lender called ABC had filed a court judgment against her in the state of New York and was planning to seize her
possessions. "I'm not sure if they already froze your bank accounts, but they are RIGHT NOW moving to do just that," he'd written
in an email earlier that day. He described the lender as "EXTREMLY AGGRESSIVE." Her only hope, the man said, was to pull all her
money out of the bank immediately.
His story sounded fishy to the Duncans. They had borrowed $36,762 from a company called ABC Merchant Solutions LLC, but as far
as they knew they were paying the money back on schedule. Doug dialed his contact there and was assured all was well. They checked
with a lawyer; he was skeptical, too. What kind of legal system would allow all that to happen 1,000 miles away without notice or
a hearing? They shrugged off the warning as a scam.
But the caller was who he said he was, and everything he predicted came true. The following Monday, Doug logged in at the office
to discover he no longer had access to his bank accounts. A few days on, $52,886.93 disappeared from one of them. The loss set off
a chain of events that culminated a month later in financial ruin. Not long after her agency went bankrupt, Janelle collapsed and
was rushed to the hospital, vomiting bile.
As the Duncans soon learned, tens of thousands of contractors, florists, and other small-business owners nationwide were being
chewed up by the same legal process. Behind it all was a group of financiers who lend money at interest rates higher than those once
demanded by Mafia loan sharks. Rather than breaking legs, these lenders have co-opted New York's court system and turned it into
a high-speed debt-collection machine. Government officials enable the whole scheme. A few are even getting rich doing it.
Janelle and Doug Duncan
"Somebody just comes in and rips everything out. It's cannibalized our whole life"
The lenders' weapon of choice is an arcane legal document called a confession of judgment. Before borrowers get a loan, they have
to sign a statement giving up their right to defend themselves if the lender takes them to court. It's like an arbitration agreement,
except the borrower always loses. Armed with a confession, a lender can, without proof, accuse borrowers of not paying and legally
seize their assets before they know what's happened. Not surprisingly, some lenders have abused this power. In dozens of interviews
and court pleadings, borrowers describe lenders who've forged documents, lied about how much they were owed, or fabricated defaults
out of thin air.
"Somebody just comes in and rips everything out," Doug said one evening in August, pulling up a stool at a Starbucks and recounting
the events that killed the Duncans' business. After a long day spent selling houses for another company, the name tag pinned to his
shirt had flipped upside down like a distress signal. "It's cannibalized our whole life."
Confessions of judgment have been part of English common law since the Middle Ages, intended as a way to enforce debts without
the fuss and expense of trial. Concerns about their potential abuse are almost as old. In Charles Dickens's 1837 novel The Pickwick
Papers , a landlady who's tricked into signing one
ends up in debtors' prison . Some U.S. states outlawed confessions in the middle of the 20th century, and federal regulators
banned them for
consumer loans in 1985. But New York still allows them for business loans.
For David Glass, they were the solution to a problem: People were stealing his money. Among the hustlers and con men who work
the bottom rungs of Wall Street, Glass is a legend. Before he was 30, he'd inspired the stock-scam movie
Boiler Room . Later busted by the FBI for insider trading,
he avoided prison by recording incriminating tapes of his old colleagues. Even his enemies say Glass, who declined to comment for
this story, is one of the sharpest operators they've ever dealt with.
In 2009, while still on probation, Glass and a friend named Isaac Stern started a company called Yellowstone Capital LLC. (ABC,
the firm that wiped out the Duncans, is one of more than a dozen corporate names used by Yellowstone's sales force.) Operating out
of a red-walled office above an Irish bar in New York's financial district, these salespeople phoned bodegas and pizzerias and pitched
their owners on loans. The rates sometimes exceeded 400 percent a year, and daily payments were required, but borrowers were desperate.
... ... ...
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, banks were cutting back on lending just when small businesses most needed cash. Companies
such as Yellowstone stepped in. They got around lending regulations by calling what they did "merchant cash advances," not loans
-- a distinction judges recognize
though there's little practical difference. The same people who'd pushed stock swindles in the 1990s and subprime mortgages a
decade later started talking small businesses into taking on costly debt. The
profits were
huge , and the industry grew. Last year it extended about $15 billion in credit,
according to an estimate by investment bank Bryant Park Capital.
Yellowstone would hire anyone who could sell. A nightclub bouncer sat next to ultra-Orthodox Jews fresh out of religious school.
The best brokers earned tens of thousands of dollars a month, former employees say; others slept at the office, fought, sold loose
cigarettes, and stole from each other. A video posted on YouTube
shows Glass firing an employee. "Get the f--- out of my firm," he yells. "Why are you still sitting there, fat ass? Get out of
my company!" To keep the troops focused, management would
stack a pile of cash on a
table and hold a drawing for closers.
Glass's problem was that some borrowers took Yellowstone's money with no intention of paying it back. Lawsuits against deadbeats
proved pointless, dragging on for months or years. Then a lawyer who worked for Yellowstone and other cash-advance outfits came up
with the idea of requiring borrowers to sign confessions of judgment before receiving their loans. That way, at the first sign of
trouble, lenders could start seizing assets, catching borrowers unawares.
In May 2012, Yellowstone became what appears to be the first company in the industry to file a confession in court. Others copied
the trick. The innovation didn't just make collections easier; it upended the industry's economics. Now, even if a borrower defaulted,
a company stood a chance of making a full recovery. By tacking on extra fees, it might even make more money, and faster, than if
the borrower had never missed a payment. In some cases, the collections process became a profit engine.
Confessions aren't enforceable in Florida, where the Duncans signed theirs. But New York's courts are especially friendly to confessions
and will accept them from anywhere, so lenders require customers to sign documents allowing them to file there. That's turned the
state into the industry's collections department. Cash-advance companies have secured more than 25,000 judgments in New York since
2012, mostly in the past two years, according to data on more than 350 lenders compiled by Bloomberg Businessweek . Those judgments
are worth an estimated $1.5 billion. The biggest filer by far, with a quarter of the cases: Yellowstone Capital.
The Duncans' ordeal began in November 2017 with an unsolicited fax from a broker promising term loans of as much as $1 million
at a cheap rate. The couple had owned their agency, a Re/Max franchise, for three years and now had 50 employees, but they still
weren't turning a profit. A planned entry into the mortgage business was proving more expensive than expected. Doing some quick math,
Doug figured he could borrow $800,000 to fund the expansion, pay off some debt, and come out with a lower monthly payment. The spam
fax felt like a gift from God.
On the phone, the broker said that to qualify for a big loan, Doug would first have to accept a smaller amount and make a few
payments as a tryout. He sent over the paperwork for a cash advance, not a term loan -- and included confessions for both Doug and
Janelle to sign. Without talking to a lawyer, they did. Why not? Doug thought. They intended to pay the money back on time.
The advance turned out to be for $36,762, repaid in $800 daily debits from their bank account starting the day after they got
the money. This would continue for about three months, until they'd repaid $59,960, amounting to an annualized interest rate of more
than 350 percent. A small price to pay, Doug figured -- soon he'd have all the money he needed in cheaper, longer-term debt. But
when he followed up the next month to inquire about the status of the bigger loan, he got no response. The trouble started soon after.
A few hours after learning that their bank accounts had been frozen, the Duncans met with a local attorney, Jeffrey Dowd, in a
law office squeezed between a nail salon and a transmission shop. Their bank, SunTrust, refused to tell them who was behind the freeze.
It wasn't clear why Yellowstone would target them. Their contact there was still pleading ignorance; the lender had collected its
$800 payment as recently as the previous business day. Janelle was on the verge of tears.
A broad-shouldered man with a white goatee, Dowd handles everything from wills to lawsuits for small-business owners in the Tampa
suburbs. After assuring the Duncans he'd get to the bottom of it, he logged on to his computer. He soon found a legal website showing
that Yellowstone
had won a judgment against the Duncans a few hours after Janelle received the warning phone call. The lender had gone to a court
in the village of Goshen, 60 miles north of New York City.
"I hereby confess judgment," read the documents Doug and Janelle had signed. Attached was a statement signed by the same person
at Yellowstone who'd assured Doug everything was fine. It said the Duncans had stopped making payments.
That wasn't true. The Duncans' bank records show that Yellowstone had continued to get its daily $800 even after going to court.
The company's sworn statement also inflated the size of the couple's debt. But by the time Dowd found the case, it was already over.
A clerk had approved the judgment less than a day after Yellowstone's lawyer asked for it. No proof was demanded, no judge was involved,
and the Duncans didn't have a chance to present their side in court.
Beau Phillips, a Yellowstone spokesman, said in an email to Businessweek that the company was within its rights, because the Duncans
had blocked one payment and never made up for it. The Duncans respond that if a block had taken place, it must have been a computer
error. Why stop paying and then resume the next day?
The court papers revealed the name of Yellowstone's lawyer, and on a whim, Dowd searched for her other cases and found more than
1,500 results. The Duncans' predicament was no aberration. "It was like a rabbit hole," Dowd says. He dove in, clicking on case after
case after case.
The Long Reach of a Rubber Stamp In one month, a single clerk's office in Orange County, New York, issued 176 judgments against
small businesses in 38 states and Puerto Rico
... ... ...
Note: Judgments issued based on merchant cash-advance filings in Orange County in July 2018 Source: Bloomberg News analysis
of New York State Unified Court System documents
Goshen, N.Y., is a bucolic stop on the harness-racing circuit, just west of the Hudson River. Not far from the track, in the Orange
County Clerk's office, women with ID lanyards around their necks sit behind Plexiglas windows, processing pistol permits and recording
deeds. One clerk prints out proposed judgments sent electronically by cash-advance companies and makes them official with three rubber
stamps.
Orange is one of a handful of counties in upstate New York that together handle an outsize share of the nation's cash-advance
collections. Industry lawyers pick offices known to sign judgments quickly; there's no need for the borrower or lender to have a
connection to the area. In even smaller Ontario County, cash-advance filings make up about three-quarters of the civil caseload.
No matter how abusive the confessions might be, clerks have no choice but to continue processing them, says Kelly Eskew, a deputy
clerk in Orange County.
To obtain a judgment, a lawyer for a cash-advance company must send in the confession along with a sworn affidavit explaining
the default and how much is still owed. The clerk accepts the statement as fact and enters a judgment without additional review.
Once signed, this judgment is almost impossible to overturn. Borrowers rarely try. Few lawyers will take on a client whose money
is already gone, and getting a ruling can take months -- too long to save a desperate business. It's a trap with no escape.
Clicking around a database of New York state court records, Dowd did find some cases in which cash-advance borrowers had sought
to overturn judgments. They'd almost always failed. New York judges took the view that debtors waived their rights when they signed
the papers. Dowd concluded it would probably cost the Duncans $5,000 to retain a lawyer to travel to Orange County. He advised them
not to bother.
It's possible that if the Duncans had tried to overturn the judgment, they would have discovered that the confessions they'd signed
were later altered. The signed originals contain an apparent drafting error, failing to identify the Duncans' company as subject
to the judgment, a flaw that might have prevented Yellowstone from seizing their money. In the
version filed in
court , someone had replaced the first two pages of each confession with the mistake corrected. Asked by Businessweek about the
discrepancy, Phillips didn't provide an explanation.
Altered Documents The confession of judgment signed by the Duncans ( left top ) and the one filed by Yellowstone in court
Borrowers have accused Yellowstone of forgery before. Just in the past year, a Georgia contractor
presented evidence
in court that a confession used against him was a complete fabrication, and a Maryland trucker complained to Yellowstone that
a key term in his confession had been changed after the fact, as had happened with the Duncans. The company backed off from those
borrowers but faced no further consequences. Phillips declined to comment on the accusations.
While Dowd didn't challenge the ruling against the Duncans in court, he did think he could get SunTrust to help them. He told
the bank that one of the couple's accounts held funds that didn't belong to them because it was used to collect rent on behalf of
landlords. Dowd says a banker at the local branch wanted to help but was overruled by higher-ups. The account remained frozen. A
spokesman for SunTrust declined to comment.
When Dowd finally reached Yellowstone's lawyer, she referred him to a marshal who she said was handling the case. Dowd was confused.
Why would a U.S. marshal be involved? His clients weren't fugitives. He called the phone number, and somebody with a Russian accent
answered.
The person on the phone wasn't a federal official. Dowd had reached the Brooklyn office of Vadim Barbarovich, who holds the title
of New York City marshal. He'd stumbled onto an arcane feature of the city's government that's become another powerful tool for cash-advance
companies.
New York's 35 marshals are government officers, appointed by the mayor, who collect private debts. They evict tenants and tow
cars, city badges dangling from their necks. When they recover money, they get a fee of 5 percent. The office dates to Dutch colonial
days, formed by a decree of
Peter Stuyvesant's council . Fees for the biggest jobs were initially set at a dozen stivers, less than one-tenth the price of
a beaver pelt.
Barbarovich's office is in the immigrant enclave of Sheepshead Bay. Before he was appointed in 2013, he'd tracked inventory at
a Brooklyn hospital and volunteered as a Russian translator. He's now the go-to marshal for the cash-advance business and has gotten
rich in the process. Last year, city records show, he cleared $1.7 million after expenses.
As soon as Yellowstone had obtained its judgment against the Duncans, it had sent a copy to Barbarovich, who issued legal orders
demanding money from Atlanta-based SunTrust and another bank in Alabama where the couple kept their personal funds. By law, New York
marshals' authority is limited to the city's five boroughs, but a loophole vastly extends their reach: They're allowed to demand
out-of-state funds as long as the bank has an office in the city, as SunTrust does. A few big banks refuse to comply with the orders,
but most just hand over their customers' money.
SunTrust proved accommodating. Three days after freezing the Duncans' accounts, it took $52,886.93 and mailed a check to Barbarovich,
enough to satisfy the judgment plus the 5 percent marshal's fee. Almost all of it was rent money the Duncans were holding for landlords,
not their own funds. Barbarovich didn't respond to questions about the couple's case but said in an email that he follows the rules
when issuing a demand for money. Phillips, the Yellowstone spokesman, said no one told the company that the money belonged to third
parties until seven weeks after it was seized. Even then, Yellowstone refused to return it.
The Duncans scrambled to make up the shortfall. Doug got another, larger cash advance from a different company to keep afloat.
The daily payments on that loan were too much for them to handle, though, and they were soon short of cash again. Sensing trouble,
employees fled.
One evening, Janelle thought she was having a heart attack. Her pulse raced, her limbs went numb, and she grew nauseous. An ambulance
rushed her to the hospital. Her heart was fine. Her insurance claim was denied.
Unlike the Duncans, most of the dozens of borrowers interviewed by Businessweek really did fall behind on their debt payments.
Their experiences were no less wrenching. They spoke of divorce, of lost friendships, of unpaid medical bills.
"You can't defend yourself," says Richard Schilg, the owner of a human resources company in Ohio who borrowed hundreds of thousands
of dollars with at least six advances. "As long as you still have a business, as long you have a personal checking account, they're
going to hound you. Your life is ruined by their contract." Schilg says he always tried to honor his debts. But his access to money
has been so restricted by cash-advance judgments that he's had to sell furniture to buy food.
He's one of many borrowers who've received nasty threats from debt collectors. "I will make this my personal business to f---
you," a Yellowstone executive named Steve Davis told Schilg on a voicemail heard by Businessweek . Davis texted another: "I will
watch you crash and burn." Asked about the messages, Davis says, "People defraud us. When that happens we have to do what's best
for us."
Jerry Bush, who ran a plumbing business with his father in Roanoke, Va., signed confessions for at least six cash advances
from companies including Yellowstone, taking one loan after another as his payments mounted to $18,000 a day. In January, Davis called
him while he was accompanying his wife to a chemotherapy appointment and threatened him with the confession in a dispute over payment
terms. Davis denies menacing Bush, but according to Bush's account of their conversation, Davis said he would pursue Bush until his
death and take all of his money, leaving nothing to pay for his wife's treatment. Bush also says Davis then offered to send flowers
to Bush's wife.
Jerry Bush
"I wake up every morning afraid what else they will take. And every morning I throw up blood"
In August, Bush closed his business, laid off his 20 employees, and stopped making payments on his loans. Yellowstone never filed
its signed confession in court, but other lenders went after him over theirs. One sunny day that month, he walked to a wooded area
near his home, swallowed a bottle of an oxycodone painkiller, and began streaming video to Facebook. To anyone who might have been
watching, he explained that he'd taken out cash advances in a failed attempt to save his business. Now the lenders had seized his
accounts, Bush said, his voice wavering. One had even grabbed his father's retirement money.
"I signed 'em, I take the blame for it," he said. "This will be my last video. I am taking this on me." He asked his friends to
take care of his family, then sobbed as he told his wife and teenage son he loved them.
Someone who saw the video alerted the police. They found Bush unconscious in the woods a few hours later -- he credits them with
saving his life. But the pressure from his confessions of judgment hasn't relented. "I wake up every morning afraid what else they
will take," he says. "And every morning I throw up blood."
Bush's contracts with Yellowstone show that the company advanced him a total of about $250,000 and that he paid them back more
than $600,000. Davis, who parted ways with Yellowstone in August, says he didn't mistreat Bush or other borrowers and always followed
the company's protocols. "You know why people put the blame on me is because I'm successful," he says. "It's just haters."
As for the Duncans, each morning at their house still begins with a prayer and a Bible verse. Their retirement savings evaporated
with their agency, but they've been able to keep their house. They continue to believe God has a plan for every one of his children,
but they've learned to trust some of those children less. "If we don't have peace from God, and we live in outrage, it destroys us,"
Janelle says. "So I'm choosing to have hope to start again, and we're relying on the Lord to replace what the enemy has stolen and
turn it around for good."
By seizing their bank deposits, Yellowstone had managed to collect its money ahead of schedule and tack on $9,990 in extra legal
fees, payable to a law firm in which it owns a stake. In about three months, the company and its affiliates almost doubled their
money. At that rate of return, one dollar could be turned into 10 in less than a year.
Everyone else involved in the collection process got a slice, too. SunTrust got a $100 processing fee. Barbarovich's office got
approximately $2,700, with about $120 of that passed along to the city. The Orange County Clerk's office got $41 for its rubber stamps.
The New York state court system got $184.
To date, no state or federal regulator has tried to police the merchant-cash-advance industry. Its lawyers designed it to avoid
scrutiny, sidestepping usury laws and state licensing requirements by keeping the word "loan" out of paperwork and describing the
deals as cash advances against future revenue. And because the customers are technically businesses, not individuals, consumer protection
laws don't apply, either.
With regulators sidelined and lawmakers oblivious, Yellowstone and its peers keep growing. After Glass stepped back a
couple of years ago from day-to-day operations -- his criminal record was making it harder to find investors -- Wall Street investment
bankers arranged a
$120 million line
of credit to finance more advances. In 2016 the company moved from its grimy downtown Manhattan offices to a shiny building in
Jersey City,
pocketing $3 million in state tax incentives . On Instagram, a
top salesman shows off flights on private jets, a diamond-encrusted
watch, and a Lamborghini. Yellowstone advanced $553 million last year, its highest total ever.
A stack of cash about to be raffled off to a lucky Yellowstone employee. SOURCE: FACEBOOK
In April, on the same day Janelle Duncan was selling the last of her office furniture, Yellowstone executives marked the company's
ninth anniversary with a luncheon in Jersey City. In a
celebratory email marking
the occasion, Stern, the co-founder, wrote, "I am continually blown away at the success and achievements we continue to have."
Central to the arguments to promote prison reforms is a human rights argument - the premise
on which many UN standards and norms have been developed.
Criminal Justice Reform
Criminal justice reform may wind up being the most significant conservative policy change in
Washington this year.
Prison Reform Movement
How the Reform Movement Changed America - Created new mental institutions called asylums. -
More mentally ill admitted. - Increase in funding for asylums. - Reduced cruel treatment in
asylums. - Improved conditions for poor mentally ill.
Prison Litigation Reform Act
(don't support)The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) makes it harder for prisoners to file
lawsuits in federal court.
Prison And Asylum Reform
Prison reform has had a long history in the United States, beginning with the construction
of the nation's first prisons. From the time of the earliest prisons in the United States,
reformers have struggled with the problem of how to punish criminals while also preserving
their humanity.
Criminal Justice Reform Organizations
Although many people believe that representing clients and fighting criminal justice falls
on the public defenders office, nonprofit organizations play a vital role.
What Is Prison
Reform
Prison reform is the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons, establish a more
effective penal system, or implement alternatives to incarceration.
Prison Reform
Definition
The reforms are targeted to address the core behavioral issues that result in criminality,
with the goal of reducing the likelihood that inmates re-offend either while incarcerated or
after their release.
Criminal Justice Reform Bill
The House Judiciary Committee is working on a bipartisan basis on several bills to improve
the criminal justice system.
Prison Reform 2017
THE URGENCY of criminal-justice reform in 2017 has become a rare matter of bipartisan
consensus in Washington.
Prison Reform 2018
Overcrowding, medical inadequacies, sexual assault, solitary confinement and other threats
to the health and safety of both prisoners and guards proliferate in U.S. prisons and jails in
2018.
Criminal Justice System Reform
Some pilots have been successfully launched in several states. Others will be rolled out at
two prisons in early 2017.
What Is Criminal Justice Reform
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population but almost 25 percent of
the total prison population.
Prison Reform Organizations
In 1980, there were about 500,000 people in prison in the U.S. Today there are 2.3 million,
and according to the 2008 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics there's a total of over 7 million
people on parole or probation or locked up.
Prison Reform In America
Just as conservatives once led the way toward the tougher sentencing rules and other
policies that increased imprisonment rates, they should lead the way in sensibly shrinking the
prison population.
Criminal Justice Reform 2017
Reduce the number of absurdly long prison sentences in America.
Criminal Justice
Reform 2018
Central to the arguments to promote prison reforms is a human rights argument - the premise
on which many UN standards and norms have been developed.
Criminal Justice Reform Act
The Council passed legislation in May 2016 to create more proportional penalties for certain
low‑level, non‑violent offense.s
Criminal Justice Reform Definition
Criminal justice reform in the United States is a type of reform aimed at fixing perceived
errors in the criminal justice system.
Prison And Mental Health Reform
Asylum and Prison reforms, still topics of importance today, have changed drastically from
the era of Dorothea Dix's reforms.
Prison Reform Articles
Research has considered the quality of health care provided in USA's prisons, and has
analyzed the impact of correctional education on employment.
US Prison Reform
The West Wing push for prison reform is at odds with Jeff Sessions's jail-happy Justice
Department.
Dan Davies on financial fraud is certainly the most entertaining book on Economics I have
read this year. Highly recommend itcold Chris Dillow :
Review of Dan Davies: Lying for Money : "Squalid crude affairs committed mostly by
inadequates. This is a message of Dan Davies' history of fraud, Lying For Money ....
Most frauds fall into a few simple types.... Setting up a fake company... pyramid schemes...
control frauds, whereby someone abuses a position of trust... plain counterfeiters. My
favourite was Alves dos Reis, who persuaded the printers of legitimate Portuguese banknotes to
print even more of them.... All this is done with the wit and clarity of exposition for which
we have long admired Dan. His footnotes are an especial delight, reminding me of William
Donaldson. Dan has also a theory of fraud. 'The optimal level of fraud is unlikely to be zero'
he says. If we were to take so many precautions to stop it, we would also strangle legitimate
economic activity...
"... So if the US government is secretly releasing Federal prisoners, and if that is the case then American justice is on par with the Mexican penal system, where such occurrences are routine. ..."
The Israelis were extradited to the U.S., where the prosecutor described them as "a predatory group that targeted
elderly people in the U.S., conning them into believing they were lottery winners. Preying on their victims' dreams of financial
comfort, [they] bilked them out of substantial portions of their life savings." According to the
U.S. Attorney's office :
"The defendants operated multiple boiler rooms that used the names of various sham law firms purportedly located in New York,
including law firms named 'Abrahams Kline,' 'Bernstein Schwartz,' 'Steiner, Van Allen, and Colt,' 'Bloomberg and Associates,"
and 'Meyer Stevens.'
The defendants further used various aliases and call forwarding telephone numbers to mask the fact that the
defendants were located in Israel. The defendants also possessed bank accounts in Israel, Cyprus, and Uganda, to which illegal
proceeds were wired."
The ringleaders, Avi Ayache and Yaron Bar, were eventually convicted, and the U.S. prosecutor announced that they would "spend a
substantial portion of their lives in prison." Ayache was sentenced in 2014 to 13 years in prison and Bar to 12. Yet,
prison records indicate the two were released the next year. Other members
of the ring also appear to have been released after extraordinarily little time. If these men did serve only a tiny portion of their
U.S. sentences, as public records and phone calls and emails to the Bureau of Prisons indicate, this may be due to the fact that
Israelis are allowed to be imprisoned in Israel instead of in the U.S. Their sentences then are determined by Israel and, as we will
see below, are often far shorter than they would be in the U.S.
Gery Shalon – hundreds of millions of dollars
In 2015 Gery Shalon and
two other Israelis were charged with utilizing hacked data for 100 million people to spam them with "pump and dump" penny stocks,
netting hundreds of millions of dollars.
The money was then laundered through an illegal bitcoin exchange allegedly owned by Shalon (more on bitcoin below). Shalon was
considered the ringleader of what U.S. prosecutors called a "
sprawling
criminal enterprise. " He faced decades behind bars.
However, he was instead given a
plea deal
in which he escaped any prison sentence whatsoever. Worth $2 billion, Shalon was to pay a $403 million fine.
...The ringleaders, Avi Ayache and Yaron Bar, were eventually convicted, and the U.S. prosecutor announced that they would
"spend a substantial portion of their lives in prison." Ayache was sentenced in 2014 to 13 years in prison and Bar to 12. Yet,
prison records indicate the two were released the next year. Other members of the ring also appear to have been released after
extraordinarily little time.
So if the US government is secretly releasing Federal prisoners, and if that is the case then American justice is on par with
the Mexican penal system, where such occurrences are routine.
Can anyone here verify if those two are in prison in Israel or free?
nelson21 |
March 8, 2013 7:52 PM | Reply The
competency to stand trial (CST) and insanity go together like peanut butter and jelly, these
two go hand and hand. The CST is simply put as the ability to participate in criminal
proceedings adequately and be able to aid in one's own defense (pg. 164). Chapter 8 summarizes
it perfectly for us so I do not know why I have to do it for us all again, but I will
anyway.
While on trial and sitting in the very court room that can determine you fate of where you
may end up, full participation is pretty much the key thing to have. Without having full
attention and awareness of what is happening around you or what is going on in the court room
can really kill your mojo, but when you have full attention and awareness it gives you somewhat
the upper hand on the situation and could improve the likelihood of what your verdict will turn
out to be like.
Would it be right to put someone in prison if they were mentally challenged? When reading
chapter 8 we can see that with the proper examination of the defendant that it is not right to
put them through this with them being incompetent. Like stated on page 165 The Dusky Standard
has been put into place after the case Dusky v. United States, Dusky was a mentally challenged
man who was at the time of the incident incompetent. Through the case it was announced that he
had suffered from having schizophrenia, which this can easily put someone in the area of not
being able to be put in trial. At the end of trial the court ruled that he was indeed able to
stand trial and was sentenced to a prison sentence of 45 years. With all of this being said and
reading further on in the chapter CST is put at the TIME OF TRIAL and not at the time of the
criminal act; which in the case of Milton Dusky he was competent to stand at trial just not at
the time of the crime.
Along with being incompetent and competent, the lovely Supreme Court put together the
thought of a presumption of CST, where the defendant is pretty much stable and competent until
he or she is found to be the complete opposite. They have begun to use the preponderance of the
evidence standard; this is used when trying to figure out CST, this goes along with the
presumption of CST where they have to prove that he or she is incompetent of standing
trial.
This also leads in with the adolescent stage in life, should children be put in the category
of being incompetent of standing trial and when should they be tried as an adult? As it states
in our book that when children are in the adolescent stage in life they are lacking the ability
to really understand the criminal justice system and may not know what is going on. Should this
be considered CST, I have no idea.
Now chapter 9 ties in with all of this, the insanity defense. The insanity defense is a
bunch of crock I think, everyone thinks that they can pull this card out when they have done a
terrible thing like take someone else's life and they think they can get a lesser sentence
because of it. This is not how things should be. Reading chapter 9 it brings a lot of questions
to my mind, clinical psychologists look at the little things and study the mental illnesses
that can be looked at as insane. Like the Dusky case we read before he was incompetent at the
TIME OF THE CRIME not at the TIME OF THE CASE so this is so called "insanity." Insanity is the
state of mind at the time of the crime just like stated in the last sentence. Chapter 9 just
goes on about different cases and defenses that have been going on. It also talks about
different evaluations and testing that happens to figure things out with a person.
Everything that I have read is surprising to me, there was never a dull moment reading these
chapters. It gave me a lot of insight to what really goes on when judges have to look at the
defendant and figure out if they should be put to a prison sentence or just let go with a large
warning. My view of the insanity plea and whether or not a person is able to withstand trial or
not had not changed. I still think that it all fits well and should be in place. Nothing should
be changed.
KEY TERMS: Competency to stand trial, presumption of CST, preponderance of the evidence
standard, clinical psychology, insanity crim2010 |
March 9, 2013 2:56 PM | Reply
I find the topics for this week to be very interesting. We have just started discussing
competency, insanity, and trials in another one of my classes as well. I love that these two
classes line up and help cover more of this particular area of law and psychology. It is great
to have the chance to apply what I am learning here to my Criminal Justice Systems class and
vise versa.
The two topics for this week get confused quite often. I will admit that I used them
interchangeably before we got to this point of the semester. Competency defines someone's state
of mind at the time of the trial. To be competent to stand trial, one must have the ability to
participate in his or her trial, understand the proceedings, and aid in his or her own defense.
This, however, does not have anything to do with the person's willingness to do any of these
things. It is important to consider the competency of someone on trial to be fair to the
defendant and uphold a positive image for the criminal justice system. Convicting someone who
doesn't understand what is going on makes the legal system look bad. Defendants are assumed to
be "competent unless proven incompetent."
There were several things that I learned in this chapter that I had never considered
previously. An interesting aspect of this label made evident in the chapter is that being found
to be competent to stand trial does not mean that someone is at a level of normal mental
functioning or health. I also was intrigued by the number of defendants that are evaluated for
competency every year, which came out to be more than 5% of all felons. Prisoners who return to
competency and are sentenced to death, they must also be competent at the time of their
execution. It is unlawful to execute someone who does not understand the reason. This
evaluation of competency has a lower threshold than competency to stand trial does.
Insanity, on the other hand, refers to the state of the defendants mind at the time of the
crime. It is a question of whether or not someone knows right from wrong. This particular
defense was created because it does not serve much of a purpose to punish someone who cannot be
held responsible for his or her actions. Convictions serve to provide retribution or to deter
crime. The chapter also discusses the concept of mens rea, which we have discussed at length in
my other class. Mens rea is one of the seven characteristics of crime. Someone must have a
"guilty mind" or be acting with intent for their acts to be considered a crime. This guilty
state of mind must occur at the same time of the crime.
In the case of both competency and insanity, we must be cautious of malingering, or
exaggerating, or even faking, symptoms of illness. Defendants could possibly fake amnesia,
schizophrenia, or dissociative identity disorder in order to make it seem as though they are
incompetent or insane. It is difficult to detect, but there are specific techniques used to
help expose the truth, such as Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms test. In the event
that a defendant is successful in making a court think he or she is incompetent or insane, the
defendant is often still institutionalized and treated for the symptoms.
Terms: competent, competent to stand trial, insanity, mens rea, retribution, deterrence,
malingering, Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms brown |
March 10, 2013 3:04 PM | Reply These
chapters focused on the difference between competency to stand trial, and the insanity defense.
Firstly, as we have already looked at before, competency is a legal not a psychological term in
which evaluates whether or not a suspect is able to stand trial. Sometimes, through medication
processes the perpetrator eventually can be found to be competent and then indeed stand trial.
In turn competency is a rather ambiguous terms. As the court system has defined for example in
the cases of Cooper v. Oklahoma, and Medina v. California even before the court proceedings
begin a presumption of CST is already established. That is to state, defendants are presumed to
be competent to stand trial unless proven to be otherwise. Further it's the defenses
responsibility to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is not
competent.
As stated before however being it is a legal and not a psychological term the ambiguous nature
in how "competency" and "justice" is defined come into question. In order to prove the
defendant is incompetent it must be beyond the preponderance of the evidence. This means that
the judge must determine whether or not with at least 51 percent certainty that the defendant
is incompetent. However, it becomes obvious this is controversial. Firstly the judge only has
to prove a little over 50 percent, to prove competency and his judgment as to whether or not
they are competent may be controversial. Further, experts themselves in the legal field may
disagree with one another in a particular case. For example one expert could claim competency
and the other not. Further, a flexible standard comes into question. That is to state whether
or not the seriousness of the crime influences at all the judgment of the defendant's
competence. For example does the difference in first degree murder, and burglary change how
much the defendant must understand the complexity and seriousness of his/her crimes than
someone facing lesser charges. This with the fact that only 50 percent certainty is needed to
determine competency questions the ethics and whether or not the severity of the crime
influence the threshold of competence.
Although controversial usually criminals can be found competent to stand trial. Often with
antipsychotic medication and restoring competency of the criminal for the foreseeable future a
trail indeed can occur. This then leads to the other side of the debate in terms of insanity.
Insanity is referring to the criminal's state of mind at the time of the crime. However,
insanity like competency is somewhat ambiguous as well. The terms "insanity" does not
specifically relate to one specific mental illness so expert testimony although influential in
some cases, can be conflicted when experts try to explain someone else's mental state.
As for the term "insanity" it also gets portrayed negatively to the general consensus of the
public. Sometimes it can be labeled as a loop hole in the justice system, and that it's not
"just" however, as found out from the text only about a single percent use the insanity plea,
and very little defendants are successful.
Several processes to the insanity defense have been cultivated. Historically insanity crimes
were approached on a retribution approach or a "eye for an eye." However this was not entirely
"just." Instead it transformed to a more influential deterrence approach. In this sense using
general deterrence would make other criminals see the judgment of their crimes and help to
avoid future crimes, hence to "deter." However, with insanity this approach is flawed.
Deterrence does not work if mens rea, and actus rea are not in accordance. In this sense an
insane person who does not have "mastery of the mind" may not understand that there actions
were wrong, so the deterrence approach is somewhat flawed. As a result determining whether or
not someone was indeed insane became important and the M'Naghten rule, irresistible impulse,
and Durham rule were put in place.
Just as competency terminology to stand trial was ambiguous, as is the terminology for
insanity. This is what I found to be most interesting in the chapter. Firstly, as we all know
the justice system although you are entitled to a "speedy trial" takes time. After your
arraignment it may be several weeks, months or even a year before your trial (if your case
makes it to trial.) this then raises questions in terms of processes we have discussed during
the semester. Often insanity cases are evaluated in retrospect, however lots may have changed
between the crime occurrence and the trial. As a result insanity may have to be proven from
past events determined on police records, witnesses, interrogations and so forth. And we all
know that memory and problems with the interview process are controversial in their own right,
which could lead to problems for proving and or disproving insanity.
Perhaps most interestingly as well was again this concept of the juror in which we have
evaluated the entire semester. As we have seen many things get "left for the jury to decide,
and debate about." In the case of insanity often times the ambiguous terms such as to determine
right from wrong, "understand" and other terms may be understood differently juror to juror.
Further, jurors also tend to agree with experts which also becomes controversial in its own
right.
Perhaps most interesting was the case of Kenneth Bianchi which puts most of the concepts and
problems of insanity into perspective. Kenneth was an example of malingering or a sense of
faking psychotic symptoms. In this case Kenneth faked an alter ego "steve" and two
psychologists determined incorrectly that he had an alter ego and that Kenneth was not aware of
Steve's actions. In this case he filed an insanity plea, but later pleaded guilty after Martin
Orne discovered he faked his symptoms. This case however, is beneficial in studying and
understanding the insanity process. When he successfully faked his symptoms of split
personality he demonstrated that experts often disagree in there diagnosis, as that two said he
had split personality and another disproved it. It also leads to a breakdown of the negative
stigma that the public has to the insanity plea. Often times even when criminals successfully
avoid prison through Malingering they succumb to long and immediate mental hospital
treatment.
Overall this was the most interesting thing I learned. Often times the stereotypes of the
insanity plea are incorrect, however changing those perspectives are very difficult. I would
say my own opinion has not changed. It's been my opinion that mental illness although different
should be treated somewhat the same in terms of justice. That is to say just as criminals can
have parole, mental illness patients should be allowed to be released if medication can
suppress the symptoms. Although many people may disagree with me that has always been my two
cents on the issue.
Terms: insanity, competency, Cooper v. Oklahoma, Medina v. California, CST, preponderance of
the evidence, antipsychotic medication, foreseeable future, Mens rea, actus rea, retribution,
deterrence, M'Naghten rule, irresistible impulse, Durham rule, jury, Kenneth Bianchi,
Malingering, flexible standard. Christian Sather |
March 10, 2013 3:07 PM | Reply
Chapters 8 and 9 were very interesting. What made them interesting was what the chapters talked
about. Chapter 8 focused on how our legal system decides if someone is mentally sane enough to
take trial, while chapter 9 focuses on the use of the insanity defense in our legal system
today. These were both very interesting chapter. To start off, I am going to summarize chapter
8. Chapter 8 starts off with the story about Russell Weston Jr. Russell walked into Capitol
Hill and ended up shooting a couple of detectives before finally being captured. After he was
it was found that Russell has a mental illness. He was eventually diagnosed with Paranoid
schizophrenia, which is a serious mental illness whose suffers lose touch with reality. The
chapter continues on to talk about how people with paranoid schizophrenia have auditory
hallucinations (they hear voices that tell them to do things), as well as thought disorder and
delusions. The chapter continues on telling about how Russell thought that President Clinton
was a part of the communist conspiracy to take over Washington. As well as what he said after
the shootings. It included the fact that he alone could stop the country from all the cannibals
and communist. So what does this all have to do with the mentally insane? Obviously Russell
committed a crime that resulted in the death of a couple of individuals. However, the way that
it deals with our legal system is that if someone isn't in the right state of mind when they
committed the offense, is it necessarily the right thing to do to send them to prison. Instead
the legal system thinks that it is better for that person to get the mental help that he/she
needs in a mental hospital rather than some prison where they will continue thinking the weird
thoughts that they do. The chapter next talks about competence. Competence refers to the
whether or not the individual has sufficient present ability to perform necessary personal and
legal functions. This is basically asking the question is the person able to think rationally
and create a good defense for her/himself. To go along with competence, the book talks about
how our legal system runs test to see if an individual is competent to stand trial. This
evaluation is commonly known as competency to stand trial (CST). What CST means is that a
person should be able to understand the wrongs that he/she committed and be able to participate
in his/her defense of the charges. This leads into some trouble though. How do we tell if a
person is mentally competent or not? This is a big topic when it comes to the use of legal
defense of insanity that we see in chapter 9. The chapter mentions a Supreme Court case that
back up the fact that a person must be competent to face serious charges otherwise they should
be recommended to a mental hospital. The Supreme Court case was Dusky v. United States. The
chapter continues on talking about other Supreme Court cases that the United States has had
that has supported the judgment that a person much be competent in order to be prosecuted to
the fullest of the law. Things such as the presumption of CST and preponderance of the evidence
have all been things that have evolved because of Supreme Court cases about competence and the
ability to take the stand. The chapter continues on to talk about how a person must be
competent in order to waive certain rights such as the right of an attorney. Chapter 8 talk's
about how a person must plead guilty/waive his/her rights knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
If a person isn't able to think for themselves then he/she should be treated a little
differently when it comes to the legal system itself. The next thing that chapter 8 talks about
is how our criminal justice system deals with incompetent defendants. The chapters continues on
to talk about how that sometimes it is necessary for the defendant to go under psychiatric
evaluation and that the defense will sometimes bring in experts to talk about the defendants
mental state during and after the crime. The book talks about how if they believe that the
person is not competent, the judge can order and evaluation of the person's mental state with
something called a Bona Fide Doubt! This is basically the fact that there is some doubt about
the mental health of the individual to defend him/herself. The next thing that the chapter
talks about is the characteristics of incompetent defense and how the legal system treats
adolescents when it comes to incompetence. When it comes to Adolescents, it talks more about
whether or not a child is capable of going to court for a very serious crime. The next thing
that the chapter talks about is the right of the person to refuse treatment and CST. However,
sometimes as seen in previous discussions the person cannot really make up a good mental
process on their own. The final things that the chapter talks about are the competency of an
individual to be executed and the process of test that our legal system uses to decide whether
someone is criminally insane or not. These tests include things such as Fitness interview
Test-Revised and Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with mental
Retardation. The final thing that the chapter talks about is a thing called Malingering. This
is the process where someone actually fakes being mentally ill to go to trial. This is
something that is a big problem and is also the reason for why we have so many different tests
that a person must go through before being called criminally insane. There are also tests that
actually test whether or not someone is actually faking being criminally insane. Chapter 9
talks about the use of insanity as a defense in a criminal case. The example that the chapter
starts with is the Andre Yates who drowned five of her children for being a bad mother. Chapter
talks about the trial of Andre Yates. The book talks about how there two main issues were
facing the court; the fact that she had killed five children and the fact of whether or not she
was competent to face trial. Chapter 9 continues to talk about the definition of insanity. The
definition of insanity is the mental state of the individual at the time the crime was
committed. The chapter finally tells us that Yates was diagnosed with postpartum mental
illness. What that means is that she is severally depressed. The next thing that the chapter
talks about is the evolution of insanity in law. It talks about how the fact that the law is
the retribution aspect of the law that talks about how the goal of our legal system is to
punish individuals. The book next talks about how the use of the mental defenses dates all the
way back to the Roman Empire; the fact that if a person was found to be non compos mentis
(without mastery of mind) they shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes. The next thing
that the book talks about are three important cases that helped the use of insanity in our
legal system. The three cases were The M'Naghten Case, The Durham Case, and the Hickley Case.
All of these cases were instances where the individual was found not guilty on the basis of
insanity and they were eventually given the medical care that they needed. The next thing that
the book talks about is the fact that our legal system has been constantly trying to get the
use of the insanity plea a little clearer. Now a day, there is a thing called guilty but
mentally ill. This is the process that a person might have a little idea about what they are
doing, however, they are still mentally ill and should get treatment. The next thing that the
book talks about is the Twinkie defense, where basically a guy named Dan White ate to much junk
food that led him into a depression where he then decided to shoot and kill the mayor and
Harvey Milk. The next thing that chapter 9 talks about are the test and techniques that are
used to decide whether or not someone is insane or not and how juries view the criminal defense
by insanity plea. The final thing that chapter 9 talks about is the larger context of insanity
law. The information that I found most interesting was when it talked about how insanity in
defense goes all the way back to the Romans. The thing is called non compos mentis. This is
something that I found very surprising because it gives some validity to the use of mentally
insane as a defense. The next thing that I found surprising was the thing called the Twinkie
Defense. I would have never imagined the fact that eating junk food could lead to someone being
depressed enough to go shoot the mayor and two individuals. I know for a fact that I love
eating junk food and it makes me happy not all that much sad. These two things were things that
surprised me. The thing that I found most interesting was the Andre Yates trial. I could not
imagine drowning five kids. It was something that I could really sick after reading because of
the fact that I could never imagine doing such a thing to children. All the information that I
wrote down was stuff that I learned. I knew that people sometime decided to fake being mentally
ill to get off from doing a crime; however, I never knew that it actually had a legal term. I
also didn't know that there were tests that can be conducted to actually test whether or not
someone is mentally ill or not. The final thing that I do know now after reading the chapter is
that there are a bunch of tests that are conducted to test whether or not someone is really
criminally insane and whether or not that person does the crime knowingly. My view on the
insanity plea hasn't really changed. I am glad to see that there are actual tests that can be
done to tell whether or not someone is criminally insane. I also like the fact that there a lot
of Supreme Court cases that have helped the development of insanity as a legal term. I
personally believe that if our overall goal as a legal system is to make sure that people learn
and become better for doing their crimes, it makes no sense for us to send mentally ill people
to prison because they won't get any better. However, I do think that if a person kills someone
while being mentally ill, they shouldn't be let out of the places that they are being held.
Overall, these were two very interesting chapters.
Terms. Twinkie defense, called guilty but mentally ill, non compos mentis, retribution,
postpartum mental illness, insanity, Malingering, Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for
Defendants with mental Retardation, Fitness interview Test-Revised, Bona Fide Doubt, knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent, presumption of CST, competence, competency to stand trial (CST).,
Paranoid schizophrenia, thought disorder and delusions. brookef |
March 10, 2013 7:14 PM | Reply Chapter
8 discussed the issue of competence and how best to handle this. Competence and competency to
stand trial (CST) are demonstrated in real life cases, such as the "Capitol Shooter" and Milton
Dusky. Basically, CST is an evaluation by forensic psychologists prior to the trial, which
decides whether or not a person is able to adequately participate in their own defense. An
interesting thing I learned while reading this chapter was from page 165, when Dusky appealed
his case to the Supreme Court. CST is based not on the criminal's sanity at the time of the
crime, but actually their present state. Previously, I had always figured that a criminal's
state of mind remained the same from crime all the way up to trial. But now, reading this, I
know that people may have been under the influence of drugs or had an untreated mental
disorder, etc. The simple wording in this is the crucial difference between CST (a criminal's
present state of mind) and the insanity plea (a criminal's state of mind during the crime).
Chapter 9 talks about this further, discussing the insanity plea and different cases that
have shaped the meaning of this. I've never really been too fond of the insanity plea, because
I believe that criminals committing such "hard" crimes (i.e. murder, rape, etc.) really cannot
be fixed. The difference of sending to a hospital versus a prison is not going to fix anything.
However, I did agree more with the book's paragraph on the "guilty but mentally ill" (GBMI)
verdict. For some reason, I prefer it over the insanity plea, most likely because it still has
the word "guilty" in it. Insane or not, I believe that criminal is still guilty.
Reading these two chapters has definitely changed my view of the insanity plea and
competency to stand trial. A big one that changed my view was in Chapter 8, discussing the
restoration of competency. It had never occurred to me that a person's competency can be
restored, so I found this really interesting. I always figured that once you're deemed insane,
there is no fix for that. In this chapter, I learned that a criminal can be granted a period of
time to restore CST and stay in a mental facility. However, this isn't a guaranteed fix
obviously.
Another part of these chapters that I found interesting and changed my view of insanity and
CST was in Chapter 9. It was always my assumption that many criminals were using the insanity
plea to their advantage by faking/exaggerating psychological disorders to get a lesser
sentence. The book refers to this as malingering and, after reading that paragraph, I now know
that this isn't a good idea for a criminal. The court system will just postpone your trial
while attempting to restore your competency, instead of granting you a lesser sentence or
finding you "not guilty." Also, I found an interesting statistic from Chapter 9: the insanity
plea is used in fewer than 1% of all felony cases, and fails about 75% of the time. This is
definitely a surprising fact to me!
Key Terms: Competence, Competency to Stand Trial (CST), Insanity, Guilty but Mentally Ill
(GBMI) verdict, Malingering, Restoration of Competency havels |
March 10, 2013 9:19 PM | Reply In
chapter 8 and 9 it talks about Competency to stand Trial and Insanity. CST is where they do an
evaluation to see if you have the mental competency to stand trial and defend yourself or state
facts and understand all the aspects of the case. Defendants are deemed to be competent unless
proved that they are incompetent. Competency has to do with the legal side of things and
Insanity has to do with the psychology side. Insanity is evaluated by how sane you were at the
time of the crime; insanity can only be claimed when you know that they were indeed insane at
the time of the crime committed.
A person that is competent to stand trial and is sentenced to death, it is illegal for them
to kill someone who does not understand why they are being executed. The evaluation of
competency for the death sentence is a lower standard than the evaluation of CST. Determining
what is right and wrong is hard for people who are diagnosed with insanity.
What interested me in chapter 8 is where they linked CST to adolescence. Should they be CST?
They do not thoroughly understand the terms of the justice systems so I feel as if they should
not be, because it is even hard for me to understand fully what is going on. It can also be
really nerve racking in the courtroom and having a bunch of adults staring at you would be hard
to form sentences to begin with or to recall memory. Another thing that I thought was
interesting about competency is that the judge decides whether someone is competent or not and
they only have to be 50/50 sure that they are.
Chapter 9 talks about the Insanity defense, which to me is a joke, but in some scenarios it
could very well be the case. It is very hard to prove that you were indeed insane at the time
of the crime, I learned a little bit about this in my Clinical Psychology class last semester.
The insanity defense is rarely used, but in the times that it is the person that has committed
say a murder, claims that someone was telling them to do it such as God. Or they really think
that the person was going to hurt them and so they act out of paranoia. The people who abuse
the insanity defense are those who give it a bad name and a bad reputation. Some people I do
genuinely think that they need help and medication.
Those people who lie their way through the justice system by claiming that they are insane,
are not just put back on the street they are put into an institution and treated for the
condition that they said they had at the time of the crime. Like I said earlier it is
unfortunate that people use these mental illnesses as a way out because some people truly do
need help and need the proper treatment to know what is right and what is wrong.
There have been many cases where people have lied and gotten away with it, these are the
cases that make the insanity plea bad.
I have learned that competency to stand trial is something that is a current state of mind
where insanity is a previous state of mind. I thought that these chapters were very interesting
and it makes me feel like it is really unfortunate that people try and take advantage of the
justice system and find an easy way out with a condition that some people actually do need help
with. I think it would be very difficult to determine whether someone was insane at the time of
the crime because of all the testing that would have to take place.
Terms: Competency to stand trial (CST), insanity, insanity defense, clinical psychology,
Competency, and mental illness andersch |
March 11, 2013 1:42 PM | Reply Chapter
eight talks about competency to stand trial. There are many different mental disorders that can
affect a person's competency to stand trial. Some of these include schizophrenia, where they
may experience delusions and hallucinations. What it means to be able to stand trial, is
essentially and simply the ability to understand what is going on during the court proceedings,
and understand what is said by people such as their lawyer and judge. This requires a
substantial amount of knowledge and no physical or mental impairment that may affect their
ability to stand trial. The Dusky standard which originated from the court decision of Dusky v.
United States means that "sufficient present ability to consult with their attorney with a
reasonable degree of rational understand whether they have a rational and factual understanding
of the proceedings against him." The legal definition of competence refers to whether an
individual has sufficient present ability to perform necessary present ability to perform
necessary person of legal functions. The preponderance of the evidence is when the judge must
be at least 50% certain that the defendant is incompetent. Whenever someone suspects the
defendant has competency issue, or a bona fide, psychological evaluations are used. Some
evaluations include the MMPI2 or FAI. Sometimes collateral sources of information , or
information from a third party are used to evaluate competency. As a group, people who are
incompetent generally have mental disorders, have a history of drug use, and have been charged
with less serious crimes. Younger children also are more likely to be incompetent than older
children. Restoration of competency can be done by placing the person in a mental institution
for as long as the judge feels right, or the foreseeable future, when the person is competent
again. Antipsychotic medication can also be used to restore competency. One downside to
competency in court is malingering, where the person exaggerates their impairment to get off
easier for their crime they committed. All in all, this chapter talks a lot about competency
and what makes a person unable to stand trial. Psychological evaluations are goods ways to
evaluate if a person is competent, but it also can make it easier for some people to have a
lesser punishment for incompetency, when they are not disabled in any way. It surprised me the
most to learn about who is most likely to plead incompetency. Incompetency is a good thing when
the person is seriously unable to understand what is going on in the trial.
Chapter eight nine about the insanity defense, and what it is. It starts off by talking
about Andrea Yates, whose trial was one of the most controversial and biggest insanity cases in
the United States. Almost all of the people who are considered insane have a mental illness.
They are often evaluated for a mental illness by a clinical psychologist. The difference
between ¬insanity and ¬incompetency is that incompetency is the person's state of mind
during the trial and insanity the state of mind during the crime. If a person did not at the
time of the crime realize what they were doing was wrong, retribution would be pointless to
give to the criminal. Deterrence perspective on the punishment suggests that an individual
offender should be punished so that she or she learns that committing a crime that leads to
punishment. In other words, criminals no matter who they are should get punished. The person
must be able to understand what they did was wrong in order to be tried. People who are found
not guilty by reason of insanity are often placed in psychiatric facilities for life. In order
to be considered insane, the person often has to take many cognitive tests. Ultimate issue
testimonies are important because it gives expert advice to the judge, even though they are not
allowed to give their personal opinion. Many past court cases dealing with people who were
considered insane showed that many of the people had cognitive difficulties and volitional
difficulties. It is often hard to distinguish if a crime was -premeditated or not, and the
cause for the crime. Some tests can be used to pinpoint a possible mental illness that may have
made the criminal insane such as the Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation
and the Roger Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale, which focus in on the persons mental
state at the time of the crime. Malingering is often a setback and reason people try to declare
insanity. This chapter shocked me when it talked about how hard it really is to be declared
insane, and why Andrea Yates was. Insanity defense like incompetency defense is a good thing
when it a person needs it. However I do feel like people can use it as an excuse to get away
with a big crime.
Key Words: Schizophrenia, delusions, hallucinations, Dusky, standard competence,
preponderance of the evidence , MMPI2 , FAI, bona fide, collateral sources of information,
foreseeable future, antipsychotic medication, malingering, clinical psychologist, insanity,
¬incompetency ,retribution ,Deterrence perspective, not guilty by reason of insanity,
cognitive tests, Ultimate issue testimonies, cognitive difficulties, volitional difficulties,
Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation ,Roger Criminal Responsibility
Assessment Scale Jessica Conard |
March 11, 2013 1:53 PM | Reply
Chapter eight is about competency to stand trial, CST. The concerns for competency are fairness
to the defendant and respect for the justice system. The defendant needs to be able to
understand what is going on in the court system and be able to do certain duties (i.e. plead
guilty, waive a trial by jury, testify, accept plea bargain if offered). CST is a legal concept
and has functions, these include: understand current legal situation, understand the charges
against them, understand the pleas available, understand the possible penalties if they are
convicted, understand the roles of the judge, defense counsel, and prosecutor, trust and
communicate with defense counsel, help locate witnesses, aid in developing a strategy for
cross-examining witnesses, act appropriately during the trial, and make appropriate decisions
about trial strategy. Some believe the CST should be made a flexible standard, meaning whether
a defendant facing very serious charges in a case with complex facts may need to be more
competent than someone facing less serious charges and a simpler legal proceeding.
How the criminal justice system deals with incompetence defendants is with CST evaluations.
There must be a bona fide doubt or a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competency in order
for an evaluation process to be ordered. One or more mental health professionals would be asked
to interview the defendant, administer psychological tests, review the defendants history, and
write a report, which would summarize the evaluation of the client explaining whether or not
they believe the client is able to stand trial. Some characteristics of an incompetent
defendant would include: live on the fringes of society, history of mental illness, history of
drug abuse, charges of less serious crimes, be socially isolated, unmarried, unemployed, poorly
educated, below average intelligence. Some of the most common mental health problems diagnosed
in defendants found to be incompetent are: psychotic illnesses, severe affective disorders, and
mental retardation. Children may also be incompetent, however this topic is very controversial,
due to their intellectual immaturity, and adolescent defendants may lack sufficient
understanding of the criminal justice system and lack the ability to interact effectively with
their attorneys.
Chapter nine is about the insanity defense, or the principle that people who commit crimes
without full awareness should not be held fully responsible for their actions. (This chapter
starts with Andrea Yates case, but that is the topic of discussion for next blog, so I will
begin right after that). The evolution of the insanity law can be traced back several
centuries. It is fundamental to most legal systems. Many believe it is immoral to convict and
punish people who are not responsible for their criminal behavior. The retribution perspective
suggests that the punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the harm committed. On the
other hand, the deterrence perspective suggests that an individual offender should be punished
so he or she learns committing a crime leads to punishment, and so other individuals will learn
from their mistakes.
Just like for those who are incompetent to stand trial, there are tests and techniques used for
assessing if someone is insane, or in need of the insanity defense. It first involves a
retrospective evaluation of the individual's mental state at the time of the crime. By the time
of the assessment the defendant may have been treated with medication or therapy and the
effects of substances that may have been preset at the time of the crime might have worn off,
so a mental health professional needs to assess them having the time of the crime in mind.
Second, the legal elements are much harder to define. It is difficult to assess whether or not
a person has the ability to control his or her actions or know the difference between right and
wrong. Lastly, there are many variations in states' insanity standards. This makes it
exceptionally difficult to design a psychological instrument specific for assessing
insanity.
In both of these cases on may malinger, or fake, the fact that they are incompetent or insane
in order to get a punishment that is not so harsh. However, if one is faking it they may end up
in a secure mental health hospital, which some may consider a better place than prison; some
may say it is worse. I would hope most people do not fake this, but one can never be fully
aware of that fact. I guess in a way I would feel sorry for those who need to be in a secure
mental health hospital and are placed in jail, but not vice versa. Those who put themselves in
there did it somewhat knowingly. In that case I would feel bad for the patients who are
receiving help and are stuck in there with criminals who need to be in jail and not in a mental
health ward.
Terms: Competency to Stand Trial, Flexible Standard, Bona Fide Doubt, Evaluation Process,
Psychological Test, Psychotic Illness, Severe Affective Disorders, Mental Retardation, Insanity
Defense, Insanity Law, Retribution Perspective, Deterrence Perspective, Mental Health
Hospital corankin |
March 11, 2013 3:51 PM | Reply
Competency is a legal term used to describe a defendant's ability to stand trial. A few set of
concerns is what is behind competency to stand trial. One involves being fair to the defendant.
If defendants cannot provide information to their lawyers and aid with the investigation then
it would not be a fair trial. They also need to be able to decide what to plead in a trial as
well as understand exactly what is going on in a trial. Defendant's need to be capable enough
to know the process of the trial as well as the consequences of it may be. If a defendant does
not understand these things they may be found incompetent to stand trial.
CST refers to the state of the defendant at the time of the trial (not at the time of the
crime). Defendants are competent until proven incompetent. Competence is determined by a
psychologist of social worker. If they determine the defendant to be incompetent more often
than not the judge will agree. CST also refers to guilty pleas and waiving an attorney.
Defendants must understand exactly what this means and if they don't it would not be a fair
trial. Some attorneys argue that any defendant who refuses an attorney is incompetent.
After 1971 some tests were created in order to aid in the process of determining whether
someone is competent. These tests include forensic assessment instruments, MMPI-2, and the
competency screening test. Since there is no gold standard to determine competence, evaluations
can be difficult. Another difficulty is prosecuting teenagers as adults. Young adults'
competency is different than a grown adult so they must be assessed differently.
Another issue in evaluation competency is malingering. Malingering is a term used to
describe someone who is faking or exaggerating symptoms in order to get the outcome that they
want. Defendants might malinger incompetent in order to delay jail time or in order to delay
the trial (attorneys may call for a competency evaluation for the same reasons). Over all
malingering is usually caught and does not help the defendant.
Insanity is a very controversial issue in the legal system. Insanity refers to the
criminal's state at the time of the crime (not at the time of the trial). As with competency,
insanity is not a psychological term but a legal one.
Insanity is used on the basis that they people that did not understand that they crime they
were committing was wrong should not be punished fully for their actions. This goes along with
retribution and deterrence. This means that if a person does not understand the rights and
wrongs of their crime a harsh punishment will not help them.
Insanity has many different requirements among different states. And the definition can be
quite complex. Some states have added irresistible impulse and volitional capacity in
determining a suspect's insanity. Also there are ways around insanity. For example if a
defendant is not found to be insane the can be found guilty but mentally ill. These defendants
still go to prison for the whole length of the time determined by their crime but they receive
help while in prison or are transferred to a mental health facility. Some states also allow
defendants to plead diminished capacity if not found insane. Mental health professionals can
also testify that the defendant lacked the capacity to form the specific intent to kill the
victim.
Problems with insanity also are found in the jury's perception of it. A jury's reasoning is
much more complex than a simple definition. And some may not understand the full intent of
pleading insane.
As with competency, there are test to determine insanity. Such as: the mental state at the
time of offense screening evaluation and Rodgers criminal responsibility assessment scale.
These test aid a professional in determining the state of mind of the criminal but the tests
still involve some level of interpretation.
I found that different states classify insanity differently interesting. I just always
assumed the legal system worked the same way in all states. And this could also cause some
problems since there isn't an overall understanding with insanity. I knew a lot about insanity
and competency from previous classes. I always kind of put them under the same umbrella though.
I thought the main difference between them was just that competency was at the time of trial
and insanity was at the time of the crime. I did not know that there were many other underlying
factors that made them very different from each other.
Terms: Competency, insanity, attorney, psychologist, mental health facility, mental state at
the time of offense screening evaluation, Rodgers criminal responsibility assessment scale,
defendant, suspect, irresistible impulse, volitional capacity, Malingering, forensic assessment
instruments, MMPI-2, competency screening test JennyB |
March 11, 2013 4:32 PM | Reply Chapter 8
was about CST (competency to stand trial). Reading this chapter cleared up a lot of the
blurriness between CST and the insanity defense. The chapter begins with a discussion on the
meaning of competency to stand trial and goes over the Dusky Standard. One of the main points
made in this discussion is that a competent defendant must be competent at the time of trial.
Eight functional elements of CST are listed and a discussion of CST vs competency to plead
guilty and waive an attorney follows. Next in the chapter, a section is dedicated to discuss
how incompetent individuals are dealt with. CST evaluations, ultimate issue expert testimonies,
common characteristics of incompetent defendants, incompetent adolescents, restoration of
competency, the right to refuse treatment are all under this section. Multiple tests used to
asses CST are discussed next in chapter 8. Tests such as the Fitness Interview Test-Revised and
the Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation are given
focus. Finally, the chapter brings up the term "malingering" and discusses how this can be a
problem when it comes to CST.
Chapter 9 was similar to chapter 8 but discussed the insanity defense. The chapter opened with
an interesting summary of Andrea Yates' crimes and her trial. The evolution of the insanity law
was given focus next and two important topics were covered there: retribution and deterrence.
The chapter then went over three important cases that helped shape the history of the insanity
law: 1) the M'Naghten case 2) The Durham Case and 3) The Hinckley Case. The discussion of
guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) and Mens Rea Defenses followed the Hinckley Case. How jurors
define insanity was the title of the next section in chapter 9 and it was found that jurors use
their own definitions in judging whether or not an individual is guilty by reason of insanity.
A section discussing tests that are used to assess insanity followed. Focus was given to the
Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation and the Rogers Criminal Responsibility
Assessment Scales. Chapter 9 also included a section on malingering and how it can be a problem
in the insanity defense. Finally, the chapter wrapped up with a discussion of insanity laws and
popular myths and misconceptions about the insanity defense.
I think the thing that most surprised me was the discussion at the end of chapter 9 regarding
the insanity defense. Many statistics and facts were listed here and I was shocked by most of
them. Like the majority of people typically think, I thought the insanity defense was used a
lot more often than it supposedly is and I also wrongly believed it was used mainly for violent
crimes such as murder. I also believed that psychologists didn't agree very much on how to
define insanity and how to properly diagnose someone as having a particular psychological
disease. However, the discussion at the end of chapter 9 proves me wrong. I did not know any of
the statistics or facts presented at the end of the chapter before reading it!
From reading this discussion, my views of the insanity defense have changed. Even though I'm
interested in psychology, I wrongly believed that the insanity defense was used commonly to get
cold-blooded criminals "off-the-hook." I didn't disagree or argue with people who claimed that
the insanity defense was an "easy way out." Apparently, this defense is not used near as often
as most people think; it is just highly publicized when it is used. In addition, the
individuals who do receive a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity can apparently spend
more time locked up in an institution than some guilty individuals spend locked up in
prison.
If we relate this all back to psychology, we can clearly see how clinical psychologists are
important. Obviously clinical psychologists are the ones who help determine whether or not a
defendant is competent, insane, or has a diagnosable mental illness. We know from the reading
that psychologists have to be present to administer many of the tests that were discussed in
the two chapters including, but not limited to, the MMPI. In addition, we can see how
developmental psychologists might be important when thinking about incompetent adolescents. We
can also see how cognitive psychology is relevant to the insanity defense because part of the
definition of the insanity defense has to do with how the individual thinks; whether or not
they think what they did was right or wrong.
Lastly, we can see how social psychology is relevant to the insanity defense if we look at
jurors. Many studies have been conducted that correlate individual decision making with group
decision making. We can see how one juror may be leaning another direction in terms of whether
or not the defendant was legally insane while all the other jurors believe something different.
Psychologically speaking, it may be difficult for the "outsider" to voice his/her opinion and
to better fit in with the majority, he or she may just agree with the group. This type of
situation may also be present when discussing psychological evaluations done by clinical
psychologists. The defendant in an insanity defense case obviously sees numerous psychologists
who determine whether or not he was insane and whether or not he has a diagnosable illness,
say, schizophrenia. If four psychologists believe he has paranoid schizophrenia and the fifth
psychologist is aware of this, he may be much more likely to diagnose the defendant with
paranoid schizophrenia.
Terms: CST, insanity defense, Dusky Standard, expert testimonies, Fitness Interview
Test-Revised, Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation,
malingering, retribution, deterrence, M'Naghten case, Durham Case, Hinckley Case, guilty but
mentally ill, Mens Rea Defenses, Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation,
Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales rossv |
March 11, 2013 4:52 PM | Reply Provide a
list of psychological and legal terms you used at the bottom of your post
Chapter 8, on competency to stand trial, or CST was the most interesting to me. First it
explained what exactly is CST. Although I did the basics of CST, like it's not about the mental
state when the crime took place (that's insanity) but it is the mental state when they are
supposed to be put on trial. However, it is just that they are competent; they have to
understand what is going on at every stage of the criminal justice process. When I first read
this, I thought, I don't even know what goes on at every stage of the criminal justice process,
I have never been in court before and I haven't taken a class that focuses in-depth on that.
This raised my concern on how they necessarily test of competence.
Later in the chapter however my questions were answered and I learned a lot!
I learned that there aren't necessary guidelines evaluators have to follow in order to test
for competence. What I thought was surprising about this though was that people didn't believe
that since it was a "legal" term that psychologists should not be the ones deciding whether or
not someone is CST. I think (as a psychologist) this is an awful argument they should be
having. We study this type of stuff yet they think we shouldn't be evaluating these people, we
are trained to do that (sorry had to vent)!
A few of the tests I learned about were: Fitness Interview Test-Revised, this test was used
to assess both legal and psychopathology knowledge. Another test is Evaluation of Competency to
Stand Trial Instrument is a 18- item assessment semi-structured interview to assess the
defendants factual knowledge of the court room. A third I learned was Assessment for Standing
Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation; it uses not only multiple choice but also
responses as well about basic legal requirements. The last test I learned about is a 272
question assessment to view the defendants psychological functioning, this test is known as the
Computer-Assisted Determination of Competence to Proceed.
Other things discussed in this chapter were, refusal of treatment for CST, restoration of
competency, and also different cases that gave examples of these things throughout the
chapter.
The next chapter I read, was about insanity. Like I mentioned earlier, this is looking at
the mental state of the defendant at the time the crime was committed. Something interesting
talked about in this chapter was the idea of retribution, which is basically like the saying
"an eye for an eye". The perspective punishment suggests that the punishment for a crime should
be proportionate to the harm committed. However, this raises a question, if the person is
insane do they know that the act the committed was wrong? It also talks about different cases
through history such as the M'Naghten Case and the Durham Case that have shaped how we view and
reason if someone is insane. However the one that was used to satisfy everyone is called the
ALI. The ALI was adopted by 26 states and includes aspects of both listed above.
This chapter also talks about different tests that are used in order to potentially view a
defendant as insane.
Something I found interesting was that although the courts want to make the decision of
whether or not the defendant was insane a black or white judgment, jurors view it differently.
They look to make a more broader assessment of whether the person was insane at the time of the
crime or not.
Although this chapter was very interesting to me, it didn't really change my views of
insanity. I think insanity is something that is very hard to determine. It's hard to weigh
being insane with let's say taking a bunch of innocent peoples life. I think no matter what
people have committed crimes under insanity need to be in a mental health facility getting help
and overcoming their disease so it doesn't happen in the future.
Terms: ALI, M'Naghten Case, Durham Case, Competency, Insanity, Fitness Interview
Test-Revised, Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial Instrument, Assessment for Standing Trial
for Defendants with Mental Retardation, Computer-Assisted Determination of Competence to
Proceed, retribution
Two disgraced Enron executives, founder Kenneth Lay and former CEO Jeffrey Skilling , were found guilty on all six counts and 19
of 28 counts, respectively. Both face lengthy prison terms.
Where they will serve their time can be almost as important as how much time they'll do, says Alan Ellis, a former president of
the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Ellis now specializes in the defense of white-collar offenders.
Although criminals don't get to choose their prisons, they can make requests. And assuming their desired location matches their
security classification, as defined by the Bureau of Prisons--minimum, low, medium or high--and has space available, requests are
often honored.
Often, but not always. Take the case of Samuel Waksal , the former
ImClone Systems CEO, who requested to serve his seven-year sentence at Eglin Federal Prison Camp in Florida. (Eglin was once considered
so cushy that the term "Club Fed" was actually coined to describe it. It was recently closed.) Instead, Waksal was shipped off to
the Schuylkill Federal Correctional Institute in Minersville, Pa., which did not make our list.
And the fates of crooked corporate titans like former
Tyco Chief Executive Dennis Kozlowski and Adelphia founder John Rigas can hardly be encouraging either. Kozlowski will serve up
to 25 years of hard time in a New York state prison, while Rigas, who is free pending an appeal, was sentenced to 15 years in the
can.
The days of "Club Fed"--think golf courses and lobster bakes--are long gone. But minimum security facilities, known as federal
prison camps, are the best suited for disgraced CEOs and other white-collar criminals. In theory, inmates in these camps show no
risk of violence or escape. Both shoe-mogul Steven Madden and Martha Stewart are FPC alums.
Why are prison camps the way to go, if you must go at all? Among other perks, federal prison camps have a relatively low staff-to-inmate
ratio, dormitory-style accommodations and little to no fencing. In fact, inmates could walk away from these camps. Few do, however,
because recaptured inmates face severe consequences.
While some of the minimum security facilities still stand on their own, it is increasingly common to have camps lie adjacent to
larger and more secure institutions, particularly low-security federal correctional institutions.
"It used to be that those freestanding facilities were considered to be more relaxed," says David Novak, a former
Microsoft
consultant who served time in a federal prison camp for mail fraud. "The differences now really come down to convenience for family,
weather and things of that nature."
Ellis says the quality of life among staff members also can make one prison more pleasant than another. "Happier staff makes for
happier inmates," he says.
To determine which prisons are the best places to serve time, we turned to the man who wrote the guidebook, literally. Ellis has
written several editions of the Federal Prison Guidebook , which profiles each of the nation's 178 federal prisons.
Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always
exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials. Download his
article on the topic at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf... .
Ted Cruz's Long Sellout on Criminal Justice ReformOnce an innovator on this
issue, he's descended into authoritarian fearmongering. By Jack Hunter •
October 10, 2018
When Cruz's
competitive Democratic opponent, Congressman Beto O'Rourke,
spoke to a
historic black church last month in Dallas, he said, "How can it be, in this day and age,
in this very year, in this community, that a young man, African American, in his own apartment,
is shot and killed by a police officer?"
O'Rourke continued, "And when we all want justice and the facts and the information to make
an informed decision, what's released to the public? That he had a small amount of marijuana in
his kitchen."
O'Rourke was referring to Botham Shem Jean
, a black Dallas man who was shot in his own apartment by a police officer who thought she had
entered her own residence. The shooting happened a mere week prior to O'Rourke's church speech.
The circumstances of the killing, along with police thinking it was somehow necessary for the
public to know that Jean had a
small amount of pot in his home, captivated the country across ideological lines.
"How can that be just in this country?" O'Rourke asked. "How can we continue to lose the
lives of unarmed black men in the United States of America at the hands of white police
officers?" He continued, "That is not justice. That is not us. That can and must change."
But Ted Cruz is apparently no longer on board. Cruz instead tweeted a video of O'Rourke's
speech, adding, "In O'Rourke's own words," seeming to condemn his language.
What is remotely wrong with O'Rourke's "own
words" there? They were spot-on, and the questions he asked the church audience were par for
the course for anyone, right or left, who advocates for criminal justice reform and against
police brutality.
What Cruz meant in his tweet can perhaps be gleaned from his reaction to O'Rourke's call for
the officer who shot Jean to be fired. "I wish Beto O'Rourke and Democrats weren't so quick to
always blame the police officer," Cruz
said .
O'Rourke was right to call for the
officer's firing . How many times have conservative Republicans called for government
bureaucrats to be fired for basic incompetence? (And they should!) A government agent who
happens to wear a badge unquestionably deserves due process but not special treatment.
This shift by Cruz hasn't gone unnoticed.
"
Bipartisan criminal justice reform casualty of Cruz campaign " read the headline in a
Thursday editorial of the Houston Chronicle . "All candidates have to make sacrifices
on the path to Election Day," said the staff editorial. "U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has decided to
sacrifice criminal justice reform, and that's a real shame."
It continued:
While they may address the issues from different perspectives, Democrats and Republicans
have worked together in fighting mass incarceration and refocusing efforts toward
rehabilitation. Part of this cooperation included an unspoken detente on scaremongering and
race-baiting campaigns. Without the fear of cheap attacks, politicians and policymakers have
been free to discuss the failings of our criminal justice system in stark, earnest terms . In
his campaign for re-election, Cruz has shattered that truce. He has targeted otherwise
bipartisan rhetoric about criminal justice reform as the subject for convenient campaign
season attacks.
Unfortunately, this was but the latest example of Cruz turning away from the criminal
justice reform positions he once advocated.
A year ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley condemned a sentencing
reform bill backed by Ted Cruz as "lenient" and "dangerous." Eight months later, it was
Cruz's turn. Explaining his opposition to a sentencing reform bill backed by Grassley, Cruz
described it as dangerously lenient.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Grassley's bill by a 3-to-1 margin in
October, Cruz joined four other Republicans in voting no. The Texas senator -- once a leading
Republican critic of excessively harsh criminal penalties, especially for nonviolent drug
offenders -- had effectively traded places with Grassley, a law-and-order Iowa Republican who
has long resisted efforts to reduce those penalties.
"It is hard to escape the impression that Cruz, who is running second to Donald Trump in the
race for the Republican presidential nomination and has a good shot at winning the Iowa caucus
on Monday, decided to abandon a cause that might alienate conservative primary voters," Sullum
concluded.
Obviously this political calculation did not pan out well for Cruz in the 2016 presidential
primaries.
Though the increasingly popular O'Rourke is a talented politician, conservatives should hope
that Republicans keep control of the Senate in the midterms and a Cruz victory next
month would likely play a role in that outcome.
But part of what has made Beto O'Rourke formidable against Cruz in deep red Texas, or at
least
more competitive than anyone would have expected, is that the liberal Democrat comes across
as authentic .
He sticks to his
progressive guns under pressure.
Before the rise of
Donald Trump , Cruz was viewed by much of the GOP base as one of the most authentic
conservative champions in the Republican party. It was a brand that once included, however
significant or insignificant, his more libertarian
than authoritarian stance on criminal justice reform.
By flip-flopping on what is still mostly an under-the-radar issue with general voters, the
Texas senator is unlikely to pick up any more votes from law-and-order Republicans than he
would have otherwise.
What's clear is that the spectre of false allegation continues to dog the reporting of sexual violence.
There remains a public impression that false allegations are common and that innocent people suffer as the result
of being wrongfully accused.
The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue
reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual
assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the
Home Office
suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected
to be false.
Studies
carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.
This looks like a modern reincarnation of inquisition.
Notable quotes:
"... this fellow, in the back in this picture, has so far received $375,000 in damages from various parties in Maine for having been railroaded by his ex-wife and her friends, who included the woman prosecutor, in his rape trial in 2009. ..."
"... the prosecutor who has now been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct withheld exculpatory evidence to obtain a conviction ..."
"... [Some] Women if you reject, or even if they perceive you as a threat will do anything to crush you. Probably evolutionary. ..."
"... A bunch of SJW warriors have created a system of traps for even the good guy who tries to do the right thing. ..."
"... I have had several discussions with friends outside the reach of the current inquisition. We reckon that 90% of the women are lying. Where do you think this derives from? If emotions rule you then by definition you are not rational. Young women for the most part are ruled by extreme emotions probably dictated by estrogen. ..."
"... Right now there is a twitter #tag called #whyididntreport and within 2 days an article I read claimed there are over 700,000 women who claimed they were sexually assaulted or raped and didn't report it. This is mass hysteria. ..."
"... When I lived in South America the first thing I noticed were the women behaved differently. Much less aggressive and actually a lot of pleasure to be around. ..."
"... I have twice found myself on the receiving end of lying women as a teenager. Once by a girl trying to score points on another girl at my expense and another time by a butt ugly who boasted to her sisters that she had had to fend me off. ..."
"... Most men, I think, have similar tales. We (both sexes) are still unreformable primates and we follow natural instincts. ..."
"Besides filing
a federal civil lawsuit against police officers, prosecutors and other witnesses in his case, Filler
filed a complaint about former prosecutor Mary Kellett with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, which resulted in Kellett
becoming the first prosecutor in recent memory to be publicly sanctioned by the state over prosecutorial misconduct. Kellett, who
now works as a defense attorney,
prosecuted Filler at his first trial in 2009.
Filler, who now lives in suburban Atlanta, was contacted via email but declined to say how much money he is getting in the settlement.
"I am grateful to all my attorneys but most of all I am grateful for my strong family and my two amazing children who I
have been blessed to see grow up," Filler wrote in a statement Monday night." Bangor Daily News
------------
Ok folks, this fellow, in the back in this picture, has so far received $375,000 in damages from various parties in Maine
for having been railroaded by his ex-wife and her friends, who included the woman prosecutor, in his rape trial in 2009.
The review process decided that his wife lied about him to gain revenge in a custody case over their two children and that
the prosecutor who has now been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct withheld exculpatory evidence to obtain a conviction
. A friend of the wife, a female RN, coached the wife to cry in court so as to make "it seem more real." The RN has been sued by
the now vindicated ex-husband. I hope she loses every cent she might ever have.
Several here on SST have maintained that women seldom falsely accuse men. What a joke!
"... the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male." Kipling
Every guy worth his salt knows this to be true. Even most women know this to be true. There was a reason for the line "hell hath
no fury like a woman scorned."
Most not ALL women are extremely emotional and not rational. The average IQ is 100. So 50% of the women are below that but
I am supposed to believe that any accusation is 100% to be believed.
It's such a joke as to bring contempt upon the part of society who is pushing this. [Some] Women if you reject, or even
if they perceive you as a threat will do anything to crush you. Probably evolutionary.
Men murder women at an obscene rate and it is probably hardwired into them for protection. That part I can understand and emphasis
with strongly.
However, these stories such as this poor guy endured are nauseating. A bunch of SJW warriors have created a system of traps
for even the good guy who tries to do the right thing.
I have had several discussions with friends outside the reach of the current inquisition. We reckon that 90% of the women
are lying. Where do you think this derives from? If emotions rule you then by definition you are not rational. Young women for
the most part are ruled by extreme emotions probably dictated by estrogen.
How about the UVA rape case rolled out by the Rolling Stones? Just another delusional female that the press demanded we believe.
How about the Duke Lacrosse team? Another false accusation pushed by the female dominated press who dominate their SJW warrior
co-workers and secretly have contempt for them being so feminine. Right now there is a twitter #tag called #whyididntreport
and within 2 days an article I read claimed there are over 700,000 women who claimed they were sexually assaulted or raped and
didn't report it. This is mass hysteria.
The number I am sure is in the millions now so there are millions of women in America mostly who have been raped and not reported
it. I call bullshit.
Why do women hate other women? Why can't we discuss the truth anymore?
When I lived in South America the first thing I noticed were the women behaved differently. Much less aggressive and actually
a lot of pleasure to be around. I should have never left regardless how bad the air was.
Years ago I attended Medical School and 50% of the students were female. And normal, fun, and I miss them. Maybe it is intelligence
and not the gender. They were certainly as smart or smarter in many cases than us guys. Top 2 students were female. So I am not
an ogre. But stories like this piss me off.
Not surprised. I have twice found myself on the receiving end of lying women as a teenager. Once by a girl trying to score
points on another girl at my expense and another time by a butt ugly who boasted to her sisters that she had had to fend me off.
Most men, I think, have similar tales. We (both sexes) are still unreformable primates and we follow natural instincts.
Somewhere between the creation of the Magna Carta and now, leftists have forgotten why due
process matters; and in some cases, such as that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, they choose to
outright ignore the judicial and civil rights put in place by the U.S. Constitution.
In this age of social media justice mobs, the accused are often convicted in the court of
public opinion long before any substantial evidence emerges to warrant an investigation or
trial. This is certainly true for Kavanaugh. His accuser, Christine
Blasey Ford , cannot recall the date of the alleged assault and has no supporting
witnesses, yet law professors are ready to ruin his entire life and career. Not because they
genuinely believe he's guilty, but because he's a pro-life Trump nominee for the Supreme
Court.
It goes without saying: to "sink Kavanaugh even if" Ford's allegation is untrue is
unethical, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. He has a right to due process, and before
liberals sharpen their pitchforks any further they would do well to remember what happened to
Brian Banks.
In the summer of 2002, Banks was a highly recruited 16-year-old linebacker at Polytechnic
High School in California with plans to play football on a full scholarship to the University
of Southern California. However, those plans were destroyed when Banks's classmate, Wanetta
Gibson, claimed that Banks had dragged her into a stairway at their high school and raped
her.
Gibson's claim was false, but it was Banks's word against hers. Banks had two options: go to
trial and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal that included five
years in prison, five years probation, and registering as a sex offender. Banks accepted the
plea deal under the counsel of his lawyer, who
told him that he stood no chance at trial because the all-white jury would "automatically
assume" he was guilty because he was a "big, black teenager."
Gibson and her mother subsequently sued the Long Beach Unified School District and won a
$1.5 million settlement. It wasn't until nearly a decade later, long after Banks's promising
football career had already been tanked, that Gibson admitted she'd fabricated the entire
story.
Following Gibson's confession, Banks was exonerated with the help of the California
Innocence Project . Hopeful to get his life back on track, he played for Las Vegas
Locomotives of the now-defunct United Football League in 2012, and signed with the Atlanta
Falcons in 2013. But while Banks finally received justice, he will never get back the years or
the prospective pro football career that Gibson selfishly stole from him.
Banks's story is timely, and it serves as a powerful warning to anyone too eager to condemn
those accused of sexual assault. In fact, a film about Banks's ordeal, Brian Banks , is set to
premiere at the Los Angeles Film Festival next week.
Perhaps all the #MeToo Hollywood elites and their liberal friends should attend the
screening - and keep Kavanaugh in their minds as they watch.
Reaper , 2 minutes ago
False charges were condemned by Moses 3200 years ago. We need his solution: the false
accusser suffers the penalty they desired on ther falsely accused.
If not always fair or flexible, it seems efficient – no attorneys collecting large fees
in a justice system designed to enrich attorneys. A shyster attorney that I had the
unfortunate experience in working with, did tell the truth once when he said that there is no
such thing as a justice system but there is a legal industry.
From comments: "In short, false inquiry into imaginary collusion hands down pseudo-indictments for quasi-obstruction of
fraudulent justice based on fake news reported by mock journalists quoting fictitious sources leaking fabricated stories about
made-up events about the false inquiry into imaginary collusion. " Papadopolous lied to hide the fact that the
Trump tower meeting was intended as an entrapment to make Trump look like he was colluding - and even having TAKEN that meeting,
it remains undisclosed to the public what information might have been considered 'dirt' that would be regarded as illegal for a
political opponent to use or disclose
Trump's former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos was sentenced to 14 days
in jail, the first campaign official to be sentenced as part of Robert Mueller's probe into
Russian election interference. Papadopoulos was sentenced to one year of supervised release,
200 hours of community service and a $9,500 fine.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October
2017 to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Russia nationals and efforts
to arrange a meeting with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
During the sentencing, Papadopoulos' lawyer told the judge that he was motivated to lie in
part by Trump characterizing investigation as "Fake news."
Imxploring ,
First rule in dealing with the FBI or law enforcement.... Say NOTHING! When they come
calling to talk to you they are trying to lock you up.... and if they want to "talk"... they
don't have enough to do so.... don't give it to them!
haruspicio ,
I have just been through this is another country. Just give a no comment interview and
make sure you have a lawyer by your side before even opening your mouth to answer a question
from a cop.
Golden Phoenix ,
This is why you should never say anything to police or other investigators. They'll entrap
you, twist your words, and suddenly an otherwise innocent person is convicted of a purely
procedural crime.
Justapleb ,
This carried the flag for Russian Collusion a year ago, how Papadopoulus had been
"flipped" and was "cooperating" with the Mueller investigation.
What happens after they "flip" former Trump people and they start "cooperating"? Nothing.
Because there is no crime even coherently stated pertaining to Russia. "Colluding" is not a
crime.
God what convoluted potempkin show trials.
Davidduke2000 ,
hillary lied and lied and lied and lied to the FBI, CIA, NSA and everybody in the
intelligence and law enforcement agencies and got zero days in jail.
pparalegal ,
Not hard when your co-conspirators are all given pre-immunity and you are given the
questions beforehand. And because the loudest, smartest woman in the world always says "I
don't recall".
RICKYBIRD ,
Let's not forget that an FBI contract "lure" met George in Europe and hired George to do
some work for him. Gave George $10,000 in marked bills. The object was to dirty George up,
maybe even claim he was paid by a Russian agent. When shortly thereafter George arrived in
the US, before he could go to Customs the FBI stopped him. They thought they'd catch him with
the bills. They didn't. George had left them behind in Europe. Tough luck, FBI.
bh2 ,
The lesson this teaches is the one every defense attorney advises to his clients: "never
speak to the police".
All these brain-dead prosecutions accomplish is to confirm those defense attorneys are
correct.
In the wake of the federal criminal conviction of former Trump official Paul Manafort and
the guilty plea in federal court of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, the mainstream press is
singing the praises of special prosecutor (and former FBI Director) Robert Mueller and the
Justice Department.
In the process, Trump's critics are condemning his denunciation of "flipping," the process
by which federal prosecutors offer a sweet deal to criminal defendants in return for testifying
against a "higher-up" who the feds are also prosecuting. The press and the anti-Trumpsters say
that such a practice is part of the "rule of law" and essential to the proper administration of
justice.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever else might be said about Trump, he is
absolutely right on this point. The process of offering sweetheart deals to people in return
for their "cooperation" to get someone else convicted has long been one of the most corrupt
aspects of the federal criminal-justice system, especially as part of the federal government's
much-vaunted (and much-failed) war on drugs.
Suppose a federal criminal defendant contacts a prospective witness in a case and offers him
$50,000 in return for his "cooperation" in his upcoming trial. The money will be paid as soon
as the trial is over. The defendant makes it clear that he wants the witness to "tell the
truth" but that his "cooperation" when he testifies at trial would be greatly appreciated.
What would happen if federal officials learned about that communication and offer? They
would go ballistic. They would immediately secure an indictment for bribery and witness
tampering.
What if the defendant says, "Oh, no, I wasn't tampering with the witness. I specifically
told him that I wanted him to tell the truth when he took the witness stand. I was just seeking
his friendly 'cooperation' with my $50,000 offer to him."?
It wouldn't make a difference. Federal prosecutors would go after him with a vengeance on
bribery and witness-tampering charges. And it is a virtual certainty that they would get a
conviction.
There is good reason for that. The law recognizes that the money could serve as an
inducement for the witness to lie. Even though the defendant tells him to "tell the truth," the
witness knows that the fifty grand is being paid to him to help the defendant get acquitted,
especially since it is payable after the trial is over. The temptation to lie, in return for
the money, becomes strong, which is why the law prohibits criminal defendants from engaging in
this type of practice.
Suppose a federal prosecutor says to a witness, "You are facing life in prison on the
charges we have brought against you. But if you 'cooperate' with us to get John Doe, we will
adjust the charges so that the most the judge can do is send you to jail for only 5 years at
most. If you are really 'cooperative,' we will recommend that the judge give you the lowest
possible sentence, perhaps even probation. Oh, one more thing, we want to make it clear that we
do want you to tell the truth."
Do you see the problem? The temptation to please the prosecutor with "cooperation" becomes
tremendous. If the witness can help secure a conviction of Doe, he stands to get a much lighter
sentence for his successful "cooperation." The inducement to commit perjury oftentimes takes
over, notwithstanding the prosecutor's admonition to the witness to "tell the truth."
Defenders of this corrupt process say that without it, prosecutors could never get
convictions. That's pure nonsense. For one thing, prosecutors can secure a conviction against
the witness and then force him to testify once his case is over. That's because a person whose
case is over is unable to rely on the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying in the case against
John Doe.
Moreover, the prosecutor can give what is called "use immunity" to the witness, which then
forces him to testify in the case against Doe. Use immunity is not full immunity from
prosecution. It simply means that the prosecutor cannot use the witness's testimony against Doe
to convict the witness at his trial. The prosecutor must convict him with other evidence.
But even if it means that the prosecutor is unable to secure some convictions, the question
has to be asked: Do we want prosecutors securing convictions in this way? After all, there is a
related question that must be asked: How many innocent people are convicted by perjured
testimony from a witness who is doing his best to "cooperate" with the prosecution in the hope
of getting a lighter sentence?
Given all the accolades being accorded Mueller, it is a shame that he has chosen to go down
the same corrupt road that all other federal prosecutors have traveled. He didn't have to do
that. He could have led the way out of this immoral morass by taking a firm and public stand
against this corrupt procedure. The fact that he has chosen instead to participate in it is a
shame, to say the least.
FBI Forensic labs are shit and dishonest. They had 20 years of cases reviewed because of
their false testimony on hair matching. Went into court swearing that dog hair was an exact
match to the suspects.
FBI forensics are nothing more than a bullshit factory for manufacturing convictions.
What is the science behind ballistic "matching" of a bullet to a gun? Just a carefully
constructed lie. They imply every gun bullet combination is unique. There is NO scientific
basis for claiming that. In other words a "match" might be correct but the "match" might also
apply to a shitload of other weapons. Those lying fucks go into court every day and bullshit
juries.
What is the science behind claiming every fingerprint is unique? Most people believe that
bullshit but there is no science behind it.
What do you make of this exchange?
Lab Tech: "Here are the results from analyzing the residue on the device" (Finding is
pyrodex - not gunpowder. Pyrodex is not an explosive so federal crimes aren't implicated)
ATF Agent: "Are you sure? Wasn't there any black powder? We need that" (Black powder is
considered an explosive thus implicating federal crimes)
Lab Tech: "Don't worry. The results are preliminary - we will find it"
Lab Tech: "Here are the final results. We found a small amount of black powder residue.
You have your device."
The only part of the FBI that might not be corrupted is their efforts against sex
trafficking. But even their anti child molesting activity isn't worth much because all they
do is get perverts downloading images and videos. They don't go after the actual molesters
because almost always has to be a state thing. Resources given to the FBI for this would be
better handled at the state level.
"... If I were a juror, I would completely discount Gates testimony. He doesn't have any credibility in my eyes. I would keep questioning his motivations in light of knowing that he lied, falsified, embezzled and committed other financial crimes. ..."
"... Of course I would also question the motivation of the prosecutor. Why these charges now after a decade when the crimes are alleged to have occurred. ..."
On Monday, 13 August 2018, the prosecutors from "special counsel" Robert Mueller's group
rested the government's criminal case against Paul Manafort [1]. At this point in the
procedural context of the trial, the defendant can make a "motion for a judgment of acquittal"
[2]. The word "motion" in a civil or criminal case means a request to the judge for some action
or relief. By its name, this motion asks the judge to order an acquittal -- the equivalent of a
finding of "not guilty" -- because the government has not put on evidence that proves each
"element" of each crime that is charged against Manafort. The charges are set forth in the
document filed in court by the prosecuting authority at the start of the case called an
"indictment". That paper can be amended or changed as the case moves along before trial by what
is usually called a "superseding indictment", which takes the place of the one filed before
it.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal. In part--
"(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the
close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of
acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The
court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If
the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's
evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.
"(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the
trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the
jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a
verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves
decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was
reserved."
The indictment against Manafort is 37 pages long, but for purposes of a motion for judgment
of acquittal, what matters are pages 27-35, which are supposed to state the wording of each
criminal law that has allegedly been violated [3]. By tradition in federal court, usually an
indictment will have the citations to each criminal offense alleged listed at the beginning,
and that is done here on pages 1-2. When it was filed in February 2018, it made allegations
against both Manafort and Richard W. Gates III, but as is known, Gates made a plea bargain that
same month and has testified against Manafort in this trial [4]. In order to analyze a criminal
case before and during a trial, you take each crime charged as a "count" of the indictment, and
check it against the citation of the crime as defined by Congress in the federal criminal law.
Then, you break it up into "elements", which are separate phrases and sentences that you can
see will stand alone as items that must be proven by the government (or State), which when put
back together track the language of each offense. You make up your own outline or chart or grid
that separates out the language of each crime into the elements, and then you can keep track of
the evidence that is introduced during the trial to see if enough has been presented to prove
each element of each individual charge. The government will also have to prove that enough of
the indictment took place in the geographical area where it is filed, called a "federal
district". That issue is called "venue". Furthermore, proof has to be presented of calendar
dates that show that the indictment was filed within the time period allowed after the alleged
crime took place, which is the "statute of limitations". Most crimes include a time period in
which charges must be filed after the offense happened, or else the person cannot be charged at
all. A crime can also have no time limit in which a charge has to be filed, the usual example
being murder, which normally has no statute of limitations.
Judge T.S. Ellis III and his law clerks will have been watching and checking to see if the
government has presented proper evidence for each element of each offense charged. If proof was
not presented for just one element of one offense, that entire charge will fall and a judgment
of acquittal can be issued by the judge as to that specific count of the indictment. It has
been obvious from media reports about the trial that Judge Ellis has been keeping his eye on
whether some evidence has been presented for each element of each charge, especially when the
crime includes an element of "willfulness". He is also a judge who has the guts to grant a
judgment of acquittal if he thinks it is warranted.
A motion for judgment of acquittal is rarely granted, and so if the request by Manafort is
denied, it will not be surprising. Most judges take the easy way out, deny the motion, and let
the jury decide. If all or part of the indictment survives the motion for judgment of
acquittal, the trial will proceed, and Manafort and his lawyers will decide whether to put on
evidence, or whether they will "rest" without presenting any testimony or other evidence at
all.
If there is time to put a motion for judgment of acquittal in writing, it can be done as to
part or all of the request. Whatever is not in writing can be orally stated in open court and
recorded by the court reporter. In this instance, Manafort's lawyer made an oral motion for a
judgment of acquittal after the prosecution rested, and has filed a supplement and memorandum
in support of the motion relating to counts 29-32 of the indictment--
If I were a juror, I would completely discount Gates testimony. He doesn't have any
credibility in my eyes. I would keep questioning his motivations in light of knowing that he
lied, falsified, embezzled and committed other financial crimes. I would keep coming
back to, do I know with certainty that his testimony is truthful and accurate. Of course
I would also question the motivation of the prosecutor. Why these charges now after a decade
when the crimes are alleged to have occurred.
Bottom line: The "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold is a high bar for me.
Of course, he will be found guilty. The purchase of those NY Yankees seats by Paulus directly
from his offshore accounts nailed the case. But, the case would never have been brought and
the mighty power of the state thrown at him but for his Trump association. Maybe a "fruit of
the poison tree" appeal will be successful or an ultimate pardon in the future awaits him.
But a little known quirk of this case is that Judge Ellis is only the trial judge. The
other judge who has treated him so unfairly is the sentencing judge. She will throw the book
at him.
"... A former Main Line investment banker known as the "Godfather of payday lending" for preying on low-income borrowers was sentenced Friday to 14 years in federal prison and stripped of over $64 million in assets, reports philly.com . ..."
"In this industry, to build a big book, you have to run afoul of the regulators" -Charles M. Hallinan
A former Main Line investment banker known as the "Godfather of payday lending" for preying on low-income borrowers was sentenced
Friday to 14 years in federal prison and stripped of over $64 million in assets, reports
philly.com .
Lawyers for 77-year-old Charles M. Hallinan argued that the prison term might as well be a "death sentence" given his age and
declining health, however District Judge Eduardo Robreno gave no quarter as he rendered his verdict after a jury convicted him of
17 counts, including racketeering, international money laundering and fraud.
"It would be a miscarriage of justice to impose a sentence that would not reflect the seriousness of this case," Robreno said.
"The sentence here should send a message that criminal conduct like [this] will not pay."
In all, government lawyers estimate, Hallinan's dozens of companies made $492 million off an estimated 1.4 million low-income
borrowers between 2007 and 2013, the period covered by the indictment.
Robreno's forfeiture order will strip Hallinan of many of the fruits of that business, including his $1.8 million Villanova
mansion , multiple bank accounts, and a small fleet of luxury cars , including a $142, 000 2014 Bentley
Flying Spur. In addition, the judge ordered Hallinan to pay a separate $2.5 million fine. -
philly.com
When given the opportunity to address the court before his sentence was handed down, Hallinan remained silent.
Hallinan's case calls into question the legality of business tactics engaged in by predatory lenders across the country - such
as
Mariner Finance , a subsidiary of former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner 's private equity firm Warburg Pincus.
Many of the loans Hallinan made had exorbitant interest rates which greatly exceeded rate caps mandated by the states in which
the borrowers live, such as Pennsylvania's 6% annual cap.
In court Friday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Dubnoff argued that there was little difference between the exorbitant fees charged
by money-lending mobsters and the annual interest rates approaching 800 percent that were standard on many of Hallinan's loans.
-
philly.com
"The only difference between Mr. Hallinan and other loan sharks is that he doesn't break the kneecaps of people who don't pay
his debts," Dubnoff said. "He was charging more interest than the Mafia."
Hallinan "collect[ed] hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful debt knowing that these businesses were unlawful, and all the
while devising schemes to evade the law," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sara L. Grieb and Maria M. Carrillo.
Hallinan's attorneys argued that Hallinan should receive house arrest after a recent diagnosis of two forms of aggressive cancer.
"What is just, under the circumstances?" Jacobs asked. "If there is going to be a period of incarceration, one that makes it so
that Mr. Hallinan doesn't survive is not just."
Judge Robreno largely ignored the plea, though he did give Hallinan 11 days to get his medical affairs in order before he has
to report to prison.
Hallinan's orbit
Many of those whose careers Hallinan helped to launch are now headed to prison alongside the "godfather" of payday lending, "
a list that includes professional race car driver Scott Tucker, who was sentenced to more than 16 years in prison in January and
ordered to forfeit $3.5 billion in assets," reports Philly .
Hallinan's codefendant and longtime lawyer, Wheeler K. Neff, was sentenced in May to eight years behind bars.
Hallinan got into the predatory lending business in the 1990s with $120 million after selling his landfill company to begin making
payday loans over phone and fax. He rapidly grew his empire of dozens of companies which offered quick cash under such names as Instant
Cash USA, Your First Payday and Tele-Ca$h.
As more than a dozen states, including Pennsylvania, effectively outlawed payday lending with laws attempting to cap the exorbitant
fee rates that are standard across the industry, Hallinan continued to target low-income borrowers over the internet.
He tried to hide his involvement by instituting sham partnerships with licensed banks and American Indian tribes so he could
take advantage of looser restrictions on their abilities to lend. But in practice he limited the involvement of those partners
and continued to service all the loans from his offices in Bala Cynwyd. -
philly.com
" He bet his lifestyle on the fact that we would not catch him. He lost that bet ," said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, William M. McSwain. " Now, it's time for Hallinan to repay his debt with the only currency we will accept: his freedom
and his fortune, amassed at his victims' expense ."
Most people have no clue what is about to be revealed, and it will rock their world. But for those of us that were red-pilled
early on, it is heartening to see.
#WWGOWGA
[Just caught the picture of the mansion.
"There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile,
He found a crooked sixpence against a crooked stile;
He bought a crooked cat which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house." - Mother Goose
That Mom Goose sure called 'em like she saw 'em...]
64 million in stripped assets. I wonder how much of that is going back to those who were fleeced? How much goes to .gov? Oh
and inquiring minds want to know, what happened to the other 400 million plus?
Maybe a buck each from a class action brought on by Saul's Legal Team.
Parasites. Parasites with Political, Financial, and Social control.
Think of the damage a parasite could do, if that parasite could control what the host sees, hears, thinks, feels, and even
control the muscles. You would be in pain, but not feel it. You could be poisoning yourself with bitter poison, while believing
it is sweet honey.
Sure, sure, point taken. But I don't believe that is a valid defense .. I get it, believe me. But I suspect if some higher
profile cases with equilvalent outcomes aren't soon undertaken, some enterprising folks may soon take matters into their own hands
.. And one could not blame them really ..
One thing's for sure. There won't be any payday lenders operating in Pennsylvania, and poor people who need short term loans
to deal with unexpected bills won't be getting any help, and instead will be suffering from the very high interest effective interest
rates of late payment penalties. In defense of Hallinan, he didn't force anyone to sign up for these loans, he didn't break any
kneecaps, and I'll bet his customers default on their loans at a high rate. There is also the legal question of from where the
loan is made; given he had partners on Indian reservations and operated over the internet on behalf of those partnerships. Seems
to me, the government is just grabbing this dying man's money. I'll bet he appeals the conviction to a higher court.
And does anyone believe US attorney Dubnoff who claims (which begs the question how he knows) that Hallinan charges more interest
than the Mafia?
My other bet: Timothy Geithner won't be prosecuted for using the same tactics. And the poor will suffer more. While the article
makes hay of Hallinan's wealth, he sold a waste management company (and I wouldn't be surprised there was political corruption
involved in its growth given he lived in Philly) for $120 million and was already rich.
For a perspective in support of pay-day lenders, read these two Reason articles:
that's a good post on an issue that's too easy to go all knee-jerk on. +1 for you.
I've got a coupla terrific young relatives that I'm schooling in financial knowhow - because their parents are knuckleheads
about money - and lesson #2 was 'payday loans are financial crack.'
but.
but the guy's lawyer WAS right to a degree: nobody made those victims/dumbasses sign up for them, and then not pay it back,
thus flinging them into the ol' vicious downward spiral. also, there's this little fact: kids, if you find yourself lacking funds
for a sudden unexpected financial expense, call it $500, you can 1) bounce a check 2) take a cash advance on your credit card,
assuming you have any room left on it or 3) do the payday lender thing. let's say you only need the $ for 10 days, then ... I
dunno .... then your tax refund check arrives.
cost of bouncing check (fees, etc), and bear in mind the bank will clear the big check first, thus making several other small
checks bounce = $100? more?
cost of credit-card cash advance = $50, plus or minus
cost of payday loan vig = $15, plus or minus
they're kinda like handguns: just a tool. whether that tool saves your butt or ruins your life is entirely up to you, the adult.
(the kids do not like this lesson very much - something about trying to avoid responsibility?)
the world is not necessarily all black and white. that said, I do hope that POS dies of treatable rectal cancer botched horribly
by prison docs, resulting in a long, drawn-out, horribly agonizing death in a pink diaper
An interesting take. A friend to the poor . Never quite looked at it that way, and now, I have a tear in my eye . The poor
fellow, friend to the poor working stiff.
Fucking friends like that . But at at least he wasn't breaking their knee caps and all. A real humanitarian!
Western society is flirting with a disturbing trend where people are being denied the
time-honored 'presumption of innocence'. The same undemocratic method is even being used
against nations in what is becoming a dangerous game.
Imagine the following scenario: You are a star football player at the local high school,
with a number of college teams hoping to recruit you. There is even talk of a NFL career down
the road. Then, overnight, your life takes an unexpected turn for the worse. The police show up
at your house with a warrant for your arrest; the charges: kidnapping and rape. The only
evidence is your word against the accuser's. After spending six years behind bars, the court
decides you were wrongly accused.
That is the incredible
story of Brian Banks, 26, who was released early from prison in 2012 after his accuser,
Wanetta Gibson, admitted that she had fabricated injurious claims against the young man.
Many other innocent people, however, who have been falsely accused in the West for some
crime they did not commit, are not as fortunate as Brian Banks. Just this week, for example,
Ross Bullock was released from his private "hell" – and not due to an accuser with a
guilty conscience, but by committing suicide.
"After a 'year of torment' Bullock hanged himself in the garage of the family home,
leaving a note revealing he had 'hit rock bottom' and that with his death 'I'm free from this
living hell,'" the Daily Mail
reported .
There is a temptation to explain away such tragic cases as isolated anomalies in an
otherwise sound-functioning legal system. After all, mistakes are going to happen regardless of
the safeguards. At the same time, however, there is an irresistible urge among humans to
believe those people who claim to have been victimized – even when the evidence suggests
otherwise. Perhaps this is due to the powerful emotional element that works to galvanize the
victim's story. Or it could be due to the belief that nobody would intentionally and unjustly
condemn another human being. But who can really say what is inside another person's heart?
Moreover, it can't be denied that every time we attempt to hunt down and punish another people,
tribe, sex, religion, etc. for some alleged crimes against victims, there is a real tendency
among Westerners to get carried away with moralistic zeal to the point of fanaticism.
A case in point is last year's scandal that rocked the entertainment industry as the movie
mogul Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexually assaulting numerous women over the span of a
30-year career. Eventually, over 80 females, emboldened by the courage displayed by their
peers, drove Weinstein straight out of Hollywood and into the rogue's gallery of sexual
predators. Few could deny this was a positive thing.
But then something strange began to happen that has been dubbed the 'Weinstein effect.'
Powered by the social media #MeToo movement, women from all walks of life began to publicly
accuse men for all sorts of sexual violations, some from decades ago. Certainly, many of the
claims were legitimate. However, in many cases they were not. Yet the mainstream media, which
has taken great delight in providing breathless details of every new accusation, has shown
little interest in pursuing those stories of
men who went on to suffer divorce, ruined reputations, and the loss of jobs without so much as
a fair hearing in a court of law.
As far as the mainstream media is concerned, and to be fair they don't seem that concerned,
the victim's story is the only story that matters. Indeed, it was almost as if the victim had
become judge, jury and executioner. This is, in reality, just one step from mob rule, and woe
to anyone who
questions the motives of the movement, as French star Catherine Deneuve discovered.
The (female) writer, D.C. McAllister, described the poisonous "environment of suspicion"
that has beset relations between men and women.
"While women's willingness to hold men accountable for criminal sexual behavior is to be
applauded, the scorched-earth approach we are seeing today is destructive because it
undermines trust," McAllister wrote in
The Federalist.
"When anything from a naive touch during a photo shoot to an innocent attempt at a kiss is
compared to rape and sexual abuse, we are not healing society but infecting relationships
with the poison of distrust."
At present there is no way of disciplining a retired judge who trades on his former title of
"Judge" and his rank of QC to give advice to lay people (without any up-to-date knowledge of
law or professional indemnity insurance) and then speak on their behalf as a McKenzie Friend
in Court.
I know of a case where this actually happened - a retired Chancery Circuit Judge
intervened in a case involving a religious charity when he has no known connection to the
faith in question. His intervention was distinctly unhelpful for the parties and impeded the
proper administration of justice. But nothing could be done about his unprofessional and
meddling behaviour.
Journalists are not state officials, and do not have the power to imprison citizens. There is
no right to be a judge (so state regulation of judges is legitimate) whereas there is a right
to freedom of speech (so state regulation of journalism is not legitimate).
Judges are lawyers: a rapacious breed drawn predominantly from and representing the "highest"
stratum of society. They are expert at presenting one-sided arguments, whatever the facts and
evidence. They provide "blue chip justice" favouring that social segment that can afford to
hire lawyers and so keep the legal sector in work. They know how to wear down complainants
(often of limited means) with unjustified decisions that have to be appealed at every stage
of proceedings. They are assisted by absurb laws which deem them virtually infallible in
jurisdictions such as the Employment Tribunal, where it is, in practice, not an "error of
law" to find something impossible to be true or to make a finding contrary to the weight of
evidence, or without evidential basis (and invariably favouring the employer). Even when an
indefatigable complainant succeeds in an appeal against a rotten judgement, they often find
their case "remitted" for a rehearing before the same biased tribunal or another made up of
the friends and colleagues of the first, and likewise of the employer. Many contributors
here, and all employment lawyers, know this to be true, yet this unjust system persists. What
criticisms of it there are focus on ultimately minor issues such as whether one should have
to pay fees to lodge complaints, rather than the more important issue of its institutional
racialism and the virtual impossibility of Black people being successful in complaints
against members of the establishment within it.
You also need to remember that judges work within a system which is controlled by politics,
press start complaining about high number of car thefts, car thieves suddenly start getting
jailed while house breakers do not.
There are also other parts of the system for instance social work reports, often made
about people who know the systems inside out, know exactly what to say and when to say it.
Lawyers who are simply there to lie, on both sides of the case with full knowledge they are
doing it. Police who are more concerned about getting results than actually justice. And
finally the judges themselves who all appear to have totally different interpretations of the
law, I have seen grown men break down when they find out they are getting 1 judge over
another and that was just the lawyers.
Judicial lies are far from confined to racism-motivated instances. The whole system of
"justice" is the biggest scam on the planet. That's why they don't allow recording of your
own hearing.
The judiciary regularly get away with complete and utter cheap lies in their judgments. They
are unaccountable as it only takes two more judges to refuse permission to challenge the lies
and that's the end of the matter. In one of my cases I asked to audio-record (my own case).
Both the judge and government barrister insisted I would not be alllowed to record. The
reason for this refusal of recording is so that there is no record of the filthy lies judges
deploy in the smaller civil court rooms where there are no reporters. One important subset of
lies is about the limitation act. Supposedly fact means possibility, knowledge means
suspicion, and was means might be - well that's what high court judges say these words mean,
and the fact that loads of dictionaries say otherwise is of no power against them.
We need every litigant to have the right to record their own cases.
And perhaps that needs review. After all, they are all members of same brotherhood or
society, and all operate from under Londons Bar .So is no independence at all.
My recent experience of JCIO is not entirely sanguine. I represented myself in a child
custody case in Birmingham. The Cafcass favored my child to stay with me. The Circuit Judge
presiding over the case, lied in his judgment three times in order to favor my ex. When I
took the matter to the appeal in High Court, the Law Lord presiding practically said that
because the Circuit Judge is experienced, he is entitled to lie. I was quite gobsmacked. JCIO
were completely unmoved by my protestations. It is apparent that truth is diminished if you
are a layman fighting the excesses of establishment.
The internet is awash with people who have been unfairly treated by the Justice system. Court
observers have commented on the familiarity between Judges and business men in employment
tribunal cases, and the employee losing, and also losing an appeal. Has anybody ever tried to
get an employment judge's notes from the case? Impossible. Ultimately when the judge says the
notes are not to be released under any circumstances (why not if they have nothing to hide)
and the Trbunal President when asked under a data protection request, tells you that the data
controller, is, yes the original judge who won't release them under any circumstances, is it
any wonder that people have no faith in the British Justice system, or should we rename it
Old Boys Network system?
The corrupt protecting the corrupt!
I refer to the Porton Down cover-up that involved the killing of 39 Porton Down veterans who
died as a result of being injected with a bacteria derived from salmonella - abortus equi -
in an altered state. (source FOI) Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs (unlike Judge Brian
Kennedy QC) who ordered details of the deaths to be made public) did purposely support the
MoD by allowing them to keep secret ALL facts related to the killings. Judge Edward Jacobs
also ignored a 3.72 million pounds fraudulent payment (stolen from public funds) awarded to
Martyn Day Senior Partner with the London law firm Leigh Day & Co. It was Martyn Day who
supposedly represented 39 family members of deceased veterans. In effect Jacobs by his very
silence and by allowing crimes of this nature to be kept under wraps did himself become party
to the crime.
"The comments in this section so far could hardly be more wrong" I don't know, I though
Patrick Logicman was spot on with his "But then you couldn't tell them from janitors" remark
above.
Yes but in the midst of the usual press anarchy, a few wise words from Joshua are surely not
out of order?
The predilection of cheap jack town magistrates describing themselves as Judges, takes
some beating. The powers of local authorities to press their own non-criminal "charges" can
be rather unpleasant, and quite happy to present fictitious evidence in abundance, backed up
by such "judges".
If you review most Laws in Britain,USA Canada,etc they were enacted worded and favored the
very rich and property owners when passed. Judge`s hands are really tied to the laws of the
land and it is the rich bias and regulations that keep the poor in their place that Judges
are restricted by when looking to dispense justice [as far as the law allows].
Same applies to the Police they didn`t make the laws.The Justice system and the Police
have been deliberately kept apart from society so they identify more with conservatism and
the status quo and even identify with it as elitists.
The difference is that the father needs to be suspended in case the allegations prove to be
true, because something important is alleged. Here the allegations against the judges seem to
be about nothing - nothing obviously wrong has happened even if the facts are true.
In my experience of the judiciary in criminal trials is that they do have a tendency to
protect the Police and even on the odd occasion pervert the course of justice to protect
them. You cannot assume that any judge will be impartial in any case or inquiry especially if
police corruption is being investigated or has been alleged. In my view you trust a judge to
be independent and impartial at your own risk.
Suspending a judge from duty pending investigation is rather like a judge confining a
separated father to a supervised contact centre while his ex's phony allegations are looked
into. All rather unnecessary but what do you do?
My experience of the judiciary convinces me that it functions principally to protect the
establishment. This is perhaps seen most blatantly in the employment tribunal, where judges
make virtually unchallengeable findings of "fact" that contradict incontrovertible evidence
that they simply ignore in order to exculpate defendants in race and religous discrimination
cases. Sometimes they collude with defendants to pervert the course of justice by accepting
fabricated documents as genuine, despite the existence of the genuine documents showing their
inauthenticity (which they do not mention as they are irreconcilable with the documents that
they wish to represent as genuine). Sometimes, they make important findings based on key
documents that they have never seen, which the claimant dispute ever existed and the
defendants claim they have lost. At other times, the judges just simply lie about the
evidence if that is required to discredit the complainant. Such phenomena are well-documented
(e.g.,
http://www.irr.org.uk/news/culture-of-disbelief-why-race-discrimination-claims-fail-in-the-employment-tribunal/).
However, maybe because sex, drugs and death are not involved - and it only affects Blacks,
after all - no-one seems at all interested, no programmes get made about this or articles get
written in the mainstream media even when prominent journalists have the evidence of its
occurrence.
It is a tradition in this country that, freedom of speech notwithstanding, judges do not
respond to attacks on them in the media. This means that we often hear the attack, but not
the defence. Let me illustrate this with an example from history which shows that judges can
be right, even when non-lawyers think they are obviously wrong.
If the media and some members of Parliament had got their own way, Mr. Justice Grantham
would have been sacked after instructing a jury in strong terms that a prison warder charged
with manslaughter, against whom the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, was nevertheless not
guilty. It transpired about two years later that the single prosecution witness had lied: the
"victim" was dead before the warder entered the room. I understand that the warder was named
Mitchell and, despite being acquitted, did not get his job back.
Had Mr. Justice Grantham been sacked he could not have investigated the Adolph Beck case, the true facts
might never have come out and we might still not have a criminal appeals process.
"The credit for resolving this miscarriage of justice lay firstly with the 1904 trial
judge, Mr Justice Grantham, who had lingering doubts about Beck's guilt and had delayed
concluding the case despite apparently strong prosecution evidence and procedures. It was in
this period of delay, before being sentenced, that the crucial arrest of the real offender
took place."
Source - historybytheyard.co.uk
Each? But then you couldn't tell a judge from a janitor. They tried that in China. It
didn't work. Call me old-fashioned, but I rather like the wigs and gowns.
The comments in this section so far could hardly be more wrong. Perhaps self-regulation does
not work for most professions, but in the case of judges it seems to "over-work" and the
desire to ensure that judges are seen as people of integrity seems to take over at times. On
the basis of JR's article, there seems very clearly to be no substance in the allegations
against either Fulford or Thornton. When normal people face such baseless allegations, the
case is struck out, or a responsible prosecutor stops it. So the impression here is that the
regulator is afraid to be thought to sweeping things under the carpet and so the process
continues - and absurdity is piled onto absurdity when the judges are even suspended from
work in the meantime.
Turenne and Shetreet's book, referred to in the text, notes instances when judges not only
face complaints but actually receive criticism for doing things which others can do and might
even be expected to do. For example, it seems that judges should plead guilty to minor
traffic offences if they are guilty, and should not seek technical ways that might exist to
defeat the charges (ie ways that are not based on the merits of the case). This may be a good
idea, of course, but it further ridicules any notion that the regulator is soft.
I have for many decades thought that most judges are daft old fools, out of touch with
reality. My opinion has been confirmed by many examples.
I'm not up enough with the law to be able to suggest a better alternative, those who know
what they are talking about should do that. However, I was pleased to see the web site linked to in the article ,
which seems to be a small step in the right direction.
Justice and access to it should be a cornerstone of our society - except that in its
current form, it is reduced to a cleverly disguised commodity - whereby the 'truth' /
'justice' can be purchased by paying for expensive lawyers.
This age old practice of letting "professionals" regulate themselves is thankfully in decline
but not quickly enough. They didn't regulate themselves, they protected each other like
brothers in crime. Lawyers, police, bankers, religious institutions, doctors banded together
to give themselves maximum benefit. And the pompous indignation when Joe Public dared to
question them. I have always felt that these groups pulled the wool over our eyes. I laugh at
the term "professional" often they are far from it.
Who is judging the judges?
We know a lot more about judicial complaints than we used to but it remains the case that
judges themselves judge judges
I find it amusing that a journalist in a National Newspaper is writing an article about a
group of self interested people being able to judge themselves.
Who handles complaints about newspapers? I'll give you a clue with a quote fro the Press
Complaints Commission's website:
The Press Complaints Commission is currently in a phase of transition; and it will soon
be replaced by a new structure of independent self-regulation for the newspaper and
magazine industries.
Self-regulation. Sounds a bit like what the judges do.
One of the key elements of the English judiciary is that it is NOT elected. The executive and
legislature are the elected bits and thus the judiciary must defer to them in terms of
law-making and keep to their own province of interpreting the law - true it can be a fuzzy
line at times but it is a hugely important part of the functioning of the rule of law.
Elected judges would be a disaster for many reasons.
What the UK judiciary gets away with is utterly horrifying. That they palm it off as
'isolated cases' is bad enough, but hiding behind the pretence that people 'don't know the
facts' is even worse.
The move to a system of locally elected (ie, accountable) judges is long overdue.
It's an unfortunate irony of the times in which we live that politicians are happy to bask
in the glory of Law & Order when it comes to intensifying punishments for the general
public yet simultaneously nowhere to be found when it comes to prosecuting those who commit
crimes involving corruption, fraud or abuse of power. When ratcheting up the incarceration
rate among minorities, the poor and those living in the nation's crumbling urban ghettos,
they dutifully repeat the same weary, disproved bromides about deterrence while stuffing
their campaign coffers with contributions from one of neoliberalism's most amoral sectors:
the for-profit carceral state.
Generally, then, I would reject such arguments – higher sentences, mandatory
minimums, decreasing the independence of the judiciary to decide on punishments are all
failed policies that have, under the aegis of the War on Drugs, left a trail of destruction,
generational poverty, and heartbreak. When it comes to white-collar crimes, political
corruption and abuse of power, though, I suspect that hefty sentences actually would serve as
a deterrent. If the architects of the Global Financial Crisis were currently sitting
alongside Bernie Madoff in Butner (or ADX Florence), you suspect it might cause some of their
successors to think twice about indulging in the same wanton speculation.
If the ghouls of the DoD, Pentagon and intelligence community had found themselves where
they belonged, in the dock, for their gross abuses of power and war crimes following 9/11,
one wonders whether the near-equal ghouls of the Sainted Obama's Administration would have
drawn up their illegal kill lists or celebrated the flouting of international law with quite
such levity.
All of which, of course, means that we won't ever see it happen – but it does make
me think that in some cases it is entirely justified to pursue and forcefully punish those
who break the law. It's just unfortunate that the ones whose punishment would be most
effective in deterring others are the ones who invariably get off scott free.
JEHR
What I don't understand is how Michael Shkreli, CEO, is found guilty of financial fraud against
investors in 2018 but not one CEO of a bank–not Goldman Sachs's CEO, not Citigroup's CEO, not JP Morgan
Chase's CEO, not Wells Fargo's CEO and not Lehman Brothers' CEO–was found guilty of committing Accounting
Control Fraud and/or mortgage fraud after the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-8. Amazing! But there's not
much satisfaction in such a small price to pay for fraud (7 years) that ruins other people's lives
permanently. What is also amazing is that it is not illegal to price a drug out of the reach of most users
just for the sake of making a huge profit!
perpetualWAR
Obama said "actions on Wall Street weren't illegal only immoral." And that set the tone. No one was
going to be found guilty of unlawful actions ..even though what Wall Street conducted was a racketeering
operation.
It's not the legality, or even the morality, it's not being blatantly scoffed at.
Shkreli is a slimy narcissitic toad that used, back stabbed, insulted, and annoyed everyone
which is why he got the shiv; just think of the former head of Wells Fargo, Tim Sloan, who did the
same and not only to his customers, and low level employees, but also to Congress.
Who me robbing you? Really, no, I know nothing I see nothing really! Your eyes, they must be lying
to you! And you're too stupid to see that!
That is why they got nailed. People might not like being robbed, but they really don't like being
insulted in the doing. Had they done the usual mea culpas, faux apologies, and even token restitution
of some kind, one would not be in prison, and the other still CEO.
DHG
Shkreli stupidly challenged the powers that be in public to do something and they did.
Andrew Cockburn
Surely, for the big banks the most significant part of this legislation is the provision allowing them
to count municipal bonds as "liquid assets" thus boosting their capital ratio. In reality, of course, these
are highly illiquid. Therefore, come the next crash, authorities will be faced with the prospect either of
JPM, Citi, etc, attempting to dump said bonds thereby tanking the municipal finance system of the country –
unacceptable – or yet again bailing out the banksters to the tune of $trillions. Will the guilty parties be
called to account? Don't ask.
"... Judge Paul Grimm called the case a "terrible conspiracy" involving unscrupulous people plucking at lonely victims' heartstrings to get them to send "jaw- droppingly large amounts of money." ..."
"... The pattern to prey on women -- and in a few cases men -- was typically the same. Someone reached out to divorced, widowed or other single people on social media or dating sites to "catfish" the person on the other end by using a fake name and photo identity. ..."
The man who popped into the North Carolina widow's life through Facebook introduced himself as David Watson.
His profile photo, showing a man with dark hair, olive skin and brown eyes, intrigued her enough to accept his friend request.
They got to know each other over some weeks via Messenger and phone, eventually sharing romantic correspondence.
Then Watson asked a favor. Some Chinese business people had an oil-rigging job that could net millions for his engineering business,
but he needed money for the initial investment. Could she lend him some cash?
Eager to help her new love interest, the widow wrote checks for tens of thousands of dollars.
"She was going to be paid back, she was told," Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Windom said. "She was not."
Watson never repaid her because he never existed. The fraudulent profile was part of an elaborate scheme bilking the elderly,
divorcées, widows and other vulnerable people out of millions of dollars by posing as romantic interests, federal prosecutors said.
Victim after victim, many in tears, testified through various trials over recent months at U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md.
They said they lost their life savings, cashed out their retirements, went bankrupt and were scorned by their families after discovering
how "foolish" and "gullible" they had been.
Last week, two more people charged in the extravagant hoax were sentenced for their roles in the scam. Olusola Olla, 50, who was
found guilty of conspiracy to commit money laundering and structuring financial transactions, must serve four years in prison. Adeyinka
Olubunmi Awolaja, 34, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering, was sentenced to three years probation with two
years under home monitoring.
Olla, Awolaja and seven others have been convicted or pleaded guilty in connection with the wide-reaching scam that prosecutors
say victimized dozens of people across 20 states between 2011 and 2015.
In one extreme case, an elderly man in the last years of his life ate less, stopped going to medical appointments and took out
a line of credit on his house to send his love, "Mary Blake," nearly $800,000.
"Mary" kept asking for money to support her construction company.
"My dearest Mary, above all else, I want you to succeed," the man wrote. "When I sent you the $30,000, it cleaned me out."
Judge Paul Grimm called the case a "terrible conspiracy" involving unscrupulous people plucking at lonely victims' heartstrings
to get them to send "jaw- droppingly large amounts of money."
"Some of the victims who put money into your account were manipulated by the most cruel means," Grimm said during Olla's sentencing.
The pattern to prey on women -- and in a few cases men -- was typically the same. Someone reached out to divorced, widowed or
other single people on social media or dating sites to "catfish" the person on the other end by using a fake name and photo identity.
After a few weeks of chatting, emails professing their love and some telephone calls, the scammer would ask to borrow money under
the guise of some type of short-term financial pinch: They were abroad and couldn't access their American bank accounts; had an emergency
befall their business and needed quick cash to finish a contract to be paid; or they needed cash to pay travel expenses for a supposed
romantic rendezvous with the person being scammed.
Victims would then deposit cash into various accounts, including one for Olla's used-car dealership and a DJ business tied to
Awolaja. The money would be transferred to other accounts after being laundered, eventually enriching many in the scheme.
Olla's attorney, Eugene Gorokhov, said his client did not know he was part of a plot cheating vulnerable people. Instead, Olla,
who ran an auto sales and shipping business, thought he was receiving cash deposits for work his clients had asked him to do, Gorokhov
said.
"Mr. Olla never knew of any fraud scheme," Gorokhov said. "He received the money and all the time he believed he was part of this
business where he shipped cars to Nigeria."
Awolaja had gotten involved in the case when he wanted to help a childhood friend from Nigeria who had asked to use his bank account.
At his sentencing, Awolaja said he was ashamed someone he considered to be a brother took advantage of him.
"It was never my intent to cause any financial hardship or emotional pain," Awolaja said in court.
But the pain was devastating for those who were desperately lonely and lured by the promise of love and companionship.
"We're going to be together," one of the scammers vowed to the widow he met on senior.com.
A former corporate-fraud prosecutor carried out the "most serious" example of public corruption by a U.S. Department
of Justice attorney in years by stealing more than 40 whistleblower fraud cases in 2016 and trying to sell the secret
information to companies under federal investigation, prosecutors said.
The scheme was an attempt to woo potential clients and increase his earnings and standing in his new role as a
defense lawyer for one of Washington's most influential law firms, according to prosecutors and admissions by Jeffrey
Wertkin at his sentencing Wednesday.
After his arrest for one shakedown attempt, Wertkin embarked on an "obstruction binge" at his private law office to
destroy additional evidence of his year-long plot and also tried to frame a former colleague at the Justice Department
for the records theft, court files show.
Wertkin's sentencing hearing revealed a more extensive and calculating crime than previously was made public, showing
he stole and copied dozens of files -- taking some at night from his boss's desk at main Justice, copying them and
returning them re-stapled -- and then reached out to targeted companies in four states to try to drum up business for
himself.
An attorney for a California company tipped off the FBI in January 2017 to an approach by Wertkin who had offered to
sell a sealed federal lawsuit for $310,000 to the Silicon Valley technology company.
"My life is over," Wertkin told an undercover FBI agent
after he was arrested wearing a wig and fake mustache at an
intended cash drop at a Cupertino, Calif., hotel.
In a court filing seeking leniency, Wertkin said he committed his crimes while on "a terrible path" of abusing
alcohol and marijuana during what his defense called "a period of heightened anxiety and depression, a sense of
impending failure at work and a deteriorating marriage."
"I believe I somehow viewed selling the complaints as a way to escape my problems,'' Wertkin said in a statement
excerpted in a court filing.
Wertkin had joined Akin Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld as a $450,000-a-year partner in Washington in April 2016, the
same month in which he left a nearly-six year career in the fraud section of Justice's Civil Division. For more than a
month before he moved to private practice, he began copying the federal cases including dozens that were not assigned to
him, court files show.
"I thought if I could quickly earn a substantial sum of money, I could provide the material benefits I promised my
family upon moving to Akin Gump -- a new house in a better neighborhood and private school'' for his two young children,
wrote Wertkin, who court files show lived near Dupont Circle.
Prosecutors said there was no reason to believe Wertkin's troubles were "anything more than narcissism and greed."
He was sentenced to 2-1/2 years in prison on two counts of obstructing justice and one count of interstate transport
of stolen property in a hearing late Wednesday before by U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney of San Francisco.
Wertkin's attorney had asked for a sentence of a year and a day.
Assistant United States Attorney Robin L. Harris of the Northern District of California told the court Wertkin's
crime "was breathtaking in its scope and is the most serious and egregious example of public corruption by a DOJ
attorney in recent memory."
His sentence "hopefully restores the confidence in public servants who take an oath to serve their government and
demonstrates that no one is above the law," said the district's Acting U.S. attorney Alex Tse.
A Justice Department spokeswoman did not respond to a request for additional comment on what damage Wertkin may have
caused to cases and whether the internal breach triggered disciplinary actions or corrective measures.
Wertkin worked from December 2010 to April 2016 in the department section responsible for recovering $4.7 billion in
misspent tax dollars in 2016 alone. Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers can receive part of recovered funds for
tipping off fraud in government services and contracts by filing what are known as qui tam lawsuits under seal to
protect their identities while the United States investigates.
Wertkin "took grotesque advantage" of his government position by "shaking down companies" and revealing confidential
information and "jeopardized the integrity of the civil justice system and unfairly cast a shadow over the work of the
civil fraud section," Harris said.
Wertkin, who specialized in health care fraud, also threatened the recruitment of future whistleblowers, "knowing
full well" that the section's success depends on such individuals "coming forward with the prospect of secrecy," she
wrote.
Once at Akin Gump and until he was fired in February 2017, he attempted to court potential clients by dangling the
stolen information, even hinting to one unwitting partner he knew one company "might have a problem coming up,"
prosecutors said.
When that tactic proved ineffective, Wertkin stepped up his crime, admitting that in addition to his pitch to the
Sunnyvale-based technology security provider, he tried to peddle sealed lawsuits to a targeted Alabama company
for $50,000, to a New York company for a price to be determined, and to a company headquartered in Oregon where he
mailed a redacted copy of the cover sheet in the federal case as a lure.
Wertkin also admitted he managed to convince one firm "to retain my services as an attorney to represent it in its
lawsuit."
The company that hired him and the companies he solicited were not named in his case.
"Mr. Wertkin's secret criminal life was not known to anyone at the firm. We were shocked when he was arrested and
outraged when his bizarre, treacherous crimes were revealed," Akin Gump spokesman Benjamin J. Harris said in a statement
Thursday.
In a letter to the court before Wertkin's sentencing, the firm said it was a victim of his crime and defended its
corporate culture.
The theft and misuse of government documents was a "reprehensible betrayal of Mr. Wertkin's duties as a government
lawyer" and of his ethical duties at Akin Gump, and were "harmful to the firm," partner and general counsel Douglass B.
Maynard wrote.
"Whatever drove Mr. Wertkin to his hidden criminal activity, it was not the culture of [sic] firm where he worked for
nine months," Maynard said. "The people he worked with at the firm saw him as a talented, well-liked young partner who
appeared well on his way to a bright future."
Wertkin, a Haverford College and Georgetown Law School graduate, was seen as a "straight-arrow" and promising young
prosecutor at the department, where his "intensity and talent" placed him "at the top of the list for the Fraud
Section's most difficult case assignments," defense attorney Cristina C. "Cris" Arguedas said, citing performance
reviews in a court filing.
Wertkin's troubles spiraled, she suggested, after a federal judge in Alabama threw out a 2016 jury verdict in a trial
for a hospice provider accused of fraudulently billing Medicare for patients who were not terminally ill.
Wertkin was the lead lawyer for the government and the loss in the $200 million case, left him "devastated" and "a
shell of a man," his wife, Erin Erlenborn, said in court filings.
Wertkin grew "increasingly irrational," Arguedas said, and his bizarre "cold-call" to the general counsel of the
California firm calling himself "Dan" and offering to sell a lawsuit revealed a man who "truly believed he was at the
end of his rope."
Wertkin "couldn't stop" even when he knew he would be caught, Arguedas said: Just before he got into an Uber to go to
the drop meeting in a hotel lobby, he got a call from a person at the Department of Justice in Alabama investigating
"Dan's" attempt to sell a case there.
Upon returning to Washington, he destroyed evidence in his Akin Gump office before telling the firm he had been
arrested and placed paper copies of two complaints that he had stolen into an envelope that previously had been mailed
to him by a former Justice Department colleague to falsely implicate the colleague as the thief.
His colleague had mailed Wertkin a picture of the department emblem signed by his colleagues as a farewell gift,
Harris said.
Former DOJ lawyer's theft of secret lawsuits was more extensive than previously known, new court details show. - The
Washington Post
Wertkin's attorney called his actions truly aberrant in an otherwise
"careful, diligent and unblemished life" and said it was "a testament to his previous standing in the legal community
that so many attorneys and former government officials, including former DOJ attorneys" wrote letters to the sentencing
judge on his behalf.
Wertkin, the son of a surgeon and a registered nurse in the affluent New York City suburbs, has
resigned from the bar.
"I hope someday I will be able to understand how I could have abandoned my principles and my honor," Wertkin said as
part of statement before sentencing. "I often lay awake at night and think about these actions, and I weep at the
tragedy that I have brought on myself."
Espionage would possibly be Steele's indictment. But nobody was 'formally' spying for another country. He was simply fed leaked
info and he put it into a document and sent it back. Is that a crime?
Notable quotes:
"... The facts are there but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute. ..."
The Obama spying is politically terrible but when I consider what is laid out I am not seeing very many crimes that would put
people in prison.
Having contractors use FISA 702 search queries – not a crime?
The president disseminating his PDB – not a crime
Unmasking people – not a crime
Submitting fraudulent info to a FISA court – probably a crime (10 yrs?), but tough to prove because submitters can just
say they believed the dossier
Using someone else's name to unmask – probably a crime (but good luck finding out who did it
Leaking FISA 702s to a british spy – probably a crime
Leaking the unmasked intel from president's PDBs – a crime (but leak crimes are tough to catch and won't end up punished
that severely.)
Consipracy/Racketeering – a crime, but a tough case to prove and even put together. That is why tax fraud is the litigator's
preferred indictment, there are just so many moving parts with a conspiracy.
This is most likely why this is taking such a long time – and I worry that most if not all conspirators will skate. They will
probably be fired and collect their retirement pensions but that may be the end of it.
Though with the next democrat president, they will make sure that all those lose ends that got them caught this time will be
perfectly legal. We have only witnessed the beginning of our own homegrown Stazi
We have already seen some of their defense through the dem memo. I am outraged at the spying scheme, but you have to recognize
that all these people involved are lawyers. They will have made sure to have possible exits when the shtf. There are still plenty
of black hats in all our gov bureaus and there will be a constant tit for tat throughout the process. The facts are there
but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute.
Sundance has summarized the scheme quite nicely. Even so, blog posts are very different than an actual indictment. I suppose there
must be more substantial crimes if they have been able to get people to flip – crimes we have not been told (I hope).
You say there are many other cases but fail to name any other crimes that have come to light. You could have enlightened me
rather than just make accusations against me and told me to 'do my homework'.
I am simply saying they have created a scheme where it is nebulously legal. They could have just leaked the 702 queries but
they laundered it through the PDB. This is all done to make it technically legal.
So far I am only seeing leaking, FISA fraud, and conspiracy/racketeering (which is next to impossible to prove). If there are
only indictments along leaking, that would easily be seen as political prosecution (dems live under a different rule book than
Trump/GoP being hounded by corrupt prosecutors ala Mueller). The Dem memo is trying to politicize the FISA fraud because they
recognize that that is the next closest to an open and shut case.
My, street sense, and experience as a lawyer tells me that -- "tips, confessions.." from
informants is true Steve. But the bar for going after a drug dealer, or fence, or kiddie porn
type, is supposed -- one assumes -- to be a hell of a lot lower than going after the nominee
for President of a major political party.
Welcome to the criminal defense world. Everyday, hundreds of warrants based on the statements
of criminals, paid informers, bitter ex-girlfriends, lying cops, and even non-existent
"confidential informants" are issued. With all but the most blatant provably false
affidavits, questionable searches are upheld by judges.
At this point I'm just waiting for Mueller's final indictments and the report. The facts
will be there, or they won't.
If they are, try arguing a Motion to Suppress Evidence in the impeachment trial. That'll
get you far . . .
Some commentators here seem not to know this simple fact: prosecutors in USA have enormous
power. They can make mountains of molehills. And their most powerful weapon is the law of
conspiracy. Here is an explanation by an experienced attorney:
. The United States is home to about 25% of the world's total prison population – over
5.5 times its share of the overall world population.
2. The United States incarcerates about 2.3 million people annually, as of 2016.
3. Many millions more pass through the system briefly for minor arrests or dismissed
charges, and so on – often having to gather costly cash bail or face jail, even if they
are innocent.
4. There are more than 1,700 state prisons, more than 100 federal prisons, more than 900
juvenile facilities and more than 3,100 local jails.
5. There are also a range of specialized short- and long-term holding centers, like military
or indigenous prisons and immigrant detention centers.
6. These facilities – whether public or privately-operated – are a major
economic hub, especially for jobs, in thousands of communities across the country.
7. That makes it politically difficult to promote detention and sentencing reform policies
that would reduce the need for them.
8. Even in public prisons, staff jobs and contracts for food and laundry services become a
local revenue stream that discourages reducing incarcerated populations.
9. Beyond the 2.3 million behind bars, there are also 3.7 million Americans on probation
outside of jail, with various conditions, and 840,000 on parole.
Sources: Washington Post, Prison Policy Initiative, The Globalist Research
Center
Most lawyers, consultants and others who write books have never been to prison or either
focus on one small area of the federal system. Michael Bye has walked the path before you so he
can guide you through it with first hand knowledge and 10 years of experience in all levels of
security. No other book is COMPLETELY Comprehensive. Over 450 detailed and easy to read pages
of priceless information. Michael Bye served nearly a decade in the FBOP. He served time in all
levels of security, from maximum security to minimum-security camps. Michael's extensive
research of the federal system provided him with the knowledge to create this manuscript.
Throughout his term of incarceration Michael became known as the "Jail House" Litigator.
Helping inmates file appeals, time reductions, medical needs as well as religious rights.
This helping hand derived from Michael realizing that most individuals in the Federal System
were not evil, scary people.
They were everyday people who lacked education, made a stupid mistake or had plain old bad
luck. After years of compiling data, going through hand written notes and interviews Michael
created the Practical Guide to Federal Incarceration.
Which will give you the complete knowledge to be able to safely navigate through the system,
from Day 1 until the Day you are released, without incident. He also shows the families of men
and women entering the Federal System the numerous aspects of the FBOP, as well as coping
methods and understanding.
By reading this manual you will develop the tools needed to navigate through your term of
Incarceration, create your own destiny and have a smooth transition back into the Free World.
Read excerpts...
"... I'm also having a hard time not feeling somewhat sorry for Howe, who is the star witness. He was arrested, again, during the trial. He's been accused of any number of pejoratives, by everyone involved. He also seems to be the only one who has really lost anything -- lots of money and a career. ..."
"... They stole over 100 million dollars. Howe lied about one night at a hotel. Howe gets a jumpsuit. Cuomo is still in his office. The COR execs are still being represented by very high priced lawyers, paid for with millions that were stolen. The press gets lots of clickbait about 'ziti' and the 'fat man', that never, ever really gets anywhere near the people who should most be in jail. They have lawyers, you understand. ..."
"... I grew up in NYS and I still know one of the reporters following the trial. Even for me, the scale of the sleaziness is mindboggling. And the evidence seems quite compelling to me. I mean, the wife had a no-show job, nobody even disputes that! Will be interesting to see if guilty verdicts, if there are any, taint Cuomo. Or change anything. ..."
One story I think is very relevant that it not getting nearly enough press is the Cuomo
aide corruption trial.
It is hard to follow. The corruption is so deep and systemic that it's producing its own
gravity and realities.
I'm also having a hard time not feeling somewhat sorry for Howe, who is the star witness.
He was arrested, again, during the trial. He's been accused of any number of pejoratives, by
everyone involved. He also seems to be the only one who has really lost anything -- lots of
money and a career.
The rest of the filth are just fine. They were all more than fine to start with, and most
of that fine is in no jeopardy of ever being taken away, stolen fine included.
They stole over 100 million dollars. Howe lied about one night at a hotel. Howe gets a
jumpsuit. Cuomo is still in his office. The COR execs are still being represented by very
high priced lawyers, paid for with millions that were stolen. The press gets lots of
clickbait about 'ziti' and the 'fat man', that never, ever really gets anywhere near the
people who should most be in jail. They have lawyers, you understand.
I grew up in NYS and I still know one of the reporters following the trial. Even for me,
the scale of the sleaziness is mindboggling. And the evidence seems quite compelling to me. I
mean, the wife had a no-show job, nobody even disputes that! Will be interesting to see if
guilty verdicts, if there are any, taint Cuomo. Or change anything.
Critics have long bewailed our national glut of lawyers, to little effect. Chief Justice Warren Burger
predicted 35 years ago that America
was turning into "a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts." At the time, the
population of attorneys in the United States had surpassed 450,000, and law schools were graduating
34,000 new ones each year. By 2011, the annual production of law degrees was up to 44,000, and at 1.22 million, the number of
lawyers in the country -- which included me -- had nearly tripled. Over the same period, the population of the United States had
risen just 40 percent .
But the wind has changed. In 2011, the number of students entering law school dropped by 7 percent, an unprecedented fall. In
2012, the drop accelerated: Enrollment of first-year law students sank another 8.6 percent.
It plunged
still further in 2013 . According to the American Bar Association, 39,675 new law students matriculated last fall -- an 11 percent
decrease from 2012, to a low-water mark not seen since early in the Carter administration.
Much of the flight from law school reflects the brutal reality of the employment market for lawyers. The National Association
for Law Placement reports that fewer than half of lawyers graduating in 2011 eventually landed jobs in a law firm. Only 65 percent
found positions requiring passage of the bar exam. At a time when many law school graduates are shouldering student-loan debts of
$125,000 or more,
compensation
has declined painfully -- the median starting salary for new lawyers in 2012 was just
$61,000 . And quite a few
can't find any work at all : Nine months after receiving their law degrees, 11.2 percent of the class of 2013 was unemployed.
But the wind has changed. In 2011, the number of students entering law school dropped by 7 percent, an unprecedented fall. In 2012,
the drop accelerated: Enrollment of first-year law students sank another 8.6 percent.
It plunged
still further in 2013 . According to the American Bar Association, 39,675 new law students matriculated last fall -- an 11 percent
decrease from 2012, to a low-water mark not seen since early in the Carter administration.
Much of the flight from law school reflects the brutal reality of the employment market for lawyers. The National Association
for Law Placement reports that fewer than half of lawyers graduating in 2011 eventually landed jobs in a law firm. Only 65 percent
found positions requiring passage of the bar exam. At a time when many law school graduates are shouldering student-loan debts of
$125,000 or more,
compensation
has declined painfully -- the median starting salary for new lawyers in 2012 was just
$61,000 . And quite a few
can't find any work at all : Nine months after receiving their law degrees, 11.2 percent of the class of 2013 was unemployed.
Only some of this is cyclical. The legal profession, like so many others, has been permanently disrupted by the Internet and globalization
in ways few could have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago. Online legal guidance is widely accessible. Commercial services like LegalZoom
make it easy to create documents without paying attorneys' fees. Search engines for legal professionals reduce the need for paralegals
and junior lawyers. Maurice Allen, a senior partner at Ropes & Gray,
is blunt : "There are too many lawyers and too many law firms," he said in a published interview last week. That means less work
for new law school grads, and therefore less reason to go to law school.
And who, except perhaps for law school admissions deans, would be sorry to see America's lawyer bubble finally burst?
With almost 1.3 million lawyers -- more by far than any other country, and more as a percentage of the national population than
almost all others -- the United States is choking on litigation, regulation, and disputation. Everything is grist for the lawyers'
mills. Anyone can be sued for anything, no matter how absurd or egregious. And everyone knows how expensive and overwhelming a legal
assault can be. The rule of law is essential to a free and orderly society, but too much law and lawyering makes democratic self-rule
impossible, and common sense legally precarious.
Scarcely a day goes by without a fresh example of the damage caused by a legal system that so often puts the innocent at the mercy
of the spiteful. To avoid legal liability, companies and institutions must comply with brain-numbing regulations and restrictions
that destroy initiative, smother good ideas, and force grotesque results that benefit no one.
Because it is so overlawyered, "American culture is corroding before our eyes," writes Philip K. Howard, a big-firm lawyer and
well-known reform advocate, in " The Rule of Nobody ," his new book. "It would
have been inconceivable, a few years ago, for a teacher to be scared to put an arm around a crying child, or for a fireman to stand
on the beach for an hour and watch a man drown because he had not been recertified for land-based rescue. Creeping legalisms are
eating away at America's social capital."
From environmental rules so inflexible that fixing a bridge can take years to licensing rules so onerous that kids' lemonade stands
get shut down, all of us are paying for those "hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts," that Warren Burger warned of long ago. Students
by the thousands are shunning law school? That's the best trend I've seen in ages.
OETKB 05/12/14 04:44 AM Thomas Paine noted
that government exists because of our "wickedness." If Mr. Jacoby wants to accelerate a trend towards less lawyers, then our fellow
citizens will have to learn to become less "wicked." Until then laws and a legal system that at times over and under regulates
will continue, probably ad infinitum.
dkbabson 05/12/14 08:03 AM Oetkb, without
lawyers there is more communicating, working our societal problems more reasonably, not just "lawyering" up and battling in
court and board rooms
Ronin555 05/12/14 08:11 AM There is less
communication because people are frightened of each other, and because the system -- as constructed by lawyers and judges responding
to the public -- discourage or prohibit communication. The district courts are full of people seeking restraining orders. In
the criminal cases, the accused is often ordered not to speak with other defendants, witnesses, or anyone else involved in
the case (other than his own lawyer). The result is fewer and fewer people able to work it out among themselves.
MNMoore 05/12/14 05:40 AM The big question
is: With such an oversupply of lawyers, why doesn't the cost of a lawyer come down?
no-name- 05/12/14 08:01 AM because the
free market, another of jake's mythical beasts, doesn't exist.
Ronin555 05/12/14 08:15 AM The fees charged
by lawyers has, mostly, leveled off and in some areas is actually going down. A lawyer I work with, for example, charges $250/hr.
-- which was the rate charged by most lawyers 15 yrs ago. I haven't raised my hourly rate in, perhaps, 10 yrs. and I'm charging
the same fixed fee rates I did 15 yrs ago.
cabinetmaker1954 05/12/14 06:18 AM Oh, yeah;
definitely need less legal regulation. Don't want to impede BP's deep water drilling. Wouldn't want to slow down those sub-prime
mortgages. And we sure as heck don't need to worry about GM selling faulty automobiles. As per usual, Jacoby, you've got your
head firmly planted up your rear end.
myron1958 05/12/14 07:17 AM Nope, we need
more lawyers so little girls can sue their parents for being too strict...
LennyMirra 05/12/14 02:03 PM More lawyers
doesn't help those issues cabinetmaker...as Jacoby writes we have a record number of lawyers in the US and yet all those problems
you list still occurred. More lawyers are not the answer.
geolovely 05/12/14 06:34 AM JJ claims the
problem is too many lawyers, when of course his real goal is just weakened environmental protections, with a reference to a kid's
lemonade stand tossed in as a smoke screen. The problem isn't the number of lawyers per se, it's the ethics, objectives, and methods
of those lawyers.
compromiser 09/16/16 02:40 PM Crazy wacko
liberals will never get it.
And you keep electing the same lawyers, both parties, whose prime goal is more law and regulations which require more lawyers.
You're sooooo gullible... You've allow MA to become so over legislated and regulated that you have a new mother, the state!
But you don't even know it!
LR27 07/25/17 04:15 PM compromiser:
"Crazy wacko liberals" will not vote for Republicans.
Personally, I'd rather live in Massachusetts than a lot of other states. I appreciated living in Massachusetts when my landlord
went bankrupt and Bank of America took over the house, refusing to communicate. In some other states, they could have swooped
in and evicted me on short notice, but I didn't have to worry about that here. I also appreciated living in Massachusetts when
I had to buy individual health insurance, though it was expensive. I've lived long enough to have a few pre-existing conditions.
galwaycity 05/12/14 06:53 AM Nothing about
corporate abuses of the legal system or what they get when they rent politicians
compromiser 09/16/16 02:41 PM Corps are
not exempt from laws, pols are.
LR27 07/25/17 04:01 PM compromiser:
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? Read the news a bit more thoroughly.
Giermund 05/12/14 06:59 AM I thought JJ was
going to tell is all about how upset he is that (even with all of the lawyers around us) the poor and middle class still don't
have access to our civil courts..
Omj66 05/12/14 07:00 AM Notice how you
don't
criticize corporations using hordes of lawyers.
mean_willie 05/12/14 07:22 AM I was wondering
where Mr Jacoby was going with his latest (he worked so hard on this piece that he missed his usual Sunday column deadline?) effort.
But then the real "point":
"From environmental rules so inflexible that fixing a bridge can take years to licensing rules so onerous that kids' lemonade
stands get shut down, all of us are paying for those "hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts," that Warren Burger warned of long
ago." lawyers = regulation = bad. He NEVER disappoints.
Targus 05/12/14 07:36 AM JJ is a lawyer?
Then it's obvious why he wrote this piece. With his failure to be an effective columnist largely due to misplaced facts and the
influence of his corporate interests JJ has finally realized his real calling and wants back into the one profession he truly
feels comfortable with, prevarication without the embarrassment of Globe reader commentary. With fewer lawyers, as he's now championing,
his own wallet will increase with larger fees because of potential lawyer shortages. Shows you how he thinks. JJ is true to form,
bucks over brains.
PJIslander 05/12/14 08:18 AM Remember, it
was a mad man who said "first kill the lawyers."
almartin98 05/12/14 08:47 AM "brain-numbing
regulations and restrictions" are mainly the result of past bad behavior by companies and institutions. The recent massive explosion
at a fertilizer plant in Texas that wiped out an entire town will doubtless lead to more regulations and restrictions for Jeff
to complain about.
geolovely 05/12/14 11:10 AM "...will doubtless
lead to more regulations and restrictions ..."
- - - - Not in Texas dammit! It's God's country, since he's the only one who protects the poor and working class from the 'benefits'
of unfettered enterprise.
Potlemac 05/12/14 08:51 AM My God Jeff, have
you no decency? when you stated "Scarcely a day goes by without a fresh example of the damage caused by a legal system that so
often puts the innocent at the mercy of the spiteful" I thought, at last Jacoby is going to talk about the Innocence Project or
wrongly convicted citizens who spent decades in prison, but no he talks about corporations being saddled by regulations (you know,
like keeping arsenic and carcinogens out of our drinking water)! Please Jeff, keep your antiquated opinions within the borders
of the old testament and the House Unamerican Activities Committee where you and they belong.
Oilcansman 05/12/14 09:37 AM Really, Jeff?
Can you give one example of a great idea that was quashed by lawyers? Didn't think so. It appears the free market is dealing with
the glut of lawyers fairly efficiently. Don't change a thing.
NER_MCFC 05/12/14 09:38 AM The inherent tendency
of the legal profession to create work for itself is problematic, but I see I'm far from the first to notice that the scope of
Mr. Jacoby's complaint is oddly limited. He doesn't seem to have a problem with armies of corporate lawyers making millions by
(for example) keeping Wall Street executives far away from the prison sentences they so richly deserve.
hamhack 05/12/14 09:39 AM Too many lawyers
is a symptom of a larger problem. Ever time Congress rolls out a bill like Dodd-Frank, it creates new bureaucracies and regulatory
programs that corporations (and individuals) need lawyers to figure out. Look how many CEOs at banks and other large corporations
have JDs - that is no accident, the ability to understand and comply with an ever grorwing sea of state and federal regulations
is a material part of the job description for CEOs at large corporations today.
I spend my days helping clients figure out the vast body of local, state and federal environmental regulations. On Cape Cod, work
in or near wetlands can require up to four separate regulatory approvals, with permitting and consulting (and perhaps legal) fees
required for each. In MA alone, the environmental regulations approach 10,000 pages, plus thousands of additional pages of guidance,
not to mention thousands of administrative law and judicial opinions interpreting all of those regulations. And many of these
programs are simply analogs of federal programs (MA has its own versions of Superfund, Clean Water Act, Clean Act, Section 404
wetlands permits, NEPA environmental impact review, and RCRA hazardous waste management - and of course they are not always consistent
the federal statutes, in fact they can and do conflict).
That regulatory burden is real - just ask Cape Wind, or any inland wind developer or try to take a train to New Bedford some time.
http://www.heraldnews.com/article/20140225/News/140227529
6x6x6x 05/12/14 10:32 AM Exactly, Hamhack.
Whether you are representing an injured worker, an abused child, or a captain of industry, the complexities of expanding and
overlapping statutes, regulations and case decisions make the task daunting, even for a trained and experienced lawyer. The
issue really is not which "side" you are on politically; good lawyers guide the client through the maze created by the Congress,
state legislatures, administrative agencies, courts and private code-promulgating bodies. Mr. Jacoby's comments are simplistic
and miss the target. We live in an increasingly complex world; the complexities require organized thinking; and lawyers are
trained to think in an organized manner. The reasons behind the drop in enrollments and employment are less sinister than the
writer suggests: there is a revolution occurring in legal services. Ten years ago, I sat in an expensive downtown office, using
a secretary, two paralegals and two associates to handle litigation for my business clients. My rates climbed every two years
or so to reflect increased costs, with no real concern for a "ceiling". My firm accomplished its work as it had for 75 years.
Change was incremental and slow. Today, I sit in a home office, connected to my partners and clients by cloud computing, a
cell phone and Internet based research. Technology changes every day, and I must adapt. I serve primarily the same clients
with no secretary, one shared associate and one shared paralegal. I produce just as much work, but at a greatly decreased cost
and at lower rates. For this practice, the bottom line is that I need fewer hands to accomplish the same work, and I can share
the resulting savings with clients. The reduced need for young lawyers is reducing the available jobs, dropping salaries, and
reducing the attraction of a costly legal education. It's the market, and we have not yet seen the bottom.
LR27 07/25/17 04:06 PM hamhack:
I seem to recall a correlation between deregulation of banking and financial disasters. Dodd-Frank is weaker than previous
regulations, but it's better than nothing. Or did you enjoy 2007-2008???
DaleOrlando 05/12/14 10:40 AM Well, Jeff.
What happens when the town is all built and the trees are all felled? They close down the mill.
No such luck with the legal profession which has elected offices so in the bag between candidates and lobbyists that the legal
mills, ugh, institutions of higher learning conferring a legal degree, will keep on churning them out as fast as they apply to
keep up with the changes in the laws-federal, state, local.
It's one of those self perpetuating, constant motion thingamajigies, but don't worry about work for all of the new, bright legal
minds burdened with school debt-they can simply scare someone into giving them a job even if it means bumping down someone qualified.
Oh wait, now that women are advancing in this field...well, no wonder the bugle boys are being dispatched to sound the alarms
and scare them off from spending that much money on school. After all, since women really work at work, the more there are, the
less work there will be. See how that goes? Truly a professional tragedy. :))
fordfalcon 05/12/14 10:53 AM Excellent article.
Very informative which touches both the left and the right.
Bendogger 05/12/14 11:26 AM I wish there
weren't so many lawyers in Congress. As NER_MCFC pointed out, "there's an inherent tendency of the legal profession to create
work for itself." Look at our tax code, as an example. It's needlessly complex. It's only tax lawyers, and those who can afford
them, that benefit from its complexity. It would be ideal to have a Congress that consisted of those who have diverse backgrounds
and skills and could bring more to the table than having been trained as an attorney.
carlida 05/12/14 11:44 AM From the comments,
it looks like the lawyers have come out of the woodwork on this one. The only hope for weeding out the bad apples is Tort Reform.
Unfortunately, most of those
who would have to vote on it are lawyers themselves.
Ronin555 05/12/14 02:38 PM Tort reform
is mostly nonsense and designed to protect corporate America. Few, if any, lawyers are going to spend precious time, and money,
on frivolous lawsuits that they can't win or make enough or any money on. For every personal injury/tort case I accept, I probably
turn down 10.
Inquirer0 05/12/14 12:18 PM The secret to
curing the "legal bubble," as Jacoby puts it is to simplify our laws. We live with an ever expanding legal jumble to the extent
that it is impossible to read legislative bills without a lawyer, much less make the new laws actually do the job for which they
are intended. I totally disagree with Jacoby that we don't need well-targeted regulation to manage markets and protect health
and the environment. However, our problem really is in how we have to keep track of precedent in order to write additional laws,
rather than create simple laws that stand on their own for the good for which they are intended. Perhaps some enterprising computer
scientist can come up with an algorithm that can automatically simplify all previous law and formulate how to most efficiently
create new laws with a minimum of fuss. Otherwise, rule of law, which is one of the founding principles of modern human civilization
(going back at least to Hammurabi), will fast become an albatross that will strangle our civilization to death.
tamorosomd 12/19/17 01:27 PM Good thought,
and I share it to an extent. Unfortunately, we live in an ever more complex world; this requires laws which are comlples, and
interpretation by courts to fill in the blanks laws inevitably leave. I would agree we may have tilted a bit too far in the
direction of precedent, and away from equity as a legal precept, but simple laws will not handle complex issues.
Lynn1066 10/15/15 09:47 AM Good article,
Mr Jacoby! How true!
38Dodge 09/16/17 10:01 AM Reminded me of
a class at Harvard Business School. The topic was mergers. The advice was "Keep the lawyers out of the negotiations!" (If they
don't object to every detail, they feel they are not doing their job.)
>Though the grand jury has existed in the United States since the colonial period, and
the FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution requires its use in federal criminal
proceedings, it has come under increasing attack. Critics charge that it no longer serves
the functions the Framers intended, and therefore should be abolished. Defenders admit
there may be some problems with it today, but contend that these can be remedied.
>In reviewing evidence of criminal wrongdoing, a grand jury is supposed to act as a
shield against ill-conceived or malicious prosecutions. Yet critics charge that grand
juries typically rubber-stamp the prosecution's moves, indicting anyone the prosecutor
cares to bring before it.
>Those who favor ABOLITION of the grand jury argue that the domination of the
prosecutor has led to a passivity that destroys the legitimacy of the grand jury
concept. Most grand jurors have little background in law and must rely on the
prosecutor to educate them about the applicable law and help them apply the law. In
addition, at the federal level, there are very complex criminal laws, like the RACKETEER
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. Even lawyers find many of these laws
difficult to fathom, yet grand jurors are expected to understand them and apply them to
intricate fact situations. Not surprisingly, charge the critics, the grand jury tends to
follow the prosecution's advice.. . . here
Probably in this case the jurors were given the "trust us, we know and have
decided" treatment that has worked so well on many other people who should know better, and
probably do, but they have been corrupted too. Without a trial, we'll never get the truth,
but that's nothing new.
Police officer: "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
Respondent: "No."
Police officer: "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Respondent: "Yes"
Police officer: "How fast were you going?"
Respondent: "You tell me."
Police officer: "Are you some kind of wise guy?"
Respondent: "No."
Police officer: "We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way!"
Respondent: "Sir/Maam, if you believe I was doing something wrong, just tell me what it
is. If you want to cite me, give me a ticket. I don't want to argue with you here, I'll take
it up with the prosecutor in court with all the evidence on the table."
You would be surprised how many speeding tickets I've avoided or had kicked or knocked
down with that sort of exchange.
"... The 34-year-old is spending his time mentoring fellow inmates, reading, playing chess -- and learning to deal with sharing a small, cramped cell with a snoring roommate, pal Lisa Whisnant told The Post. ..."
"... "Things are not THAT awful here," inmate 87850-053 wrote to Whisnant, underlining "THAT" three times. "There are some bright sides. I am teaching these prisoners some new things and hopefully some ways to change their lives." ..."
"... "He seems to be handling it with typical Shkreli style," she said. "He brings people together and shares his knowledge. Martin was meant to be a teacher. He loves it. He's a natural." ..."
The 34-year-old is spending his time mentoring fellow inmates, reading, playing chess
-- and learning to deal with sharing a small, cramped cell with a snoring roommate, pal Lisa
Whisnant told The Post.
"Things are not THAT awful here," inmate 87850-053 wrote to Whisnant, underlining
"THAT" three times. "There are some bright sides. I am teaching these prisoners some new
things and hopefully some ways to change their lives."
"He seems to be handling it with typical Shkreli style," she said. "He brings people
together and shares his knowledge. Martin was meant to be a teacher. He loves it. He's a
natural."
Of course Martin Shkreli is becoming the leader of the prison population. I
wouldn't have expected anything else.
The man is a natural born dealmaker and all-time schmoozer. I don't know Martin well at all.
I've had a few beers with him on different occasions. He's an interesting guy. Not an evil guy
by any measure, but he does seem to enjoy his online persona.
It's also not surprising to me because anybody who talks to him know he's very charismatic.
I'm glad to see Martin is finding his lane in prison, and running the whole prison crew.
Classic Shkreli move.
shhhhh5 hours ago he is a cool guy... sad to see them rail road him like this... Hung out with
him on election night and was nothing but fun... hopefully he gets back on his feet when the
demo-rats let him out
If it comes to the point where you must leave, consider patreon or similar, as that way you
can afford to be in the clear regarding court orders, as appeals work their way through the
legal system, e.g. temporarily leaving.
I have never been to a court, but based on what I know, a few suggestions:
(i) Try to differentiate yourself from most of the other cases that judge would get to see
(i.e., from the Central Asian migrants). Dress, attention to etiquette, keeping calm,
friendly and even self-confident (suggesting that you have the means to bear an adverse
decision). Point out that you know excellent English, Russian and German, and perhaps other
things ! essentially, that you are not an "unskilled labourer". Impress on the judge that
Russia benefits from your presence in the country ! without saying this.
Also, do not get embarrassed by doing "non-standard things" like the above! If you go the
standard way, the judgement would be the standard judgement ! and you want a
better-than-standard judgement!
(ii) Write down all the points you wish to make, in the order of importance, and read it
out to the judge right in the beginning. You probably can sign the sheet and submit it to the
judge after you have spoken. Think of it as a presentation you are making, where the written
sheet would be like slides. (If you submit the sheet before you have spoken, the judge won't
even listen to you, as he/she would be busy reading!) Similarly, if you repeat your points,
the judge will "tune out".
Submit a summary (a cover sheet) and other sheets with explanations. Do all this even if
nobody asks you to! The last point could be that you are sorry about the mistake.
(iii) People also tune out at the sight of misery. Do not appear miserable!
Also, since you are not a lawyer, a way to make it clear to the judge (and keep the point
in front of him/her all the time), is to address the judge as Sir/Madam and not 'Your
Honour'. (Or the Russian equivalents.)
Since you are probably in panic and probably can't clearly think: keep everything ready,
including what you will say, and in what order you will say them! You would have only a
little time, and there would be no time to think then !
Lawyers and judges understand (at least good lawyers and judges are supposed to understand!),
that the law is best applicable for only a particular set of cases. ...
As long as you make it clear that the above class of cases, and in consequence the above
law, does not cover your case, the judges should be considerate. It says so in the
book! Please don't worry much.
"... even if drugs were legalized – the same people would be in jail for something else. ..."
"... Minority Heroin dealers are given intolerable sentences, but Perdue Pharmaceuticals floods the market with opiates with an ever increasing death toll, yet Raymond and Mortimer Sackler are billionaires. Go figure. ..."
"... Police and prison guards' unions = sweet spot of the Dem base (particularly in California) ..."
"... "But terror can be very efficient against a reactionary class which does not want to leave the scene of operations. Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals, and intimidates thousands." Leon Trotsky, 1920 ..."
Mass incarceration in the United States has mushroomed to the point where we look more like the authoritarian regimes of Eastern
Europe and the Middle East than the democracies of Western Europe. Yet it vanished from political discussions in campaigns in the
2016 election. In a new
INET Working Paper , I describe in detail how the US arrived at this point. Drawing on a new model that synthesizes recent research,
I demonstrate how the recent stability in the number of American prisoners indicates that we have settled into a new equilibrium
of mass incarceration. I explain why it will hard to dislodge ourselves from this damaging and shameful status quo.
Mass incarceration started from Nixon's War on Drugs, in a process described vividly by John Ehrlichman, Nixon's domestic-policy
adviser, in 1994:
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand
what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate
the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We
could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
This was the origin of mass incarceration in the United States, which has been directed at African Americans from Nixon's time
to today, when one third of black men go to prison (Bonczar, 2003; Baum, 2016; Alexander, 2010).
Federal laws were expanded in state laws that ranged from three-strike laws to harsh penalties for possession of small amounts
of marijuana. The laws also shifted the judicial process from judges to prosecutors, from the courtroom to offices where prosecutors
pressure accused people to plea-bargain. The threat of harsh minimum sentences gives prosecutors the option of reducing the charge
to a lesser one if the accused is reluctant to languish in jail awaiting trial-if he or she is unable to make bail-and then face
the possibility of long years in prison. And the shift of power was eased by the pattern of financing. Prosecutors are paid by localities,
while the costs of prisons are borne by states. The trip to the penitentiary does not cost prosecutor at all. "Instead of juries
and trial judges deciding whether this or that defendant merits punishing, prosecutors decide who deserves a trip to the nearest
penitentiary (Stuntz, 2011, 286; Pfaff, 2017, 127)."
In a recent book, Pfaff minimized the role of drug laws in mass incarceration on the grounds that most state prisoners were convicted
of violent crimes; only federal prisoners were predominantly convicted of drug violations. But the importance of public prosecutors
and plea bargains contaminates this inference because the listed crimes in state prisons were produced in plea bargains. Since drug
laws contain so many minimum sentences, plea bargains were driven toward lesser charges that did not fall under the drug laws. The
results of the plea bargains do not indicate why prisoners were originally arrested and charged (Pfaff, 2017).
Both political parties were engaged at different times in legislation that gave rise to mass incarceration. It would seem likely
that they could get together to try to reduce the rate of incarceration, but the prospects are not good in our current political
impasse. The reduction of incarceration always has some risks, and political figures are very risk averse. Some people want to reduce
the cost of prisons to help fund other government programs, but they have not produced many proposals to accomplish this goal or
how to allocate the gains.
As Todd Clear stated in his 2007 book, Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse
:
Imprisonment in America is concentrated among young, poor-dominantly minority-men and (to a lesser extent) women who come from
impoverished communities. The way these young people cycle through our system of prisons and jails, then back into the community,
leaves considerable collateral damage in its wake. Families are disrupted, social networks and other forms of social support are
weakened, health is endangered, labor markets are thinned, and-more important than anything else-children are put at risk of the
depleted human and social capital that promotes delinquency. After a certain point, the collateral effects of these high rates
of incarceration seem to contribute to more crime in these places. Crime fuels a public call for ever-tougher responses to crime.
The increasing way in which the face of criminality is the face of person of color contributes to an unarticulated public sense
that race and crime are closely linked. The politics of race and justice coexist malignantly, sustaining an ever-growing policy
base that guarantees new supplies of penal subjects in a self-sustaining and self-justifying manner (Clear, 2007, 175).
We seem to be in a new equilibrium. It took forty years to get to this point, and it may take at least that long to get back to
what we can consider a normal incarceration rate typical of advanced economies. We have not yet started down that road.
Anyone who thinks it will take 40 years to undo a stroke of the pen, which the war on drugs was, is pissing (in a humanitarian
direction) into the wind.
Removing the prison population would give janet yelllen an enormous migraine.
I'd add that the distinction between violent crime and drug violations misses the mark in another way too. The massive scale
of the US black market, the cruelty of life in US prisons, the massive distrust and animosity between law enforcement and many
communities, the disruption caused to families and communities by mass incarceration, and our high rate of violent crimes are
hardly unrelated phenomena.
I'd wager decriminalization of drugs would lead to a pretty large decrease in supposedly unrelated violent crimes.
True enough, but I'm sure the Prison Industrial Complex loves the idea of long term studies on impact followed by long
term debates on methodology and findings. IMO, it is the monopolistic profitability of corporations like UNICOR that split their
profits and governance with the very same people who control the mass incarceration and competitive bidding laws and policies,
that far outweigh any other factor. Without substantial changes to the monetization and conflict of interest laws at the top,
all the findings in the world are just noise to the entrenched system.
Consider this 2003 Fortune article Business Behind Bars Former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese has a way to slow
the exodus of jobs overseas: Put prisoners to work
Prominent conservatives have been encouraging prisons to put inmates to work for years. Led by Edwin Meese, the former U.S.
Attorney General and head of the Heritage Foundation, and Morgan Reynolds, one of the first President Bush's economic advisors,
they have lobbied for real prison employment by the private sector–not just make-work projects like stamping license plates
or building courthouse furniture. The benefits are difficult to ignore: Businesses get cheap, reliable workers; inmates receive
valuable job training and earn more than they would in traditional prison jobs; and the government offsets the cost of incarceration
and keeps jobs and tax dollars in the U.S.
Who do you think legislators are going to take their guidance from? Former AGs (who just happened to build and grow the prison
workforce), or scholarly studies?
Social engineering described in this post was also a continuation of corporate / elite commercial interes. Free labor–what's
not to like? Legal slavery, more profits from multiple directions of all kinds–legit, corrupt and criminal. Plus serving as a
method to keep the downtrodden unable to respond in a way to create change (COINTELPRO and its contemporary descendants). . .
No way out but through but what will that look like? Comes down to individual understanding and action, no single uniform "solution".
I gradually become more conscious of what I create. It's not a process that can be urged on others. "Be the change . . ."
. . . The politics of race and justice coexist malignantly, sustaining an ever-growing policy base that guarantees new supplies
of penal subjects in a self-sustaining and self-justifying manner (Clear, 2007, 175).
I am pissed at Ford. What a golden opportunity missed. Instead of moving Ford Fusion production to China, it could move production
to a few prisons and use homegrown slaves instead of Chinese ones.
"The increasing way in which the face of criminality is the face of person of color contributes to an unarticulated public
sense that race and crime are closely linked."
so no drug laws means no black inmates?
even if drugs were legalized – the same people would be in jail for something else.
There are no jobs – 40%+ UE Rate for this demographic – so what do you expect them to do?
Eric Gardner was selling cigarettes "for money" – joke crime – yet five cops descended on him.
The reason why the people are getting arrested and jailed for drug crimes is poverty. These people lack the economic opportunity
to bring them out of it, so they drift to illegal enterprises. Even if you made all drug use and distribution/sales legal, this
does not change the economic realities that make people choose an illicit activity in the first place. So they would be arrested
for something else that is illegal.
If there's the political will and power to repeal abusive drug laws, why wouldn't it be (theoretically) possible to do the
same with laws that target the poor?
When I was growing up in the "bad old days" of '70's NYC, police officers would have rightfully laughed in the face of of a
superior or elected official who told them to go after people selling "loosies" (a la Eric Garner).
I'm not saying it will happen, but popular revolts could go a long way toward loosening the vise on poor communities.
Recreational Cannabis is legal in Colorado. It is a state granted monopoly. Already Colorado is cracking down on home grown
weed production. There is legalization, and there is state granted monopoly legalization. The outcome for poor people is the same.
Cigarettes are legal, yet Eric Gardner was murdered for selling them. Go figure.
Minority Heroin dealers are given intolerable sentences, but Perdue Pharmaceuticals floods the market with opiates with
an ever increasing death toll, yet Raymond and Mortimer Sackler are billionaires. Go figure.
We live in a mafia culture. It's called ethnic privilege. Drugs are already legalized for the ethnically privileged. Mass incarceration,
Genocide by Other Means, for the ethnically unprivileged. Go figure!
I believe that we, the 80% , are being classed as the present day, Neo-Peasants and Neo-Kulaks. (Hillbillies, working class,
uneducated, not woke, Nazis, deplorables, reactionaries, homeless, right-wing, religious bigots, addicts, petty criminals, progressives,
Bernie-bros, conspiracy nuts ..) by the Neo-Apparatchiks.
There is a Revolution going on! It is being waged against us .
"During 1920–50, the leaders of the Communist Party considered repression to be a tool that was to be used for securing the
normal functioning of the Soviet state system, as well as for preserving and strengthening their positions within their social
base, the (The 20%) Working Class. (The Bolshevik Leadership were not really "working class", but usually, "Intellectuals"!) (
peasants , who were NOT considered "working class", represented 80%!!!! of the USSR population then ).
The GULAG system was introduced in order to isolate and eliminate class-alien, socially dangerous, disruptive, suspicious,
and other disloyal elements, whose deeds and thoughts were not contributing to the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Forced labor (was used) as a "method of reeducation" ."
"But terror can be very efficient against a reactionary class which does not want to leave the scene of operations. Intimidation
is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious
war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their
will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals, and intimidates thousands." Leon Trotsky, 1920
"... About 2.4 million people live behind bars in America - the highest number in the world. That's a little more than 0.7% of the population and more than 700 for every 100,000 people. The area of the U.S. is bigger than China, a country that dwarfs the U.S. general population by more than four times. Also note how tiny Canada looks next to the U.S. ..."
"... As a former prosecutor we had a grotesquely unfair advantage It was policy to charge someone with the highest possible charge, knowing that we would plead to something much lower. It was even added to the jacket by screening DA's what was recommended to accept. ..."
"... About this quote I pulled here. What you are talking about is called "charge stacking," and prosecutors do it because they can strong arm everyone into a conviction, then they can build political careers on. Oftentimes, they go to run for AG offices based on their stellar records that the public is duped into thinking actually means something. ..."
When it comes to America's high incarceration rate-now about five times what it was in 1970-there's the Standard Story, and then
there's the truth.
The Standard Story is the one that has been propagated for years in mainstream-media outlets and by activists. It holds that the
War on Drugs is virtually the sole culprit-that incarceration rose merely because America decided to start imprisoning nonviolent,
low-level drug offenders for absurd amounts of time. It posits the simple solution of reducing or eliminating the sentences for these
victimless crimes.
The truth, by contrast, is that about half of prisoners were convicted of violent offenses, and that some of the others committed
violence but pleaded guilty to lesser offenses. Even the fifth of prisoners who are locked up for drugs tend to be mid-level dealers,
not users or low-level distributors. And, while decades-long sentences make the news, most prisoners who committed crimes not involving
the most serious violence are out within a year or two. In other words, while incarceration has undoubtedly soared-even relative
to crime ,
which has dropped substantially since the early 1990s-our propensity to throw people in prison has simply not reached the heights
of ridiculousness that many assume.
There is still "low-hanging fruit" to be had by releasing some drug offenders or subtly redefining crimes (such as changing the
dollar-value threshold separating misdemeanor from felony theft), but this will not get America anywhere near the incarceration rate
it had decades ago or the rates that prevail elsewhere in the developed world. Bigger reductions would require speeding the release-or
declining to imprison-people who committed crimes that left very real victims, which is not so obviously a desirable outcome.
Until recently, few were discussing this reality aside from a handful of conservative commentators such as the Manhattan Institute's
Heather Mac Donald . These people typically argued that those in prison mostly deserve to be there, and that dramatic reductions
to the incarceration rate run an intolerably high risk of increasing crime. But in the last several years a number of reform-minded
scholars and pundits have tried to make a
public case for such reductions
even in full view of the facts.
The role of the drug war isn't the only issue on which Pfaff departs from the Standard Story. He also disputes the idea that the
typical prisoner is spending much more time behind bars than he used to. In Pfaff's view, the reason for our skyrocketing incarceration
rate is that prosecutors have become more likely to file felony charges following an arrest, rather than that those convicted are
being locked up for longer periods of time.
This is considerably more contentious among those who study imprisonment; unlike the percentage of prisoners serving time for
drugs, it's not something one can simply look up in a Justice Department report. Pfaff is at odds with the prestigious
National
Academy of Sciences , for instance, when he all but dismisses the role of time served. The debate involves competing data sources
and intricate mathematical simulations.
But if prosecutors might not be the sole driver of mass incarceration, no one denies that they are a big one. And Pfaff
expertly lays out how this happened so that we can see if it's a process we can live with.
As is well-known, the crime explosion of the late 1960s through the early '90s inspired lawmakers to adopt a get-tough approach,
and this entailed reining in judges, for instance through mandatory-minimum laws. The concept is not inherently flawed: there are
unique factors at play in each case, but in general, people who commit the same crime should receive similar punishments. The punishment
should depend on the law, not the judge's personal sense of justice or his like or dislike of the defendant. But there were two problems
with these laws as they actually played out.
First, especially at the federal level, many minimums are so high that no one really thinks they're fair and people are rarely
sentenced to them. Instead, prosecutors use them as a threat to get defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges or testify against
fellow criminals. (About 95 percent of cases end in plea deals rather than trials today.) In other words, they operate as a roundabout
way to gut defendants' constitutional rights: if you make the prosecution prove its case at trial and invoke your right to remain
silent about criminal activities you participated in, you receive a
patently unfair sentence
. Incredibly, the federal prosecutors' lobby has
defended the current mandatory minimums explicitly on these grounds .
Second, and relatedly, the minimums didn't eliminate discretion from the system: prosecutors still have plenty. A prosecutor often
can decide how much time a defendant should serve and then put together a mix of charges that will require the judge to give a sentence
in that ballpark. The law can offer an impressive buffet of overlapping statutes that cover the conduct a defendant is accused of.
And in addition to holding enormous discretion, prosecutors face a number of incentives that are far from ideal. District attorneys
are typically elected and want to avoid going easy on a Willie Horton or a Brock Turner. The elections are county-wide, giving conservative
suburban areas a lot of say as to how high crime in inner cities is handled, even though suburbanites bear little of the cost of
crime or of incarceration. Prosecutors also face little resistance, because judges normally accept plea deals and most defendants
rely on public defenders, which are underfunded. In 43 states defendants have to pay at least some of the costs associated with their
"state-provided" lawyer.
Moreover, what we call "the justice system" is really a haphazard mashup of city, county, state, and federal agencies. Federal
prisons receive a lot of attention but hold just 13 percent of prisoners. In the states, meanwhile, counties generally pay for probation
and short jail stays while the state pays for the cost of imprisonment-creating an incentive for prosecutors to overuse the latter.
Reading Pfaff's characterization of who's serving how much time in prison these days-mainly violent offenders, mainly short sentences-one
is tempted to wonder what the big deal is. Maybe we should just content ourselves with picking the "low-hanging fruit." Yet it's
hard to accept our sky-high incarceration rate knowing it's produced by the dysfunctional system Pfaff describes. Realigning the
incentives in that system would be a worthwhile endeavor whether it cut incarceration or not.
Conservatives intuitively understood the need to rein in judges' discretion decades ago; perhaps the same thing could be done
for prosecutors today. Pfaff notes that New Jersey has given its prosecutors detailed guidelines as to the plea deals they are allowed
to strike, with judges able to invalidate any deals that break the rules; they "look almost exactly like the guidelines that many
states use to regulate judicial sentencing." This is a promising idea, though the guidelines would have to be written carefully to
avoid unintended results. (The New Jersey guidelines initially made it hard for urban prosecutors to give lighter sentences in "school
zone" cases, for example, which was a problem because 76 percent of Newark is considered a school zone.)
Other options: cut mandatory sentences to reduce the threats prosecutors can make to extract plea deals; require prosecutors to
disclose the threats they made so that judges can review them; balance out the incentives facing county prosecutors by paying counties
to keep people out of state prison; appoint prosecutors instead of electing them; let cities and suburbs choose their prosecutors
separately; fund public defenders adequately. Each of these moves would align incentives in a sensible way rather than seeking to
cut incarceration per se.
And on a deeper level Pfaff prompts us to consider more carefully the exact tradeoffs we're willing to make between incarceration
and crime. One study, for instance, found that between 1978 and 1990, locking up an extra person for a year stopped 2.5 violent crimes
and 11.4 property crimes. Thanks to diminishing marginal returns, those numbers fell to 0.3 and 2.7 respectively in the 1991–2004
period. Are the latter numbers worthwhile given the cost to taxpayers, and to offenders and their families? Is the payoff even lower
today? And what if, for a given amount of money, you could reduce crime 20 percent more by hiring more cops than by incarcerating
more offenders, as a different study contended?
For these reasons, Pfaff suggests we reject the assumption that reforms are worthwhile only if they don't increase crime at all.
It's a point worth taking to heart as one considers some of Pfaff's other reforms, the ones more directly targeted at reducing incarceration.
Risk-assessment tools are one
promising development. Modern statistics allow us to calculate the chances that a given prisoner will reoffend with a reasonable
degree of accuracy, based on various characteristics. There are legitimate complaints about these tools (though Pfaff takes
too seriously an
allegation of racial bias by the journalism outfit ProPublica), but they hold out the promise of focusing incarceration on the people
who really need to be locked up lest they continue to offend. They are a dramatic improvement over the older, cruder tools like "three
strikes" laws.
In a somewhat similar vein, pilot programs could experiment with releasing offenders and closely monitoring them, like the Hawaii
HOPE program does for drug offenders, giving them repeated drug tests and a "swift, certain, and fair" jail stay for minor lapses.
Not all of the ideas Pfaff explores are home runs; I have trouble imagining an American state in which there's a "cap-and-trade"
system for prison capacity. But in general, these are far more serious and considered proposals for cutting incarceration than what
we have seen from almost anyone else.
Pfaff's book is targeted primarily at reformers, not skeptics. He believes the reformers misunderstand the problem and hence cannot
solve it. He notes, for example, that many efforts to cut sentences for low-level offenders are coupled with increased sentences
for those who commit worse crimes-which would address the problem described in the Standard Story but not the reality we actually
face.
And in debunking the myth of nonviolent drug offenders haphazardly locked away for long periods of time, of course, he runs the
risk of inadvertently convincing his audience there really isn't much of a problem. He's to be commended for taking that risk.
But, by forthrightly explaining the true nature of incarceration in America before laying out his case for reform, Pfaff poses
a serious challenge for the skeptics, too. Unlike so many activists and op-ed writers, Pfaff cannot be waved away with a handful
of simple statistics demonstrating that, no, our high incarceration rate isn't the result of locking up first-time offenders caught
smoking pot. He knows that, and still sees serious problems with the status quo. His ideas deserve a close look.
Kevin Drum (one of the few liberal authors I read) has made a very convincing case about the lead hypothesis, where exposure to
lead notable increases in crime. I've always found it a convincing argument. Combined with other factors (e.g., massive job losses
in various areas) caused the spike in crime. Apparently, this isn't the first time something like this has happened too. Crime
apparently skyrocketed in the late 1800s too.
Highest to Lowest – Prison Population Total Globally
Please use drop down menu 1 to choose the category of data you wish to view, and then wait for the page to reload. Once the
page has reloaded please choose the continent/region from drop down menu 2 and then press apply.
Ranking – Title – Prison Population Total
1 – United States of America 2 228 424
2 – China 1 701 344
3 – Russian Federation 672 100
4 – Brazil 581 507
JAN. 24, 2014 This World Map Shows The Enormity Of America's Prison Problem
About 2.4 million people live behind bars in America - the highest number in the world. That's a little more than 0.7%
of the population and more than 700 for every 100,000 people. The area of the U.S. is bigger than China, a country that dwarfs
the U.S. general population by more than four times. Also note how tiny Canada looks next to the U.S.
October 25, 2016 Prison Food Contractors Funded Efforts To Combat Marijuana Legalization
All of these organizations have a distinct interest in keeping nonviolent people in jail. So, it should come as no surprise
a prison contractor is working to keep marijuana illegal.
As a former prosecutor we had a grotesquely unfair advantage It was policy to charge someone with the highest possible charge,
knowing that we would plead to something much lower. It was even added to the jacket by screening DA's what was recommended to
accept.
So someone would be looking at a charge of 'simple possession x4' meaning life in prison without any chance of getting out.
If they pled with in 2 months it would be dropped to X1 so 2-4 years. Then ever two months the minimum acceptable time served
would basically double.
You had to be an absolute idiot to fail to plead. Which then kicks in multiple offender charges the next time.
Nothing like starting off your career as an attorney sending drug addicts to prison for life.
I like this because it states the problem and makes reasonable suggestions about how to fix it without getting too political.
One thing that wasn't mentioned though was lobbying by private contractors that own or service prisons, thus creating a profit
motive (and campaign contribution motive) for making more things imprisonable offences.
Beyond that, the few people I've known that have spent time in prison also had substance abuse issues (DUI, theft to support
a habit, getting in a fight while drunk, etc ) and a general disposition to not care about the long term consequences of their
actions. Perhaps providing counseling and mental health care services could help. Or perhaps not, but it is a question worth exploring.
Up through the turn of the century, prosecutors were extremely stressed dealing with the huge volume of crime so they tried to
plea bargain a lot of charges. With the lower crime rates in this century, prosecutors have more time on their hands to get tough.
"Instead, prosecutors use them as a threat to get defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges or testify against fellow
criminals. (About 95 percent of cases end in plea deals rather than trials today.)"
This post is typically clueless conservative garbage about the real issues in the justice system. There's a few other shills
I'd love to call out for their dishonesty as "researchers" because they miraculously can't even find out the most basic facts
or controversies on the subject, but it just takes too much energy. However, it just borders on journalistic malpractice, and
it needs to stop.
About this quote I pulled here. What you are talking about is called "charge stacking," and prosecutors do it because they
can strong arm everyone into a conviction, then they can build political careers on. Oftentimes, they go to run for AG offices
based on their stellar records that the public is duped into thinking actually means something.
We have one out our way whose family is reportedly involved in a whole lot of shady business dealings, and he used his job
to go after politicians who promised to clean house. I could go on forever about his unbelievably stupid press conferences about
irrelevant stuff as if they were a papal announcement. He was pushing to do the AG promotion too. Then again, our former governor
was said to be in the mob, so par for the course around here.
Don't even get me started on the judges in our state serving 30 year sentences for bribery where they threw thousands of kids
in jail for nothing. I think they made millions in destroying these kids lives. I have heard crickets about that scandal and other
even funnier ones on any conservative site. It's like coming to an alternate reality when I see articles like this.
Speaking of funny scandals, how about the kid who was charged with wiretapping who had just used his tablet to record bullies
in class after no one in the school administration would do anything about them? Instead of addressing his concerns, they charged
him with a felony! This seems rational and totally legal to you? Know what the sheriff or police authorities said when they go
called out on that one in the media? No one had any idea how that got in the paperwork .You can't make this sh** up. If they had
never made the papers, chances are the kid would have spent time in jail or been forced to plea bargain. Why do you defend things
like this? Why is it okay that this and worse goes on and is justified as necessary? Would you feel it was necessary if they did
it to you? Heather MacDonald et al needs to take off her rose-colored glasses and see what's really going down.
But anyway, what the prosecutors do (and did in my case) was withhold and/or ignore exculpatory evidence (or perhaps more accurately,
reinterpret what evidence they had to come to the opposite conclusions than what the evidence said), then added manufactured evidence
to create outrageous charges that the prosecutor even admitted to my lawyer was never meant to go to trial because he couldn't
prove anything and everyone would have to even more formally perjure themselves. This would be things like people coming forward
saying they knew me for years when they didn't know me at all, the kind of stuff that you see go on and wonder if it's even possible
to get a fair trial no matter how innocent you are. But you're good with that, right? That seems like a reasonable thing for witnesses
to do?
Better yet, he flipped the case so I ended up in a situation where the burden of proof was legally on me and I wasn't allowed
to have any defending witnesses, while the actual law requires the prosecution to prove its case in a courtroom and call a reasonable
defense. The one judge in my case was also reprimanded for taking bribes in a different case, and she went really cheap, only
a couple of hundred dollars, to drop charges that the AG later reinstated.
"while incarceration has undoubtedly soared-even relative to crime, which has dropped substantially since the early 1990s"
Do you think the two (higher rates of incarceration/lower crime) are unconnected?"
**************
Good point to ponder. I remember back when offenders would be released over & over again to commit the same crimes. They still
do to some degree, but people got fed up. And we ended up with the "3 strikes & you're out laws."
Non violent offenders should make restitution &/or be put to work. That especially goes for white collar crime. Why in the
world should taxpayers have fed & housed Martha Stewart? Seriously.
I had a family member who worked in a "medium security" prison with rapists, child molesters, organized crime members, etc.
Trust me, those folks needed to stay locked up. They all had a story & excuses but deep down they knew they were guilty & were
pretty much sociopaths. Very little conscience at work.
Prison
guards,
unionized
and
politically
influential,
are
a
major
force
in
the
growth
of
the
American
prison
industry.
Prison
guard
unions
have
grown
immensely
since
1980,
when
the
membership
was
no
more
than
abut
2,
000
guards.
Since
then,
the
prison
guard
union
in
California
alone
has
reached
25,
000.
American
prison
guards
earn
an
average
salary
of
$36,
000
a
year,
which
is
34
percent
below
the
median
American
income
of
$48,
000
in
2007.
According
to
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
there
were
about
500,
000
"correctional
officers"
working
in
the
United
States
in
2007.
Of
those,
18,
000
were
federal
employees;
the
others
worked
for
state
and
county
governments.
Because
of
the
constantly
rising
rates
of
incarceration,
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
estimates
a
growth
for
this
occupation
of
16
percent
between
2007
and
2014.
Of
course,
the
downturn
in
the
American
economy
as
of
2009
may
make
such
growth
impossible,
for
economics
has
frequently
determined
results
quite
different
from
those
expected.
21
In
view
of
the
large
membership
in
the
prison
guards
unions,
the
unions
have
considerable
clout
at
election
time.
Because
the
relatives
and
friends
of
guards
are
also
voters,
state
legislators
can
seldom
risk
antagonizing
the
prison
guard
unions
if
they
seek
reelection.
Such
election
concerns
are
particularly
true
in
California,
where
prison
guard
unions
have
been
a
major
force
in
the
growth
of
the
prison
industry.
The
California
Correctional
Peace
Officers
Association
funnels
money
to
politicians
to
ensure
a
"lock
'em
up"
policy
in
the
state.
The
growth
in
political
clout
is
best
illustrated
by
the
growth
of
the
prison
guard
union,
which
collects
about
$15
million
in
union
dues
each
year,
leading
to
contributions
to
gubernatorial
candidates
of
at
least
$1.
5
million.
The
union
also
finances
a
so-
called
Crime
Victims
Political
Action
Committee,
which
in
turn
supplies
political
candidates
in
California
with
money
toward
their
campaigns.
Prison
guard
unions
also
demand
laws
that
lead
to
mandatory
life
sentences
as
well
as
longer
sentences
for
all
offenders.
While
California
is
one
example
of
the
influence
of
prison
guard
unions,
these
tactics
are
used
in
every
state.
Lawmakers
who
want
to
keep
their
jobs
know
that
it
is
dangerous
to
oppose
union
demands.
Therefore,
prison
guard
unions
are
yet
one
more
factor
contributing
to
the
huge
incarceration
rate
experienced
in
the
United
States.
[May 03, 2017] Truble with DNS tests and other forensic evidence tests: 90 percent of crime labs in the United States are affiliated with law enforcement agencies by scientists who seek to please the police departments employing them. One of the worst examples of the fraud committed by forensic scientists involved Joyce Gilchrist, who for years testified at trials in the courts of Oklahoma City, claiming that she had made scientific tests that proved the guilt of those accused of murder, rape, and other crimes of violence. Between 1980 and 2001, Gilchrist had testified in thousands of cases, including 23 in which defendants were sentenced to death. Eleven of those sent to death row were executed on the basis of Gilchrist's scientific evidence. In 2001, she was dismissed from her job after the FBI found that she had deliberately withheld evidence from the defense, claimed to have achieved scientific results that no other scientist had ever achieved, and failed to perform tests that might have cleared the accused.
Gilchrist's fraud was discovered after DNA testing proved that she had sent Jeffrey Pierce to prison for 65 years for a rape that
Pierce had nothing to do with. Then, it was found that Robert Lee Miller was innocent of a murder attributed to him by Gilchrist's
science while the same Gilchrist had cleared the real killer. Gilchrist had been suspected of fraud for years, but the attorneys
who accused her were ignored by the judges and the prosecutors and even the forensic scientists to whom the complaints were made.
It has been estimated that many prisoners who confessed to crimes they did not commit did so in order to lessen sentences they would
otherwise have received by reason of Gilchrist's manipulations. 23
In West Virginia, Fred Zane, a police forensic specialist, falsified DNA tests that he had never carried out. His false report
led to the conviction of Glen Dale Woodall, who was convicted of two abduction rapes although he had nothing to do with the crimes.
His lawyers succeeded in having the DNA test done over again by another laboratory; the test results showed that Woodall could not
have committed these rapes. This led to the investigation of Zane's work, with the result that in 133 cases Zane had either never
carried out any lab work or reported inconclusive results as certain results. 24
In January 2001, a lawsuit against the city of Chicago included a report revealing that a supervisor at the Illinois State Police
crime lab had given false testimony in nine cases, including trials that resulted in wrongful rape convictions of three Chicago men.
The supervisor of the crime lab, Pamela Fish, deliberately withheld evidence that would have served to establish the innocence of
John Willis, falsely accused of numerous rapes. Willis was sentenced to 100 years in prison and labeled "the beauty shop rapist"
by the media, always in a hurry to convict innocent people. When DNA tests proved seven years later that not Willis but another man
had committed the rapes, Willis was paid $2.6 million in compensation and Fish was fired. Consequent examination of the Illinois
crime lab work revealed widespread fraud promoted by that laboratory. The scientists who worked there regarded themselves as members
of the prosecution and were eager to please the police and the district attorneys who employed them. Such bias is found in almost
all states, since crime labs are usually not independent of the prosecutors. In fact, 90 percent of crime labs in the United States
are affiliated with law enforcement agencies and therefore report
whatever prosecutors want to hear. Governor Ryan suspended the death penalty in Illinois after it was revealed that 13 of the
24 men on death row were innocent, as proved by DNA test results.25
Dr. Ralph Erdmann worked as a medical examiner in more than 40 rural counties in Texas from the early 1980s until September 1992,
when he pleaded "no contest" to seven felony counts of falsifying autopsies in three Texas counties. He was sentenced to 10 years'
probation and had to return $17,000 he received for examinations never performed. Erdmann repeatedly falsified toxicology reports
to please prosecutors who sanctioned his deceit so they could win their cases, resulting in imprisonment and the death penalty for
innocent people. Erdmann also testified falsely to release criminals who were friends of district attorneys.26
In 1993, Willie Simpson was charged with the murder of Phillip Mancini, a Vineland, New Jersey, high school teacher. Dr. Larry
Mapow, the medical examiner in Cumberland County, New Jersey, concluded that Mancini had been killed by several blows to the head
with a blunt instrument. When the Mancini family asked another pathologist to conduct another autopsy, the pathologist, Dr. Claus
Speth, discovered that Mancini had died from two bullets and not from blows to the head. In another New Jersey case, Willie Simpson
was charged with the murder of Robert Webb. The medical examiner claimed that Simpson had killed Webb with a gunshot to the head.
Yet, Dr. Michael Baden, the foremost medical examiner in the country, concluded that Webb was killed by a brick and not a gunshot.
Baden concluded that "there is not a shred of evidence that Webb was killed by means of a gun." It then turned out that another man,
not Simpson, had killed Webb.27
Perhaps one of the most atrocious miscarriages of justice was inflicted on Barry Beach, a resident of Poplar, Montana. Beach was
sentenced to 100 years in prison when a jury convicted him in 1984 of killing 17-year-old Kimberly Nees in 1979. That conviction
was obtained by a prosecutor in the attorney general's office, Marc Racicot, who was guilty of "prosecutorial misconduct", a phrase
meaning that he deliberately railroaded Beach into prison. Racicot later became governor of Montana.
The evidence is that Beach had nothing to do with the murder of Nees but that she was killed by a group of girls who had together
murdered Nees and left their footprints and fingerprints all over the car in which they transported the dead body to a nearby river.
In fact, the girls who murdered Nees confessed having done so to a number of Poplar residents. Still, the police and prosecutors
did not want to hear that. Instead, Beach was tortured into confessing to the crime.
Here's a graph showing the number of attorneys as a share of the US population:
The increase seems pretty inexorable starting around 1970, doesn't it?
For grins and giggles, here's snide graph on which I will make no comment:
If you're wondering where the lawyers live, a quick google search turned up
this post
which shows attorneys by state. Needless to say, the share of attorneys as a
percentage of the population is greater in the District of Columbia than any of the states,
by far.
Data for ("resident active") attorneys used in these graphs comes are from the
American Bar Association
. The ABA's website seems insistent that anyone referencing
their data should state it is "Reprinted by permission of the American Bar Association. All
rights reserved." I am afraid to argue with them.
America's incoming top cop on finance is literally married to industry
Clayton is already an unusual choice, given that he's slated to be a primary regulator of Wall
Street while a chunk of his family income will continue to come from Goldman Sachs, where
his wife Gretchen works . Although he will have to recuse himself from enforcement cases involving
Goldman, he will not have to sit out of a broad range of other regulatory decisions that affect the
company. This is already notable.
But Public Citizen has stumbled
onto some other oddities about Clayton's personal holdings.
In Clayton's absurdly baroque Form 278 financial disclosure – if you want to feel like your financial
life is meager and uncomplicated, take a look at
this staggeringly long list of income sources for the former Sullivan and Cromwell mainstay –
he lists, under "other assets and income," a series of entries involving a company called WMB Holdings.
WMB Holdings, he explains in a verbose and unhelpful endnote, is a Delaware-based entity that
provides "business, financial, and representational services."
According to Clayton, WMB secures business licenses, files UCC forms, creates special purpose
vehicles (you might remember these
little financial Frankensteins from the Enron story), engages in "compliance support services,"
secures data storage and helps with "anti-counterfeiting services," among other things.
This sounds harmless enough. But WMB, and a company called CSC – with which it appears to have
a connection – is a company of a very particular type, known well to white-collar investigators.
"It's a corporate formation company," says
Jack Blum
, an expert on white-collar crime and money laundering who is best known for his investigation
of the BCCI scandal. "You call them up, and 20 minutes later you've got a Delaware corporation. I'm
exaggerating, of course, but that's what they do."
These firms can be used to create chains of legal entities, sometimes ending in offshore accounts,
that make tracing financial transactions difficult, if not impossible. "They can make the ownership
of anything completely impenetrable," says Blum, speaking generally and not necessarily about Clayton's
firm. "If you want to launder money, evade tax or hide assets from a spouse, you can do it."
Clayton's family seems to have a serious interest in this firm. He lists a series of family trusts
containing WMB holdings, most producing high annual dividends.
If you add up each of the dividends – some of which are listed as generating over $1 million a
year, while others are listed at $100,000-$1,000,000, etc. – the total annual value of these holdings
comes out to over $4 million annually, at least.
The endnote claims Clayton has no beneficial interest or control in these holdings, but that his
wife and/or children have a "beneficial interest."
Given that the company would appear to be subject to SEC oversight, it's worth asking the nature
of his family's involvement with WMB, and moreover to learn more about what his attitude is toward
such companies in general.
Clayton has pledged to divest from WMB when his wife has "directly held financial interests" in
the company, but not where his wife or his children are "solely a beneficiary."
Public Citizen for a variety of reasons believes that WMB "may also be the parent of Corporation
Service Co. (CSC)," another large business services firm with offices in "Delaware, Australia, France,
Hong Kong, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom."
Among other things, WMB was for some time listed as the
parent of
a company called CSC Trust Co., now called Delaware Trust Co.
CSC Global claims 2,500
employees as well as 180,000 corporate customers, while also representing 10,000 law firms. The company
appears to do more or less the same things that Clayton says WMB does, dealing with creating legal
business entities, management of licenses, upkeep of filings, dealing with service of process, etc.
Interestingly, and to Blum's point, Clayton's disclosure does not list any interest in CSC. So
although he gives some information about what appears to be a holding company with little to no public
profile, the company that boasts of its connections to 180,000 corporations is not mentioned in the
disclosure form.
Neither CSC nor Clayton have responded to requests for comment.
The real issue with companies like these is the vast array of tools they can offer big companies
and high-net-worth individuals to complicate their financial profiles. The worst-case scenario is
a string of shell companies that end in an opaque offshore haven.
"That's when the trail becomes impossible to follow," says Blum. Investigators who try to follow
money into offshore banking havens have almost no hope of getting answers there, he says.
"You need a formal mutual legal request that may or may not be honored in the lifetime of the
investigator," says Blum.
Interestingly, when Public Citizen ran the names of WMB and CSC through the Panama Papers
database, they found nothing. But when they ran the address common to both companies – 2711 Centerville
Rd., Wilmington – through the database, they found it
connected with numerous firms whose agent was the infamous Mossack Fonseca, many of them offshore
companies.
In its letter to the Senate Banking Committee, Public Citizen asked the Senate to ask Clayton
what this means. Did either WMB or CSC do business with Mossack Fonseca? Have either of those companies
provided services to Mossack Fonseca clients?
Even if WMB and CSC are completely above-board, it's a strange sort of investment for the top
cop on the financial beat. It will be interesting to see if he sheds some light on his holdings when
he's questioned this week.
"... Hayes contends that the country has been divided into two halves that he labels the Colony and the Nation. The idea is adapted from Richard Nixon's 1968 speech at the Republican National Convention, in which he asserted that black Americans "don't want to be a colony in a nation." Hayes argues that almost a half-century later we have created just that: ..."
"... ...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity. ..."
"... The benefits for the Nation were manifest and the practices were almost immediately exported to cities all over the country. Cleaned-up cities came at a cost, though, vacuuming huge numbers of poor, mentally ill and minority-status Americans into prisons and inflicting "widespread harassment and misery" on residents of the Colony. ..."
Chris Hayes, author of Twilight of the Elites and host of MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes , seeks to establish a
new framework for understanding America's fractured society with his book A Colony in a Nation .
Hayes contends that the country has been divided into two halves that he labels the Colony and the Nation. The idea is adapted
from Richard Nixon's 1968 speech at the Republican National Convention, in which he asserted that black Americans "don't want to
be a colony in a nation." Hayes argues that almost a half-century later we have created just that:
...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former
colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms
of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool
of control rather than a foundation for prosperity.
... ... ...
Hayes aims to show not just that the law is unequally applied, but that the Nation and the Colony have two entirely different
justice systems. He points to colleges and universities as a key example: "All these schools and hundreds of others draw their student
bodies disproportionately from upper echelons of society, and they are places where parents and administrators outright expect students
to engage in illicit behaviors." Why aren't poorer neighborhoods extended the same "extremely liberal norms of tolerance"? In fact,
under the widely celebrated "Broken Windows" theory of policing in the 1990s, New York "constructed an entire new judicial system
around low-level offenses" where the goal was "not to figure out if the person in question committed a crime but to sort city
residents according to their obedience and orderliness."
The benefits for the Nation were manifest and the practices were almost immediately exported to cities all over the country.
Cleaned-up cities came at a cost, though, vacuuming huge numbers of poor, mentally ill and minority-status Americans into prisons
and inflicting "widespread harassment and misery" on residents of the Colony.
Hayes does not propose solutions in A Colony in a Nation . Instead, he makes a powerful dichotomy visible to those who
can't see it. His framework serves as a powerful lens through which to understand the last half-century of American history, as well
as the immense challenges going forward. -- Hank Stephenson
Great charts, and the first attempt I've seen to actually
quantify the effect.
I see one big problem: incarceration really exploded
between 1980 and 2000, and yet that is exactly when the
secular decline in the LFPR, relatively speaking, abated.
Nearly one in 10 prisoners suffer sexual abuse while incarcerated in state prisons, local jails and post-release treatment
facilities, according to a report published Thursday by the U.S. Department of Justice.
The report, based on the first
National Former Prisoners
Survey , includes data from 518,800 former prisoners who were on supervised parole in mid-2008.
An estimated 3.7 percent said they were forced or pressured to have nonconsensual sex with another inmate. About 5.3 percent
reported an incident that involved facility staff.
The report's publication coincides with the Justice Department's release of landmark federal standards to protect inmates in
all federal, state and local facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003.
"For too long, incidents of sexual abuse against incarcerated persons have not been taken as seriously as sexual abuse outside
prison walls," the Justice Department said in a statement on the standards. "In popular culture, prison rape is often the subject
of jokes; in public discourse, it has been at times dismissed by some as an inevitable - or even deserved - consequence of criminality."
A quarter of those who reported they had suffered unwanted sexual contact at the hands of other inmates said they had been
physically held down or restrained and a quarter had been physically harmed or injured. Nearly a quarter (23 percent) reported
serious injuries, including anal/vaginal tearing (12 percent), chipped or lost teeth (12 percent), being knocked unconscious (8
percent), internal injuries (6 percent), knife/stab wounds (4 percent) or broken bones (4 percent), according to the survey of
former prisoners.
Although any sexual contact between staff and inmates is legally nonconsensual, former prisoners said some incidents were unwilling
and some were "willing." Most victims of staff sexual misconduct reported some type of coercion. Half said they had been offered
favors or special privileges and a third said they had been talked into it. Nearly 7 in 8 in this category reported only perpetrators
of the opposite sex. More than three-quarters of all reported staff sexual misconduct involved a male inmate with female staff.
The rate of victimization by other inmates was reported by homosexual (39 percent) and bisexual male inmates (34 percent) at
rates about 10 times higher than those reported by heterosexual males (3.5 percent).
In other findings, the report said inmates of two or more races (11.3 percent) and black non-Hispanics (6.5 percent) suffered
sexual victimization at rates higher than white non-Hispanic inmates (4.5 percent) and Hispanic inmates (4 percent).
The survey was part of the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which has collected administrative
records of reported sexual violence or allegations of sexual victimization directly from victims since 2004.
The new standards require an array of measures to prevent and handle sexual abuse involving prisoners, including additional
staff training, grievance reporting systems, increased staff and video monitoring, prompt medical and psychological attention
for victims, and disciplinary actions for staff or inmate perpetrators.
"The standards we establish today reflect the fact that sexual assault crimes committed within our correctional facilities
can have devastating consequences - for individual victims and for communities far beyond our jails and prisons," Attorney General
Eric Holder said in a statement.
The standards will go into effect for federal facilities in 60 days. States that do not comply or demonstrate that they are
working toward complying with the standards face the loss of relevant federal funds.
In drafting the standards, the Justice Department was prohibited from placing an undue financial burden on the states. It collected
public comment, and haggled with officials from states, a wide array of advocacy groups and other stakeholders, a department official
said, explaining why the standards were instituted nine years after the law was passed.
"These standards are the result of a thoughtful and deliberative process - and represent a critical step forward in protecting
the rights and safety of all Americans," Holder said.
For the nearly 8,000 people locked up in Cook County jail, and the 2,400 on house arrest, the presumption of innocence until proven
guilty effectively does not exist. Roughly 95 percent of those incarcerated have not faced trial or conviction of any kind, the
vast majority of them ensnared simply because they are unable to afford bond. Those forced to languish in indefinite detention
are disproportionately African American, and their pretrial punishments can permanently set their lives off-course, causing them
to lose jobs, custody of their children, their housing, and even their lives.
Now, a group of formerly incarcerated people, movement lawyers and concerned community members in Chicago are seeking to intervene
in this humanitarian crisis by pooling collective resources
to free people from Cook County jail. Calling themselves the Chicago
Community Bond Fund (CCBF), the all-volunteer group just announced it has freed 50 people from jail or house arrest, using a revolving
fund.
But the organization is not just aiming to buy the liberty of those locked up -- a transaction they
acknowledge is chilling. Members want to change the system by organizing to eradicate monetary bond altogether and address
the harms that Cook County inflicts on its own residents. "You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but they treat
everyone guilty until proven innocent," Tyler Smith, a 21-year-old Chicago resident bonded out by the CCBF in February, told AlterNet.
Amid mounting nationwide concern about mass incarceration, the CCBF is advancing a strategy of harm reduction and resistance
that appears to be catching fire, with related projects established in
Massachusetts , New York ,
California ,
North Carolina and beyond. In a country that remains,
by far , the biggest jailer in the world, organizers hope that
similar bond funds can comprise one prong in a broad strategy to end the injustices perpetrated by prison and jail systems across
the United States.
"If we are really serious about the presumption of innocence, which is not a radical concept, then we need to take a critical
look at cash bond and pretrial detention across the board," Max Suchan, a co-founder of CCBF, told AlterNet. "The solution is
to end cash bond and eliminate pretrial detention."
"My Life Was Ruined"
While the monetary bond system remains, Smith said he is glad the CCBF exists. "It had a good impact," he said of the organization.
"It brought me hope."
Smith has been working since he was 15, and said he comes from a "single-parent household, with a mother who has been working
hard since I was born." He described himself as "head of household" since he was 19.
"My whole situation started on July 15, 2013, when I was accused of robbery," said Smith. Unable to pay $2,500 -- 10 percent
of his $25,000 deposit bond -- he was forcibly subjected to electronic monitoring, a form of house arrest, in July 2016. Smith
was working two jobs at the time, but lost both as a result of restrictions on his movement and invasive surveillance. He was
living with his mother, who was unemployed, and says as a result of his incarceration the family was almost evicted from their
home. "My life was ruined," said Smith. "There was nothing I could do."
After being referred by his public defender, Smith was bonded out by the CCBF in February and has since become a vocal organizer
against the injustices he endured, testifying at a
November public hearing on the use of money bond in Cook County. He said that through the CCBF, he has gained important community
he describes as "friends and family." He added that "after the situation, it's like the stress has been lifted from my mom."
Yet Smith also said that his life has been unfairly derailed by what he has suffered so far. While his charges were dropped
last Friday, Smith and his family have already faced staggering punishment, he notes. In light of this ordeal, he emphasized that
it is important for those who have not experienced incarceration firsthand to "hear my voice and what I have to say."
"To make things better in the justice system, they have to eliminate bond and house arrest," said Smith.
For many, the harms inflicted during pretrial detention are irreversible. "Inability to pay bond results in higher rates of
conviction, longer sentences, loss of housing and jobs, separation of families and lost custody of children," notes the CCBF in
its first annual report
.
It is far more difficult for individuals to fight their cases while incarcerated, and after sitting in indefinite detention,
many experience pressure to plead guilty. In Cook County alone, people arrested on "nonviolent" felonies who were unable to post
bail were four times as likely to receive convictions as their counterparts who were able to avoid pretrial detention, according
to research included in a class
action lawsuit.
Especially for those who already experience poverty or marginalization, even just a few days in jail can permanently disrupt
jobs and family connections, a reality underscored by the Pretrial Justice Institute's "
Three Days Count " campaign.
Diomar, who was formerly incarcerated in Cook County jail, says it was only because he was bonded out by CCBF that he was able
to "be free to see the birth of my daughter and support my family."
"Bond is fundamentally unfair because it punishes poor people more -- and it's not just you that suffers, but also your entire
family," he said in a press statement. "They lock you away from your kids, and that really sets the tone for the case and puts
you at a disadvantage from the very beginning. You can't fight your case as well from a legal or emotional standpoint from the
inside."
Some do not survive their ordeals. According to a
report by the Huffington Post, 815 people "died in jails and police lockups in the year following Sandra Bland's death on
July 13, 2015." Their data shows that many of those who lost their lives were incarcerated because they were unable to meet bond
requirements. The tally is a dramatic undercount, as it does not include people who die following release due to incarcerated-related
causes.
The long-term impacts of jailing are tragically illustrated by the case of Kalief Browder, who in 2010 was arrested at the
age of 16 and spent more than 1,000 days locked up at Rikers Island waiting for a trial that never happened. He was forced to
remain incarcerated because his family could not afford to post bail. During this time he endured roughly two years in solitary
confinement, as well as a
violent assault by
an officer. Following his release, Browder
committed suicide in 2015.
"He tried to lead a normal life but after being beaten, starved, being in solitary confinement for so long, that would take
a toll on a grown man, let alone a child," Venida Browder, Kalief's mother,
told the
New York Daily News six months after her son's death. She died just over a year after her son took his life.
"No More Business-as-Usual"
Pretrial detention, like that which Browder was forced to endure, is a key driver of soaring jail populations across the United
States. According to a
report released in February 2015 by the Vera Institute, annual admissions to jails jumped from 6 million in 1983 to 11.7 million
in 2013. Meanwhile, those incarcerated in jails are languishing longer, with the average stay climbing from 14 to 23 days over
the past 30 years. People of color are disproportionately impacted by these trends. The Vera Institute finds that African Americans,
who make up just 13 percent of the US population, are jailed at four times the rate of their white counterparts.
As in Cook County, the vast majority of people locked up in jails across the country have not been convicted of any crime and
are ostensibly assumed innocent. The Department of Justice
estimated in 2014 that, at any given time, roughly
450,000 people are incarcerated in jails awaiting trial, amounting to two-thirds of the jail population. A
special report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
released in 2007, shows that five out of six of those locked up "had bail set with financial conditions required for release that
were not met." According to the Vera report, three-fifths of all people locked up in jail are "awaiting trial or resolution of
their cases through through plea negotiation, and simply too poor to post even low bail."
The spike in jail populations nationwide tracks directly with increased reliance on ever-more-expensive bail. In a 2012
report
, the Justice Policy Institute notes that, "From 1992 to 2006, the use of financial release, primarily through commercial
bonds, increased by 32 percent." Meanwhile, the report observes that average bail amounts have increased "by over $30,000 between
1992 and 2006."
Bail itself reflects the racism of the broader prison-industrial complex.
According to figures released by the Pretrial Justice Institute last year, African American men face 35 percent higher bonds
than white men nationwide. Meanwhile, monetary bail systems by definition discriminate against those members of society who are
least able to pay, in a society with profound class disparities along race lines. The Pew Research Center
determined in
2014 that the current wealth gap between white and black people in the United States is at its highest point since 1989, with
white homes possessing 13 times the median wealth of their black counterparts in 2013.
Even the Department of Justice submitted a friend-of-the-court
brief in August arguing that incarcerating people
because they are unable to pay bail violates the US constitution. Yet despite the public airing of concerns, the system continues
unabated, with rare exceptions. In
contrast to most state and local jurisdictions in the United States, Washington DC releases roughly 90 percent of people held
overnight, without requiring monetary bail.
Peter Goldberg, executive director of the Brooklyn Bail Fund, told AlterNet over the phone, "The goal of a bond fund is certainly
not to prop up an unfair system with money, but to disrupt and change it. In addition to the obvious harm reduction that a fund
can provide by getting people out of jail, we work in tandem with others in the movement to abolish cash bail. Funds must bring
to light the experiences of individuals, allow them to have voice in what reform looks like. No more business-as-usual."
"There Hasn't Been a Change"
In light of these injustices, Chicago-area activists and lawyers are organizing a coordinated fightback. Currently and formerly
incarcerated people filed a class-action lawsuit against Cook County officials in October, in partnership with the CCBF and lawyers'
groups, including the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center.
"Every day, thousands of human beings in Cook County, each presumed innocent as a matter of law, remain in jail for the duration
of their case simply because they cannot afford to pay a monetary amount set without relation to their ability to pay," states
the complaint, which was emailed to AlterNet. "The large and disproportionate majority of these persons are African Americans."
According to 2011-2013 data from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of County, analyzed by the MacArthur Justice Center, these
disparities are stark. For example, only 15.8 percent of African Americans charged with Class 4 felonies were released on bond
before their trials, as compared to 32.4% of non-African American defendants.
Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart, who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, has stated publicly he believes the money bail
system is unfair. Cara Smith, chief policy officer for Dart, told AlterNet that the sheriff "has been lobbying to eliminate cash
bond in Illinois."
But campaigners say they are exasperated by the endless talk about the problems while the policies remain the same. "The reason
Sheriff Dart is named in the lawsuit is because his office is incarcerating these people after the bond is set," Alexa Van Brunt
of MacArthur Justice Center told AlterNet. "He is the custodian of the people who are being held based on these judicial bail
orders, which we believe are unconstitutional. There has been a lot of discussion about the problem of cash bail in Cook County.
It's an issue that has been on everyone's radar for some time. But there hasn't been a change."
Building a Movement
While the monetary system persists, people across the country are taking direct action to remove people from its clutches.
"We're first and foremost interested in keeping clients out of jail," Brett Davidson, the director of the Connecticut Bail Fund,
told AlterNet over the phone. "It's ridiculous that we're even able to buy people's freedom, that money is the thing standing
between people and jail."
The CCBF, which combines harm reduction with social movement support, emerged from a call to address grave injustices committed
by the Chicago Police Department. In August 2014, police killed two black men, one of whom was 17-year-old Desean Pittman. When
Pittman's friends and family held a community vigil shortly following the killing, they were attacked by police who "ripped down
memorial photos and tipped over candles," said Suchan. After the incident was over, five people were charged with felonies, including
Pittman's mother, and four could not afford bond.
Just back from Ferguson, Suchan says he "made contact with family members who were doing their own fundraising. Ultimately
we had to raise around $30,000 to get everyone out of jail. It took four months. We were doing fish fries and game nights, as
well as crowdfunding online campaigns." That effort launched conversations about what it would look like to create a more sustainable
fund.
"We decided to form this group so that we could reach out to those who couldn't help themselves, and we are very proud of what
we're doing," co-founder Jeanette Wince
said at a launch party in November 2015. Since the launch, the organization says it has posted "over $278,000 in bonds ranging
from $500 to $50,000, spending the vast majority of this sum on felony bonds." Not a single bond has been forfeited, and many
of those released have since become active with the organization.
To this day, CCBF martials resources to support individuals, as well as the Black Lives Matter movement, with roughly a quarter
of the people bonded out engaged in a political action at the time of their arrest. Support of people doing activist work "directly
advances our mission of supporting movements seeking systemic change in Chicago," the group says in their annual
report . "Bond
funds are a really important, humanizing tool, but they are really only a way forward if they are connected and accountable to
larger movements for justice and decarceration," Sharlyn Grace, CCBF co-founder, told AlterNet.
James Kilgore, author of the book
Understanding Mass Incarceration , told AlterNet that bail funds "raise the issue of the injustice of bail and put
the issue of abolishing cash bail onto the agenda. That is an important step in decarceration."
However, individuals don't have to have ties to such social movements to be deemed worthy of support. The CCBF has
developed detailed criteria that weighs factors including "inability
to pay," "risk of victimization in jail" and "special health needs."
"Many times, when there are public conversations about bail reform, they move forward by dividing people into categories of
worthy and unworthy," Grace emphasized. "We're not a guilt or innocence-based organization. We think of everyone as being harmed
in the jail. We are not going to say we are only bailing out people who face 'nonviolent' charges or drug charges. Fundamentally,
keeping people in cages is not how we want to respond to harm in our communities." This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission
or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
" I have just finished reading Stanley Brodsky's Coping With Cross Examination. I absorbed
it like a sponge. Although most of the book is devoted to testimony by mental health experts
in criminal court, there is much in the book that is very relevant in other contexts. I have
rarely been asked or required to testify in criminal cases, but I have provided expert medical
testimony at hundreds of Social Security disability appeals hearings, complete with judge and
lawyer. In that role there is often conflicting evidence and the expert must integrate all
of the relevant evidence, and most importantly be prepared, professional, impartial, and provide
relevant understandable testimony. Dr Brodsky's book clearly speaks to those points. The book
is full of good examples, good humor, and good reasoning. It is the kind of book that I am
likely to consult again to help me in my work. I highly recommend this book to any mental health
professional who may be asked to provide sworn testimony. I also recommend it to those who
may not testify but who may be retained by lawyers for evaluations or consultations. Dr. Brodsky's
ethics are superb. This book is a very practical and helpful guide to working with lawyers
and judges.
By A Customer on March 5, 2004 Format: Paperback
A MUST --Makes the difficult areas of Cross-Examination easy
" This is the third installment. In plain language, the author tackles many difficult cross-examination
issues. The author uses easy to understand examples to illustrate complex litigation processes
and skills that the expert witness must master before taking the stand. As a lawyer, I highly
recommend this book to anyone interested in expert testimony. I give this book my highest rating.
Also, check out the other two books on expert testimony by the author.
By
pierrerostov on October 2, 2011 Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
spotty, try his first book first
" I highly recommend his first book "Testifying in Court, Guidelines and Maxims for the
Expert Witness." The later books are a bit self-indulgent, with tangential stories relating
to psychology or life that have little practical value. Still, there are a fair number of nuggets.
The problem is, many of the gems from the first book are not included, and so the treatment
of cross-ex in this book is not comprehensive. Try his first book first (It's all about cross-examination
too, even though the title is more general), then see what you think.
" This is one of a handful of books that any expert called on to testify should own. It
is a well written, practical volume that will help professionals present testimony that is
credible, compelling and ethical.
"... The real plan: Make money off desperate people. "For many consumers, more than half of their monthly payment went towards defendants' fees," the FTC said. "For consumers who were in the program longer than 18 months, defendants also charged a $49 monthly 'maintenance fee.' " ..."
People are so desperate to get out of debt that they will believe anything and anyone promising relief. They often turn to
debt-relief companies promoting plans that can supposedly solve their problems. But for many, not only does the relief not come,
but the steep cost of the plans - sometimes thousands of dollars - can also dig them in deeper.
Recently, the Federal Trade Commission announced a $7.9 million settlement with one debt-relief operation that the agency said
scammed people by making false promises. The company waived its rights to "challenge or contest" the charges, according to the
settlement.
What the FTC found was troubling. And if the right knowledge is power, let's look at the anatomy of how this one scam worked.
The promoter: DebtPro 123. Unfortunately, this company is not alone. Just look for company names intended to lure you into
thinking that they feel your pain and want to help eliminate your debt in just a few short years.
The pitch: According to the FTC complaint, DebtPro 123 told folks that its "debt resolution program would completely resolve
consumers' credit card and other unsecured debts (including department store accounts, personal loans, medical bills, student
loans, and accounts with collection agencies)."
It also told consumers: "DebtPro will reduce a client's total debt by 70 to 80 percent on average including all fees" and "With
settlements as low as 10 percent, this means when all is said and done, a client's savings could be as much as 20 cents on the
dollar including our fees."
Now really, doesn't that statement sound too good to be true?
And it was.
What would you say if you were told this? "With honest and informative advice, outstanding customer service, and a proven debt
settlement process, we can ensure our clients become debt-free quickly and comfortably and get back on the path of financial freedom."
I homed in on two words: "quickly" and "comfortably."
Unless you come into some big bucks, the process of paying down your debts is long. It is painful. And if someone tells you
different, don't believe it.
Oh, and there was the debt calculator to help the unbelievers. It was designed to back up the ridiculous claims of a quick debt
reduction.
The two phases of the program: In phase one, customers put money in a "Creditor Fund/Settlement Account." They were told they
needed this pot of money for negotiations with their creditors. In phase two, customers were assured that the company was working
on their case to get all their debt terms changed.
During these phases, customers were advised to stop paying their bills and to stop all communications with their creditors.
Bad move. Often in these cases, people find out later that nothing had been done on their behalf and that fees, interest and penalties
had been piling on while they waited on relief.
The FTC complaint said DebtPro made reference to its "legal department." And, in phrasing that's mimicked by other such companies,
DebtPro told its clients: "The attorneys will communicate directly with your creditors and debt collectors via the mail and telephone.
They will audit your bills and the collection methods being used by the creditors to determine if your consumer rights have been
violated."
Other promises: Your credit will be better because the firm will work to remove negative information from your credit files.
Except it failed to make clear that if the information was true - that you didn't pay your bills as agreed - this information
can't be removed. By law, most negative credit information can stay on your reports for seven years.
The real plan: Make money off desperate people. "For many consumers, more than half of their monthly payment went towards
defendants' fees," the FTC said. "For consumers who were in the program longer than 18 months, defendants also charged a $49 monthly
'maintenance fee.' "
The failed promises
Debts weren't reduced quickly. In fact, in many instances, the debt-relief company didn't start settlement negotiations until
after the client had received letters from creditors warning of an impending lawsuit for failure to make debt payments.
Settlements weren't significantly less than what was owed. Negative information was not removed. And there was "no legal department,
'legal in-house counsels' or any attorneys on staff," the FTC found.
People ended up with more debt, some lost their homes, and others had their wages garnished or had to file for bankruptcy protection.
Now that you know the inside deal, don't get suckered into this type of debt-relief scam.
Write Singletary at The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 or [email protected]. Questions may
be used in a future column, with the writer's name, unless otherwise requested. To read more, go to
http://wapo.st/michelle-singletary .
fisher1
10/19/2015 7:08 AM EDT
How about a column on the D-list celebrities which tout questionable sites like debt-relief companies, reverse mortgages and
so on - do they do any online research before pocketing their fees?
Vic Martinsons
10/18/2015 8:23 PM EDT
There are companies, like Settle4Less, that do not charge the consumer any fees and doesn't require them to deposit money into
a special account. The consumer is never told to stop paying their debts during the settlement process. No claims are made regarding
credit score improvement or that the process will be successful.
fraseriver
10/17/2015 1:55 PM EDT
Collection companies buy your debt at auction for as little as two cents on the dollar. They then use Robo calls to harass
you forever...If you are unable to pay the debt go to the nearest library and research ways and means to get these vultures off
your back .
acepaperman
10/17/2015 11:03 AM EDT [Edited]
Depending on what state you live in, making the people who hold unsecured debt come after you is the least expensive route.
Small claims court is the one they will try if they try at all, and that usually has severe limitations. Most of these companies
are headquartered in some "business friendly" state which means they have to hire attorneys from your state to pursue you, which
will make it prohibitively expensive and Superior court is ludicrously expensive for the creditor. If you can ride it out, you
might not have to pay anything,. Hiring a debt relief company is probably the most expensive way to do it.
jgl707
10/17/2015 8:43 AM EDT
if it sounds too good to be true......
mickT
10/16/2015 11:23 PM EDT
Sounds like a Washington Post neo-con scam. "For only a few trillion dollars, if you help us take out Saddam, the world will
be better."
If only you support our policy of "taking out Bashar, and the freedom loving Salafists will turn Syria into a liberal haven".
I guess the debt relief people are invading their turf on b.s.ing the American people and they are mad.
"... Interestingly, white collar cases (like fraud, embezzlement and corruption) usually do not result in as steep a sentence as one might get if prosecuted for the same offense in state court. ..."
"... For the most part, however, the mandatory minimum penalties and federal sentencing guidelines usually result in very lengthy sentences for people convicted of federal crimes. That's one of the main reasons it is so important to retain a lawyer with a record of success in federal court if the case is being prosecuted by the federal government. ..."
"... In order to have jurisdiction over a crime, the alleged criminal activity must somehow involve the federal government or some instrumentality of interstate commerce. ..."
Are federal criminal cases different than state criminal cases? Yes!
Federal criminal investigations and prosecutions are handled very differently than similar
criminal cases in state courts. First of all, the law enforcement agencies that investigate
federal crimes are generally well-funded and staffed by the most experienced agents and investigators.
The federal prosecutors who conduct federal criminal trials and sentencing hearings are also usually
very experienced, and have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal. The judges who
preside in federal courts have lifetime appointments and their dockets are generally not as crowded
as those of most state court judges who handle many different types of criminal offenses.
More importantly, federal crimes generally carry stiffer sentences than state crimes, especially
in the areas of drug trafficking and conspiracy. Federal criminal penalties are also more
severe in cases involving child pornography and other sexual offenses prosecuted in federal court.
Interestingly, white collar cases (like fraud, embezzlement and corruption) usually do
not result in as steep a sentence as one might get if prosecuted for the same offense in state
court.
For the most part, however, the mandatory minimum penalties and federal sentencing guidelines
usually result in very lengthy sentences for people convicted of federal crimes. That's one of
the main reasons it is so important to retain a lawyer with a record of success in federal court
if the case is being prosecuted by the federal government.
Of course, not all crimes can be prosecuted in federal court. The federal government has limited
jurisdiction over criminal offenses and can only prosecute those crimes that are specifically
defined in the federal criminal code. In order to have jurisdiction over a crime, the
alleged criminal activity must somehow involve the federal government or some instrumentality
of interstate commerce. Federal courts have generally been very expansive in their
definition of what constitutes interstate commerce. As a result, the federal government
now prosecutes many crimes that were traditionally prosecuted only in state court. And this
trend is likely to continue.
Given the severity and complexity of federal criminal investigations and prosecutions, anyone
charged with a federal crime should retain a lawyer who has extensive experience in federal criminal
defense. If you need a federal criminal defense attorney with decades of successful results,
contact our firm and discuss your case with Page Pate in complete confidence. You will not
find a law firm with more recent successful results, better credentials, or a deeper commitment
to pursuing justice for people who need help in federal court.
"... The National Registry of Exoneration, a project of the University of Michigan, lists 18 wrongful convictions of mail fraud in the last 23 years-and this is only of the cases they've been able to examine. ..."
"... Of the 18 wrongfully convicted persons, nine were exonerated in the last five years, having already served between three to five years of their sentences. Factors contributing to the wrongful convictions ranged from perjury, misleading forensic evidence, official misconduct and most importantly, lack of adequate legal services. ..."
Mail fraud refers to the use of the U.S. Postal Service or other mail carrier to commit a crime.
Because of the proliferation of electronic communications, mail fraud has been expanded to include
wire fraud-which is the use of wire communications (such as email) to commit crimes.
According to The Wall Street Journal , in 2013 there were 3,923 cases of wire fraud.
For one to be convicted of mail or wire fraud, the court must establish that there is intent on the
part of the accused to defraud a person or institution as part of a scheme that uses mail and wire
communication. Convictions can also be made on the basis of intent alone. When found guilty, a defendant
may face as long as 30 years in prison and $1 million in fines.
REPORTS ON EXONERATION The National Registry of Exoneration, a project of the University of Michigan, lists 18 wrongful
convictions of mail fraud in the last 23 years-and this is only of the cases they've been able to
examine.
Of the 18 wrongfully convicted persons, nine were exonerated in the last five years, having
already served between three to five years of their sentences. Factors contributing to the wrongful
convictions ranged from perjury, misleading forensic evidence, official misconduct and most importantly,
lack of adequate legal services.
Last year, two people were exonerated. One of them was forty-year-old Leean Shantelle Thain from
Berrien County, Michigan. Thain was accused of embezzling funds from her mother by diverting her
mail. The National Registry of Exoneration lists inadequate legal services as a major factor contributing
to her wrongful conviction. A court of appeal ruled that both the trial lawyer and defense lawyer
erred by not conducting proper investigations into the matter, a factor that would have been avoided
had the accused had good legal representation.
Lawyer Referral For Mail Fraud Lawsuits
If you've been accused of mail or wire fraud, don't take chances on your legal representation.
Work with Pravati Networks and you'll be matched to a
mail fraud lawyer who
has in-depth experience working with other cases just like yours. Our mail fraud lawyers can help
you avoid wrongful conviction and overly harsh sentences. With just a small retainer, you can get
started with your defense today.
To be convicted of mail fraud, one must do all of the following:
Purposefully create a plan to defraud an individual or institution
Display intent to commit fraud
Mail something-for the purpose of carrying out a fraudulent
scheme-through the USPS or a private carrier
Previous Mail Fraud Cases
Case #1
According to the USPS, prosecutors proved in 2002 that a Texas man sold
roughly $6.5 million in fraudulent certificates of deposit (CDs) via the U.S.
Mail to close to 80 investors - most of whom were senior citizens. The man, who
never purchased the CDs, used portions of the money to pay earlier investors
and used the rest for personal expenses. More than 45 investors are still owed
a total of $3.5 million.
Case #2
The USPS states that two employees of the company that publishes Business
Week were charged with conspiracy to commit
securities fraud
when they revealed confidential information about publicly
held companies. The pair allegedly stockpiled thousands of dollars in
kickbacks
(through the U.S. Mail) after giving two co-defendants
insider trading
information from an issue of Business Week the day before
the issue hit newsstands. Armed with their tips, the co-defendants bought
various company stocks on a reported 43 occasions and sold it when the magazine
was released-after which stock prices soared. The trades were valued at more
than $2 million, while profits totaled $450,000.
Case #3
An Arizona man was convicted of mail fraud and sentenced to five years of
supervised probation, nine months of home detention, and $1 million in victim
restitution after executing the age-old envelope-stuffing scam. The man ran ads
in national magazines, promising to send stuffing materials to everyone who
mailed money for supply costs ($18 to $36) to his fictitious company. He mailed
instructions on how to run an envelope-stuffing business but no actual
materials.
Possible Punishments for Mail Fraud Crimes
Mail fraud, a felony, carries a sentence of up to five years in prison
and/or fines of up to $250,000 when individuals are involved and up to 30 years
in prison and/or $1,000,000 in fines when a financial institution is involved.
What Is Mail Fraud?
Sweepstakes and 'Free' Prizes
'Free' Vacatons
Government Look-Alike Mail
Solicitations Disguised as Invoices
Foreign Lotteries
Cham Lottors
Charity Fraud
Insurance Fraud
Medcal Fraud
internet Fraud
Phony Inheritance Sc homos
Home Improvement and Home Repair Fraud
Investment Fraud
Fees Charged for Normally Free Services
Advance-Fee Loans
Credit Rcpar and Credit Card Schemes
Work-at-Home Offers
Distributorshp and Franchise Fraud
Phony Job Opportunities
Unsolicited Merchandise
Rcshippmg Fraud
Fake Chock Scams
How to Contact the Postal Inspection Service
Advance-Fee Loans
Have you had difficulty obtaining a personal or business loan through normal sources? If so,
you may become the target of
an advance-fee loan scheme, where a con artist offers you a "guaranteed' loan for a foo paid n
advance.
The swindler dams to be able to obtain a loan for you with ease from a legitimate lending
institution, such as a savings and loan association. However, the swindler has no ability to
secure a loan for you. Instead, the swindler steals your fee and either disappears or remains n
the area to lureother unsuspecting victims while stalling you with excuses as to why your loan
has not been funded.
With Hillary Clinton
's White House run on the horizon, RadarOnline.com
has learned that
the skeletons
in her husband,
Bill 's closet
are the least of her worries. Daughter
Chelsea 's
father-in-law, convicted felon Ed Mezvinsky , is under fire from his
former fraud victims
. According to the unlucky dupes, Mezvinsky stole more than $10 million
- and has yet to pay it back!
Mezvinsky, the father of Chelsea's husband, Marc , served five years in federal prison after
pilfering $10 million from investors. He was released in April 2008, but a special investigation
by The National ENQUIRER uncovered
the fact that he's currently accused of being in violation of his plea agreement - because he
hasn't paid back his victims!
"It's a little irritating that he brags about his son's
[$10.5 million] apartment
when his son should loan him the money to pay back his debt!" one
angry victim, Dr. Jason Theodosakis , told The ENQUIRER . "He could borrow [the restitution]
from his
son's in-law
"... Nobody of sound mind can dispute that there is something fundamentally wrong, and intrinsically corrupt, about a legal system that encourages police officers and prosecutors to do everything in their power to persuade you and your children (no matter how young or old) to "do the right thing" and talk-when they tell their own children the exact opposite. ..."
Everywhere 1 go, 1 just about always make a point to ask how many people in attendance have a parent who is a police officer
or a prosecutor-and of those attendees, what their parents have advised them about the Fifth Amendment. In almost every group,
there is at least one student who tells me that his father is a state trooper, or that her mother is a prosecu- tor. Every time
this happens, without exception, the student in question has told me basically the same thing: "Years ago, my parents explained
to me that if I were ever approached by a law enforcement officer, I was to call them immediately, and they made sure that I would
never agree to talk to the police." (Most of these young people also volunteered that their parents in law enforcement advised
them to never allow an officer to search their apartment or car, but that is the subject for another book.) Not once have I met
the child of a member of law enforcement who had been told anything different. Everyone who is privileged enough to know how the
criminal justice system operates in America would never advise their loved ones to waive the right to remain silent in the face
of a criminal investigation. We routinely see people in power, such police officers and government officials, pleading the fifth
(like Lois Lerner, the former director of the Internal Revenue vice's Exempt Organizations unit, who asserted her Fifth
Amendment privilege and refused to answer any questions when she was summoned before a congressional committee in 2013).' These
are officials who have made a career out of talking people into waiving their right to remain silent, but when the questions are
suddenly directed at them, they will not waive their own.
You need to pause for a moment and let that sink in. It doesn't matter whether you are a liberal or conservative. I do not
even care whether you are heartless enough to remain unconcerned about the fact that our legal system routinely convicts innocent
people. Nobody of sound mind can dispute that there is something fundamentally wrong, and intrinsically corrupt, about a legal
system that encourages police officers and prosecutors to do everything in their power to persuade you and your children (no matter
how young or old) to "do the right thing" and talk-when they tell their own children the exact opposite. I intend to bring
to an end, once and for all, that obscene double standard in the American criminal justice system that allows only the citizens
who are in the know to protect themselves from a legal system that is designed to prey upon
... ... ...
If a police officer encounters you in one of those moments, he or she has every right to ask you two simple questions. Memorize
these two questions so you will not be tempted to answer any others:
Who are you?
What are you doing right here, right now?
If you are ever approached by a police officer with those two questions, and your God-given common sense tells you that the
officer is being reasonable in asking for an explana- tion, don't be a jerk. Even if you are angry and frustrated about being
locked out of your house, try to see this from the police's point of view. They are only looking out for your best interests.
Would you want them to ask those same questions of any other individual caught breaking in through one of your windows, or watching
your family? Of course you would. If you have an innocent explanation for your presence at that time and in that place, tell the
police about it. Tell them that it is your own house. Or tell them that you are in an empty courthouse in the middle of the night
because you work there, and show diem your identification. They will appreciate your cooperation, and that will be the end of
it. If you unreasonably refuse to answer those two questions, they might put you under arrest, and I would not blame them.
... ... ... ...
No, the advice contained in this book-the same advice that police officers give their own children-is not based on any assumptions
or suspicions about the overall morality of police officers. It is based on two simple but unavoidable facts about every police
officer, including the most noble and virtu- ous. The only two problems I have with die police (although they are very big problems)
are these: The first problem with the police is that they are only human. They cannot know everything. For instance, when confronted
with opposing accounts of the same situation, they cannot know who is really telling them the truth. And because they are only
human, police officers, just like all of us, do not like to be embarrassed by admitting that they made some sort of a mistake,
especially if it concerns a matter so serious that it might lead to diem being sued. They do not even like to admit it to themselves.
That is why police officers, like all humans, are subject to a powerful phenomenon that psychologists call confirmation bias.
This means that after they have come to a conclusion, especially if it is a conclusion that they have publicly announced (for
example, by arresting someone and accusing him of a serious crime), it is very difficult for them to admit that perhaps they have
made a terrible mistake. It is much easier and more comfortable for them to convince them- selves that they did not make a mistake,
and that their initial accusations were correct. Their memories will gladly cooperate in that effort. Even if they are not aware
of how it is hap- pening, they might recall nonexistent details to coincide with and corroborate the story they have already begun
persuading themselves to believe.
Just like the rest of us, police are frustrated by important and difficult questions for which
there are no discernable answers. And, just like us, they love the powerful psychological satisfaction that comes from convincing
themselves that in fact the riddle lias been solved. When a terrible crime is committed, every human being with a heart desperately
wants to believe that we can find the offender. And if there is only one suspect available to us, most of us are surprisingly
good at convincing ourselves that maybe he or she really is the one to blame, and that perhaps the circumstantial evidence against
him or her is fairly powerful after all.
But the fact that police officers are "only human" is only one of the two problems. The other problem is that they are working
within a legal system that is highly imperfect. That is not their fault, because they did not design the system. But as this hook
will demonstrate, it is a broken svstcm that relies deception when they are interviewing criminal suspects. They receive sophisticated
training at the police academy in methods of interrogation that arc remarkably successful in getting guilty people to make confessions
and incriminating statements.4 You cannot blame them for using such methods-after all, we all agree that guilty people (at least
the dangerous ones) ought to be caught and put behind bars-but the problem is that these methods of calculated deception are too
effective. They do not merely work on the guilty. At least some of these methods, it turns out, have proven to be just as effective
in getting innocent people to make incriminating statements, and sometimes even outright confessions.
Do not think for a minute that you can trust a police officer who seems to be open minded and undecided about whether he will
arrest you after you are finished with an "inter- view"-the police are trained to act that way, to get you to talk with them for
many hours until you finally give up in exhaustion. "The most recent and comprehensive investigation, which took a careful look
at 250 prisoners exonerated by DNA evidence, found that 16 percent of them made what's called a false confession: admitting their
commission of a crime that they did not commit.5 Those are the cases in which the defendant actually confessed; in many more cases,
the innocent suspect denied all guilt, sometimes for hours, but still gave the police a statement that was then used to help convict
him.
Shocking and persuasive, but light on practical advice
This is an excellent short book if you are interested in all
the ways answering questions from the police can destroy your life. The author makes clear that the most innocuous questions
have led to wrongful convictions and life sentences (there are no examples of people actually executed as a result, but that's
most likely because once someone is dead there is less effort to exonerate them).
The book is loaded with stories of people convicted of murder and rape solely on the basis of innocent answers given in
police questioning without a lawyer present, who were later proven innocent by DNA evidence or subsequent confession by the
real perpetrator (no doubt this occurs with other crimes as well, but DNA evidence is less likely to overturn convictions in
those cases). Some of these cases appear to involve police or prosecutor fraud, but most of them seem to be the operation of
standard police training.
Our criminal justice system would fall apart unless most guilty people confessed, or at least gave police enough information
to prove a case. For that reason, police are carefully trained in tricks and pressures to get convictions, and these techniques
can work on innocent people as well as guilty.
Courts have given wide discretion to the police to lie and cheat, and to prosecutors to use assertions of Constitutional
rights against defendants. Moreover people's natural instincts to help law enforcement, to be polite, to trust anyone acting
friendly and to seek comfort in highly stressful situations are used against them. None of this is new, of course.
The classic Jimmy Steward noir film
Call Northside
777 is based closely on a real 1932 case in which the police arrested a man fingered by organized crime, moved him from
station house to station house every two hours to keep him from his lawyer, questioned him continuously for 36 hours without
sleep, and convicted him mainly on the basis to two extremely minor inconsistencies in his answers that had nothing to do with
the crime (he said he was shelling walnuts at the time when his wife said he was pitting dates, he said a friend dropped by
because he'd had a fight with his father, the friend said there was no particular reason). The three witnesses failed to identify
him in a line-up, so the police falsified the arrest record to show that he had been arrested a day later, pressured one of
the witnesses to identify him, and claimed that was the first line-up.
Even with all these facts, the police, the mayor, the prosecutor and the governor of the state exerted enormous pressure
on the reporters investigating twelve years later to drop the story. The system hates to admit it was wrong, even in the most
obvious and egregious cases. Unfortunately, the book does little more than identify the issues and give the simple advice to
say literally nothing except, "I want a lawyer."
In one paragraph the author acknowledges that it's okay to answer police questions about who you are (although he doesn't
say this, this is a legal requirement in about half the states, so failing to answer can get you arrested) and what you are
doing at the moment; but to demand a lawyer before answering any questions about the past or anything else. This is fine advice
for most guilty people, or people who believe they are suspected of serious crimes, but it doesn't cover all cases. For example,
suppose you are walking down the street and a police officer stops you to ask if you saw a car driving north at high speed
a block or two back.
While it's possible that you're a suspect in a major crime and admitting you saw the car will be the crucial evidential
link that convicts you, it's a lot more likely that the police are looking for a fleeing felon or a hit-and-run driver, and
it's in the public interest, and your interest, to help them.
For a trickier example, consider the situation described in the book
American
Justice? You've swerved your car to avoid a child running in the road, and hit a parked car. When the police arrive, the
child says you tried to hit him. At this point, the police officers have a problem. If they laugh it off and you go mow down
a few other pedestrians, they're in big trouble.
But if they bring in an adult on a hard-to-believe charge on the basis of an accusation by a child, they can look pretty
silly. The stakes are very high for you. If you are arrested, as the woman was in the real case, things will start stacking
up against you, on top of the expense and humiliation of the arrest.
All the neighbors will hear is that you've been arrested for trying to kill a child, they will immediately remember all
kinds of strange or threatening things about you--it's human nature.
The police will have to justify their decision, they will remember you "trembling with barely suppressed rage" and giving
"evasive and inconsistent accounts." In the actual story, the child's father used the arrest as an excuse to institute civil
commitment proceedings, and was successful in forcing a two-week confinement for evaluation; even though the doctors found
nothing and criticized the judge for ordering the evaluation; a lot of damage was done. So what to do? If the child seems calm
and credible, and you say nothing but "I want a lawyer," the police officers are likely to take it as an admission of guilt
and start looking for ways to build the case against you.
If you say, "That's silly, officer, the child ran suddenly into the street and I swerved to avoid him," you have a much
better chance of avoiding arrest.
But if you are arrested, that statement could prove problematic in your defense, and certainly cannot help you. I could
also be misremembered as something like, "I can't be expected to avoid every silly child who runs into the street" (in this
respect, body cams can be a great help to the innocent).
Moreover it's going to lead to questions like, "Why do you think the child would accuse you," and "Have you ever been in
accidents before," that are more dangerous.
I think the author's perspective is distorted a bit by being a defense attorney. He only gets involved in these cases when
someone is seriously suspected of a major crime or arrested.
If you know you're going to be arrested, the less you say the better. But if answering questions keeps you out of jail,
or keeps the police focused on building cases against others, you win and you may never hire an attorney. So read this book
for the cautionary tales. It's well-written and shocking.
If you plan to commit crimes, or if for some reason you expect to be suspected, the book has all the advice you need. But
for most people it only tells you what not to do, it's not much help for deciding what to do.
Braden Lynchon
October 24, 2016 Format: MP3 CD Verified Purchase
Fantastic insights that will make your blood boil
One observation that cops and judges advise their own children to shut up and get a lawyer while expecting us citizens to
do otherwise speaks volumes. The miscarriages of justice and the perversion of the justice system highlighted will make you
never want to speak to a policeman ever again.
There is no upside to interactions with law enforcement is the well supported theme. I know my behavior and deteriorating
attitude towards LEOs has been cemented. I appreciate and respect them; I just do not want to be the object of their suspicion
and I am super-law-abiding.
Charles B. Jessee on
October 5, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
''I want a lawyer.
The summary conclusion, is that the only thing you need say to the police is "I want a lawyer."
But yes, there is more to it than that. The 2008 Viral Video should be watched, as should the 2016 CATO Institute video promoting
and discussing this book.
The times, they are a changing. How you say what you are not going to say, is as important as not saying anything. Does
that have you wondering? It should. Honest people at the right place, wrong place, right time, wrong time.
What they say and don't say might mean the police just walk away with hardly a nod, or life in jail, if not death row. Got
your attention yet?
John W. Whitehead by Otto Battista on October 6, 2016 at 7:52 AM
"Our carceral state banishes American citizens to a gray wasteland far beyond the promises and protections the government grants
its other citizens When the doors finally close and one finds oneself facing
banishment to the carceral state -the years, the walls, the rules, the guards, the inmates-reactions vary. Some experience
an intense sickening feeling. Others, a strong desire to sleep. Visions of suicide. A deep shame. A rage directed toward guards
and other inmates. Utter disbelief. The incarcerated attempt to hold on to family and old social ties through phone calls and
visitations. At first, friends and family do their best to keep up. But phone calls to prison are expensive, and many prisons
are located far from one's hometown As the visits and phone calls diminish, the incarcerated begins to adjust to the fact that
he or she is, indeed, a prisoner. New social ties are cultivated. New rules must be understood."-Ta-Nehisi Coates, TheAtlantic
In a carceral state-a.k.a. a prison state or a police state-there is no Fourth Amendment to protect you from the overreaches,
abuses, searches and probing eyes of government overlords.
In a carceral state, there is no difference between the treatment meted out to a law-abiding citizen and a convicted felon: both
are equally suspect and treated as criminals, without any of the special rights and privileges reserved for the governing elite.
In a carceral state, there are only two kinds of people: the prisoners and the prison guards.
With every new law enacted by federal and state legislatures, every new ruling handed down by government courts, and every new
military weapon, invasive tactic and egregious protocol employed by government agents, "we the people"-the prisoners of the American
police state-are being pushed that much further into a corner, our backs against the prison wall.
This concept of a carceral state in which we possess no rights except for that which the government grants on an as-needed basis
is the only way I can begin to comprehend, let alone articulate, the irrational, surreal, topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass
state of affairs that is being imposed upon us in America today.
Indeed, we are experiencing much the same phenomenon that journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates ascribes to those who are banished to a
"
gray wasteland far beyond the promises and protections the government grants its other citizens " : a sickening feeling, a desire
to sleep, hopelessness, shame, rage, disbelief, clinginess to the past and that which is familiar, and then eventually resignation
and acceptance of our new "normal."
All that we are experiencing-the sense of dread at what is coming down the pike, the desperation, the apathy about government
corruption, the deeply divided partisanship, the carnivalesque political spectacles, the public displays of violence, the nostalgia
for the past-are part of the dying refrain of an America that is fading fast.
No longer must the government obey the law.
Likewise, "we the people" are no longer shielded by the rule of law.
While the First Amendment-which gives us a voice-is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment-which protects us from being bullied,
badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents-is being disemboweled.
For instance, in a recent
5-3 ruling in Utah
v. Strieff , the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for police to stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable
suspicion or probable cause, effectively giving police a green light to embark on a fishing expedition of one's person and property,
rendering Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.
This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants-so long as he can point to a pretextual justification
after the fact. That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may
factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing, and how you behaved.
The officer does
not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction-even one that
is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous.
The indignity
of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. The officer may next ask for your "consent"
to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. Regardless of your answer, he may order you to stand "helpless,
perhaps facing a wall with [your] hands raised." If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then "frisk" you for weapons.
This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may "'feel with sensitive fingers every portion of
[your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of [your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles,
and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.'"
If you still can't read the writing on the wall, Sotomayor breaks it down further: "This case allows the police to stop you on
the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants-
even if you are doing
nothing wrong So long as the target is one of the many millions of people in this country with an outstanding arrest warrant,
anything the officer finds in a search is fair game for use in a criminal prosecution. The officer's incentive to violate the Constitution
thus increases "
Just consider some of the many other ways in which the Fourth Amendment-which ensures that the government can't harass you, let
alone even investigate you, without probable cause-has been weakened and undermined by the courts, the legislatures and various government
agencies and operatives.
Breath tests, blood draws : Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although
mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment ( Birchfield v. North Dakota ).
Ignorance of the law is defensible if you work for the government: Police officers who violate the law can be granted qualified
immunity if they claim ignorance of the law ( Heien v. North Carolina ). That rationale was also applied to
police who clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop and were granted
immunity from prosecution
High–speed car chases: Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits ( Plumhoff v.Rickard
).
No–knock raids: Police can perform a "no-knock" as long as they have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their
presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or give occupants a chance to destroy evidence of a crime
( Richards v. Wisconsin ). Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by police ( Quinn
v. Texas ).
Warrantless searches by police : Police can carry out warrantless searches on our homes based on a "reasonable" concern by police
that a suspect (or occupant) might be attempting to destroy evidence, fleeing or hurt, even if it's the wrong house ( Kentucky
v. King ). Police can also, without a warrant, search anyone who has been lawfully arrested ( United States
v. Robinson ) as well as their property post-arrest ( Colorado v. Bertine ) and their vehicle ( New
Yorkv.Belton ), search a car they suspect might contain evidence of a crime ( Chambers v. Maroney ), and
search a home when the arrest is made on its premises ( Maryland v. Buie ).
Forced DNA extractions: Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you've been convicted of a crime. Innocent or not, your
DNA will then be stored in the national FBI database ( Maryland v. King ).
Strip searches : Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the "offense" ( Florence v. BoardofChosen
Freeholders of the County of Burlington ). This "license to probe" is now being extended
to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches-some involving anal and
vaginal probes-without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.
Seizures : For all intents and purposes, you're "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment from the moment an officer
stops you ( Brendlin v. California ).
Search warrants on a leash : Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as "search warrants on leashes," justifying any
and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside ( Florida v. Harris ), but the use of a K-9 unit after
a reasonable amount of time has passed during a stop does violate the Fourth Amendment ( Rodriguez v. UnitedStates
).
Police and DUI Checkpoints: Police can conduct sobriety and "information-seeking" checkpoints ( Illinois v. Lidster
and Mich. Dep't of State Police v. Sitz ).
Interrogating public transit passengers : Police officers are free to board a bus, question passengers, and ask for consent to
search without notifying them of their right to refuse ( U.S v. Drayton ).
Warrantless arrests for minor criminal offenses : Police can arrest you for minor criminal offenses, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt
violation, punishable only by a fine ( Atwater v. City of Lago Vista ).
Stop and identify: Refusing to answer when a policeman asks "What's your name?" can rightfully be considered a crime. No longer
do Americans, even those not charged with any crime, have the right to remain altogether silent when stopped and questioned by a
police officer ( Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State
of Nevada ).
Traffic stops: As long as police have reasonable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, they may stop any vehicle
( Whren v. U.S. ). If probable cause justifies a vehicle search, then every part of the vehicle can be searched (
U.S. v. Ross ). A vehicle can be stopped even if the driver has not committed a traffic offense ( U.S. v. Cortez ).
Anonymous tips, careful driving, rigid posture and acne: Police officers can stop cars based only on "anonymous" tips ( Navarette
v. California ). Police can also pull you over if you are driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic
route, and have acne ( U.S. v. Westhoven ).
What many Americans fail to understand is the devastating amount of damage that can be done to one's freedoms long before a case
ever makes its way to court by government agents who are violating the Fourth Amendment at every turn. This is how freedoms, long
undermined, can give way to tyranny through constant erosion and become part of the fabric of the police state through constant use.
Phone and email surveillance, databases for dissidents, threat assessments, terror watch lists, militarized police, SWAT team
raids, security checkpoints, lockdowns, roadside strip searches: there was a time when any one of these encroachments on our Fourth
Amendment rights would have roused the public to outrage. Today, such violations are shrugged off matter-of-factly by Americans who
have been assiduously groomed to accept the intrusions of the police state into their private lives.
It's true that there may be little the average person can do to push back against the police state on a national level, but there
remains some hope at the local level as long as we retain a speck of our independence and individuality-as long as we can resist
the defeatist sense of double-consciousness (a phrase coined by W. E. B. Du Bois in which we view ourselves as inferior through the
prism of our oppressors)-as long as we continue to cry out for justice for ourselves and those around us-as long as we refuse to
be shackled and made prisoners-and as long as we continue to recognize that the only way the police state can truly acquire and retain
power is if we relinquish it through our negligence, complacence and ignorance.
Unfortunately, we have been utterly brainwashed into believing the government's propaganda and lies. Americans actually celebrate
with perfect sincerity the anniversary of our independence from Great Britain without ever owning up to the fact that we are as oppressed
now-more so, perhaps, thanks to advances in technology-than we ever were when Redcoats stormed through doorways and subjected colonists
to the vagaries of a police state.
You see, by gradually whittling away at our freedoms-free speech, assembly, due process, privacy, etc.-the government has, in
effect, liberated itself from its contractual agreement to respect our constitutional rights while resetting the calendar back to
a time when we had no Bill of Rights to protect us from the long arm of the government.
Aided and abetted by the legislatures, the courts and Corporate America, the government has been busily rewriting the contract
(a.k.a. the Constitution) that establishes the citizenry as the masters and agents of the government as the servants. We are now
only as good as we are useful, and our usefulness is calculated on an economic scale by how much we are worth-in terms of profit
and resale value-to our "owners."
Under the new terms of this one-sided agreement, the government and its many operatives have all the privileges and rights and
"we the prisoners" have none.
As Sotomayor concluded in her ringing dissent in
Utah v. Strieff :
By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and
innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts
excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that
you are not a citizen of a democracy but
the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged . We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely
targeted by police are "isolated." They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one
can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and
threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.
"... Human rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane exploitation in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 million – mostly Black and Hispanic – are working for various industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of gold. They don't have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time, and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if they don't like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse to work, they are locked up in isolation cells. ..."
This article was first published by Global Research in March 2008
Human rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane
exploitation in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 million – mostly Black and Hispanic – are working
for various industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of
gold. They don't have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time,
and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if they don't like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse
to work, they are locked up in isolation cells.
There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country. According to California
Prison Focus, "no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."
The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which
has a population five times greater than the U.S. Statistics reveal that the United States holds 25% of the world's prison population,
but only 5% of the world's people. From less than 300,000 inmates in 1972, the jail population grew to 2 million by the year 2000.
In 1990 it was one million. Ten years ago there were only five private prisons in the country, with a population of 2,000 inmates;
now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. It is expected that by the coming decade, the number will hit 360,000, according to reports.
What has happened over the last 10 years? Why are there so many prisoners?
"The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate
stockholders who make money off prisoners' work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce. The system feeds
itself," says a study by the Progressive Labor Party, which accuses the prison industry of being "an imitation of Nazi Germany
with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps."
The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and its investors are on Wall Street.
"This multimillion-dollar industry has its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also
has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply
companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety of colors."
CRIME GOES DOWN, JAIL POPULATION GOES UP
According to reports by human rights organizations, these are the factors that increase the profit potential for those who invest
in the prison industry complex:
. Jailing persons convicted of non-violent crimes, and long prison sentences for possession of microscopic quantities of illegal
drugs. Federal law stipulates five years' imprisonment without possibility of parole for possession of 5 grams of crack or 3.5 ounces
of heroin, and 10 years for possession of less than 2 ounces of rock-cocaine or crack. A sentence of 5 years for cocaine powder requires
possession of 500 grams – 100 times more than the quantity of rock cocaine for the same sentence. Most of those who use cocaine powder
are white, middle-class or rich people, while mostly Blacks and Latinos use rock cocaine. In Texas, a person may be sentenced for
up to two years' imprisonment for possessing 4 ounces of marijuana. Here in New York, the 1973 Nelson Rockefeller anti-drug law provides
for a mandatory prison sentence of 15 years to life for possession of 4 ounces of any illegal drug.
. The passage in 13 states of the "three strikes" laws (life in prison after being convicted of three felonies), made it necessary
to build 20 new federal prisons. One of the most disturbing cases resulting from this measure was that of a prisoner who for stealing
a car and two bicycles received three 25-year sentences.
. Longer sentences.
. The passage of laws that require minimum sentencing, without regard for circumstances.
. A large expansion of work by prisoners creating profits that motivate the incarceration of more people for longer periods of
time.
. More punishment of prisoners, so as to lengthen their sentences.
HISTORY OF PRISON LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES
Prison labor has its roots in slavery. After the 1861-1865 Civil War, a system of "hiring out prisoners" was introduced in order
to continue the slavery tradition. Freed slaves were charged with not carrying out their sharecropping commitments (cultivating someone
else's land in exchange for part of the harvest) or petty thievery – which were almost never proven – and were then "hired out" for
cotton picking, working in mines and building railroads. From 1870 until 1910 in the state of Georgia, 88% of hired-out convicts
were Black. In Alabama, 93% of "hired-out" miners were Black. In Mississippi, a huge prison farm similar to the old slave plantations
replaced the system of hiring out convicts. The notorious Parchman plantation existed until 1972.
During the post-Civil War period, Jim Crow racial segregation laws were imposed on every state, with legal segregation in schools,
housing, marriages and many other aspects of daily life. "Today, a new set of markedly racist laws is imposing slave labor and sweatshops
on the criminal justice system, now known as the prison industry complex," comments the Left Business Observer.
Who is investing?
At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state
prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless,
Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom's,
Revlon, Macy's, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation
by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries
generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum.
And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of
$20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call
"highly skilled positions." At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There,
they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.
Thanks to prison labor, the United States is once again an attractive location for investment in work that was designed for Third
World labor markets. A company that operated a maquiladora (assembly plant in Mexico near the border) closed down its operations
there and relocated to San Quentin State Prison in California. In Texas, a factory fired its 150 workers and contracted the services
of prisoner-workers from the private Lockhart Texas prison, where circuit boards are assembled for companies like IBM and Compaq.
[Former] Oregon State Representative Kevin Mannix recently urged Nike to cut its production in Indonesia and bring it to his
state, telling the shoe manufacturer that "there won't be any transportation costs; we're offering you competitive prison labor
(here)."
PRIVATE PRISONS
The prison privatization boom began in the 1980s, under the governments of Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr., but reached its height
in the 1990s under William Clinton, when Wall Street stocks were selling like hotcakes. Clinton's program for cutting the federal
workforce resulted in the Justice Departments contracting of private prison corporations for the incarceration of undocumented workers
and high-security inmates.
Private prisons are the biggest business in the prison industry complex. About 18 corporations guard 10,000 prisoners in 27 states.
The two largest are Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) and Wackenhut, which together control 75%. Private prisons receive
a guaranteed amount of money for each prisoner, independent of what it costs to maintain each one. According to Russell Boraas, a
private prison administrator in Virginia, "the secret to low operating costs is having a minimal number of guards for the maximum
number of prisoners." The CCA has an ultra-modern prison in Lawrenceville, Virginia, where five guards on dayshift and two at night
watch over 750 prisoners. In these prisons, inmates may get their sentences reduced for "good behavior," but for any infraction,
they get 30 days added – which means more profits for CCA. According to a study of New Mexico prisons, it was found that CCA inmates
lost "good behavior time" at a rate eight times higher than those in state prisons.
IMPORTING AND EXPORTING INMATES
Profits are so good that now there is a new business: importing inmates with long sentences, meaning the worst criminals. When
a federal judge ruled that overcrowding in Texas prisons was cruel and unusual punishment, the CCA signed contracts with sheriffs
in poor counties to build and run new jails and share the profits. According to a December 1998 Atlantic Monthly magazine article,
this program was backed by investors from Merrill-Lynch, Shearson-Lehman, American Express and Allstate, and the operation was scattered
all over rural Texas. That state's governor, Ann Richards, followed the example of Mario Cuomo in New York and built so many state
prisons that the market became flooded, cutting into private prison profits.
After a law signed by Clinton in 1996 – ending court supervision and decisions – caused overcrowding and violent, unsafe conditions
in federal prisons, private prison corporations in Texas began to contact other states whose prisons were overcrowded, offering "rent-a-cell"
services in the CCA prisons located in small towns in Texas. The commission for a rent-a-cell salesman is $2.50 to $5.50 per day
per bed. The county gets $1.50 for each prisoner.
STATISTICS
Ninety-seven percent of 125,000 federal inmates have been convicted of non-violent crimes. It is believed that more than half
of the 623,000 inmates in municipal or county jails are innocent of the crimes they are accused of. Of these, the majority are awaiting
trial. Two-thirds of the one million state prisoners have committed non-violent offenses. Sixteen percent of the country's 2 million
prisoners suffer from mental illness.
Both of you make good points, but so does Gross without getting into too much detail. Fact
is that we have a serious prison problem that needs to be addressed, and it all comes down to
the USD, borders, laws, ect. in any argument. Crime usually goes down when people are not desparate.
Look at Detroit, it has always had the bad side, but it had it's roots in manufacturing. A citizen
could get a job, no matter how unskilled, at one point in time. Right now is just a time to wait
until results are in to decide how to proceed, for everyone included, otherwise the individual
investor could end up on the wrong end of the stick.
You both, and Bill Gross too -missed a major point. The FED, the FED and also -the FED. Its
not entirely your fault that you guys missed it, although I would hope a few on ZH would see it.
First -as 'inflation' eats into people's (in real terms declining) wages, something has to
fill in for the loss in the earnings/costs equation -ie more crime. Secondly (but so closely related
it isn't funny) 'inflation' also lowers the bar on what is or isn't a 'felony' or 'major' crime.
Look -when the gov't arbitrarily decided that any crime resulting in loss greater than $400.00
was a felony you could buy a brand new car or two brand new Harley Davidson motorcycles for less
than $400.00. $400.00 was 16 ounces of pure gold! The average laborer had to work an entire year
to earn that much! That is why "grand theft auto" is a felony regardless of the vehicle's value.
Today, $400.00 a week will barely cover the rent, and is (in today's fix) 1/3 of one ounce of
gold; yet, the laws have never been adjusted for 'inflation' -which means, as more and more things
become more and more expensive, more and more 'felonies' will be committed as the threshold drops
lower and lower, until a day will (soon) come where the 'money' has been debased so much that
a simple loaf of bread will be so 'expensive' that its theft will be a felony . Monetary debasement
'inflation' leads into prison inflation because the laws are never adjusted for the loss of value
inherent in fiat 'money' (probably because that would bring too big a spotlight on the entire
Fiat scam.)
The FED 'targets' a 2% yearly 'inflation' rate, which means (by definition) a 2% increase in
the number of felonies -compounded annually. And look where we are today... compare a graph of
monetary debasement (inflation) from 1913 to today, and compare it to the prison population over
the same time. In this case, correlation is causation.
It. Is. Just. That. Simple.
edit (in case you were wondering, if felonies were to be 'inflation adjusted' -the cutoff should
be around $38,800 instead of a paltry $400.00 -what do you suppose the prison population would
look like in that case?)
xavi1951 makes an extraordinarily brilliant point: just look at Chile for example.
Under Pinochet their rate was even smaller --- of course he disappeared (murdered, and tortured
to death) over 30,000 including hapless Americans in the vicinity at the time!
One could same something similar about a number of other countries on the chart!
Private immigration detention facilities may be bad - but they're probably not going anywhere.
That, in essence, was the conclusion of a much-anticipated review of the Department of Homeland Security's reliance on private
companies to detain an immigrant detainee population that's reaching historic highs, which the president-elect is promising to
escalate to even greater levels.
The report, produced by a panel of law enforcement, national security, and military experts, was commissioned by the Department
of Homeland Security on the heels of a similar review by the Department of Justice in August.
In that report, the DOJ found that private prisons "simply do not provide the same level of correctional services, programs,
and resources," "do not save substantially on costs," and "do not maintain the same level of safety and security" as facilities
operated by the Bureau of Prisons. The Justice Department said it would begin to gradually phase out its own private contracts
- which make up a fraction of private prison companies' business when compared to federal immigration detention centers.
The DHS advisory committee
report , released last
week, raised similar criticisms of the billion-dollar private prison industry, but was more fatalistic in its conclusions.
"Much could be said for a fully government-owned and government-operated detention model, if one were starting a new detention
system from scratch," said the report. "But of course we are not starting anew."
presents
an easy, affordable way to litigate legal disputes of less than $15,000 in value. The Small Claims division
handles cases worth less than $3,000, the Special Civil Part division takes on cases between $3,000
and $5,000 in value, and the Landlord/Tenant division handles all landlord/tenant disputes. From auto
repair issues to breach of contract, property damage, or personal injury, these courts are a great way
for a plaintiff (the person suing) to bring a lawsuit against a defendant (the person being sued) without
incurring large expenses or getting involved in complicated litigation.
While New Jersey residents
may represent themselves in Special Civil Part for small claims, they can hire an attorney if they wish.
Individuals and business entities can both sue and be sued under this system.
Claim Limit
: Claims under
$15,000
; the Special Civil Part division handles cases
$3,000 to $15,000
in value, while Small Claims handles cases under
$3,000
in
value.
Where to File
: You should file your claim in the Special Civil Part office in the county where
the defendant resides.
Cases Handled
: Common disputes involve personal injury, property damage, failure to pay, auto
repair disputes, and breach of contract. Landlord-Tenant disputes such as evictions are handled by a
special Landlord-Tenant court.
Filing Eligibility
: Business entities and individuals age 18 and over can file a small claim
in New Jersey's Special Civil Part. Children under age 18 must have a qualified adult (parent or legal
guardian) file on their behalf.
How to File
: File a Small Claims Complaint Form with the office of the Special Civil Part.
You must provide contact information and names for plaintiff and all defendants, explain the lawsuit,
and state the amount claimed. You will be required to pay a small filing fee to file your claim; if
you cannot afford the fee, you may file for indigent status and be exempted from this fee by a judge.
Part of your filing fee will go towards service of copies of the lawsuit paperwork on the defendant(s)
in question.
"... The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed suit against a debt relief firm that has challenged the constitutionality of the consumer watchdog, alleging the company charged illegal fees and deceived customers. ..."
"... The CFPB lawsuit against Morgan Drexen Inc. and its CEO, Walter Ledda, alleges the firm overcharged 22,000 of its customers millions of dollars in upfront fees tied to debt-relief services. ..."
The Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau filed suit against a debt relief firm that has challenged the constitutionality
of the consumer watchdog, alleging the company charged illegal fees and deceived customers.
The CFPB lawsuit against Morgan Drexen Inc. and its CEO, Walter Ledda, alleges the firm overcharged
22,000 of its customers millions of dollars in upfront fees tied to debt-relief services.
The agency said Morgan Drexen advertised its customers would not be charged any up-front fees,
but ended up collecting them by disguising the fees as costs for bankruptcy-related services.
"This company took advantage of people who were struggling. The company charged consumers illegal
fees and deceived them about the services provided," CFPB director Richard Cordray said in a statement.
Story by Michael Crittendon for the Wall Street Journal.
"... The CFPB alleges that "Defendants' marketers lure consumers into signing up for debt settlement services by falsely promising that consumers will be represented by local attorneys and that they will negotiate with consumers' creditors to settle their debts. Defendants are debt settlement veterans who joined forces after federal law changed to prevent fraud by banning the taking of up-front fees before settling consumers' debts. In an apparent attempt to circumvent that new law, Defendants began claiming that they provide legal representation," but continued charging consumers up-front fees for debt relief services. ..."
"... The CFPB estimates that 21,000 consumers across the country have paid more than $67 million in unlawful advance fees to World Law, who ultimately provide little or none of the services promised to consumers. According to the agency, 99 percent of World Law's customers were made to pay illegal upfront fees, including a $199 initial fee, a monthly attorney service fee of $85, and other "bundled legal service fees" that ranged from 10 to 15 percent of the consumers' outstanding debt. ..."
On September 2, the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida granted multiple motions for temporary restraining
orders (TROs) by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the matter of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Orion Processing,
LLC, Bradley James Haskins, World Law Debt Services, LLC, and World Law Processing, LLC. The CFPB originally filed a Complaint under
the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act based on Defendants'
violations of the CFPA and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The TROs include an asset freeze, injunctive relief, and other equitable
relief against both World Law and its principals.
The CFPB alleges that "Defendants' marketers lure consumers into signing up for debt settlement services by falsely promising
that consumers will be represented by local attorneys and that they will negotiate with consumers' creditors to settle their debts.
Defendants are debt settlement veterans who joined forces after federal law changed to prevent fraud by banning the taking of up-front
fees before settling consumers' debts. In an apparent attempt to circumvent that new law, Defendants began claiming that they provide
legal representation," but continued charging consumers up-front fees for debt relief services.
The CFPB estimates that 21,000 consumers across the country have paid more than $67 million in unlawful advance fees to World
Law, who ultimately provide little or none of the services promised to consumers. According to the agency, 99 percent of World Law's
customers were made to pay illegal upfront fees, including a $199 initial fee, a monthly attorney service fee of $85, and other "bundled
legal service fees" that ranged from 10 to 15 percent of the consumers' outstanding debt.
According to the CFPB, World Law and its affiliates made false representations about the quality and level of service World Law
purported to provide. Consumers rarely, if ever, met or communicated with actual lawyers and, "[a]s a result, consumers paid millions
of dollars in illegal fees and suffered additional harms, including being subjected to collection calls, lawsuits, late fees and
lower credit scores," the agency said.
According to court documents, World Law, Orion Processing, and Family Capital have all entered into bankruptcy.
Court Rules that Morgan Drexen and Walter Ledda Charged Illegal Upfront Fees and Deceived Consumers
WASHINGTON, D.C. -
At the request of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal district court entered a final
judgment this week against debt relief company Morgan Drexen, Inc., resolving a lawsuit filed by
the CFPB in August 2013. The Bureau's lawsuit against Morgan Drexen alleged that the company charged
illegal upfront fees and deceived consumers. The court found that the company violated federal law,
prohibited Morgan Drexen from collecting any further fees from its customers, and ordered it to pay
$132,882,488 in restitution and a $40 million civil penalty. This decision follows a stipulated final
judgment against Morgan Drexen's president and chief executive officer, Walter Ledda, that the court
approved in October. The court found that Ledda violated federal law, banned him from providing debt
relief services, and required him to pay restitution and a civil money penalty.
"The CFPB's victory sends a strong message that debt relief companies break the law when they
defraud struggling consumers, and those actions have consequences for which we will hold them accountable,"
said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. "The court's orders against Morgan Drexen and Mr. Ledda ensure
that they will never again violate the rights of consumers, and the significant penalties imposed
reflect the severity of this illegal conduct."
Debt Relief Scheme
Morgan Drexen is a nationwide debt relief company that was founded by Walter Ledda in 2007. The
CFPB sued Morgan Drexen and Ledda in 2013, alleging that they had violated the Telemarketing Sales
Rule and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by charging illegal upfront
fees for debt relief services and misrepresenting their services to consumers.
The Telemarketing Sales Rule prohibits deception in telemarketing and generally prohibits debt
relief providers from charging a fee for any debt relief service until they have actually settled,
reduced, or otherwise altered the terms of at least one of the consumer's debts.
When consumers signed up for Morgan Drexen's services, the company presented them with two contracts,
one for debt settlement services, and the other for bankruptcy-related services. Based on its investigation,
the Bureau brought suit alleging that consumers who signed up sought services for debt relief and
not bankruptcy, that little to no bankruptcy work was actually performed for consumers, and that
the bankruptcy-related contract Morgan Drexen presented to consumers was a ruse designed to disguise
impermissible upfront fees for debt relief work.
Falsifying Evidence
In January 2015, weeks before trial was scheduled to start, the Bureau learned that Morgan Drexen
had created and altered bankruptcy petitions that it submitted to the court as evidence of having
provided bankruptcy services.
The CFPB informed the court of its findings and filed a motion seeking the sanction of default
judgment against the company. After hearing testimony from Ledda, other Morgan Drexen representatives,
and a whistleblower who exposed the company's conduct, the court issued an order in April 2015 finding
that Morgan Drexen misled the court and "acted willfully and in bad faith by falsifying evidence."
On the basis of its findings, the court sanctioned Morgan Drexen by entering default judgment against
the company.
Shortly thereafter, in June 2015, the court issued a permanent injunction against Morgan Drexen
in which it deemed that the company had charged consumers illegal upfront fees for debt relief services
and violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule and Dodd-Frank Act by deceptively describing its services.
The court prohibited the company from collecting any more money from customers and banned it from
charging upfront fees for debt relief services. Morgan Drexen sought bankruptcy protection the day
after the court issued its order, and a trustee was appointed to administer the company's shutdown
and to maintain proper communication with affected consumers.
Final Judgments Against Ledda and Morgan Drexen
The court's March 16, 2016 final judgment against Morgan Drexen memorializes its June 2015 conclusion
that the company violated federal law, and its ruling that the company may not collect any more advance
fees for debt relief services, or any more fees at all from its customers. The final judgment also
orders Morgan Drexen to:
Pay $132,882,488 in restitution: Morgan Drexen is required to pay this amount to borrowers
who enrolled in the company's program between Oct. 27, 2010, when the federal ban on upfront fees
went into effect, and June 18, 2015, when Morgan Drexen stopped selling debt relief services.
Pay a $40 million civil penalty: Morgan Drexen must pay this amount to the CFPB's civil penalty
fund.
Because Morgan Drexen has declared bankruptcy, any payment of this judgment will occur through
the bankruptcy process.
The court's October 2015 final judgment against Walter Ledda contains similar findings and injunctive
and monetary relief. In that judgment, the court found that Ledda and Morgan Drexen violated the
Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Dodd-Frank Act by charging consumers illegal upfront fees for debt
relief services, and by making deceptive statements about the company's services. Under the terms
of the final judgment, Ledda will:
Pay $500,000 to the CFPB for consumer redress: The final judgment requires Ledda to pay $500,000
to the CFPB for use in providing redress to consumers.
Surrender additional assets: The final judgment requires Ledda to turn over additional assets
to the Morgan Drexen bankruptcy estate.
Pay a civil money penalty: Ledda is required to pay $1 to the CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund. The
Bureau did not require Ledda to pay a larger penalty because of his limited financial resources
after repaying harmed consumers.
Exit the debt relief industry: The court has permanently banned Ledda from providing debt
relief services or otherwise working in the debt relief industry.
The court also imposed a $99 million equitable money judgment and $20 million civil money penalty
against Ledda, both of which are in large part suspended based on Ledda's inability to pay. If Ledda
fails to make any of the required payments or turn over his assets, or if the CFPB discovers Ledda
misrepresented his financial condition, the full $99 million judgment and $20 million penalty will
become due immediately.
Attorneys Found In Contempt
After the court's June 2015 order prohibiting Morgan Drexen from charging fees for debt relief
services, two attorneys, Vincent Howard and Lawrence Williamson, took the reins of Morgan Drexen
and continued the company's unlawful conduct. Among other things, Howard and Williamson:
Hired more than 50 former Morgan Drexen employees, including the company's former owner and
chief technology officer, and former chief financial officer;
Continued to charge fees to harmed consumers pursuant to the same contracts under which Morgan
Drexen charged the consumers unlawful fees; and
Provided consumers misleading information about Morgan Drexen's shut-down and contradicted
the advice in court-approved letters about how consumers could protect themselves in light of
Morgan Drexen's unlawful conduct.
When the CFPB learned of Howard and Williamson's actions, it filed a motion requesting that the
court hold the attorneys and their law firms in contempt of the court's order. In October 2015, the
court found that the attorneys' conduct had violated the court's order, and held the attorneys and
their law firms in contempt. The court ordered the attorneys to return all payments they had received
from former Morgan Drexen consumers since the court's June 2015 decision to ban Morgan Drexen from
receiving such fees. The court also ruled that the attorneys will be fined $10,000 a day for each
day they continue to accept fees from former Morgan Drexen consumers. The attorneys have appealed
this order.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance
markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and
by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit
www.consumerfinance.gov .
This is an abridged version of CRS Report R41930, Mail and Wire Fraud: A Brief Overview of
Federal Criminal Law, by Charles Doyle, without the footnotes, appendix, quotation marks, or citations
to authority found in the longer version. Related CRS reports include CRS Report R40852, Deprivation
of Honest Services as a Basis for Federal Mail and Wire Fraud Convictions, by Charles Doyle.
If you are experiencing financial difficulty, you may be tempted to use a debt relief company to help take care of your bills.
Often times, settling with your creditors is a good alternative to filing bankruptcy. However, before you hire a company to help
with your debts, you should first understand the differences in services that debt relief companies claim to offer, as well as the
potential risks involved. This article discusses three basic types of debt relief schemes.
Debt negotiation, or debt settlement, programs work by modifying your existing credit cards, loans, or other debts, in the following
ways:
reducing monthly payments
reducing or waiving finance charges and late fees
negotiating lump sum settlements, usually at a reduction of 50% or more of the principal balance, or
a combination of all the above.
Lump sum settlements and payment plans are frequently accepted by creditors. You can directly negotiate with them yourself, without
having to use a debt relief company.
Disadvantages to Using a Debt Settlement Company
If you do decide to hire a debt relief company, use caution. Here's why.
Large Up Front Fees
Debt settlement companies often charge large fees up front for its services.
Companies Take the Money and Run
While it is not uncommon for debt relief companies to charge upfront fees, some disreputable companies will then disappear and
never perform the promised services. Or companies promise to use some or all of the fee it charges you to pay your debts, but then
pocket the money instead of paying your creditors.
Go with a company that provides detailed disclosures on how the fee is charged and spent. Some debt settlement companies agree
to defer their fee until after a settlement or payment plan has been reached.
Payment Defaults
A debt relief company may tell you to stop making payments to your creditors. If you have already fallen behind on payments, then
this is not an issue. But if you are current on your payments, this poses a dilemma.
Some creditors won't give you the best deal if you are a "good consumer." They have a policy of refusing to reduce balances or
interest rates below a certain amount unless a borrower is in default, the theory being that you are in good financial shape if you
are current on your payments. They will not agree to major reductions of balances, finance charges, or payment plans unless you show
a financial hardship by way of a default, often of 90 days or more. Creditors sometimes call this being "90 days out."
A debt relief company may exploit this industry secret by advising you to default on all of your debts for 90 days, and then use
this money to pay the debt settlement company instead. But by intentionally defaulting, you risk damaging your credit history and
incurring default-rate finance charges and late fees.
If you are already having financial trouble, then this might not be a big issue for you. However, if you are not already in default,
you should avoid this strategy. Here are some tips to effectively maneuver the default tango using a debt relief company:
Related Ads
Do not stop making payments to your creditors unless a specific creditor specifically conditions a desired settlement upon
a default.
Carefully weigh all of your settlement options (payment plan vs. lump sum settlement) with the debt relief company, preferably
using a budget.
Debt settlement is a last resort. You may be better off going with a reduced interest rate/payment plan rather than sacrifice
your good credit with debt settlement.
Communication Shut Down
Unfortunately, some debt relief companies will take the money and run, never once speaking with the creditors that they agreed
to negotiate with on your behalf. A debt relief company may make you feel so comfortable that you stop communicating with your creditors.
Don't. Stay in close communication with your creditors during the negotiation process.
Some debt relief agencies offer to consolidate your debts for you. They promise to pool all of your debts together so that you
make a single payment, to be shared by all of the creditors. While a consolidation of your debts can potentially save you a lot of
money, there are many disadvantages.
Consolidations usually cover only unsecured debts like credit cards. They do not cover big expense debts like mortgages and
student loans.
Creditors are not required to participate in the consolidation. If one of your creditors does not agree to be a part of the
consolidation, you will have to deal with it separately.
Consolidations are not necessarily final. You are still exposed to lawsuits, judgments, liens, and other collection actions
even after making your consolidation payments.
The fees a debt consolidation company charges you may be so high that it cancels any savings under a new consolidation plan.
Treading into fantasy territory, there are some companies that claim to completely eliminate your debts. Not to be confused with
debt elimination plans that provide for controlled spending and a structured payoff of your debts, a debt elimination scheme usually
involves an upfront fee for a document that purports to be a legal declaration that the debt is eliminated. Unless the person advising
you is an attorney or there is some legitimate legal basis for not paying a particular debt, you should immediately walk away from
any such promises.
Consider Other Debt Relief Options
Getting the right kind debt relief is not easy. It involves time, careful planning, and full consideration of your legal rights
and financial abilities. Many debt relief schemes, even if done perfectly, may not fully address all of your problems. Despite the
allure of their promises, you could wind up in worse legal and financial shape than when you started. Instead, consider other options
for getting your debts under control, including:
"... Yezzo conducted her analysis of evidence without much oversight. Her reports summarizing findings would be reviewed by her supervisors, but her actual work, methods and conclusions rarely were checked by anyone. ..."
"... Now, defense attorneys in at least two cases have done their own investigations and believe they have proof that Yezzo's work is suspect. In one of those cases, a judge already has freed a man from prison because of credibility issues described in Yezzo's personnel file. ..."
"... "A review of her personnel records by The Dispatch shows that colleagues and supervisors raised questions about Yezzo time and again while she tested evidence and testified in an uncounted number of murder, rape and other criminal cases in the state." ..."
Does FOP have different standards for women and men? What is a little disturbing about this
piece is it seems someone's work is being called into question based on personality
issues (in fact she sounds a bit Trumpish – no impulse control!)
From the article:
"Yezzo conducted her analysis of evidence without much oversight. Her reports summarizing
findings would be reviewed by her supervisors, but her actual work, methods and conclusions rarely
were checked by anyone.
"Now, defense attorneys in at least two cases have done their own investigations and believe
they have proof that Yezzo's work is suspect. In one of those cases, a judge already has freed
a man from prison because of credibility issues described in Yezzo's personnel file. "
Not clarifying whether the lack of oversight is standard procedure seems prejudicial.
And again from the article:
" 'There may have been issues between me and my co-workers, but it was not a circumstance where
those issues fell to the analysis of evidence,' Yezzo said. 'You're trying to portray me as a
prosecution expert. I testified to the results, not to try and make any points with anybody.'
"Yezzo's direct supervisor, Daniel Cappy, defended her work. Cappy testified that Yezzo had
some behavioral issues, but he stood behind the quality of her work as a forensic scientist."
Yes, there is detail about accusations made with no evidence to support them!
"A review of her personnel records by The Dispatch shows that colleagues and supervisors raised
questions about Yezzo time and again while she tested evidence and testified in an uncounted number
of murder, rape and other criminal cases in the state."
Nice trick, implying that the questions raised related to her work while in fact the examples
are all behavioral.
You seem to be ignoring a lot of detail in the article. Her analyses are not being questioned
because of her behavior but because experienced analysts say they were poorly performed and improperly
interpreted.
The description of Yezzo's behaviors fit my layman's understanding of behaviors characteristic
of a mental health issue - NOT A CRIMINAL ISSUE - not matter how her behaviors may have affected
the cases she handled.
Agreed, she would have benefited from intervention. And if it WAS affecting the quality of
her work and not just her relations with colleagues, her supervisors had a duty to see that she
got it or pull her from the investigations.
My point is just that the article doesn't really provide evidence that her work was affected,
only that opposition attorneys on learning of her personal issues have succeeded in making them
an issue.
And my further point is I think women are more vulnerable to this sort of thing than men.
By Jerri-Lynn Scofield, who has worked as a securities lawyer and a derivatives trader. She
now spends most of her time in India and other parts of Asia researching a book about textile artisans.
She also writes regularly about legal, political economy, and regulatory topics for various consulting
clients and publications, as well as writes occasional travel pieces for
The National .
All right, all right. I can't take it any more. Yesterday I read a Facebook post that blamed the
current US electoral predicament on the "pointless" 22nd Amendment. For those of you without a US
Constitution handy, the 22nd Amendment is the one that limits US presidents to serving two terms.
That Facebook post implies that without the 22nd Amendment we'd get to see a third term for the
Obamamometer . That risible suggestion, combined with the incessant legacy-burnishing that he's
indulged in– at least until he realized that HRC might be in trouble and started to hit the campaign
trail in earnest– made me realize the time for shredding aspects of that legacy is way overdue.
When the Obamamometer finally settles on what he'll do next– whether that would be run a sports
team, become a venture capitalist, found a new religion, cure cancer, or merely hob nob with the
global elite and play lots of golf, I'm sure he'll make a fine job job of it– just as he's done with
his Presidency. Over the next couple of months, I intend to post occasionally on this legacy: but
rather than burnishing that record, I'll indulge in a bit of legacy busting.
First up, the rule of law and corporate crime.
The Holder Doctrine
Federal prosecutors, and regulatory agencies, have turned into toothless tigers when it comes
to prosecuting C-suite types, and pursuing corporations seriously, for economic crimes. Both financial
institutions and their management got virtually a free pass for their activities that led to the
Great Recession. And not only for those, but for subsequent foreclosure abuses, LIBOR and other market
manipulations, money laundering, tax scams, and doing business contrary to US sanctions policy. Yet
to date, not a single C-suite type has been indicted.
It's not just financial institutions that've received a free pass. Big Pharma, for example, has
also been lucky, as have companies that have engaged in creative tax minimization strategies (Apple,
anyone?). And if looked at from the perspective of legal topics, rather than corporate actors, entire
areas of law– antitrust, for example– are not really relevant anymore.
You don't have to take my word for it. No less a source than the NY Times' DealBook column– not
a venue, incidentally, renowned for its trenchant, timely critiques of either Wall Street or other
corporate behavior– in September lamented,
Law Enforcement 'Not Winning' War on White Collar Crime . I wrote about this article in a
September post and so won't rehash all the arguments I made then here. But a few points are in
order.
The lack of enforcement not only means that the guilty don't pay. It also determines what corporate
strategies get pursued, which business models are developed or rejected, what attitudes corporations
take to risk, and how resources get allocated to name just a few consequences. And as I'll discuss
below, it also shapes how attorneys practice law, and the impact their advice carries in deterring
certain types of corporate behavior.
I never thought I'd be nostalgic for President George W. Bush's Department of Justice (DoJ). Now,
I'm well aware of the scandal that ensued over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales imposing ideological
litmus tests on assistant US attornies. Nonetheless, in the wake of the collapse of the dotcom bubble,
the Bush DoJ actually enforced the law. It prosecuted cases and claimed scalps. Companies such as
Adelphi, Enron and WorldCom all saw top-level management prosecuted, and malefactors sent to jail.
Change We Can't Believe In
Those who voted for Hope and Change in 2008 certainly got the change part– at least with respect
to the DoJ. But when we look at the DoJ's enforcement priorities and the track record that followed,
it's perhaps not the change they were hoping for. The Obamamometer's first Attorney General, Eric
Holder, outlined and followed what came to be known as the Holder doctrine.
Allow me to quote from my September post:
[Under the Holder doctrine the DoJ eschewed corporate charges against companies and executives,
instead opting for negotiated settlements (often imposing de minimis, slap-on-the wrist penalties
that were significantly undersized compared to the magnitude of damage done, especially by TBTF
banks and other financial predators, to name just a few).
The DoJ under Obama's second AG, Loretta Lynch, originally followed the Holder doctrine, until
that was superseded when
Deputy Attorney General
Sally Quillian Yates authored a memo outlining a new approach in September 2015. Under this
approach, the DoJ intended to increase accountability for corporate wrongdoing, and this included
an increased focus on pursuing criminal charges against responsible individuals. The DoJ sought
to drive a legal wedge between individuals and the corporations for whom they worked by only allowing
corporations to receive "cooperation credit" that would reduce their potential exposure (including
penalties) if the corporation cooperates in surrendering as early as possible comprehensive detailed
information concerning the individual misconduct.
There's much more in a similar vein in that earlier post, for those with an interest. But the
bottom line for purposes of this post is what has this supposed policy shift, from Holder's doctrine
to Yates's memo, meant in practice. The short answer: bupkis. We're still waiting for the more robust
enforcement approach the Yates memo supposedly heralded to kick in. As an attorney I know who specializes
in white collar defense work summed it up to me, "The DoJ's walking a new walk, and talking a new
talk, but nothing's really changed."
In fact, in only two areas have we seen the DoJ take a muscular approach toward enforcement during
the Obamamometer's administration, insider trading, and offenses under the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act (FCPA).
Insider Trading
US Attorney for the southern district of New York Preet Bharara has compiled an undefeated string
of convictions for insider trading (some of which may be at risk of being overturned due to some
appellate decisions, which are beyond the scope of this post). But as I wrote last month in
The SEC Fiddles While the System Burns: Insider Trading Enforcement As Securities Law Theater
, focusing on insider trading as an enforcement priority constitutes a form of securities law theater.
Scare prosecutorial resources are expended on insider trading abuses, rather than being deployed
to investigate, punish, and (hopefully) deter, far more serious systemic problems.
The insider trading focus provides the illusion that the DoJ is doing something about high-level
cheating. Yet it has little broader deterrent effect on stymieing the wider corporate scams that
misallocate resources and erode confidence in the integrity of the system. Insider trading enforcement
is usually directed at individuals, and doesn't implicate wider considerations of corporate strategy
or policy. Prosecuting insider traders maintains the myth that the greatest threats to US capitalism
are individual bad corporate actors, rather than anything more sweeping or systemic. Catch the bad
actors, fine them or throw them in jail, and never think about any deeper problems.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Another area highlighted as an enforcement priority is bribery and foreign corruption, with prosecutions
undertaken under authority of the FCPA. Allow me to quote from a speech made by
assistant attorney general Leslie R. Caldwell last week:
The effects of foreign corruption are not just felt overseas. In today's global economy, the
negative effects of foreign corruption flow back to the United States. American companies are
harmed by global corruption when they are denied the ability to compete in a fair and transparent
marketplace. Instead of being rewarded for their efficiency, innovation and honest business practices,
U.S. companies suffer at the hands of corrupt governments and lose out to corrupt competitors.
.
This is why the fight against international corruption has been, and continues to be, a core
priority of the Department of Justice. It has been a core priority for the Criminal Division,
and our commitment to the fight against foreign bribery is reflected in our robust enforcement
record in this area, which includes charges against corporations and individuals alike from all
over the world. Since 2009, the Criminal Division's Fraud Section has convicted more than 65 individuals
in [FCPA] and FCPA-related cases, and resolved criminal cases against more than 65 companies with
penalties and forfeiture of approximately $4.5 billion.
Sounds reasonable, right? I mean, after all, no one would come right out in favor of more international
corruption?
But when we unpack it, we butt up against a few problems. First, to quote my contact the white
collar defence specialist again. The lack of an effective DoJ deterrent has enormously complicated
his practice and his ability to get his clients to understand and act on prudent legal advice. "What
I've seen happening more and more in the last couple of years is the chairs of audit committees of
major companies openly mocking the DoJ's enforcement capability." This leads the companies to pursue
courses of action that they wouldn't dare to undertake if they worried that the DoJ would aggressively
pursue securities law violations.
Where does this leave their lawyers? Well, it often means that they must either moderate their
advice, or risk losing their clients. Clients who want to do something will resist their impulses
and continue to listen to what they hear as their lawyers crying wolf only for so long. Eventually,
the less scrupulous among them are going to ignore the contrary advice, or get another lawyer. The
lack of effective enforcement at the DoJ hinders the efforts of the best, most prudent, and most
ethical members of the legal profession to practice law as we would want them to.
So, what happens instead? Well, the most scrupulous of them will continue to give what they regard
as sound legal advice (even if what some privately call the Department of Jokes does not enforce
the law in a way that lends credence to that approach). But that means they often have to develop
new areas of expertise when their clients beat a path away from their doors. "We have to act sometimes
as shoe salesmen, flogging competence in FCPA violations, that occur in subsidiaries or with foreign
suppliers," says my white collar defense specialist contact. "This work leads us to countries and
legal systems we don't know well, to uncover chickenshit violations that occur far from home." Far
better, he believes, would be for the DoJ to focus on law-breaking that occurs in the United States,
as that could be effectively deterred by the agency refocusing its enforcement priorities. Now that
would be a legacy we could all believe in.
Bottom Line
On the contrary, one persistent legacy of the Obamamometer is to say one thing and then do another.
The DoJ has recently signalled its intention to get tougher on white collar crime. But so far, there's
been no follow through on the rhetoric. Instead, we see federal prosecutors either turning a blind
eye to major problems, or conducting various forms of enforcement theater– much sound and fury, but
in the end, signifying nothing.
" I'm sure he'll make a fine job job of it– just as he's done with his Presidency."
" one persistent legacy of the Obamamometer is to say one thing and then do another."
" the job of the Galactic President was not to wield power but to attract attention away from
it.
Zaphod Beeblebrox was amazingly good at his job." – D. Adams
The Galactic President, yes. and maybe the real Ruler of the Universe is "a man living in a
shack with his cat who doesn't believe anything is real or certain except that which he is seeing
and hearing at that moment." [Wikipedia] Except he won't answer any of our questions
Thanks. It will be a meaningful discussion to delineate what the Obama rhetoric was and what
the actual policies and results were and the reasons for this.
It was an utterly disappointing presidency in my view, and I give him no pass for not fighting
for the progressive and ethical policies on which he vigorously campaigned.
I watched the Obamarama at a 2008 campaign rally. During the speech I turned to a friend and
said, "This guy is nothing more than a Slick Willy." Eight years later I look like the Oracle
of Delphi. (Except this guy turned out to be slippery than Willy.)
There is simply no end to the political psycopathy in the U.S.
I was so naive back in 2008 that I bought the whole Hope and Change schtick. It's so embarrassing
to think back on now in hindsight. I'll never believe a Democrat again–unless they are telling
me what I don't want to hear. Lesson learned.
I saw Obama in 08′. What struck me as a tell was his fawning talk about the founding father
Alexander Hamilton,the pro Central Bankster. Last night they had a Federalist Historian who wrote
a book about Hamilton on c-span. This historian said he wished Jefferson had never come back from
France and that the US would be better off for it. These banksters are sure trying to burnish
their legacy even historically. Did Goldman produce "Hamilton"?
It prosecuted cases and claimed scalps. Companies such as Adelphi, Enron and WorldCom all
saw top-level management prosecuted, and malefactors sent to jail.
You're completely right. I cannot imagine Obama's DOJ dismantling any company so thoroughly.
All we've seen out of them are settlements. Now, that's not to say that these settlements aren't
a big deal (look at Deutsche Bank's, a major factor in their systemic risk) but have any companies
faced the kind of scrutiny of Enron or WorldCom?
Holder was the only AG to
ever be held in contempt of Congress over his gun running insanity. And his actions on marijuana
(prosecuting like a madman until CO legalized and now staying silent but not rescheduling) have
been completely embarrassing and a waste of everyone's time.
Yeah I actually bought a few hundred shares of Enron after the share price collapsed
thinking Georgie would never let his buddy Ken Lay down. Even though I lost a few bucks I was
glad to be proven wrong.
All of these companies went belly up and somehow the world didn't end, as Holder has tried
to convince us it would had he actually done his damn job.
Be careful .with agencies you need to differentiate between employees, bureaucrats, and political
appointees. There are undercurrents that have nothing to do with politics and lag times in political
appointed staffing and such.
As it happened in 2001-2002, outside the AG, the DOJ at the time was more Clinton's than Bush's.
Bush would go on to gut the DOJ's white color crime division leaving it effectively toothless
by time Obama took office.
A more complicating factor, the entire task force that prosecuted these cases left for private
firms (many now defending company actions). The DOJ's white collar institutional knowledge went
to zero overnight. To replace the talent and knowledge needed to take on further cases, on a constrained
enforced austerely budget is a tall order.
Even then, those company's were other worldly idiotic in committing the offenses. What they
did was the equivalent of leaving their wallet at the crime scene. Most company's aren't so careless.
,
"settlements". Gawd, how I now hate that word!
In fact, those 'settlements' usually amounted to no more than 10% of their ill-gotten profits
so there was no incentive to change their evil ways.
AND, those 'settlements' didn't go to we victims, either.
Still wondering what Obamer will put in his 'library'. Copies of all his empty promises that
got him elected a second term?
Not to mention the convenient timing of the DoJ's "pivot" towards white collar crimes now that
the statute of limitations has passed for all the pre-2008 criminal activities. Something about
closing the barn door after the horses have run off.
Thank you great article. I frequently tall the young'ins that even Ronald Reagan (or was it
Bush?) prosecuted the Keating 5 from the S&L crisis and even sent them to jail for a really really
long time, just for shook affect in comparison to the Obamanation we have today.
"Clients who want to do something will resist their impulses and continue to listen to what
they hear as their lawyers crying wolf only for so long."
Usually the breaking point is when the client tells me "competitor X committed this 3 times
that we know of last year and you're telling me that I have to adhere strictly to the law?"
Or even better, they'll pull me into a meeting with some crook they've just recruited from
competitor X to tell me how their lawyers advised them on how not to get caught.
>I respect that you moved on.
I too. The obvious answer to that "You're telling me I have to obey the law" bs is, yes, if you
want to be my client, but not everybody gives it, either literally or by their actions.
I'm surprised that the GunWalker program didn't get individual attention, conspiring to illegally
sell thousands of firearms to one of the most vicious criminal groups in the Americas is a big
deal. Hundreds of Mexican public officials were murdered using these guns and perhaps a thousand
total. Two of the .50 BMG anti materiel rifles seized at "El Chapo" Guzman's estate were sold
to him at the behest of the US DOJ.
When the DOJ is the largest single supplier of firearms to criminals, gets caught and no one goes
to prison WASS
I think you may be to harsh on Eric and Loretta. My guess regarding Obama's legal legacy is
that he "would rather look forward than back," meaning that he was afraid to aggressively prosecute
financial crimes for fear it could bring down the system – and I believe that fear was fed by
the likes of Timothy Geithner, who as Sec. Treas. didn't want the job of liquidating firms he
had done business with at the NY Fed. Hence, prosecuting Wall Street would have required the AGs
to butt heads with fellow cabinet members – and while the Obamamometer understands the law well
enough, he doesn't understand macroeconomics at all and was deathly afraid of causing an economic
catastrophe. And please note, the literati (or those generally accepted as knowledgeable on economics)
mostly shared a view that the big banks were innocent, duped by the likes of Angelo Mozilo and
fraudulent borrowers. (Aside: I'd bet that even after The Big Short and Econned, most still cling
to that explanation for the crisis)
Many seem enthralled by the recent release of Hillary Clinton's emails, looking for a pay to
play smoking gun. I'd be much more interested in the notes from Obama's meetings with T. Geithner
in early 08. That's when the real crimes were committed.
History is going to record Obama's legacy as being the third massive credit bubble in 2 decades,
together with a massive erosion in the rule of law. Obama's cowardice in failing to pursue real
justice for the public, including his failure to prosecute individual criminals at the major banks,
will be a major stain.
Dot-Com bubble = fool me once, shame on you
Housing bubble = fool me twice, shame on me
Current bubble = fool me three times, shame on Obama
How is it a harsh criticism? Even if we accept Obama's good intentions, what was next? It's
completely deluded to say the economy would get better with rampant fraud and corruption. Screw
this whole "he doesn't understand economics enough." He can read. The Founder of the Federal Reserve,
Senator Glass, was a newspaper editor. Obama ran for President not a seat on the PTA. He should
have quit if he couldn't handle it.
Such charity by many posters towards the Obama administration. But the truth is that he and
his team have been hell bent on purposefully moving the Democratic Party as far to the right as
they could and jettisoning all liberal, progressive, new deal thinking and supporters all the
while lying through their teeth about it. And they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
And with the upcoming passage of TPP, TISA, and the rest, it's game over for anyone who isn't
part of the billionaire clan.
The Rule of Law is one of those things that we all suppose is A GOOD THING. It is only recently,
now wealth has become so pervasive, that we see how a few dollars can buy impunity from justice.
The high-powered lawyer is the latest incarnation of the papal indulgence. Prison and purgatory
are optional.
The magic reason is the burden of proof in criminal law – beyond a reasonable doubt. All the
defendant has to establish is a doubt he did the dirty deed and he's off.
There is another way of creating a respect for fairness and justice. Its the adoption of the
Rule of Propriety. We no longer concern ourselves with the endless variety of means a crook will
use to cheat his way to a fortune. We simply require him at all times to justify his acts. You
can actually see this system operating in Asia and, whilst its under attack, it is a beautiful
thing to behold.
I never voted for Obama because I thought he was an empty suit. After enduring 8 years of George
Bush, who couldn't speak coherently, anyone would have seemed like a scholar. I agree with someone
upthread that Obama has eviscerated the rule of law, started more wars than any other president,
protected criminal banksters, and lies about the spectacular 'recovery" we are all enjoying. The
political corruption has been laid bare.
If Hillary wins, I wonder if she'll keep the Terror Tuesdays going? One shudders to think about
it.
Thank you Jerri-Lynn for this piece. The grifter will go on to own a vulture venture
fund a sports team or a strip club but he'll receive his just due from karma.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
crim2010 | March 9, 2013 2:56 PM | Reply
What I don't understand is how Michael Shkreli, CEO, is found guilty of financial fraud against investors in 2018 but not one CEO of a bank–not Goldman Sachs's CEO, not Citigroup's CEO, not JP Morgan Chase's CEO, not Wells Fargo's CEO and not Lehman Brothers' CEO–was found guilty of committing Accounting Control Fraud and/or mortgage fraud after the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-8. Amazing! But there's not much satisfaction in such a small price to pay for fraud (7 years) that ruins other people's lives permanently. What is also amazing is that it is not illegal to price a drug out of the reach of most users just for the sake of making a huge profit!