John Thompson, who spent 14 years on death row before he was exonerated–based on evidence that had been purposefully withheld by prosecutors in the office of New Orleans DA Harry Connick Sr. A Louisiana jury found the DA’s office culpable for Thompson’s ordeal (which included coming within weeks of execution before the exculpatory evidence was revealed), and awarded him $14 million in compensatory damages.
.
The state appealed the jury’s verdict all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which yesterday ruled against Thompson and stripped him of his award.
.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg stated: “I would uphold the jury’s verdict awarding damages to Thompson for the gross, deliberately indifferent and long-continuing violation of his fair trial right,” she said, adding that she was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
.
Ginsberg further said the actions of prosecutors under the control of Connick (the elected DA), who left office in 2003 and is the father of the famous singer of the same name, “dishonored” the obligation to turn over evidence favorable to the accused established in Brady v. Maryland nearly 50 years ago.
.
Ginsburg also wrote that “Connick’s deliberately indifferent attitude created a tinderbox in which Brady violations were nigh inevitable.” As we wrote in October, many other convictions have also been overturned, “all due to suppression of evidence,” said New Orleans Defense Attorney Nick Trenticosta. “They all try to portray it as rogue prosecutor; a fluke,” he continues, but “Harry Connick used to give awards to prosecutors for successfully convicting people.”
.
Connick, Trenticosta said, created a culture where convictions were won “at any cost.” The office’s zeal for sending people to death row was such that a New Orleans prosecutor kept on his desk a model electric chair holding photos of five condemned men–John Thompson among them. Trenticosta has called the prosectors’ actions “calculated measures to take people’s lives away.”
.
What do you think?
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Postmus Pleads Guilty to 15 Counts--DA Finds Way to Muzzle Postmus?
An effective strategy to muffling Postmus relating his alleged inside information on some of the DA's office's misconduct/malicious motives is to chase off private defense counsel with aggressive litigation tactics, leave the defendant with counsel he may not have full confidence in to try the case (and even if he did, not the resources to fight a protracted battle) and force him to plead guilty to 15 counts with no sentencing on any of the charges [http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/postmus29.22d084feb.html] so if the DA does not like what Postmus testifies to, the DA recommends to the judge ringing Postmus up for a max sentence?--Isn't that rather like burying testimony you don't want to come out and buying what you do want to come out? Isn't that censoring content? Who is the gatekeeper on Postmus' memory? Isn't that also bomb-proofing yourself against the potential damage from a material witness' testimony against you? Certainly Postmus painted a target on himself over the years and made moral judgment errors, but he made a mistake. When he did what he did, he wasn't the elected DA. Heh--imagine the Colonies' defense--"the County's prosecution against us was only possible after they found three convicted felons who were willing to lie again (this time against us)". Wow
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
PRESS RELEASE --NATIONAL CONSUMER PROTECTION WEEK HERE & ANNOUNCING A PROGRAM TO HELP LOAN MODIFICATION SCAM VICTIMS
The following press release care of Assemblymember Carter:
.
A public awareness campaign tied to National Consumer Protection Week this month is helping homeowners protect themselves against loan modification scams, find trusted help and report illegal activity to authorities.
.
The nationwide Loan Modification Scam Alert Campaign, sponsored by a coalition of national government agencies, nonprofit organizations and financial institutions, reminds people who are having difficulty paying their mortgage to avoid loan modification scammers.
.
OneJustice, a nonprofit organization, takes urban law students and pro bono attorneys on the road to rural and other areas in California to volunteer at free legal clinics through the Justice Bus™ Project. On March 23, the Justice Bus Project is coming to San Bernardino to provide a free legal clinic on home loan modification scams.
.
I urge you to take advantage of this free service or let someone you know it will be available. It will be held from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the San Bernardino County Law Library, 402 North "D" Street, San Bernardino.
.
The service is by appointment only. Call Candace Chen at (415) 834-0100, extention 313. The website is www.one-justice.org. OneJustice is partnering with the University of California, Irvine School of Law, Verizon, and Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.
.
The non-profit Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino offers legal services to clients with limited financial means. Roberta Shouse, Legal Aid Society's executive director, says, "A lot of our clients are being tricked. People sell them these modifications; people pay them and never hear from them again.
.
"Before they give money to anyone, they should come into the clinic with every piece of paper on the subject and talk to an attorney."
.
Don't hesitate to get help. Call them at (909) 889-7328 and/or visit their website http://legalaidofsb.org/
.
Hope this helps.
.
A public awareness campaign tied to National Consumer Protection Week this month is helping homeowners protect themselves against loan modification scams, find trusted help and report illegal activity to authorities.
.
The nationwide Loan Modification Scam Alert Campaign, sponsored by a coalition of national government agencies, nonprofit organizations and financial institutions, reminds people who are having difficulty paying their mortgage to avoid loan modification scammers.
.
OneJustice, a nonprofit organization, takes urban law students and pro bono attorneys on the road to rural and other areas in California to volunteer at free legal clinics through the Justice Bus™ Project. On March 23, the Justice Bus Project is coming to San Bernardino to provide a free legal clinic on home loan modification scams.
.
I urge you to take advantage of this free service or let someone you know it will be available. It will be held from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the San Bernardino County Law Library, 402 North "D" Street, San Bernardino.
.
The service is by appointment only. Call Candace Chen at (415) 834-0100, extention 313. The website is www.one-justice.org. OneJustice is partnering with the University of California, Irvine School of Law, Verizon, and Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.
.
The non-profit Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino offers legal services to clients with limited financial means. Roberta Shouse, Legal Aid Society's executive director, says, "A lot of our clients are being tricked. People sell them these modifications; people pay them and never hear from them again.
.
"Before they give money to anyone, they should come into the clinic with every piece of paper on the subject and talk to an attorney."
.
Don't hesitate to get help. Call them at (909) 889-7328 and/or visit their website http://legalaidofsb.org/
.
Hope this helps.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Supreme Court Allows State Prisoners to Seek DNA Evidence Through US Civil Rights Law - News - ABA Journal
Supreme Court Allows State Prisoners to Seek DNA Evidence Through US Civil Rights Law - News - ABA Journal
Blogger Bob's comments: Good article on another way to get justice through DNA evidence. Some of the questions, apart from who picks up the costs and can give the time for such actions (assuming jailhouse lawyering is not an alternative) and whether the District Attorneys' offices across the state may have any new duties/ responsibilities under this case, (1) does defense counsel have a duty to bring the action where DNA tested was requested by the defense lawyer, but denied [and now there is an appropriate remedy], (2) does prior defense counsel, in cases when DNA testing was demanded but denied, have a fiduciary duty to notify all their clients (not unlike a probate or trust lawyer having a duty to advise clients of significant changes in the law) and (3) is the US District court system which requires electronic filing, an undue burden on the prison population that may elect to force DNA testing via the 42 USC § 1983 tool (or is that not a problem as the relief only gives State Prisoners the right to bring the action in State court?). A practical problem is whether the 42 USC § 1983 can be used to force other people's DNA testing where a close relative might be, in the "plaintiff's" view a possible perp?
Blogger Bob's comments: Good article on another way to get justice through DNA evidence. Some of the questions, apart from who picks up the costs and can give the time for such actions (assuming jailhouse lawyering is not an alternative) and whether the District Attorneys' offices across the state may have any new duties/ responsibilities under this case, (1) does defense counsel have a duty to bring the action where DNA tested was requested by the defense lawyer, but denied [and now there is an appropriate remedy], (2) does prior defense counsel, in cases when DNA testing was demanded but denied, have a fiduciary duty to notify all their clients (not unlike a probate or trust lawyer having a duty to advise clients of significant changes in the law) and (3) is the US District court system which requires electronic filing, an undue burden on the prison population that may elect to force DNA testing via the 42 USC § 1983 tool (or is that not a problem as the relief only gives State Prisoners the right to bring the action in State court?). A practical problem is whether the 42 USC § 1983 can be used to force other people's DNA testing where a close relative might be, in the "plaintiff's" view a possible perp?
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Another Post to Help Homeowners Maybe Keep their Homes.....
Senator Barbara Boxer's “Resources for Struggling Homeowners” web page, part of the “Constituent Services” section of her Senate website, can be found at http://boxer.senate.gov/en/services/homes.cfm. Check it out!!
Monday, February 28, 2011
POST Scandal Reported by Examiner.com( & San Bernardino Sentinel 2/25/2011)--Grand Juries?? What Else is Being Suppressed?
The Examiner.com reports:
"The ethically-challenged San Bernardino County is expected to receive yet another black eye within a week or so. Sheriff's Department officials are accused of falsifying training records that were submitted to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.), resulting in tens of thousands of dollars being paid to each recipient that was not earned.
P.O.S.T. was created to set minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement. Certificates include basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management, and executive. Specialized certificates can also be awarded. Each new level brings with it a raise in hourly pay.
Sources close to the investigation say that up to 27 sealed indictments were issued this past Friday by two grand juries. Some of those involved are said to be high-level officials of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department and the indictments could go all the way to the top.
The story originally came to light last year when a local political blog, iepolitics.com, reported details of the story the department had attempted to cover up. Mainstream media did not pick it up. However, during the 2010 Primary when appointed incumbent Sheriff Rodney Hoops faced two opponents, transportation officer Mark Averbeck, and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department deputy Paul Schrader, the issue resurfaced and some local media covered the story. Hoops quickly dismissed it as having been fully investigated.
Originally, the department claimed that three individuals were involved including, including a captain and his wife. The captain was allowed to pay back approximately $16,000 and then retire. His wife was transferred to a new assignment. But a report surfaced showing many more than three participants. The department continued to cover up the story but eventually the Grand Jury became involved. Now the department's employees are waiting to find out how many of their management staff will be indicted. An answer is expected by March 7".
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Officials expected to be named in indictments involving P.O.S.T. scandal - Los Angeles Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-los-angeles/officials-expected-to-be-named-indictments-involving-p-o-s-t-scandal#ixzz1FI0MIYR4
Blogger Bob's comments: FIRST, What is troubling is the election-time cover-up of the P.O.S.T. false reports--didn't these certifications have to get signed off by Sheriff's Department management? SECOND, weren't there verification procedures in place approved by the command structure? If not, why not? Who knew about the false submissions and did nothing about them AFTER the falsity of submissions came to the attention of Hoops and his Captains? Why wasn't this openly and truthfully dealt with prior to the election by the sheriff's department, the media? It was an issue in the election but it was dismissed as resolved so basically no big deal? THIRD, the question that nags me is what else is the Sheriff's Department burying (no pun intended)? Since the consolidation of the Coronor's office and the Sheriff's department, which this blogger questioned as creating potential conflicts of interest, are notices of death certificates being sent to the Registrar of Voters? I am hearing from relatives of deceased people, that they are still getting mail in ballots for their deceased family members. Can we trust this Sheriff's management team to protect the integrity of the ballot box if they can't accurately oversee and police their own filling out forms under the penalty of perjury? FOURTH, why 2 grand juries?
"The ethically-challenged San Bernardino County is expected to receive yet another black eye within a week or so. Sheriff's Department officials are accused of falsifying training records that were submitted to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.), resulting in tens of thousands of dollars being paid to each recipient that was not earned.
P.O.S.T. was created to set minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement. Certificates include basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management, and executive. Specialized certificates can also be awarded. Each new level brings with it a raise in hourly pay.
Sources close to the investigation say that up to 27 sealed indictments were issued this past Friday by two grand juries. Some of those involved are said to be high-level officials of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department and the indictments could go all the way to the top.
The story originally came to light last year when a local political blog, iepolitics.com, reported details of the story the department had attempted to cover up. Mainstream media did not pick it up. However, during the 2010 Primary when appointed incumbent Sheriff Rodney Hoops faced two opponents, transportation officer Mark Averbeck, and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department deputy Paul Schrader, the issue resurfaced and some local media covered the story. Hoops quickly dismissed it as having been fully investigated.
Originally, the department claimed that three individuals were involved including, including a captain and his wife. The captain was allowed to pay back approximately $16,000 and then retire. His wife was transferred to a new assignment. But a report surfaced showing many more than three participants. The department continued to cover up the story but eventually the Grand Jury became involved. Now the department's employees are waiting to find out how many of their management staff will be indicted. An answer is expected by March 7".
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Officials expected to be named in indictments involving P.O.S.T. scandal - Los Angeles Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-los-angeles/officials-expected-to-be-named-indictments-involving-p-o-s-t-scandal#ixzz1FI0MIYR4
Blogger Bob's comments: FIRST, What is troubling is the election-time cover-up of the P.O.S.T. false reports--didn't these certifications have to get signed off by Sheriff's Department management? SECOND, weren't there verification procedures in place approved by the command structure? If not, why not? Who knew about the false submissions and did nothing about them AFTER the falsity of submissions came to the attention of Hoops and his Captains? Why wasn't this openly and truthfully dealt with prior to the election by the sheriff's department, the media? It was an issue in the election but it was dismissed as resolved so basically no big deal? THIRD, the question that nags me is what else is the Sheriff's Department burying (no pun intended)? Since the consolidation of the Coronor's office and the Sheriff's department, which this blogger questioned as creating potential conflicts of interest, are notices of death certificates being sent to the Registrar of Voters? I am hearing from relatives of deceased people, that they are still getting mail in ballots for their deceased family members. Can we trust this Sheriff's management team to protect the integrity of the ballot box if they can't accurately oversee and police their own filling out forms under the penalty of perjury? FOURTH, why 2 grand juries?
Monday, January 31, 2011
Mitzelfelt,a public official, threatens to sue people for spreading rumors about his wife?? Huh?? Did Brad Just Get Hot Sticked or What??
According to the January 28, 2011 edition of the San Bernardino Sentinel [SBCSentinel@yahoo.com] in an article entitled "Supervisor Mitzelfelt Denies Nepotism Accusation":
..
“In January of 2007, the board of supervisors appointed a new supervisor to the board [i.e., Brad Mitzelfelt]. The spouse of the supervisor was introduced into employment within the supervisor’s district in August of 2007. I believe this contract that was approved violated the [California] Government Code 1090 to 1099, as the supervisor, by the hiring of a spouse, illegally obtained monetary compensation in the form of her salary due to this hiring.” Government Code section 1090 prohibits an elected official from participating in a decision in which he or she has a financial interest. Winkler further charged that Megan Blaney-Mitzelfelt’s hiring by the county, while Brad Mitzelfelt is in office, constituted an “unfair hiring practice under the laws of California, an equal opportunity employer.” In response to Winkler’s assertions, which were made during the public comment portion of the meeting, Brad Mitzelfelt said, “I had nothing to do with my wife getting her job. I’d suggest you get your news from more credible sources. I also want to put you on notice that anyone who spreads rumors about my wife will be sued by me.”
..
Blogger Bob's comments:
(1) Mrs. Mitzelfelt (who by the way appears to be a nice lady and I will assume for now is qualified for the position) was introduced early on in Brad's campaign as the horse loving spouse that stood (I just had one of his old campaign flyers in my hands--wierd timing) next to Brad; it would have been interesting to have known she worked for the Sun, in front of which Brad was going for an endorsement!
(2) I find Brad's perception of legal rights challenged at best (maybe that's from all those super-lawyers he's voted to hire)--since when does a public official have legal standing to sue for his wife's alleged defamation?? The plain and simple fact, is that he does not have that right--she might, depending on what is said, where and when assuming the Anti-SLAPP statute(s) do(es) not apply, but Mitzelfelt as a former media rep for the USMC and former chief of staff for a first district supervisor, knows that, so what can this little outburst be really reflective of? Surely Brad knows that the appearance of impropriety in these charged times can be everything, esp if it its a soft job. Heck didn't someone just get convicted (Rex Gutierrez) for having a job (that his former boss,also a first district supervisor) that he did not do much work at?
(3) Besides, unless Megan did not live at Mitzelfelt's house and used another name, don't ya think County HR knew who she was? Who would risk a career ender by not hiring Brad's wifey?
(4) As for the hiring and whether it was illegal or an unfair labor practice, it will be what it is, if the DA's office gets off its duff and scrutinzes this (opps-- I forgot, this is the same DA's office that endorsed Brad and visa versa);
(5) We know the union and or any personnel commission did not file an unfair labor practice when Mrs. M. was hired-- with the county being so broke, a number of wage hikes were not only approved by the Board of Supervisors shortly after Brad got in, but pushed through by Brad as its newest Chair--so was wifey's job (assuming for the sake of argument it was a challengable hire from a personnel commission and or unfair labor practice standpoint) grievance-proofed by the global deal he made sure was approved?
..
Where's Jeff Wright when you need to shake things up?
..
“In January of 2007, the board of supervisors appointed a new supervisor to the board [i.e., Brad Mitzelfelt]. The spouse of the supervisor was introduced into employment within the supervisor’s district in August of 2007. I believe this contract that was approved violated the [California] Government Code 1090 to 1099, as the supervisor, by the hiring of a spouse, illegally obtained monetary compensation in the form of her salary due to this hiring.” Government Code section 1090 prohibits an elected official from participating in a decision in which he or she has a financial interest. Winkler further charged that Megan Blaney-Mitzelfelt’s hiring by the county, while Brad Mitzelfelt is in office, constituted an “unfair hiring practice under the laws of California, an equal opportunity employer.” In response to Winkler’s assertions, which were made during the public comment portion of the meeting, Brad Mitzelfelt said, “I had nothing to do with my wife getting her job. I’d suggest you get your news from more credible sources. I also want to put you on notice that anyone who spreads rumors about my wife will be sued by me.”
..
Blogger Bob's comments:
(1) Mrs. Mitzelfelt (who by the way appears to be a nice lady and I will assume for now is qualified for the position) was introduced early on in Brad's campaign as the horse loving spouse that stood (I just had one of his old campaign flyers in my hands--wierd timing) next to Brad; it would have been interesting to have known she worked for the Sun, in front of which Brad was going for an endorsement!
(2) I find Brad's perception of legal rights challenged at best (maybe that's from all those super-lawyers he's voted to hire)--since when does a public official have legal standing to sue for his wife's alleged defamation?? The plain and simple fact, is that he does not have that right--she might, depending on what is said, where and when assuming the Anti-SLAPP statute(s) do(es) not apply, but Mitzelfelt as a former media rep for the USMC and former chief of staff for a first district supervisor, knows that, so what can this little outburst be really reflective of? Surely Brad knows that the appearance of impropriety in these charged times can be everything, esp if it its a soft job. Heck didn't someone just get convicted (Rex Gutierrez) for having a job (that his former boss,also a first district supervisor) that he did not do much work at?
(3) Besides, unless Megan did not live at Mitzelfelt's house and used another name, don't ya think County HR knew who she was? Who would risk a career ender by not hiring Brad's wifey?
(4) As for the hiring and whether it was illegal or an unfair labor practice, it will be what it is, if the DA's office gets off its duff and scrutinzes this (opps-- I forgot, this is the same DA's office that endorsed Brad and visa versa);
(5) We know the union and or any personnel commission did not file an unfair labor practice when Mrs. M. was hired-- with the county being so broke, a number of wage hikes were not only approved by the Board of Supervisors shortly after Brad got in, but pushed through by Brad as its newest Chair--so was wifey's job (assuming for the sake of argument it was a challengable hire from a personnel commission and or unfair labor practice standpoint) grievance-proofed by the global deal he made sure was approved?
..
Where's Jeff Wright when you need to shake things up?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)