A Spork in the Drawer

Sleazy Mary Beth & The Feebs

Not the name of a new band (though it would be a good one) but fallout from last week's revelation the US Attorney and Loyal Bushie Mary Beth Buchanan sicced the FBI on jurors in the Cyril Wecht trial. Wecht's lawyers want to know just how they got the juror information:

In December, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab ordered "that counsel and the parties shall neither record the juror names or addresses, nor transmit said names electronically or in any other way to any party or person, including the media."

Wecht's lawyers argue Schwab's order applied to the FBI agents who helped prosecutors.

"(T)his latest possible violation of the court's orders truly jeopardize (sic) any remaining fair trial rights of Dr. Wecht, as prospective jurors who have received jury summons are now learning that the FBI may call if the verdict is not to the government's liking," defense attorney Jerry McDevitt wrote Monday in court papers requesting Schwab get sworn affidavits from the FBI agents.

[...]

William Snyder, a Syracuse University law professor and former federal prosecutor in Pittsburgh, said the FBI might have violated Schwab's order.

"They are definitely part of the prosecution team," Snyder said. "If they weren't allowed to write the names down, it is an interesting question how they got them."

Given the proven conduct of the current administration it wouldn't surprise that the jurors names are now on some list of subversives.

Good luck flying anywhere, guys!

That said, and it pains me to say it, but the Daily Scaife is doing a fantastic job covering this story. Witness this editorial in today's edition:

Big Brother is making house calls to learn why jurors did not vote as the government had wanted in the federal public corruption trial of former Allegheny County coroner Cyril H. Wecht.

[...]

Government's high-priced prosecution of Dr. Wecht, up to and including the questioning of the jurors, is nothing less than outrageous. And that very well could have a chilling effect on prospective jurors fearing that a "not guilty" verdict -- in this or any other government case -- could lead to a visit by inquisitive G-men.

The U.S. attorney must accept the fact that, after wasting untold amounts of the public's money, her office could not get a single conviction -- even though the defense called no witnesses.

So, failing to make a case, the prosecution sent in government's bloodhounds. How pathetic.

"Pathetic" is one of the many terms associated with bushCo™. Another is "criminal".

.

Stalinistic Show Trial Update

Scott Horton describes US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan thusly:

One of the more astonishing political prosecutions in the country was brought by Rick Santorum’s handpicked U.S. Attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan. Ms. Buchanan is best known for her adversity to mail order bong businesses and other matters carefully calculated to play to a right-wing political audience. She also played a handmaiden’s role in the recent U.S. Attorney’s scandal, sending one of her deputies to Alaska as an acting U.S. Attorney there. No doubt about it, Mary Beth Buchanan is Karl Rove’s very model of a modern U.S. Attorney. She breathes fire and when she utters the word “Democrat,” the adjective “corrupt” is sure to precede it.

A pretty accurate descriptin of George's own Andrei Vyshinsky. It should be noted that Buchanan single-handedly saved America from the the scourge known as Tommy Chong. Quite a feather in her cap.

So what did the jurors in the Wecht trial think?

"The majority of the jury thought he was innocent, that I can tell you," said a male juror.

The jurors took a straw poll and realized they were far apart on March 18, the first day of deliberations, said a female juror. Their opinions changed little over the ensuing 3 1/2 weeks.

"No one caved. Everybody had their belief, and they stuck to it," said the woman. She said the jurors were daunted by the more than 10,000 pages of documents contained in 17, three-inch binders.

The jurors are anonymous because the judge in the case, Arthur Schwab, whom the defense had repeatedly tried to have removed from the case, issued a nearly unprecedented gag order.

One of Wecht's legal advisors, former US Attorney, Pennsylvania Governor, and US Attorney General (under Bush I) Richard Thornburgh has personally appealed the AG Michael Mukasey to give up the persecution, er, prosecution. Good luck with that.

While Cyril Wecht's unfortunate position may not rise to the level of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman it does show that the Loyal Bushies are going to carry out their marching orders to the very last day.

---

ADDED: See also Brian O'Neill who points out:

Anyone can look up how many millions Kevin Costner cost his studio for "Waterworld'' or "The Postman,'' but no federal taxpayer will ever know the tab for the Cyril Wecht mistrial.

We can guess the cost is already millions of dollars, but all we know is that the price can only go up. Federal prosecutors will try the case again, and if they prove nothing else, they will at least prove that even flops can have sequels.

Your tax dollars at work.

.

When The President Does It, That Means That It Is Not Illegal

Nixonian reasoning is now the accepted norm:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers asked Mukasey bluntly whether he was starting a criminal investigation since Hayden confirmed the use of waterboarding.

"No, I am not, for this reason: Whatever was done as part of a CIA program at the time that it was done was the subject of a Department of Justice opinion through the Office of Legal Counsel and was found to be permissible under the law as it existed then," he said.

Mukasey said opening an investigation would send a message that Justice Department opinions are subject to change.

"Essentially it would tell people, 'You rely on a Justice Department opinion as part of a program, then you will be subject to criminal investigations ... if the tenure of the person who wrote the opinion changes or indeed the political winds change,'" he said. "And that's not something that I think would be appropriate and it's not something I will do."

The king cannot be wrong.

Thanks, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein.

.

Good News For A Change

Activist judge:

A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court's approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers."

At least somebody is standing up for the Constitution.

[Via Think Progress.]

.

What's That I Smell?

Could it be hypocrisy?

Liberty is not possible if government is not accountable to the governed for what it does in their name. But the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association is not so certain of that.

At the ABA's convention in San Francisco, delegates are scheduled to vote on urging the government to curtail public access to records of the criminal courts.

[...]

But unlike the ABA we balance the public's interest toward openness. For there is too much already done behind closed doors.

Yesterday:

Congress passed a bill cementing the president's authority to protect a nation at war. It allows warrantless surveillance for obtaining foreign intelligence from electronic communications routed through the U.S.

[...]

There are safeguards for Americans. The target of the intercept must presumably be on foreign soil. If a party is a person in the U.S., a warrant must be obtained.

[...]

The nation is sharply divided on the president's war against Islamofascism. But it is vital that any president be free to gather the intel necessary to defend us.

Putting aside the passel of lies contained in the second editorial, it's funny how quickly Deeply Held Beliefs™ change when political considerations are at stake.

The government must always be held accountable except when accountability offends our philosophy!

Oh, and the "any president" bit? That'll change if we see President Hillary. I guarantee it.

That's our Dickie!

Mutable Philosopher

.

Good News

Stay of execution:

After a six-hour hearing that had been scheduled for just an hour, the George State Board of Pardons and Paroles late Monday announced a 90-day stay of execution for Troy Anthony Davis, a Georgia man who had been scheduled to die on Tuesday for the 1989 murder of a Savannah, Ga., police officer.

[...]

While Davis no longer faces imminent death, the stay of execution does not mean he will go free. Ewart said the board's decision gives his defense team time to gather more evidence before likely making another appearance before the board, which can commute Davis' sentence to life in prison or allow the execution to proceed.

Let's hope justice is done.

.

Our Great Nation

Tomorrow the state of Georgia is going the execute - murder, really - an innocent man:

A Georgia man is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Tuesday for killing a police officer in 1989, even though the case against him has withered in recent years as most of the key witnesses at his trial have recanted and in some cases said they lied under pressure from police.

Prosecutors discount the significance of the recantations and argue that it is too late to present such evidence. But supporters of Troy Davis, 38, and some legal scholars say the case illustrates the dangers wrought by decades of Supreme Court decisions and new laws that have rendered the courts less likely to overturn a death sentence.

[...]

At the heart of Davis's difficulties is a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing -- the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

The legislation was aimed at bomber Timothy J. McVeigh but has had far broader consequences: It limits the reasons for which federal courts can overturn death penalty convictions. In Davis's case, it has helped block the exploration of witnesses' statements that they had lied at trial.

This is what passes for justice today. And, no, it didn't escape my attention that Bill Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter of this murderous law (how anyone can maintain that Bill was a liberal - let alone a socialist - is beyond me).

Anyway, the next step is to simply allow the police to put a bullet in the back of suspects' heads.

We could have our very own NKVD; that would certainly speed "justice" up.

.

This Is Not America

This is ten year old news but it's new to me. Did you know, thanks to the Supreme Court, you can be sentenced to prison time for criminal charges that you've been acquitted of?

Unbelievable.

.

Judicial Activism!

The LATimes fronts a story about how what the Republicans can't get through legislation they're getting through the Supreme Court:

The Bush administration and corporate lobbyists long have sought sweeping "tort reform" to limit lawsuits and massive jury awards — without much success. But in the last year, they quietly have been winning much of what they've wanted on a case-by-case basis in the Supreme Court.

With a week to go in their term, the justices have handed down a dozen rulings that sharply limit the damages that can be won in lawsuits or make it harder to sue corporations.

I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you! - that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner aren't screaming about "legislating from the bench!" Why, they've not been able to pass legislation and here are some damned activist judges swanning in and making laws! And the justices aren't even elected!

None of these pro-business decisions came as a huge surprise. But lawyers who practice regularly before the high court say it is noteworthy that business has been winning so consistently.

It is "a very business-friendly court," said Beth S. Brinkmann, a Washington lawyer who served in the Clinton administration. The justices have made it harder to sue business on many fronts, she said.

Welcome to the new feudalism. Enjoy your stay.

.

How To Get Out Of Jail

I never thought this humble blog would feature a post about Paris Hilton. Then came this:

Paris Hilton was let out of jail Thursday morning, days after she began serving what was to have been a 45-day sentence for violating probation, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said.

[...]

Medical considerations "played a part" in the decision to offer Hilton home confinement for the remainder of her sentence, Whitmore said.

He said privacy rules prohibited him from giving details about the medical issues, but celebrity Web site TMZ.com earlier quoted sources saying Hilton was refusing to eat much of the jail food served her.

Whitmore said that after "extensive consultation with medical personnel" it was decided to offer Hilton "reassignment" to home confinement, which she and her attorneys accepted.

Wow. If you dislike the food in jail they'll let you out.

Remember that if you're ever incarcerated.

.

Skating Away

Defenestrated Field Marshal von Rumsfeld gets away with it:

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan threw out a lawsuit brought on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Rumsfeld cannot be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with his government job.

The lawsuit contends the prisoners were beaten, suspended upside down from the ceiling by chains, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked inside boxes and subjected to mock executions.

[...]

"Despite the horrifying torture allegations," Hogan said, he could find no case law supporting the lawsuit, which he previously had described as unprecedented.

I'll let the legal beagles take it from here but from my limited knowledge of the law Judge Hogan probably has no choice in this matter.

But I'd like to be wrong.

.

Dionne

E.J. asks a question:

Really? Here's what Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) had to say about perjury: "Lying under oath is an ancient crime of great weight because it shields other offenses, because it blocks the light of truth in human affairs. It is a dagger in the heart of our legal system, and indeed in our democracy. It cannot, it should not, it must not be tolerated.''

Ros-Lehtinen made that statement not about Libby, but to justify the impeachment of Bill Clinton back in 1998. I have no idea where she stands on the Plame-Wilson case. But it's certainly amusing that so many who were eager to throw Clinton out of office for perjury and obstruction of justice when he lied about sex are now livid at Fitzgerald for bringing comparable charges in a controversy over the rationale for war. Do they think sex is more important than war?

Yes.

.

Gonzalez's Coup

Writing in Salon, Joe Conason details BushCo's™ firing of experienced Federal attorneys and replacing them with loyalists. [Sub or adview.] Pennsylvania's own Snarlin' Arlen makes an appearance:

The staffer who reportedly performed this bit of dirty work is Michael O'Neill, a law professor at George Mason University and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. As the Washington Times explained when O'Neill was appointed as the Senate Judiciary Committee's chief counsel, many observers believed that Specter had hired him to reassure conservatives of his loyalty to the Bush White House. Right-wing distrust had almost ousted the Pennsylvania moderate from the Judiciary chairmanship, and appointing O'Neill was apparently the price for keeping that post.

Remember: The Liberal Media often points to Arlen as a "moderate" (see above) willing to buck the White House.

Evidently O'Neill rewarded Specter by sneaking through legislation to deprive him and his fellow senators of one of their most important powers, at the behest of an attorney general intent on aggrandizing executive power. The results of this backstage betrayal -- now playing out in a wave of politicized dismissals and hirings -- were perfectly predictable and utterly poisonous.

[...]

Any such self-serving statements emanating from Alberto Gonzales should always be greeted with appropriate skepticism. So should the claim that he sought to seize control of interim U.S. attorney appointments because of his concern over the "separation of powers" issues supposedly inherent in judges' appointing prosecutors. As the McClatchy Newspapers reported on Jan. 26, Gonzales has named at least nine "conservative loyalists from the Bush administration's inner circle" to positions vacated by professional prosecutors.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to restore the old nonpartisan system for replacing U.S. attorneys and to require Senate confirmation of all new appointees. The full Senate and the House of Representatives should do likewise, despite Republican opposition, but that is not enough. The Senate Democrats should continue to probe the attorney general's little coup d'état and all of the resulting appointments. That is the best way to discourage future usurpations -- and to frustrate whatever skulduggery was afoot this time.

Given the unlikelihood of either Bush or Cheney being impeached - however desirable and necessary - perhaps the Senate Judiciary Committee should make a statement and impeach Gonzalez. Beyond his incompetence he obviously views his job as enabling the president's lawbreaking rather than serving the citizenry of the United States.

If that's not an impeachable offense then nothing is. This reprobate makes John Mitchell look good.

.

Cully Stimson Resigns

When last we heard from Cully he was apologizing for insinuating that lawyers defending "enemy combatants" were being paid by...well...somebody evil. The implication was clear.

Well, Cully is history:

Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said Charles ''Cully'' Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, told him on Friday that he had made his own decision to resign and was not asked to leave by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Stimson said he was leaving because of the controversy over a radio interview in which he said he found it shocking that lawyers at many of the nation's top law firms represent detainees held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba.

Good riddance to anti-American trash.

[via Holden.]

.

They Hate America

That's the only explanation:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.

In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.”

Wait. Abu Gonzales is lying here. They've made it clear that Congress doesn't have much of a say either:

PELLEY: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?

BUSH: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we're going forward.

So the courts shouldn't have a say. Congress shouldn't have a say. Who does that leave?

[Via TBogg.]

.

Like Hell He's Sorry

Cully:

Charles D. "Cully" Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said yesterday that he regrets what he told Federal News Radio on Thursday, when he suggested that chief executives of U.S. companies should question being represented by lawyers who do pro bono work for terrorism suspects. The Washington Post editorial page reported Stimson's comments Friday.

In a letter to the editor that appears today on The Post's editorial page, Stimson said he believes that both sides of a legal case should have "competent legal counsel." Stimson is a former prosecutor and defense lawyer.

"Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo," Stimson wrote. "I do not."

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said yesterday that Stimson's original comments "do not reflect the department's position, nor are they the views of the senior leadership."

"Left the impression"? I can't imagine why:

In his radio interview, Mr. Stimson said: “I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there?’ and you know what, it’s shocking.” [...]

[...]

When asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, Mr. Stimson replied: “It’s not clear, is it? Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they’re doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving moneys from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.”

He knew exactly what he was saying.

Cully's full mea culpa here.

.

If You Want Justice...

...don't look to the Administration:

The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.

The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.

“This is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an authority on legal ethics. “It’s possible that lawyers willing to undertake what has been long viewed as an admirable chore will decline to do so for fear of antagonizing important clients.

“We have a senior government official suggesting that representing these people somehow compromises American interests, and he even names the firms, giving a target to corporate America.”

[...]

In his radio interview, Mr. Stimson said: “I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there?’ and you know what, it’s shocking.” The F.O.I.A. reference was to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Monica Crowley, a conservative syndicated talk show host, asking for the names of all the lawyers and law firms representing Guantánamo detainees in federal court cases.

[...]

Neither the White House nor the Pentagon had any official comment, but officials sought to distance themselves from Mr. Stimson’s view. His comments “do not represent the views of the Defense Department or the thinking of its leadership,” a senior Pentagon official said. He would not allow his name to be used, seemingly to lessen the force of his rebuke. Mr. Stimson did not return a call on Friday seeking comment.

[...]

When asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, Mr. Stimson replied: “It’s not clear, is it? Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they’re doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving moneys from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.”

This is rank guilt-by-association and a betrayal of a core American value. But what else is new from this crypto-fascistic crowd?

If BushCo™ disagrees with what Stimson is saying they can tell him to shut up or resign. Why don't they?

The editorial page takes a welcome, tough line.

.

Year's End

We're awash in year-end lists and I have little interest in them. Still, Dahlia Lithwick does a great job listing the "10 civil liberties nightmares of 2006." Number nine captures BushCo™ perfectly:

Guantanamo Bay: After the Supreme Court struck down the military tribunals planned to try hundreds of detainees on the U.S. base in Cuba, and after President Bush agreed that it may be a good idea to close down the prison, the worst public relations fiasco since the Japanese internment camps lives on. Prisoners once deemed "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth" are either quietly released or still awaiting trial. The lucky 75 to be tried there will be cheered to hear that the Pentagon has just announced plans to build a $125 million legal complex for the hearings. The government has now officially put more thought into the design of Guantanamo's court bathrooms than the charges against its prisoners.

.

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other

Hmmm...:

In three current high-profile criminal cases, federal prosecutors have asked that the identities of Israeli government witnesses be withheld from defendants and their attorneys — a move some legal scholars see as a highly unusual end run around the 6th Amendment.

From something called the "Constitution":

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Any questions?

.