Role Model Lawyers

Witness tampering in Sandusky case?

2011-12-05T18:55:00.000-08:00

A lawyer for one of the alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football coach who now faces 40 counts of child sex abuse, says Sandusky's long New York Times interview raises new questions about whether he may have attempted to influence witnesses just before he got indicted. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.

Sandusky's dinner with alleged victims raises new legal questions
msnbc.com
By Lisa RiordanSeville and Hannah Rappleye
NBC News

While under investigation by a criminal grand jury for allegedly sexually abusing young boys, Jerry Sandusky said he spoke to and even dined with men now identified as his victims. The 67-year-old former Penn State assistant coach accused of sexually abusing young boys for more than a decade holds up these encounters as proof of his innocence, but a lawyer for at least one of the victims believes they could be criminal.

“One of the questions that raised in my mind, ‘Was this an effort on his part to tamper with witnesses?’” said Howard Janet, a Baltimore attorney representing the man known in the grand jury report of Sandusky as Victim 6. “Was it intended as a way to influence the public or the prospective jury pool?”

In early November, Sandusky was charged with 40 counts of sexually abusing boys over a period of about 14 years. But the community knew of the investigation months earlier.

The story went public on March 31, when the Patriot News newspaper broke the story that a grand jury had been convened to look into allegations that Sandusky abused a 15-year-old Clinton County, Pa., boy, now known as Victim 1.

The following day, Sandusky’s lawyer, Joe Amendola, issued a statement saying that his client was prepared to fight.

“Should the allegations, as set forth in today’s newspaper article eventually lead to the institution of criminal charges against Jerry, Jerry fully intends to establish his innocence and put these false allegations to rest forever,” he said.

Interviews with lawyers and the grand jury report show that in the months that followed, Sandusky made several attempts to contact boys who had participated in the charity he founded -- the Second Mile – and who later testified before the grand jury, prompting Janet to question whether Sandusky tried to sway the outcome of the investigation.

Witness tampering in the state of Pennsylvania is defined as any act with the intent to intimidate a witness or victim to “refrain from reporting a crime, withhold or give false or misleading information, or to ignore or evade requests for information or a summons.”

Under state penal codes, witness tampering is considered equal to the most serious offense a defendant is charged with. Among the charges against Sandusky are multiple first-degree felonies, which carry maximum sentences of up to 20 years in prison.

Sandusky has not been charged with tampering or intimidation of witnesses.

A 'reunion' dinner
In July, Sandusky called Victim 6 and asked him to dinner. Sandusky framed it as a “reunion” of former Second Mile children, Janet said. Police asked the alleged victim to wear a wire, Janet said, but he eventually decided not to because he was nervous.
advertisement

Victim 6 testified before the grand jury that Sandusky showered with him on the Penn State campus. Sandusky was investigated in 1998 after the boy’s mother reported the incident to the police. Sandusky at the time admitted that he had showered with the boy – as well as another youth whose name surfaced in the subsequent investigation -- and was advised by a Penn State University detective not to do it again. The district attorney closed the case.

On the night of the July dinner, Victim 6 said he met Sandusky at his home then continued on, along with Sandusky’s wife, to a local restaurant. Janet said his client was “surprised” to find no other former Second Mile children he knew among those at the restaurant, but he finished the dinner and reported back to the police.

In an interview with NBC, Janet said it was “inconceivable” that Sandusky did not know he was under investigation at the time. “It was public knowledge and it was widely reported,” he said.

According to Amendola, Sandusky’s lawyer, Victim 2 was also at the dinner. Victim 2 is the boy who Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary testified to seeing being raped by Sandusky in the showers in Penn State’s Lasch Football Building in 2002. Victim 2, however, has not been identified by prosecutors and did not testify at the grand jury.

Amendola told reporters in November that a man he believes is Victim 2 had appeared in his office weeks before to say he had no sexual contact with Sandusky.

Amendola said that both Victims 2 and 6 maintained a relationship with the Sanduskys in recent years, including visiting their home and attending other dinners. The July dinner, he said, was friendly. “Neither of them had any knowledge 2 or 6 had been or were going to be questioned” by the grand jury, and there was no mention of the investigation, Amendola wrote in a statement to NBC.

“Jerry and Dottie have maintained positive contact with 2 and 6 as well as many other kids they helped who have grown into adulthood over the years,” he said. ”They are both deeply saddened and perplexed by the allegations.”

Sandusky and his wife also reached out to at least one other alleged victim prior to his testifying, according to the grand jury report. Victim 7, a former Second Mile participant who Sandusky allegedly met around 1994, told the grand jury that weeks before his testimony, Sandusky, his wife, and an unidentified friend left several messages on his voicemail. It had been nearly two years since he last spoke or had contact with Sandusky. Victim 7 said he did not return their calls.
advertisement

Sandusky confirmed to the The New York Times that he had contacted at least one of his accusers but did so believing he would serve as a character witness. He said he did not know the prosecution had listed the individual as a victim.

An unorthodox defense strategy
Sandusky’s defense has so far been unorthodox. He spoke live to NBC’s Bob Costas following his arrest and last week gave an extended interview to the New York Times.

Asked by Costas if he was sexually attracted to young boys, Sandusky said, "Sexually attracted, no -- I enjoy young people, I love to be around them."

The New York Times revisited the comment last week in an extended, four-hour interview in which reporter Jo Becker asked Sandusky about his answer to Costa's question.

"If I say, no, I'm not attracted to boys, that's not the truth because I'm attracted to young people, boys, girls," Sandusky said.

Amendola, sitting nearby, jumped in. "Yeah, but not sexually, you're attracted because you enjoy spending time..." he said.

"Right, I enjoy, that's what I was tryin' to say, answer that," Sandusky clarified. "I enjoy spending time with young people. I enjoy spending time with people."

Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz answers special interrogatories

2011-12-01T17:59:00.000-08:00

It's always instructive to learn how a big, successful law firm answers special interrogatories.

Rancho California RV Resort Owners Association v. Outdoor Resorts of American, Inc.
STUTZ, ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ DEFENDANT OUTDOOR ...
www.morrissullivanlaw.com

STUTZ, ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ. A Professional Corporation.
Robert R. Templeton, Jr., Esq., State Bar No. 116557.
Casey Pope, Esq

Supreme Court will hear disgraced journalist’s moral character case

2011-12-01T15:49:00.000-08:00

It's perfectly obvious to most of us that Stephen Glass would fit seamlessly into many, perhaps most, law firms. Why is the State Bar Association pretending that respect for the truth is a requirement for a lawyer's license? It isn't. It absolutely isn't.

Supreme Court will hear disgraced journalist’s moral character case
By Nancy McCarthy
California Bar Journal
December 2011

For the first time in 11 years, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of a would-be lawyer denied admission to the State Bar because of moral character issues. The bar petitioned the court to consider the case of Stephen Glass, a disgraced former journalist who won national infamy for making up whole or parts of stories and now wants to practice law in California. Although the Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) denied Glass admission on moral character grounds, it was overruled by both a State Bar Court hearing judge and a split review panel that said he should be admitted. The Supreme Court granted review last month on a petition from the CBE.
Stephen Glass
Glass

“Journalism and law share core fundamental principles ― those of common honesty and trust,” wrote bar attorney Rachel Grunberg in the petition seeking review. She added that Glass “literally shattered these basic values in the journalism profession, without redemption.” The Committee of Bar Examiners believes Glass “has not established the requisite showing of rehabilitation, given his past misdeeds that have lingered without redemption, to be certified as an attorney” in California, Grunberg wrote.

Glass was once described by Vanity Fair as “the most sought-after young reporter in the nation’s capital, producing knockout articles for magazines ranging from The New Republic to Rolling Stone.” The magazine went on to explain that Glass spun “a breathtaking web of deception that emerged as the most sustained fraud in modern journalism.” The New Republic fired him, finding fabricated material in 27 articles bearing Glass’ byline at the magazine.

It wasn’t until 11 years after “he was outted as a fraud,” Grunberg wrote, that Glass finally compiled a comprehensive list of all of his fabricated articles, totaling 42. He attended Georgetown law school while still working at TNR and authoring false articles, he took and passed the July 2000 New York bar exam, applied for a moral character determination there in 2002 but withdrew after learning his admission would likely be denied, published a book and appeared on 60 Minutes in 2003, and took and passed the California bar exam in 2009.

Glass argues that his current moral character makes him eligible to become an attorney and that he presented “overwhelming evidence” of his rehabilitation. Indeed, Martin Peretz, the editor of The New Republic, which printed the lion’s share of his fabrications, flew from Massachusetts to California to testify on Glass’ behalf before the State Bar Court. Glass said in a submission to the Supreme Court that he was forgiven by other editors as well, including Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone and Lewis Lapham of Harper’s.

Glass presented more than 20 witnesses who testified to his “good moral character,” apologized publicly for his actions, underwent therapy and performed extensive pro bono work. His misconduct ended when he was 25, he said, and his values have changed.

Grunberg dismissed virtually all his arguments and said true rehabilitation means an unblemished record ― something Glass cannot provide. She said he made misrepresentations to the New York bar when trying to win admission there, his pro bono work was part of his regular duties as a paralegal for a Los Angeles law firm, and his remorse came more than a decade late, only “when it suited him, and not when it was most needed by his victims.”

Further, the bar said Glass profited from his misdeeds, earning $190,000, less agent’s fees, from publication of The Fabulist, a fictionalized account of his lies. Glass said he used the profits for his legal fees and therapy, but the bar said the book proceeds were used “exclusively for his own personal benefit.” The concept of profiting from wrongdoing “appears inconsistent with the notion of moral rehabilitation,” Grunberg wrote, adding that Glass appeared to be “cashing in on his infamy.”

Arthur Margolis, Glass’ attorney, declined to comment. Glass works as a paralegal at Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley LLP in Los Angeles.

No date for oral arguments has been set, but Glass has 45 days from the date of the Nov. 16 court order to file a supplemental brief. The bar then has 15 days to file a reply.

Did the executive director and the vice-president of the California State Bar divert funds to a sham charity?

2011-11-20T16:09:00.000-08:00

Orange County Investigative News Agency "Voice of OC" Asked to Produce all Documents Submitted to the Internal Revenue Service Within the Past Three Years
by lesliebrodie Pro
08/09/2011

Orange County's Nonprofit Investigative News Agency "Voice of OC" has been served with a demand to produce all records it had submitted to the Internal Revenue Service within the past three years, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.

The request followed shortly on the heels of a letter informing State Bar Executive Director Joe Dunn about the existence of convenient circumstances surrounding sham charity CaliforniaALL and his publication -- "Voice of OC."

More specifically, and according to a source, the fact that some individuals and entities involved in the creation of sham charity CaliforniaALL and the subsequent unlawful transfer of $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL were also involved in assisting Mr. Dunn with the creation of "Voice of OC", has caused the source to entertain the thought that "Voice of OC" may have been a recipient, at least in part, of the $780,000 misappropriated from the State Bar of California.

CaliforniaALL, a 501(c)(3) charitable entity, was the brainchild of Ruthe Ashley (a Diversity Officer at CalPERS and Vice-President of the State Bar of California) and Peter Arth Jr., Chief of Staff to CPUC President Michael Peevey.

In its brief existence from 2008 to 2010, CaliforniaALL collected close to $2 million from utility companies (AT&T, PG&E, Verizon, Sempra), including a sub-rosa contribution of $769,247.00 from the State Bar of California Foundation (DBA California Bar Foundation.)

CaliforniaALL was abruptly dissolved in June of 2010...

A strip mine apparently isn't a mine

2011-11-20T10:39:00.000-08:00

Sukut Construction v. Rimrock CA LLC (Cal. Ct. App. - Sept. 30, 2011)
Thoughts on recent Ninth Circuit and California appellate cases from Professor Shaun Martin at the University of San Diego School of Law.
California Appellate Report
Shaun Martin
October 20, 2011

A strip mine apparently isn't a mine.

This according to an opinion that -- perhaps deliberately -- nowhere uses the term "strip mine." Preferring instead to call the property here a quarry. Because holding that a strip mine isn't a mine would seem even more counterintuitive. (The terms are essentially synonyms, though often suggest what types of rock/minerals are sought from the mine. Quarries often yield building rocks/gravel and dimension stones, whereas strip mines often yield coal, copper, etc.)

Notwithstanding how we use these terms, I might think that the Court of Appeal's decision made sense if the quarry/strip mine at issue here was just dredging out sand or landfill or the like. But when you're deliberately taking out certain types of rocks -- i.e., granite, pebbles, etc. -- it seems to me that it's a mine. Even without an opinion of the Attorney General that, as here, suggests that a quarry is indeed a mine. Something that's entitled to deference.

It's admittedly an issue that involves contextual statutory interpretation. But if it looks like a mine, gets rocks like a mine, sounds like a mine, and uses explosives like a mine, then it's probably a mine.

San Diego D.A. finally charges attorney Patricia Gregory for stealing from clients

2011-11-08T16:00:00.000-08:00

Lawyer charged with fraud after Watchdog report
Prosecutors allege she took more than $100,000 from 3 clients
By Jeff McDonald
SDUT
September 29, 2011

Carlsbad attorney Patricia Gregory was charged Thursday with 11 felonies for allegedly stealing more than $100,000 from clients and practicing law without a license.

The charges came less than two weeks after The Watchdog included Gregory as the leading example in a report about lawyers whose cases at the State Bar Court did not result in them being prosecuted criminally.

According to the six-page complaint, Gregory stole more than $100,000 from three clients in 2007 and 2008. She also wrongly practiced law or advertised legal services earlier this year, the complaint says.

Gregory was charged with five counts of fraud, five counts of grand theft and one count of unauthorized practice of law. She faces up to four years in state prison on each count, and a $10,000 fine. She was ordered to appear in court Oct. 18.

Gregory was recommended for disbarment in March after the State Bar Court concluded she improperly withdrew more than $112,000 from a client trust fund. Her license is invalid during an appeal of the recommendation.

She told The Watchdog that there are inaccuracies in the criminal complaint, that she was entitled to every dollar she withdrew as legal fees, and that the alleged victims received more legal services than they paid for.

“You cannot ‘steal’ something in which you have an interest,” Gregory said by email.

Former client Denise Doll, one of the three victims identified in the complaint, said she was pleased to learn of the charges but said it should never have taken so long to file a criminal case.

“This woman has damaged me greatly,” Doll said. “It’s been over two years.”

Luwain Ng is another of the alleged victims. According to a civil suit she and Doll filed, Gregory stole the proceeds of the family home that was sold when Ng and her husband divorced.

“I plan on attending every single hearing,” Ng said. “I want my money back. I’ve been waiting since 2008. I want justice served.”

Ng said she would rather have seen Gregory arrested and jailed instead of being issued a court date. She said she is afraid her former lawyer will flee prosecution.

“What then?” Ng asked.

According to Gregory’s website, she used to work for the District Attorney’s Office in child support enforcement. The office declined to discuss its prosecution strategy but said Gregory was treated like any other defendant.

“Attorneys are treated no differently than any other defendant,” said Tanya Sierra, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. “In terms of her case, we can’t comment because it is open.”

Gregory’s was one of four cases in a report by The Watchdog earlier this month about lawyers whose misdeeds are adjudicated by the State Bar Court but not prosecuted criminally. The District Attorney’s Office said many factors come into play, including different standards of proof in bar court and criminal court.

Police Won't File Charges Against Texas Judge Caught on Video Beating Daughter

2011-11-03T20:25:00.000-07:00

This undated image provided by the Aransas County, Texas Court-at-Law webpage shows Aransas County Judge William Adams.

Police Won't File Charges Against Texas Judge Caught on Video Beating Daughter
November 03, 2011
Associated Press AP

A Texas family law judge whose daughter secretly videotaped him savagely beating her seven years ago won't face criminal charges because too much time has elapsed, police said Thursday.

Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams likely would have been charged with causing injury to a child or other assault-related offenses for the 2004 beating of his then-16-year-old daughter, but the five-year statutes of limitations expired, Rockport Police Chief Tim Jayroe said.

"We believe that there was a criminal offense involved and that there was substantial evidence to indicate that and under normal circumstances ... a charge could have been made," Jayroe said. He said the district attorney determined he couldn't bring charges, and that police would discuss the case with federal prosecutors even though he doesn't believe federal charges would apply.

Hillary Adams, now 23, posted the 8-minute clip on YouTube last week that shows her father viciously lashing her with a belt and trying to force her to bend over her bed to be beaten despite her wails and pleas to stop. The clip had received more than 2.4 million hits as of Thursday, and police began investigating Wednesday after hearing from concerned citizens.

GRAPHIC WARNING: Click here to see the video

William Adams, 51, issued a three-page statement Thursday saying his daughter posted the clip to get back at him for telling her he would be reducing the amount of financial support he gives her and taking away her Mercedes. The statement did not include an apology for the beating, but he told Corpus Christi television station KZTV on Wednesday that the video "looks worse than it is," that he had already apologized to his daughter and that he was just disciplining his child for stealing.

Hillary Adams says her parents were angry because she had downloaded pirated content online, and that she turned on the camera because she sensed something was going to happen.

William Adams, who presides over child abuse cases, is still being investigated by the state's judicial conduct commission and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, which on Thursday requested that he be removed from its cases until the investigation concludes.

Patrick Crimmins, a spokesman for the agency, declined to elaborate on the exact nature of the investigation. But he said that in general, the agency would only investigate a case in which a suspected abuse victim has already reached adulthood if there are still children in the home who could be at risk. Adams was granted joint custody of his 10-year-old daughter in his 2007 divorce.

There are no allegations of alleged abuse by Adams against his younger daughter, who primarily resides with her mother, Hallie Adams. Crimmins declined to say whether his agency is investigating the parental fitness of Hallie Adams, who lashed Hillary once during the 2004 beating.

Crimmins said his agency ordinarily wouldn't disclose that it is investigating someone, but that it did in this case because the investigation is the reason it requested that William Adams be taken off its cases.

Jayroe said that police did not interview the younger daughter, but asked both Hallie and Hillary Adams about it and there was no indication of abuse of the younger daughter.

In his statement Thursday, Adams said he would "respond" to all investigations. As Aransas County's top judge, he has dealt with at least 349 family law cases in the past year alone, nearly 50 of which involved state caseworkers seeking determine whether parents were fit to raise their children.

County officials confirmed that Adams will not hear cases related to Child Protective Services for at least the next two weeks. And the top administrator in Aransas County cast doubt on whether Adams could credibly return to the bench.

"I would think it would be very difficult," said Aransas County Judge C.H. "Burt" Mills Jr. "Personally I don't see how he can recover from this."...

Supreme Court to take another look at prosecutorial misconduct

2011-11-01T09:29:00.000-07:00

Angela J. Davis

Angela J. Davis, who is discussed in the following story, is not the well-known Angela Yvonne Davis who studied at UCSD with Herbert Marcuse.

Supreme Court to take another look at prosecutorial misconduct
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post
October 30, 2011

Prosecutors, says Angela Davis, former head of the D.C. public defenders office, “are the most powerful officials in our criminal justice system.”

Davis, a professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, explains:

“They decide whether a person’s going to be charged, what to charge them with, whether there’s going to be a plea bargain and what the plea bargain will be. As they make those decisions, they exercise almost boundless discretion.”

That combination of power and discretion, she said, “can and has led to abuse.”

It’s an issue of perpetual interest at the Supreme Court. Next week, the court will hear a case in which a Louisiana death row inmate alleges that prosecutors withheld information that would have cast doubt on the eyewitness account that led to his conviction.

The case from New Orleans concerns prosecutors who worked for former district attorney Harry Connick Sr., who left office in 2003.

If that sounds familiar, it is because Connick and his office were at the center of last term’s big decision about prosecutorial misconduct. In that controversial 5-to-4 decision, the court stripped a $14 million award from John Thompson, who spent 14 years on death row after prosecutors withheld evidence that showed his innocence.

The court has long agreed that individual prosecutors should be protected from civil liability so that they may freely pursue criminals. However, Thompson had convinced a jury that Connick’s office should be held accountable for not properly training staff about the duty prosecutors have to turn over evidence favorable to the defense.

But Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by the court’s other conservatives, said Thompson did not meet the high standard of showing a pattern of “deliberate indifference” on Connick’s part.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on behalf of the court’s liberals, read her dissent from the bench, saying she would have upheld the award against Connick’s office for the “gross, deliberately indifferent and long-continuing violation of (Thompson’s) fair trial right.”

Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, said the court’s decision in Connick v. Thompson made it clear that civil remedies are not a viable option for those trying to stop prosecutorial misconduct.

He, Thompson and others were part of a group of “innocence advocates” who last week proposed a national dialogue with prosecutors to try to find other ways to investigate and sanction prosecutors who break the rules.

Santa Clara University law professor Kathleen Ridolfi said the group needs to find a way around “a system where the Supreme Court refuses to hold prosecutors accountable, even for repeated, deliberate misconduct.”

The new case, Smith v. Cain , is not about punishing prosecutors. It is about whether withholding evidence should mean a new trial for Juan Smith, who prosecutors said was involved in a gangland-style shooting that left five dead. Prosecutors have an obligation under a nearly 50-year-old Supreme Court precedent in Brady v. Maryland to turn over any evidence material to a defendant’s guilt or punishment.

The case is expected to be determined by its specific facts rather than the potential for a new examination of Brady. It also seems not coincidental that it involves New Orleans prosecutors.

Smith’s lawyers point out that courts have overturned four death sentences from Orleans Parish because of violations of the Brady rules, and they say eight other non-capital cases have met the same fate.

The American Bar Association has asked the court to use the case to tell prosecutors that they have a greater obligation than simply meeting Brady requirements. The ABA says the court should mandate that prosecutors abide by ABA model rules that call for disclosure of any exculpatory evidence, whether it is determined to be material or not.

The National District Attorneys Association replied that the ABA is nothing but a private association of lawyers that consistently takes the side of criminal defendants. The regulation of prosecutors, it says, “is appropriately left to the individual states.”

Such sensitivity is why Scheck and others at a news conference last week took pains to say they believe only a small slice of prosecutors have committed misconduct. He said he was generally advised, “ ‘Don’t go around the country pillorying prosecutors and giving the impression that what happened in John Thompson’s case is happening across the board in an epidemic.’ ”

He added: “ We’re not saying that.”

Bad judges around the world: The Nanking judge who seems to have destroyed Good Samaritanism

2011-10-17T20:12:00.000-07:00

After toddler is left to die, China disquieted
By Joshua Norman
October 17, 2011

...According to many internet commentators, the relatively new tendency in China to ignore those in desperate need can be blamed on the "Nanjing judge."

Chinese news aggregator Chinasmack.com writes that phrase refers to "the 2006 case of a man named Peng Yu who helped a woman to the hospital after she had fallen only to have the old woman accuse him of knocking her down. The Nanjing judge in that case ultimately ruled that common sense dictated that only the person who hit her would take her to the hospital."...

China shocked as hit-run toddler ignored by 18 passers-by
by: Leo Lewis
The Times
October 18, 2011

Many remember a case in 2006 when a 65-year-old woman fell in the street and broke her hip.

Peng Yu, 26, rushed to help, took her to hospital and gave her 200 yuan for good measure.

She later sued him, winning an award of 45,000 yuan because the judge decided that Mr Peng's gift was evidence that he had caused her fall.

The ethics of the San Diego Ethics Commission: keeping secrets from "two-bit newspapers" about lobbyists who serve as its attorneys

2011-10-13T10:39:00.000-07:00

“You have an excellent reputation in the community; you are an extremely careful person, and I don’t see why your answer should not be sufficient,” Commissioner and retired Judge William Howatt Jr. told Fulhorst.

The ethics of the Ethics Commission
By Dave Maass
San Diego City Beat
Oct 12, 2011

At a September meeting of the San Diego Ethics Commission, the agency’s executive director, Stacey Fulhorst, presented the mother of all catch-22s.

While inspecting lobbyist-activity records, CityBeat had learned that private attorneys retained by the Ethics Commission are also working as counsel for the Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC), a city redevelopment agency, and as lobbyists for private companies. The relationships seem to present a potential conflict of interest on multiple levels, since the commission both regulates lobbyists and enforces ethics in city government, including SEDC. Asked about this, Fulhorst said the law firm—Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz—and the commission have put several firewalls in place.

However, since attorney-client confidentiality covers legal agreements, Fulhorst couldn’t offer proof of these safeguards without first asking the commission’s seven members to release the information.

“I would personally recommend that you do approve a waiver, a very limited waiver of just, literally, a handful of paragraphs, because I do think it’s important to demonstrate to the public that we recognize it would not be appropriate for us to receive legal services from the same law firm that was providing general counsel to SEDC on SEDC matters,” Fulhorst told commissioners on Sept. 23.

Paradoxically, Fulhorst couldn’t show the commissioners the relevant paragraphs because they’d then become public record. Nor could the commission turn to its legal counsel for advice, since the lawyers were the subject of the discussion.

The commission deliberated for 15 minutes on whether an agency that investigates conflicts of interests should be transparent regarding its own potential conflicts. Some members wondered why CityBeat wouldn’t just take Fulhorst’s word.

“You have an excellent reputation in the community; you are an extremely careful person, and I don’t see why your answer should not be sufficient,” Commissioner and retired Judge William Howatt Jr. told Fulhorst.

Some worried about setting a precedent.

“I just think we should be careful with granting such a waiver,” Commissioner Larry Westfall, an accountant, said. “Once you do it, we start to open the door for every little, two-bit newspaper in town to come here and make requests for information, too.”

Some recognized the public interest in releasing the document, but Commissioner and attorney John O’Neill alone saw that as overriding other concerns.

“I think it puts to rest any suspicion there is any impropriety here,” O’Neill said. “I don’t think it helps us to not give the document.”

The commission voted 5-1 (one member was absent) against releasing the information, rejecting Fulhorst’s offer to conduct more research on an issue that wouldn’t have come up a year ago.

With Proposition E in 2004, San Diego voters authorized the Ethics Commission to hire its own legal counsel instead of relying on the advice of the City Attorney’s office. Proponents argued it was problematic for the city attorney to represent both the commission and the city officials subject to commission investigations. They also noted that City Attorney staff are also subject to commission enforcement actions.

For the first five years, the commission employed a staff attorney, but when the lawyer departed last year, the agency decided to contract with an outside firm to allow more flexibility. The Stutz firm submitted a bid and, Fulhorst said, was selected because of the “unique expertise and knowledge” of Christina Cameron, a longtime City Hall staffer specializing in ethics and campaign reform who’d recently earned a law degree. Under the terms of the bid, Cameron would serve as a general counsel, working under the supervision of “associate general counsel” Prescilla Dugard and Leslie Devaney. All three were serving as counsel to SEDC and lobbyists, but the firm agreed that Cameron would be severed from SEDC matters and no longer register as a lobbyist.

In the first half of 2011, the Ethics Commission paid the Stutz firm $48,000 in fees, and another $3,000 to a second firm that handles cases when a conflict arises. During the same period, the Stutz firm collected at least $203,000 from SEDC. As a lobbying organization, the firm represents EverFlow Resources, Staff Pro and Western Towing.

Fulhorst, Cameron and Devaney described to CityBeat many of the physical and procedural measures in place to protect against a conflict. The firm also amended its lobbyist reports following CityBeat’s inquiry to better reflect Devaney and Dugard’s involvement with the Ethics Commission: Each provided less than an hour of legal services in the first half of the year.

Tracy Westen, CEO of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based watchdog organization, says he’s less concerned with the specific SEDC issue than he is alarmed to learn that registered lobbyists are providing legal advice to lobbyist regulators.

“Ideally, if you contract for ethics advice with outside counsel, you want that outside counsel to give you independent advice,” Westen says. “But if the outside counsel is also lobbying the city, its advice may tilt in favor of lobbyists in general. Simply recusing themselves from judgments involving a client they’re lobbying for is a good idea, but it does not purge them of pro-lobbyist sentiments.”

Of the 106 complaints processed by the commission in 2010, 38 percent—the largest portion—were alleged violations of the city’s lobbying ordinance, according to the commission’s annual report.

“If a matter were heavily related to lobbying and I felt it was inappropriate to talk to [Devaney or Dugard] because they are registered lobbyists, then I have other partners and other senior attorneys that I can work with if I need to,” Cameron says.

Westen says that’s not enough. “It’s very difficult for a law firm to purge itself of this appearance of a conflict if some partners are lobbying and others are not,” Westen says. “I think the city really needs to go to a law firm that is not doing lobbying.”

Fulhorst says that’s an impractical idea coming from someone “working in academia,” since the “vast majority of law firms” in San Diego are registered as lobbyists under the city ordinance...

Clarence Thomas Didn't Report $700K Paid to His Wife: House Dems

2011-10-12T18:05:00.000-07:00

Clarence Thomas Didn't Report $700K Paid to His Wife: House Dems
By Cynthia Hsu
Findlaw.comk
October 3, 2011

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose that his wife received paychecks from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.

And the sum is no small chunk of change. House Democrats say that Virginia Thomas received $700,000 between 2003 and 2007.

They are now requesting an ethics investigation into the matter.

So did Thomas deliberately exclude the payout? Or was this simply an accident?

One thing is for sure: this isn't the first time the justice has omitted some information.

In January, Thomas corrected about 20 years worth of documents after a watchdog group noticed that he never disclosed where his wife worked.

Thomas said that this was a simple accident due to a "misunderstanding of the filing instructions."

But strangely enough, the amended reports indicate that his wife worked at the Heritage Foundation from 1998 to 2003.

Okay, so he knew that he had to disclose where his wife worked during those years.

But then why not go back and fill in all the gaps? Why only bubble in that his wife worked at the think tank between the years of 1998 and 2003 when he knew that she worked there from 2003 to 2007 as well?

Expensive Lawyers Being Replaced by Robo-Lawyers

2011-10-11T18:47:00.000-07:00

Expensive Lawyers Being Replaced by Robo-Lawyers
By Cynthia Hsu
October 11, 2011

Attorneys everywhere: watch out. You might get outsourced soon, replaced by an army of hard-working robo-lawyers.

No, robo-lawyers aren't android-like machines sporting pinstripes and looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger from "Terminator."

Instead, these automated machines are more like software. They can process disputes and help settle claims, much like a regular attorney. Except at a fraction of the cost. This is why even large global companies like General Electric are turning to "robotic" help.

GE is currently testing out the computer program in Italy. Right now it's being used mainly on disputes amounting to $65,000 and less.

Why the computerized help? Doesn't GE want to pay lawyers hundreds of dollars per billable hour? Guess not.

As it turns out, sometimes it's just not worth it to hire an attorney. GE says that it costs around $10,000 to pursue a claim through typical arbitration methods. So if you're trying to settle a claim that is only worth $10,000, arbitration seems extremely expensive.

It makes sense that they'd want to cut costs somehow.

And it seems like a step toward the future. More and more work these days are outsourced to computers and actual robots. There's the iRobot Roomba, a robot that could smartly vacuum your house. There's also Asimo, Honda's take on a humanoid robot.

Basically, we might need to prepare for a future where robots will take over all. Maybe robots will soon drive our cars, wash our clothes, and do all our legal work for us.

Is that really such a bad thing? Maybe a robo-lawyer will actually be more friendly and personable than a real attorney already lacking in social skills.

Lawyers who commit fraud on behalf of clients should be disbarred

2011-09-17T12:25:00.000-07:00

Usually lawyers get disbarred for simply stealing clients' funds. When this happens, usually only a few victims are harmed.

The more serious problem is unethical lawyers who harm the justice system by committing fraud ON BEHALF OF their clients. Justice is perverted; the system harms the innocent in case after case. Too many judges look the other way when lawyers commit frauds in the courtroom.

The story below discusses a case in which a lawyer who committed fraud on behalf of his client was disbarred. However, I suspect it was a powerful individual or organization that pushed for justice, not the judge involved.

The story below fails to mention San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' position on the California State Bar Board of Governors. [See story at bottom of this post.]

Critics: DA should prosecute problem lawyers
The office says State Bar standards are different

After a trial late last year, the State Bar Court of California concluded that Carlsbad lawyer Patricia Gregory improperly withdrew more than $112,000 from client trust funds.

A judge recommended Gregory for disbarment in March, and the attorney is fighting the decision. She is not eligible to practice law while the review process runs its course.

Gregory has not been prosecuted, nor have several other attorneys who faced such findings from the bar. Critics say the District Attorney’s Office should act in such cases, but the staff says there are many complicating factors, such as different standards of proof and the need to set priorities.

Others who have not been prosecuted:

•Todd Smith, a Carlsbad attorney, wrote checks on a client trust fund for personal use. State Bar records do not specify how much Smith took from his client. He stipulated to the State Bar that he wrote checks on his attorney-client trust account for his own use multiple times.

•Former attorney Steven Weisenberg was disbarred in 2004 after the State Bar Court found that he sent papers that appeared to be a court order to a title company. Weisenberg “engaged in an elaborate and highly deceptive scheme in an effort to obtain for his clients the results they desired, and in doing so, he committed a serious act of fraud,” Judge Richard A. Honn wrote.

•San Diego lawyer Todd Hilts took more than $8,800 from one of his clients, according to State Bar records. “By misappropriating at least $8,848.69 belonging to (his clients), respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, in willful violation” of state law, the bar court found...

The District Attorney’s Office rejects any suggestion that it shies away from prosecuting lawyers who commit crimes while performing legal work.

Damon Mosler, who oversees the division that prosecutes lawyers, police officers and public officials, said the standard of proof in State Bar Court is lower than in Superior Court. He said certain cases are better suited to a regulatory venue.

“If there is misconduct by lawyers in their capacities as lawyers, generally we rely on the State Bar to be the investigating agency,” he said...

Luwain Ng of Carmel Valley retained Gregory for divorce proceedings and is now suing her former lawyer.

“I tried to file a police report and they did not want to take a report,” Ng said. “They said ‘Take it directly to the district attorney.’ Then I got a letter saying this is a State Bar matter and they are not going to pursue it.”...

Denise Doll has been homeless off and on since she hired Gregory to perform various legal work in 2007.

She received a pair of settlements in cases Gregory handled and assumed the money was being held in the attorney-client trust fund...

Doll provided The Watchdog a voicemail left for her by prosecutor Jeff Dort, who said he was rejecting the case because he would need police reports, bank records and documents compiled by the bar before he could make a decision about prosecuting Gregory...

The State Bar refers a small number of cases to the District Attoney’s Office for prosecution -- perhaps two a year, Mosler said. A State Bar spokeswoman said the office does not track referrals to county prosecutors...

Five elected to bar board
California Bar Journal
August 2006

Five attorneys, including San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, were elected to three-year terms on the State Bar’s Board of Governors.

Cynthia Sommer's suit against Dumanis proceeds

2011-09-16T17:59:00.000-07:00

Cynthia Sommer's suit against Dumanis proceeds
Aaron Burgin
SDUT
Sept. 1, 2011

The sample of U.S. Marine Sgt. Todd Sommer’s liver and kidney was full of arsenic, more arsenic than had ever been found in a human tissue sample before — by 1,250 percent, according to a court complaint.

It was a level that one Canadian toxicology expert said should have raised flags about whether the sample was contaminated.

Despite the improbability, and the medical examiner’s official finding that Sommer died of natural causes, San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis mounted an unsuccessful murder prosecution of Sommer’s wife, Cynthia. The death was in 2002, but one aspect of the case remains.

A $20 million federal lawsuit filed by Cynthia Sommer says that Dumanis’ office should have known better, and that the prosecution amounted to misconduct and a violation of the woman’s civil rights.

Prosecutors proceeded because they believed that Sommer stood to gain from a $250,000 life insurance policy. They said that her behavior following his death — she got a breast augmentation, partied and slept with other men — bolstered their argument.

Dumanis says her office acted appropriately, that it dropped the prosecution once reasonable doubt was raised.

The Sommer lawsuit, filed in September 2009, has proceeded.

The suit originally named Naval Criminal Investigative Services officials and scientists with a federal laboratory that made the arsenic finding. A judge has dropped them from the suit, leaving Dumanis, County Medical Examiner Glenn Wagner and the federal government as defendants.

Also remaining as a defendant is Deputy District Attorney Laura Gunn, who once told the media, “This is the coldest homicide I’ve had, in terms of being absolutely coldblooded.”

Dumanis and Gunn lost a bid to dismiss the complaint against them in May 2010.

Dumanis, who is running for mayor of San Diego, could be in a federal courtroom as early as March for conferences and pretrial hearings in the case. A settlement conference and a pretrial conference are tentatively scheduled for March 14 and April 23, respectively. The election is June 5.

Dumanis, approached last week after an interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, declined to comment.

“I’ve got counsel, and I am not supposed to talk about this,” she said.

Cynthia Sommer was convicted in 2007 of the first-degree murder of Todd Sommer five years earlier. She was granted a new trial after a judge ruled that her defense attorney made mistakes that deprived her of a fair trial.

She was released in 2008 after prosecutors dropped charges against her when new tests of arsenic-free tissue cast doubt on whether Todd Sommer was poisoned.

Cynthia Sommer’s lawsuit contains allegations that Dumanis’ office colluded with Naval investigators to wrongfully charge and prosecute Sommer.

At the heart of her attorney’s charges is the allegation that the parties knew the chief evidence was tainted. Those samples had extraordinarily high levels of arsenic — levels never seen in the history of reported arsenic testing, according to the complaint.

A former director of a lab in Quebec that determined there was no arsenic in the second samples called the original results “physiologically improbable,” and possibly contaminated.

“It is our position that, in spite of the evidence that was there that clearly suggested this was not a murder, the parties continued to maliciously pursue my client’s arrest and conviction,” said Robert Rosenthal, one of several attorneys representing Cynthia Sommer...

Justice Stevens Extols Pro Bono Service, Criticizes Connick Ruling

2011-09-16T17:05:00.001-07:00

September 15, 2011
Justice Stevens Extols Pro Bono Service, Criticizes Connick Ruling
Blog of Legal Times

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday night that for lawyers, "the greatest reward is not monetary," as he urged attorneys to take on clients in need of help on a pro bono basis.

Stevens, 91, spoke and received an award at a Washington celebration of the 25th anniversary of the American Bar Association Death Penalty Representation Project, which recruits volunteers from top law firms to assist death row inmates in their appeals.

Project director Robin Maher told the audience that the hundreds of lawyers recruited over the years have helped move 50 inmates off death row, either through exoneration or reduced sentences. She said the need is still great for lawyers to give skilled representation to those on death row, many of whom have had woefully inadequate counsel at trial and during the appeal process. "We need a much stronger word than crisis" to describe the situation, she said. The project trains and supports lawyers who participate.

Three law firms -- Arnold & Porter, Dorsey & Whitney, and Fredrikson & Byron -- received awards at the event for their pro bono representation. Also speaking was Anthony Graves, who was freed from prison in Texas last October after 12 years on death row and six years in prison. A special prosecutor appointed to review his conviction found no credible evidence linking Graves to the murders he was charged with committing.

"I was naive," Graves told the audience at the Decatur House, near the White House. "I thought if I was innocent, I would come out victorious." But the process of vindication took 18 years.

In his remarks, Stevens said that during his private practice years roughly 50 years ago, he never represented someone on death row. But he did take on the case of a prisoner at Joliet Correctional Center in Illinois who claimed that he had confessed to his crime because the police had beaten him. "I was convinced his story was true," Stevens said. Stevens remembers the case vividly, which he said is proof of how meaningful and rewarding pro bono service is.

Stevens, who in 1976 voted to reinstate capital punishment, announced in a 2008 decision that he had come to view the death penalty as unconstitutional, in part because of the risk of executing innocent people. He retired in June, 2010.

Stevens made it clear in his talk that he is still upset about the Supreme Court's March 29 decision in Connick v. Thompson. Stevens sharply criticized the ruling in a speech in May, and it is still on his mind.

In spite of extensive evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in New Orleans, a majority in Connick struck down a damages judgment that had been awarded to freed death row inmate John Thompson. That outcome turned on the Court's finding that the prosecutor could not be held liable for failure to train his staff, based on a single violation of Brady v. Maryland -- withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense. In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas cited the 1978 Monell decision, which said local governments could be held liable for civil rights violations only for actions that were based on official municipal policy.

Last night Stevens said the need to establish that a municipal policy such as inadequate training led to the civil rights violation was an "off the wall" and "obviously unwise" standard that "causes so much work" and should be changed. The common law concept of respondeat superior, which holds the supervisor responsible for the torts of employees, is the way to go, in Stevens' view...

Troy Davis in spotlight again as execution nears

2011-09-16T09:26:00.000-07:00

September 16, 2011
Troy Davis in spotlight again as execution nears
Edecio Martinez

(CBS/AP) ATLANTA - Hundreds of thousands of people are rallying to support Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis. They not only oppose capital punishment but they also believe the state could put an innocent man to death.

The case is packed with drama: the murder of an off-duty police officer; conflicting eyewitness testimony; last-minute court decisions sparing a condemned man's life and global dignitaries who say they fear an innocent man could die.

Davis' case has captured considerable attention because of the doubt raised over whether he killed Mark MacPhail in Savannah in 1989. The U.S. Supreme Court even granted Davis a hearing to prove his innocence. It was the first time it had done so for a death row inmate in at least 50 years but he couldn't convince a judge to grant him a new trial.

The officer's family believes there is no doubt that Davis killed MacPhail and prosecutors say the right man was convicted.

Davis is scheduled to die Wednesday which is the fourth time his execution has been set in four years. He once came within two hours of being put to death. His attorneys say his legal appeals are exhausted and the chances of him winning another reprieve have dwindled.

However, supporters hope to convince Georgia's pardons board next week to spare his life.

The execution of Davis "risks taking the life of an innocent man and would be a grave miscarriage of justice," said former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat from Georgia and death penalty opponent who wrote a letter on Davis' behalf.

Teacher talks back: Retired San Diego teacher Maura Larkins doesn't lose her First Amendment rights

2011-08-09T10:44:00.000-07:00

Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS: Our daily legal-news aggregator for Aug. 9
By Joseph Schuman

...Teacher talks back: Retired San Diego teacher Maura Larkins doesn't lose her First Amendment rights just because she has made defamatory statements on her website in the past, an appeals court has ruled. Larkins had a history of criticizing Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, a law firm which often defends school district, the Voice of San Diego reports. Among other charges, Larkins wrote that the firm fosters "a culture of misrepresentation and deception." Stutz Artiano sued, and two years ago a San Diego court approved a settlement between the two parties. Though Larkins was ordered by the judge to remove defamatory statements about Stutz Artiano, she continued to post new criticism. Judge Judith Hayes eventually ordered her to stop making any statements about it "by any method or media." But an appeals court concluded that the order is "exceedingly broad."

Judge’s Sanction Banning Website Mention of Law Firm and Members Violated 1st Amendment

2011-08-08T15:10:00.000-07:00

Judge’s Sanction Banning Website Mention of Law Firm and Members Violated 1st Amendment
Aug 8, 2011
By Martha Neil
ABA Journal

A California judge [Judith Hayes] had the power to ban a San Diego woman from continuing to make statements online that had been found to be false and defamatory.

But the trial court went too far, an appellate panel found, when it banned Maura Larkins, as a sanction for continued violation of the rules, from making any mention whatsoever of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, or the firm's members, reports the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.

In addition to being an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the first amendment, the Internet speech ban was not the least restrictive means of achieving compliance with the trial court's ruling, held the 4th District Court of Appeal in its Friday ruling.

Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!

2011-07-20T17:26:00.000-07:00

Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!
By DAVID SEGAL
The New York Times
uly 16, 2011

WITH apologies to show business, there’s no business like the business of law school.

The basic rules of a market economy — even golden oldies, like a link http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifbetween supply and demand — just don’t apply.

Legal diplomas have such allure that law schools have been able to jack up tuition four times faster than the soaring cost of college. And many law schools have added students to their incoming classes — a step that, for them, means almost pure profits — even during the worst recession in the legal profession’s history.

It is one of the academy’s open secrets: law schools toss off so much cash they are sometimes required to hand over as much as 30 percent of their revenue to universities, to subsidize less profitable fields.

In short, law schools have the power to raise prices and expand in ways that would make any company drool. And when a business has that power, it is apparently difficult to resist.

How difficult? For a sense, take a look at the strange case of New York Law School and its dean, Richard A. Matasar. For more than a decade, Mr. Matasar has been one of the legal academy’s most dogged and scolding critics, and he has repeatedly urged professors and fellow deans to rethink the basics of the law school business model and put the interests of students first.

“What I’ve said to people in giving talks like this in the past is, we should be ashamed of ourselves,” Mr. Matasar said at a 2009 meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. He ended with a challenge: If a law school can’t help its students achieve their goals, “we should shut the damn place down.”

Given his scathing critiques, you might expect that during Mr. Matasar’s 11 years as dean, he has reshaped New York Law School to conform with his reformist agenda. But he hasn’t. Instead, the school seems to be benefitting from many of legal education’s assorted perversities.

N.Y.L.S. is ranked in the bottom third of all law schools in the country, but with tuition and fees now set at $47,800 a year, it charges more than Harvard. It increased the size of the class that arrived in the fall of 2009 by an astounding 30 percent, even as hiring in the legal profession imploded. It reported in the most recent US News & World Report rankings that the median starting salary of its graduates was the same as for those of the best schools in the nation — even though most of its graduates, in fact, find work at less than half that amount.

Mr. Matasar declined to be interviewed for this article, though he agreed to answer questions e-mailed through a public relations representative.

Asked if there was a contradiction between his stand against expanding class sizes and the growth of the student population at N.Y.L.S., Mr. Matasar wrote: “The answer is that we exist in a market. When there is demand for education, we, like other law schools, respond.” ...

Veteran prosecutors’ rookie mistake, no-nonsense judge lead to Clemens mistrial

2011-07-17T12:31:00.000-07:00

Veteran prosecutors’ rookie mistake, no-nonsense judge lead to Clemens mistrial
By Del Quentin Wilber
July 16, 2011

The demise of the perjury trial of Roger Clemens was sown in one of the most routine moments of any prosecution: the playing of a video for jurors.

It actually was the fifth cued up that day, showing Clemens’s testimony before a House committee. While tedious, the clips were an essential part of the Justice Department’s case that the baseball legend had lied to Congress in 2008, when he told lawmakers that he had never taken performance-enhancing drugs.

Within moments of the tape’s rolling, the trial was over, and the prosecutors sat slumped and dejected in their chairs.

A judge had declared a mistrial, ruling that the tape included evidence he had barred from the jury.

The dramatic decision left legal observers wondering how such a high-profile prosecution could end so abruptly, on just the second day of testimony. A review of transcripts and interviews with people knowledgeable about what happened reveals that federal prosecutors did not intentionally introduce barred evidence to the jury. Despite years of experience, two well-respected prosecutors had made a basic mistake and not carefully reviewed the videos they planned to show jurors.

Their error was intensified because it occurred in front of a by-the-book judge who noticed it before defense lawyers could even raise an objection.

“Because of the prosecutors’ excellent reputations, you have to believe it’s a mistake, just a mistake,” said Tom Zeno, a former colleague of the two government lawyers. “What compounds the error here,” he added, “is that the judge runs a very tight ship and had high expectations of the prosecutors.”

The judge in the case is Reggie B. Walton, who will be weighing legal arguments in coming weeks to determine whether to grant prosecutors a retrial. Last week, the judge gave no hint about how he might rule.

First appointed to the D.C. Superior Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, Walton was tapped for the federal bench in 2001 by President George W. Bush. Since then, he has earned a reputation for being able to manage complex and high-profile trials.

In 2007, he oversaw the trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was convicted of lying about his role in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity. He sentenced Libby to 2 ½ years in prison — a sentence later commuted by Bush.

A former fullback on his college football team, he also isn’t afraid to take action. In 2005, he broke up an assault in Chevy Chase Circle by tackling the assailant...

Wisconsin justice says court fight led to choking

2011-07-14T08:08:00.000-07:00

Wisconsin justice says court fight led to choking
Associated Press
06.26.11

MADISON, Wis. -- A member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal faction has accused a conservative justice of choking her during an argument in her office earlier this month - a charge he denied.

Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Justice David Prosser put her in a chokehold during the dispute. She contacted the newspaper late Saturday after Prosser denied rumors about the altercation.

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," Bradley told the newspaper.

A message could not be left at her home listing, and her former campaign manager did not return a call from The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, quoting anonymous sources, first reported the argument occurred before the Supreme Court's decision earlier this month upholding Republican Gov. Scott Walker's bill eliminating most of public employees' collective bargaining rights. Prosser then released a statement denying the allegations.

"Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false," he said. "Until then I will refrain from further public comment."

Prosser's spokesman Brian Nemoir declined to comment on Bradley's later statement and told The Associated Press that Prosser probably wouldn't either. Other members of the court either did not return messages or declined to comment on the incident.

The argument took place June 13, the day before the court, in a 4-3 decision that included a blistering dissent, ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she declared the polarizing union law void. While accounts differ, the justices were apparently discussing the decision and its timing.

Leaders in the Republican-controlled Legislature had pushed for a decision by June 14 because they were working on the state budget, and Walker's proposal depended on expected savings from the law. Along with limiting most public employees' bargaining rights, it requires them to pay 12 percent of their health insurance costs and 5.8 percent of their pension costs.

Tens of thousands of people gathered for weeks at the Capitol to protest the proposal after Walker unveiled in February. Once it passed, opponents began to focus on Prosser's re-election campaign in the hope that by replacing him with a liberal justice, they could get the court to overturn the legislation.

Prosser, who had been expected to walk away with the election, found himself in a tight race with liberal challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. Initial results showed she had defeated Prosser by about 200 votes, and she declared herself the winner the day after the election. Then a county clerk who once worked for Prosser announced she had failed to report 14,000 votes.

A bitter and nearly month-long recount ended with Prosser's re-election. He defeated Kloppenburg by about 7,000 votes.

The recount ended about three weeks before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the union case. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, quoting an anonymous source, said the argument erupted after Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson said she didn't know whether the opinion would be released in June. Prosser allegedly questioned Abrahamson's leadership, leading Bradley to defend her.

Prosser and Abrahamson, another of the court's liberal minority, had had problems before. Prosser told the newspaper in March that he had used profanity in a meeting the month before and threatened to destroy Abrahamson.

Bradley sent all the justices an email after that meeting, saying Prosser's behavior was unacceptable. She said later that she considered making a report to law enforcement but decided against it.

The Center for Investigative Journalism reported the altercation between Prosser and Bradley had been brought to the attention of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which investigates allegations of misconduct involving judges. The commission's executive director, James Alexander, said he couldn't confirm nor deny an incident was under investigation.

Bullyproofing: How to Respond to Bullies in the Legal Profession

2011-07-13T10:56:00.000-07:00

Bullyproofing: How to Respond to Bullies in the Legal Profession
by Alison Peryea
De Novo
April 2010

...Motivation: Why Bullies Act the Way
They Do

Some people believe that bullies in the le-
gal practice act the way they do because of
underlying anger-management problems
or personality defects. Indeed, studies have
shown that bullies’ brains actually work
differently than the brains of those who
do not bully: bullies suffer from a kind of
paranoia that constantly causes them to
see provocation from others when it does
not exist. “Bullies come to believe that ag-
gression is the best solution to conflicts,”
wrote Hara Estroff Marano in Psychology
Today. “They also have a strong need to
dominate, and derive satisfaction from
injuring others.”

But there are also practical motivations
for bullying in the practice of law. Our
adversarial system incentivizes aggressive
conduct, and some misled attorneys confuse
bullying with zealous advocacy. The unfor-
tunate paradox in the practice of law is that,
while civility among parties and counsel is
championed as the gold standard, the real

ity is that bullying sometimes pays off.
Attorneys who bully do so to intimidate and
gain or regain power and control. When
successful, hyper-aggressive conduct can
cause opposing lawyers (particularly new
attorneys) to doubt both their cases and
competence. When this happens, an inexperienced
attorney can lose sight of the true
goal — success for the client — and grab
desperately for a fictitious one: getting the
case over with, even if it means persuading
a client to accept an unfavorable settlement.
This, of course, is a bully’s desired outcome...

I recommend clicking on the following link to get the original story, which is full of terrific links.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Responding to Legal Threats
Citizen Media Legal Project

Even if you have done everything right and taken every possible precaution, there may come a time when you are sued or receive a legal threat. The first thing you should do is take a deep breath and assess the situation.

First, determine what type of legal threat you received. Most legal threats come in the form of a letter or email. Typically, the letter or email will demand that you cease whatever activity is being complained about and desist from engaging in the conduct in the future. If you receive such a letter or email, you should carefully check to see if the correspondence includes an attachment that bears the name of a court or otherwise resembles a complaint or legal filing. Consult the following examples to determine what type of threat you've received:

Examples of cease-and-desist letters and email: Stutz Artiano Letter, DirectBuy Letter, Best Buy Letter, Goldman Letter, Diebold Letter, Strahl Email, and Dreamworks Email.

Examples of lawsuit complaints that should help you determine whether you have been sued: Mayhew Complaint, Ronson Complaint, and Pivar Complaint.

Examples of subpoenas that should help you determine whether you have been served with a subpoena: Earthlink Subpoena, AutoAdmit Subpoena, Tice Subpoena, and IBM Subpoena.

Second, weigh your options as to how to respond. It is imperative that you DO NOT DELAY. Even if you have only received a threatening letter or email and have not been sued, you should take the threat seriously and review the Responding to Correspondence Threatening Legal Action section of this guide to help you formulate a response. If you receive a lawsuit or subpoena, you should review the Responding to Lawsuits or Responding to Subpoenas sections of this guide to determine how to respond.

Third, consider hiring a lawyer or seeking legal self-help. Even if you believe the legal threat you've received is meritless, it is best not to minimize the situation. Do not assume that the threatening party will simply go away. Speaking to a lawyer, even if it is only a phone call, or doing some legal research can help to set your mind at ease and get you started on the right path to deal with the legal threat. See our Finding Legal Help section for some guidance.

2011-07-12T14:41:00.001-07:00

3 San Diego Superior Court judges indicted for taking bribes: Judges Michael Greer, James Malkus and G. Dennis Adams

When judges are more inflamed than juries in murder cases

2011-07-11T10:09:00.001-07:00

Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber
Fifty-nine-year-old calls his sentence 'an injustice of a monumental proportion'
July 11, 2011

An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked.

Fifty-nine-year-old Jerome Ersland was sentenced Monday after Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott rejected a defense motion to suspend the sentence.

Ersland had no reaction and said nothing as the sentence was handed down. As he left the courtroom, he responded to a reporter's shouted question by calling the sentence "an injustice of a monumental proportion."

A jury convicted Ersland and recommended the life with the possibility of parole sentence for the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box said the conviction and sentence will be appealed.

Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.

At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.

Ersland contended that he was defending himself and two co-workers from a robber who still posed a threat.

When Judges Override Juries, Death Is Often the Sentence
By ADAM LIPTAK
July 11, 2011

Alabama allows judges to reject sentencing decisions from capital juries, which sounds like a sensible idea. You might want a mature and dispassionate jurist standing between a wounded community’s impulse toward vengeance and a defendant at risk of execution.
Related

“If you didn’t have something like that,” said Judge Ferrill D. McRae, who spent 40 years on the bench in Mobile before he retired in 2006, “a jury with no experience in other cases would be making the ultimate decision, based on nothing. The judge has seen many, many cases, not just one.”

Judge McRae, chatting on the phone the other day, recalled having breakfast with Justice Thurgood Marshall at an American Bar Association meeting not long after the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.

Justice Marshall was a fierce opponent of the death penalty. But, according to Judge McRae, the justice also saw the wisdom of the override system. “He thought it was better that someone who had seen more than one case was making the decision,” Judge McCrae said.

What Justice Marshall probably did not anticipate, though, was that judges in Alabama would not use their power for mercy — that they would, in fact, be even tougher than juries. Since 1976, according to a new report, Alabama judges have rejected sentencing recommendations from capital juries 107 times. In 98 of those cases, or 92 percent of them, judges imposed the death penalty after juries had called for a life sentence.

Indeed, more than 20 percent of the people on death row in Alabama are there because of such overrides, according to the report, from the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit law firm that represents poor people and prisoners. The overrides in Alabama contributed to the highest per capita death sentencing rate in the nation, far outstripping Texas

Judge McRae himself ordered six defendants executed notwithstanding jury verdicts calling for life sentences, more than any other judge in Alabama in the modern history of capital punishment. But he never rejected a jury’s recommendation of death.

Judge McRae said he had tried to determine, in the words of an Alabama law, whether the crime in question was “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.” Having seen a lot of cases helped him made that decision, he said. “Juries don’t know,” he said, “what is ‘especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.’ ”

Alabama judges have justified their decisions to override in favor of death on other grounds as well. Judge Dale Segrest, who retired from the bench in 2001, said he had rejected one jury’s recommendation that a white defendant’s life be spared on the ground of racial equality. “If I had not imposed the death sentence, I would have sentenced three black people to death and no white people,” he said at a sentencing hearing in 2000 in Wedowee.

Judge Charles C. Partin, who sat in Bay Minette, said the defendant before him was probably not mentally disabled, a factor that may have figured in the jury’s life verdict. “The sociological literature suggests that Gypsies intentionally test low on standard I.Q. tests,” he wrote in a 1990 sentencing order.

Florida and Delaware also allow overrides, but they are subject to strict standards. No one has been sentenced to death in Florida as a result of a judicial override since 1999, and there is no one on death row in Delaware as a consequence of an override. The most recent override in favor of death in Alabama was in March.

Judges in Delaware are appointed, and they generally use their authority to reject death sentences. Alabama judges are elected, often running on tough-on-crime platforms. Overrides are more common in election years.

“Not surprisingly, given the political pressures they face, judges are far more likely than juries to impose the death penalty,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 1995 dissent from a decision that upheld Alabama’s capital sentencing system. Much has changed in sentencing law since then, and it is not clear that the system would survive a fresh look from the Supreme Court.

One thing that is clear is that Justice Marshall, whatever he said at breakfast, was appalled by how things turned out in Alabama. “It approaches the most literal sense of the word ‘arbitrary,’ ” he wrote in a 1988 dissent, “to put one to death in the face of a contrary jury determination where it is accepted that the jury had indeed responsibly carried out its task.”

Alabama jurors are not notably squeamish about the death penalty, and those opposed to it are automatically excluded from service. Deliberations can be agonizing, former jurors say, adding that they would expect their recommendations to count.

William Davis, who served on a capital jury that unanimously voted for a life sentence, said he did not see the point of the exercise after a judge dismissed the jury’s unanimous recommendation as “not helpful.”

“If the judge is going to overrule the jury,” he said in a court hearing in Montgomery last year, “then you don’t need a jury. The jury don’t serve a purpose.”

Madonna's Malawi Disaster: Is Kabbalah to blame?

2011-04-07T16:12:00.000-07:00

When NEWSWEEK asked the center’s tax attorney Shane Hamilton how the Kabbalah Centre and Raising Malawi divided the money that was raised for Malawi, he replied: “I don’t know if they have a structure.”

Madonna's Malawi Disaster
Is Kabbalah to blame?
Newsweek
by Wayne Barrett
April 03, 2011

One year ago, Madonna squatted in the rust-colored dirt of a sprawling empty lot outside Lilongwe, the capital of Malawi, one of the poorest countries in the world. With curious villagers and invited photographers crowding around, she laid the ceremonial first brick for a planned $15 million girls’ academy, a noble mission in a nation where only 27 percent of girls attend secondary school. In a blog post on the website of her Raising Malawi foundation, she wrote that the brick, inscribed with the words “Dare to Dream,” was “not just the bedrock to a school—it is a foundation for our shared future.”

Last week it was announced that the future would not be built. Despite the fundraising success of Raising Malawi, which collected a reported $18 million in donations and spent $3.8 million on the planned academy, the girls’ school has been abandoned and the Raising Malawi foundation has imploded...

The explanation prompts more questions than it answers.

If the center was holding millions in Raising Malawi funding since 2006, why didn’t it transfer the funds when Raising Malawi ran deficits in 2009 and 2010?

And what about 2008, when the foundation had its best fundraising year, finishing with a half-million-dollar surplus, yet the center listed a $1.8 million liability from Raising Malawi on its IRS filings? How could there be a liability if it was the center that in fact owed Raising Malawi the millions it had collected over the prior two years?

When NEWSWEEK asked the center’s tax attorney Shane Hamilton how the Kabbalah Centre and Raising Malawi divided the money that was raised for Malawi, he replied: “I don’t know if they have a structure.” This fluid “intercompany debt,” as one Neilson aide described it, reinforces the charges made by critics that the center used Malawi as a fundraising tool, and that there is no way to independently determine what was really done in the name of its orphans...

DC. lawyer charged in multimillion-dollar insider trading scheme

2011-04-06T19:55:00.000-07:00

DC. lawyer charged in multimillion-dollar insider trading scheme
By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post
April 6, 2011

By mid-March, as the government tells it, Matthew H. Kluger knew the FBI was closing in.

As a lawyer for three of the nation’s premier corporate law firms, most recently in the Washington office of Wilson Sonsini, he had allegedly stolen secrets that yielded tens of millions of dollars of insider trading profits. Now he was trying to eliminate the evidence.

Out went his computer, and his iPhone.

“Those are gone. I mean history,” he allegedly told a friend and co-conspirator.

But he was still worried.

“If they start looking at me and look at my bank records and all that other stuff . . . it could get ugly,” he said.

Sure enough. On Wednesday, the government dispatched any notion that law firms are always bastions of probity and discretion, charging that since the mid-1990s Kluger had tapped into his firms’ computer networks to extract and trade on confidential information about deals involving such blue-chip companies as Oracle, Intel and Hewlett-Packard.

Along with the financial crimes, he and a New York trader named Garrett D. Bauer are accused of engaging in a panicked cover-up that they discussed at length in telephone conversations with a third, unnamed conspirator, the alleged middleman.

In a March 17 phone call, according to a transcript of a recording, Kluger implored the middleman to get rid of a mobile phone that linked the two of them.

“I really would like to see this phone go bye-bye ASAP,” he said. “Do you want this to be our undoing?”

Worried that his fingerprints were on $175,000 in cash, Bauer allegedly urged the middleman to burn the money.

The middleman suggested that they launder the money instead — in a washing machine.

Kluger, 50, of Oakton, Va., and Bauer, 43, a New Yorker, were arrested Wednesday.

Kluger appeared in federal court in Alexandria and was being detained until a bail hearing Friday, said Rebekah Carmichael, a Justice Department spokeswoman. Bauer was being held in Newark.

An attorney for Bauer said it was too early to say how Bauer would respond to the charges. William J. Davis of Scheichet & Davis described him as “quite a pleasant fellow, very nice, quite gentle,” adding that Bauer “is in a bit of a difficult situation right now.”

Government officials were unable to identify an attorney for Kluger, and no one returned a message left at his home.

The two face criminal prosecution by the U.S. attorney for New Jersey and civil charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A spokeswoman for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, the law firm where Kluger was until recently employed as a $290,000-a-year senior associate, said the firm was shocked to learn of the charges. The firm is giving its full support to the investigation, spokeswoman Courtney Dorman said in a statement.

The charges were the latest in a federal crackdown on insider trading that has nabbed hedge fund traders, management consultants, a former board member at Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs and, recently, a Food and Drug Administration chemist accused of trading on advance knowledge of drug approvals.

The new case alleges that secrets were pilfered from the high priesthood of corporate law firms, including the New York-based firms Cravath Swaine & Moore and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom...

How often do people get away with cheating at the San Diego courthouse? Even the contractors who fix the court toilets are under suspicion

2011-03-12T07:31:00.000-08:00

Court repair costs cluster just under limit
High number of jobs come in just under authorization threshold of $500

By Greg Moran, UNION-TRIBUNE

Saturday, February 26, 2011 at 6:55 p.m.
Court lightbulb changed under contract
Previously

Court cost to fix a squeaky door? $460.35
Court lightbulb changed under contract

A balky toilet in a basement restroom in the downtown courthouse, blinking lightbulbs in a South Bay courtroom, a runny faucet in the El Cajon courthouse.

Those three routine repair requests from local courthouses were all made over a five-day period in June. Because they were all pegged to cost less than $500, the repair work was automatically authorized by the Administrative Office of the Courts, the state agency in charge of courthouse maintenance.

The cost for each of the repairs looked like this:

•Toilet: $487.37

•Lights: $462.60

•Faucet:$461.70

They were not the only examples of routinely approved repair work that ended up just under $500.

The Watchdog reviewed $1.6 million in billings for about 3,450 maintenance work orders for the San Diego courts in the first eight months of 2010. The data showed that by far the largest number of billings, 981 jobs or 28 percent of the total, fell between $400 and $500.

The bunching is an indication of how the court system, and taxpayer dollars, have been poorly managed, said San Diego Superior Court Judge Dan Goldstein He is a director of a group of judges around the state who have been critical of court management and pressed for reforms over the past year.

“We have a lack of oversight and costs controls and a lack of accountability at the state level, at a time when most agencies are being required to take cuts, including us,” he said.

Under the terms of the contract the courts agency inked in 2006 with a newly-formed subsidiary of the Fortune 500 company Jacobs Engineering Group of Pasadena, maintenance jobs up to $500 are approved with no initial oversight, although they are reviewed later.

A spokeswoman for Jacobs, which is based in Pasadena, did not respond to requests for comment on the findings by The Watchdog.

The provision pre-authorizing work under $500 is intended to speed along minor repairs, and not require courts or the workers to get clearance first. Philip Carrizosa, a spokesman for the court agency, said the bills are scrutinized by agency officials when submitted and “in many instances” the full amount billed is not paid.

“So the $500 threshold is not a loophole that allows the maintenance contractor to bill whatever it wants below $500. All bills are scrutinized and reviewed,” he wrote in an e-mail.

The average off all the work orders examined by The Watchdog was $467. Carrizosa noted the average of the ones under $500 was $290.

Still, the agency is considering a change in the future. He said a new maintenance contract now up for bid calls for all work under $2,000 to be done under a firm fixed price for each task, not on a job-by-job basis as is done now.

Jacobs is one of a dozen companies in the running for the new maintenance contract, which would go into effect later this year.

Courthouse maintenance costs were the subject of a hearing in the state legislature last year and have become a rallying point for critics of the court system management. A previous story by The Watchdog and media partner 10News highlighted how routine repair tasks, such as fixing squeaking doors or replacing light bulbs, frequently cost hundreds of dollars.

Kris Vosburgh, the executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said he was not surprised what the data showed.

“This is something that goes on at every level of government,” he said. “They use this fly just under the radar to run up millions of dollars. It’s a common problem and I can’t offer a solution other than more frequent auditing.”

Shields is not the only person arrested in Oceanside whose recorded interview has disappeared

2011-02-23T18:46:00.000-08:00

Defendants’ Lost Voices
San Diego Reader
By Dorian Hargrove
May 26, 2010

On March 23, after deliberating for 40 minutes, a jury emerged from the jury room inside the courthouse in Vista. The 12 members had reached a verdict. As they filed into the jury box, the defendant, Michael Shields, stood beside his attorney, David Boertje. Shields’s heart pounded as the foreman announced the verdict: not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. It was a quick and easy end to a long and difficult year.

It started on the evening of February 25, 2009, when Shields, a licensed mortgage broker and full-time college student, was driving his red Jeep Liberty southeast on Barnard Drive in Oceanside after attending guitar class at MiraCosta College.

...“I almost took the plea to avoid a very scary prison sentence,” said Shields. “I stuck to my guns against the advice of my parents and attorney. They all said the risk is too great. I knew I was innocent.”

Two days before the trial began, Boertje said, he received news from deputy district attorney Elisabeth Silva that a notation in an evidence log saying “audio CD” had been discovered. Silva told Boertje that she didn’t know what was on the audio CD.

“The recorded statement should have been something that was disclosed immediately,” Boertje said. “In the report, there was no mention of a recorded statement, no mention that they had the tape.”

“Before they released the recording, it was basically my word against the Oceanside police,” interjected Shields. “Who is the jury going to believe, the police officer or the ‘baby punching’ criminal?”

At 8:30 on the morning of March 15, the first day of the trial, Boertje went to the district attorney’s office, located one floor above the courtroom in the North County Regional Center, to listen to the audio CD. He confirmed that it was Shields’s missing statement. Silva asked Boertje if his client would like to reschedule the trial. He said no.

On the second day of trial, Officer Dominique took the stand. During cross-examination, Boertje asked him about the audio statement. Deputy district attorney Silva objected. The lawyers and judge met in a sidebar. Silva indicated that she was filing a motion to exclude the recorded statement from evidence.

“I couldn’t believe it,” said Boertje. “I said, ‘First off, you didn’t give [the recorded statement] to me until yesterday, and now you don’t want the jury to hear what my client said right after the incident?’ There was no basis to exclude it.”

The judge allowed the statement to be used in court. A week later, Shields was exonerated.

“The judge in my case was completely outraged at the district attorney,” Shields wrote to the Reader on March 23, the day of his acquittal. “[He] scolded the District Attorney and asked her why the audio statement was disclosed the day of trial. [Silva] claimed that she ‘read the police officer the riot act.’… My audio statement was crucial evidence that proved I was innocent.”

Shields, however, is not the only person arrested in Oceanside whose recorded interview has disappeared...

COMMENT:

...The cops, while not all bad guys, have tacit permission to conduct these phony arrests, perpetrate the most heinously violent brutality on innocent, law-abiding citizens, falsify police reports and tamper with evidence, and the DA's are corrupt as hell.

...Threatening the falsely accused victims with long jail sentences, and talking them out of their right to a fair trial is the terrorism the DAs use to put innocent people away and ruin their lives with criminal records that will never be allowed to be cleared, which is a Constitutional right.

Because this is big government at the highest levels, Woody Higdon's attempts to apply justice to the misconduct and corruption within the Oceanside Police Department via complaints to the FBI, etc., will also nowhere. Most complaints of this nature go nowhere, not even with the ACLU.

The ACLU will spend hundreds of thousands to defend someone whose Islamic religious rights are violated because someone looked at them sideways, but innocent people being grossly victimized every day are s*** out of luck.

What kills me is that the police had NO EVIDENCE against Mr. Shields, and yet he was going to be CONVICTED???

Scalia appears at 'tea party' House meeting

2011-01-24T21:47:00.000-08:00

First Clarence Thomas' wife took a leading role in a Tea Party organization that takes in large donations. Now this.

Scalia appears at 'tea party' House meeting
The justice's participation sparks new concerns about the Supreme Court's appearance of impartiality. Lawmakers said he discussed the Constitution and his judicial philosophy.
By David G. Savage and Kathleen B. Hennessey
Los Angeles Times
January 24, 2011

Justice Antonin Scalia's appearance at a meeting organized by the House Tea Party caucus and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Monday provoked new cries from liberals and some academics that conservative justices are shedding the appearance of impartiality.

The session, part of what Bachmann calls a series of constitutional seminars, was closed to the media. Lawmakers said Scalia advised them to read the Federalist Papers and to follow the Constitution as it was written.

University of Texas law professor Lucas A. Powe, a historian of the liberal Warren Court, said Scalia's appearance made the court look partisan. "He is taking political partisanship to levels not seen in over half a century," Powe said...

Prosecutor's courtroom snark returns to haunt him

2011-01-20T21:16:00.000-08:00

Note: San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is on the board of the California Bar Association, which may help to explain why the bar fails to act in cases where prosecutorial misconduct is found.

Voice of San Diego asks, "Who's 'Pretty Pathetic'?"

A San Diego prosecutor got in the face of a burglary suspect during a trial, suggesting that he's "pretty pathetic" and "pretty despicable." And there was more. "According to a state appeals court in San Diego, the prosecutor also questioned the defense lawyer's integrity, suggested the attorney had coached Higgins, and described a defense psychiatrist as a hired gun who had 'attacked a victim in a rape trial,'" the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

All this sounds more "Law & Order" (or "L.A. Law" for you old school types) than real life. An appeal court is not amused: it's thrown out the guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.

Prosecutor's courtroom snark returns to haunt him
Bob Egelko
January 19 2011
SF Gate

When burglary defendant Raymond Higgins testified that he had been distraught at the time of the alleged crime because of the death of a close friend, prosecutor Christopher Lawson asked him whether it wasn't "pretty pathetic if you're using the memory of a dead 17-year-old kid as an excuse."

After the judge ruled the question improper, Higgins said he'd also been feeling guilty about not attending the funeral of his sister, who had committed suicide. "You agree that's pretty despicable if you were using that as an excuse," Lawson told him.

According to a state appeals court in San Diego, the prosecutor also questioned the defense lawyer's integrity, suggested the attorney had coached Higgins, and described a defense psychiatrist as a hired gun who had "attacked a victim in a rape trial."

Lawson used his cross-examinations to make speeches and "engaged in a pattern of misconduct that rendered the trial fundamentally unfair," the Fourth District Court of Appeal said in a ruling Thursday that overturned Higgins' conviction and granted him a new trial. He has been serving a five-year prison sentence.

The ruling comes in the wake of a report in October by the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University asserting that prosecutors in the state are seldom punished for unethical courtroom conduct. The project said it found 707 cases from 1997 to 2009 in which courts had found misconduct by prosecutors, but only six prosecutors who were disciplined by the State Bar. The bar, in response, said it would take another look at some of those cases.

Lawson, a deputy district attorney in San Diego County, was unavailable for comment. Steve Walker, a spokesman for the office, said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling.

Higgins, a businessman and Naval Academy graduate with no previous criminal record, was charged with burglary and assault for breaking into a neighbor's house in San Diego with two handguns in May 2008.

The neighbor had asked Higgins to keep an eye on her teenage son, who had gotten in trouble...

Reliability of eyewitness identification in criminal cases takes another hit--Cornelius Dupree Jr., sentenced to 75 years in prison, is innocent

2011-01-04T21:50:00.000-08:00

Houston man vindicated
Imprisoned 30 years after victim identified him, Cornelius Dupree Jr. is cleared by DNA
By ALLAN TURNER
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 4, 2011

The reliability of eyewitness identification in criminal cases took another sock in the eye Tuesday as Cornelius Dupree Jr., a Houston man sentenced to 75 years in prison for a rape-robbery he did not commit, walked out of a Dallas courtroom a free man.

Dupree, 51, served 30 years for the 1979 Dallas crime before being paroled last July. Days later, DNA testing in the case — performed at the behest of the New York-based Innocence Project - showed he was not the rapist.

Minutes after a Dallas judge vacated the conviction Tuesday morning, Dupree called the experience "bittersweet."

"I want to enjoy the moment," he said, "but I have mixed emotion with things in the past. No one heard my cry for justice. I had to wait 30 years."

While incarcerated, Dupree made three unsuccessful appeals to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He spent more time in prison than any other Texas inmate cleared through new DNA testing.

Under Texas law, Dupree is eligible for $80,000 for each year he was wrongly imprisoned, plus a lifetime annuity.

The Innocence Project's Barry Scheck called Dupree's wrongful conviction "just mind-blowing," identifying it as "a classic case of eyewitness misidentification."

Texas leads the nation in identifying wrongly convicted prisoners through DNA testing. Since 2000, the state has exonerated 42 inmates. Two others, including Dupree, have been released pending formal exoneration by the state. Bogus eyewitness identifications played a role in all but six of the convictions.

Nine Harris County inmates, convicted at least in part through eyewitness identifications, have been cleared through DNA testing.

"What this indicates to me," Scheck said, "is that there are a lot more prisoners that just didn't commit the crime. We just can't find them."..

US Judge Resigns Over Bush's Domestic Spying Authorization: Report

2010-12-31T15:52:00.000-08:00

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order."
George W. Bush
April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York

December 21, 2005
by Agence France Presse
US Judge Resigns Over Bush's Domestic Spying Authorization: Report
Common Dreams.org

A federal judge on a court that oversees intelligence cases has resigned to protest President George W. Bush's authorization of a domestic spying program, The Washington Post said.

US District Judge James Robertson resigned late Monday from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) on which he served for 11 years and which he believes may have been tainted by Bush's 2002 authorization, two associates familiar with his decision told the daily.

The resignation is the latest fallout of Bush's weekend public admission that he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) -- the country's super-secret electronic surveillance arm -- to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and electronic mail of US citizens suspected of having links with terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda.

Bush's statement on the weekend that the secret program did not require FISA court orders -- according to his reading of the Patriot Act passed after the September 11 attacks, has angered civil rights groups and lawmakers, some of whom have called for a congressional investigation.

The New York Times first revealed last week the secret NSA program that officials said has likely involved eavesdropping on thousands of people in the United States. Bush said he expected the Justice Department to investigate the leak of such sensitive information...

Feds Scrutinize Cases of Judge Who Hooked Up With Stripper, Drugs

2010-12-02T20:47:00.000-08:00

Feds Scrutinize Cases of Judge Who Hooked Up With Stripper, Drugs
Dec. 2, 2010
Allan Lengel
AOL News

There's more fallout from the case of a federal judge in Atlanta who pleaded guilty last month to buying drugs for a stripper who became his mistress after they met at the Goldrush Show Bar.

U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates announced in Atlanta today that her office is investigating whether any of the cases U.S. District Judge Jack Camp handled were influenced by the use of drugs or racial bias.

"From May of 2010 forward, there is evidence that Camp's judicial decision-making process may have been impacted by bias and/or impairment, and it has been established that he was involved in criminal conduct during this period," Yates said in a statement. "Therefore, we will not object to a defendant's request for a resentencing in any case in which the defendant was sentenced during this time."

Yates said a woman -- referred to only as "Witness 1" -- alleged that Camp, 67, used drugs, expressed racial bias about court cases and used a racial epithet in private. Her office declined to confirm that Witness 1 was the stripper Camp had an affair with, though court documents show that the stripper cooperated with investigators, which resulted in Camp's arrest in October and his eventual downfall.

On Nov. 19, Camp pleaded guilty to aiding a felon in possessing illegal drugs, possessing illegal drugs and giving his government-issued laptop to the stripper. He has resigned as a federal judge, which is lifetime presidential appointment. Sentencing is set for March 4.

Authorities said the probe revealed that from May to September, Camp used marijuana, cocaine, Xanax, Roxicontin and other painkillers.

"While Camp's use of these drugs was not limited to weekends, he denies that he used any of these drug contemporaneously with any court business, and we are currently unaware of any demonstrable evidence to the contrary," Yates said. "We have not discovered evidence of illegal drug use prior to May 2010."

Yates said the second area of the Justice Department inquiry involves allegations by the witness that Camp showed racial biases that spilled over into court, an accusation Camp denied when confronted.

The witness alleged that Camp told her that he disliked an African-American man who had a relationship with her, Yates said.

"Camp told her that when African-American men appeared before him, he had a difficult time adjudicating their cases and specifically determining their sentences" because he could not differentiate them from the man he disliked, Yates said.

The cooperating witness also told authorities that Camp sentenced a black male to 30 to 40 years because he had a personal relationship with a white woman, which reminded him of the relationship the African-American man had with the stripper...

Impeachment trial of federal judge gets underway in U.S. Senate

2010-09-13T07:17:00.000-07:00

Impeachment trial of federal judge gets underway in U.S. Senate
By the CNN Wire Staff
September 13, 2010

Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate on Monday begins the impeachment trial of federal judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. -- the first such trial since the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton in 1999.

The Senate Impeachment Trial Committee will submit its summary to the full Senate, which is expected to vote later this year. The judge is accused of corruption and accepting kickbacks, as well as lying about his past to the Senate and FBI regarding his nomination to the federal bench.

In March, the House of Representatives voted unanimously to impeach Porteous, making him the nation's 15th federal judge ever impeached.

Porteous is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Last year, the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment held evidentiary hearings that led to unanimous approval of the four articles of impeachment, citing evidence that Porteous "intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted unlawful gifts, and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings," a House release said.

"Our investigation found that Judge Porteous participated in a pattern of corrupt conduct for years," U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, said in March.

"Litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case will be fair and impartial, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Regrettably, no one can have that expectation in Judge Porteous' courtroom."

In a statement at the time, Porteous' lawyer Richard W. Westling said the Justice Department had decided not to prosecute because it did not have credible evidence.

"Unfortunately, the House has decided to disregard the Justice Department's decision and to move forward with impeachment," he said. "As a result, we will now turn to the Senate to seek a full and fair hearing of all of the evidence."

Porteous was appointed to the federal bench in 1994.

In 2007, after an FBI and federal grand jury investigation, the Justice Department alleged "pervasive misconduct" by Porteous and mentioned evidence "that Judge Porteous may have violated federal and state criminal laws, controlling canons of judicial conduct, rules of professional responsibility, and conducted himself in a manner antithetical to the constitutional standard of good behavior required of all federal judges."

The complaint said the department had opted not to seek criminal charges for reasons including statute-of-limitations issues.

But Westling said the statute of limitations was not applicable.

The impeachment task force held hearings late last year that focused on allegations of misconduct by Porteous, including:

-- Involvement in a corrupt kickback scheme;

-- Failure to recuse himself from a case he was involved in;

-- Allegations that Porteous made false and misleading statements, including concealing debts and gambling losses;

-- Allegations that Porteous asked for and accepted "numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit" while taking official actions on behalf of his benefactors; and

-- Allegations that Porteous lied about his past to the Senate and to the FBI about his nomination to the federal bench "in order to conceal corrupt relationships," Schiff prepared statement said.

Porteous was invited to testify, but he declined to do so, Schiff said.

"His long-standing pattern of corrupt activity, so utterly lacking in honesty and integrity, demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court judge," he said.

Porteous, 63, has not worked as a judge since he was suspended with pay in the fall of 2008, Westling said.

The last impeachment of a federal judge occurred last year, when Judge Samuel B. Kent of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas resigned after being impeached on charges of sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding and making false and misleading statements, according to the website of the Federal Judicial Center.

The Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, dismissed the articles.

Before then, Judge Walter L. Nixon of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi was impeached in 1989 on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury. The Senate convicted him and removed him from office that year...

He must have been doing something right: San Diego's Bill Lerach was a man who inspired fear and loathing in corporate boardrooms

2010-08-24T18:34:00.000-07:00

Fear and Loathing in the Boardroom
Bill Lerach built a behemoth securities class-action law business
March 24, 2010.
By SETH HETTENA

San Diego's Bill Lerach was a man who inspired fear and loathing in corporate boardrooms across America. Lerach ran the West Coast operations of Milberg Weiss and was for many years the foremost class-action securities lawyer in America.

He extracted settlements in the millions, even tens of millions of dollars. That earned him powerful enemies. Congress tried to rein him in by overriding a presidential veto in 1995 to pass what became known as the "Get Lerach Act." But he went on to lead the biggest class-action lawsuit in history, the University of California's $7.2 billion judgment against Enron Corp.

In 2008, Lerach was sentenced to two years in federal prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to conceal kickbacks paid to plaintiffs. The 64-year-old Lerach spoke with us not long after he finished serving his prison sentence, part of which was spent in home confinement at his La Jolla mansion.

You cooperated with the authors of Circle of Greed, the book that chronicles your rise and fall. How fairly did the book portray you?

The book is tough on me. It's hard to write a book as long as that book is and not have some mistakes in it. I know and respect the authors very much and thought it was a very legitimate effort. Overall, I'm satisfied with it. Everyone wishes every book written about them portrayed them uniformly but I guess in my case that's not possible.

What's missing?

The book should have pointed out the work we did without expectation of compensation. We represented victims of the Holocaust in major, difficult lawsuits against major companies that cooperated with the Nazis. The book didn't talk about the work we did on behalf of workers, young women, brought to the Mariana Islands by Hong Kong businessmen and were exploited and had their civil rights and personal rights destroyed.

California's biggest law firms are in San Francisco or LA. What were the advantages or disadvantages of practicing in San Diego?

Other than getting out of bed a little early to fly to San Francisco and LA, I don't think there were any disadvantages and there were even some advantages. It's a great city, you're able to attract talent because people wanted to live here, and I found the defense bar, with a few exceptions, to be excellent. The local newspaper was horrid. So that was a disadvantage. It's the worst big city newspaper in America.

You've said that payments to plaintiffs that landed you in prison were standard practice among firms specializing in securities lawsuits. Why don't we see more prosecutions of securities lawyers?

I don't think we should have been prosecuted. I am only pointing out that as often the case, practices in an industry, whether they are good practices or bad practices, are industry practices. We would not have voluntarily shared our legal fees unless it was an absolute necessity to do so. We were in a competitive industry. Adam Smith's invisible hand is still at work. You don't give away money unless you have to.

You were a big Democratic supporter and you went after politically connected firms like Enron and Halliburton. Did politics play a role in your prosecution?

How can I say that? I wasn't the prosecutor and I wasn't sitting with Karl Rove. The facts are what the facts are and you've listed some of those facts. We were a terrible big sharp thorn in the accounting firms and investment banks that worship in the Republican temple. You make your own decision.

What's your take on what caused the financial crisis?

Don't focus on 2008. Go back and focus on 2000 where you had not as much of a systemically threatening crisis but you had a gigantic fraud by the dot-com companies. Trillions of dollars were lost by investors in financial markets. Then you had the most recent financial crisis.

These meltdowns are due to insufficient regulation of free-market capitalism. There is a lack of civil and criminal legal accountability on the part of powerful corporate and Wall Street actors who take the risks and engage in conduct that cause these ultimate meltdowns to occur. As night follows day, when the consequences for fraudulent behavior were reduced you got -- guess what -- more fraud...

Three more lawyers prohibited from practice due to loan modification activities

2010-07-15T13:56:00.000-07:00

Three more lawyers prohibited from practice due to loan modification activities
California Bar Journal
July 2010

Continuing its effort to protect the public from lawyers who take advantage of distressed homeowners, the State Bar prosecutor’s office has secured orders of involuntary inactive enrollment for three Southern California attorneys: Eric Douglas Johnson of Los Angeles, Mark Alan Shoemaker of Long Beach and Brian Colombana of Lake Forest.

Besides the three involuntary inactive enrollments, the bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel has obtained the resignations of 13 attorneys involved in foreclosure misconduct since creation of the Loan Modification Task Force in April 2009. Five loan modification trials are pending and another 2,000 related investigations are underway.

“The Chief Trial Counsel’s office continues to send the message that attorneys guilty of misconduct — especially toward homeowners who are at their most vulnerable when facing the loss of their homes — will be prosecuted and disciplined,” said Interim Chief Trial Counsel Russell Weiner.

In a June 17 ruling, State Bar Court Judge Richard Honn said Colombana’s conduct “poses a substantial threat of harm to his clients or the public.” He cited 13 declarations by clients from California, South Carolina, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Maryland, Utah and New York who paid upfront fees to one of the loan modification companies with which Colombana [#238272] was affiliated, including Loan Negotiators of America, Housing Law Center and Mortgage Relief Law Center.

In most cases, clients never even met the attorney but dealt with non-lawyer representatives of the loan modification companies...

Judge Who Nixed Drilling Ban Had Oil Investments

2010-06-23T12:27:00.000-07:00

Why didn't Judge Martin Feldman recuse himself? Apparently because he wanted to make this decision.

Judge Who Nixed Drilling Ban Had Oil Investments
Curt Anderson and Michael Kunzelman
AP
June 23, 2010

The Louisiana judge who struck down the Obama administration's six-month ban on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has reported extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, according to financial disclosure reports. He's also a new member of a secret national security court.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan, reported owning less than $15,000 in stock in 2008 in Transocean Ltd., the company that owned the sunken Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

Feldman overturned the ban Tuesday, saying the government simply assumed that because one rig exploded, the others pose an imminent danger, too...

Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure report - the most recent available - also showed investments in Ocean Energy, a Houston-based company, as well as Quicksilver Resources, Prospect Energy, Peabody Energy, Halliburton, Pengrowth Energy Trust, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker Drilling and others. Halliburton was also involved in the doomed Deepwater Horizon project.

Feldman did not respond to requests for comment and to clarify whether he still holds some or all of these investments.

He's one of many federal judges across the Gulf Coast region with money in oil and gas. Several have disqualified themselves from hearing spill-related lawsuits and others have sold their holdings so they can preside over some of the 200-plus cases...

San Diego Lawyers Club to Honor 3 Attorneys

2010-06-02T11:31:00.000-07:00

Lawyers Club to Honor 3 Attorneys
San Diego Metropolitan Magazine
Daily Business Report — April 30, 2010

San Diego attorneys Jay Jeffcoat, Elizabeth Balfour and Betty Boone will receive major awards from the Lawyers Club of San Diego at its May 26 annual dinner, “Catalyst for Change,” at the U.S. Grant Hotel in Downtown San Diego. The club also will pay tribute to the late Midge Costanza, a former White House aide who died last month. The keynote address will be by Roberta Liebenberg, chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession and a senior partner at Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C. in Philadelphia

Jeffcoat, partner with DLA Piper US, will receive the Belva Lockwood Award, the club’s highest honor, for his contributions to the organization. He helped found the first National Organization of Women chapter in El Centro years ago and is active with the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, United Way, the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, the New Children’s Museum and other organizations.

Balfour, a partner at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, is to receive the Community Service Award, given to an individual whose activities have improved the status of women and promoted equality. Balfour co-chaired the 2007-08 Women’s Resource Fair Task Force and has received the 2007 San Diego County Bar Association’s Service to the Bar Award, among others, and serves as a board member of the San Diego County Bar Association and the Legal Aid Society of San Diego.

Boone, retired chief deputy county counsel, is to receive the Icon Award, which recognizes her lifelong commitment to improving the status of women. It will be only the second time the Lawyers Club has given the award. It was initially presented to White House press correspondent Helen Thomas in 2008. Boone, who has been a member of Lawyers Club since its formation in 1972, was the second female graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law. She currently serves as Lawyers Club’s historian and archivist.

The annual dinner includes a VIP reception at 5 p.m., cocktail reception at 5:30 p.m. and dinner and program at 6:30 p.m. Lawyers Club president Catherine Kowalewski, a partner at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, will preside over the event and will pass the gavel to 2010-11 president Wendy Behan, senior associate at Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield, who begins her term as president July 1.

Bobby DeLaughter, the lawyer who helped convict the killer of Medgar Evers, got caught up in the abuse of justice system by the wealthy and powerful

2010-01-04T19:48:00.000-08:00

Disgraced Miss. judge reports to federal prison
AP
By HOLBROOK MOHR
Associated Press

JACKSON, Miss. – Bobby DeLaughter, a former Mississippi prosecutor and judge whose legal conquests became the subject of books and a movie, reported to federal prison Monday for lying to the FBI in a judicial bribery investigation.

The next chapter of DeLaughter's life, as inmate No. 12930-042, marks a long fall from the height of his legal career in 1994 when he was a prosecutor who helped convict a civil rights-era assassin for the 30-year-old murder of NAACP leader Medgar Evers...

DeLaughter was sentenced to 18 months in November after pleading guilty to lying about secret conversations he had with a lawyer while presiding over a dispute between wealthy attorneys over legal fees. As part of a plea deal, prosecutors dropped conspiracy and mail fraud charges.

DeLaughter made a name for himself as an assistant district attorney when he helped put away Byron de la Beckwith for Evers' 1963 murder. The case was the basis for the 1996 movie "Ghosts of Mississippi," with Alec Baldwin playing DeLaughter...

His storied career ended with the same bribery scandal that toppled Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, chief architect of the multibillion-dollar tobacco litigation of the 1990s — which was depicted in the movie "The Insider," starring Al Pacino and Russell Crowe.

DeLaughter was presiding over a lawsuit in which a lawyer sued Scruggs for a bigger cut of millions in legal fees from asbestos litigation. Prosecutors said DeLaughter ruled in Scruggs' favor in exchange for a promise that he'd be considered for a federal judgeship, with help from Scruggs' high-powered connections...

DeLaughter pleaded guilty only to lying to the FBI about conversations he had with his old boss, former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters. Peters was accused of receiving $1 million to influence DeLaughter, but he cooperated in the investigation and was not charged.

Four Candidates, All Rated ‘Not Qualified,’ Battle It Out

2010-01-04T17:30:00.000-08:00

Four Candidates, All Rated ‘Not Qualified,’ Battle It Out
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
JUDICIAL ELECTIONS: Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 84

All four of the contenders for Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 84, an open seat, have been proclaimed “not qualified” by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. The candidates and their ballot designations are Pat Connolly, “Criminal Gang Prosecutor”; John “Johnny” Gutierrez, “Administrative Law Judge”; Bob Henry, “Prosecutor Deputy Attorney-General”; and Lori-Ann C. Jones, “Superior Court Commissioner.”

They will compete for the seat presently held by Judge Gibson Lee, who opted not to run to succeed himself.

Chief Justice John Roberts says Judge Brent Benjamin doesn't have to recuse himself just because of a measly $3 million campaign contribution

2009-06-08T09:30:00.000-07:00

Was justice Brent Benjamin the best judge money could buy? Shouldn't he be thrown off the bench? How exactly was the $3 million spent?

This is an appalling case of unjudicial conduct. I suppose that Justice Brent Benjamin will continue for many years to astonish the state of Virginia with bizarre behavior. Thank heaven for US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. If he'd swung the other way, and joined Roberts, Scalia, Alioto and Thomas, it would have been a disgrace to our country's justice system.

High court: Judge should have dropped case involving donor
June 8, 2009
By Joan Biskupic
USA TODAY

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin violated consitutional due process of law when he voted in a dispute involving a coal compay whose CEO had contributed to his campaign.

WASHINGTON — A West Virginia judge who won election with significant contributions from a coal company CEO and then cast a vote to overturn a $50 million jury verdict against the company should have withdrawn from the case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices said West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin violated constitutional due process of law when he voted in the dispute after being asked to take himself out because of a conflict of interest...

The case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal had become a flashpoint in the national debate over potential corruption in state judicial elections by big contributors.

Monday's decision is likely to enhance the ability of litigants to challenge judges as potentially biased because of campaign money they receive.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, noted that the $3 million CEO Don Blankenship spent on the 2004 state West Virginia court election far exceeded the total spent by all other Benjamin supporters and Benjamin himself.

"We find that Blankenship's significant and disproportional influence … offer a possible temptation to the average judge," Kennedy said.

Kennedy noted that Judge Benjamin had said he did not feel beholden to Blankenship and could be fair in appeal by Blankenship's Massey Coal of the 2002 verdict won by Hugh Caperton and his Harman mining company.

Yet, Kennedy said that more is required than a judge's subjective assessment of the situation. An objective risk of bias must be considered.

...Joining Kennedy in the majority were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Dissenting from Monday's decision were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito...

Why is Bonnie Dumanis prosecuting this case?

2009-05-27T21:20:00.000-07:00

Joe Ryan, 52nd US Congressional District write-in candidate

By Joe Ryan 10/22/2008

As many of you reading this already know, I was arrested (actually kidnapped) at the 52nd district candidate's debate. If you get your information from Michele Clock of the Union-Tribune, then you don't know the truth. Here's some facts:

1. I was arrested after I walked onto the stage with the other three qualified candidate's for the 52nd district seat, announced my presence to the assembled voters, and I began to participate in the debate being held. I did not disrupt anything, I merely exercised my constitutional right right to be included in the debate.

2. The Union-Tribune deceived the public again. Michele Clock wrote, that Joe Ryan was protesting being excluded from a "public forum". While it's true that the debate was a public forum, Joe Ryan did not object to being excluded from the debate on that basis; rather Joe Ryan insisted that he had a constitutional right to be included in the debate, because the debate was being held at a government facility. When the government gets involved, they may not discriminate against one candidate in favor of another.

3. I was in contact with Grossmont College personnel throughout the day of the debate, trying to get them to acknowledge and follow the law, but they obfuscated, and played games all day; then they finally claimed (around 5pm) that the school had no control over the event whatsover. I informed Grossmont personnel about the existence of a legal advisory that had been issued by the Chancellor office of the California Community College system that indicated they were breaking the law, but they refused to acknowledge that a debate that only included candidates favored by the Chamber of Commerce, 'supported' any candidacy. Amazingly, Dana Quittner, secretary for the president of Grossmont college, insisted that my rights were completely fulfilled by the fcat that I could use the debate facility myself, on some alternative evening, sometime in the future.

4. I e-mailed every member of the Grossmont College Board about the problem I was having with the college staff, and only one responded (Tim Carruthers). Tim tried to be helpful. He contacted Dana Quittner for me, after Dana spent most of the day avoiding me. However, Dana Quittner did not respond in a good faith manner, and she boldly lied to me about activities Grossmont personnel had engaged in. Dana Quittner actually insisted that no resources or college personnel were involved in any way with the debate setup and preparation. That's so dishonest it's laughable! Grossmont employee, Henry Migala spent the whole day preparing the facility for the debate and making other debate arrangements; and he undoubtedly had help from many other Grossmont College district employees. Henry Migala was still hard at work at 8:00pm (supervising the arrest of Joe Ryan). Does Henry Migala work for free? Did the Chamber bring its own lighting system for the building? Who handled their debate facility application? The law says the college district may not use any resources to support partisan activity; so it's pretty obvious why Dana Quittner has to lie like a rug about the college districts role in the debate preparation. You would think you were dealing with a member of the San Diego media, but sadly, our government lies to us without shame too. Here's the pertinent text of the legal advisory that the chancelor's office sent to community college superintendents and presidents from an attorney working for the state (Steven Bruckman).

Use of District Resources for Partisan Purposes

The use of District resources to support or oppose ballot measures or candidates is restricted. The fundamental reason for the restriction is that public money may not be used for partisan activities. Put another way, resources that have been obtained for the district's support for all taxpayers must not be used "to take sides". Therefore, district employee time, equipment, supplies, or other public resources may not be used in advocating for either side of a ballot measure or to support or defeat any candidate. Legal Advisory 04-05, California Community Colleges chancellors' office.

Should Bush lawyers be disbarred?

2009-05-21T16:09:00.000-07:00

Bush Lawyers' Disbarment Sought
Huffington Post
NEDRA PICKLER
May 18, 2009 AP

WASHINGTON — A coalition of liberal groups filed petitions Monday seeking disbarment of Bush administration attorneys linked to memos on harsh interrogation techniques of detainees.

Complaints were filed against 12 individuals, including former attorneys general John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey and former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, said a member of the groups. The complaints filed with bar associations in the District of Columbia and four states _ New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania _ say their licenses should be revoked for "moral turpitude."

"These lawyers misused their license to practice law to provide legal cover for the war crime of torture," said Kevin Zeese, executive director of VotersForPeace.US and a board member with VelvetRevolution.US, the two groups leading the effort.

Memos by the Bush Justice Department contended that waterboarding _ a form of simulated drowning _ as well as sleep deprivation and other extreme techniques were legal under U.S. and international law.

The other attorneys who are targets of the campaign are:

_ John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Stephen Bradbury, who worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel

_ Ex-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith

_ Former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington

_ Pentagon lawyer William Haynes

_ Former deputy White House counsel Timothy Flanigan

_ and Alice Fisher, former director of the Justice Department's Criminal Division.

Have CTA lawyers threatened Google about my blog?

2009-03-01T10:43:00.001-08:00

Peg Myers is facing an election in May as President of Chula Vista Educators.

I woke up this morning and found all the posts missing from my San Diego Education Report Blog.

Who could have done it?

My prime suspect is the last person who visited my most recent post. This person visited at 12:21 a.m. Interestingly, this person was using the same computer as the anonymous person who posted this comment just a few days ago:

Anonymous said...

Thank goodness for the perseverance of the attorneys in Shinoff's firm...some day this crazy nonsensical web site will come down!

The post on my blog that apparently triggered the erasure of my blog was about the deposition of Chula Vista Educators president Peg Myers.

A witness told me that Peg Myers used the word "crazy" to refer to me. Putting all the information together, I am suspecting Peg Myers, who is facing an election in May if she is to continue as President of Chula Vista Educators. It's perfectly understandable that wouldn't want her deposition to be exposed during the campaign.

I also know that California Teachers Association protects sitting presidents of CTA locals, and that CTA information has previously disappeared from my website.

This is the information I have about the anonymous visitor:

IP Address
72.220.30.144
Cox Communications
United States
California
Chula Vista
Time of Visit Mar 1 2009 12:21:31 am
Visit Length 10 minutes 6 seconds
Page Views 2
Out Click SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT WEBSITE
Time Zone UTC-8:00

UPDATE: Further research supports my conclusion. This person visited every single page of Peg Myers' deposition on SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT WEBSITE, and also this page, which contains part of Robin Donlan's deposition transcript. Donlan and Myers were members of the "Castle Park Five."

Federal judge pleads guilty to lying to investigators

2009-02-23T11:07:00.000-08:00

Federal judge pleads guilty before start of trial
By JUAN A. LOZANO
The Associated Press
February 23, 2009

A federal judge pleaded guilty Monday to lying to investigators by denying he sexually abused his secretary in exchange for prosecutors dropping five sex-crime charges alleging he groped the secretary and another female court employee.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent, the first federal judge charged with a sex crime, also retired, effective immediately, avoiding possible impeachment by Congress.

Kent's guilty plea to obstruction of justice came as jury selection for his trial was to begin...

Kent, 59, had been facing six charges – five related to federal sex crimes and the obstruction charge, a felony that alone carries a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

2009-02-11T18:06:00.001-08:00

Pa. judges accused of jailing kids for cash
Writers Michael Rubinkam And Maryclaire Dale,
Associated Press Writers
Feb. 11, 2009

For years, the juvenile court system in Wilkes-Barre operated like a conveyor belt: Youngsters were brought before judges without a lawyer, given hearings that lasted only a minute or two, and then sent off to juvenile prison for months for minor offenses.

The explanation, prosecutors say, was corruption on the bench.

In one of the most shocking cases of courtroom graft on record, two Pennsylvania judges have been charged with taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers.

"I've never encountered, and I don't think that we will in our lifetimes, a case where literally thousands of kids' lives were just tossed aside in order for a couple of judges to make some money," said Marsha Levick, an attorney with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, which is representing hundreds of youths sentenced in Wilkes-Barre.

Prosecutors say Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan took $2.6 million in payoffs to put juvenile offenders in lockups run by PA Child Care LLC and a sister company, Western PA Child Care LLC. The judges were charged on Jan. 26 and removed from the bench by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shortly afterward.

No company officials have been charged, but the investigation is still going on.

The high court, meanwhile, is looking into whether hundreds or even thousands of sentences should be overturned and the juveniles' records expunged.

Among the offenders were teenagers who were locked up for months for stealing loose change from cars, writing a prank note and possessing drug paraphernalia. Many had never been in trouble before. Some were imprisoned even after probation officers recommended against it.

Many appeared without lawyers, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1967 ruling that children have a constitutional right to counsel.

The judges are scheduled to plead guilty to fraud Thursday in federal court. Their plea agreements call for sentences of more than seven years behind bars.

Ciavarella, 58, who presided over Luzerne County's juvenile court for 12 years, acknowledged last week in a letter to his former colleagues, "I have disgraced my judgeship. My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame." Ciavarella, though, has denied he got kickbacks for sending youths to prison.

Conahan, 56, has remained silent about the case.

Many Pennsylvania counties contract with privately run juvenile detention centers, paying them either a fixed overall fee or a certain amount per youth, per day.

In Luzerne County, prosecutors say, Conahan shut down the county-run juvenile prison in 2002 and helped the two companies secure rich contracts worth tens of millions of dollars, at least some of that dependent on how many juveniles were locked up.

One of the contracts — a 20-year agreement with PA Child Care worth an estimated $58 million — was later canceled by the county as exorbitant.

The judges are accused of taking payoffs between 2003 and 2006.

Robert J. Powell co-owned PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care until June. His attorney, Mark Sheppard, said his client was the victim of an extortion scheme.

"Bob Powell never solicited a nickel from these judges and really was a victim of their demands," he said. "These judges made it very plain to Mr. Powell that he was going to be required to pay certain monies."

For years, youth advocacy groups complained that Ciavarella was ridiculously harsh and ran roughshod over youngsters' constitutional rights. Ciavarella sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a statewide rate of one in 10.

The criminal charges confirmed the advocacy groups' worst suspicions and have called into question all the sentences he pronounced.

Hillary Transue did not have an attorney, nor was she told of her right to one, when she appeared in Ciavarella's courtroom in 2007 for building a MySpace page that lampooned her assistant principal.

Her mother, Laurene Transue, worked for 16 years in the child services department of another county and said she was certain Hillary would get a slap on the wrist. Instead, Ciavarella sentenced her to three months; she got out after a month, with help from a lawyer.

"I felt so disgraced for a while, like, what do people think of me now?" said Hillary, now 17 and a high school senior who plans to become an English teacher.

Laurene Transue said Ciavarella "was playing God. And not only was he doing that, he was getting money for it. He was betraying the trust put in him to do what is best for children."

Kurt Kruger, now 22, had never been in trouble with the law until the day police accused him of acting as a lookout while his friend shoplifted less than $200 worth of DVDs from Wal-Mart. He said he didn't know his friend was going to steal anything.

Kruger pleaded guilty before Ciavarella and spent three days in a company-run juvenile detention center, plus four months at a youth wilderness camp run by a different operator.

"Never in a million years did I think that I would actually get sent away. I was completely destroyed," said Kruger, who later dropped out of school. He said he wants to get his record expunged, earn his high school equivalency diploma and go to college.

"I got a raw deal, and yeah, it's not fair," he said, "but now it's 100 times bigger than me."

A green light from Google: I'm no longer blocked from Blogger dashboard

2009-01-31T21:53:00.000-08:00

My exile from my Blogger dashboard has ended. For some reason, Blogger has suddenly allowed me to see my dashboard and to post on all my blogs.

The last couple of posts on this blog were NOT posted from Blogger. I had to find a way to post without having access to my dashboard, so I used Google documents' program (I think it's called "writely"), and I obviously had a bit of trouble with spacing.

2009-01-27T13:20:00.001-08:00

Pellicano went to jail, but what about the attorneys he worked for? Wikipedia...Telephone voice recordings of [Nicole] Kidman speaking to [Tom] Cruise were found when authorities first raided Pellicano's offices in 2002. The tapes were allegedly made in 2001, shortly after Kidman and former husband Tom Cruise announced they were separating. Cruise used lawyer Dennis Wasser to negotiate his separation, and Wasser regularly retained Pellicano's services. Although he has not been charged in the case, Wasser has been told by the FBI he is a "person of interest." Prominent Hollywood attorney Bertram Fields, a long-time client of Pellicano (and lawyer for Tom Cruise), has repeatedly been connected to the ongoing federal wiretapping investigation in the press because of allegations that his celebrity clients have benefited from the former PI's alleged illegal wiretaps
directed against members of the media and prominent critics...Variety reported in 2003 that [Sylvestor] Stallone was questioned by the FBI when it was revealed the actor's phone may have been illegally tapped by Pellicano, who was working at the time for a client of Fields. Former Los Angeles Times reporter Anita Busch had filed a civil lawsuit against Pellicano on May 28, 2004, alleging that he was
part of a harassment campaign which included illegal wiretapping and a 2002 death threat. While investigating the former PI and his clients
for an article she was writing, Busch's windshield was smashed and
decorated with a dead fish, a rose, and a note which read "stop."

On a separate note, the lawyers who are suing me for defamation, Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, seem to be having a bit of trouble responding to the Form Interrogatories I sent them. Attorney Ray Artiano, who signed the firm's response, had a problem with the question about surveillance: he skipped the question entirely.

2009-01-27T09:22:00.001-08:00

Did Peregrine's lawyers advise on how to get away with fraud? Peregrine executive pleads guilty to wrongdoing San Diego Union-Tribune January 26, 2009 SAN DIEGO – Jeremy Crook, who once headed the European operations of San Diego's Peregrine Systems, pleaded guilty Monday to wire fraud during the government's ongoing prosecution of executives from the once high-flying software company...The company collapsed in 2002 after its fraudulent financial reports came to light...He faces a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Two defendants remain in the case: ex-general counsel Richard Nelson and Eric Deller, who succeeded Nelson in that role after he was indicted. Their trial is scheduled to begin March 3.

In December, former Peregrine chief executive Stephen Gardner was sentenced to eight years and one month in prison... Prosecutors said that Gardner and 17 other Peregrine executives systematically overstated revenue by millions of dollars from 1999 to 2001, ensuring that the value of the company's stock would climb...

Attorney sentenced to three years for working with wiretapper Pellicano

2008-12-15T11:46:00.000-08:00

KPCC News In Brief
November 24, 2008
An attorney convicted in a high-profile Hollywood wiretapping case landed a three-year federal prison sentence today.

Details from KPCC’s Cheryl Devall:

Private investigator Anthony Pellicano used to brag about his star-studded clientele. He used unconventional methods to dig dirt on and intimidate potential adversaries of celebrities, including action star Sylvester Stallone and comedian Chris Rock.

In August a federal jury convicted Pellicano and lawyer Terry Christensen of conspiring to wiretap the phone calls of the former wife of billionaire developer Kirk Kerkorian in a dispute over paternity and child support. Christensen said little during his sentencing hearing, except to refer to a written statement in which he expressed remorse for having done business with Pellicano.

The judge sentenced Christensen to three years in prison, three years probation and a quarter-million dollar fine. He’s free on $100,000 bond pending an appeal. Pellicano’s scheduled for sentencing next month. He may face prison time for a separate wiretapping and racketeering conviction.

Don Siegelman case: political prosecution by Bush justice department?

2008-12-13T20:35:00.000-08:00

Questions Linger About Siegelman Prosecution
by Kathy Lohr
National Public Radio
All Things Considered
Dec. 13, 2008

A federal appeals court heard arguments this week in the case of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Siegelman, a Democrat, was convicted of corruption and bribery and served nine months in prison. But the appeals court ordered his release earlier this year after it found substantial questions with his case. Siegelman argues that the prosecution was a politically motivated attack, and Congress is looking into the case.

"We were running a guilty-plea factory" --public defender Anne Moore

2008-12-03T12:22:00.001-08:00

Anna McHugh accidentally caused public defender Anne Moore to becoome a whistleblower

Young producer hits gold with public defender documentary
Current.org
by Mike Janssen
May 22, 2000

...McHugh started following [public defender Anne Moore] through the complex workings of Nevada County [California] justice--Moore's office, courtrooms, the district attorney's office—all the while meeting people who couldn't afford a lawyer and felt cheated by the legal system. Watching Moore struggle with her huge caseload and the pressures of public work deeply affected McHugh...

"Clients were just so emotionally charged. The public defenders were so stressed out. The atmosphere really got to me."

...Anne Moore, a former schoolteacher and activist for tenants' rights who entered public defense with a strong sense of duty. She was also the first woman hired in her office's 24-year history.

...McHugh says. "I got the sense that she was the exception, rather than the rule, of public defenders."

By the time she met McHugh, Moore had reached the end of her rope as a public defender. The huge caseloads and limited time were stressing her out. And she was increasingly troubled by problems in her office.

"We were running a guilty plea factory," Moore says. She alleges that in 1998, only one of hundreds of cases in her office ever went to trial. She also claims that an ex-cop on probation interviewed clients as a way of fulfilling his work release requirements, and that staff relations were rocky.

...After months of dissenting internally, Moore took her concerns to the county board of supervisors, which eventually publicized a critical evaluation of the public defenders' office. In the end, reports emerged that supported some of her allegations, and the head public defender was fired. Moore, who no longer works for the office, claims she also was fired as a result of her actions, but county officials say she resigned.

Though Moore already knew the problems in her office all too well, it took McHugh's straightforward approach to inspire her to blow the whistle...

"I could see that the person that I was could not tolerate the wrongdoing that I was part of, and that I thought I was someone who stood up for the rights of those who were traditionally underrepresented. ... I saw a person who needed to put my ethical obligations and my ideals above my career, and above security."

News of Moore's whistle-blowing shocked McHugh. "I didn't really quite know how to respond," she says. "I didn't quite feel like I had done anything in particular. I must have touched a nerve somewhere, stumbling around in the dark."

Links:
Public defender and judge ignore crushingly obvious mistaken identity

With new US Attorney, it's a good time to be a white-collar criminal in San Diego

2008-12-03T11:28:00.000-08:00

Voice of San Diego
Without Lam, U.S. Attorney's Office Takes Different Tack
By KELLY THORNTON
Dec. 2, 2008

..."There's been a precipitous decline in white-collar investigations and prosecutions over the last two years," said Michael Attanasio...

[Carole] Lam's tenure turned out to be glory days for the FBI's financial crime squads, for federal prosecutors working major frauds and for dream-team defense attorneys whose clients made headlines around the country.

When Karen Hewitt took over 22 months ago, controversy raged over what was perceived by some as politically motivated firings of Lam and seven other U.S. attorneys around the country...

Lam, a healthcare fraud specialist, had branded herself a champion of these high-impact corporate and public corruption cases. As for border crime, she bypassed the small players and went after leaders of large drug- and human-smuggling rings and corrupt border officials.

[Blogger's note: good call, Carole.]

...Criminal prosecutions in fiscal 2008, Hewitt's first full year in office, have increased 54 percent since Carol Lam's first year in office, fiscal 2003, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which monitors federal prosecution statistics. Comparing the same five-year period, immigration cases in the Southern District of California are up 88 percent.

[Blogger's note: The higher the prosecution rate, the more likely it is than innocent people are being charged. I'll bet the conviction rate has gone down for those who are brought to trial. I'll also bet that not many cases actually go to trial. If Hewitt charges everybody who gets scooped up by over-eager agents, then underpaid public defenders can't afford to defend them properly, and advise even their innocent clients to accept plea-bargains.]

Also during that span, prosecutions of white-collar cases referred by the San Diego FBI are down 74 percent, from 78 cases in 2003 to 18 cases in 2008, the lowest level in two decades. And public corruption cases are down 71 percent, from seven cases to two. Under Lam, the number of such cases had reached the highest levels in two decades, hitting 12 in 2004, TRAC found.

"She's very aware of the reasons her predecessor was axed," criminal defense attorney Bob Rose said of Hewitt. "I really doubt she would like that to happen to her."

...until a few weeks ago, the major frauds unit was at its lowest staffing levels in years -- a decline that began toward the end of Lam's 4.5-year tenure as resources dwindled. Four junior attorneys were assigned to the unit recently, bringing the number to about 11, lawyers in the office said. That appears to be in step with a national trend to crackdown on mortgage fraud and other financial crimes associated with the nation's economic meltdown.

Hewitt's office declined to provide statistics or answer questions, but said from 2007 to 2008, immigration cases were up 48 percent, gun cases were up 17 percent, child pornography cases were up 60 percent, and frauds were up 71 percent. Hewitt was interim U.S. attorney for eight months of fiscal 2007...

Former FBI chief Bill Gore, now the undersheriff, raved about Hewitt while introducing her as speaker at a Rotary Club meeting in October, calling her a "team player."

...the vast majority of cases prosecuted by Hewitt's troops comes from Customs and Border Protection (73 percent) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (17 percent), both part of the Department of Homeland Security. Only about 2 percent of the U.S. attorney's cases are referrals for prosecution by the San Diego FBI, according to TRAC, which analyzes Justice Department data...

The federal government reported filing 151 criminal mortgage fraud prosecutions in the first 10 months of FY 2008, 10 of which are in the Southern District of California, which includes San Diego and Imperial counties, according to data obtained by TRAC.

The 151 federal mortgage fraud prosecutions so far reported for fiscal 2008 were clustered in only 10 judicial districts, with Florida South (Miami) the most active with 69 cases, followed by Western Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) with 26 prosecutions. San Diego was tied for third with 10, sharing that distinction with Northern Georgia.

In its analysis of the data, the TRAC report said: "Given the broad troubles now confronting the economy of the United States, and the role that mortgage fraud may have played in these problems, the relatively small number of cases in this area is somewhat surprising. For example, during the same period U.S. attorney offices criminally prosecuted 554 individuals for simple drug possession, 399 cases for environmental wildlife protection and 405 for child pornography."

...Hewitt, a Republican and avid sports fan, joined the San Diego U.S. Attorney's Office in 2000 and prosecuted civil fraud cases before Lam appointed her as third in command -- executive assistant U.S. attorney -- in 2006...

With the election of Democrat Barack Obama to the White House, Hewitt almost certainly will be stepping down, and priorities are likely to shift again with the unnamed new appointee. The position is a political appointment, and incoming presidents typically choose their own U.S. attorneys. But that process could take up to a year.

[Blogger's note: Unfortunately, Democrats often let big fish get away, just like Republicans. I would like to see the appointment of Eliot Spitzer or someone with equal courage to go after the criminals in insurance companies. And I'd like to see the US Dept of Justice do something more important than going after prostitutes.]

Hewitt apparently prefers to put little guys in jail, burdening the taxpayers and contributing the United States reputation as having the highest percentage of incarcerated population in the world. It's not hard to get someone to plead guilty when their exhausted lawyer doesn't have time to work on the case. You end up with lots of guilty pleas, often from innocent people who fear more years in jail if they don't plead guilty.]

...the additional cases under Hewitt have had a significant impact on workload for the U.S. District Court, the clerk's office, court-appointed defense lawyers and the jails and prisons.

Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc. has been forced to increase the number of staff lawyers by 25 percent in the last year to handle the caseload. "There've been points in the year when everybody's been just absolutely under water," said Reuben C. Cahn, executive director. "Everyone can work 80 hours a week for a couple months at a time but they just can't do it longer than that without the quality of work eroding or without burning out. It's been a very difficult year for us."

Cahn said the numbers tell the story. His office handled 892 immigration cases in FY 2006, then 1,240 in 2007 when Hewitt first took over, and 1,660 in 2008. "That's essentially doubled in two years," he said.

So, the prominent white-collar defense lawyers are doing a lot of civil cases now. There have been no new high-profile corruption cases like Cunningham, who is serving more than eight years in prison.

An Office of the Inspector General report has concluded that Lam's firing, while mishandled, did not appear to be an effort by the Bush Administration to derail Lam's pursuit of Cunningham and spinoff cases targeting GOP colleagues. Her firing was about failing to prosecute border crimes, a Justice Department priority, the report said...

[Blogger's note: There's obviously no need for meddling. The Bush Administration hired Hewitt because they were confident she would do exactly what they wanted.]

Should judges be elected or appointed?

2008-11-20T14:01:00.000-08:00

Wanted: better judgment, fewer crowd-pleasers and lickspittles
Nov 20th 2008
The Economist

Should judges be elected or appointed? In the case of international courts, this age-old conundrum has a new twist

BARACK OBAMA wasn’t the only person selected by American voters this month. They also cast ballots for thousands of state-court judges, after expensive, rancorous campaigns. No other nation in the world chooses judges by this stirringly democratic method, as Sandra Day O’Connor—the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court—has noted. In her view, that is because most countries know “you’re not going to get fair and impartial judges that way.”...

Lawyers investigated in Detroit $8.4-million whistle-blower lawsuit settlement secret agreement

2008-10-28T14:26:00.000-07:00

City attorney cleared of wrongdoing in Free Press records request
BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
October 28, 2008

City of Detroit lawyer Ellen Ha won’t face professional misconduct charges for her handling of Free Press’s public records requests that revealed the existence of a secret side agreement to last year’s $8.4-million settlement of a police whistle-blower lawsuit and eventually brought down Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

“The Attorney Grievance Commission determined that the evidence reviewed did not warrant further action by the commission,” it said in a one-page letter dated Monday to Ha. She received the letter today.

...Ha told the Free Press and a Wayne County judge after last year’s $8.4-million whistle-blower lawsuit settlement that she was unaware of any secret agreement. But documents the judge later released in a Free Press freedom of information lawsuit showed the mayor’s lawyers had created a secret side agreement to conceal the existence of text messages showing that Kilpatrick and his former chief of staff, Christine Beatty, had lied at the whistle-blower trial.

Ha later testified at Kilpatrick’s removal hearing that she had been kept in the dark about the confidential agreement and said such agreements are improper because the public is entitled to know the details of settlements involving public funds.

Deputy State Treasurer Valdemar Washington, then a Flint lawyer who was called in to help facilitate a settlement of the whistle-blower suit, was cleared in the grievance commission investigation in September.

The commission is investigating other lawyers involved in the secret settlement and its aftermath. They are Kilpatrick, who was a lawyer until he surrendered his law license when he pled guilty to obstruction of justice charges; Samuel McCargo, who represented Kilpatrick in the whistle-blower suit; Assistant City Attorney Valerie Colbert-Osamuede, who represented the city; John Johnson, then-head of the Law Department; Wilson Colepand II of Detroit, a private lawyer who represented the city; William Mitchell III of Southfield, who went to the city’s text messaging provider to find out why the messages hadn’t been destroyed; and Michael Stefani and law partner Frank Rivers, of Royal Oak, who represented the cops.

Judge says Ted Stevens prosecutor signaled witness on stand

2008-10-07T13:25:00.000-07:00

I hope there won't be too many people that fall off their chairs in shock when they read this story.

Washington Post
An Angry Judge at Stevens Trial
10/ 7/2008
by Derek Kravitz

The surprises keep coming at the corruption trial of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan admonished Anchorage attorney Robert Bundy after the judge thought he saw him signaling to his client, Bill Allen, on the witness stand yesterday. Sullivan threatened to hold Bundy in contempt and called Bundy's gestures "borderline obstruction of justice," according to the Anchorage Daily News.

Bundy did not appear in court today, thinking he would not be welcome, said his law partner, Creighton Magid. "He is torn up about this," said Magid, who also said Bundy "vehemently denies" making any signals to Allen, according to The Associated Press.

Allen, the government's star witness against Stevens, is making his second trip to the witness stand as the trial enters its third week. (Roll Call notes that by cooperating with federal authorities, he is allowed to keep millions that he had earned from the sale of his Anchorage oil firm, Veco Corp.)

Yesterday, jurors heard secretly-recorded phone calls (transcript) between Stevens and Allen. Stevens, 84, is accused of hiding improper gifts he received from Allen, including home improvements to the tune of $250,000.

On the tapes (and in between the occasional four-letter word, the health tips and the heartfelt I-love-you's from Allen) Stevens tells his fishing and drinking buddy that he's confident he's done nothing wrong -- but also says he's worried about possible jail time.

"These guys can't really hurt us," he says in one phone call, referring to government prosecutors. "They're not going to shoot us. Hell, the worst that can happen to us is that we run up a bunch of legal fees, and might lose and might have to pay a fine and might have to serve a little time in jail -- I hope to Christ it never gets to that -- and I don't think it will. I'm developing the attitude that I don't think I did anything wrong so I'm going to go right through my life and keep doing what I think is right."...

Did a judge-prosecutor romance taint Texas murder trial?

2008-09-07T16:49:00.000-07:00

I don't think the outcome of this case would necessarily have been different if the judge had recused herself. But I do think she was wrong not to recuse herself.

Defendant faces execution Sept. 10
By Warren Richey
The Christian Science Monitor
September 8, 2008 edition

...The lawyer for a death-row inmate says he is trying to break a "conspiracy of silence" in Texas over whether the district attorney and the judge who presided over his client's 1990 capital murder trial were having a secret romantic relationship.

The inmate, Charles Dean Hood, is scheduled to be executed on Wednesday.

A Texas judge has ordered a hearing into the issue on Monday morning. The judge has also ordered the former judge and former district attorney to be prepared to answer questions under oath about their alleged affair and potentially surrender any documentary evidence of a relationship.

The unusual twists and turns in the Hood case are attracting national attention and adding fuel to an already-heated debate over capital punishment in Texas...

Attorney Bradley Marshall tries to intimidate Seattle Blogger

2008-08-27T22:27:00.000-07:00

Apparently a lot of lawyers think that bloggers are easy to intimidate. I also have had the honor of having an eminent lawyer (actually, a whole firm of them) try to intimidate me into silence.

Lawyer Tries to Intimidate Seattle Blogger

From Hominid Views: People, politics, science and whatnot
July 31, 2008

What is this world coming to when a high-powered attorney to sports stars (and a now-deceased famous talk-radio host) goes on the attack against a lowly blogger?

You see, Bradley Marshall, attorney extraordinaire (well… if you don’t count the recent 18 month suspension of his license) just sent a letter to Seattle liberal blogger and journalist (and friend of mine) Michael Hood at Blatherwatch requesting that Michael yank some old blog posts and cease writing about him.

Michael is certainly not the first blogger to get such requests, but it must be quite the honor for Michael to get a letter from a lawyer of such stature...

Terrific idea: hire Justice Department employees based on merit

2008-08-12T17:22:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the people given jobs in the Justice Department because they could be counted on to serve the interests of the right-wing Republican Party will now be joined by people who will get their jobs based on their merit.

Illegally Rejected Justice Dept. Applicants May Get Another Look

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
August 12, 2008

"Job applicants who were rejected by the Justice Department because of improper political considerations will be urged to apply for open positions, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey told an audience yesterday.

"Mukasey said the hiring system at Justice had broken down and that department leaders had failed to supervise the behavior "of those who did wrong." But the attorney general stopped short of agreeing to weed out lawyers and immigration judges who won their jobs based on faulty criteria..."

The Supreme Court goofs; it need to fix its error

2008-07-05T20:47:00.000-07:00

I've long wondered why prosecutors and judges are so reluctant to admit they make mistakes. If it's because they think they'll lose credibility, they should think again. Someone who admits it when they make a mistake has more credibility than someone who doesn't.

Washington Post editorial
July 5, 2008

WHEN A NEWSPAPER gets its facts wrong, it's supposed to publish a correction, and, if someone's reputation has been harmed, a retraction and apology. It can be embarrassing, but the occasional taste of crow probably does more good than harm to the media's credibility.

But what if the Supreme Court not only blows a key fact but also bases its ruling, in part, on that error? There was quite a goof in the court's 5 to 4 decision on June 25 banning the death penalty for those who rape children. The majority determined that capital punishment for child rape was unconstitutional, in part because a national consensus had formed against it... Actually, only two years ago, Congress enacted a death penalty for soldiers who commit child rape, as part of an update to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Irony of ironies: The court has cast doubt on the constitutionality of an act of Congress based on the erroneous claim that the statute did not exist.

...only after a legal blogger, Col. Dwight H. Sullivan, had pointed out the mistake did a newspaper, the New York Times, take note...

"The Insider" lawyer sentenced to five years for trying to bribe a judge

2008-06-27T16:08:00.000-07:00

The thing that bothers me about this case is that I suspect it's the tip of an iceberg. Something must have made these people think that judges could be bribed. The sentencing judge noted that Scruggs picked the wrong judge to try to bribe. But how many times had he picked a judge who willingly accepted a bribe?

Attorney Gets 5 Years in Bribery Case
By HOLBROOK MOHR,AP
2008-06-27
OXFORD, Miss.

Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, who became one of the wealthiest civil lawsuit attorneys in the country by taking on tobacco, asbestos and insurance companies, was sentenced Friday to five years in prison for conspiring to bribe a judge.

U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers Jr. called Scruggs' conduct "reprehensible" and fined him $250,000, plus the cost of his incarceration...

Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, an attorney who gained wealth and fame through a series of high-profile and successful cases against corporate America, was sentenced Friday to five years in prison...

The judge said that after reviewing evidence in the case, including secretly recorded conversations, "it made me think perhaps this was not the first time you did this because you did it so easily. And there is evidence before the court that you have done it before."

Scruggs gained fame in the 1990s by using a corporate insider against tobacco companies in lawsuits that resulted in a $206 billion settlement. That case was portrayed in the 1999 film "The Insider."

...Scruggs initially denied wrongdoing. But in March, Scruggs and former law partner Sidney Backstrom pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge Henry Lackey with $50,000...

Scruggs' son, Zach Scruggs, pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony, meaning he knew a crime was committed but didn't report it. He is to be sentenced next week...

Remembering Wenatchee: Washington's version of the Dale Akiki case

2008-06-19T22:44:00.000-07:00

Jury finds city, county negligent in child sex ring case
Couple awarded $3 million

Wednesday, August 1, 2001

By MIKE BARBER AND LARRY LANGE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

A Spokane County jury yesterday found the city of Wenatchee and Douglas County negligent in the now-discredited 1994-1995 Wenatchee child sex ring investigations, awarding $3 million to a couple who had been wrongly accused in the inquiry.

In the first test of a landmark state Supreme Court decision in September that ruled police can be sued for conducting negligent child-abuse investigations, Honnah and Jonathan Sims were awarded the money after a three-week civil trial before Superior Court Judge Michael Donohue...

The jury, which deliberated all day Monday and most of yesterday, also found that both the city and county were negligent in the investigations of East Wenatchee pastor Roby Roberson and his wife, Connie, key figures accused in the case.

...The jury also found that Wenatchee's investigation of Donna Rodriguez was negligent but decided against a monetary award.

The Robersons and Honnah Sims, who had been a Sunday school teacher at Roberson's church, were acquitted of child rape and molestation charges in 1995. Charges against Rodriguez, a parishioner in the church, were dismissed in 1996 when four of her five accusers recanted.

Two children who made most of the accusations -- tales of mass sex rings involving dozens of children and adults operating out of Roberson's church -- were under foster care and living in Perez's home.
..."To me the closure point was actually 1998. With ...everybody being freed from jail. Finally our character and reputations were restored and these people (police and prosecutors) were exposed."

In 1994 and 1995, Perez and Child Protective Services caseworkers initiated a series of investigations in Wenatchee that resulted in 43 people charged with 27,726 counts of child rape and molestation against 60 children.

Roberson came under investigation in 1995 after he began criticizing Perez's investigations and the arrests of two parishioners, Harold and Idella Everett, a poor, developmentally disabled couple. The Everetts, parents to the two foster children making accusations while living under in Perez's supervision, served five years in prison before they were released when their case was overturned in September 1998...

All 18 people convicted in the investigations he initiated have since been released, their convictions overturned or agreements made to plead guilty to lesser and usually unrelated charges.

In February 1998, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published "The Power to Harm," a series of articles exploring the conduct of police, lawyers, social workers and others involved in the investigations.

...Perez's investigations began to unravel amid evidence of bungling by police and prosecutors, conflicts of interest involving a judge, and inept defense counsel.

No free speech in Singapore; thank goodness judges can't do this in the US

2008-06-19T13:51:00.000-07:00

This case reminds me that the founders of the United States bequeathed a tremendous gift to those of us who live in this country. Thanks to Harvard University's Citizen Media Law Project, those who wish to erode our freedoms are not able to attack in secret. Here is CMLP's report on what happens to those who speak out against judges in Singapore:

Singapore v. Nair
Posted June 18th, 2008 by Arthur Bright
Threat type: CriminalDate: 05/31/2008
Subject Area(s): Criminal, Libel
Party Issuing Threat:
Singapore
Party Receiving Threat:
Gopalan Nair
Type of Threatening Party:
Government
Type of Threatened Party:
Individual

Gopalan Nair, a U.S. citizen who blogs from Fremont, California, was arrested in Singapore for publishing insulting comments on his blog, Singapore Dissident, and in an email about two Singaporean judges.

In May 2008, Nair, a former Singapore lawyer, attended a hearing in a defamation suit brought against members of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party by Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first prime minister, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Kuan Yew's son. On May 29, Nair wrote in his blog that the trial judge, Belinda Ang, "prostitut[ed] herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders." In another blog entry, Nair also challenged the government to prosecute him, writing, "I am now within your jurisdiction.... What are you going to do about it?"

On May 31, Singaporean police arrested Nair for insulting Ang in an email, a crime under Section 13D (1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act. Nair was jailed until June 5, when he was released on bail. On June 12, the police filed a second charge against Nair under Section 228 of Singapore's Penal Code, which criminalizes "[i]ntentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding," for comments in an email he allegedly sent to Judge Lai Siu Chiu in March 2006. On June 16, the police amended the original charge against Nair to also fall under Section 228 of the Penal Code and to specify that the offense was written in Nair's blog, not in an email.

If convicted, Nair faces a fine of 5,000 Singapore dollars and up to one year in jail. Nair has said he will fight the charges.

Kids better not criticize this Indiana principal

2008-06-06T14:04:00.000-07:00

State of Indiana v. A.B.
Posted June 6th, 2008 by Matt C. Sanchez
Threat type: Criminal
Date: 03/02/2006
Subject Area(s): Free Speech, Identity, Student Speech
PartiesParty Issuing Threat:
State of Indiana
Party Receiving Threat:
A.B. (a minor)
Type of Threatening Party:
Government
Type of Threatened Party:
Individual
Location of Party:
Indiana
Location of Party:
Indiana
Disposition:
Verdict (defendant)

The State of Indiana filed a delinquency petition against a Greencastle Middle School student who had posted derogatory and "vulgar" criticism of the school's anti-body-piercing policy on the social networking site MySpace. The student, referred to in court documents as A.B., critized administrators and created a publicly accessible group entitled "Fuck Mr. Gobert and GC Schools." The state's claims included harassment and identity deception, the latter arising from A.B.'s creation of a fake MySpace account for Gobert, the principal of Greencastle Middle School.

On June 27, 2006, the juvenile court declared A.B. a "delinquent child" and placed her on nine months probation. The court found that A.B.'s MySpace postings, if committed by an adult, would constitute the criminal offense of harassment. A.B. appealed, and the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the juvenile court's decision. The appeals court concluded that A.B.'s postings were political speech protected by the Indiana Constitution and that her conviction for harassment thus contravened her right to speak.

On May 13, 2008, the Indiana Supreme Court declined to adopt the appeals court's rationale and instead reversed the juvenile court on another ground. The court ruled that the dilenquency finding could not stand because the state had failed to prove the statutory elements of criminal harasssment. Specifically, the court determined that the state had not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that A.B. posted with the intent "to harass, annoy, or alarm" Gobert with "no intent of legitimate communication." It found that certain comments were not actionable because A.B. had posted them on her personal MySpace page, to which Gobert did not have access. With regard to other comments on the pubicly accessible group page, the court held that she had posted the comments as a legitimate expression of her anger and criticism of Gobert and the school, rather than with an intent to harass, annoy, or alarm.

Legal opinions for sale; those who control San Diego schools pay millions of tax dollars for them

2008-06-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

At last, someone with a high profile has spoken out about character and integrity among lawyers. I have done this, but the unethical lawyers at Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz that I have written about believe that they can intimidate me into silence.

San Diego County Office of Education has continued to cover up Daniel Shinoff and Stutz law firm's criminal actions on behalf of school district officials. SDCOE-JPA executive director Diane Crosier (above photo), not the board, controls the legal representation of SDCOE and most county schools.

Fortune Magazine has published a great article on the subject:

Fortune Magazine
May 30, 2008
Blowing the whistle on unethical lawyers
By Roger Parloff, senior editor
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/28/news/newsmakers/legal_opinions_for_sale.fortune/

"In August 2001, when in-house accountant Sherron Watkins warned Enron CEO Ken Lay that the company might "implode in a wave of accounting scandals," Lay asked the firm's regular law firm, Vinson & Elkins, to do a "preliminary investigation." Though V&E had worked on the very transactions Watkins was questioning, it took the assignment and reported back on Oct. 15 that there was no cause for concern. About a month and a half later Enron filed for bankruptcy, having, in fact, imploded in a wave of accounting scandals.

"When V&E was summoned before a congressional committee to account for the breathtaking shallowness of its probe, it produced a letter blessing its performance from one of the nation's most highly credentialed experts on legal ethics: Charles Wolfram of Cornell University Law School. Wolfram opined that it is "customary and appropriate" for a company to conduct a "preliminary investigation" before undertaking a "full-scale" one, and that the firm had not violated conflict-of-interest rules because Watkins had raised "business and accounting" issues, not issues regarding V&E's "own legal services."

"In a forthcoming Stanford Law Review article titled "The Market for Bad Legal Advice," Columbia Law School professor William Simon cites Wolfram's opinion as just one example of patently bad advice offered in exchange for lucrative compensation by academics whom he contends are becoming "enablers of pernicious... practices."

"...Simon isn't talking only about V&E and Enron. He cites the example of lawyers at another law firm who "gave hundreds of opinions to taxpayers to the effect that bizarrely complex and economically substanceless transactions... were acceptable ways to reduce taxes. Some of them were virtually copies of transactions that the IRS had specifically condemned."

"Or of Department of Justice luminaries advising that "various statutory and international law constraints on the President in the 'war on terror' were un-constitutional or otherwise not binding" in opinions that "exaggerated the authority for the conclusions and omitted inconsistent arguments and precedent."

"Simon's article seeks not just to diagnose the problem but also to prescribe and administer remedies. The most controversial will surely be the measure he calls "shaming." That process consists of having other academic ethics experts - like Simon - write law review articles brutally critiquing the opinions that their colleagues have offered while under retainer. This, he believes, will help deter the delivery of bad advice.

"Like most ethics experts contacted for this article, New York University School of Law's Stephen Gillers declines to share his thoughts on the ethics disputes that Simon discusses, observing that he socializes with all the experts named, including Simon. But he does venture this: Simon's article is "unique in my 30 years as a law teacher. It's unique for law professors to so aggressively criticize the behavior of other law professors - not their intellectual positions. This is about character and integrity..."

Lawyers Keep 26-Year Secret

2008-05-26T15:53:00.000-07:00

If I had been in the shoes of these two lawyers who kept the secret of Alton Logan's innocence, I believe I would have come forward with the truth, and risked being disbarred. But then, I'm not a lawyer. I think 90% of lawyers have lost their sense of right and wrong, which is why our justice system so frequently helps the guilty and punishes the innocent.

26-Year Secret Kept Innocent Man In Prison
May 25, 2008
60 Minutes (CBS)
Lawyers Keep 26-Year Secret

...This is a story about an innocent man who languished in prison for 26 years while two attorneys who knew he was innocent stayed silent...

Alton Logan was convicted of killing a security guard at a McDonald's in Chicago in 1982. Police arrested him after a tip and got three eyewitnesses to identify him. Logan, his mother and brother all testified he was at home asleep when the murder occurred. But a jury found him guilty of first degree murder...

Alton Logan's story cuts to the core of America's justice system.

Simon met Alton Logan in prison, where he's spent almost half of his life.

Asked if he still counts the months and days, Logan told Simon, "There’s no need to count the months and the days. Just count the years."

Logan said that during the first five or six years he was "consumed" by anger. "Then I come to the realization that 'Why be angry over something you can't control?'"

Logan, who maintains he didn't commit the murder, thought they were "crazy" when he was arrested for the crime.

Attorneys Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz knew Logan had good reason to think that, because they knew he was innocent. And they knew that because their client, Andrew Wilson, who they were defending for killing two policemen, confessed to them that he had also killed the security guard at McDonald's - the crime Logan was charged with.

"We got information that Wilson was the guy and not Alton Logan. So we went over to the jail immediately almost and said, 'Is that true? Was that you?' And he said, 'Yep it was me,'" Kunz recalled.

"He just about hugged himself and smiled. I mean he was kind of gleeful about it...

"How did you interpret that response?" Simon asked.

"That it was true and that he was tickled pink," Kunz said.

"He was pleased that the wrong guy had been charged...

"Well, ...we have to maintain client confidentiality, just as a priest would or a doctor would...

Asked if they contemplated doing something about it, Coventry told Simon, "We wrote out an affidavit. We made an affidavit that we had gotten information through privileged sources, that Alton Logan was not in fact guilty of killing the officer, that in fact somebody else did it..."

"But the minute he was not sentenced to death, the minute he was sentenced to life in prison, you decided to do nothing?" Simon asked.

"Yes," Kunz said. "I can't explain it. I don't know why that made the difference but I know it did."

"There is no difference between life in prison and a death penalty. None whatsoever. Both are a sentence of death," Logan told Simon...

(CBS) "What did you do to see if there might be some loophole to get everyone out of this fix?" Simon asked the attorneys.

"I researched the ethics of attorney-client privilege as much as I could. I contacted people who are involved in making those determinations. I know Jamie did the same thing," Coventry said.

"I could not figure out a way, and still cannot figure out a way, how we could have done anything to help Alton Logan that would not have put Andrew Wilson in jeopardy of another capital case," Kunz added.

"Couldn’t you have leaked it to somebody? To a reporter, to an administrator, to the governor, to somebody?" Simon asked.

"The only thing we could have leaked is that Andrew Wilson confessed to us. And how could we leak that to anybody without putting him in jeopardy?" Kunz replied. "It may cause us to lose some sleep. But, but I lose more sleep if I put Andrew Wilson’s neck in the in the noose."

"He was guilty and Logan was not. So, yes his head should be in the noose. And Logan should go free. It's perfectly obvious to somebody who isn’t a lawyer," Simon pointed out. "Andrew Wilson was guilty, was he not?"

"Yes. And that's up to the system to decide. It's not up to me as his lawyer to decide that he was guilty and so he should be punished and Logan should go free," Kunz said.

"Do you think you might have been disbarred for doing that, for violating attorney-client privilege?" Simon asked.

"I don't think I considered that as much as I considered my responsibility to my client. I was very concerned to protect him," Coventry explained.

"But here is a case where two men, you two were caught up in this bind. And chose to let a man rot away in jail," Simon remarked.

"In terms of my conscience, my conscience is that I did the right thing. Do I feel bad about Logan? Absolutely I feel bad about Logan," Coventry admitted.

The attorneys say they were so tormented over Logan's imprisonment that they convinced Wilson to let them reveal that Wilson was the real killer after Wilson's death. Late last year, Wilson died. The two attorneys finally took their affidavit out of the lockbox, and they called Logan's lawyer, pubic defender Harold Winston.

Winston had already been trying to get Logan a new trial. He'd found two eyewitnesses who swore Logan was not the killer. Now, with Kunz and Coventry's affidavit, he thinks Logan will finally go free.

[Blogger's note: From what I've seen and read over the years, prosecutors hate to admit they've prosecuted an innocent person. More often than not, they prefer to let the innocent rot in jail.]

"...Everything that was dear to me is gone," Logan, who missed his mother's funeral, told Simon.

His brothers Eugene and Tony told 60 Minutes they've shared Alton's pain, and they always knew that he was no killer. "My brother ain’t got the nature to do nothin' like that in his soul. He ain’t gonna take nobody else's life. We weren't raised like that," Tony said.

"Your brother is 54 now. Can he start again at the age of 54?" Simon asked...

But Alton Logan is still behind bars. "They are quick to convict but they are slow to correct they mistakes," he said...

This is what Alton Logan meant when he said they are slow to correct mistakes:

Marine Wife Murder Case Still Active
05-30-2008
Cox Communications

(San Diego, CA) -- A judge ruled he still has the authority to completely dismiss the case of Cynthia Sommer who was found guilty of killing her husband and spent a few years in jail, but later had the charges dismissed "without Prejudice". Judge John Einhorn says he may dismiss the case "with prejudice" which means the case could not be re filed, "without" means the prosecution could re file murder charges against Sommers who was alleged to have poisoned her husband in 2002.

CTA lawyer Beverly Tucker violated the law to cover up her own crimes, but still touts free speech rights

2008-05-14T17:50:00.000-07:00

Head CTA counsel Beverly Tucker used all her power and influence to cover up CTA wrongdoing against a teacher in Chula Vista Elementary School District. She has used this same power to deprive teachers all across California of their rights. But these were teachers without political influence.

Ms. Tucker takes a completely different tack when a teacher has political support. Below is an example of this from a story on CTA's website. Tucker's attitude would have been quite different if the teacher had tried to publish information about CTA's wrongdoing:

"Andrew Nolan was ousted from his post as student newspaper adviser at College Park High School in Pleasant Hill last June when the publication ran stories that made administrators unhappy. Topics included student fights, discipline problems on campus, broken computers, the High School Exit Exam and a job-shadowing program that some students considered ineffective.

"Nolan, a member of the Mount Diablo Education Association (MDEA), has been reassigned to teach English.

"When he first accepted the role of newspaper adviser, he told the principal he planned to encourage students to tackle “real issues” much like a community newspaper, and there was no objection. Students, he says, did a good job journalistically.

“They put their hearts and souls into it to make it the best paper it could be,” says Nolan. “Students started reading it for the first time. It used to be delivered and kids would just walk by on their way to lunch. But soon kids were clamoring for copies.”

"When he was first told of his reassignment, administrators said the reason was that his “talents could be better put to use teaching core curriculum.” However, a school district spokesperson later told a local newspaper that Nolan was reassigned because the student newspaper did not include the viewpoints of administrators. Nolan finds that ironic, since students often asked administrators for quotes and received a “no comment” response.

"CTA plans to file a lawsuit against the district alleging that Nolan’s First Amendment rights were violated when he was removed from his position, says CTA Chief Counsel Beverly Tucker.

"Quietly accepting the principal’s decision was not an option, says Nolan. “What kind of role model would I be for students if I just rolled over on this one? That wouldn’t be teaching them anything. And they deserve better than that.”

Link to full article.

Greg Cox fails to address question of how Steve Castaneda case was initiated, and the investigation of Cheryl Cox wasn't.

2008-05-06T16:42:00.000-07:00

Bob Castaneda, the brother of Chula Vista Councilman Steve Castaneda, raised important questions about the two prosecutions carried out by the San Diego District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit.

Bonnie Dumanis appointed Peter O'Toole to bring in two political opponents of Chula Vista mayor Cheryl Cox for questioning. Both of them were charged with lying during these odd investigations. How did these investigations get initiated? Why were two men prosecuted for felony perjury even though the investigations uncovered no crimes?

Why has a complaint about Cheryl Cox and her agents been ignored by this "Public Integrity Unit"?

Supervisor Greg Cox has written a letter that does absolutely nothing to answer the questions that have been raised. Of course Cox protests that he has done nothing wrong. But how will he restore the credibility of the District Attorney's office? He makes no effort to do so.

Here is a comparison of the letters by Bob Castaneda and Greg Cox.

The question remains: was the PIU tipster a friend of Cheryl and Greg Cox?

The answer seems sort of obvious, doesn't it?

Does the justice system work for non-lawyers?

2008-05-05T21:45:00.000-07:00

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
City System Ranks Among Worst in Nation
Oversight Policies Are 'Designed to Shut Out the Public,' Group Behind Study Says

By Paul Duggan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 6, 2008

A group that advocates making the nation's justice system more user-friendly for non-lawyers said in a report yesterday that the District's procedures for holding judges accountable to the public are among the worst in the country.

The study, by the nonprofit group Help Abolish Legal Tyranny (HALT), did not examine specific cases of wrongdoing by judges. Researchers graded the court systems in all states and the District on their rules for judicial conduct and ethics and their procedures for sanctioning violators.

"The District of Columbia's system of judicial oversight is one of the most secretive in the country," HALT's senior counsel, Suzanne M. Blonder, said in a statement. "In an era that embraces principles of sunshine and transparency, it's shameful that the system of monitoring some of our most powerful government officials is designed to shut out the public."

On the group's Judicial Accountability 2008 Report Card, no jurisdiction got an A. Washington state received a B, and Connecticut and Pennsylvania were graded B-minus. Thirty-three states were graded C-plus to C-minus. The District (grade: D) and a dozen states were ranked in the D-plus to D-minus range. Maine and Mississippi got an F. Maryland was given a C and Virginia, a D.

Based on the numerical scores used to calculate the grades for the 51 jurisdictions, the District was in a three-way tie with Delaware and Louisiana, ahead of only Maine and Mississippi. Maryland ranked 17th, and Virginia was 45th, a few rungs higher than the District.

Henry F. Schulke, special counsel to the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure, said that there were several inaccuracies in the report and that the commission, which is independent of the court system, is only abiding by federal law.

"The commission's jurisdiction, its confidentiality provisions, its financial disclosure provisions are all governed by a statute enacted by Congress," he said. "And so to the extent there are any perceived deficiencies in the process, it's not something under the control of the commission itself."

The researchers rated each jurisdiction on the degree of public access to complaints against judges; the severity of sanctions; the availability of online information about disciplinary proceedings; the percentage of non-lawyers involved in the sanctioning process; the level of financial disclosure required of judges; whether people are free to speak publicly about complaints they file; and the strictness of limits on reimbursements, compensation and honoraria for privately sponsored trips by judges.

The District got F's on public access to complaints and the severity of sanctions.

"The District is one of only three jurisdictions in the nation to delay disclosure of an ethics complaint against a judge unless and until the [D.C.] Court of Appeals orders public discipline," HALT said, adding that "the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure typically only sanctions dishonorable judges with closed-door reprimands and secret censures about which the public is never notified."

The group gave the District an F for financial disclosure and D's for online information, compensation for private trips and the involvement of non-lawyers in imposing sanctions on judges. Because complainants are not under gag orders during the disciplinary process, as they are in some jurisdictions, HALT gave the District an A in the "consumer friendliness" category.

Judge admits filing lawsuit without merit--but only after being forced to do so by the California Superior Court

2008-05-05T11:36:00.000-07:00

I suspect that there are plenty of attorneys and judges in California who are as bad or worse than this one. The story in the article below appears to be typical of what I know of the practice of law in California. What is atypical is the apology for filing a lawsuit that had no merit.

I was introduced to the court system by Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, who were working with Parham & Rajcic, who may not be typical. These two firms help public school clients commit and cover-up wrongdoing. As a result of the machinations of these two firms, I got to know lawyers Deborah Garvin and Elizabeth Schulman, who may perhaps have been restrained by legal ethics in some other case, but certainly were not so restrained in mine.

Finally, I had my eyes opened by the California Teachers Association, of which I had been a big supporter, financially as well as politically, for decades. I discovered that CTA lawyers were just as ready as any of the above-mentioned attorneys to violate the law in order to gain a political advantage for the people who run the union. Head counsel Beverly Tucker and CTA executive director Carolyn Doggett turned out to be no better than Dan Shinoff.

During my odyssey in the court system, I met only one ethical lawyer. Unfortunately for me, she has gone on to bigger and better things than school district lawsuits.

For these reasons, the following story is interesting only in that it is the exception to the rule.

Most of us don't have the resources of Tom Siebel, and we will never get apologies from the attorneys and institutions who make big money and good reputations by abusing the justice system. Or maybe we will. Maybe I should file a lawsuit for malicious prosecution against Stutz law firm for its meritless defamation suit against me.

Judge Carol L. Mittlesteadt Issues Public Apology for Her Role in Lawsuit That 'Lacked Legal Basis' Against Thomas M. Siebel

PALO ALTO, Calif.,
May 1, 2008
PRNewswire

San Mateo County Judge Carol L. Mittlesteadt has issued a public apology to Silicon Valley businessman Thomas M. Siebel, chairman of First Virtual Group, for bringing a civil lawsuit seeking financial damages from him that was determined to be without merit.

The apology is part of an agreement reached between Mittlesteadt and Mr. Siebel to settle a malicious prosecution case filed by Siebel in July 2000. In addition to her apology, Judge Mittlesteadt agreed to a financial settlement of $100,000, which Mr. Siebel will donate to the Stanford University Law School to support the study of legal ethics.

Mr. Siebel initiated the malicious prosecution case against Mittlesteadt in 2000 in response to a wrongful termination and gender discrimination claim that Mittlesteadt filed in 1996 on behalf of a former employee of Siebel Systems, Inc. Mittlesteadt filed her suit while Siebel Systems was preparing for its initial public offering, and thus was particularly vulnerable to disclosable litigation claims. Mr. Siebel prevailed in that case when the court determined that all claims against him were unfounded.

In an effort to set a precedent that would prevent similar lawsuits in the future, Mr. Siebel filed a malicious prosecution suit against Judge Mittlesteadt and her co-counsel, E. Rick Buell II. The suit stated that they had misused the legal process, in violation of the law and in violation of legal ethics, to pursue claims that they knew to be false in the hope of extracting a large financial settlement from Mr. Siebel and Siebel Systems.

Mittlesteadt attempted to block Mr. Siebel's malicious prosecution suit, claiming that he had no right to sue. The California Supreme Court disagreed in a ruling last year. The court's ruling cleared the way for Mr. Siebel's suit to proceed, and set a precedent that will make it easier for companies and individuals to pursue malicious prosecution claims and defend themselves against unfounded, economically damaging lawsuits.

"This case was a private effort at tort reform," said Mr. Siebel. "My hope is that other plaintiff's lawyers will look at this outcome and think twice before seeking to extort settlements by filing lawsuits they know have no basis in fact."

Lisa A. Rickard, President, U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, applauded Mr. Siebel for pursuing his malicious prosecution suit against Judge Mittlesteadt.

"It is courageous people like Mr. Siebel who, by taking a stand, make it easier for individuals, small businesses and corporations to fight back against malicious lawsuits rather than be extorted into a settlement," Rickard said.

Settlement in the case was reached following arbitration by former California Supreme Court Judge Edward A. Pinelli.

In her letter of apology to Mr. Siebel, Judge Mittlesteadt said:
"I write to express my sincere regret for pursuing claims against you
that were determined to be without merit. I accept the ruling of the
California Appellate Court that the litigation contained claims for
which there was no legal foundation. I acknowledge that my actions may
have caused substantial expense and inconvenience, and damage to your
reputation and good name, for which I apologize."

Mittlesteadt originally sued Mr. Siebel in 1996. Mittlesteadt's co-counsel, E. Rick Buell II, settled with Mr. Siebel last year, apologizing for his role in the case in a letter to Mr. Siebel:

"I am writing to you to publicly express an apology for my part in
participating in the litigation captioned Christoffers v. Siebel
Systems, et. al., against you. I sincerely regret participating in this
clearly intemperate and ill-advised action, and accept the California
Supreme Court's and California Appellate Court's opinion that the
litigation contained claims for which there was no legal foundation.
Accordingly I ask that you accept my apology. I thank you for your wise
and gracious effort to put this unpleasant and unnecessary event in the
past and for allowing the parties to move on with their lives."

Mittlesteadt is now a Superior Court judge in San Mateo County, an appointment she received while Mr. Siebel's litigation was still pending.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/banking-financial-services/20080501/LATH56801052008-1.html

Are Heller Ehrman lawyers exceptional? These antics are typical for Stutz law firm and Parham & Rajcic

2008-05-03T20:03:00.000-07:00

I came across this article from October 2007 on Blogonaut. I was looking up Heller Ehrman because they were involved in an education case.

What surprises me about this article is that everyone acts surprised. This is exactly how Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz has behaved during litigation in which I was involved.

Is hiding evidence truly unusual, or is everyone just pretending to be shocked?

From Blogonaut:
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2007/10/federal-court-brings-written-charges-of.html

Federal Court Brings Written Charges of “Exceptional Misconduct” Against 14 Lawyers in California Qualcomm Suit, Heller Litigators Among Those Cited

A federal district court has ordered 14 California lawyers to explain why they should not be sanctioned for their “exceptional misconduct” on behalf of Qualcomm in a lawsuit that the San Diego wireless company lost. All of the lawyers subject to the order were from the Cupertino law firm of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder or the Heller Ehrman law firm's offices in Menlo Park and San Diego, the San Diego Tribune is reporting.

Five additional lawyers have been drawn into the proceedings since the order was issued, so the fate of 19 attorneys rests on the outcome of an October 12, 2007, 9:30 a.m. hearing before U.S. Magistrate Barbara Major, the newspaper reports.

“I do not recall any case in which so many individual attorneys have been ordered to come before a judge in this kind of situation,” said Kenneth J. Withers, director of judicial education at The Sedona Conference, a nonprofit law and policy institute told the news service.

“Something obviously went very, very wrong here,” said George Socha, a Minnesota legal consultant who agreed with Withers that the case is highly unusual”, the Tribune reported.

The sanctions proceeding arose from a case Qualcomm filed in 2005 against rival Broadcom, which alleged the Irvine chip-maker was infringing on two patents held by Qualcomm for video compression technology. The jury took just 6 hours to reject Qualcomm’s claims, and also made advisory findings that Qualcomm improperly withheld key information that could have weakened its patents from a standards-making body and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

To make matters worse, the existence of 21 e-mails requested by the defense in pretrial discovery did not come to light until the last day of testimony in the trial. Not good.

But it gets worse, because the 21 e-mails were inconsistent with facts that Qualcomm's lawyers presented in the case. This would possibly allow inferences that not only were the e-mails intentionally withheld, but that the case presented was less than honest. Indeed, San Diego federal Judge Rudi Brewster later described the alleged misconduct as “an organized program of litigation misconduct and concealment”, the Tribune reports.

Brewster, who presided over the patent trial, detailed the misconduct in an Aug. 6 ruling that waived Qualcomm's patents and ordered the San Diego wireless giant to pay Broadcom's attorney fees, currently estimated at $8.5 million.

Among other things, Brewster found that the Qualcomm engineers had “blatantly” lied while under oath. The judge also found that Qualcomm and its attorneys knowingly failed to produce more than 200,000 pages of e-mails, memoranda and other electronic evidence that directly contradicted the legal arguments made by Qualcomm before, during and after the trial.

Brewster referred the findings presented in his 54-page ruling to Major, who issued an order in August for the Qualcomm lawyers to explain why they should not be sanctioned for “exceptional misconduct.”

In statements filed last week, the lawyers maintained that they acted in good faith and never sought to conceal evidence from Broadcom or mislead anyone in the case...

[From The San Diego Union Tribune and The Wall Street Journal]

Lawyers: Protectors of our freedom

2008-05-01T16:42:00.000-07:00

Daily Kos
by mcjoan
Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:25:18 PM PDT
What day is today according to the White House? It's not "Mission Accomplished Day." It's not May Day. No, George Bush, law-breaker in chief, has declared today "Law Day."

"...The American legal system is central to protecting the rights and freedoms our Nation holds dear. The theme of this year's Law Day, "The Rule of Law: Foundation for Communities of Opportunity and Equity," recognizes the fundamental role that the rule of law plays in preserving liberty in our Nation and in all free societies. We pay tribute to the men and women in America's legal community. Through hard work and dedication to the rule of law, members of the judiciary and the legal profession help secure the rights of individuals, bring justice to our communities, and reinforce the proud traditions that make America a beacon of light for the world.

"Nearly 800 years ago, the Magna Carta placed the authority of government under the rule of law; centuries later, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution marked tremendous advances in the march of liberty. These documents established enduring principles that guide modern democracies. Today, we are reminded of that past and look toward a hopeful future as we work to secure the liberty that is the natural right of every man, woman, and child.

"On Law Day, U.S.A., our Nation celebrates our belief in the equality of each person before God and renews our commitment to strive to bring America ever closer to its founding ideals.

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, in accordance with Public Law 87-20, as amended, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2008, as Law Day, U.S.A. I call upon all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also call upon Government officials to display the flag of the United States in support of this national observance...."

It's almost funny, in a very dark kind

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/1/125016/6807/405/507080

Interpreting the California Public Records Act

2008-05-01T10:33:00.000-07:00

Vooice of San Diego
No Response on E-Mail Request

I just got word from Julie Dubick, Mayor Jerry Sanders' policy director, that the Mayor's Office won't be responding today to our challenging of their interpretation of the California Public Records Act.

Dubick had originally told me she would have a response today.

Some background: A wrongful termination suit filed this month alleges that a former top city official was fired for reporting inappropriate behavior by mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz. One of those accusations centered on an e-mail flagged by the city's computer system from Sainz to local newspaper editorial writer Bob Kittle that allegedly contained inappropriate language.

I requested that e-mail through the Public Records Act. The Mayor's Office refused to release the e-mail Monday, saying it was protected by an exemption in the law. While it didn't cite the exemption, we're assuming it's the pending litigation exemption.

Since then, we've been contacted by a bevy of attorneys (some offering to file a lawsuit pro bono on our behalf) who argue that the mayor's interpretation of the exemption is wrong.

The exemption only protects documents specifically prepared for a lawsuit, not any document that happens to be mentioned in a lawsuit, they argue. If the e-mail was public record before the lawsuit, it should be public record now, they say.

Stay tuned. Dubick didn't give me a precise date as to when the Mayor's Office might respond. I'm writing her back right now.

-- ANDREW DONOHUE
Wednesday, April 30 -- 5:49 pm

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/05/01/this_just_in/208noresponse043008.txt

Yes, Bonnie Dumanis. They're letting a convicted murderer go free.

2008-04-29T17:34:00.001-07:00

In an effort to defend her prosecution of Cynthia Sommer, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis wrote a few days ago:

"How could a convicted murderer suddenly walk out of jail a free woman?"
(See San Diego Union Tribune April 25, 2008 at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/20080425-9999-lz1e25dumanis.html)

Sounds scary, doesn't it? The implication seems to be that a dangerous person whom Bonnie got sentenced to life in prison is now prowling the streets, a danger to us all.

No. It's Bonnie herself that seems to be the danger. She's developed a bad habit of prosecuting people for crimes they didn't commit.

DNA Frees Man After 27 Years in Prison
By SCHUYLER DIXON,AP
2008-04-29

A Dallas man who spent more than 27 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit was freed Tuesday, after being incarcerated longer than any other wrongfully convicted U.S. inmate cleared by DNA testing.

James Lee Woodard stepped out of the courtroom and raised his arms to a throng of photographers. Supporters and other people gathered outside the court erupted in applause.

"No words can express what a tragic story yours is," state District Judge Mark Stoltz told Woodard at a brief hearing before his release.

Woodard, cleared of the 1980 murder of his girlfriend, became the 18th person in Dallas County to have his conviction cast aside. That's a figure unmatched by any county nationally, according to the Innocence Project, a New York-based legal center that specializes in overturning wrongful convictions.

"I thank God for the existence of the Innocence project," Woodard, 55, told the court. "Without that, I wouldn't be here today. I would be wasting away in prison."

Overall, 31 people have been formally exonerated through DNA testing in Texas, also a national high. That does not include Woodard and at least three others whose exonerations will not become official until Gov. Rick Perry grants pardons or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals formally accepts the ruling of lower courts that have already recommended exoneration.

Woodard was sentenced to life in prison in July 1981 for the murder of a 21-year-old Dallas woman found sexually assaulted and strangled near the banks of the Trinity River.

He was convicted primarily on the basis of testimony from two eyewitnesses, said Natalie Roetzel, the executive director of the Innocence Project of Texas. One has since recanted in an affidavit. As for the other, "we don't believe her testimony was accurate," Roetzel said.

Like nearly all the exonorees, Woodard has maintained his innocence throughout his time in prison. But after filing six writs with an appeals court, plus two requests for DNA testing, his pleas of innocence became so repetitive and routine that "the courthouse doors were eventually closed to him and he was labeled a writ abuser," Roetzel said.

"On the first day he was arrested, he told the world he was innocent ... and nobody listened," Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas, said during Tuesday's hearing.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/dna-frees-man-after-27-years-in-prison/20080429140609990001

After prosecuting the innocent Cynthia Sommers, Bonnie Dumanis moves ahead in her apparent quest for the Mike Nifong award

2008-04-24T14:31:00.000-07:00

I don't understand why Bonnie Dumanis isn't investigating where the arsenic in some tissue samples came from. Dumanis is more and more exhibiting a resemblance to Paul Pfingst (who prosecuted Stephanie Crowe's 15-year-old brother), Ed Miller (who prosecuted Dale Akiki) and Mike Nifong (who prosecuted the Duke LaCrosse players). It's one thing to make a mistake. It's another to keep prosecuting an innocent person just to gain political capital as your mistakes grow from simple errors into abuse of the justice system.

How about putting Patrick O'Toole charge of finding out who put the arsenic in some of the tissue samples? He should have some time available now that a jury has found Chula Vista councilman Steve Castaneda not guilty of Dumanis's politically-motivated charges of perjury during an investigation that found no crime.

From CNN.com
by Beth Karas, In Session correspondent
April 21, 2008

"When I interviewed Cindy Sommer at the Las Colinas Women’s Detention Facility here a week ago, neither one of us had any idea that she was spending her last days behind bars. She was a free woman four days later...

"...As I look back on the developments in her case from her conviction in January 2007 to her release last week, lessons come to mind from my years as a DA in Manhattan. A senior DA took me aside during my first year and told me to watch the old Western movie, “The Oxbow Incident,” which deeply moved him. In the movie, based on the book, three innocent men were lynched by a mob when law and order were abandoned.

"My colleague wanted me to understand the immense power of a prosecutor and the need to reign in a “rush to judgment” mentality. He emphasized that doing justice doesn’t always mean trying to secure a conviction but doing what’s right whether it’s lowering the charges or dismissing them outright.

"Sommer’s case may not have been a classic rush to judgment since there wasn’t even a criminal investigation until 15 months after Todd Sommer’s death. Moreover, Sommer wasn’t arrested until November 2005, more than three years after her husband’s death. Despite the holes in the prosecution’s case—the most glaring being no link between Sommer and arsenic—a jury of twelve San Diegans found her guilty. She was facing a sentence of life without parole.

"San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis says the system worked in Sommer’s case. When they recently found more tissue samples of her late husband, the D.A. sent them for testing at a private lab. The absence of arsenic in the tissues led to Sommer’s release last week. The most Dumanis will now say is that there is reasonable doubt. She won’t go as far as Roy Cooper in North Carolina when he declared the three former Duke lacrosse players innocent. But in the eyes of many who followed her case closely, Sommer has now been totally exonerated."

Click here for CNN link.

Who's afraid of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz?

2008-04-22T20:14:00.000-07:00

Too many people are terrified of being sued. Being sued is really not so bad. I should know; I'm being sued for defamation by Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz.

What is terrible is when people are silent about wrongdoing for fear of being sued. It seems to me that people like the partners at Stutz law firm are trying to turn every neighborhood into the kind where criminals rule the roost and witnesses are afraid to testify.

Elly Dotseth wrote a letter to Voice of San Diego on April 16, 2008 saying:

"...people in our supposedly free country have begun to keep quiet from fear of being sued or blackballed in some other way. I have recently spoken out in criticism of the way the NTC Foundation is handling leases with nonprofit arts groups, and despite the reply from the director, I stand by my criticism. If he were to sue me, though, that would really be horrific."

Here is my response to Elly:

Kudos for standing up to the McMillin/NTC Foundation, and please be assured that it is not so bad getting sued when you have nothing to hide and the big guys that are suing you have plenty to hide. You simply file an answer, then go down to the courthouse and get a deposition subpoena that has been signed by the Clerk of the Court. Make some copies, fill them out, and serve them on the people who are suing you. They filed the lawsuit, so they had better be prepared to testify under oath and produce documents. If they fail to do so, you file a motion to compel that looks something like THIS.

Former Justice official charged in Abramoff lobbying probe

2008-04-22T09:57:00.000-07:00

Stories like this are just the tip of the iceberg, in my opinion. Too many prosecutors are politically-motivated.

By Erica Werner
ASSOCIATED PRESS
April 21, 2008

WASHINGTON – A former high-ranking Justice Department official was accused Monday of criminal conflict of interest in the latest case stemming from the investigation of disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Robert Coughlin was deputy chief of staff of the Justice Department's criminal division – the same division handling the Abramoff probe – before resigning a year ago, citing personal reasons. He was due in federal court in Washington on Tuesday for a plea hearing.

Prosecutors accused Coughlin in court papers Monday of providing assistance from 2001-2003 to a lobbyist and the lobbyist's firm while receiving gifts from the firm and discussing prospective employment there.

The lobbyist isn't named but The Associated Press has previously reported that Coughlin was lobbied during the period in question by Kevin Ring, a member of Abramoff's lobbying team who also is under investigation. At the time Coughlin worked for the Justice Department's office of legislative affairs and its office of intergovernmental and public liaison, and Ring worked for Abramoff's Greenberg Traurig firm.

Coughlin talked with Ring about going to work for Greenberg, according to an attorney with knowledge of the case who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. Ring also provided Coughlin with meals and tickets to events, the AP has reported.

Attorneys for Coughlin declined comment and Ring's attorney didn't immediately return a call for comment.

The investigation of Coughlin's conduct was handled by federal prosecutors in Maryland because of his ties at Justice Department headquarters. The document filed in court Monday is known as an information and is normally filed as part of a plea deal.

Ring and Coughlin worked together for John Ashcroft when he was a Republican senator from Missouri, before he became attorney general in 2001. Ring lobbied Coughlin and other Justice Department officials on a variety of issues, including getting federal money for a jail for the Choctaw tribe.

The Justice Department probe of Abramoff and his team of lobbyists has led to convictions of a dozen people, including former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and former Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles. At least one current member of Congress, Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., remains under investigation.

Ring worked for Doolittle, who is retiring from Congress at the end of this year, before going to work for Abramoff.

Abramoff is serving prison time for a criminal case out of Florida and has not yet been sentenced on charges of mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion stemming from the influence-peddling scandal in Washington.

Associated Press writers Lara Jakes Jordan and Matt Apuzzo contributed to this report.

Patrick O'Toole goes looking for a friend--and finds one!

2008-04-13T16:08:00.000-07:00

Patrick O'Toole, head of the Public Integrity Unit in Bonnie Dumanis' San Diego District Attorney's office, has been having a hard week. He's been trying to convince a juror that when Steve Castaneda asked how much a condo would cost, that proved he intended to buy one. And that even though O'Toole didn't uncover wrongdoing during his lengthy investigation, Castaneda should be convicted of perjury FOR SAYING HE DIDN'T INTEND TO BUY A CONDO, WHICH HE, IN FACT, DID NOT BUY.

So you can see how O'Toole would be going around scouting up someone who would make him look professional.

O'Toole found Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, who agrees that O'Toole needs not one, but TWO, grand juries to help him find public officials who might say something he disagrees with during grand jury proceedings.

Martin Garrick is the sponsor of the two-criminal-grand-juries-for-San Diego bill, who apparently thinks that San Diego prosecutors have done such a fine job with the Public Integrity Unit and cases such as the indictment by a grand jury of the innocent 15-year-old brother of murder victim Stephanie Crowe, that we really should skip preliminary hearings more often.

After all, who needs a judge deciding if prosecutors should go to trial?

Garrick and O'Toole seem like petty, malicious versions of Don Quijote, tilting at people who oppose their favorite politicians.

They say a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Maybe Martin Garrick thinks there are too many ham sandwiches walking around free.

Or maybe he needs another grand jury to investigate Cheryl Cox?

If you pay me a lot of money, I won't prosecute you

2008-02-25T23:03:00.000-08:00

In Shift, Ashcroft to Testify on Oversight Deal

John Ashcroft will discuss his work for a medical equipment company.

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; Page D01

Former Attorney General John D. Ashcroft agreed last night to appear at a House hearing to discuss his lucrative arrangement overseeing a medical equipment company, averting a showdown with committee members who had planned to meet today to authorize a subpoena.

The move marks an about-face for Ashcroft, who told lawmakers earlier this month that "discussing the details of my legal responsibilities, as requested, in this pending criminal case and related ongoing criminal investigation would violate my ethical obligations."

Ashcroft, who left public service three years ago to start a private consulting firm, won the contract under a settlement the company reached with federal prosecutors in New Jersey. Under a recent government policy, companies facing criminal investigation can accept such outside supervision to avoid indictment.

Ashcroft's consulting firm stands to collect between $28 million and $52 million over 18 months for reviewing the operations of Zimmer Holdings, an Indiana company that makes replacement hips and knees. Zimmer last year settled government charges over kickbacks it allegedly provided doctors in exchange for using its products.

The deal touched off criticism in New Jersey political circles and on Capitol Hill, where leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees directed congressional investigators to examine the increasingly popular arrangements, known as corporate monitorships. Legal scholars warn they may become instruments of political patronage that involve little if any judicial oversight.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), who leads the House subcommittee on administrative law, had been preparing to hold a vote today to authorize a subpoena for Ashcroft. Sanchez's chief of staff, Michael Torra, had said he was confident the panel had enough votes to move ahead.

But yesterday evening, representatives for Ashcroft informed the committee that he would answer questions about his dealings with Zimmer.

"Mr. Ashcroft has agreed to testify voluntarily in the coming weeks on the topic of deferred prosecution agreements," Torra said. A hearing date has not been set.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Ashcroft, did not return calls or e-mail messages.

In a Feb. 15 letter obtained yesterday by The Washington Post, Ashcroft wrote that he hoped members of Congress would respect his qualifications to serve as a corporate monitor "despite our past policy differences and my political affiliation." Ashcroft, a Republican from Missouri, was President Bush's first attorney general. Before that, he had served as governor of Missouri, state auditor and in the U.S. Senate, where he was a longstanding member of the Judiciary Committee.

Separately, the Senate Special Committee on Aging is scheduled Wednesday to hold an oversight hearing into Zimmer and four other medical equipment companies that settled kickback allegations with New Jersey prosecutors last year.

Zimmer paid the Ashcroft Group $7.5 million between last September and January, according to information provided to the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Ashcroft and about a half-dozen senior staff members of his firm are covered under a flat $750,000 monthly payment from Zimmer. Other top lawyers affiliated with Ashcroft's consulting business are billing as much as $895 per hour under the agreement, while administrative support staff members are billing $50 to $150 per hour, Senate aides said.

Bills submitted by monitors for the other four companies involved in the settlement are less than half of what the Ashcroft group has charged, averaging a total of about $2 million each, the aides said. Zimmer is by far the largest company in the investigation, and it paid most of the financial penalties to the government under the settlement.

The Justice Department is considering whether to issue "guidance or best practices" to prosecutors around the country and is examining how monitors are selected, an agency spokesman said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502785.html

It's hard to get rid of a bad judge, but Thomas Porteous may be on the way out

2008-01-28T10:09:00.000-08:00

Move to impeach federal judge is a rarity

by Meghan Gordon, West Bank bureau
Saturday December 22, 2007
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jV3tX5TKe88J:www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12/move_to_impeach_federal_judge.html+paul+carelli+9th+circuit+court+cases&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

A federal appellate court's impeachment recommendation leveled against U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous last week ranks as such a rare occurrence that none of the 7,400 complaints filed against members of the nation's judiciary in the past decade met the same fate, according to the most recent statistics.

And if the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' call for impeachment wends its way to the U.S. Senate without being overturned by a higher judicial panel, dropped by congressional inaction or made moot by Porteous' resignation, the trial would become just the 12th in U.S. history.

"It's quite rare for federal judges to be disciplined at all," said Stephen Gillers, a specialist in legal ethics at New York University. "It's even more rare for federal judges to be impeached or forced to resign in the face of impeachment. It has to be really bad behavior to get to that point."

A 19-judge panel of the 5th Circuit alleged that numerous ethical lapses by Porteous might constitute grounds for impeachment. The order released Thursday also stripped Porteous of his criminal and bankruptcy docket, along with any other cases involving the government.

The 5th Circuit forwarded sealed records of its secret investigation to the U.S. Judicial Conference, a 27-judge panel led by Chief Justice John Roberts and stocked with all the circuits' chief judges. The group will consider the 5th Circuit's recommendation for referral to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Never before has this higher panel of judges overturned an impeachment finding by a circuit court's judicial council, said Richard Carelli, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The three previous impeachment recommendations against federal judges, made under the current statute enacted in 1981, were upheld and passed on to the House.

The Constitution requires a majority vote in the House before the case goes to trial in the Senate. All three recent cases to spring from judicial councils ended in impeachment convictions.

Former District Judge Harry Claiborne of Nevada was convicted of filing false tax returns in 1984 and removed from office by an impeachment trial in 1986.

Three years later, the Senate convicted then-District Judge Alcee Hastings of Florida on charges of making false statements and producing fake documents during a 1983 criminal bribery trial from which he was acquitted. He was elected to Congress in 1992 and has since won seven re-election campaigns.

In the most recent case, former District Judge Walter Nixon of Mississippi was convicted by the Senate in November 1989 on perjury charges for statements he made to a grand jury investigating the state drug prosecution of his partner's son...

Hundreds of complaints are lodged against federal judges every year. Most are written by litigants, prisoners and other members of the public, often disgruntled over an unfavorable ruling. Chief judges write a fraction of the complaints when they become aware of indiscretions in their district courts.

Of the 7,462 complaints filed in the decade that ended Sept. 30, 2006, eight required action by a judicial council, including four public reprimands and one private reprimand. None of the complaints were referred to the Judicial Conference, as Porteous' was.

Thousands of others were dismissed for being deemed frivolous, not conforming to statute or because they directly related to a decision or procedural ruling...

A review of national newspapers found a single case of judicial misconduct rising to the level of public censure since the latest round of statistics. A panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered that District Judge Manuel Real be reprimanded for interfering with the bankruptcy of a probationer under his supervision.

In Porteous' order, the court briefly outlined four areas of misconduct of which a majority of the panel found substantial evidence supporting the allegations.

His and his wife's 2001 bankruptcy led the list, with the panel finding Porteous filed numerous false statements under oath, concealed assets, hid gambling losses and failed to list all creditors. The judges found he also violated bankruptcy court orders forbidding him to incur debt when he continued to take out short-term extensions of credit at casinos...

Porteous received gifts and other things of value from lawyers who had cases assigned to his court, the order says, and went so far as to dismiss a recusal request without disclosing financial relationships with an attorney on the case.

The list of alleged abuses ends by attacking the accuracy of financial disclosure statements he filed, as required, from 1994 to 2000. The order says the reports omit gifts and other valuables given to him by attorneys and significant amounts of debt.

Porteous, who presided for a decade at the 24th Judicial District Court in Gretna, was nominated by President Clinton in April 1994 and confirmed by the Senate two months later.

While Porteous awaits the Judicial Conference's review of his case, legal experts said he's lost more than just his criminal and bankruptcy dockets.

"It's obvious that this is a great diminishment of his authority and will cast doubt about any actions that he takes in the interim," said Jeffrey M. Shaman, a judicial ethicist and DePaul University professor.

A public entity abuses courts to advance a personal agenda

2008-01-22T08:57:00.000-08:00

The EEOC under George W. Bush hasn't done much for people whose civil rights have been violated, so it had to find something to do, right? Here's what it did.

Judge orders EEOC to pay $1 million to Pasadena law firm

Click HERE to see original article in San Diego Union Tribune.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

5:40 a.m. January 25, 2006

LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission must pay more than $1 million to a Pasadena law firm that it sued unsuccessfully last year for sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian, in a ruling released Monday, found that the EEOC filed a "frivolous" lawsuit against Robert L. Reeves & Associates, which practices immigration law.

Reeves maintained that the EEOC should have known that the harassment and discrimination allegations were part of a scheme to destroy his firm by two of his former law associates, according to a statement from the law firm Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt, which represented Reeves.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge in 2001 ordered the associates to pay Reeves $200,000 for interfering with his business and misappropriating trade secrets, among other things, the firm said.

Tevrizian found that "either the EEOC knew it was being used as a primary weapon in (the former associates') campaign to destroy (Reeves' firm), or it maintained a studied and inexcusable ignorance of this fact."

A telephone message left at the EEOC's Los Angeles field office before business hours Wednesday was not immediately returned.

Murrieta keeping tabs on Leslie Devaney and Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz

2007-12-11T23:29:00.000-08:00

Murrieta to scrutinize legal expenses

October 31, 2007

By ROCKY SALMON
The Press-Enterprise

MURRIETA - When the Murrieta City Council hired a San Diego firm to take over city attorney duties, it asked the firm to dig deep to help make any needed reforms in city policies or procedures.

In the first month of work, the firm used up almost 24 percent of its annual budget under the contract, spending $82,000.

City Finance Director Teri Ferro said she received the first invoice in September.

Tonight, the City Council will meet in closed session with Leslie Devaney and Prescilla Dugard from Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz to get a breakdown of how the money was spent and to determine if there are services that the firm could delegate to city staff.

The council will also ask whether the firm is meeting with resistance from city staff members.

"I'm not surprised about the amount of money," said Mayor Doug McAllister, who asked for the cost breakdown.

"We have had a lot of tightening on procedures and policies, and frankly that takes time. And in the legal world time is money," McAllister said.

Devaney said the firm is doing everything it has been tasked by department heads to do, including independently reviewing issues and dealing with ordinances and resolutions.

"They had a lot of things they wanted us to review," she said via phone Monday.

At the mayor's request, Devaney said, the firm is keeping track of who is requesting what from it.

The city severed ties with longtime city attorney John Harper and hired the new firm in May.

Council members said they wanted to bring in a firm with more expertise and experience with cities...

Devaney is the firm's lead attorney and ran for San Diego chief attorney in 2004. She specializes in real estate, land-use and environmental law.

Dugard specializes in redevelopment law, zoning issues and developer agreements and negotiations.

Before Harper left, the city's annual budget for legal expenses was $200,000 to pay for Harper and an outside firm to handle court cases.

Harper charged $130 an hour for his work.

The city expects to pay $340,000 for the new firm, although city officials say that amount might go up.

The firm's contract calls for $15,000 a month and an additional $200 an hour for services not considered basic.

...Temecula budgets $760,000 a year for its legal services and has a city budget next year of $65.7 million. Murrieta's budget for the 2007-08 year is $42.8 million...

"The way the contract is written up, we have to pay a $15,000 retainer fee but we have obviously exceeded that," Ferro, the finance director, said.

...McAllister wants a breakdown of costs to determine if services can be handled differently and if there is resistance from city staff that is requiring attorneys to work longer hours...

Interim City Manager Ron Bradley said higher expenditures are not unusual when a different law firm begins work.

"We knew it would be above the average cost for the first several months," he said.

The lawyers have to familiarize themselves with issues, Bradley said.

He said all city employees who have to submit reports to the City Council are free to contact the law firm...

At the previous meeting, Councilman Rick Gibbs said the legal costs were a little more than he expected, and he wanted to see a breakdown...

Staff writer Tammy McCoy contributed to this report.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_sattorney30.3e50756.html

New Yorkers shake their heads at continuing corruption in San Diego

2007-11-01T10:17:00.000-07:00

Evan McLaughlin writes in Voice of San Diego Internet newspaper that Arthur Levitt agrees with those of us who think that powerful people were completely let off the hook during "investigations" of San Diego's pension mess.

Our own district attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, indicted employees, but not a single official. This is even worse than Enron. The most powerful people at Enron were brought to justice. But San Diego's D.A. protects Republican officials with an unwavering determination, while indicting Democrats for taking two hours off of work.

Evan McLaughlin reports:
Arthur Levitt, former head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and leader of the Kroll consultants that investigated City Hall, told an audience in New York yesterday that the SEC should've stepped up its enforcement in San Diego.

Levitt told the New York Private Equity Conference he is frustrated the SEC never charged individual officials who were at the center of San Diego's troubles.

"Here was one of the nation’s most beautiful, wealthiest cities with a strong regional economy, and it was on the brink of bankruptcy thanks to a group of political leaders more interested in looking out for themselves in the short term than the fiscal health of their city in the long term.

"And let me add that while the SEC took action against the faceless entity of the city, I am disappointed that they failed to bring a single action -- or hold accountable -- those individuals responsible for the San Diego pension crisis. Individuals were behind this debacle -- and individuals must be held responsible."
...
Wednesday, October 31 07

Warren Jeffs' lawyers should let him plead guilty and get a good deal on his sentence

2007-11-01T09:58:00.000-07:00

AOL news posted this story:

Polygamist Leader Said He Was 'Immoral'
By JENNIFER DOBNER,
2007-11-01
SALT LAKE CITY (Oct. 31) - Sitting in jail awaiting trial, the leader of a polygamous sect renounced his role as a prophet and said he had been "immoral" with a sister and daughter decades ago, newly unsealed documents show.

Warren Jeffs' attorneys included those statements in documents they filed in July as they sought to keep jail recordings out of his September trial in the arranged marriage of a 14-year-old to her 19-year-old cousin.

Fifth District Judge James Shumate agreed that the recordings could bias jurors against Jeffs and ordered the documents sealed. He unsealed them Tuesday.

Jeffs, 51, was convicted on two counts of rape as an accomplice. He is to be sentenced Nov. 20 and could get up to life in prison.

Jeffs also faces criminal charges in Arizona and in Utah's federal court.

In telephone calls Jan. 24, Jeffs told family that he "had been immoral with a sister and a daughter" when he was 20, according to the documents. He goes on to renounce his role as the church prophet and says the Lord had "revealed to him that he was a wicked man."

It is not clear who Jeffs is speaking about, and Jeffs does not elaborate on the conduct. Some listeners responded by telling Jeffs he is the prophet and was being tested, according to the documents.

The court filings also recount a videotaped Jan. 25 visit to the Washington County jail by a brother, Nephi Jeffs.

Warren Jeffs said he had been fasting for three days and had been awake through the night. He began to dictate a religious message to followers but fell silent in mid-sentence and didn't speak again for 13 minutes.

Again, he renounced his position as head of the church. His brother tried to encourage him and said he should see a doctor.

Jeffs was taken to a hospital three days later and was given medication for depression. Court documents say he lost 30 pounds, was dehydrated and suffering from sleep deprivation.

In February, when his health had improved, he abandoned his statements about not being a prophet and said he had "experienced a great spiritual test," according to the documents.

Among FLDS members, who cover their bodies from neck to ankle, even small physical gestures would be considered inappropriate, said Ken Driggs, a Georgia lawyer and polygamy expert. As for Jeffs' "immoral" conduct, "I wouldn't read too much into it," Driggs said.

"What that community may regard as immoral conduct is not necessarily what the outside world would consider immoral conduct. He could be talking about thoughts, or some affectionate or physical conduct," Driggs said.

A half-brother, Ward Jeffs, said he doesn't believe Warren Jeffs was married or had children at age 20. Warren Jeffs was a teacher at a private FLDS school in Salt Lake City in 1976.

Ward Jeffs, who has left the FLDS church, said he had no knowledge of allegations of inappropriate behavior with a sister. The half-brothers are no longer close.

Defense attorney Wally Bugden said the judge released the documents without his knowledge.

"I had no idea," Bugden told The Salt Lake Tribune. "There are significant due process issues for Mr. Jeffs as it relates to future cases in Arizona and there are significant privacy issues that we believe are protected."

In his order, Shumate did not explain his reasoning for unsealing the documents, and Nancy Volmer, a spokeswoman for the state courts system, said she did not know why the judge made the decision when he did. A court hearing was planned for Nov. 6 on a request by news media and a private investigator to release them as well as others.

Jeffs has led the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints since 2002, taking over from his father. Faithful members hold polygamy as a central tenet of their religion.

The mainstream Mormon church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, renounced polygamy more than a century ago, excommunicates members who engage in the practice, and disavows any connection to the FLDS church.

(This version CORRECTS Corrects dateline to Salt Lake City, instead of St. George.)
2007-11-0
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/polygamist-leader-said-he-was-immoral/20071101065909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

The Economist says low pay and elections are harming our judiciary

2007-07-07T20:26:00.000-07:00

Judges behaving badly
Jun 28th 2007
From The Economist

Low pay and partisan elections are threatening judicial integrity

A $54m lawsuit over a pair of pinstriped trousers that went missing from a Washington, DC, cleaners was thrown out by a judge this week. It had attracted worldwide ridicule. The fact that the case was brought, not by a random loony, but by a former judge has added to the sense that something is wrong not just with America's litigation laws, but with the kind of men and women Americans choose to sit in judgment over them.

A whole series of judicial misdemeanours, ranging from the titillating to the outrageous, has emerged over the past year. Take the Florida state judge, John Sloop, who was ousted after complaints about his “rude and abusive” behaviour. This included an order to strip-search and jail 11 defendants for arriving late in traffic court after being misdirected. Or the Californian judge, José Velasquez, sacked in April for a plethora of misconduct, including extending the sentences of defendants who dared question his rulings.

Then there was the Albany city judge, William Carter, in New York, censored for his “utterly inexcusable” conduct after jumping down from the bench during a trial, shedding his robes and apparently challenging a defendant to a fist-fight. Another time, he suggested that the police “thump the shit out” of an allegedly disrespectful defendant. Mr Carter wasn't carrying a gun; many judges now do. In Florida, Charles Greene, chief criminal judge in Broward County, had to step down after describing a trial for attempted murder involving minority defendants and witnesses as “NHI” (No Humans Involved). Then there are the sexual peccadilloes. In Colorado, a (male) judge resigned after admitting having sex with a (female) prosecutor in his chambers. In California, a former judge was jailed for 27 months for downloading child pornography. And in Oklahoma Donald Thompson, a judge for more than 20 years, was jailed for four years for indecent exposure and using a “penis pump” to masturbate during trials.

More serious are the cases of corruption. On June 5th Gerald Garson, a former judge in Brooklyn, New York, was jailed for taking bribes to rig divorce cases. Another judge was convicted of accepting money to refer clients to a particular lawyer. Rumours of buying and selling of judgeships in the district abound. At one time, one in ten Brooklyn judges were said to be under investigation for sleaze.

“To distrust the judiciary,” said Honoré de Balzac, “marks the beginning of the end of society.” In Britain, judges are one of the most respected groups. But in America they tend to be held in low esteem, particularly at state level. For this many people blame low pay and the fact that judges are elected. In 39 states, some or all judges are elected for fixed terms. Federal judges, usually held in much higher esteem, are appointed on merit for life—as in Britain.

Most states allow judicial candidates to raise campaign funds. Huge sums are often involved, leading to inevitable suspicions that, once on the bench, judges will pass judgments that favour their benefactors. In 2004 the two candidates in one Illinois district (with a population of just 1.3m) raised a staggering $9.4m between them. Some of the states with the highest levels of campaign spending—Texas, Louisiana and Alabama—are also those whose judges are most criticised.

In the past, judicial candidates were banned from discussing controversial legal or political issues on the campaign trail. But in 2002 the Supreme Court ruled such bans to be unconstitutional, leading candidates to advertise freely their views on abortion and suchlike. Personal attacks have also become more common. Indeed, Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Supreme Court justice, fears that judicial elections have turned into “political prize-fights, where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the constitution.”

The meagre salaries of judges, whether at state or federal level, do not help raise standards either. Federal judges have not had a real pay rise for 17 years; a district court judge earns $165,000 a year, about the same as a first-year associate in a top law firm. John Roberts, chief justice of the Supreme Court, earns just $212,000—half the salary of England's top judge and one-fifth of the average income of a partner in the majority of America's 100 top-grossing law firms. Around 40 judges have left the federal bench over the past five years.

In his annual report to Congress in January, Mr Roberts said that the issue of judges' pay had reached “the level of a constitutional crisis”. It was threatening the judiciary's strength and independence. In February, Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, promised legislation to fix it within the current session. The judges are still waiting. Meanwhile, state judges in New York are preparing to sue the state for their first pay rise since 1999. The battle is joined.

Bad Lawyers Cost MiraCosta College $3 Million in the Palm Tree scandal

2007-07-07T11:21:00.000-07:00

We must support leaders like board members Gloria Carranza, Jackie Simon, and Judy Stratton of MiraCosta College in San Diego County, who demonstrated common sense and decency in the recent $2 million palm tree scandal,* but these three need to take action quickly to find ethical lawyers to advise the board. It was cowardly of them to give President Victoria Richart a million taxpayer dollars to get to her to leave. To make sure that it doesn't happen again, the board needs to hire lawyers who respect the law. The law firm of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz was MiraCosta's downfall.

*Palm trees were sold by MiraCosta employees, netting $305 for them and a scandal that cost $3 million for taxpayers.

If it's true, Ann Smith, then it's not slander

2007-07-03T17:10:00.001-07:00

"Labor" attorney Ann Smith pretended she was representing me when she was apparently trying to get information from me and/or misinform me regarding Chula Vista Elementary School District. It was a malicious trick, intended to oppress me and protect other clients. Since Ms. Smith seems to be in deep denial, however, she admits no wrongdoing.

Her partner, Tom Tosdal, stood outside the Chula Vista Educators office like a security guard when I was scheduled to come to the office. I wasn't sure it was him until I finally found a frontal photo on his website. He looks very different in profile.

Others have had experiences similar to mine:

Union Lawyer Files Slander Claim Against City Attorney
Woman Represents 6K Member Municipal Employees Association
from NBCSandiego.com and Associated Press
June 17, 2005

SAN DIEGO -- A lawyer representing the largest union of San Diego city workers has filed slander claims against City Attorney Michael Aguirre and another lawyer in his office.

In the claims, Ann M. Smith says Aguirre and Deputy City Attorney Don McGrath called her "Ann Malpractice Smith," acting with "malice, oppression and fraud."

Smith, an attorney for the 6,000-member Municipal Employees Association, contends the statement impugned her reputation and harmed her business. She is seeking damages from Aguirre, McGrath and the city but does not specify an amount.

Filing a claim is required before a lawsuit can be filed against a government body or government officials.

"The statements these people have made are obviously and provably false and untrue," said Thomas Tosdal, Smith's attorney and law partner. "She has represented MEA for over two decades and has done an excellent job."

Aguirre admitted making the statements and said he stands by them.

In March, a top trial lawyer who was fired by Aguirre brought a $1 million claim against the city of San Diego.

Our legal leaders have overturned Brown v. Board of Education

2007-06-28T19:51:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the Supreme Court overturned the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision. The court now says race can't be used to decide where kids go to school, except in very limited circumstances.

This is shocking, in that it shows so little respect for precedent. Now that Sandra Day O'Conner is gone, moderation seems to have gone out the window. What will happen now? It seems likely that schools will become very segregated very quickly.

But maybe it's not all bad. Just think, students of America: now you don't have to travel as far for a bad education!

Why didn't Bonnie Dumanis ever find wrongdoing by Mayor Dick Murphy?

2007-06-25T14:29:00.000-07:00

Voice of San Diego
April 8, 2005
Andrew Donohue wrote:

"As Distict Attorney Bonnie Dumanis embarks on her investigation of conflicts in city of San Diego politics, she might not need to look any further than her own office. Dumanis entered into a criminal investigation of City Hall and its pension board two weeks ago; what wasn't disclosed were her own personal ties to the man that ran City Hall at the time the possible misdeeds she's investigating occurred. John Kern, who until last week was Mayor Dick Murphy's chief of staff, ran Dumanis' judge campaigns as a political consultant in 1994 and 1998."

Duke University works to repair harm it did to innocent lacrosse players

2007-06-21T23:15:00.001-07:00

(CNN) -- Duke University has reached an undisclosed settlement with three former lacrosse players who were falsely accused of rape, the school announced Monday.

"This past year has been hard for many people who care about Duke -- for students, faculty, staff, alumni, families and friends -- and for the three students and their families most of all," the Duke board of trustees said in a written statement.

The three students posted a statement on Duke's Web site saying, "We hope that today's resolution will begin to bring the Duke family back together again, and we look forward to working with the university to develop and implement initiatives that will prevent similar injustices and ensure that the lessons of last year are never forgotten."

David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were accused of sexually assaulting an escort-service dancer at a party in March 2006.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper reviewed the case and exonerated the three men in April 2007, saying the charges never should have been brought against them.

District attorney disbarred for unethical behavior

The prosecutor who brought those charges, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, was disbarred Saturday by a disciplinary panel that said he violated the majority of at least 19 ethics offenses in prosecuting the case.

Bonnie Dumanis and Mike Nifong: More alike than she wants to admit

2007-06-20T11:41:00.000-07:00

I read San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' opinion piece in the San Diego Union Tribune today.

After scanning four columns of print that read like a high school civics lesson, I realized that Bonnie had sidestepped the glaring truth and the most important lesson of the Nifong case: it is wrong to prosecute someone in order to get reelected.

Why didn't you address the real problem, Bonnie? Mike Nifong couldn't resist the temptation to go after three rich white privileged young men in order to get votes from his working-class district.

You don't need to answer that question, Bonnie. I know the answer. It's a very sensitive issue for you, since you've done exactly the same thing that Mike Nifong did. You prosecuted a young man, Jason Moore, who took two hours off work, simply because it would please your rich white constituency. Moore was targeted because he used those two hours to spy on a Cheryl Cox yacht party. Chula Vista City Councilman Steve Castaneda has revealed that your unit has also investigated him. It appears that you have allowed Cheryl Cox's supporters to dictate the list of targets that your "public integrity" unit investigates.

Perhaps someone ought to investigate your "public integrity" unit. The first thing they would find is Patrick O'Toole, a former US attorney who might very well run against you if you were to allow him to outflank you on your right. It looks like you gave him freedom to investigate anyone he wants, no matter how politically motivated the investigation is. You want to keep him happy so he doesn't run against you, don't you?

In your favor it must be said that you have decided to sacrifice just one young man to your political ambitions. You obviously know what you've done, Bonnie, or you wouldn't have so carefully avoided talking about the true reason for Mike Nifong's moral collapse: political ambition.

Voice of San Diego published a piece about the problem of politically-motivated prosecutions, such as the Dale Akiki case that cost District Attorney Ed Miller his job. Here a comment by Billy Bob Henry on that article:

"Ed Miller of course lost his job over the Aikiki scam, and he should have been disbarred. Nifong-if he was in CA-would not be disbarred. No prosecutor, that I can recall, no matter how unlawful an act they have committed, has ever been disbarred."

The People Don't Understand Leslie Devaney

2007-06-17T20:35:00.001-07:00

Leslie Devaney, who ran against Mike Aguirre for San Diego City Attorney in 2004, says:

"Until the public understands the role of the city attorney, I'm not ready to run for the position again."*

Translation: As long as people think the City Attorney is supposed to represent ALL the people, and not merely protect the people in office, she won't be a part of it.

* from Voice of San Diego, "Aguirre's Foes Search for Champion," by EVAN McLAUGHLIN Monday, June 11, 2007

Scooter Libby and Martin Luther King, Jr.

2007-06-14T12:33:00.000-07:00

Some people are willing to go to jail for committing civil disobedience. Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of those people.

Then there are the Scooter Libby's of the world. These are people who commit far more serious crimes than participating in a protest march. They expose the identity of a CIA agent, then commit felony perjury about it when questioned before a grand jury.

If you truly believe in your cause, Scooter, why aren't you willing to pay the price for your illegal actions in defense of what you believe? And why don't you tell your supporters to stop harassing the judge in your case?

I'm getting the feeling that the cause Scooter Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney's #2) believes in is this: George Bush loyalists should control the entire government, including the justice system. Oh, dear. That's not civil disobedience. That's an effort to overturn the constitution while bypassing the 200-year-old process for doing so.

The Associated Press reported this story today:

Libby Judge Harassed After Sentencing
By MATT APUZZO
WASHINGTON, (AP) --
"A federal judge showed no sign that he would delay I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term in the CIA leak case Thursday — even as he reported getting threatening letters and phone calls after sentencing the former White House aide.

""I received a number of angry, harassing, mean-spirited phone calls and letters," U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said. "Some of those were wishing bad things on me and my family."

"Walton made the remarks as he opened a hearing into whether to delay Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence while the former White House aide appeals. Walton heard arguments on the request and was scheduled to continue them Thursday afternoon.
After a monthlong trial, jurors found in March that Libby lied to investigators about how he learned that Valerie Plame, the wife of an outspoken war critic, worked for the CIA, and whom he told..."

Who wants James L. Camblos for a next-door neighbor?

2007-06-11T19:24:00.001-07:00

A Virginia woman and her ex-husband will spend 27 months in prison for allowing her son’s16-year-old friends to drink beer at a sleepover. Elisa Kelly’s reason for providing the beer was that she didn’t want the kids to drive to get alcohol. About half of the kids at the sleepover drank no alcohol at all.

Ryan Kenty, Elisa’s son, was so distraught about his mother’s situation, for which he felt guilty, that he dropped out of high school. Ryan’s younger brother, now 16, will not have his mother around for quite a while. It seems unlikely that anyone’s life has been improved by the government’s actions in this case.

Still, Albemarle County Commonwealth's Attorney James L. Camblos III isn’t feeling the family’s pain. It would appear that he didn’t become a public servant in order to make life better for other people, but to make life better for himself. This seems like another case where the justice system is being abused by someone with a pathological need to inflict pain. Camblos knows that a good way to get people to vote is by identifying an evil, and working everyone into a frenzy over it. Certainly underage drinking is a problem, but it’s also a reality, and Mr. Camblos’ actions are not likely to stop 16-year-olds from drinking. Camblos will just make it more likely that they’ll drive somewhere to get their alcohol.

Daniela Deane of the Washington Post writes:

“"No one left the party," said Kelly, 42, who collected car keys that night almost five years ago to prevent anyone from leaving. "No one was hurt. No one drove anywhere. I really don't think I deserve to go to jail for this long."

“Kelly said she's "scared" to go to the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail, where each of her sons will be able to visit her only once a month for 15 minutes at a time, and worried about how her sons will fare without her. "I'm going to miss the end of Brandon's high school," she said of her 16-year-old son, choking back tears.

“After the incident, Ryan dropped out of high school, where he was an athlete and a member of the school's basketball team, saying he couldn't take the constant attention. He shelved plans to attend college and now works full time at UPS. The brothers will live nearby with their father, Marc Kenty, until their mother is released.”

Wilson orders Wilson freed in bizarre Georgia case

2007-06-11T14:58:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reports a ruling in the Georgia case where a 17-year-old boy has served over two years of a ten year sentence for allowing a 15-year-old girl to have oral sex with him.

Judge Thomas Wilson ordered the young man, whose name is also Wilson, freed.

Brenda Goodman wrote, "In granting Mr. Wilson’s habeas corpus petition, Judge Wilson wrote that it would be a “grave miscarriage of justice” for Mr. Wilson to be kept in prison for the remaining eight years of his sentence.

“'If this Court, or any court, cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish: Justice being served in a fair and equal manner,' he wrote in the order granting release."

But politicians in Georgia refused to accept the judge's ruling. Thurbert E. Baker, the Georgia attorney general, filed a Notice of Appeal, and the local district attorney is keeping the young man in prison.

Since both people involved in the sex act were minors, some might think it odd that the courts did not give them both the same sentence. Others might think that this case is entirely about race, since the boy was black and the girl was white. I suppose we've seen some progress in the past fifty years. I prefer the injustice of today to the injustice meted out in the south fifty years ago, but sometimes I think human beings are awfully slow to change their ways. Our justice system has a long way to go.

Does law school make some people crazy?

2007-06-08T18:13:00.001-07:00

Found on Susan Ohanian's Outrages
http://www.susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=7246

"Research suggests that law school has a corrosive effect on the well-being, values, and motivation of students, say Kennon M. Sheldon, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Missouri at Columbia, and Lawrence S. Krieger, a law professor at Florida State University. "Indeed, the emotional distress of law students appears to significantly exceed that of medical students and at times approach that of psychiatric populations," they write."

The above was written by the staff of Chronicle of Higher Education regarding an article in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin entitled The maddening effects of law school.

George Bush Now Has a Monica Problem

2007-06-07T13:48:00.000-07:00

"In Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department, Democrats and liberals who were denied civil service jobs were said to have a "Monica Problem." After yesterday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, the Justice Department has a Monica Problem of its own."

Above quote is from "Monica's Own Monica Problem" by Dana Milbank, published in The Washington Post on May 24, 2007.

Here are some outtakes from Millbank's article:

"The source of the metastasizing Monica Problem (not to be confused with the previous president's Monica Problem) is Monica Goodling, a graduate of Pat Robertson's law school who was the Justice Department's enforcer of partisan purity until she resigned and investigations began."

"Republicans must have known they had a problem on their hands, for they moved with dispatch to create diversions. Rep. Chris Cannon (Utah) opted to read into the record a lengthy editorial comparing Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) to Tony Soprano. Rep. Dan Lundgren (Calif.) delivered a 250-word speech praising his own glorious service as his state's attorney general."

"The only break Republicans got all day came from a neophyte Democrat on the committee, Steve Cohen (Tenn.), who decided to poke fun at the educational pedigree of Goodling, Regent University law school Class of '99 ("top 10.5 percent of class," reported her résumé).
"Are you aware of the fact that in your graduating class, 50 to 60 percent of the students failed the bar the first time?"
"I know it wasn't good," she conceded.
"Republicans erupted in groans and cries of "bigotry." "Regent University students won the American Bar Association's Negotiation Competition February 11," protested Randy Forbes (R-Va.)."

"Asked about her previous experience making personnel decisions, Goodling began her answer by noting that she was student body president in college."

"How many job applicants did she block because of political leanings? "I wouldn't be able to give you a number." Did she ask aspiring civil servants whom they voted for? "I may have." Did she screen applicants for career prosecutor jobs so that Republicans landed in those positions? "I think that I probably did.""

"[Monica] made clear from the start that she hadn't come to take the fall: At the top of her written testimony, bold and underlined, was the sentence "The Deputy Attorney General's Allegations are False."

It seems clear that in Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department, the entire Justice System was being run for the benefit of Republicans, not for Americans in general, who got partisan justice in exchange for the taxes they paid.

It takes a lot to get a Bar Association to act against a dishonest lawyer

2007-06-07T13:33:00.000-07:00

The D.C. Bar Association is conducting a disciplinary hearing concerning former federal prosecutor G. Paul Howes, but the Bar Association doesn't deserve credit for starting this investigation. The Justice Department investigated four years, then handed the files over to the Bar Association. They could hardly say no, could they?

Lawyers tend to be very tolerant of unethical behavior by other lawyers. As an example, it may be noted that the California Bar Association said Elizabeth Schulman's behavior was acceptable.

On May 7, 2007, Henri E. Cauvin wrote in the Washington Post that Mr. Howes used taxpayer dollars in two drug-and-murder conspiracy cases, "signing off on tens of thousands of dollars in unauthorized payments to witnesses and, even more significantly, to their friends and families."

The story continues: "Witnesses routinely are paid stipends when they go to court to testify or when they meet with prosecutors to prepare for the proceedings. But the payments must be disclosed to defense attorneys so informed assessments can be made of the witnesses' credibility... In its charging documents, the D.C. Office of Bar Counsel cites questionable payments totaling more than $75,000 from among the nearly $141,000 in voucher payments issued in the cases.

"In one case, a D.C. police officer [Fonda Moore] was charged with conspiring with a drug gang [specifically, Javier Card] to kill its rivals, and in the other, members of the notorious Newton Street Crew were charged with running a criminal enterprise that was engaged in murder and narcotics distribution.

"In each of the cases, Howes kept the defendants' lawyers in the dark about the unauthorized payments. His motivation remains unclear.

"But the fallout was far-reaching. In the years after the abuses came to light, the U.S. attorney's office had to agree to significant reductions in the sentences of several defendants, including some who had been serving life prison terms. At least three defendants were released within months of the reductions."

Howes once worked as a Washington correspondent for ABC News. Howes is now a partner at Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP in San Diego.

Federalist Society Backed Lam's Ouster

2007-06-07T11:56:00.000-07:00

Vladimir Kogan of Voice of San Diego was perusing McClatchy's Washington bureau postings today when he came across the following:

A leader of an influential conservative legal group recommended a replacement candidate for the U.S. attorney in San Diego just days after the sitting prosecutor's name was secretly placed on a Justice Department firing list, according to a document released Wednesday.

The recommendation by the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, came before anyone outside of a tight group in the White House and Justice Department knew about a nascent strategy that ultimately led to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Kogan writes:
The story points out that there is no way to know whether Leo knew that the Justice Department was planning to oust Lam, or whether his e-mail was unsolicited.

TB Travelling Lawyer Man

2007-06-06T12:08:00.001-07:00

Andrew Speaker, the 31-year-old Atlanta personal injury lawyer who thought his honeymoon was more important than other people's lives, isn't getting a good reception in the court of public opinion.

Newsweek reports that 50% to 70% of individuals who are infected with Andrew Speaker's bacterium are doomed, compared to only 5% who die from contracting regular tuberculosis. Speaker himself is young and healthy and has access to the best care available on the planet. But that is not the case with the hundreds of travellers who shared a limited amount of air with him on two trans-Atlantic flights.

Speaker claims that he is smear-negative, meaning that TB bacteria didn't show up on his sputum test. Sadly, it turns out that 20% of all TB patients contracted their illnesses from smear-negative individuals.

I am left wondering, how many people are as ethically challenged as Andrew Speaker? How many of us would have done the same thing he did? I imagine these lawyers would do the same as Andrew Speaker.

I wouldn't. Would you?

But the CDC is also at fault. They knew when they visited him in Italy that they were dealing with an incautious person. They should have told him they would fly him home. They should have known he wouldn't take financial responsibility for a private airplane trip home. It's their job to protect the health of the public, even if they have to dip into their budget reserves to do it.