Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Showing posts with label Federal Prosecutorial Misconduct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Prosecutorial Misconduct. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 6, 2023

We're all witnesses to an attempted political murder

September 5, 2023 By Mark C. Ross

Never before has the American people been subjected to the obnoxious spectacle of a former president being relentlessly pursued by craven partisans using government (read: taxpayer-funded) resources.  One explanation involves Mr. Trump's unique ability to bring out the worst in his enemies.  Actually, it may also be caused by a common character weakness among his opponents.

One would need an enormous score card to keep track of all the indictments and other litigations being heaped upon Mr. Trump.  He has thus employed an army of attorneys in order to resist the onslaught.  Being a billionaire has certainly come in handy for this effort — but a few billion dollars can go only so far.  The stubborn continuation of his candidacy for re-election allows him to raise campaign contributions, some of which can be applied to his legal defense — because they are an appropriate campaign expense, much like media advertisements, mailers and travel.  The prevailing countermeasure has been for the Deep State thugs to add Trump's lawyers to their target list.

Some historians have pointed out that presidents are often the opposite of their predecessor.  Carter followed Nixon, Reagan followed Carter, and Trump followed Obama.  And, speaking of Obama, his great strength is also Trump's particular weakness.  Limbaugh used to say that Lois Lerner, Obama's IRS hatchet woman who stifled conservative non-profits, didn't need to be told what to do; she was hired because she already knew what she was supposed to do...thus eliminating many possibly embarrassing emails.  Trump's entourage, however, was not sufficiently screened for loyalty.  Hence, a conspicuous lack of control undermined his (first) administration......To Read More

Tuesday, August 15, 2023

David Weiss: Will His Past Become Prologue?

The powerful become more powerful

Articles, Law, Opinion

The drip, drip, drip of the Hunter Biden soap opera that Republican congressional leaders claim has metastasized into an investigation of the president is beginning to resemble more of a faucet running full blast. On Aug. 14, the House Oversight Committee released testimony stating that Biden-the-younger was tipped off about an upcoming FBI interview. This came under the watch of US Attorney David Weiss, who is now elevated to special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Weiss has been on the case for years and was part of the plea deal recently scuttled by US District Judge Maryellen Noreika. Saying the agreement contained “atypical provisions,” Noreika indicated the settlement was outside the norm. Weiss may have been a Trump appointee, but thus far his actions in the Biden family fiasco appear to reveal he is no conservative.

David Weiss and the Colorful World of Delaware Politics

As Reuters put it, “Weiss’s legal career has been built on a string of high-stakes assignments involving political and business figures in the Bidens’ home state of Delaware.” In February 2018, Tom Carper and Chris Coons, the Democratic senators from the First State, recommended Weiss be appointed US attorney for the District of Delaware, and Trump rubber-stamped their choice. In 2019, Weiss began working on possible tax violations and money laundering in Hunter Biden’s foreign businesses. But this is not the attorney’s first high-profile rodeo.

In the years before he was made US attorney, Weiss prosecuted Delaware beer distributor Christopher Tigani for illegal donations to the Biden campaign. Tigani got two years in the slammer for reimbursing his employees who contributed to Joe Biden’s 2008 failed presidential run.

Before that, the prosecutor was involved in the case of Anne Marie Fahey, who was murdered by the Delaware deputy attorney general, Thomas Joseph Capano. Fahey worked as an appointment secretary to Carper – yes, the same person who currently serves as one of the state’s senators; at the time of Fahey’s death, he was governor. During the trial, it was alleged that Capano killed Fahey, stuffed her body in a large cooler, put it on his brother’s boat, shot into the cooler, and wrapped it in chains so it would sink in the Atlantic Ocean. The Delaware deputy AG was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole, where he died in 2011. One can legitimately say politics in the First State is anything but boring.

However, it hasn’t all been a bed of roses for the Weiss, who some say bore a striking resemblance to Tony Orlando in his salad days. A federal appeals court overturned one of the attorney’s prominent cases, this time involving the conviction of four Wilmington Trust executives.

GOP Rakes Weiss Over the Coals

In a statement posted on the social media platform X, the House Judiciary GOP wrote, “David Weiss can’t be trusted, and this is just a new way to whitewash the Biden family’s corruption. Weiss has already signed off on a sweetheart plea deal that was so awful and unfair that a federal judge rejected it.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “[S]omething’s not right about Weiss’ appointment as special counsel,” according to Forbes. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) posted on his X account: “Don’t be fooled. Garland appointing Weiss as a sham special counsel on Hunter is a way to block info from Congress while claiming they’re investigating.” Undoubtedly, those on the right are not thrilled with Weiss’ appointment.

Over the last decade, Delaware has been awash in Democrat blue. None from the Grand Old Party have represented the state at the federal level since William Roth lost a re-election bid for the Senate in 2001 and Mike Castle retired from the House of Representatives in 2011. For those with inquiring minds, Weiss’ Wiki page claims he is a Republican.

As things get underway in this next chapter of the Hunter Biden soap opera, Weiss is set to play a lead character. It is the role of a lifetime – one that he has been building up to for years. Although he doesn’t head into this new position with the trust and support of the party he claims to belong to, he can dispel that lack of confidence by digging deep into the Biden family business and letting the chips fall where they may.

Read More From Leesa K. Donner

Thursday, July 7, 2022

The Federal Judiciary is Filled With Political Hacks

By Rich Kozlovich 

On July 5th, 2020 Henry P. Wickham, Jr. published this piece, Watergate and the Corruption of the DC Judiciary, filled with interesting insights from two books, Geoff Shepard's book, The Real Watergate Scandal and the just published book by Garrett Graff, Watergate, a New History.  I've decided to break this piece down into sections.  The first dealt with John Dean and this next section deals with the federal judiciary, and Judge Sirica.  

He goes on to say:

The handling of the criminal cases against "all the president's men" was disgraceful as Shepard makes clear. What the president's men did was criminal, but that shouldn't have been a pretext for denying them fair trials and due process.

I remember those days and the nation pretty much thought Judge John Sirica was the nation's judicial giant who was going to make sure "justice" was served.  When in reality acted in an illegal and unethical way as an investigator and prosecutor, he wasn't a judge, he was a bigger crook than Nixon, who I consider one of the worst Presidents of the 20th century.  We'll come back to that. 

Sirica used his power as a judge to manipulate the circumstance to be assured of a guilty verdict by making sure the case would be heard in Washington, and the article notes he apparently interfered with jury selection saying:

'"voir dire" of potential jurors that guaranteed biased juries.  He made prejudicial comments in front of the jury. He sought to bolster John Dean's credibility by giving him a long prison sentence following his guilty plea. He did so knowing that Dean would never serve a day, and that he would commute or cancel this sentence once Dean testified as Sirica wanted.

Apparently Sirica and his team of co-conspirators decided Dean needed credibility so he sentenced him to a lot of prison time, all knowing he would never serve out that time.  Which must have been part of the conspiracy he and the prosecutors cooked up during one of the illegal private meetings regarding this case.  No defense counsel was ever present at any of them.  Meetings where tactics and strategies were discussed and:

Sirica even provided a list of more persons he wanted the special counsel to indict. So much for due process and trials overseen by an impartial judge.

Sirica wasn't the lone jurist in this criminal behavior:

In a blatantly unethical meeting, Archibald Cox met with Bazelon with no defense counsel present. He was able to get Bazelon to agree that all appeals from any Watergate case coming out of the DC District Court would be heard "en banc," or before all nine judges. By so agreeing, Bazelon guaranteed that there would never be a case where there could be a three-judge panel with a Republican majority. The Democrats would always have the majority and the prosecutors would win any appeal. Not surprisingly, no appeals of Watergate defendants were successful. 

The author goes on to state: 

At the very least, the actions in these Watergate criminal cases by Sirica, Bazelon, and the prosecutors were unethical and prejudicial. Had these meetings come to light at that time, they would have been grounds for new trials or changes of venue outside the DC District Court. These prejudicial actions could have led to impeachment of the judges and even disbarment after an honest accounting of how these cases were prosecuted. But these meetings were never disclosed when it mattered.

When it comes to the federal judiciary there are a number of things I've stated over and over again.  

The federal judiciary is out of control acting in violation of their Constitutional boundaries.  Congress has gutlessly allowed them to get away with it, and until SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade, the Democrats rapturously defended their ability to find unstated "rights" from previously unknown and unrecognized "   Epiphanous visions only left wing political hacks masquerading as jurists could see.    

Only now is the Congress talking about standing up for their Constitutionally defined rights in overturning that decision with legislation.  It's sad when the Congress only discovered it's spine when a "right" that was a "wrong" has been overturned.  They've decided it's time to stand up to SCOTUS because the court finally and actually stood up for the Constitution as intended, instead of corrupting it.  

Finally, the federal system of justice is filled with corruption, from the prosecutors to the judiciary, both of which are filled with ideological political hacks, not impartial jurists. Political activists  who have allowed power to corrupt them and corrupt their decisions.  The federal judiciary is in serious need of age and term limits, along with Congress.  Including U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan who was thought at times to be a courageous jurist standing against and his corrupt band, but in the end he overturned every ethical standard for impartiality there is.  

We've seen this outrageous corruption, especially in the DC District, in dealing with these January 6 demonstrators, many of whom have been imprisoned illegally without bail or the right to counsel for many months, forcing guilty pleas just to be released or give light sentences.  We saw this with General Michael Flynn, all part of an Obama motivated Deep State conspiracy, an American hero that was grievously wronged.

Back to Richard Nixon.  I consider Nixon to be one of the four worst Presidents in American history.  

First on my list is Teddy Roosevelt, because he gave personality to the progressive movement.  He laid the intellectual, emotional and psychological groundwork which allowed the second worst President, Woodrow Wilson, called America's first fascist President, to impose his fascist dictatorial policies, using America's unnecessary involvement in WWI as a justification, or excuse if you like, where he had opponents to his visions imprisoned without charge or trial, many of whom didn't get released until Harding became President. Sound familiar?

Both Roosevelt and Wilson believed the Constitution was an impediment to human progress and subscribed to the concept of L'état, c'est moi .  I am the state.   Next came Franklin D. Roosevelt, who wanted to pack the court to get his clearly unconstitutional New Deal policies passed, which wasn't a new deal at all, it was in fact a recycling of Wilson's fascist policies with many of the same people from that administration heading up Roosevelt's many agencies, all of whom were thoroughly infested with communists, socialists, Soviet agents and fellow travelers.  His administration is considered the most enemy infiltrated government in the history of the world.  

Then Nixon.  We're still suffering the consequences of the Carter administration, but Nixon created long term negative consequences in more areas than Carter ever could have ever  done.  Nixon ended the gold standard, he opened China to the world in effect financing their efforts to defeat America.  He created the EPA, passed the Endangered Species Act and a host of other laws that have been used as bludgeons by unelected and out of control bureaucrats redefining the laws to their personal liking and passing unwarranted regulations.  Which now SCOTUS has decided doesn't really have the Constitutional authority to impose.  

So, it's hard to bleed all over ourselves over what happened to Nixon and his band of crooks.   But it's easy to bleed all over ourselves over the corrupt way the federal judiciary and corrupt prosecutors conducted themselves then and are conducting themselves now.  

The author concludes with this statement:

Among many lessons, Watergate shows us how power can corrupt and how investigations and legal processes can be abused. This is just what we saw with the case of Michael Flynn, among many others, post 2016, and as we now see with the selective and politically motivated prosecutions by the Biden Justice Department; Attorney General, Merritt Garland being every bit the light weight, political hack that John Sirica was. 

America is in crisis.

Saturday, January 22, 2022

Who are the Oath Keepers?

By John Green

Hearing the Department of Justice describe them, one would think that the Oath Keepers are the scariest bunch of anti-American knuckleheads to come down the pike since the Ku Klux Klan.  Given that a bunch of them were just arrested for plotting an insurrection -- that the FBI assured us wasn’t an insurrection -- this is a good time to get to know who they actually are.

Media coverage of the group is sprinkled with terms like “right-wing extremists,” “anti-government extremists,” and “far right militia.”  Like any story, the reporting about the Oath Keepers can be spun to support a narrative or to give an unbiased assessment.  The MSM has chosen to go with the narrative.  One has to look beyond the scare quotes, and assess what the organization has actually done to get a true sense of its nature.

The Oath Keepers was founded in 2009 by Stewart Rhodes.  It is a national, but loosely knit organization, created to resist violations of civil liberties by the government.  In 2009, that sounded like conspiracy nut thinking.  But since the organization’s founding, we’ve been treated to:

  •  Crossfire Hurricane,
  •  two impeachment show trials,
  •  COVID shutdowns, 
  • election 2020, and 
  • our own government targeting parents as domestic terrorists.  

What sounded crazy in 2009 sounds prescient in 2022...........To Read More....

Wednesday, August 11, 2021

Latest developments in the prosecution of January 6 defendants

Prosecutors in the cases against the January 6 demonstrators are starting to run into some  judicial pushback: Questions about exculpatory evidence in their possession not  turned over as the law demands, lower courts assessing the defendant as more dangerous than the evidence warranted, and most significantly, whether the prosecution is overcharging defendants with the federal crime of obstruction. 

Most of the defendants are charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted area -- a fancy way of saying trespassing. Defendants are entitled to see before pleading to the charges any materially exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession. Defense counsel have complained that the government has not been meeting this obligation, and the prosecution has been responding that it is unable to quickly assess all the evidence it has to meet this burden. 

As to those charged with trespassing, some are claiming they were invited in and, therefore, could not be guilty of the charges. The prosecution got one extension and the question is whether they should get another, a question complicated by the defendants’ right to a speedy trial. Sixteen of the defendants facing the most serious charges will not have their cases heard until next January. 

This week, the Department of Justice seems to have conceded the very point of the inapplicability of some trespass charges. ........To Read More....


 

Appellate Court Overturns Pre-Trial Detention for J6 Detainee

By  

In a stunning but well-deserved rebuke, the D.C. Court of Appeals on Monday ordered that the pre-trial detention of George Tanios, one of two men accused of spraying Officer Sicknick and others on January 6, be reversed.

The brief ruling, which did not include the usual opinion explaining the court’s decision, bluntly stated:

“ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 12, 2021 order be reversed and the case remanded for the district court to order appellant’s pretrial release subject to appropriate conditions, including home detention and electronic monitoring. On this record, we conclude that the district court clearly erred in determining that no condition or combination of conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of the community.”

Tanios and his friend, Julian Khater, were arrested in March. A grand jury indicted the men with numerous felonies including conspiracy and assaulting an officer with a “dangerous or deadly weapon.” Tanios and Khater brought chemical irritants, including bear spray, to the capital in anticipation of scuffles with leftist agitators. Tanios, however, is not accused of spraying his key chain pepper spray container. Their arrest and indictment are aimed at keeping alive the lie that Sicknick was killed in the line of duty by Trump “insurrectionists,” a falsehood repeated in the news media and by Joe Biden as late as Thursday at the White House.

Biden’s Justice Department asked the court to keep Khater and Tanios behind bars awaiting trial. They have been incarcerated in the harsh D.C. Deplorable jail since March; Tanios has no criminal record, operated a college campus sandwich shop (which is now shuttered) in West Virginia, and is the father of three young children..........To Read More....

‘Unprecedented, Unreasonable, Unconstitutional, and Wrong’

The Justice Department won’t have January 6 evidence ready until 2022. 

By

During a status hearing Friday afternoon for Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, an Army reservist arrested on January 15 for his involvement in the January 6 protest in Washington, D.C., an assistant U.S. attorney admitted the government will not meet its discovery obligations for all Capitol defendants until early 2022.

Kathyrn Fifield, the lead attorney representing the Justice Department, informed Judge Trevor McFadden that the “incalculable” volume of video collected by the government related to the Capitol breach investigation will prevent defendants and their lawyers from accessing the full body of evidence against them for several more months. “No system exists to wrap its arms around [all this evidence],” Fifield told McFadden. This includes at least 14,000 hours of surveillance video plus thousands of hours of body-worn camera footage from law enforcement.

Fifield resisted setting a 2021 trial date for Hale; McFadden and Jonathan Crisp, Hale’s court-appointed attorney, told the government last month that unless a plea arrangement was agreed upon, a trial would be set for later this year because Hale already has been incarcerated for more than six months. “If we do set a trial date, the government cannot meet discovery obligations until early 2022. That’s a conservative estimate,”.............

 Despite the lack of evidence against him, Hale has been behind bars since January. He is not charged with any violent crimes but the Justice Department repeatedly—and successfully—has sought his pre-trial detention. (McFadden denied Hale’s release in March.)..........

Despite the government’s confession that it is not prepared to make its case against Hale, McFadden set a trial date of November 9, 2021. (He did not release Hale, who has no criminal record, from prison.)..........To Read More....

Tuesday, August 10, 2021

DOJ Tells Court It is Still Reviewing Potentially Exculpatory Evidence in Capitol Riot Cases

Joel B. Pollak

Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Channing D. Phillips told a federal court Monday that the U.S. Department of Justice is still processing massive amounts of potentially exculpatory evidence in the Capitol riot.

Phillips filed a motion to ask the court for a 60-day delay in the trial of Cowboys for Trump founder Couy Griffin, who is being charged with “Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building” and “Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building,” though the government admits there is no evidence Griffin entered the U.S. Capitol itself, but rather spoke from a restricted area on the building’s exterior.

Griffin, who was detained for several days but released on his own recognizance in February, has demanded that the DOJ turn over all potentially exculpatory evidence, in accord with the doctrine laid down in Brady v. Maryland (1963).

The DOJ erroneously told the court that it would have all of the exculpatory evidence prepared by June, but told the court Monday that it had only begun transferring government data in June to outside analysts from Deloitte Financial Advisory Services, LLP, which won the contract to organize all of the video and other data collected on the riot........To Reads More..

Our Group Take - Sure sounds to me like "Gee, we have exculpatory evidence, but we're not gonna give it to you because even tho you're innocent, we want you to take a plea deal so we look better and can further the "insurrection lie." Right along with "we really care about your constitutional rights, except to actually have the exculpatory evidence, and, gee, you know, that 'right to a speedy trial' silliness." 


Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Biden Regime Jails a "Domestic Terrorist"

It's clear the Biden regime, in cooperation with federal judges, will stop at nothing to destroy the lives of people who protested the 2020 presidential election.

By July 19, 2021

Paul Hodgkins is not my enemy.”  Fighting back tears, Patrick Leduc, an attorney representing a man charged in connection with the January 6 protest at the Capitol, made that statement in a dramatic court hearing Monday morning. Leduc, by the way, is no snowflake. On Tuesday, the 33-year-old U.S. Army reservist will be deployed to the Middle East for his third tour.

Leduc cited his military oath—to protect the country from “against all enemies, foreign and domestic”—to refute the government’s accusation that Paul Hodgkins, 38, is a domestic terrorist. “Words have meaning,” Leduc told U.S. District Court Judge Randoph Moss. “I have been shot at by real terrorists. If we’re going to label this as domestic terrorism, where do we draw that line?”............To Read More...

Our Group's Take -  They're calling him a "domestic terrorist" and yet he hurt no one, damaged nothing, didn't even force his way into the building or the Senate floor... he was protesting for election integrity.  What's more, they're calling him a domestic terrorist - and yet the prosecutors only asked for 18 months in jail... and didn't charge him with terrorism, sedition, insurrection, or anything else of the sort.  And the judge says it's only worth 8 months, with that only to "send a message" to others, not because of this guy's actual actions! He was branded a felon for life for this... when the Capitol Police Chief in charge Jan. 6th testified to Congress that the Senate wasn't evacuated because of the protestors at all, but because of the pipe bombs found at the RNC and DNC!!  So exactly how did this guy even "obstruct an official proceeding" when his presence had nothing to do with them being evacuated?

 

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Cruel and Unusual Prosecutions

Federal charges against three of the officers in the George Floyd case are unwarranted and ill-advised.

The Biden Justice Department has announced that it will seek federal civil rights charges against the three police officers who, along with Derek Chauvin, participated in the fatal arrest of George Floyd. This decision can’t be reconciled with the Justice Department’s own policy guidelines on second prosecutions. What’s more, prosecuting these officers will have serious negative consequences for police work in this country.

Let’s be clear here: we’re not talking about Derek Chauvin. We’re talking about J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane, and Tou Thao. These three cops are not accused of using excessive force; nor are they accused of illegally seizing Floyd. Moreover, two of them were inexperienced—Lane had been on the force only four days—and were following directives from Chauvin, the senior officer.

The government’s argument is that the three officers violated Floyd’s civil rights by assisting Chauvin, who seized Floyd in arguable violation of the Fourth Amendment. But Officer Thao was merely keeping bystanders away and had no part in restraining Floyd; he couldn’t possibly be accused of an illegal seizure. The other two, Kueng and Lane, held Floyd’s legs and back down, but this, too, does not constitute an illegal seizure, since the arrest was lawful, and Floyd had to be restrained when he refused to enter the patrol car. Furthermore, the force these two officers used was a far cry from the neck pressure Chauvin employed.

The indictment alleges that the three “willfully failed to intervene to stop Defendant Chauvin’s use of unreasonable force.” “Willful” means that the accused cops knew they were wrong. This will be difficult to prove, given that the inexperienced defendants were following the directions of a senior officer and the force used was not obviously excessive, such as in the case of a suspect being shot or clubbed.

These prosecutions are sending a clear message: that junior cops must second-guess their superiors in use-of-force incidents, lest they run the risk of federal imprisonment. But this is contrary to police training and discipline in the United States, and it puts inexperienced officers in an impossible situation. On top of all the other pressures they face, young cops must now choose between jeopardizing their careers by turning in or even restraining a superior, on the one hand, or facing federal prosecution if officials subsequently decide their partners’ use of force was excessive, on the other.

This prosecution puts police, who must make split-second judgments when confronting suspects who may be armed and dangerous, in a real bind. In an earlier time, the public understood this predicament. This meant that spur-of-the-moment decisions that, in hindsight, were mistaken—what looked like a gun wasn’t a gun—would not be held against the officer. The result was that prosecutions of police were difficult; unfortunately, this meant that abusive officers sometimes got away with excessive force. Now the pendulum has swung. The days of benefit-of-the-doubt are over. The police must get it right nowadays, even if the situation they confront is ambiguous.

The indictments pose another problem. The Justice Department has a long-standing policy—the so-called Petite rule—that is supposed to govern federal prosecutions that follow state charges for the same alleged misconduct. The policy states that the department seeks to “protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s).” The state of Minnesota has already charged Kueng, Lane, and Thao with aiding and abetting murder by failing to restrain Chauvin and assist Floyd. In other words, the misconduct the state is alleging is identical to the acts serving as the basis for federal charges. Under Petite, the federal prosecutions shouldn’t be happening.

To anyone who isn’t an attorney, all this sounds like a violation of the Constitution’s provisions against double jeopardy. However, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government has the authority to enforce its own laws, even if the conduct involved also violates state law. The Petite policy seeks to moderate the harshness of this rule by requiring a “substantial federal interest” to support the federal charges. But there is no federal interest in prosecuting officers who did not themselves willfully and affirmatively violate someone’s constitutional rights.

The government will argue that there is a federal interest in getting police to restrain overly aggressive colleagues. But the state prosecutions are already serving this end. (The state prosecutions have been postponed until March 2022 to avoid prejudicial publicity; the federal prosecution may face the same problem.) Control of the police is still a state and local matter in the United States, and Minnesota is exercising due diligence. In this case, the prosecutions, along with investigations of entire departments for civil rights violations, may signal the Biden administration’s intent to increase federal control over state and local police.

At a time when many big cities are experiencing rising crime, demoralizing the police is bad policy that will make recruiting new officers more difficult. Why take up a career in which second-guessing your boss can get you fired for insubordination and failing to do so can land you in prison? The prudent person is apt to pick a safer line of work, while the more heedless will enter the next class at the police academy. Isn’t this the opposite of what we want?