Archive for the ‘ U.S. Legal Issues’ Category
by Sher Zieve
Something very odd is occurring with the alleged Duke Lacrosse team rape/sexual offense/kidnapping ad nauseam case. I’m not referring to North Carolina Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong’s lack of any substantive evidence against the three young men he has charged with these heinous deeds. Although the case against the Duke University students was originally begun in March 2006, I’m not even referring to Nifong’s not having the palpable good sense to actually interview the accuser—until December. And then, it was one of the prosecutor’s investigators who interviewed the accuser—exotic dancer Crystal Gail Mangum; not Nifong. What I am referring to is how this prosecutor has used his office and this case to secure and keep his job.
The office of Durham County’s district attorney is an elected one. In November, Nifong was running for election to his first full term as Durham’s D.A. Nifong also represents a large and influential African-American community. Crystal Gail Mangum is black and the accused Duke Lacrosse team players are white. Even after it was revealed that Nifong no longer had a chance of proving the rape case against the young men, due to the accuser’s statement that she "could no longer testify with certainty that it [rape] occurred" and Nifong’s conscious withholding of exculpatory DNA evidence, Nifong’s African-American constituents have urged the district attorney to proceed with a trial. Despite the lack of any DNA evidence linking the Duke Lacrosse team players to any crime, let alone rape or sexual offense, President of North Carolina’s NAACP Rev. William J. Barber II insists that Nifong try the case in court. Barber commented: "Don’t let it be decided by hearsay. Don’t let it be decided by community speculation. Take it to the courts!" So—ever concerned about his increasingly tenuous position within the community—Nifong is now pursuing a case of ‘sexual offense and kidnapping’ against the Duke students. By the way, DNA evidence is not considered to be "hearsay".
by Jim Kouri, CPP
Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, proclaimed himself neutral — "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel," he said — there appears to be problems of Hezbollah activities within his and fellow traveler Rep. John Conyer's own backyard.
A Dearborn Heights MI, man pleaded guilty on recently to charges of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and using illegally obtained funds to help finance the terrorist group Hezbollah.
Youssef Aoun Bakri, 36, pleaded guilty in federal court as he stood before US District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. The original indictment charged Bakri and other defendants with operating a criminal enterprise to traffic in contraband cigarettes and counterfeit goods, producing counterfeit cigarette tax stamps, and laundering money.
Most troubling was the fact that part of the profits made from the illegal enterprise were given to Hezbollah, a designated foreign terrorist organization (DFTO), according to the indictment.
by Erik Rush
"I'll go so far as to say that someone who is not keeping an eye on a group of six imams chanting in an airport waiting area and then spreading out on a plane and behaving in a disruptive manner, well that person is swimming so far upstream against the basic human wiring of common sense and survival instincts that if one could just capture the contrary energy, the synaptic maelstrom going on inside their feverish, brainwashed, nonjudgmental little skull you could power the massive turbines of the very 757 you're flying on."
(Comedian, actor and social commentator Dennis Miller, on Fox News.)
It just keeps getting worser and worser…
I included the Dennis Miller quote simply because I think it's brilliant. The ungrammatical statement I made that follows reflects the percentage of Americans who I believe wouldn't have been keeping an eye on a group of six imams acting suspiciously on an aircraft. Whether the men were making a dry run (as did the 9/11 hijackers), looking to cash in on a civil suit, seeking to stir up the ire of the politically-correct, or simply being troublesome for hate's sake, the reaction of the passengers who did take notice and the subsequent actions of the crew and the airline were most assuredly called-for.
But no. We have now the idiots who would have ignored the imams supporting the contention that they were being persecuted, profiled, singled out. The passengers on that plane should have taken no more notice of them than a group of flight attendants. That there is serious debate (let alone probable litigation) taking place as to the propriety of US Airways' actions in Minnesota is manifestly insane.
by Jim Kouri, CPP
It didn't take long before the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers started making noises on how they can further undermine efforts to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.
Speaker-elect Pelosi (D-CA) is co-sponsoring the "End Racial Profiling Act", according to syndicated columnist Sher Zieve. The proposed bill is said to have been prompted by the recent removal of six Muslim imams, who are reported to have acted in a decidedly provocative manner, from a US Airways’ flight. The problem with using this act to curb so-called profiling is that the persons who demanded the removal of the suspicious Muslims do not work for the US government.
Pelosi and Conyers are calling for the end of all racial profiling, additional severe limits placed on the Patriot Act and the implementation of broad-based US citizenship for illegal aliens.
Pelosi said, "Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal conduct. Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal."
“The Right to engage in quiet and reflective prayer is an essential component of freedom of religion”
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law, announced today that it has submitted an amicus curiae brief with the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in support of Missouri’s “funeral protection law,” which bans picketing and protests “in front of or about” any location where a funeral is being held (Shirley L. Phelps-Roper v. Jeremiah W. Nixon, et al., No. 06-cv-4156-FJG). The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law on behalf of radical protesters who have been disrupting military funerals by picketing and conducting other protest activities.
“…The right to engage in quiet and reflective prayer without being subjected to unwarranted intrusion is an essential component of freedom of religion,” Judicial Watch wrote in its brief, submitted on November 17, 2006. “Because a funeral is not an appropriate place for wide-open and robust speech, Missouri’s narrowly tailored funeral protection law constitutes a reasonable time, place and manner restriction that falls well within the First Amendment. The statute should, respectfully, be upheld.”
Missouri lawmakers were spurred into action after protesters began picketing outside the August 2005 military funeral of Army Spec. Edward L. Myers in St. Joseph, Missouri. The law reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in picketing or other protest activities in front of or about any church, cemetery, or funeral establishment … within one hour prior to the commencement of any funeral, and until one hour following cessation of any funeral…”
Read the rest of this entry »
Department of Justice Delivers $25,000 in Attorney Fees and Court Costs
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has received a $25,000 award of attorney’s fees and costs from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in final settlement of Judicial Watch’s “Pardongate” lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Judicial Watch received the award on November 21, 2006 to compensate the nonprofit educational organization for its attorney time and expense in challenging DOJ’s improper withholding of records regarding former President Clinton’s controversial, last-minute pardons.
In the last days of his presidency, former President Clinton granted 140 pardons and commuted 36 sentences. The pardons were for individuals who had paid large fees to Clinton associates. Denise Rich donated more than $1 million to Democratic Party causes and the Clinton Library before her former husband, Marc Rich, received a presidential pardon. Hugh Rodham, brother of Hillary Rodham Clinton, accepted $400,000 after successfully lobbying his brother-in-law for clemency for two felons. (Anthony Rodham, Hillary’s other brother, has also been accused of illicitly brokering another pardon deal. Judicial Watch recently filed a formal complaint with the Justice Department in the matter.)
Judicial Watch served a FOIA request on DOJ in January 2001 seeking records regarding the controversial pardons. After DOJ refused to release the records, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered judgment in DOJ’s favor, finding that many records from the Office of the Pardon Attorney were subject to executive privilege. Judicial Watch successfully appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of the District of Columbia Circuit, which ruled in May 2004 that DOJ’s withholding of the Pardon Attorney’s records based on a claim of executive privilege “would be both contrary to executive privilege precedent and considerably undermine the purposes of FOIA to foster openness and accountability in government.”
The appellate court added that extending executive privilege in the manner advanced by DOJ “would have far-reaching implications for the entire executive branch that would seriously impede the operation and scope and of FOIA.” As a result of the appellate court’s ruling, over one thousand pages of responsive records were produced to Judicial Watch, although some records were redacted heavily.
In August 2006, Judicial Watch filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in the lower court, arguing that it has substantially prevailed in the litigation and that DOJ’s improper withholding of records forced Judicial Watch to litigate the matter for more than five years. In September 2006, DOJ agreed to pay $25,000 to Judicial Watch to settle the matter.
“The outcome of this Clinton pardons FOIA case is a victory for transparency in government and a blow against corruption and the appearance of corruption,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The settlement recognizes the efforts of Judicial Watch’s tenacious lawyers in this long-fought legal battle.”
Click here to review Judicial Watch’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.
Click here to learn more about the JW Pardongate Lawsuit
by Jim Kouri, CPP
"When I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to my soldiers and Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing," said General John Abizaid, the head of US Army's Central Command or CENTCOM.
Abizaid was responding to military expert Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose military experience consists of being married to a draft-dodger, and posing for photos with soldiers ordered to do so.
The junior senator from New York said, "Hope is not a strategy. Hortatory talk about what the Iraqi government must do is getting old….. The brutal fact is it is not happening."
While the decorated general attempted to educate the Senate Armed Services Committee about the current situation in Iraq, Sen. Clinton and some others were more interested in creating soundbites for the evening news broadcasts and the newspapers.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi Police Service continues to graduate more and more police officers from advanced and specialty courses at the Adnan Training Facility as part of the Iraqi government’s ongoing effort to train its security forces, according to a report submitted to the National Association of Chiefs of Police by the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team officials in Iraq.
Several members of NACOP are currently in Iraq assisting with the training of police officers in basic and advanced courses.
These advanced courses consist of Basic Criminal Investigation, Interview and Interrogations, Violent Crime Investigation, Criminal Intelligence, First-Line Supervision, and Election Security.
The Basic Criminal Investigation course, designed to introduce participants to basic concepts of criminal investigation, covers topics such as theft, burglary, arson, robbery, sexual offenses, and homicide investigation. Students receive classroom instruction and hands-on training in fingerprinting, photography, tool marks and plaster casting techniques. To date, over 4,000 police officers have completed the Basic Criminal Investigations course.
Rodham Allegedly Received Fraudulent Loan as Payment for Securing Pardon
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal request with the U.S. Department of Justice, calling for a criminal investigation into the reported activities of Hillary Clinton and her brother, Anthony D. Rodham, former President Clinton, and Vonna Jo Gregory, former owner of the carnival company United Shows International. Recently released court documents provided new details concerning a scheme involving Anthony Rodham, who allegedly received $107,000 in fraudulent loans from United Shows International as compensation for securing a presidential pardon for Gregory in 2000 from then-President Clinton. The October 6, 2006 letter also seeks an investigation into President and Senator Clinton over any involvement they had in the alleged scheme.
“There is now sufficient reason…for the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation into Mr. Rodham’s unlawful pardon brokerage activities,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton wrote in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher. “It is…apparent that the reason for the payment of ‘loans’ to Mr. Rodham by United Shows and Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory was a quid pro quo to influence President Clinton to issue the pardons.”
In March 2000, former President Clinton pardoned Vonna Jo Gregory, and her husband, Edgar Gregory, Jr., for a 1982 band fraud conviction. After the pardon was issued, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother, Anthony Rodham, received $107,000 in “loans” from the Gregory’s carnival company, United Shows International. The company ultimately filed for bankruptcy and Rodham never paid back the loans. Michael Collins, a court-appointed trustee handling the company’s finances, is seeking repayment. In June 2006, Collins won a default judgment in bankruptcy court against Rodham. In July, Anthony Rodham was barred from accessing the $142,000 he had in his bank account. The Justice Department previously initiated a failed investigation of the Clinton pardons, but these new court documents, Judicial Watch argues, warrant renewed investigation.
Congress wants to know why two border agents doing their job, stopping an illegal Mexican who was transporting 743 pounds of marijuana. Both agents are facing up to 20 years for shooting and wounding the illegal smuggler. Congress wants an investigation and the President to pardon these two agents who were doing their job.
U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton sought out the wounded smuggler in Mexico in order to pursue charges against the border agents. Sutton has a history of pursuing cases against law enforcement officers.
CNS News reports:
"These were good agents doing their job," said Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.). "There is something that stinks to high heaven."
On Feb. 17, 2005, U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were on duty when they encountered Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana. When the agents tried to stop Aldrete-Davila, he fled. Unable to shake the pursuing agents, he abandoned his van and continued running toward Mexico.
The agents' version of what happened next contradicts Aldrete-Davila's testimony. The one thing all agree on is that, while fleeing on foot, the illegal alien and drug smuggler was shot. Aldrete-Davila was treated at a hospital in El Paso and then returned to Mexico.
After learning of the shooting, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton sought out Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and offered him immunity from prosecution if he would return to the United States to testify against Ramos and Compean.
The initial immunity offer covered Aldrete-Davila's illegal entry into the U.S., the drug smuggling and his unlawful flight from the agents to avoid arrest. Sutton expanded the immunity to include a subsequent drug offense, when Aldrete-Davila tried to smuggle another 1,000 pounds of marijuana into the United States.
"The Justice Department says they don't have the resources to secure our borders, but somehow they found the resources to send agents to Mexico to find Aldrete-Davila and prosecute these agents," Tancredo said.
Rep. Red Poe (R-Texas) said the Justice Department is "on the wrong side" of this case.
Is the justice department working for the government of Mexico?
In a report in World Net Daily:
A plan that would cut off the pipeline of taxpayer money that now flows into American Civil Liberties Union coffers has been advanced by the House Judiciary Committee.
The Public Expression of Religion Act, introduced by Indiana Congressman John Hostettler, now will move to the full House for a vote, he said in his announcement this week.
In an earlier post, ACLU Accused of Profiting at Taxpayer Expense:
The veterans organization, the American Legion, is behind the push to stop taxpayers money going to the ACLU. Many of the ACLU's legal agenda includes fighting against monuments and other public displays that display any religious symbol.
This outcry against the ACLU was because of there attempt to remove the veteran's monuments, Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in California and a cross on a rock outcrop erected by veterans as a memorial to World War I veterans in 1934 in the remote Mojave Desert.
Officials noted someone would have to drive 11 miles off the highway "to be offended" by the cross in the Mojave Desert.
There had been no complaints against the memorial in 60 years, until the ACLU sued to have it removed, and then asked for and got $63,000 in "extortion" fees.
"The American Legion," said former American Legion National Commander Tom Bock, "is in full support" of the plan. He said it would take away the authority of judges to award attorney fees to the ACLU in lawsuits under the Establishment Clause.
The law, approved in 1976, originally was to help individual citizens bring lawsuits against state officials who had deprived them of their constitutional rights. However, Hostettler believes it has been abused by groups like the ACLU, who claim any public official who expresses religious beliefs or displays a memorial with religious imagery, like the crosses at Arlington National Cemetery, is promoting the "establishment of religion."
For example, in 2001 Iowa county officials removed a Ten Commandments monument from a courthouse lawn rather than face the attorney's fees threatened. And in 2004, Los Angeles removed a tiny cross from the county seal when it was threatened with those fees. (Source: World Net Daily)
As in most cases presented by the ACLU, a threat to sue usually forces the plaintiff to pay fees (usually taxpayer's money), rather then go to trial and pay higher fees in a case that the ACLU would probably lose.