"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 Victims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Victims. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Monday, November 28, 2011
Sexual abuse on College campuses, Internet Identity Theft Protection and a Few Silly Laws
Thanksgiving was really good. I had a great time hanging with the family. Of course between courses, we had a long discussion about the Penn State situation. Then just as the Penn State Drama begins to simmer down, (I will not rehash the last 250 or so comments, the most ever on this blog, just click the link above.) Syracuse University fires its long time Assistant Coach Bernie Fine. Now originally Syracuse put him on paid leave, but another person has come forward to announce he was molested by Fine and a tape of Fine's wife is offered where she admits she had sex with a the then 18 year old ball boy who claims Fine molested him until he was 28...,(really, 28? Okay that is going to provide some fodder for the defense.) This story is getting more sordid by the day, yet I am so very unimpressed with yet another major University refusing to let the legal system do its job and waiting before casting dispersions upon someone based on what so far appears to be fairly flimsy "facts." My big question is "How are these guys ever going to get a fair trial??"
OK onto another Scary College Professor story. This one involves Professor Grant D. Smith an eEngineering
Prof from Univ. of Utah who, while flying first class to Boston, takes out his laptop and begins to watch alleged Child Porn!! Fellow passengers in First Class take out their phones and take pictures of what he is watching, they then send those pics to a family member who then calls the cops to report Smith to the authorities, where he is arrested at Logan Airport. This ought to be interesting. There are like 10 crimes here. Smith possession of Child Porn, using a cell phone while in mid air (aren't you supposed to turn them off? I don't know any more I haven't flown in a long while but this article in Sunday's NY Times makes me think you still must power off.) Possession by the picture taker/witness, transmission in interstate commerce to the friend, the friends receipt and possession of child porn, his transmission to police of same. Interesting no?? Smith's defense team will not be allowed to have the photos to see if they are real or nor how they could have gotten on his laptop because the government restricts the access to these photos to include not allowing the defense to have them. Of course the Just-Us Dept. lawyers can have them anytime they want and send them where they want to "test them"etc.
So far it appears that the state is prosecuting, however I think this will soon be taken federal as the penalties for possession of child porn carry such harsh jail times that the possessor prosecuted by the feds, will face far more time than the person doing the molesting will as the molester only is prosecuted in state. Further proof that criminals have no lobby in Congress.
In this case, Smith faces an uphill battle given the photos taken, but then again, we should know not to jump the gun on these things. At least Univ of Utah has a sane approach. The Professor is placed on Admin. leave, until the case is completed, then if guilty he is fired. Seems reasonable, let the courts run their course then decide. Wish Penn State and Syracuse would have shown similar trust in the judicial system to let it do its job.
As for Smith, I would eschew the usual suspect criminal attorneys and get one that works significantly in Cyber-sex crimes. The area is becoming an important sub-specialty of Criminal Law and he will need that expertise to help him avoid a very VERY long jail term.
I remember sending my boys to college campuses in the summer to learn from the college coaches how to play soccer. We also sent them to scholastic camps at Northwestern, Princeton and to the World College in Italy to learn debate skills. I spoke to my sons about those experiences and about whether those were positive experiences. Both acknowledged they were. I asked about the relationships between the participants and the teachers and both said they saw nothing inappropriate, but that the opportunity for abuse is always there, especially in Summers on large campuses with few people around but with lots of buildings. I think if there is any fall out from these scandals, it has to be how parents are going to determine if they can trust the adults with whom they entrust their children. I have no answer, but I think we really need to look into the supervisory relationships, staffing, dorms, and other things before we send the kids into even the most prestigious opportunities.
In another Cyber/ Interent Crime related story, Yahoo provides us with the 25 dumbest passwords. If you use one of these passwords, you are either asking to get hacked or you are a moron. I mean really a password called "Password"? 123456? ABC123?? Who are you the Jackson 5??.
A strong password is made up of letters that do not spell out a word, and those letters should be a mix of Upper and lower case letters. Add some numbers and some signs ie: (!@!@#$#%$%^&). Hence Hb3%eI2* would be a fairly strong password. (Now PLEAASSSEEEE don't use that as a password...) Sigh...
Lastly I thought you would all get a kick from this story about how it is illegal to hail a cab for someone you aren't traveling with in NYC. It is a little known law but it provides a cop with probable cause to stop you and even if that PC escalates to search you. The law was aimed at the Squeggy men. There are some decent underpinnings to the law, but I think it lends itself to selective prosecution defenses. It might be a trite over-broad and vague too.
Anyway, flame away all you rush to judgment types out there. For those who have a few ideas on how to judge what camps and opportunities are safe for kids please leave a comment. For any one with ideas on Safety of Identity please share your knowledge.
Happy Thanksgiving.
OK onto another Scary College Professor story. This one involves Professor Grant D. Smith an eEngineering
Prof from Univ. of Utah who, while flying first class to Boston, takes out his laptop and begins to watch alleged Child Porn!! Fellow passengers in First Class take out their phones and take pictures of what he is watching, they then send those pics to a family member who then calls the cops to report Smith to the authorities, where he is arrested at Logan Airport. This ought to be interesting. There are like 10 crimes here. Smith possession of Child Porn, using a cell phone while in mid air (aren't you supposed to turn them off? I don't know any more I haven't flown in a long while but this article in Sunday's NY Times makes me think you still must power off.) Possession by the picture taker/witness, transmission in interstate commerce to the friend, the friends receipt and possession of child porn, his transmission to police of same. Interesting no?? Smith's defense team will not be allowed to have the photos to see if they are real or nor how they could have gotten on his laptop because the government restricts the access to these photos to include not allowing the defense to have them. Of course the Just-Us Dept. lawyers can have them anytime they want and send them where they want to "test them"etc.
So far it appears that the state is prosecuting, however I think this will soon be taken federal as the penalties for possession of child porn carry such harsh jail times that the possessor prosecuted by the feds, will face far more time than the person doing the molesting will as the molester only is prosecuted in state. Further proof that criminals have no lobby in Congress.
In this case, Smith faces an uphill battle given the photos taken, but then again, we should know not to jump the gun on these things. At least Univ of Utah has a sane approach. The Professor is placed on Admin. leave, until the case is completed, then if guilty he is fired. Seems reasonable, let the courts run their course then decide. Wish Penn State and Syracuse would have shown similar trust in the judicial system to let it do its job.
As for Smith, I would eschew the usual suspect criminal attorneys and get one that works significantly in Cyber-sex crimes. The area is becoming an important sub-specialty of Criminal Law and he will need that expertise to help him avoid a very VERY long jail term.
I remember sending my boys to college campuses in the summer to learn from the college coaches how to play soccer. We also sent them to scholastic camps at Northwestern, Princeton and to the World College in Italy to learn debate skills. I spoke to my sons about those experiences and about whether those were positive experiences. Both acknowledged they were. I asked about the relationships between the participants and the teachers and both said they saw nothing inappropriate, but that the opportunity for abuse is always there, especially in Summers on large campuses with few people around but with lots of buildings. I think if there is any fall out from these scandals, it has to be how parents are going to determine if they can trust the adults with whom they entrust their children. I have no answer, but I think we really need to look into the supervisory relationships, staffing, dorms, and other things before we send the kids into even the most prestigious opportunities.
In another Cyber/ Interent Crime related story, Yahoo provides us with the 25 dumbest passwords. If you use one of these passwords, you are either asking to get hacked or you are a moron. I mean really a password called "Password"? 123456? ABC123?? Who are you the Jackson 5??.
A strong password is made up of letters that do not spell out a word, and those letters should be a mix of Upper and lower case letters. Add some numbers and some signs ie: (!@!@#$#%$%^&). Hence Hb3%eI2* would be a fairly strong password. (Now PLEAASSSEEEE don't use that as a password...) Sigh...
Lastly I thought you would all get a kick from this story about how it is illegal to hail a cab for someone you aren't traveling with in NYC. It is a little known law but it provides a cop with probable cause to stop you and even if that PC escalates to search you. The law was aimed at the Squeggy men. There are some decent underpinnings to the law, but I think it lends itself to selective prosecution defenses. It might be a trite over-broad and vague too.
Anyway, flame away all you rush to judgment types out there. For those who have a few ideas on how to judge what camps and opportunities are safe for kids please leave a comment. For any one with ideas on Safety of Identity please share your knowledge.
Happy Thanksgiving.
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.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Battered Woman Syndrome Defense Scores a Big Win in Butterknife Stabbing Case: Some SOBs Just Need Killin."
When the Prosecution opens the trial with:"Kevin Cobb may not have been a husband or father any of us would want to have..." That ought to be the first clue there is going to be a problem with the prosecution.
When the next thing the prosecutor says is: the husband (Kevin Cobb) was out using coke, returning home around 3 a.m.
And when the alleged victim has done upstate time for drug and violent crimes, well then that would be a trifecta for a good reason not to bring a charge of Murder (or even assault First degree.
But when the defendant has suffered from "...bruises and (a) black eye and (a) punctured ear drum" all at the hands of the alleged victim...then you know you probably should have offered a plea bargain.
Note to prosecutors: "Some SOBs just need killin." It is not necessarily a valid defense but jury's do understand it. It is one thing for a defense attorney to stand before a jury and protect an accused who is also a miserable person, it is far different for a prosecutor to use the state to prosecute someone who is basically a good person ( Ms. Cobb is a nurse and the mother of six kids) and take the side of the miserable SOB who has been abusing them for years. Sounds like the jury understood that Kevin Cobb was one of those SOBs who got far less than he deserved.
Man a butter knife... OUCH!
HAT TIP:ABA Journal
and for some of the quoted material above the NY Daily News
By the way, gotta love the NY Daily News Headline in this case"I killed my coke-fiend husband in self-defense." Kind of says it all n'est-ce pas?
When the next thing the prosecutor says is: the husband (Kevin Cobb) was out using coke, returning home around 3 a.m.
And when the alleged victim has done upstate time for drug and violent crimes, well then that would be a trifecta for a good reason not to bring a charge of Murder (or even assault First degree.
But when the defendant has suffered from "...bruises and (a) black eye and (a) punctured ear drum" all at the hands of the alleged victim...then you know you probably should have offered a plea bargain.
Note to prosecutors: "Some SOBs just need killin." It is not necessarily a valid defense but jury's do understand it. It is one thing for a defense attorney to stand before a jury and protect an accused who is also a miserable person, it is far different for a prosecutor to use the state to prosecute someone who is basically a good person ( Ms. Cobb is a nurse and the mother of six kids) and take the side of the miserable SOB who has been abusing them for years. Sounds like the jury understood that Kevin Cobb was one of those SOBs who got far less than he deserved.
Man a butter knife... OUCH!
HAT TIP:ABA Journal
and for some of the quoted material above the NY Daily News
By the way, gotta love the NY Daily News Headline in this case"I killed my coke-fiend husband in self-defense." Kind of says it all n'est-ce pas?
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.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Open Letter to Agape World Inc "Investors"
Readers, I have been attempting to communicate with Agape World Inc. investors who have been talking trash as well as debating the issues of whether the President of Agape World Inc. was able to run an alleged "Ponzi scheme" by himself or if others knew what he was doing.
Of course, many of the folks on the bulletin board service do not like what I have to say. Others did not believe it was me saying it. They pointed to poor sentences and other grammatical errors which plague my writing when I am in a hurry. Of course I did what I usually do. I typed out my thoughts before I forgot them all, then went back to try to edit these thoughts and hit the wrong key thereby printing the response instead, errors and all.
A couple of folks were worried my post was by an anonymous person acting like they were me. I set the record straight in the letter below. I re-read the letter and decided it was worth reprinting it here too. I also edited the post before I sent it...
There you have it. I may be unconventional, but I think that people should hear both sides of things before they decide something as important as whether to charge a person based on nothing more than conjecture.
I will try to catch up with you all later this week.
TLD
Of course, many of the folks on the bulletin board service do not like what I have to say. Others did not believe it was me saying it. They pointed to poor sentences and other grammatical errors which plague my writing when I am in a hurry. Of course I did what I usually do. I typed out my thoughts before I forgot them all, then went back to try to edit these thoughts and hit the wrong key thereby printing the response instead, errors and all.
A couple of folks were worried my post was by an anonymous person acting like they were me. I set the record straight in the letter below. I re-read the letter and decided it was worth reprinting it here too. I also edited the post before I sent it...
To whom this may concern:
Thank you for taking the time to ask if I posted on "Fat Wallet."
I am the person who posted to the board. For those that felt that the post was poorly written, I hit the send button in error before I could edit the post. Nevertheless, I think I put the salient points across.
I understand people lost money. Some lost a lot of money, and they are justifiably upset. I also understand that it easy to lash out at people, especially when you can do it anonymously. I am responding as best I can, to investors where I can find them, and I am trying to do it in a non argumentative way. I use my real name because I think that the "anonymity" on the bulletin boards in part led to people not taking the warnings about Agape seriously.
Anthony Massaro is, in my opinion, a good man. He met a person who by all accounts was the consummate "con man." Any "con man" worth his salt slowly builds confidence in his "marks" (BTW I saw that you are having a discussion on what to call people who have been cheated. They are neither "investors", "losers", or "victims". They are "marks".) Cosmo started on his friends family and acquaintances. The more he kept promises, the more they believed in what he was doing. ( I noticed someone asked if Anthony ever told anyone where he met Nick. He told anyone who asked. Did any of you ask?)
No one can deny that Cosmo kept his books to himself. No one has come forward with a single shred of hard evidence that VPs or sub-brokers knew of, or saw, anything awry. All I have heard from marks, reporters and on the boards, is that the salesmen "Had to know". While it is a reasonable suspicion it is by far not proof. When it is held to the facts as we know them, it is no longer a reasonable suspicion.
I understand that this business had accountants lawyers and bookkeepers. It filed taxes. Why is it no one on Fat Wallet or in the press calling for these people to answer? Moreover, if done well (and I have no reason to think Cosmo didn't do it well) even these financial employees can be kept in the dark. Nevertheless can you see that their signing off on these documents gave the VP's and brokers even more to believe in?
I agree, Cosmo surrounded himself with men and women who could not challenge him. They knew little. They were mostly not business law educated. Some people on the floor of the NYSE and other exchanges do not have more than a HS education. If they go to the right firm however they learn. I doubt Agape was the right kind of firm. Agape employees had no idea what questions to ask. Even if they asked, they did not know enough to understand whether they were getting the right answers. If the answers sounded right, their belief level rose again. Nick Cosmo knows how to answer questions. (See the 22 "seminars" he held in December '08.)
Finally, belief in the company hit a pinnacle when Entrepreneur Inc. named the company one of the Top 100 Up and Coming Businesses. Imagine the pride these employees must have had. Imagine if you can, the belief and excitement they must have generated and what they told their friends and families. Instead of thinking they were "in on it", just for a moment, imagine they weren't, and think about how they felt about themselves and their company's accomplishments.
Now maybe you can imagine the betrayal they feel. If I am right, and again I have seen nothing hard showing me otherwise, you were betrayed by Nick Cosmo, a man who you barely or didn't know. They were betrayed by their boss. A person they came to believe in like a business "guru." A man who told them he was their friend and who it turned out cared as little for them as he does for you. Now imagine having to go home to tell your spouse that your whole life was built around a house of cards. On top of this, add people calling for your death or arrest etc. The same people, who only months before were inviting you to dinners, weddings, house warnings, and other parties that you helped make possible through Agape World Inc.
These employees have families and homes, They had savings accounts and retirement funds invested too. They thought they had found the goose that laid the golden egg, and they were giving that to other friends and family. Now they are alone, they are not able to speak to these same friends and families. They are despised and the people who heralded them just a few short months ago, have turned on them.
Maybe you are too angry to hear this, maybe you are so angry that you cannot imagine what I am saying. That doesn't make what I am saying not true. In fact, what I am saying is by far more provable than what some "marks" are suggesting.
That "They had to know" line is certainly convenient, and may make a few "marks" feel better that they were ripped off by a team of "con men" instead of by one guy, but it doesn't equal proof by even a preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.
Someone had mentioned that the "brokers" had to have a Series 7. I do not agree. I do not think the law presently requires people who pool money to lend at a profit have to have any regulation at this time. This case may change that, but if it does, it does so at a great risk to legitimate lenders and moreover to needy borrowers. I do not however, wish to debate the issue now.
I would like to say one more thing however. Some of you have suggested that I must not be a very good lawyer because I have chosen to come on Fat Wallet and other websites to respond to some of the things I have seen written there. I guess I have a different way of practicing law than most people do. I think that it is important to have someone challenge, rationally, the proposition that where there is smoke there must always be fire. Sometimes when there is smoke, all it is, is smoke.
My client is sad, dazed, and right now, alone. If I am right, he did nothing more than any other mark has, but he has lost far more than they, he has lost not just money he had counted on, but a support and a belief system. While I understand the anger, it is a shame that others cannot withhold judgment until all the facts are aired. Until then, these men and women are entitled to be presumed innocent by each of you.
There you have it. I may be unconventional, but I think that people should hear both sides of things before they decide something as important as whether to charge a person based on nothing more than conjecture.
I will try to catch up with you all later this week.
TLD
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
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Stupid Cops Are As Big a Threat To Kids as Stranger Pedophiles: Two Cases of Keystone Kops Actions That Will Scar Innocent Children For Life
My first civil rights case, was on behalf of a Haitian kid who had the temerity to cut his grandfather's lawn while being black and wearing dreads... no joke.
Three dolt cops were looking for a car with the license plate WTZ 469 my client had a plate, WZT 469. The car they were looking for, a stolen vehicle, was a white SUV. My client's car was a green coupe.
They watched him as he took a lawn mower out of the back of his car, and started to mow the grass at his Grandfather's house. Then these dyslexic cops jumped out of their car, without identifying themsleves, jumped him onto the cement sidewalk causing contusions to his face, and set off a mini-riot as people were yelling at them for arresting an innocent kid. His mom (the rightful owner of the kid's car) pulled up and tried to tell these idiots that the car belonged to her. No matter. They slammed the kid into the vehicle so hard that his face broke the window!!
Backups had to be called in to quell the disturbance, and while that was going on one of the jerks calls into the precinct only to learn they had the wrong car. Now one would figure that such a finding would result in releasing the kid, apologizing and of course telling the kid to contact the department to pay for the damages to his face...Right.
No the cop on the radio informs the patrolman to switch to another "unmonitored" channel and then they have a conversation about how they better arrest the kid and the mother and charge something or they are going to pay a lot of money out to some "%^&ing Lawyer and the kid". So they arrested the kid and the next day his mom.
Case got dismissed and then I sued. Why? Turns out an amateur radio operator was "monitoring" the band the cops used to come up with the story that they were going to tell. There was an internal investigation... No charges brought. My case settled for just under $25k + free medical and attorney's fees. Kid was happy, and at the time, I was happy. Looking back, I wish we had gone whole hog on it, you know trial and all. On the other hand, it was the early 90's and pre-Louima so who knows maybe it would have gone no where and $25K was all we would have gotten. Maybe the press could have cared less. One thing I know, though is that this wasn't isolated in Nassau County NY and it sure as hell isn't isolated in America.
So you can imagine my frustration and anger at reading these 3 posts by Tony(c) award Winner in News blogging The Agitator's Radley Balko
The Dymond Milburn case (posts one and two) especially has my attention. Here is a 12 year old girl, black doing a chore on her own property in Texas. 4 plainclothes cops who are supposed to be looking for 3 white sex workers attack a little girl thinking she is one of the white sex workers??? I am sorry but WTF!!!!.
They are trying to take her away and she is holding onto a try screaming for help. They are beating her up with flashlights and she is afraid she is about to be abducted! Her father comes out and he is tries to explain to these "officers of the law" that the child is 12, a middle school honor student and not a prostitute.
Ok, tell me why that asshole shouldn't be shot on the spot by the father? Maybe he had identified himself to the family at that point. Ok don't shoot, but still "I don't care if she is twenty two thirty two or forty six..."??? Screw him, all he wanted was to be in control of a situation that he caused to be out of control in the first place. Oh and did I mention they told her they were gonna shoot her puppy which had come to her aid with barking and biting.
Now for those of you who say that this is only one side, I agree and I still do not care...SHE IS 12. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if one of these Keystone Cops had a taser??
Finally it comes to an end, the kid goes to the hospital for her physical injuries which are fairly serious (two black eyes and wounds to the head consistant with being struck with a flashlight), and the Chief of Galveston Police sends her a dozen roses and an apology right? WRONG!!! No, they go to her SCHOOL three weeks later and arrest her in front of everyone else for resisting arrest and injuring AN OFFICER!! Geeez can they be more arrogant?
If you have the stomach for it, take a look at the complaint. Trust me, if you care an iota about what is left of Civil Rights in this country you better have a barf bag available.
Now even if the first part were entirely made up ala Tawanna Brawley, why did they have to arrest her at school??? SHE IS 12. What part of "12" do these dumb bastards not understand. Call her in, go politely to her home. Why embarass the child? Why is the Governor or Texas not sending his best Assistant Deputy Attorney General and his top State investigator down to Galveston with an order to bring him back some badges?? Maybe it is because Dymond is black, and her parents are poor, and so, well, maybe they think it will go away.
Has anybody seen this on the MSM??? Is Katie Couric focusing on this mess? No, but trust me, I have seen the power of Radley Balko's blog following, and there is about to be some hell to pay. I don't have his readership, but I too am pissed and I want some answers. I will be forwarding this post and a letter to my Congressman and asking that we fix 42 USC 1983 to give it the teeth it had before the SCOTUS and friends dismantled it.
As for the child, Dymond Milburn, she has nightmares about being carried off in the night and being raped by cops. Surprise!
BTW Balko got his story from the Houston Press
Then there is the attack on three kids when SWAT came into their bedroom... well maybe I will have more time for that one later. Oh yeah, the police are still shooting innocent animals too.
Three dolt cops were looking for a car with the license plate WTZ 469 my client had a plate, WZT 469. The car they were looking for, a stolen vehicle, was a white SUV. My client's car was a green coupe.
They watched him as he took a lawn mower out of the back of his car, and started to mow the grass at his Grandfather's house. Then these dyslexic cops jumped out of their car, without identifying themsleves, jumped him onto the cement sidewalk causing contusions to his face, and set off a mini-riot as people were yelling at them for arresting an innocent kid. His mom (the rightful owner of the kid's car) pulled up and tried to tell these idiots that the car belonged to her. No matter. They slammed the kid into the vehicle so hard that his face broke the window!!
Backups had to be called in to quell the disturbance, and while that was going on one of the jerks calls into the precinct only to learn they had the wrong car. Now one would figure that such a finding would result in releasing the kid, apologizing and of course telling the kid to contact the department to pay for the damages to his face...Right.
No the cop on the radio informs the patrolman to switch to another "unmonitored" channel and then they have a conversation about how they better arrest the kid and the mother and charge something or they are going to pay a lot of money out to some "%^&ing Lawyer and the kid". So they arrested the kid and the next day his mom.
Case got dismissed and then I sued. Why? Turns out an amateur radio operator was "monitoring" the band the cops used to come up with the story that they were going to tell. There was an internal investigation... No charges brought. My case settled for just under $25k + free medical and attorney's fees. Kid was happy, and at the time, I was happy. Looking back, I wish we had gone whole hog on it, you know trial and all. On the other hand, it was the early 90's and pre-Louima so who knows maybe it would have gone no where and $25K was all we would have gotten. Maybe the press could have cared less. One thing I know, though is that this wasn't isolated in Nassau County NY and it sure as hell isn't isolated in America.
So you can imagine my frustration and anger at reading these 3 posts by Tony(c) award Winner in News blogging The Agitator's Radley Balko
The Dymond Milburn case (posts one and two) especially has my attention. Here is a 12 year old girl, black doing a chore on her own property in Texas. 4 plainclothes cops who are supposed to be looking for 3 white sex workers attack a little girl thinking she is one of the white sex workers??? I am sorry but WTF!!!!.
They are trying to take her away and she is holding onto a try screaming for help. They are beating her up with flashlights and she is afraid she is about to be abducted! Her father comes out and he is tries to explain to these "officers of the law" that the child is 12, a middle school honor student and not a prostitute.
His protests are met with: "I don't care if she is twenty-two, thirty-two or forty-six, tell her to calm down."
Ok, tell me why that asshole shouldn't be shot on the spot by the father? Maybe he had identified himself to the family at that point. Ok don't shoot, but still "I don't care if she is twenty two thirty two or forty six..."??? Screw him, all he wanted was to be in control of a situation that he caused to be out of control in the first place. Oh and did I mention they told her they were gonna shoot her puppy which had come to her aid with barking and biting.
Now for those of you who say that this is only one side, I agree and I still do not care...SHE IS 12. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if one of these Keystone Cops had a taser??
Finally it comes to an end, the kid goes to the hospital for her physical injuries which are fairly serious (two black eyes and wounds to the head consistant with being struck with a flashlight), and the Chief of Galveston Police sends her a dozen roses and an apology right? WRONG!!! No, they go to her SCHOOL three weeks later and arrest her in front of everyone else for resisting arrest and injuring AN OFFICER!! Geeez can they be more arrogant?
If you have the stomach for it, take a look at the complaint. Trust me, if you care an iota about what is left of Civil Rights in this country you better have a barf bag available.
Now even if the first part were entirely made up ala Tawanna Brawley, why did they have to arrest her at school??? SHE IS 12. What part of "12" do these dumb bastards not understand. Call her in, go politely to her home. Why embarass the child? Why is the Governor or Texas not sending his best Assistant Deputy Attorney General and his top State investigator down to Galveston with an order to bring him back some badges?? Maybe it is because Dymond is black, and her parents are poor, and so, well, maybe they think it will go away.
Has anybody seen this on the MSM??? Is Katie Couric focusing on this mess? No, but trust me, I have seen the power of Radley Balko's blog following, and there is about to be some hell to pay. I don't have his readership, but I too am pissed and I want some answers. I will be forwarding this post and a letter to my Congressman and asking that we fix 42 USC 1983 to give it the teeth it had before the SCOTUS and friends dismantled it.
As for the child, Dymond Milburn, she has nightmares about being carried off in the night and being raped by cops. Surprise!
BTW Balko got his story from the Houston Press
Then there is the attack on three kids when SWAT came into their bedroom... well maybe I will have more time for that one later. Oh yeah, the police are still shooting innocent animals too.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Why I Support Sex Worker's Rights: Part I My Introduction to "Patty"
I couldn't wait for my first case. I was a brand new "Lawyer" in Hofstra University's brand new Criminal Defense Clinic (we hadn't taken the bar yet but we worked under a student practice order while supervised by an admitted attorney). I was getting a case load, and a client or two that I could "help". I was so excited.
When the assignments were announced Doug Colbert (now a Prof at Univ. of Maryland Law but then first director of our clinic at Hofstra Law)had assigned me to a trans-gendered Prostitute!
I was stunned. I thought to myself "how am I gonna do this?" Not only was the guy gay, HE DRESSED LIKE A GIRL!! This was not what I expected. It was also going to be a great personal problem... How was I going to go home and tell my Father and Mother that the son they had spent a life savings on educating, was going to be representing "he-shes?" My Family was going to disown me. Forget my friends. They will all think I flipped! I mean I was Mr. Prosecution at school. I was so conservative, I had actually met and liked President Reagan (still do). "Oh and then what would happen to my political career if I took this case?" NO NO NO I could not represent this...GUY?!
I went to Prof. Colbert, Doug was cool, he would get it. He wouldn't put me with a client I was morally against representing! And I was right!! He wouldn't. He however pointed out a few realities to me:
1. I wanted to help people and my client needed help and a lot of it.
2. My Client needed fearless advocacy and I was fearless (I have no idea why, but this is still basically true. I rarely have ever cared what others thought of me, kind of funny now looking back and thinking I wanted to be in politics. I also always hated bullies.)
3. Morally, I needed to figure out if I could defend anyone, if my morality was more important than the "God given" rights in the US Bill of Rights.
Doug was thought provoking. I went home and spent the whole weekend thinking about what he had to say. I didn't tell the family about my new client. I did a lot of soul searching. I was the first in my Dad's family (along with my cousin Donald who is now a biglaw Corp. litigator) to go to law school. I wanted the others to think what I was doing was important. I figured if nothing else, if this got out I would get a lot of teasing. Well I could live with that. Dad on the other hand was a different story. He was CONSERVATIVE. I didn't think he would like this at all.
As luck would have it, my aunt Rosie, (who was in High School when I was born and is closer in age to me than to my mom, her sister) came over for dinner with my grandparents. She was very excited about her work. Rosie was a Medical Doctor (MD) and an Infectious Disease specialist. She was going to be a co-director of a clinic to help people who were very sick and dying from a "new plague" it was called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). She was describing some of her clients and the work. She was way ahead of the reporting on the matter. She was telling us about how it was a scourge of the Gay community. She described the suffering of these people. The fear, the ugly death. Her frustration with the lack of funding because it seemed to be a disease that homosexuals got. No one wanted to come out and help them. I asked Roe, who is very religious, about whether she had qualms about helping "that group of people." She mentioned that our religion left judgment up to God. That all of her clients were God's children. I thought about that a lot too.
When dinner was finished, I took Rosie aside, and told her about my client. She was so excited for me. She was happy that I would use my talent to help people others had abandoned. With her encouragement, I told my dad I had a client. I told him about the crime, and about the client. Then I waited. He looked at me and then he said, "Everyone deserves a defense."
Now for most people that line wouldn't have sounded too good, but dad was a man of few words, and that was a full out message of support. I promised him that he would get the best defense anyone would give him. Dad's response was perfect... "Good,sounds like he needs it. Do the best you can". I was very happy, that was a huge hurdle. He probably wasn't happy with the situation, but at least he would support me in the endeavor.
I thought a lot about this client. A lot about how I would act when I met him, a lot about what I would say in his defense. The following Monday, I told Colbert that while I was still somewhat uncomfortable, I wanted to try to represent him.
When I met Patty, I immediately became angry. She described her treatment at the hands of the Johns and the Cops. She told me about how they would abuse her. How she was often the victim of crimes from johns, gangbangers (who wanted to prove their "manhood") and how if she went to police, they would beat her up, berate her, feel up her breasts (she was pre op) and toss her out of the precinct. Her family was completely repulsed by her. Worst of all, she had a bad drug problem, yet she was not allowed into the local clinic. They were afraid she might be carrying "the virus".
This was the most marginalized person I had ever met. Black, gay, transgendered, abandoned by society, family, government. She had no one. Well she had me, and my friend Sab who was co-counsel. Neither one of us had passed the bar, neither one of us had ever been in charge of a case before, and neither one of us were ok with Patty's sexuality, but we were sure that we weren't going to let her get run over by the government again.
We went to court that week and told the judge we weren't going to accept the plea offer to the charge and his "generous offer" of 30 days in jail. We were going to call the john as a witness and we wanted motions and hearings. He thought we were nuts. We brought him a subpoena for police records and we even filed a motion to declare the law she was arrested under unconstitutional.
In the end, the District attorney's office offered to allow Patty to plead guilty to "Disorderly Conduct" and the judge agreed to a fine of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars. Sab pointed out to the court that Patty would have to give 12 blow jobs (they went for Twenty dollars each on the streets of Hempstead back then) to afford the fine. I pointed out that it might cause a lot of people to become ill. The judge thought about it, asked how much she had in her purse and accepted the forty dollars she had. She then said she wouldn't have bus fare back to Hempstead. Sab joked loud enough for the judge to hear, that she could probably make a fast buck at the bus station around the corner from the court. The judge lowered the fine to Twenty five dollars and Patty walked out thanking us and promising to tell all the "girls" on Main street about what we accomplished for her.
I went home that afternoon and waited for dad to get home from work (he owned a construction company.) I couldn't wait to tell him how I did. I told him everything. He beamed in that quiet way of his. Then he smiled, "Sounds like you guys did a great job" He got up, and walked to the dinner table, and we had dinner, and Dad encouraged me to tell mom about my day. She wasn't comfortable with my decision to go into criminal defense, and she was not into my representing poor, transgendered/transvestite, male prostitutes, but she followed dad's lead and congratulated me. She added that she hoped my next client was more "normal", and we went on to dinner conversation that was more appropriate for supper at my family's house.
As a kid growing up, I guess I would say I was mildly homophobic. I wasn't against them per se, I just wasn't comfortable around them. I had no interest in hurting them, I just wasn't interested in their problems or issues. Patty was the first step in a career where I have represented many people who work in the sex industry. My comfort level and acceptance level rose as I began to realize that I liked some of them and didn't like others. Some were good people and others were not. I learned they had dreams and hopes, same as me. I found myself mourning a lot of these men and women as AIDS decimated the community. I find that I miss many of them.
Now that my career has taken a turn toward more "normal" clients I still cannot forget the men and women who work, either by choice or happenstance, in the sex industry and who as a society we continue to marginalize. I know from dozens of first hand observations how that marginalization, makes them exceptionally vulnerable to crime, medical issues, suicide and homelessness. I also refuse to turn my back on them. I still accept their cases in court assignments and for those that are more "successful" I take them on as private clients. I have instituted office policies and trained staff not to judge their lives or choices. I want to make the experience as comfortable for every client as I can. I have learned to work in a team approach with doctors, therapists and others to handle these clients as best as I can.
To this day, I hear my dad's voice, accepting my choice to use my education on behalf of anyone who the government has targeted. I do the very best I can.
Today was the The International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. There were walks and vigils attended by anywhere from a handful of people to thousands.
Next Monday would have been my dad's 76th Birthday.
Today, I honor both of these events. And Dad, I still miss you, everyday.
When the assignments were announced Doug Colbert (now a Prof at Univ. of Maryland Law but then first director of our clinic at Hofstra Law)had assigned me to a trans-gendered Prostitute!
I was stunned. I thought to myself "how am I gonna do this?" Not only was the guy gay, HE DRESSED LIKE A GIRL!! This was not what I expected. It was also going to be a great personal problem... How was I going to go home and tell my Father and Mother that the son they had spent a life savings on educating, was going to be representing "he-shes?" My Family was going to disown me. Forget my friends. They will all think I flipped! I mean I was Mr. Prosecution at school. I was so conservative, I had actually met and liked President Reagan (still do). "Oh and then what would happen to my political career if I took this case?" NO NO NO I could not represent this...GUY?!
I went to Prof. Colbert, Doug was cool, he would get it. He wouldn't put me with a client I was morally against representing! And I was right!! He wouldn't. He however pointed out a few realities to me:
1. I wanted to help people and my client needed help and a lot of it.
2. My Client needed fearless advocacy and I was fearless (I have no idea why, but this is still basically true. I rarely have ever cared what others thought of me, kind of funny now looking back and thinking I wanted to be in politics. I also always hated bullies.)
3. Morally, I needed to figure out if I could defend anyone, if my morality was more important than the "God given" rights in the US Bill of Rights.
Doug was thought provoking. I went home and spent the whole weekend thinking about what he had to say. I didn't tell the family about my new client. I did a lot of soul searching. I was the first in my Dad's family (along with my cousin Donald who is now a biglaw Corp. litigator) to go to law school. I wanted the others to think what I was doing was important. I figured if nothing else, if this got out I would get a lot of teasing. Well I could live with that. Dad on the other hand was a different story. He was CONSERVATIVE. I didn't think he would like this at all.
As luck would have it, my aunt Rosie, (who was in High School when I was born and is closer in age to me than to my mom, her sister) came over for dinner with my grandparents. She was very excited about her work. Rosie was a Medical Doctor (MD) and an Infectious Disease specialist. She was going to be a co-director of a clinic to help people who were very sick and dying from a "new plague" it was called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). She was describing some of her clients and the work. She was way ahead of the reporting on the matter. She was telling us about how it was a scourge of the Gay community. She described the suffering of these people. The fear, the ugly death. Her frustration with the lack of funding because it seemed to be a disease that homosexuals got. No one wanted to come out and help them. I asked Roe, who is very religious, about whether she had qualms about helping "that group of people." She mentioned that our religion left judgment up to God. That all of her clients were God's children. I thought about that a lot too.
When dinner was finished, I took Rosie aside, and told her about my client. She was so excited for me. She was happy that I would use my talent to help people others had abandoned. With her encouragement, I told my dad I had a client. I told him about the crime, and about the client. Then I waited. He looked at me and then he said, "Everyone deserves a defense."
Now for most people that line wouldn't have sounded too good, but dad was a man of few words, and that was a full out message of support. I promised him that he would get the best defense anyone would give him. Dad's response was perfect... "Good,sounds like he needs it. Do the best you can". I was very happy, that was a huge hurdle. He probably wasn't happy with the situation, but at least he would support me in the endeavor.
I thought a lot about this client. A lot about how I would act when I met him, a lot about what I would say in his defense. The following Monday, I told Colbert that while I was still somewhat uncomfortable, I wanted to try to represent him.
When I met Patty, I immediately became angry. She described her treatment at the hands of the Johns and the Cops. She told me about how they would abuse her. How she was often the victim of crimes from johns, gangbangers (who wanted to prove their "manhood") and how if she went to police, they would beat her up, berate her, feel up her breasts (she was pre op) and toss her out of the precinct. Her family was completely repulsed by her. Worst of all, she had a bad drug problem, yet she was not allowed into the local clinic. They were afraid she might be carrying "the virus".
This was the most marginalized person I had ever met. Black, gay, transgendered, abandoned by society, family, government. She had no one. Well she had me, and my friend Sab who was co-counsel. Neither one of us had passed the bar, neither one of us had ever been in charge of a case before, and neither one of us were ok with Patty's sexuality, but we were sure that we weren't going to let her get run over by the government again.
We went to court that week and told the judge we weren't going to accept the plea offer to the charge and his "generous offer" of 30 days in jail. We were going to call the john as a witness and we wanted motions and hearings. He thought we were nuts. We brought him a subpoena for police records and we even filed a motion to declare the law she was arrested under unconstitutional.
In the end, the District attorney's office offered to allow Patty to plead guilty to "Disorderly Conduct" and the judge agreed to a fine of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars. Sab pointed out to the court that Patty would have to give 12 blow jobs (they went for Twenty dollars each on the streets of Hempstead back then) to afford the fine. I pointed out that it might cause a lot of people to become ill. The judge thought about it, asked how much she had in her purse and accepted the forty dollars she had. She then said she wouldn't have bus fare back to Hempstead. Sab joked loud enough for the judge to hear, that she could probably make a fast buck at the bus station around the corner from the court. The judge lowered the fine to Twenty five dollars and Patty walked out thanking us and promising to tell all the "girls" on Main street about what we accomplished for her.
I went home that afternoon and waited for dad to get home from work (he owned a construction company.) I couldn't wait to tell him how I did. I told him everything. He beamed in that quiet way of his. Then he smiled, "Sounds like you guys did a great job" He got up, and walked to the dinner table, and we had dinner, and Dad encouraged me to tell mom about my day. She wasn't comfortable with my decision to go into criminal defense, and she was not into my representing poor, transgendered/transvestite, male prostitutes, but she followed dad's lead and congratulated me. She added that she hoped my next client was more "normal", and we went on to dinner conversation that was more appropriate for supper at my family's house.
As a kid growing up, I guess I would say I was mildly homophobic. I wasn't against them per se, I just wasn't comfortable around them. I had no interest in hurting them, I just wasn't interested in their problems or issues. Patty was the first step in a career where I have represented many people who work in the sex industry. My comfort level and acceptance level rose as I began to realize that I liked some of them and didn't like others. Some were good people and others were not. I learned they had dreams and hopes, same as me. I found myself mourning a lot of these men and women as AIDS decimated the community. I find that I miss many of them.
Now that my career has taken a turn toward more "normal" clients I still cannot forget the men and women who work, either by choice or happenstance, in the sex industry and who as a society we continue to marginalize. I know from dozens of first hand observations how that marginalization, makes them exceptionally vulnerable to crime, medical issues, suicide and homelessness. I also refuse to turn my back on them. I still accept their cases in court assignments and for those that are more "successful" I take them on as private clients. I have instituted office policies and trained staff not to judge their lives or choices. I want to make the experience as comfortable for every client as I can. I have learned to work in a team approach with doctors, therapists and others to handle these clients as best as I can.
To this day, I hear my dad's voice, accepting my choice to use my education on behalf of anyone who the government has targeted. I do the very best I can.
Today was the The International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. There were walks and vigils attended by anywhere from a handful of people to thousands.
Next Monday would have been my dad's 76th Birthday.
Today, I honor both of these events. And Dad, I still miss you, everyday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)