"During the debate on the NY Hate Crime bill, I was against the cause. It isn't that I do not think that there is something inherently wrong with a person who hurts another out of hate or prejudice, it is that : 1. I do not like to punish people for their thoughts, and 2. I know lawyers well enough to know that they cannot stand to see a statute NOT get abused.
As I predicted now comes my friend Tom Spota (DA of Suffolk County and I am not being sarcastic I've known Tom since his days as an assistant district attorney in the 70's and I really do like him even if I don't always agree with him)who seems hell bent on abusing the statute to get a greater sentence for a person who has no hate (as we define the term generally) for the person they have allegedly hurt.
Lisa Ferkovich aka the "Sweetheart Scammer" basically charms old men out of their pensions. If true, she is despicable. She evidently according to Spota picks old men b/c they are easier to scam. Hence because she targets a particular segment of society, she must be involved in hating that segment and is open to an enhanced sentence.
A close look at Article 485 of the NYS Penal Law shows that while Spota may be right about how he CAN use the law, it is far from how the law was meant to be used. The Hate Crime Statute begins with a legislative finding (I wish more laws did this) That finding is part of the law (as opposed to just a legislative history. In part it reads:
"The legislature finds and determines as follows: criminal acts
involving violence, intimidation and destruction of property based upon
bias and prejudice have become more prevalent in New York state in
recent years. The intolerable truth is that in these crimes, commonly
and justly referred to as "hate crimes", victims are intentionally
selected, in whole or in part, because of their race, color, national
origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability
or sexual orientation. Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and
welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical
and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes
motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm
individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and
discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs."
Reading the first sentence one gets the idea that the legislature was trying to limit the use of the statute to our understanding of hate. Prejudice and Bias. So far so good. The sentence that begins "Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups..." also fits the definition of a hate crime however in between, there is the line "...
victims are intentionally selected, in whole or in part, because of their race, color, national
origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation."
That segment if read as part of the entire document seems to be consistent with the idea that one must have an invidious hatred in targeting a group however that is not how Spota wants to use the law. He wants to say that the targeting in and of itself is enough to trigger the enhancement. In other words he perverts the statute by suggesting that the targeting vitiates the need to prove "actual hate". The sad thing is that some courts (mostly in Queens County) see it the same way. I humbly think that if this is how the law is going to be used, then the whole thing needs to be thrown out.
Hate crimes are hard enough to define now. Sure there are easy ones, the KKK attacks a black man and his family for instance. Pretty easy to follow. Less so in a bar fight where someone calls some one a cracker or a "N" word in the middle of the fight. Heat of the moment or invidious hatred toward another group?
Assuming that the "reason" someone commits and act is a valid use of a sentencing enhancement, shouldn't that reason be clear? Does someone hate another group because he or she uses inappropriate epitaphs in the heat of the moment?
In the case of Ms. Ferkovich, does she hate old people or old men just because her scam is in part to target them? I do not think so. I think she does target old men because she is not going to succeed in targeting younger men (Her picture is not flattering) and they may not find her compliments as flattering or they may see through her or who knows maybe they do not want to have her as a companion. I do not see this as a dislike of older men. I see this as part of the crime itself, but it is a targeting. How it differs from her targeting men in general is unclear.
Put a different way, does a prostitute commit a hate crime because she targets johns??
IF the article is correct and complete, there appears to be no hate. If Spota is right then there needn't be any. If the law's general use is to be based not on hate but on targeting then it is a stupid unnecessary law. Every crime has a target. If he wants tougher sentencing he ought to lobby the legislature to get it. Abusing the hate crime law is wrong. The problem is, if she is guilty it is hard to find any compassion for this woman. That doesn't mean we should pervert our laws in order to get her for more time.
Funny.., I think Spota is over 60 now...
Let me know how you feel about the Hate Crimes Statute and this use of it in the comments below.
Showing posts with label Sentencing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sentencing. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Friday, October 29, 2010
Are Some Lives Worth More Than Others?: Only Your Prosecutor Knows
Today, two people will be sentenced for killing innocent others. One person will have made a series of very bad decisions while intoxicated ending in her killing a young girl age 11. The other will have made a conscious decision to kill 11 people. The former will receive a sentence of 12 years in jail. The latter will be released after only doing 8 years while he awaited sentence. The former is a young mother of a pre-teen girl, the latter was a mob hitman. The former, the mom who killed an 11 year old by driving recklessly while intoxicated, spawned a law that makes it a felony to drive intoxicated with a child in the car. The latter Mob hit-man will reinforce the idea that you can kill at will as long as you are willing to give up others, even if you lie to do it.
The young mother is Carmen Huertas. She made a decision to get into a car with 6 children (one was her own) and drive them home from a slumber party after she had embibed enough alcohol to blow a .13 BAC. (Not that I think BAC's are the least bit accurate but given her other behaviors that night I would think there was enough other evidence of intoxication to prove she was guilty. You can read the story here and decide for yourself. She was sentenced to a indeterminate sentence of 4-12 years in jail. She could theoretically be eligible to get out on parole in three years and five months
but given just the fact that this was a DWI and the fact that it was the type of death that brings out everyone against the defendant, she will likely do the whole sentence before she is released less any "good-time" she may accrue (about 1.8 years off the top number or 10.4 years in prison so far.)
The mob hit man is Sal (Good Looking Sal) Vitale, former underboss of the Bonanno crime family. Sal was an early follower of another neighbor Joe (Big Joe) Massino, the boss of the Bonnano crime family. Both men grew up in my old neighborhood in NY. Sal was always noted for how good his hair looked. I should know, he used to go to get his hair cut in the same barbershop as I did. He was a big deal there among the Italian barbers. They all knew who he was. I blissfully did not. I did notice he seemed like any other guy who went there. Slightly pampered and otherwise kind of nice. He always went with friends.
About 10 years ago, Sal and his Brother-in-law childhood hero Joe Massino got indicted. Joe was pretty jealous of Sal's popularity among the other under bosses in "the family". He was afraid that Sal may be so much better liked than he, that he ordered someone kill him. The feds moved in to save Sal's life. Sal was infuriated and so he turned on Joe and everyone in the old life. He had enough information to identify over 500 men as either members of or affiliates to the five families of NY. He also had enough information to put 50 of these men behind bars for a long time, some even for life.
Sal Vitale was a cold blooded killer. He didn't have to be. He had smarts. He was a former corrections officer, and he owned a series of small businesses that would have made money for him with or without patronage from Joe Massino and company. Instead, he helped end the lives of at least 11 men and maybe more. He made it possible for others to kill without being punished. He ran loan-sharking and illegal gambling operations. He provided protection for drug dealers and houses of Prostitution. He also however danced to the Governments tune. He turned and he will be rewarded. Is he sorry he was a creep, a killer, a monster? Only he knows. He knew however he created that man. If he could, would he turn down the life he led? Would he walk away from the jaunts to Vegas and Atlantic City? Would he give up his house in Dix Hills for all those years. Would he not have had the fancy haircuts and manicures he got that earned him the nickname "Good looking Sal"? If he knew he would never get caught would he? Or would he have preserved that life even if it meant killing eleven more people. Eleven more fathers brothers sons?
Carmen Huertas, a 31 year old mother who would like to take back about 2 hours of her life. Whether she was found guilty or not, the taking of that child's life would have stayed with her forever. Her chance of ever getting behind the wheel of a car drunk again, would be less than zero.
Jail is supposed to be for punishment and corrections. I fail to see the sense in this today. Carmen Huertas should have been sentenced to 1-3 years and should have been ordered to a program to address her drinking issues. Sal Vitale should have been sentenced to at least a long long period in jail. He could have gotten Death had he not cooperated. His getting a free pass calls into question every detail to which he testified. His testimony was bought and paid for by the government. He knew if he danced to their tune he would walk away, a free man, new identity, new home, new business.
As she addressed the court she said ""I am not a monster," "I am a loving mother who made a terrible decision that caused the death of a wonderful child."
She is right, her behavior was monstrous, but she herself is not a monster she just in fact made a horrendous decision that will forever effect the world of Leandra's family and her own.
Does anyone wonder if Sal Vitale could make the same statement? Is it fair that the prosecution can make these decisions based on how much they were helped? Is it fair that Vitale's victims should get nothing in the way of satisfaction for the loss they suffered?
Huertas is in jail, mostly because of who her victim was, and what that victims family wanted. Vitale is free despite what his victims want and despite what fairness dictates. She is sorry. Given the chance she would not be likely to repeat her poor judgment. He, well you decide: is he sorry or sorry he got caught? Given the chance, would he have turned down all the things his life gave to him and his family or would he have killed again and again, knowing he would never get caught?
The lives of poor people and the lives of rich have different values in a court of law. The lives of people who die at the hands of those that can give the prosecution what it wants, and the lives of those killed by someone who has nothing but remorse to give, have different values. Neither of these are fair, they just are.
If you ever serve on a jury however, when one of these rich powerful guys testifies, and he says he is not getting anything for his testimony, remember, that is just not true. Never was, never will be. They are just monsters who the government is paying to be tell they government's story, whether it be true, or not. Whether they be monsters... or what?
Here is the NY Post's coverage of the sentencing hot off the presses.
The young mother is Carmen Huertas. She made a decision to get into a car with 6 children (one was her own) and drive them home from a slumber party after she had embibed enough alcohol to blow a .13 BAC. (Not that I think BAC's are the least bit accurate but given her other behaviors that night I would think there was enough other evidence of intoxication to prove she was guilty. You can read the story here and decide for yourself. She was sentenced to a indeterminate sentence of 4-12 years in jail. She could theoretically be eligible to get out on parole in three years and five months
but given just the fact that this was a DWI and the fact that it was the type of death that brings out everyone against the defendant, she will likely do the whole sentence before she is released less any "good-time" she may accrue (about 1.8 years off the top number or 10.4 years in prison so far.)
The mob hit man is Sal (Good Looking Sal) Vitale, former underboss of the Bonanno crime family. Sal was an early follower of another neighbor Joe (Big Joe) Massino, the boss of the Bonnano crime family. Both men grew up in my old neighborhood in NY. Sal was always noted for how good his hair looked. I should know, he used to go to get his hair cut in the same barbershop as I did. He was a big deal there among the Italian barbers. They all knew who he was. I blissfully did not. I did notice he seemed like any other guy who went there. Slightly pampered and otherwise kind of nice. He always went with friends.
About 10 years ago, Sal and his Brother-in-law childhood hero Joe Massino got indicted. Joe was pretty jealous of Sal's popularity among the other under bosses in "the family". He was afraid that Sal may be so much better liked than he, that he ordered someone kill him. The feds moved in to save Sal's life. Sal was infuriated and so he turned on Joe and everyone in the old life. He had enough information to identify over 500 men as either members of or affiliates to the five families of NY. He also had enough information to put 50 of these men behind bars for a long time, some even for life.
Sal Vitale was a cold blooded killer. He didn't have to be. He had smarts. He was a former corrections officer, and he owned a series of small businesses that would have made money for him with or without patronage from Joe Massino and company. Instead, he helped end the lives of at least 11 men and maybe more. He made it possible for others to kill without being punished. He ran loan-sharking and illegal gambling operations. He provided protection for drug dealers and houses of Prostitution. He also however danced to the Governments tune. He turned and he will be rewarded. Is he sorry he was a creep, a killer, a monster? Only he knows. He knew however he created that man. If he could, would he turn down the life he led? Would he walk away from the jaunts to Vegas and Atlantic City? Would he give up his house in Dix Hills for all those years. Would he not have had the fancy haircuts and manicures he got that earned him the nickname "Good looking Sal"? If he knew he would never get caught would he? Or would he have preserved that life even if it meant killing eleven more people. Eleven more fathers brothers sons?
Carmen Huertas, a 31 year old mother who would like to take back about 2 hours of her life. Whether she was found guilty or not, the taking of that child's life would have stayed with her forever. Her chance of ever getting behind the wheel of a car drunk again, would be less than zero.
Jail is supposed to be for punishment and corrections. I fail to see the sense in this today. Carmen Huertas should have been sentenced to 1-3 years and should have been ordered to a program to address her drinking issues. Sal Vitale should have been sentenced to at least a long long period in jail. He could have gotten Death had he not cooperated. His getting a free pass calls into question every detail to which he testified. His testimony was bought and paid for by the government. He knew if he danced to their tune he would walk away, a free man, new identity, new home, new business.
As she addressed the court she said ""I am not a monster," "I am a loving mother who made a terrible decision that caused the death of a wonderful child."
She is right, her behavior was monstrous, but she herself is not a monster she just in fact made a horrendous decision that will forever effect the world of Leandra's family and her own.
Does anyone wonder if Sal Vitale could make the same statement? Is it fair that the prosecution can make these decisions based on how much they were helped? Is it fair that Vitale's victims should get nothing in the way of satisfaction for the loss they suffered?
Huertas is in jail, mostly because of who her victim was, and what that victims family wanted. Vitale is free despite what his victims want and despite what fairness dictates. She is sorry. Given the chance she would not be likely to repeat her poor judgment. He, well you decide: is he sorry or sorry he got caught? Given the chance, would he have turned down all the things his life gave to him and his family or would he have killed again and again, knowing he would never get caught?
The lives of poor people and the lives of rich have different values in a court of law. The lives of people who die at the hands of those that can give the prosecution what it wants, and the lives of those killed by someone who has nothing but remorse to give, have different values. Neither of these are fair, they just are.
If you ever serve on a jury however, when one of these rich powerful guys testifies, and he says he is not getting anything for his testimony, remember, that is just not true. Never was, never will be. They are just monsters who the government is paying to be tell they government's story, whether it be true, or not. Whether they be monsters... or what?
Here is the NY Post's coverage of the sentencing hot off the presses.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Should Lindsey Lohan Go To Jail? Why This Celebrity Means Something To You.
There is a debate raging over at my favorite blog the ABA News today over what should happen to "poor little Lindsey Lohan". For the uninitiated, She has been in two drug related DWI's she has completely destroyed her probations and she has been sentenced to 90 days in jail and rehab. She then fired her attorney (yes it must be their fault that you are a F.U. and need to be ib jail the way fish need to be in water)and demands that she get a "pro bono" lawyer. Her rep said she had already paid for two lawyers and now the government should pay.
She is pathetic but aside from that, should Lindsey go to jail and for how long. You may be wondering why I care. I suggest to you that we should all care. Not only about Lohan, but Gibson, and Spears and a number of other A-list stars who while the tabloids make them fodder, corrupt our corrections and criminal justice systems.
Hat tip: ABA New Now
Look, in our system, “punishment is not meant to fit the crime” it is meant to fit the criminal. Despite the BS from “victim advocates” Corrections is about correcting. It costs us way too much money to incarcerate people who do bad things but whom we can handle in other ways.
I get really frustrated every time I hear a crime victim cry out for jail time. You want jail time, you pay for it. I only want jail when it is needed to get the person back into life and being a productive tax paying entity. I don't like crime and I feel bad for victims but not at the expense of my family and yours. Restitution and knowing that the perpetrator is being addressed so as to reduce the chance someone else will suffer, is all that a criminal justice system owes to the victim. If they want more, they can avail themselves of the civil Justice system. The Criminal Justice system owes me and you however a corrected and useful member of society. A person who can carry their own weight without again becoming part of the system again. It owes us some semblance of safety as well. Lohan is not a mass murderer, though she has been lucky not to take a life. If we incarcerate her without getting her help, she just comes out an older addict just as likely to re-offend and kill or maim someone. Hence Jail for Jail’s sake is a waste of my tax money and everyone's time. I abhor such waste especially by government.
Lohan is not just a person, she is a product. Just like Mel Gibson and Britney. Because of them, many people have jobs. Many more will have jobs and those people pay taxes and help an economy that we all rely on. Staff, record company employees, ticket takers and pop corn salesmen, people who clean up stadiums and offices, parking attendants, all have jobs because of people like these. So do the folks who feed these other people (like the lawyers who serve those people) (not the stars but the help staffs and others)need them working. Who gets really screwed in a baseball strike? The vendors and the fans. The superstars come out just fine. It is very much a butterfly effect. We need to remember this
I suggest more jail is needed for Lohan, not because I want to see her in jail, but because she is an addict and has an addict’s view of the world that needs to be addressed before she can begin to become productive. Until she is brought to bottom, she will not be receptive to the help available to her. She still see’s it as being all about poor little Lindsey. When it becomes about “look what I am doing to all those that depend on me, all those who believe in me, my fans family (as it is constituted) etc, that is when she will begin to be ready to get the help she needs.
She is pathetic but aside from that, should Lindsey go to jail and for how long. You may be wondering why I care. I suggest to you that we should all care. Not only about Lohan, but Gibson, and Spears and a number of other A-list stars who while the tabloids make them fodder, corrupt our corrections and criminal justice systems.
Hat tip: ABA New Now
Look, in our system, “punishment is not meant to fit the crime” it is meant to fit the criminal. Despite the BS from “victim advocates” Corrections is about correcting. It costs us way too much money to incarcerate people who do bad things but whom we can handle in other ways.
I get really frustrated every time I hear a crime victim cry out for jail time. You want jail time, you pay for it. I only want jail when it is needed to get the person back into life and being a productive tax paying entity. I don't like crime and I feel bad for victims but not at the expense of my family and yours. Restitution and knowing that the perpetrator is being addressed so as to reduce the chance someone else will suffer, is all that a criminal justice system owes to the victim. If they want more, they can avail themselves of the civil Justice system. The Criminal Justice system owes me and you however a corrected and useful member of society. A person who can carry their own weight without again becoming part of the system again. It owes us some semblance of safety as well. Lohan is not a mass murderer, though she has been lucky not to take a life. If we incarcerate her without getting her help, she just comes out an older addict just as likely to re-offend and kill or maim someone. Hence Jail for Jail’s sake is a waste of my tax money and everyone's time. I abhor such waste especially by government.
Lohan is not just a person, she is a product. Just like Mel Gibson and Britney. Because of them, many people have jobs. Many more will have jobs and those people pay taxes and help an economy that we all rely on. Staff, record company employees, ticket takers and pop corn salesmen, people who clean up stadiums and offices, parking attendants, all have jobs because of people like these. So do the folks who feed these other people (like the lawyers who serve those people) (not the stars but the help staffs and others)need them working. Who gets really screwed in a baseball strike? The vendors and the fans. The superstars come out just fine. It is very much a butterfly effect. We need to remember this
I suggest more jail is needed for Lohan, not because I want to see her in jail, but because she is an addict and has an addict’s view of the world that needs to be addressed before she can begin to become productive. Until she is brought to bottom, she will not be receptive to the help available to her. She still see’s it as being all about poor little Lindsey. When it becomes about “look what I am doing to all those that depend on me, all those who believe in me, my fans family (as it is constituted) etc, that is when she will begin to be ready to get the help she needs.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Madoff's Fools Get Vengeance at Taxpayer's Expense...Why the Madoff Sentence is Unfair to the Rest of US
Denny Chin an otherwise pretty good judge really screwed the rest of the people that Wall Street cheat Bernie Madoff didn't screw over. By sentencing Madoff to 150 years, Madoff now spends the rest of his life living off the public. We take care of his room and board not to mention his health till he eventually meets the true God of Justice. How is this fair???
Look. Madoff was one of the worst (or best I guess) swindlers in history. However, the people he swindled, wanted to be swindled. They did nothing to investigate his "success" they only wanted his big gains.
The more he delivered, the more they delivered. While the market was tanking, Bernie was paying off. Didn't they wonder how? Did they really believe he was infallible?? Why should their bad investment now cost the rest of us over 50K a year?
Look I am not advocating for a soft sentence for Madoff, but it costs thousands more to imprison an older person than a young one. Health care being what it is, he will be treated better than 15% of Americans, on our dime!! Couldn't a message have been just as well sent to senior citizens who commit crimes that we will take back all your money and stick you in jail for your last few decent years and then throw you back on your family when you are about to rot over?
Why do I and most of my friends and colleagues have to worry about taking care of our elderly parents when his kids besot with illegally gained funds since their early years get to know they won't have to part with a freaking penny to take care of the old cheat who helped them get their money??
Lest you think I am alone in this thought, none other than Professor Steven Bainbridge appears to agrees.
Sorry Judge, you made a bad error. First, no one is deterred from crime by jail, criminals do not think they are ever going to get caught. (By the by, most investors who get into scams also do not believe that their scam is a scam and that they will be ripped off...)
Second, you sentenced the rest of the taxpaying part of America all because a bunch of supposedly savvy investors weren't so savvy and made a bad deal. Maybe all these so called investors who now feel that they are somewhat vindicated ought to pay for his stay in the Federal prison. After all, if putting him in jail for the rest of his life is supposed to vindicate them, they ought to pay for it.
I have been cheated, more than once. Mostly by people who promise to pay bills and then don't or can't. The government doesn't bail me out nor does it go around and claw back money for my fees. No one puts those that cheat me in jail for the theft of service. Why do Madoff's fools get some money back and get their vengeance on the taxpayer's expense?
Image Hattip: Mario Piperni dot Com
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Seems We White Collar Criminal Defense Attorneys Are a Hot Date Commodity. Why? Cause we are IN DEMAND. Who Knew? You Should!!
I found this little tidbit about finding wealthy guys for "gold digging" girls. It says that if you want to find wealthy guys hang out with lawyers...But not just any lawyers. No only Bankruptcy and White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyers. I just told my wife I am a hot commodity... she seems somewhat shall we say nonplussed...
Whether of not you are a "golddigger" White collar criminal defense lawyers are a good group with which to hang out. They are bright tough, and if you get one that is not afraid to try a case, interesting. The best of us know that the most important thing we can do is keep our clients out of the paper and unindicted. Hence the time to find a White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer here on Long Island or in New York City, is as soon as you realize you could be (not may be or are) in trouble. Often you will be surprised to learn how few Nassau and Suffolk County Criminal Defense Lawyers are really White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyers. You need a Criminal Lawyer who is just as comfortable in State as in Federal court and you need one who knows how to conduct a money investigation as well as handle the criminal courtroom and the public.
I have taken on Ponzi scheme cases, as well as stock frauds. wire and mail frauds, and of course their by-product money laundering cases. I know that handling the press and getting a good face on the client in the court of public opinion is very important. Hence we work with our own Public Relation staff, media people and social workers to present our client well in the media and to the court. Judicious use of jury selection experts and a team approach to investigation and trial is another key aspect of what I think makes my firm different from most other Long Island (and even many New York City) White Collar Criminal Defense firms.
An additional worry for many White Collar Defendants is that even if they survive the criminal prosecution, they face lower standards for losing their licenses. Lawyers, Brokers, CPA's and even Notaries need to look for lawyers who have handled not only criminal cases, not only White Collar Criminal cases but also lawyers who have appeared before Grievance committees, NASD and SEC boards and the state education department. They need to find attorneys who have helped others hold onto the licenses after those individuals have been accused or even investigated for crimes.
Now a sentencing expert is not going to help Bernie Madoff too much. But when a White Collar Criminal Defendant is looking for a criminal defense team, especially in the federal Second Circuit (which encompasses New York Brooklyn Queens Nassau and Suffolk Counties), they should also be concerned with how much that trial lawyer knows about the Federal and State Sentencing guidelines. Working the guidelines and understanding the cases (such as Booker and FanFan and their progeny) is a key to avoiding lengthy prison sentences.
In all, I really enjoy working on White Collar Criminal Defense cases in New York and on Long Island. They provide a tremendous legal challenge and a personal challenge too. They require I reinforce to the jury that the clients are not bad people and that they are the same as those before whom they are called. They are just men and women who were trying to make an honest buck when a roof caved in.
It is also important to keep before the jury, that it is not the job of the white collar defendant to stop people from making mistakes with their money, it is their job to offer legitimate opportunities, explain the risks accurately and then let the chips fall where they may.
If you or someone you love is charged with a White Collar Crime whether in New York City or in Nassau or Suffolk counties, I would love to consult with you, or them, about it to see if we may help.
You can call us at 516-741-3400 24/7or reach out to us on this blog.
Whether of not you are a "golddigger" White collar criminal defense lawyers are a good group with which to hang out. They are bright tough, and if you get one that is not afraid to try a case, interesting. The best of us know that the most important thing we can do is keep our clients out of the paper and unindicted. Hence the time to find a White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer here on Long Island or in New York City, is as soon as you realize you could be (not may be or are) in trouble. Often you will be surprised to learn how few Nassau and Suffolk County Criminal Defense Lawyers are really White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyers. You need a Criminal Lawyer who is just as comfortable in State as in Federal court and you need one who knows how to conduct a money investigation as well as handle the criminal courtroom and the public.
I have taken on Ponzi scheme cases, as well as stock frauds. wire and mail frauds, and of course their by-product money laundering cases. I know that handling the press and getting a good face on the client in the court of public opinion is very important. Hence we work with our own Public Relation staff, media people and social workers to present our client well in the media and to the court. Judicious use of jury selection experts and a team approach to investigation and trial is another key aspect of what I think makes my firm different from most other Long Island (and even many New York City) White Collar Criminal Defense firms.
An additional worry for many White Collar Defendants is that even if they survive the criminal prosecution, they face lower standards for losing their licenses. Lawyers, Brokers, CPA's and even Notaries need to look for lawyers who have handled not only criminal cases, not only White Collar Criminal cases but also lawyers who have appeared before Grievance committees, NASD and SEC boards and the state education department. They need to find attorneys who have helped others hold onto the licenses after those individuals have been accused or even investigated for crimes.
Now a sentencing expert is not going to help Bernie Madoff too much. But when a White Collar Criminal Defendant is looking for a criminal defense team, especially in the federal Second Circuit (which encompasses New York Brooklyn Queens Nassau and Suffolk Counties), they should also be concerned with how much that trial lawyer knows about the Federal and State Sentencing guidelines. Working the guidelines and understanding the cases (such as Booker and FanFan and their progeny) is a key to avoiding lengthy prison sentences.
In all, I really enjoy working on White Collar Criminal Defense cases in New York and on Long Island. They provide a tremendous legal challenge and a personal challenge too. They require I reinforce to the jury that the clients are not bad people and that they are the same as those before whom they are called. They are just men and women who were trying to make an honest buck when a roof caved in.
It is also important to keep before the jury, that it is not the job of the white collar defendant to stop people from making mistakes with their money, it is their job to offer legitimate opportunities, explain the risks accurately and then let the chips fall where they may.
If you or someone you love is charged with a White Collar Crime whether in New York City or in Nassau or Suffolk counties, I would love to consult with you, or them, about it to see if we may help.
You can call us at 516-741-3400 24/7or reach out to us on this blog.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Man Bites Dog: Victim Seeks Dismissal of Statutory Rape Charges Against Director Roman Polanski. Should It Matter?
The alleged victim in the Roman Polanski Statutory Rape case, joins with Polanski in seeking dismissal of the charges against him. Filing a separate affidavit, the victim accuses the former Judge and Prosecutor in her case of failures and misdeeds. She also claims that the prosecutors in the case now are seeking to cover up those misdeeds and that their failures are causing her unnecessary grief and embarrassment.
Ms. Geimer now 45 years old and a mother herself wants the case dismissed. Though not denying the facts behind the allegations, she feels that too much time has passed and that she has moved on in her life. She asserts that Prosecutors, who earlier this month used Grand Jury excerpts that gave vivid detail to the media about the accusations leveled at the Oscar winning director, are trudging the whole thing up to protect their office's good name at her expense.
Polanski was allegedly at the home of actor Jack Nicholson when he attacked the girl who was there alone to meet the famed director. Polanski lost his wife Sharon Tate a young actress and their yet to be born child in the Manson Murder spree.
Geimer's petition is an interesting one. Under her theory, as a victim she should have a say as to how the prosecution is handled and what should happen to the outcome of the case. This is essentially giving her veto power over the prosecutors office.
Nonetheless, Prosecutors and victim's rights advocates have been leading the charge to give victims more say in sentencing and other matters that, in the not so distant past have been the sole discretion of judges and lawyers. This would be fair turnaround. Often victims of crimes want to drop charges but are told that since they are not the prosecutor they have no say in what or how a case is handled. In cases where there are mandatory minimums, such as in many statutory rape situations, the victim's will is defeated.
If that were to happen in cases where a judge refused to go along with the victim, prosecutors rally to the victim's side and decry the jurist and often blame defense counsel as well. It feels like fair game to burn the prosecution at its own game. In fact, in Polanski's case it is even more than fair as the prosecutor went so far as to have ex-parte conversations with the court and it seems made a fair sentence for Polansky impossible. Griemer has a case it seems where the malfeasense of Prosecutors and the court now causes her more pain and suffering after the fact.
I suppose that I should look at this as a positive effect of Victim's rights. I don't. I see it as a furthering weakening of the criminal justice system and a further step away from what we should be properly doing, that is, establishing guilt and if there is guilt finding an appropriate sentence that will deter further misbehavior by the accused and return that person to society as soon as correction and rehabilitation has been established. It has nothing to do with victims. It isn't about their feelings or lack thereof. It isn't about vengence or hearing the victim's voice.
I am not against those things in the proper forum (ie a parole hearing or civil proceeding) I am against it when it comes to the job or the elected official and when it gets in the way of the goals of the system.
Whether Polansky should be allowed to attack his conviction while remaining in France is not my issue. Whether his conviction or plea should be allowed to be withdrawn is not my care now. Whether that decision should be left up to his victim, anymore than his sentence should be is the issue. I do not feel that it she has any say in this matter. It is for the District Attorney to decide how to enforce the laws of his state. I just think that it also has to be a two way street. If a victim cannot help an accused by being heard on her decision to prosecute, neither should she be able to assert her will on other issues in the criminal prosecurtion of the case in which she is not a party, but is a witness.
What are your thoughts on the role of victims in the Criminal Justice System? Let me know in the comments or by send them to me via Twitter
Ms. Geimer now 45 years old and a mother herself wants the case dismissed. Though not denying the facts behind the allegations, she feels that too much time has passed and that she has moved on in her life. She asserts that Prosecutors, who earlier this month used Grand Jury excerpts that gave vivid detail to the media about the accusations leveled at the Oscar winning director, are trudging the whole thing up to protect their office's good name at her expense.
Polanski was allegedly at the home of actor Jack Nicholson when he attacked the girl who was there alone to meet the famed director. Polanski lost his wife Sharon Tate a young actress and their yet to be born child in the Manson Murder spree.
Geimer's petition is an interesting one. Under her theory, as a victim she should have a say as to how the prosecution is handled and what should happen to the outcome of the case. This is essentially giving her veto power over the prosecutors office.
Nonetheless, Prosecutors and victim's rights advocates have been leading the charge to give victims more say in sentencing and other matters that, in the not so distant past have been the sole discretion of judges and lawyers. This would be fair turnaround. Often victims of crimes want to drop charges but are told that since they are not the prosecutor they have no say in what or how a case is handled. In cases where there are mandatory minimums, such as in many statutory rape situations, the victim's will is defeated.
If that were to happen in cases where a judge refused to go along with the victim, prosecutors rally to the victim's side and decry the jurist and often blame defense counsel as well. It feels like fair game to burn the prosecution at its own game. In fact, in Polanski's case it is even more than fair as the prosecutor went so far as to have ex-parte conversations with the court and it seems made a fair sentence for Polansky impossible. Griemer has a case it seems where the malfeasense of Prosecutors and the court now causes her more pain and suffering after the fact.
I suppose that I should look at this as a positive effect of Victim's rights. I don't. I see it as a furthering weakening of the criminal justice system and a further step away from what we should be properly doing, that is, establishing guilt and if there is guilt finding an appropriate sentence that will deter further misbehavior by the accused and return that person to society as soon as correction and rehabilitation has been established. It has nothing to do with victims. It isn't about their feelings or lack thereof. It isn't about vengence or hearing the victim's voice.
I am not against those things in the proper forum (ie a parole hearing or civil proceeding) I am against it when it comes to the job or the elected official and when it gets in the way of the goals of the system.
Whether Polansky should be allowed to attack his conviction while remaining in France is not my issue. Whether his conviction or plea should be allowed to be withdrawn is not my care now. Whether that decision should be left up to his victim, anymore than his sentence should be is the issue. I do not feel that it she has any say in this matter. It is for the District Attorney to decide how to enforce the laws of his state. I just think that it also has to be a two way street. If a victim cannot help an accused by being heard on her decision to prosecute, neither should she be able to assert her will on other issues in the criminal prosecurtion of the case in which she is not a party, but is a witness.
What are your thoughts on the role of victims in the Criminal Justice System? Let me know in the comments or by send them to me via Twitter
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Tony(c) Award for Best Criminal Law Blog for 2008 and an Honor: Professor Doug Berman Sentencing Law and Policy Blog
Thinking of words and phrases to describe out Tony(c) award winning Best Criminal Law Blog is easy: Informative, cutting edge, authoritative, well written, incisive, thought-provoking. The one I like the most is consistant.
The 2008 Tony(c)Award for Best Criminal Law Blog is Professor Doug Berman's Sentencing Law and Policy Blog. The reason for the award? This blog is consistantly the best place to go to begin to research the latest issues in Federal sentencing. Professor Berman is not only a blogger extrodinaire but his blog is cited to on a regular basis by courts and in briefs at the highest (read SCOTUS) levels of advocacy.
Doug is also a real giver. In addition to writing a blog that is a readers delight he also often authors briefs and amicus briefs on behalf of positions he believes in dealing with Sentencing law. Doug is generous with his time and is a frequent lecturer on all thing USSG and USSC. His insights have helped me over and over again in getting fair sentences for my clients. If a young practioner (or an old one for that matter) wants to learn the ins and outs of the USSG, get a copy of the USSG and then start reading the archives of Sentencing Law and Policy Blog.
An extra honor from me to Doug and his great Blog: This Tony(c)Award is being named for its winner. Hereinafter the Tony(c) Award for Best Criminal Law Blog will hereinafter be known as the "Prof. Doug Berman Memorial Tony(c)Award for Best Criminal Law Blog"
Thank you Professor for all you do.
Happy New Years to all of my readers.
TLD.
Follow me on Twitter and get updates througout the day of the best legal blog posts and news articles addressing the criminal law, law practice management and Constitutional law on and around the blogosphere.
The 2008 Tony(c)Award for Best Criminal Law Blog is Professor Doug Berman's Sentencing Law and Policy Blog. The reason for the award? This blog is consistantly the best place to go to begin to research the latest issues in Federal sentencing. Professor Berman is not only a blogger extrodinaire but his blog is cited to on a regular basis by courts and in briefs at the highest (read SCOTUS) levels of advocacy.
Doug is also a real giver. In addition to writing a blog that is a readers delight he also often authors briefs and amicus briefs on behalf of positions he believes in dealing with Sentencing law. Doug is generous with his time and is a frequent lecturer on all thing USSG and USSC. His insights have helped me over and over again in getting fair sentences for my clients. If a young practioner (or an old one for that matter) wants to learn the ins and outs of the USSG, get a copy of the USSG and then start reading the archives of Sentencing Law and Policy Blog.
An extra honor from me to Doug and his great Blog: This Tony(c)Award is being named for its winner. Hereinafter the Tony(c) Award for Best Criminal Law Blog will hereinafter be known as the "Prof. Doug Berman Memorial Tony(c)Award for Best Criminal Law Blog"
Thank you Professor for all you do.
Happy New Years to all of my readers.
TLD.
Follow me on Twitter and get updates througout the day of the best legal blog posts and news articles addressing the criminal law, law practice management and Constitutional law on and around the blogosphere.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Catching Up: A Week of My Favorite Posts... by Others!
Ok, just because I am in trial, (in Queens County NY) doesn't mean I am not keeping up with my reading. It is my writing that goes to pot.
Anyway, I want to get this post up, so no more small talk:
1.Over at Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, Prof. Berman had three interesting posts that make my list this week:
A. USSC is considering alternatives to incarceration... It is about time. It is a lot cheaper to spend 60K to rehab a person, than 25 a year for 10 years to incarcerate them. Article here
B. Berman also points out that the sheep we elect to office are creating gulags for sex offenders through zoning laws. Someone has to tell me Why the concept of having paid for his crime doesn't apply to sex offenders. Especially since we keep enlarging the definition of sex offender.
C. Then there is the story on how Florida wants to stop clusters from happening. That doesn't mean they want to allow convicted Sex offenders to live anywhere, just that they don't want too many in any one place. Trouble is, that will lead to banishment.
Money quote:
2. Staying with the Sex Offender theme Sex Crimes Blog:
A. has an article on the ACLU suit against Allegany County which has a sex offender "banishment law" where they say that a sex offender (no definition)must live 2500 feet away from places where children might congregate.
B. Prof. Yung also blogs about a NIMBY (Not in MY backyard)protest and petition drive that seeks to keep a sex offender rehab out of a Utah neighborhood. The rehab would be a football field away from a daycare "center".
C. Finally, we have the most ridiculous application of the Adam Walsh Act. A law meant to protect a child from child pornography will now cause the child to have to register, because she sent a nude picture OF HERSELF to a boy. Oh my God, How will this affect Disney stars????
Money Quote:
That is because they are stupid. They only want to pander to crazed voters who they misled into believing there was a problem where one never existed. They haven't solved a real problem in so long that it is no wonder the courts are left to sort this garbage out. I have a case like this in Suffolk County NY. A Florida cop, broke the law and got a minor to send porn to him (the cop was pretending to be 14). Nevertheless, it is according to the District Attorney a crime. What is really absurd is that given the age difference, the boy and a real girl could have sex but not talk about it or simulate it over a computer?!? This garbage has really made the law appear foolish...
Ok there were a lot of other good stories about sex crimes, but we must move on.
3. There is a prolific blogger out there by the name of Radley Balko. He writes The Agitator and offers posts to Reason magazine's Hit and Run blog too. Radley was focused on Law this week:
A.This post at The Agitator leads to a story about a man who could not afford to keep up his lawn in his gated community. He had gotten hit with a 600 a month ARM increase and his adult daughter and two grand kids had to move in when they lost their home. Still the community board chose to spend nearly 1000 dollars on legal fees instead of helping the neighbor get his lawn in gear (He needed to resod the lawn which went brown in the Florida Sun when his sprinkler broke). They actually put the guy in prison. Sounds like debtor prison all over again. What was this judge thinking? I remember when I was at Legal Aid,District Court Judge Mike Steinberg fined a guy 20 dollars and then he paid the fine himself...Oh yeah, at 24k a year average cost to incarcerate someone, it should take about a month before it would be cheaper for the county to sod the home itself than keep the man in jail. Given his age and health, it could cost them more far sooner.
B. Not satisfied with lambasting stupid legislators, Balko also picks on a stupid judge, Mark Rusch, who in a capital murder case, had to be removed from the case because he signed a search warrant for police to search a lawyers office to get incriminating evidence against the lawyer's client... Then he had the evidence brought to his home where he and prosecutors handled it!!!! Where the heck did this idiot go to law school? And how the hell did he pass the bar exam? That is Constitutional law 101!!
Radley rightly asks:
C.Finally over at Slate Magazine, Balko tears apart what appears to be Obama's criminal justice policy. Namely block grants that neither Congress nor the President can oversee. Two grants he has named are for:
a)Neighborhood policing (which was a failed Clinton initiative that Bush phased out.)The Neighborhood policing initiative took $8 Billion Dollars and reduced crime by less than one(1%)percent and
b)the other is the Byrne grant for Drug Eradication which in fact took drugs off the streets but focused on low level pushers and favored numbers. This led one rouge cop to falsely arrest pretty much all the black people in his town on trumped up charges. I wish I had any hope that some of the Criminal Defense Lawyers supporting Obama were going to serve in his Justice Department or that he was going to name one to the Supreme Court...hmm on second thought...
Ok that's 9 stories. That is about all I have time for now. I hope to have some more tomorrow.
In the meantime, Jets won, blog's updated, and I am ready for more cross examination. All and all, a pretty good weekend.
Anyway, I want to get this post up, so no more small talk:
1.Over at Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, Prof. Berman had three interesting posts that make my list this week:
A. USSC is considering alternatives to incarceration... It is about time. It is a lot cheaper to spend 60K to rehab a person, than 25 a year for 10 years to incarcerate them. Article here
B. Berman also points out that the sheep we elect to office are creating gulags for sex offenders through zoning laws. Someone has to tell me Why the concept of having paid for his crime doesn't apply to sex offenders. Especially since we keep enlarging the definition of sex offender.
C. Then there is the story on how Florida wants to stop clusters from happening. That doesn't mean they want to allow convicted Sex offenders to live anywhere, just that they don't want too many in any one place. Trouble is, that will lead to banishment.
Money quote:
White says he would like to have sexual offenders housed in a designated commune-like facility in Hillsborough County. The facility would be gated, well marked and a good distance from churches and schools. "Along the perimeter of that facility you could have the postings and the markings that this is a certified sex offender location -- please keep children so many feet away and children beware," White said.
2. Staying with the Sex Offender theme Sex Crimes Blog:
A. has an article on the ACLU suit against Allegany County which has a sex offender "banishment law" where they say that a sex offender (no definition)must live 2500 feet away from places where children might congregate.
B. Prof. Yung also blogs about a NIMBY (Not in MY backyard)protest and petition drive that seeks to keep a sex offender rehab out of a Utah neighborhood. The rehab would be a football field away from a daycare "center".
C. Finally, we have the most ridiculous application of the Adam Walsh Act. A law meant to protect a child from child pornography will now cause the child to have to register, because she sent a nude picture OF HERSELF to a boy. Oh my God, How will this affect Disney stars????
Money Quote:
State Rep. Jay Hottinger, R-Newark, wrote the state's Megan's Law bill, the predecessor of the Adam Walsh Act, and said this case was not something the legislature envisioned.
That is because they are stupid. They only want to pander to crazed voters who they misled into believing there was a problem where one never existed. They haven't solved a real problem in so long that it is no wonder the courts are left to sort this garbage out. I have a case like this in Suffolk County NY. A Florida cop, broke the law and got a minor to send porn to him (the cop was pretending to be 14). Nevertheless, it is according to the District Attorney a crime. What is really absurd is that given the age difference, the boy and a real girl could have sex but not talk about it or simulate it over a computer?!? This garbage has really made the law appear foolish...
Ok there were a lot of other good stories about sex crimes, but we must move on.
3. There is a prolific blogger out there by the name of Radley Balko. He writes The Agitator and offers posts to Reason magazine's Hit and Run blog too. Radley was focused on Law this week:
A.This post at The Agitator leads to a story about a man who could not afford to keep up his lawn in his gated community. He had gotten hit with a 600 a month ARM increase and his adult daughter and two grand kids had to move in when they lost their home. Still the community board chose to spend nearly 1000 dollars on legal fees instead of helping the neighbor get his lawn in gear (He needed to resod the lawn which went brown in the Florida Sun when his sprinkler broke). They actually put the guy in prison. Sounds like debtor prison all over again. What was this judge thinking? I remember when I was at Legal Aid,District Court Judge Mike Steinberg fined a guy 20 dollars and then he paid the fine himself...Oh yeah, at 24k a year average cost to incarcerate someone, it should take about a month before it would be cheaper for the county to sod the home itself than keep the man in jail. Given his age and health, it could cost them more far sooner.
B. Not satisfied with lambasting stupid legislators, Balko also picks on a stupid judge, Mark Rusch, who in a capital murder case, had to be removed from the case because he signed a search warrant for police to search a lawyers office to get incriminating evidence against the lawyer's client... Then he had the evidence brought to his home where he and prosecutors handled it!!!! Where the heck did this idiot go to law school? And how the hell did he pass the bar exam? That is Constitutional law 101!!
Radley rightly asks:
Good to hear the judge was taken off the case, but shouldn’t this guy be removed from the bench?
C.Finally over at Slate Magazine, Balko tears apart what appears to be Obama's criminal justice policy. Namely block grants that neither Congress nor the President can oversee. Two grants he has named are for:
a)Neighborhood policing (which was a failed Clinton initiative that Bush phased out.)The Neighborhood policing initiative took $8 Billion Dollars and reduced crime by less than one(1%)percent and
b)the other is the Byrne grant for Drug Eradication which in fact took drugs off the streets but focused on low level pushers and favored numbers. This led one rouge cop to falsely arrest pretty much all the black people in his town on trumped up charges. I wish I had any hope that some of the Criminal Defense Lawyers supporting Obama were going to serve in his Justice Department or that he was going to name one to the Supreme Court...hmm on second thought...
Ok that's 9 stories. That is about all I have time for now. I hope to have some more tomorrow.
In the meantime, Jets won, blog's updated, and I am ready for more cross examination. All and all, a pretty good weekend.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Avvo.com Legal Guides: A Few Quick Articles to Help You Navigate the Legal System
I have been publishing legal guides at www.Avvo.com. I thought I would give you a way to link to my Publications there and also link you to some good articles by others on AVVO.com.
Avvo.com offers two types of Legal Guides. The easiest to publish is the How to Guide. I have published a couple of those.
You can find out How to Determine Your USSG Criminal Sentencing Guideline in what was my first Practice Guide.
You can learn How to Help a Friend Who is Arrested in the Middle of the Night. (Actually any time.)
Then I wrote an article entitled How To Conduct Yourself When Involved in a Car Accident
My Latest Legal Guide for AVVO.com is entitled Understanding New York Statutory Rape Laws: The Age of Consent
Periodically I will update you on other guides I am publishing, and will feature a few guides that others have written. Take a look at these, I think you will learn a lot.
Avvo.com offers two types of Legal Guides. The easiest to publish is the How to Guide. I have published a couple of those.
You can find out How to Determine Your USSG Criminal Sentencing Guideline in what was my first Practice Guide.
You can learn How to Help a Friend Who is Arrested in the Middle of the Night. (Actually any time.)
Then I wrote an article entitled How To Conduct Yourself When Involved in a Car Accident
My Latest Legal Guide for AVVO.com is entitled Understanding New York Statutory Rape Laws: The Age of Consent
Periodically I will update you on other guides I am publishing, and will feature a few guides that others have written. Take a look at these, I think you will learn a lot.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
From the Headlines on Long Island
Busy day in the courts on Long Island.
Newsday reports that former NY Giant receiver and Superbowl hero Mark Ingram was sentenced to 7 years 8 months for trying to launder money for people he thought were drug dealers. They were in fact FBI undercover agents. The crimes took place in Florida and New York. EDNY Judge Hurley was not moved by Ingram's off or on field heroics (Ingram played a big part in the Giants Superbowl win in 1991 over the Buffalo Bills.
Ingram's life since retirement has been bizarre. He has been jailed for a number of crimes including breaking into a car to steal a pocketbook. I understand he went through three assigned attorneys and wrote a very bizarre motion. I wonder if he is not somehow mentally ill. Finally, he went through an awful lot of money. He has to be indigent to get a free lawyer. This is a sad and bizarre story.
Speaking of bizarre cases, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice continues to misuse the law to forward her crazy views of DWI cases. Getting a conviction for Murder in the Second Degree, the court (Peck J.) sentenced the defendant Franklin McPherson, to Twenty Five years to life. Interesting given the fact that while the behavior was considered very reckless by the jury (a decision that will be over turned in my humble opinion because it was given an incorrect jury charge and a charge that was changed after summations were completed a No NO) that is the maximum. If we sentence to the maximum for reckless conduct, what does that leave us for intentional conduct??
Anyway, you can catch more on this story here
By the way Judge, I think 25 years is too long for a 20 year old kid who did not act intentionally. We are giving up on a 20 year old is really not a conservative concept. Do we really think this person has no value to us as a community?? Hopefully this case gets overturned soon.
Finally a case that does make some sense. Suffolk County Court Judge James Hudson, properly sentenced a man to probation in a devastating accident caused by his intoxication. His wife who was severely injured begged Judge Hudson and the Suffolk county District Attorney Thomas Spota for leniency for her husband and father of her two children. She told them she needs him home to care for her. The court and District Attorney agreed.
What I find interesting here is that DA Spota only charged the appropriate charge of vehicular assault and not the higher but legally unwarranted and vindictive Assault 2d degree. I am in a case right now with DA Kathleen Rice and just as she did in the McPearson case above, she has illegally over-charged the case. I am hoping the court agrees that we should have a vehicular assault charge only for accidents that happen while one is intoxicated. If Assault 2d degree were the appropriate charge why would we have a second separate charge? Well I guess while we pay more in taxes, Ms. Rice will continue to waste our taxpayers money to fight her insane,politically motivated and legally irrational march against the citizenry.
TLD.
Edited to make a few sentences make more sense.
Newsday reports that former NY Giant receiver and Superbowl hero Mark Ingram was sentenced to 7 years 8 months for trying to launder money for people he thought were drug dealers. They were in fact FBI undercover agents. The crimes took place in Florida and New York. EDNY Judge Hurley was not moved by Ingram's off or on field heroics (Ingram played a big part in the Giants Superbowl win in 1991 over the Buffalo Bills.
Ingram's life since retirement has been bizarre. He has been jailed for a number of crimes including breaking into a car to steal a pocketbook. I understand he went through three assigned attorneys and wrote a very bizarre motion. I wonder if he is not somehow mentally ill. Finally, he went through an awful lot of money. He has to be indigent to get a free lawyer. This is a sad and bizarre story.
Speaking of bizarre cases, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice continues to misuse the law to forward her crazy views of DWI cases. Getting a conviction for Murder in the Second Degree, the court (Peck J.) sentenced the defendant Franklin McPherson, to Twenty Five years to life. Interesting given the fact that while the behavior was considered very reckless by the jury (a decision that will be over turned in my humble opinion because it was given an incorrect jury charge and a charge that was changed after summations were completed a No NO) that is the maximum. If we sentence to the maximum for reckless conduct, what does that leave us for intentional conduct??
Anyway, you can catch more on this story here
By the way Judge, I think 25 years is too long for a 20 year old kid who did not act intentionally. We are giving up on a 20 year old is really not a conservative concept. Do we really think this person has no value to us as a community?? Hopefully this case gets overturned soon.
Finally a case that does make some sense. Suffolk County Court Judge James Hudson, properly sentenced a man to probation in a devastating accident caused by his intoxication. His wife who was severely injured begged Judge Hudson and the Suffolk county District Attorney Thomas Spota for leniency for her husband and father of her two children. She told them she needs him home to care for her. The court and District Attorney agreed.
What I find interesting here is that DA Spota only charged the appropriate charge of vehicular assault and not the higher but legally unwarranted and vindictive Assault 2d degree. I am in a case right now with DA Kathleen Rice and just as she did in the McPearson case above, she has illegally over-charged the case. I am hoping the court agrees that we should have a vehicular assault charge only for accidents that happen while one is intoxicated. If Assault 2d degree were the appropriate charge why would we have a second separate charge? Well I guess while we pay more in taxes, Ms. Rice will continue to waste our taxpayers money to fight her insane,politically motivated and legally irrational march against the citizenry.
TLD.
Edited to make a few sentences make more sense.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Around the Blawgosphere: The week of July 14 2008
Don't forget about 8:30PM tonight, I begin blogging once a week at Long Island (Criminal)Trial Law. Tonights topic: Voir Dire of the Prosecutions Expert.
Ok so what did I find interesting last week?
1.This article from CrimProf Blog about how Facebook can help prosecutors and defense attorney's destroy the character of young witnesses.
Word to the wise Attorney: do a screenshot of your client's Facebook/MySpace page and then have him take it down. Tell him not to let anyone take his picture and to be sure that no one "Tags" him. Then make sure he or a loved one monitors the page. Also be sure that you get him to "Friend" you.
BTW if you do not have a Facebook or MySpace page or know what they are... you need to adopt a high school kid.
2. Also from CrimProf blog: When in the Congo, don't do like the Congolese (or the Brazilians either) This one is one of the weirder ones. The US State Dept Hired a nudist (not just a nudist but a leader of the movement) made him a diplomat and then he went to the Congo and Brazil where he had sex with minors and had pictures of them on his laptop...Porno of course. His defense? This type of behavior is common and is acceptable in those countries...
By the way, check out the URL for the post on the CRIMPROF's blog... Poetic Justice??
3. Mike over at Crime and Federalism Blog takes NY Times columnist Adam Liptak to task for not having any idea about the true nature and effectiveness of the Exclusionary rule. Seems in Liptak's world we defense lawyers are winning these suppression motions so often that it is making the world an unsafe place. Title of the piece, Media Ignorance (of the Exclusionary Rule), sounds redundant to me.
4. If they were any good at science they Woulda been Doctors not Judges.
My friend and one of my favorite bloggers Lawrence Taylor blogs about how in a recent case, California appellate judges permitted a Driver to be found drunk even though the defense was stopped by the judge from showing that the science behind the machine was faulty. See his post in DUI BLOG. The law trumps the state of accurate science...
5. Another Fave of mine Doug Berman over at Sentencing Law and Policy Blog is wondering here if President Bush will grant more pardon's at the end of his term
My short answer? Don't hold your breath.
That is it for now. Hope you are having a nice summer.
TLD.
Ok so what did I find interesting last week?
1.This article from CrimProf Blog about how Facebook can help prosecutors and defense attorney's destroy the character of young witnesses.
Word to the wise Attorney: do a screenshot of your client's Facebook/MySpace page and then have him take it down. Tell him not to let anyone take his picture and to be sure that no one "Tags" him. Then make sure he or a loved one monitors the page. Also be sure that you get him to "Friend" you.
BTW if you do not have a Facebook or MySpace page or know what they are... you need to adopt a high school kid.
2. Also from CrimProf blog: When in the Congo, don't do like the Congolese (or the Brazilians either) This one is one of the weirder ones. The US State Dept Hired a nudist (not just a nudist but a leader of the movement) made him a diplomat and then he went to the Congo and Brazil where he had sex with minors and had pictures of them on his laptop...Porno of course. His defense? This type of behavior is common and is acceptable in those countries...
By the way, check out the URL for the post on the CRIMPROF's blog... Poetic Justice??
3. Mike over at Crime and Federalism Blog takes NY Times columnist Adam Liptak to task for not having any idea about the true nature and effectiveness of the Exclusionary rule. Seems in Liptak's world we defense lawyers are winning these suppression motions so often that it is making the world an unsafe place. Title of the piece, Media Ignorance (of the Exclusionary Rule), sounds redundant to me.
4. If they were any good at science they Woulda been Doctors not Judges.
My friend and one of my favorite bloggers Lawrence Taylor blogs about how in a recent case, California appellate judges permitted a Driver to be found drunk even though the defense was stopped by the judge from showing that the science behind the machine was faulty. See his post in DUI BLOG. The law trumps the state of accurate science...
5. Another Fave of mine Doug Berman over at Sentencing Law and Policy Blog is wondering here if President Bush will grant more pardon's at the end of his term
My short answer? Don't hold your breath.
That is it for now. Hope you are having a nice summer.
TLD.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wow What a Summer, (And It Is Not Even Half Over)
When I last left you, I was sad that Debra Jean Paltrow decided to end her life. I think it was a permanent solution to what was a temporary problem. I also thought her prosecution (not to mention her conviction) was a monumental waste of taxpayers time and money not to mention personnel resources.
So then what happened?? All hell broke loose That is what happened.
In chronological order:
1. I became involved to represent the driver in this very sad case. (The Griffin Case)
2. I was a judge at the National Catholic Forensic League Grand Championships in The Fox Cities area of Wisconsin.
3. The Nassau County DWI Wall of Shame went up.
4. I started representing Rabbi Morris Talansky, who is a really nice guy getting slammed unfairly in the foreign press (and by the NY Tabloids too but what else is new.)
5. I started the Murder Trial of Ronald "Shorts" Rodriguez.
6. The District Attorney of Nassau decided that I might beat her in the aforementioned Griffin case so she began "Poisoning the Jury Pool" with outrageous remarks that show her lack of maturity and her lack of fitness for the office she holds.
7. A nut job in the gallery of the courtroom during the Rodriguez trial, jumped up and attacked Shorty and me (he was aiming for Shorty, I was just collateral damage) which caused a 2.5 day break in the trial, and pointed out to all of us in Nassau County that we need to take more precautions to safeguard our trial courts (Hint Hint, it is time to build a new and safer annex to the county court.)
8. After one of the toughest trials I have ever been involved with, Ronald "Shorts" Rodriguez was ACQUITTED of Murder in the second degree (Intentional Murder) Manslaughter in the 1st degree (Intentionally causing injury that results in death through the use of Deadly Physical Force) and was convicted of the non-violent crime of Manslaughter in the 2d degree (recklessly causing the death of another) and possession of a weapon 3rd degree. (Sentencing is scheduled for September.)
9. In addition, the economy tanked, you can no longer afford to fill a gas tank without a loan, and it is Obama v. McCain but look out for BARR to play a spoiler unless McCain starts to comeback to his roots.
AND
10. I was cited as a blogging lawyer in an article at Get LEGAL.COM
11. I am building a new website (the old one is down and I have a static place holder there right now but wait until) NEXT month.
I will be posting on these topics and a few other things too over the next few weeks. Sorry for being away too long, but I just can't seem to write when I am in trial.
Corrections: Spell checked and links added.
So then what happened?? All hell broke loose That is what happened.
In chronological order:
1. I became involved to represent the driver in this very sad case. (The Griffin Case)
2. I was a judge at the National Catholic Forensic League Grand Championships in The Fox Cities area of Wisconsin.
3. The Nassau County DWI Wall of Shame went up.
4. I started representing Rabbi Morris Talansky, who is a really nice guy getting slammed unfairly in the foreign press (and by the NY Tabloids too but what else is new.)
5. I started the Murder Trial of Ronald "Shorts" Rodriguez.
6. The District Attorney of Nassau decided that I might beat her in the aforementioned Griffin case so she began "Poisoning the Jury Pool" with outrageous remarks that show her lack of maturity and her lack of fitness for the office she holds.
7. A nut job in the gallery of the courtroom during the Rodriguez trial, jumped up and attacked Shorty and me (he was aiming for Shorty, I was just collateral damage) which caused a 2.5 day break in the trial, and pointed out to all of us in Nassau County that we need to take more precautions to safeguard our trial courts (Hint Hint, it is time to build a new and safer annex to the county court.)
8. After one of the toughest trials I have ever been involved with, Ronald "Shorts" Rodriguez was ACQUITTED of Murder in the second degree (Intentional Murder) Manslaughter in the 1st degree (Intentionally causing injury that results in death through the use of Deadly Physical Force) and was convicted of the non-violent crime of Manslaughter in the 2d degree (recklessly causing the death of another) and possession of a weapon 3rd degree. (Sentencing is scheduled for September.)
9. In addition, the economy tanked, you can no longer afford to fill a gas tank without a loan, and it is Obama v. McCain but look out for BARR to play a spoiler unless McCain starts to comeback to his roots.
AND
10. I was cited as a blogging lawyer in an article at Get LEGAL.COM
11. I am building a new website (the old one is down and I have a static place holder there right now but wait until) NEXT month.
I will be posting on these topics and a few other things too over the next few weeks. Sorry for being away too long, but I just can't seem to write when I am in trial.
Corrections: Spell checked and links added.
Friday, May 02, 2008
BREAKING NEWS: Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, The "D.C. Madame" Commits Suicide
Deborah Jeanne Palfrey "The D.C. Madame" kept her macabre promise. She killed herself rather than spend another day in jail. Her elderly mom found her hanging from a steel beam in the shed... That is two deaths now associated with an Escort Service/prostitution ring... I don't know, somehow I don't feel any safer knowing that the Feds are spending my tax money prosecuting people like Deborah Jeanne... amazing how important this prosecution was to the government.
Well we don't have to worry about the evils of the Pamela Martin Agency anymore... I wonder how were doing with that Osama bin Laden guy.
What a freaking waste!
Story here
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sub-Prime Mess Leads to Mortgage Fraud Prosecutions: The Millionaires Play While the Homeowners Will Pay With Their Freedom
On Friday the FBI announced that the sub prime mortgage mess is going to lead to an uptick in mortgage fraud prosecutions.
Now what that translates to is that everyone who did something to help homeowners buy houses that they could not afford will be prosecuted, while the banks that profited all those years will pretend that they were unaware of the rampant fraud in the marketing of mortgages so that they can get as much of their money back while little players go to Federal prison.
I know that many of you are confused by the sub-prime mortgage mess. In a nutshell, the banks lent money to homeowners and buyers without requiring that they have any equity in the house. Now the mortgagor (the owner) can no longer afford the mortgage and has no equity (a reason to keep the house as an investment) in the home so he walks away from the debt leaving the bank holding the mortgage and the house.
Now why can't the bank just sell the house? Because it is worth less than the amount owed on it and so the bank will take a loss. Do that over and over again, and voile you got a mess of banks going belly up. The most recent failure was at Bear Sterns (hereinafter BS, for so many reasons).
Well, you may say, "sounds like they made bad investments. They should have to pay for using bad judgment." Yeah Right. They completely screwed up and yet you should see how they were rewarded before they went under. Lets look at some of the principal players at BS:
Alan Schwartz: is the CEO, President and basically the chief honcho.
Sam Molinaro Jr.: is the COO and the CFO and is basically the number 2 guy
Mike Minikes: is the treasurer of B/S
Mr. Michael S. Solender: is the attorney.
A fast review of their recent (last 6 months) trading of their options (which they received gratis as part of their "salaries") goes like this:
Schwartz made Six Million Dollars on the sale of his options of stock on Dec. 21 2007.
Molinaro made 2.5 Million Dollars on his sale the same day (he sold less).
Minikes made 2.3 Million Dollars on his sale.
Solender made 185 Thousand Dollars on his sale of options.
This is all in addition to multi Million Dollars salary and benefit packages they get!!
So the government is going to get these guys to give back the money right?? WRONG. They are going to get to keep the spoils of being horrible business people who cost their little shareholders millions.
So who is the government looking for? The favorite scapegoat... the little guys.
You see, BS is pretending that they never heard of inflating an income or an appraisal in their lives. ("I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in (Casablanca)!)
For years BS (and others, I am not just picking on Bear Sterns they are just one example) made a fortune on the lies of brokers and homeowners. They knew of them, and allowed them to continue to lie about income and equity, until the bottom of the market hit like the end of a Ponzi scheme. Only difference is that the company was left holding the bag along with a lot of people who are or are going to be homeless.
You may be asking how this means homeowners are going to jail. Here is the answer:
Many (if not most) homeowners over the last 10-15 years have been playing a game that allows them to get the equity out of their homes and use the homes like an asset. By refinancing they recieved 100% equity and sometimes more. They used phony appraisals (which would "convince" the banks that the home was worth more than it was) and over estimated their incomes (to "convince" the bank they could pay the monthly payment.)
In other words, they lied on application documents. These banks have federal funding and insurance... Hence you have a federal case. Thanks to the advent of the US Sentencing Guidelines, prison is always an option. Now the government doesn't really want to put all that many people in prison. Just enough to scare the bejesus out of everyone so that they begin to tell on their partners in this venture, the appraisers and the mortgage brokers.
Now let's face it. When a homeowner went to the broker, he wanted more money than he had equity. The broker who could get the loan for him was going to get the business and make a commission. Now the broker didn't want the mortgagor to go bankrupt. He usually thought the homeowner could afford the mortgage. Why did he think that? Beause the Mortgagor was lying about his income. Usually not a big lie, often under 50 thousand dollars, just to make sure that they could qualify for the loan. After all a person can over-estimate a little, no?
So the Broker needs to find an appraiser who will fudge the numbers a little. It isn't hard. The appraiser wasn't making much for his work. So the Mortgage broker found a few who needed extra money and offered them a piece of any deal they helped get for the broker. Often the homeowner "tipped" the guy as well. After all a person can over estimate a little, no?
Then the broker goes to the hungry loan officer with a bunch of these loans and the loan officer sees a big commission check coming and he takes on a bunch of seemingly good loans and a few bad ones cause after all a person can be off a little, no?
Now to "get" the people who made money here, the government needs to make the case against them from the bottom up. First they will go to anybody who over-estimated their income and look to turn him against the broker and the appraiser.
It will work like this:
They will send an investigator to the door of some home in say Queens, Nassau or Suffolk County. He/she will ask if you are the homeowner and they will then question you without giving you Miranda rights. This is legal. You only get Miranda card readings when you are under arrest and questioned.
They won't tell you you need a lawyer, they will only tell you how much trouble you're in. They may even threaten to arrest you if you do not speak to them. DON'T DO IT. They are going to arrest you anyway.
Then they will offer to let you off easy if you will implicate the broker. After all you're not smart enough to over-estimate your income. The Broker told you what to write down RIGHT??
The Broker got the Appraiser right? The appraiser told you he could make the appraisal look good for you for a little "tip" right?
Now "tell them what they get for trying to own a home on Long Island Johnny." "Well Bob they get to hire a Criminal Defense Lawyer who is going to cost them 25 thousand dollars or more, AND they get to implicate the people who helped them afford a home in Queens, Nassau or Suffolk County, maybe even a relative or friend who was a mortgage broker or appraiser, and face a criminal fraud conviction and the possibility of Three year vacation in a Federal Prison!!!"
"Hold it! Hold it! Hold it" you say. "I am paying my mortgage. I have nothing to worry about."
WRONG. When the FBI gets the names of the brokers from the lenders, they will look to see what loans were generated by those guys. Did they use the same appraiser each time (usually they do)? Then they will look at those applications. Check the information in the apps against what they have on file for you (you know, your IRS Form where you tried to limit your income) IF (When) they find discrepancies, they will come for you too, to get the people who sold loans.
In fact, if you are still in your beautiful Long Island residence and haven't defaulted, you are easier to get. You don't already have a lawyer (so now there is none of that ugly "statement suppression" issue) and they know where to look for you (your not homeless yet.)
So you testify against your friend or loved one and then one of them turns on the others and in the end of the game you all have to pay "restitution" to the "defrauded" banks and the guys who knew all of this, and who profited from it the most, keep their millions. You on the other hand have a criminal record, have to hire a lawyer and lost your house and maybe met some new friend in prison named Bubba.
Don't let this happen to you. If you are a Mortgage Broker, Appraiser, or Homeowner/mortgagor, get to a Criminal Defense Lawyer now. Even if you are sure you will not be a target of an investigation, it is smart to get a lawyer and let him speak to whomever he thinks will help you to win the day. Let whoever comes knocking on your door from the federal government know that you have a lawyer on retainer. CALL YOUR LAWYER as soon as the investigators come to the door. Do not say anything to them without your lawyer being with you.
If you follow these simple steps you will be able to sleep through much of this crisis, and you will continue to enjoy the simple life of a homeowner on Long Island.
Although I focused on Long Island and specifically the counties of Queens NY, Nassau NY, and Suffolk NY, the scenerio and advice is good throughout the country.
You have been warned, heed the warning.
Hattip: ABA JOURNAL NEWS
For more information on Mortgage Fraud, see the FBI's Mortgage Fraud Page
Now what that translates to is that everyone who did something to help homeowners buy houses that they could not afford will be prosecuted, while the banks that profited all those years will pretend that they were unaware of the rampant fraud in the marketing of mortgages so that they can get as much of their money back while little players go to Federal prison.
I know that many of you are confused by the sub-prime mortgage mess. In a nutshell, the banks lent money to homeowners and buyers without requiring that they have any equity in the house. Now the mortgagor (the owner) can no longer afford the mortgage and has no equity (a reason to keep the house as an investment) in the home so he walks away from the debt leaving the bank holding the mortgage and the house.
Now why can't the bank just sell the house? Because it is worth less than the amount owed on it and so the bank will take a loss. Do that over and over again, and voile you got a mess of banks going belly up. The most recent failure was at Bear Sterns (hereinafter BS, for so many reasons).
Well, you may say, "sounds like they made bad investments. They should have to pay for using bad judgment." Yeah Right. They completely screwed up and yet you should see how they were rewarded before they went under. Lets look at some of the principal players at BS:
Alan Schwartz: is the CEO, President and basically the chief honcho.
Sam Molinaro Jr.: is the COO and the CFO and is basically the number 2 guy
Mike Minikes: is the treasurer of B/S
Mr. Michael S. Solender: is the attorney.
A fast review of their recent (last 6 months) trading of their options (which they received gratis as part of their "salaries") goes like this:
Schwartz made Six Million Dollars on the sale of his options of stock on Dec. 21 2007.
Molinaro made 2.5 Million Dollars on his sale the same day (he sold less).
Minikes made 2.3 Million Dollars on his sale.
Solender made 185 Thousand Dollars on his sale of options.
This is all in addition to multi Million Dollars salary and benefit packages they get!!
So the government is going to get these guys to give back the money right?? WRONG. They are going to get to keep the spoils of being horrible business people who cost their little shareholders millions.
So who is the government looking for? The favorite scapegoat... the little guys.
You see, BS is pretending that they never heard of inflating an income or an appraisal in their lives. ("I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in (Casablanca)!)
For years BS (and others, I am not just picking on Bear Sterns they are just one example) made a fortune on the lies of brokers and homeowners. They knew of them, and allowed them to continue to lie about income and equity, until the bottom of the market hit like the end of a Ponzi scheme. Only difference is that the company was left holding the bag along with a lot of people who are or are going to be homeless.
You may be asking how this means homeowners are going to jail. Here is the answer:
Many (if not most) homeowners over the last 10-15 years have been playing a game that allows them to get the equity out of their homes and use the homes like an asset. By refinancing they recieved 100% equity and sometimes more. They used phony appraisals (which would "convince" the banks that the home was worth more than it was) and over estimated their incomes (to "convince" the bank they could pay the monthly payment.)
In other words, they lied on application documents. These banks have federal funding and insurance... Hence you have a federal case. Thanks to the advent of the US Sentencing Guidelines, prison is always an option. Now the government doesn't really want to put all that many people in prison. Just enough to scare the bejesus out of everyone so that they begin to tell on their partners in this venture, the appraisers and the mortgage brokers.
Now let's face it. When a homeowner went to the broker, he wanted more money than he had equity. The broker who could get the loan for him was going to get the business and make a commission. Now the broker didn't want the mortgagor to go bankrupt. He usually thought the homeowner could afford the mortgage. Why did he think that? Beause the Mortgagor was lying about his income. Usually not a big lie, often under 50 thousand dollars, just to make sure that they could qualify for the loan. After all a person can over-estimate a little, no?
So the Broker needs to find an appraiser who will fudge the numbers a little. It isn't hard. The appraiser wasn't making much for his work. So the Mortgage broker found a few who needed extra money and offered them a piece of any deal they helped get for the broker. Often the homeowner "tipped" the guy as well. After all a person can over estimate a little, no?
Then the broker goes to the hungry loan officer with a bunch of these loans and the loan officer sees a big commission check coming and he takes on a bunch of seemingly good loans and a few bad ones cause after all a person can be off a little, no?
Now to "get" the people who made money here, the government needs to make the case against them from the bottom up. First they will go to anybody who over-estimated their income and look to turn him against the broker and the appraiser.
It will work like this:
They will send an investigator to the door of some home in say Queens, Nassau or Suffolk County. He/she will ask if you are the homeowner and they will then question you without giving you Miranda rights. This is legal. You only get Miranda card readings when you are under arrest and questioned.
They won't tell you you need a lawyer, they will only tell you how much trouble you're in. They may even threaten to arrest you if you do not speak to them. DON'T DO IT. They are going to arrest you anyway.
Then they will offer to let you off easy if you will implicate the broker. After all you're not smart enough to over-estimate your income. The Broker told you what to write down RIGHT??
The Broker got the Appraiser right? The appraiser told you he could make the appraisal look good for you for a little "tip" right?
Now "tell them what they get for trying to own a home on Long Island Johnny." "Well Bob they get to hire a Criminal Defense Lawyer who is going to cost them 25 thousand dollars or more, AND they get to implicate the people who helped them afford a home in Queens, Nassau or Suffolk County, maybe even a relative or friend who was a mortgage broker or appraiser, and face a criminal fraud conviction and the possibility of Three year vacation in a Federal Prison!!!"
"Hold it! Hold it! Hold it" you say. "I am paying my mortgage. I have nothing to worry about."
WRONG. When the FBI gets the names of the brokers from the lenders, they will look to see what loans were generated by those guys. Did they use the same appraiser each time (usually they do)? Then they will look at those applications. Check the information in the apps against what they have on file for you (you know, your IRS Form where you tried to limit your income) IF (When) they find discrepancies, they will come for you too, to get the people who sold loans.
In fact, if you are still in your beautiful Long Island residence and haven't defaulted, you are easier to get. You don't already have a lawyer (so now there is none of that ugly "statement suppression" issue) and they know where to look for you (your not homeless yet.)
So you testify against your friend or loved one and then one of them turns on the others and in the end of the game you all have to pay "restitution" to the "defrauded" banks and the guys who knew all of this, and who profited from it the most, keep their millions. You on the other hand have a criminal record, have to hire a lawyer and lost your house and maybe met some new friend in prison named Bubba.
Don't let this happen to you. If you are a Mortgage Broker, Appraiser, or Homeowner/mortgagor, get to a Criminal Defense Lawyer now. Even if you are sure you will not be a target of an investigation, it is smart to get a lawyer and let him speak to whomever he thinks will help you to win the day. Let whoever comes knocking on your door from the federal government know that you have a lawyer on retainer. CALL YOUR LAWYER as soon as the investigators come to the door. Do not say anything to them without your lawyer being with you.
If you follow these simple steps you will be able to sleep through much of this crisis, and you will continue to enjoy the simple life of a homeowner on Long Island.
Although I focused on Long Island and specifically the counties of Queens NY, Nassau NY, and Suffolk NY, the scenerio and advice is good throughout the country.
You have been warned, heed the warning.
Hattip: ABA JOURNAL NEWS
For more information on Mortgage Fraud, see the FBI's Mortgage Fraud Page
Friday, March 28, 2008
Yeager Is Allowed to See His Daughter : Half a Loaf is Better Than None I Guess
Well, I guess the pressure worked...to a point. I am told that Yacie Yaeger got to see her father one last time for a half hour yesterday. He was briefly given a visit...a half hour to visit with her. Seems that the Warden was deluged with calls.
As for me, I'm sorry, but really is it so hard to be compassionate? Furlough the guy so he can stay at the bed round the clock. Let him come back when she is buried. If she somehow goes into remission then send him back. It is a federal prison camp, he is a low level drug addict who has a good prison record and is due for a halfway house near the family in less than 5 months. While he is out, he can wear an ankle bracelet he can go to and from home to the hospital.
This is not a big deal to the criminal justice system other than the black eye it takes for looking petty. Why do the people in BOP have to be so hard hearted that it makes average Americans wonder how they got to be wardens???
This has been the problem with Bush and his concept of Compassionate Conservatism. He is rarely compassionate, and when he is, it always seems like he can't make the commitment. He gives us a half of a loaf. Just once I would like to feel like they gave away the store.
As for me, I'm sorry, but really is it so hard to be compassionate? Furlough the guy so he can stay at the bed round the clock. Let him come back when she is buried. If she somehow goes into remission then send him back. It is a federal prison camp, he is a low level drug addict who has a good prison record and is due for a halfway house near the family in less than 5 months. While he is out, he can wear an ankle bracelet he can go to and from home to the hospital.
This is not a big deal to the criminal justice system other than the black eye it takes for looking petty. Why do the people in BOP have to be so hard hearted that it makes average Americans wonder how they got to be wardens???
This has been the problem with Bush and his concept of Compassionate Conservatism. He is rarely compassionate, and when he is, it always seems like he can't make the commitment. He gives us a half of a loaf. Just once I would like to feel like they gave away the store.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Time to Let Her Daddy Come Home: Dying Child's Last Wish Is To See Her Imprisoned Father Before She Dies
There is a child dying in Lincoln Nebraska tonight. She is a very brave child. Her father was a very stupid man. You see, little Jayci Yaeger's father Jason, possessed and sold Crystal Meth. As a result he got a five year sentence in federal court. He would be going to a half way house in August 2008. Jayci doesn't have until August. She may not have until April. She has cancer, and she is dying. She and her family have asked that her dad be furloughed until she has passed away. This means he goes to the half way house now. He visits with her, holds her hand, helps her to be brave, walks with her into the valley of death. He does the job he should be doing. Then, after she passes to the place where angels go, he returns to jail, to figure out how he could have let drugs destroy the little time he had left with his daughter.
Unfortunately the compassionate furlough was denied by the Warden of the Federal Prison in Yankton SD. Why? We aren't provided with a reason. It appears that the Warden doesn't think the request is sufficient to warrant an extraordinary circumstance!!!! Oh yeah, FPC Yankton is a MINIMUM SECURITY PRISON. In other words, if Jason Yaeger was a real bad ass he wouldn't be there. THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD NOT TO LET THIS LITTLE DYING GIRL GET HER LAST WISH.
Yeah, I guess kids die everyday. I guess not all kids have their father with them when they go. I guess that the fact that this guy didn't do anything violent and would be able to go to the hospital (or now I guess the grave site) in August doesn't constitute enough of a reason for a hard-boiled law enforcement agent like Warden J.D. Whitehead to let him out now. No this is not extraordinary. And I thought Lawyers were the only LIVING HEART DONORS!!!!
Now if you are reading this, and you have a half of a beating heart, you can help.
Here is how:
Call your Congressman and Senator. Have everyone in the Family call them and ask your friends and Neighbors to do it too. If you need numbers, look here and here.
Then put a call into the White House. Leave a message for that ole compassionate conservative George W. "I pardoned Scooter, I can give Yeager clemency" Bush to use his muscle and finally keep a promise to the rest of us who are not on Dick Cheney's staff and show us he really has some compassion. If you can, leave a message for Laura Bush too. Maybe she can get his attention.
Then, Contact the Justice (or as I like to call them the "JustUs") Department and leave a message for US Attorney General Mukasky 202-353-1555. You see, the Bureau of Prisons is a Division of the Justice Department. Mukasky could Order Whitehead to do whatever he wants. He is the man in charge. I remember him on the Bench. He ordered people to do stuff all the time. He is good at it. Let him know what you think. After all he works for you. You pay him.
Don't forget about Warden JD.Whitehead, be polite... reach him at Phone: 605-665-3262 Fax: 605-668-1113 if they haven't changed the number yet.
Now go here to sign a on line petition.
Finally, tell everyone you know to do the same thing, then go and say a prayer for little Jayci, with or without her dad, she needs those prayers.
Hattip to Doug Berman at Sentencing law and Policy blog
Updated at 2:19AM to fix a broken link for the on-line petition.
Unfortunately the compassionate furlough was denied by the Warden of the Federal Prison in Yankton SD. Why? We aren't provided with a reason. It appears that the Warden doesn't think the request is sufficient to warrant an extraordinary circumstance!!!! Oh yeah, FPC Yankton is a MINIMUM SECURITY PRISON. In other words, if Jason Yaeger was a real bad ass he wouldn't be there. THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD NOT TO LET THIS LITTLE DYING GIRL GET HER LAST WISH.
Yeah, I guess kids die everyday. I guess not all kids have their father with them when they go. I guess that the fact that this guy didn't do anything violent and would be able to go to the hospital (or now I guess the grave site) in August doesn't constitute enough of a reason for a hard-boiled law enforcement agent like Warden J.D. Whitehead to let him out now. No this is not extraordinary. And I thought Lawyers were the only LIVING HEART DONORS!!!!
Now if you are reading this, and you have a half of a beating heart, you can help.
Here is how:
Call your Congressman and Senator. Have everyone in the Family call them and ask your friends and Neighbors to do it too. If you need numbers, look here and here.
Then put a call into the White House. Leave a message for that ole compassionate conservative George W. "I pardoned Scooter, I can give Yeager clemency" Bush to use his muscle and finally keep a promise to the rest of us who are not on Dick Cheney's staff and show us he really has some compassion. If you can, leave a message for Laura Bush too. Maybe she can get his attention.
Then, Contact the Justice (or as I like to call them the "JustUs") Department and leave a message for US Attorney General Mukasky 202-353-1555. You see, the Bureau of Prisons is a Division of the Justice Department. Mukasky could Order Whitehead to do whatever he wants. He is the man in charge. I remember him on the Bench. He ordered people to do stuff all the time. He is good at it. Let him know what you think. After all he works for you. You pay him.
Don't forget about Warden JD.Whitehead, be polite... reach him at Phone: 605-665-3262 Fax: 605-668-1113 if they haven't changed the number yet.
Now go here to sign a on line petition.
Finally, tell everyone you know to do the same thing, then go and say a prayer for little Jayci, with or without her dad, she needs those prayers.
Hattip to Doug Berman at Sentencing law and Policy blog
Updated at 2:19AM to fix a broken link for the on-line petition.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
In Memoriam: Alva Mae Groves Another Casualty In the No Win War On Drugs
The Following is printed with the permission of Howard Kieffer of BOPWatch. When are we going to realize that we have got to approach the drug problem in America from a new and more understanding angle???
In Memoriam - Alva Mae Groves - Sentenced to 24 years in prison at at age 72.
Alva Mae Groves
Sentenced to 24 years in prison at age 72
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base
(Ms. Groves passed away on August 9, 2007, still incarcerated in federal
prison. Our condolences and sympathies to her family.)
"When I was arrested I had $1,000.00 in the bank from selling eggs and
candy. Most of it was deposited in change - nickels, dimes and quarters
- and the bankers substantiated this fact. I earned that money one egg
at a time, one soda pop at a time, one candy bar at a time. It wasn't
from selling drugs as the government contends."
I am 86 years old and have been incarcerated since 1994. I was charged
with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Distributing
Cocaine Base, and I was also charged with possessing a gun. The court
sentenced me to 24 years in prison on these charges.
My real crime, according to today's laws of betrayal, was refusing to
testify against my sons, children of my womb, that were conceived,
birthed and raised with love, of which there were fourteen children in
all - nine girls and six boys. The government said I could have received
a reduction in my sentence if I would have testified, but since I
couldn't do such a thing, prosecutors then said I was a
manager/supervisor in this offense, thereby raising my offense level by
three points and increasing my sentence substantially.
Of course I didn't really understand all this talk about enhancements,
acceptance of responsibility, and so on, that had to do with my
sentencing. But I did understand that since I wouldn't turn against my
own family that I was going to receive a very lengthy prison term. Never
did I dream it would be twenty-five years.
On advice of my attorney, I accepted a deal for a sentence that also had
me signing all appeal rights away. I was also denied a three-level
decrease in my sentence for acceptance of responsibility because my
attorney advised me not to speak without him present. As I say, I didn't
understand all the legal jargon and totally relied on my attorney's
assistance. I still don't understand how one can sign their right to
appeal away when one hasn't even received their sentence. It's all
beyond me. I know I sat there and watched while my whole family was
buried by sentences of thirty years (my daughter Margaret),
seventeen-and- a-half years (my granddaughter Pam) and my other sons, one
who received a natural life. I still don't understand all of it.
When this all began back in 1994, I was 72 years old and lived out in a
trailer in Clayton, North Carolina. That trailer sat on a lot belonging
to my son, William Robert, where I lived with and cared for my two
granddaughters, Fontara (11 years old) and Jasmine (9 years old), my
youngest son's children. The only money I received came from SSI and
what money I could earn selling eggs from my laying hens (I had about
100 chickens). I also cleaned houses when I was able, and sold candy
bars and soft drinks to the kids coming from school in the afternoons.
We lived six miles out of town and there weren't any stores close by. My
children were always welcome at my home and would come to check on me
and help me as they could. My doors were always locked when I was gone,
but my children had keys to get in. The day I was arrested I was working
in my garden at my son's house about five miles from my home. I had
woods around my own home and no place for a garden. I was working in
this garden the day the Sheriff's department came and arrested me. While
I was gardening five miles away, the police broke into my home. They
said they had found drugs, but I don't believe that.
After I was arrested, they wanted me to testify against my son Ricky. I
worked hard all my life and I raised my children to be responsible and
to work for what they wanted. They all knew how I felt about an honest
day's work. If any of my children, including Ricky, were doing anything
less than that, they wouldn't have let know about it because they know
how I feel. If I can tend my chickens, clean houses, and sell soda pops
and candy to make money at 72 years old, they can all work too. I did
the best I could to raise my children and grandchildren. But just as it
is with anyone else's children, I had no control over what they did when
they were grown and on their own.
When I was arrested I had $1,000.00 in the bank from selling eggs and
candy. Most of it was deposited in change -- nickels, dimes and quarters
- and the bankers substantiated this fact. I earned that money one egg
at a time, one soda pop at a time, one candy bar at a time. It wasn't
from selling drugs as the government contends.
Six of my family members are in prison because the government wanted my
son Ricky. They offered me home confinement if I would testify against
him, but he is my son, and I couldn't do that anymore than I could do
anything else that would harm any of my children. When I refused to
testify against Ricky in exchange for home confinement, the police got
mad and said I was the drug kingpin and that my family was selling drugs
for me. I think this was the only way they could justify, or try to
justify, arresting a 72-year-old woman who sold eggs for a living. The
government gave other people all reduced sentences for their statements.
All these people belonged to the government. I've never even seen half
of them.
I have now been in prison for close to eight years. As I unknowingly
signed all my rights to appeal away, the only thing I could do was
petition the President of the United States for a Commutation of
Sentence. From FCI Tallahassee, I was transferred to the Medical
Facility in Carswell, Fort Worth, Texas, due to health problems. My
application for a Commutation of Sentence was submitted while there in
February of 2000. I have since been transferred back here to FCI
Tallahassee and my application is still pending.
I realize everyone has a day to die; death is a fate that will not be
cheated. But I don't want to die in prison. I want to die at home
surrounded by the love of what's left of my family. I do not have enough
years left of my life to finish serving this twenty-four year sentence
as I am already 80 years old. I'm appealing to anyone to write letters
for me to the Pardon Attorney's Office in Washington while my
application is still pending.
Thank you.
Alva Mae Groves 15230-056
In Memoriam - Alva Mae Groves - Sentenced to 24 years in prison at at age 72.
Alva Mae Groves
Sentenced to 24 years in prison at age 72
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base
(Ms. Groves passed away on August 9, 2007, still incarcerated in federal
prison. Our condolences and sympathies to her family.)
"When I was arrested I had $1,000.00 in the bank from selling eggs and
candy. Most of it was deposited in change - nickels, dimes and quarters
- and the bankers substantiated this fact. I earned that money one egg
at a time, one soda pop at a time, one candy bar at a time. It wasn't
from selling drugs as the government contends."
I am 86 years old and have been incarcerated since 1994. I was charged
with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Distributing
Cocaine Base, and I was also charged with possessing a gun. The court
sentenced me to 24 years in prison on these charges.
My real crime, according to today's laws of betrayal, was refusing to
testify against my sons, children of my womb, that were conceived,
birthed and raised with love, of which there were fourteen children in
all - nine girls and six boys. The government said I could have received
a reduction in my sentence if I would have testified, but since I
couldn't do such a thing, prosecutors then said I was a
manager/supervisor in this offense, thereby raising my offense level by
three points and increasing my sentence substantially.
Of course I didn't really understand all this talk about enhancements,
acceptance of responsibility, and so on, that had to do with my
sentencing. But I did understand that since I wouldn't turn against my
own family that I was going to receive a very lengthy prison term. Never
did I dream it would be twenty-five years.
On advice of my attorney, I accepted a deal for a sentence that also had
me signing all appeal rights away. I was also denied a three-level
decrease in my sentence for acceptance of responsibility because my
attorney advised me not to speak without him present. As I say, I didn't
understand all the legal jargon and totally relied on my attorney's
assistance. I still don't understand how one can sign their right to
appeal away when one hasn't even received their sentence. It's all
beyond me. I know I sat there and watched while my whole family was
buried by sentences of thirty years (my daughter Margaret),
seventeen-and- a-half years (my granddaughter Pam) and my other sons, one
who received a natural life. I still don't understand all of it.
When this all began back in 1994, I was 72 years old and lived out in a
trailer in Clayton, North Carolina. That trailer sat on a lot belonging
to my son, William Robert, where I lived with and cared for my two
granddaughters, Fontara (11 years old) and Jasmine (9 years old), my
youngest son's children. The only money I received came from SSI and
what money I could earn selling eggs from my laying hens (I had about
100 chickens). I also cleaned houses when I was able, and sold candy
bars and soft drinks to the kids coming from school in the afternoons.
We lived six miles out of town and there weren't any stores close by. My
children were always welcome at my home and would come to check on me
and help me as they could. My doors were always locked when I was gone,
but my children had keys to get in. The day I was arrested I was working
in my garden at my son's house about five miles from my home. I had
woods around my own home and no place for a garden. I was working in
this garden the day the Sheriff's department came and arrested me. While
I was gardening five miles away, the police broke into my home. They
said they had found drugs, but I don't believe that.
After I was arrested, they wanted me to testify against my son Ricky. I
worked hard all my life and I raised my children to be responsible and
to work for what they wanted. They all knew how I felt about an honest
day's work. If any of my children, including Ricky, were doing anything
less than that, they wouldn't have let know about it because they know
how I feel. If I can tend my chickens, clean houses, and sell soda pops
and candy to make money at 72 years old, they can all work too. I did
the best I could to raise my children and grandchildren. But just as it
is with anyone else's children, I had no control over what they did when
they were grown and on their own.
When I was arrested I had $1,000.00 in the bank from selling eggs and
candy. Most of it was deposited in change -- nickels, dimes and quarters
- and the bankers substantiated this fact. I earned that money one egg
at a time, one soda pop at a time, one candy bar at a time. It wasn't
from selling drugs as the government contends.
Six of my family members are in prison because the government wanted my
son Ricky. They offered me home confinement if I would testify against
him, but he is my son, and I couldn't do that anymore than I could do
anything else that would harm any of my children. When I refused to
testify against Ricky in exchange for home confinement, the police got
mad and said I was the drug kingpin and that my family was selling drugs
for me. I think this was the only way they could justify, or try to
justify, arresting a 72-year-old woman who sold eggs for a living. The
government gave other people all reduced sentences for their statements.
All these people belonged to the government. I've never even seen half
of them.
I have now been in prison for close to eight years. As I unknowingly
signed all my rights to appeal away, the only thing I could do was
petition the President of the United States for a Commutation of
Sentence. From FCI Tallahassee, I was transferred to the Medical
Facility in Carswell, Fort Worth, Texas, due to health problems. My
application for a Commutation of Sentence was submitted while there in
February of 2000. I have since been transferred back here to FCI
Tallahassee and my application is still pending.
I realize everyone has a day to die; death is a fate that will not be
cheated. But I don't want to die in prison. I want to die at home
surrounded by the love of what's left of my family. I do not have enough
years left of my life to finish serving this twenty-four year sentence
as I am already 80 years old. I'm appealing to anyone to write letters
for me to the Pardon Attorney's Office in Washington while my
application is still pending.
Thank you.
Alva Mae Groves 15230-056
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Look Out!!! : A Rant!!
Whenever an idea to "reform" criminal law comes down, there is an abject hue and cry from the defense bar, not because we don't want to improve the system, but because we see every "reform" as another way for the crazy people on the other side of the reform to screw with the wheels of justice. Not to mention what they want to do to our clients.
The newest salvo comes from Ohio, the land that gave us US v. Larry Flynt.
Take Megan's law. A registry where police can better keep track of people who are accused of sex crimes after release from prison. Defense counsel says no. It will be used to give the information to others. They will come and stalk people who have paid their price to society. It will include too many crimes that have nothing to do with sex but have to do with genitalia like prostitution or public lewdness or urinating in public. It will lump people who commit crimes against youngsters with people who have a fight with their girlfriend or who have sex with a minor when they are only a year or two older than the minor.
We are told we worry to much about the defendant's and put innocent victims at risk, then within a few years all our chickens come home to roost.
Now from Ohio, we have the newest in Fall colors, SEX OFFENDER GREEN. That's right, if you've been convicted of any level 3 Megan Law Crime, or you are related to anyone who has been convicted of such crime, or you borrow that car, everyone in the neighborhood, infact everyone on the highway will know it.
Well what's the matter with that? Well for starters less than 1% of all level three sex offenses take place between strangers. In fact most of the time it takes place within families. So now you put family members at risk. At risk for what you ask? How about crazy people who are peeved that the car owner didn't get life or death for their sentence and decide to take it into their own hands. How about the kid who goes into the movie in his dad's car. Can't wait to see the look on his date's father's face!! Or the guy who finally finds a job, works and then comes out to find his car demolished by vigilantes. You know, after a while, enough is really enough. Especially when it is clear that IT DOESN'T HELP!!
It is a vicious cycle. Politicians can't help but pander. It is in their makeup. They can't help but take advantage of a constituency that has a little voice, to make a bigger constituency happy. They are too weak of mind, or morals, to say "we will not abuse one group for another." And so we get:
Genarlow Wilson, locked up for 10 years for having oral sex with a girl 2 years younger than he.
Dopey politicians who want to declare prostitution which is a crime between consenting adults a sex crime.
Even dumber yet there is a politician who wants to make urinating in public and other public lewdness a sex crime.
Then we have even more lilied liver idiots who are gathering the homeless sex abuser
and herding them into trailers and moving them from place to place so nobody has too many of them in the neighborhood. Here's an idea, if you don't like the neighborhood, take a second job, make more money and MOVE. Don't tell a person who has made enough money to live somewhere that he can't live where he wants.
I would love to find a person who has been banished by some stupid anti sex offender zoning statute to sue the rear off some idiot county for a violation of his fair housing right.
We have kids going to jail for showing Playboy magazine to a younger kid. I'm not talking showing a centerfold to a 5 year old by a 19 year old, I am talking about a 16 year old showing a centerfold to a 14 year old. Hell the same kid is watching "R" rated movies on cable and on the internet. He is seeing as much as he wants to see. But if we have the chance to make it a sex crime... well then who cares.
How is it, that when 17 year old Genarlow Wilson has consensual oral sex with a 15 year old he is some crazed sex offender and treated like an adult, but when 24 year old Monica Lewinsky has oral sex with Bill Clinton she is some kind of Ing'enue.
Maybe it is my mood, but what we as a general public do not know about sex offenders could fill a book. So we listen to the potbangers and let them work us up into a mass hysteria until the people who do know about these things get tired of shouting over the masses. We mess it up really bad and then we wonder how we were lead astray. We ask no questions. We accept the garbage we are fed and then wonder why we are screwed up.
Oprah Winfrey says sex offenders can't be reformed! Great, who the hell gave Oprah a PhD. in anything besides eating? She was abused, so she is an expert? I had appendicitis and had an appendectomy, does that make me a surgeon?
We ignore what we don't want to hear. Instead of asking our own questions we just accept the pap that we are fed and then wait for more.
The Internet has more information on it than any library I have ever seen. We can get our answers right hear with the help of Google or Yahoo. But we won't. We will use it to listen to music, write a report, and watch a video, and then think we are all technological. Until we add the ability to reason critically, and to use the Internet for something other than porn and politics, all we have is a more expensive TV.
The newest salvo comes from Ohio, the land that gave us US v. Larry Flynt.
Take Megan's law. A registry where police can better keep track of people who are accused of sex crimes after release from prison. Defense counsel says no. It will be used to give the information to others. They will come and stalk people who have paid their price to society. It will include too many crimes that have nothing to do with sex but have to do with genitalia like prostitution or public lewdness or urinating in public. It will lump people who commit crimes against youngsters with people who have a fight with their girlfriend or who have sex with a minor when they are only a year or two older than the minor.
We are told we worry to much about the defendant's and put innocent victims at risk, then within a few years all our chickens come home to roost.
Now from Ohio, we have the newest in Fall colors, SEX OFFENDER GREEN. That's right, if you've been convicted of any level 3 Megan Law Crime, or you are related to anyone who has been convicted of such crime, or you borrow that car, everyone in the neighborhood, infact everyone on the highway will know it.
Well what's the matter with that? Well for starters less than 1% of all level three sex offenses take place between strangers. In fact most of the time it takes place within families. So now you put family members at risk. At risk for what you ask? How about crazy people who are peeved that the car owner didn't get life or death for their sentence and decide to take it into their own hands. How about the kid who goes into the movie in his dad's car. Can't wait to see the look on his date's father's face!! Or the guy who finally finds a job, works and then comes out to find his car demolished by vigilantes. You know, after a while, enough is really enough. Especially when it is clear that IT DOESN'T HELP!!
It is a vicious cycle. Politicians can't help but pander. It is in their makeup. They can't help but take advantage of a constituency that has a little voice, to make a bigger constituency happy. They are too weak of mind, or morals, to say "we will not abuse one group for another." And so we get:
Genarlow Wilson, locked up for 10 years for having oral sex with a girl 2 years younger than he.
Dopey politicians who want to declare prostitution which is a crime between consenting adults a sex crime.
Even dumber yet there is a politician who wants to make urinating in public and other public lewdness a sex crime.
Then we have even more lilied liver idiots who are gathering the homeless sex abuser
and herding them into trailers and moving them from place to place so nobody has too many of them in the neighborhood. Here's an idea, if you don't like the neighborhood, take a second job, make more money and MOVE. Don't tell a person who has made enough money to live somewhere that he can't live where he wants.
I would love to find a person who has been banished by some stupid anti sex offender zoning statute to sue the rear off some idiot county for a violation of his fair housing right.
We have kids going to jail for showing Playboy magazine to a younger kid. I'm not talking showing a centerfold to a 5 year old by a 19 year old, I am talking about a 16 year old showing a centerfold to a 14 year old. Hell the same kid is watching "R" rated movies on cable and on the internet. He is seeing as much as he wants to see. But if we have the chance to make it a sex crime... well then who cares.
How is it, that when 17 year old Genarlow Wilson has consensual oral sex with a 15 year old he is some crazed sex offender and treated like an adult, but when 24 year old Monica Lewinsky has oral sex with Bill Clinton she is some kind of Ing'enue.
Maybe it is my mood, but what we as a general public do not know about sex offenders could fill a book. So we listen to the potbangers and let them work us up into a mass hysteria until the people who do know about these things get tired of shouting over the masses. We mess it up really bad and then we wonder how we were lead astray. We ask no questions. We accept the garbage we are fed and then wonder why we are screwed up.
Oprah Winfrey says sex offenders can't be reformed! Great, who the hell gave Oprah a PhD. in anything besides eating? She was abused, so she is an expert? I had appendicitis and had an appendectomy, does that make me a surgeon?
We ignore what we don't want to hear. Instead of asking our own questions we just accept the pap that we are fed and then wait for more.
The Internet has more information on it than any library I have ever seen. We can get our answers right hear with the help of Google or Yahoo. But we won't. We will use it to listen to music, write a report, and watch a video, and then think we are all technological. Until we add the ability to reason critically, and to use the Internet for something other than porn and politics, all we have is a more expensive TV.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Crazy Texas School Decision; Pass the Second Chance Act; Reduce Sex Abuse...Stop watching the Abusers; A Favorite Blogger Returns...With Some Sad News
Oy So much to blog, So little time...
I. Child Writes "I Love You" on a Wall in School, Gets Kicked Out at Taxpayers Expense! What's Wrong with this Picture???
Well this story
caught my eye. Twelve year old girl falls for Fifteen year old boy, professes her love with a blue magic marker, gets a year in Alternative school.
Result? She still loves boy, another 12 year old will do the same thing because 12 year olds don't really understand deterrence, and TAXPAYERS IN TEXAS GET SCREWED!!
She is 12. She wrote on a wall. For goodness sakes give her a scrub brush and make her work to take it and any other graffiti in the school down. Make her write on the blackboard 100 times "I will not profess my love thru graffiti." Do not send her to a school for alternative students which costs the school taxpayer more money because you cannot think of a way of disciplining a kid. The school district thinks it has no choice, because Texas has a law that governs this type of thing...That Lawyer Dude says, "NEVER LET SCHOOLS BE RUN BY STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS UNLESS THEY INTEND TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING."
The state Legislator says the district is misconstruing the bill. Maybe. It seems like it is the adults who need a time-out here.
II. Let's Advise Congress to Pass the Second Chance Act.
This one seems like a no-brainer, but of course when dealing with the US Congress, that is usually a huge problem.
Query:
"What happens when you take a drug addicted kid at age 20 and stick him in jail for oh say 12 years?"
Answer:
You get a 32 year-old drug addict who can't find a job. He goes back to drugs, he can't pay for them so he commits a crime to get the money to pay for the drugs and he goes back to jail...and back to costing THE TAXPAYERS MONEY. (If you are astute, you may be discerning a commonality of thought in the last story and this one.)
Enter the Second Chance Act. It provides funds for drug rehabilitation, job training, education, housing and some of the other things that help a person to reenter society. Seems like a good idea; We just paid to teach him a lesson, it would be a good thing if we now gave him a chance to succeed. After all isn't that what we did for Germany and Japan??
Well hold on. This act which makes imminent good sense, because it will increase the tax rolls while decreasing recidivism which decreases insurance rates, police costs and further jail and prison costs is accused in some quarters of being like a "handout" for people convicted of crime. I can here people saying it now, "MY SON THE VICTIM DIDN'T GET A CHANCE FOR A FREE EDUCATION." Let's continue to mix apples and oranges and call it a criminal justice system.
Let us stop the so-called victim's rights people right now. What happens to an individual victim, is addressed by the civil law. What happens to society is what is the concern of the Penal law. We have a bad habit of mixing the streams. "Don't cross the streams!!" The Penal Law and the Corrections Law needs to return people to our society that can contribute to it, not take away more. We started this "victims advocacy" crap in the 1980's and we have now become the largest prison state in the world. It is time to put "society" as a whole back on the prosecutions mind. Of course victims want vengeance. They've been victimized. Ask them if they want the same level of revenge if they have to pay the cost for the revenge!
Another more valid attack on the bill is that, constitutionally there seems to be no role for the federal government in prisoner re-entry. This is the issue that killed the bill the last time it came around for a vote. Sen Thomas Coburn (R-KS) put a hold on the bill which killed it despite the fact that he was the only person in the US Senate who wanted the hold.
In response, I think the funds should be given to only Federal prison programs and applied by the states to help the re-entry of Federal prisoners, except for the Pell grant restoration provisions of the bill which should be open to everyone (though I can make a really good case that giving anyone Pell grants violates the Constitution.)The Second Chance Act will teach redicient states how to help their re-entry issues.
Ok so if you can agree that after someone pays their debt to society, it would be a good idea if society offered them a chance to improve their success rate outside of Hells walls, then go to this website for FAMM and write to your people in Washington DC.
III. Want to Reduce SEX CRIME Recidivism? Stop Watching the Abusers So Closely.
It is a counter intuitive argument and maybe even politically risky, but according to policy reports, you should not supervise a low risk sexual offender the way you would a high risk one. If you do, you increase the chance he will act out. I've been saying this stuff for years, it is about time someone recognized the different types of sex offenders. We cannot keep trying to solve big problems with cookie cutter solutions. Sex offender rehabilitation is not one size fits all. You can read the post at Grits for Breakfast.
IV. Return of "Will Work for Favorable Dicta" is Welcomed but Sad.
There was a young law student blogger whose work I really enjoyed. After graduating from law school, she took a non traditional legal job in the great NW and was loving it. She thought it best to rest from Blogging lest she jeopardize her new job. We haven't heard from her in a while. She goes by the handle Energy Spatula.
She returned to blogging this week and She has returned with the sad news that she is sick. She has an auto immune disease, Multiple Sclerosis MS. She approaches the issue with her usual good humor and bravery. I truly believe that E-Spat as we know her will be a tremendous voice for people with auto immune disease. You cannot help but love her. Please add WWFD to your RSS feed, and keep lil E-Spat in your thoughts and prayers. I know I will.
Good Night.
I. Child Writes "I Love You" on a Wall in School, Gets Kicked Out at Taxpayers Expense! What's Wrong with this Picture???
Well this story
caught my eye. Twelve year old girl falls for Fifteen year old boy, professes her love with a blue magic marker, gets a year in Alternative school.
Result? She still loves boy, another 12 year old will do the same thing because 12 year olds don't really understand deterrence, and TAXPAYERS IN TEXAS GET SCREWED!!
She is 12. She wrote on a wall. For goodness sakes give her a scrub brush and make her work to take it and any other graffiti in the school down. Make her write on the blackboard 100 times "I will not profess my love thru graffiti." Do not send her to a school for alternative students which costs the school taxpayer more money because you cannot think of a way of disciplining a kid. The school district thinks it has no choice, because Texas has a law that governs this type of thing...That Lawyer Dude says, "NEVER LET SCHOOLS BE RUN BY STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS UNLESS THEY INTEND TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING."
The state Legislator says the district is misconstruing the bill. Maybe. It seems like it is the adults who need a time-out here.
II. Let's Advise Congress to Pass the Second Chance Act.
This one seems like a no-brainer, but of course when dealing with the US Congress, that is usually a huge problem.
Query:
"What happens when you take a drug addicted kid at age 20 and stick him in jail for oh say 12 years?"
Answer:
You get a 32 year-old drug addict who can't find a job. He goes back to drugs, he can't pay for them so he commits a crime to get the money to pay for the drugs and he goes back to jail...and back to costing THE TAXPAYERS MONEY. (If you are astute, you may be discerning a commonality of thought in the last story and this one.)
Enter the Second Chance Act. It provides funds for drug rehabilitation, job training, education, housing and some of the other things that help a person to reenter society. Seems like a good idea; We just paid to teach him a lesson, it would be a good thing if we now gave him a chance to succeed. After all isn't that what we did for Germany and Japan??
Well hold on. This act which makes imminent good sense, because it will increase the tax rolls while decreasing recidivism which decreases insurance rates, police costs and further jail and prison costs is accused in some quarters of being like a "handout" for people convicted of crime. I can here people saying it now, "MY SON THE VICTIM DIDN'T GET A CHANCE FOR A FREE EDUCATION." Let's continue to mix apples and oranges and call it a criminal justice system.
Let us stop the so-called victim's rights people right now. What happens to an individual victim, is addressed by the civil law. What happens to society is what is the concern of the Penal law. We have a bad habit of mixing the streams. "Don't cross the streams!!" The Penal Law and the Corrections Law needs to return people to our society that can contribute to it, not take away more. We started this "victims advocacy" crap in the 1980's and we have now become the largest prison state in the world. It is time to put "society" as a whole back on the prosecutions mind. Of course victims want vengeance. They've been victimized. Ask them if they want the same level of revenge if they have to pay the cost for the revenge!
Another more valid attack on the bill is that, constitutionally there seems to be no role for the federal government in prisoner re-entry. This is the issue that killed the bill the last time it came around for a vote. Sen Thomas Coburn (R-KS) put a hold on the bill which killed it despite the fact that he was the only person in the US Senate who wanted the hold.
In response, I think the funds should be given to only Federal prison programs and applied by the states to help the re-entry of Federal prisoners, except for the Pell grant restoration provisions of the bill which should be open to everyone (though I can make a really good case that giving anyone Pell grants violates the Constitution.)The Second Chance Act will teach redicient states how to help their re-entry issues.
Ok so if you can agree that after someone pays their debt to society, it would be a good idea if society offered them a chance to improve their success rate outside of Hells walls, then go to this website for FAMM and write to your people in Washington DC.
III. Want to Reduce SEX CRIME Recidivism? Stop Watching the Abusers So Closely.
It is a counter intuitive argument and maybe even politically risky, but according to policy reports, you should not supervise a low risk sexual offender the way you would a high risk one. If you do, you increase the chance he will act out. I've been saying this stuff for years, it is about time someone recognized the different types of sex offenders. We cannot keep trying to solve big problems with cookie cutter solutions. Sex offender rehabilitation is not one size fits all. You can read the post at Grits for Breakfast.
IV. Return of "Will Work for Favorable Dicta" is Welcomed but Sad.
There was a young law student blogger whose work I really enjoyed. After graduating from law school, she took a non traditional legal job in the great NW and was loving it. She thought it best to rest from Blogging lest she jeopardize her new job. We haven't heard from her in a while. She goes by the handle Energy Spatula.
She returned to blogging this week and She has returned with the sad news that she is sick. She has an auto immune disease, Multiple Sclerosis MS. She approaches the issue with her usual good humor and bravery. I truly believe that E-Spat as we know her will be a tremendous voice for people with auto immune disease. You cannot help but love her. Please add WWFD to your RSS feed, and keep lil E-Spat in your thoughts and prayers. I know I will.
Good Night.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
President Bush Finally Figures Out a Way to Use the Constitution Rather Than Go Around It.
I have been reading the stories about the Republican Right and the push for a pardon of I. Scooter Libby. In fact, I have no problem with Libby getting a sentence commutation or for that fact even a Presidential pardon. Just as I had no problem with Clinton pardoning his brother or Mark Rich. It is in the prerogative of the executive. In fact it is one of the few things Bush has done where he hasn't overstepped his bounds.
People need to get a grip. I have heard how he is ignoring the advice of his Justice Dept. Hell, ever since Ashcroft and Gonzales came to town no body else pays it any mind, why should Bush. Besides, what makes anybody think that this Justice Dept. couldn't find a way to agree with the decision if the President told them too.
I think a Presidential pardon, any Presidential pardon, is a good thing. Now you may say that is because I am a criminal defense attorney. You would be wrong however. It is because that being a Constitutionalist, I believe that the Presidential pardon is a check on the judiciary that a President should use anytime he feels it represents his vision of law enforcement. One has to remember that the President is the spokesman for the majority of the people who vote in this land. He is their voice. The court is a check on the majority making sure the majority does not over run a minority and hurt it.
Now it is an important difference. The Constitution allows the Executive to pardon people, but not to enslave them. It cannot use its power to ruin but to free. Even if he were to allow murders or terrorists to be pardoned, he would be doing so as the voice of the majority of the voters, those people who voted for him. As a practical matter that will not happen, but that it could means that the public has a way to overrule the court. It keeps America from becoming a slave to the courts.
Assume for a moment a wave of anti-Christians take over the power of the executive and legislative branches. Assume further that they then persecute the leaders of Christianity. Christians can revolt or they can go to the polls and vote them out in an orderly fashion. Thereafter, a new President can go back and right the wrongs as he sees fit, and as his supporters see fit. Pardons are a pretty good check, the problem with Libby is that he represents things that others find aborhent.
Imagine the outbreak of support by the Neo-Con right and Jewish Americans if Jonathan Pollard were to be pardoned. Imagine how those same people would have felt if Clinton had pardoned Susan McDougal.
Pardons are the one thing a President does not need approval to do. He has the Constitutional right to do as he pleases and we as a people give him that right in the hopes he wields it the way a majority of us would have. SO pardon and commute away Mr. President. Maybe some of your Judicial appointees will see this as what you mean as compassionate conservatism. Maybe they will understand that the Guidelines are not always presumptively reasonable, just like you did for your pal Scooter, and they will start finding more Booker/FanFan reasons to let others have a chance. Who knows, maybe we will start using jail less as a deterrent and less as a punishment and more just to keep society safe, while sending the rest to programs and sentences that will rehabilitate and keep people working and supporting their families instead of going to prison where they will surely negatively affect their children's ability to stop the cycle of crime.
People need to get a grip. I have heard how he is ignoring the advice of his Justice Dept. Hell, ever since Ashcroft and Gonzales came to town no body else pays it any mind, why should Bush. Besides, what makes anybody think that this Justice Dept. couldn't find a way to agree with the decision if the President told them too.
I think a Presidential pardon, any Presidential pardon, is a good thing. Now you may say that is because I am a criminal defense attorney. You would be wrong however. It is because that being a Constitutionalist, I believe that the Presidential pardon is a check on the judiciary that a President should use anytime he feels it represents his vision of law enforcement. One has to remember that the President is the spokesman for the majority of the people who vote in this land. He is their voice. The court is a check on the majority making sure the majority does not over run a minority and hurt it.
Now it is an important difference. The Constitution allows the Executive to pardon people, but not to enslave them. It cannot use its power to ruin but to free. Even if he were to allow murders or terrorists to be pardoned, he would be doing so as the voice of the majority of the voters, those people who voted for him. As a practical matter that will not happen, but that it could means that the public has a way to overrule the court. It keeps America from becoming a slave to the courts.
Assume for a moment a wave of anti-Christians take over the power of the executive and legislative branches. Assume further that they then persecute the leaders of Christianity. Christians can revolt or they can go to the polls and vote them out in an orderly fashion. Thereafter, a new President can go back and right the wrongs as he sees fit, and as his supporters see fit. Pardons are a pretty good check, the problem with Libby is that he represents things that others find aborhent.
Imagine the outbreak of support by the Neo-Con right and Jewish Americans if Jonathan Pollard were to be pardoned. Imagine how those same people would have felt if Clinton had pardoned Susan McDougal.
Pardons are the one thing a President does not need approval to do. He has the Constitutional right to do as he pleases and we as a people give him that right in the hopes he wields it the way a majority of us would have. SO pardon and commute away Mr. President. Maybe some of your Judicial appointees will see this as what you mean as compassionate conservatism. Maybe they will understand that the Guidelines are not always presumptively reasonable, just like you did for your pal Scooter, and they will start finding more Booker/FanFan reasons to let others have a chance. Who knows, maybe we will start using jail less as a deterrent and less as a punishment and more just to keep society safe, while sending the rest to programs and sentences that will rehabilitate and keep people working and supporting their families instead of going to prison where they will surely negatively affect their children's ability to stop the cycle of crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)