Word from kpb,Feb.8: The main problem Texas has is how they got in the gate and then how they seized evidence. What all they did for CYA and to dig for evidence of crimes was the next step in that BS.
In the custody suits, I have said since the first 30 days that DISCOVERY is a BIG problem for the state. They ignored 700+ motions filed and the attorney representing CPS actually asked for and received a “Mulligan” on adhering to the guidelines (time limits) for the DISCOVERY.
I said there would be no final hearings for custody, no child would be taken permanently, and the state has still not completed sharing that DISCOVERY. With Texas not having open DISCOVERY, as it applies to criminal cases, they NEVER wanted final hearing in a family code case where DISCOVERY is more open.
The state is left with Merrianne Jessop, and I believe Teresa Steed and her child. Merrianne's Attorney Ad Litem also resigned Friday, so the obvious is happening in her case also.
Just for humor, a good friend had requested and paid for what is called the “Progress Report” in Merrianne's case because the CPS complained in it that Merrianne's mother was communicating with some of us and that this friend, Bill Medvecky, alleged he'd kidnap Merrianne (which he did not say). Any way, this public information, produced by the state agency complaining about Bill, included the names of the foster parents who have custody of Merrianne!!!!
May be some BS report put out to invite trouble, but meanwhile the judge was notified of HOW that CPS agent endangered Merrianne's life...
On the criminal cases, this same idiot for a judge, same one that signed all warrants and ruled to keep the children in April, decided she would put off retiring and handle ALL the criminal cases herself. And to be even more of an idiot, the first case is for Raymond, who is facing sexual assault with the Teresa Jeffs just released. Even if they could save all evidence from being suppressed, there is nothing in that evidence that says they had sex or a child. The judge probably picked the worst case of all to start with.
The state has only provided a portion of the DISCOVERY they must share, still avoiding problems they'll face at some point.
As for accountability, 6 people in high level positions of various departments or agencies involved are already out the door. For more grins, imagine nearly 700 people filing civil suits and I have a couple case records that ended with $1.5 to 2.5 million per person. May be some reduction in the totals with large families, is they succeed, but the numbers are still HUGE!
Meanwhile, back at my home, fire hit my house on Superbowl Sunday. Nobody hurt, and I did get to watch the game! As I told Mr. Walter Abbott, who was so kind to email me on th YFZ Ranch topic, my computer was a victim! I hope to get all the data on to an external drive next week.
Duke's President Brodhead’s never said why he refused to meet with the lacrosse parents on March 25, 2006. And The Chronicle's never asked why.
Brodhead, Duke's trustees, and almost all its faculty, including all but one or two of the Law School faculty, were publicly silent when racists outside and within the Durham County Courthouse shouted threats, including death threats, at then Duke student Reade Seligmann. TC never asked why.
For that matter, TC's never explained its own editorial silence when the racists attacked Seligmann.
TC has never asked Brodhead or BOT chair Bob Steel whether Duke did in fact secretly release FERPA-protected student records to now disbarred former Durham DA Mike Nifong.
Or whether, if it did that, Duke then engaged in a charade with Nifong to deceive the students, their parents and the court into believing Duke had not already released the records?
But perhaps TC will soon ask those questions and others that most members of the Duke community want answers to.
I say that because today TC’s editorial board addresses serious matters involving trustee and senior administrator's decision-making, particularly the secrecy that typically shrouds it.
Here’s some of what TC’s editorial board says - - -
Last weekend some current and former members of the Board of Trustees came to the University for a closed-door meeting about the recession and how the University can best respond to it in the future.
The public knows almost nothing specific about the meeting. Representatives-including Chair Robert Steel, Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations, and Executive Vice President Tallman Trask-acknowledged to The Chronicle that the meeting occurred and that its focus was the University's financial situation.
But as to who was there, what specifically was discussed, why the meeting was necessary and what the University's general strategy will be in the recession-mum's the word.
And although it is encouraging that the University appears to be acting in a proactive manner, it is disconcerting that the information coming from University administrators was so vague and that the meeting itself was seemingly secret. …
As the editorial progresses TC gets increasingly wobbly and closes with - - -
In the end, it is understandable that, in order to function effectively, a board of trustees at a private university will need to keep many matters secret. But there are some subjects-and this is one of them-about which a board of trustees should make every effort to inform the many people in the Duke community who are invested in the University and whose livelihood depends on it.
No one is demanding the minutes of last weekend's meeting: a coherent and public statement of strategy would do just fine.
The entire editorial’s here.
Today the TC editorial board took a few small steps toward what let's hope is now its goal of questioning the excessive secrecy that’s characterized the Steel/Brodhead running of Duke since at least Spring 2006.
When Duke won’t explain its silence when an angry crowd at the edge of East Campus waved a CASTRATE banner and went after Duke students, it’s shamefully secretive.
We are now at a point such that when a person asks, “Do you think Brodhead and Steel OK’ed the release of that FERPA information?”, people can only shrug and reply: “We’ll just have to wait for discovery in those suits.”
But it shouldn’t literally take federal lawsuits to get an honest answer to that question and many others the Brodhead/Steel leadership team is covering up on.
Let’s hope TC's small steps today are soon followed by bigger ones.
Request to the TC editorial board: Please tell us why editor Chelsea Allison recused herself from today’s editorial.
A variety of figures whose performance in the lacrosse case drew widespread condemnation surfaced in the news over the past week—with scant, if any, suggestions that they had learned any lessons from their misbehavior.
In a race to the bottom for lack of integrity, it’s hard to choose between Selena Roberts and Alex Rodriguez. Now working for Sports Illustrated, Roberts broke the story that Rodriguez had tested positive for steroids in 2003. In an interview about her story with the MLB Network’s Bob Costas, Roberts affirmed that her obligation as a journalist was to “find the truth.” She expanded on this in an interview with ESPN Radio, where, according to Harry Stein, she opined, “What we tried to do is be very specific about what we heard and make sure that we found credible information and reliable people, and that we buttoned up every single hole to make sure to be absolutely right . . . It’s like being in court—once you say something, you can’t just strike it.”
It’s not clear when Roberts adopted this definition of her profession’s aim: her writing on the Duke case demonstrated an aversion to, rather than a quest for, the truth.
Perhaps Roberts’ focus on Rodriguez is fitting justice. Just as Rodriguez’s career will be forever tarnished by his admission that he broke the law over a several-year period, so too will Roberts be forever tarnished by her decision to set aside the standards of her profession to advance a preconceived ideological agenda, use her Times column to spew falsehoods, and then refuse to own up to her errors.
Selena Roberts looks like a beacon of truth and righteousness, however, when compared to Wendy Murphy. In the lacrosse case, the adjunct law professor compiled a record for untruths second only to that of Mike Nifong. (New England School of Law’s dean did not respond to repeated e-mails asking how he could continue to employ—as a professor of law—a figure who publicly and repeatedly stated outright falsehoods.)
The adjunct law professor was back in the news last week, in an article on “sexting” (teenagers sending nude pictures of themselves or their boyfriends/girlfriends as text messages). The Boston Herald, identifying Murphy as someone “who lectures on sex crimes at the New England School of Law,” reported the adjunct professor as saying that “sexting” almost has become an “epidemic.” Murphy added, “I know it seems heavy-handed to bring child porn charges. Law enforcement is using the only tool it has for what has become a huge problem nationwide.”
The evidence Murphy cited to show that “sexting” has almost become an “epidemic,” and that it “has become a huge problem nationwide”? None. But why let evidence get in the way of a preferred storyline, even if it involves support for charging 13-year-olds with child porn?
The other “expert” quoted in the Herald story was Sari Locker, a self-described “sex educator and TV personality,” whose official website photo is a bit on the . . . revealing . . . side. It’s good to see that Murphy is continuing to keep good company.
By the end of the lacrosse case, virtually the only publication that treated Murphy seriously was the Wilmington Journal, where Cash Michaels would regularly quote, without skepticism, from Murphy and either NAACP “case monitor” Irving Joyner or North Carolina NAACP head William Barber.
As the highest-profile case of prosecutorial misconduct in modern U.S. history was occurring in his midst, Barber did all he could to prop up the case offered by the perpetrator of that prosecutorial misconduct. Whether it was publishing an error-laden, guilt-presuming 82-point “memorandum of law” or going to the Duke Chapel to continue his organization’s character assault on Duke students, Barber spent more than a year strenuously advancing Mike Nifong’s efforts.
Last week, Barber was honored with the Paul Green Award by, of all, organizations, the North Carolina ACLU.
I share Barber’s opposition to the death penalty, and agree wholeheartedly with the NAACP’s efforts against the practice. That said: How can an organization committed to upholding civil liberties extend an award to a figure whose public conduct in such a high-profile case had exhibited an utter indifference to the importance of civil liberties?
Finally, Clark University has chosen to honor Karla Holloway. Next week, the Group of 88 extremist will give the keynote address at a Clark University conference entitled, “Evolutionary Momentum in African American Studies — Legacy and Future Direction.”
Holloway’s honor serves as a reminder of a principal academic lesson from the lacrosse case: in an academic environment dominated by peer review, terms like “excellence” or “quality” mean very different things than what non-academics might expect. That an Ivy League institution like Cornell could hire Grant Farred while hailing his scholarly credentials as excellent, or a top-tier liberal arts college like Clark could bring Holloway in to give a keynote address shows how such inherently subjective terms as “excellence” or “quality” are defined in the contemporary academy.
SC The proverb that you can't teach an old dog new tricks is blatantly untrue.So why does this pack of flea bitten scavengers fail to learn even the most elementary lessons(even the lesson of how they could more effectively spread their own particular brands of evil)? Probably because they continue to(again and again) be rewarded for (again and again} using the same malicious,callous,and utterly deceptive techniques on the same batches of financially well-endowed dunderheads.
From Lax News ,February 14th,2009 snip Powder Springs, Ga.- Loyola attackman Collin Finnerty scored a career-high four goals and assisted on another but Notre Dame's Ryan Hoff scored the game-winner with 5:24 remaining to break the tie and the ninth-ranked Irish held on for a 10-9 victory over the No. 17 Greyhounds in the team's season opener at McEachern High School.
With Loyola trailing by a goal in the final minutes, Notre Dame goalkeeper Scott Rodgers denied multiple opportunities over the last 1:30 to preserve the win. Loyola midfielder Jimmy Daly had three good looks at the goal-the first being sent wide left- and the other two snatched up by Rodgers. Daly's last effort came with 15 ticks remaining.
Trailing by a goal going into the final quarter, Loyola evened the game at 8-8 on Finnerty's fourth goal of the day just 1:30 into the period. Attackman Matt Langan found himself positioned behind the Notre Dame goal and passed it to Finnerty from 10 yards out, who buried his attempt.
The Irish would reclaim the lead, 9-8, on Grant Krebs' second goal of the day with 9:19 left. The Greyhounds, though, would again claw back two minutes later on Daly's second of the afternoon, with the assist coming from midfielder Chris Hurst, to knot the action at 9 apiece.
But Hoff's goal with five and a half minutes remaining--assisted by Krebbs--ultimately proved to be the difference in a see-saw afternoon of non-conference action.
"I liked our kid's effort out there today," Loyola Head Coach Charley Toomey said. "We made a few too many mental mistakes but we competed and played hard, and we look forward to hosting Towson next week."
A Hicks goal put Notre Dame up, 1-0, 6:12 into the game. The Greyhounds would quickly respond, though, as Daly made a nice move in the open field to beat Rodgers low and even the game at 1-1, two minutes later.
The Irish would take a 2-1 lead with 2:26 remaining in the first on a tally by Hoff-- with the second assist coming from Duncan Swezey-- and David Earl would quickly make it a two-goal deficit with an unassisted goal less than a minute later.
Loyola, though, proceeded with a 4-0 spurt over the next five minutes to claim a 5-3 lead. First, Eric Lusby received a feed from Finnerty to find the net with 0:25 seconds left in the first to trim the lead to Irish lead to 3-2.
Then, Finnerty opened the second with a goal of his own at the 13:43 mark. He collected a groundball on a shot at the left side of the field and beat Rodgers high to tie the game, 3-3.
On the ensuing face-off, John Schiavone controlled the draw and pushed toward the goal, finding Finnerty for his second goal of the day to give Loyola a two-goal cushion, 5-3.
SC: Seems that Burris forgot throughout this preceeding unpleasantness that Blago had tapped him for a ten thousand dollar bribe as well.But he now clearly remembers not paying it. I wonder if he himself would have believed that same story if he had heard it from the innocent man whom he was trying so hard to execute.
Report: Blagojevich Wanted $10,000 Donation From Burris The Chicago Sun-Times reports on its Web site Saturday that Sen. Roland Burris didn't make the donation.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
U.S. Senator Roland Burris acknowledges he was asked for up to $10,000 in campaign donations by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother before he was appointed to the senate seat by Blagojevich.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports on its Web site Saturday that Burris didn't make the donation. Burris gave the newspaper a copy of a sworn statement he has sent to the head of the Illinois House impeachment committee.
Burris says he sent the affidavit to House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie when he realized his testimony before the committee wasn't complete.
Currie tells The Associated Press on Saturday she has Burris' statement, but hasn't had time to compare it to his testimony.
Burris says he had three conversations with Robert Blagojevich, who led the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund.
Sissel is writing at concurringopinion.com,yesterday,Feb.13th. That blog does not usually consider innocence cases but they were understandably disturbed by this one. I have carefully gone over both the Florida Supreme Court decisions and am unable to find a single additional reason why they allowed this man to die.I'll post the liinks on Monday and see if the readers can do any better. In the end they found,4-1, in less than a single page, that (1) the identity of the body didn't matter(!)(2)that the "eye witness" couldn''t be be further impeached because she had been" thoroughly discedited "anyway and that (3)the discredited confession didn't matter(The prosecution is apparently no longer contending that it was authentic) because admitting it was "a harmless error". On exactly what grounds did that Court kill this man? We are left with the mother who for thrteen months contended(with supporting witnesses) that her daughter had run away from her wretched sty of a home and only remembered when she was caught with somebody's body on her former premises that when SHE last saw her daughter the girl was with the ex-boyfriend. Go through the entire opinions and find one single further iota of evidence!
There are still items that need to be DNA tested by labs The Innocence Project uses. The testing done by FDLE is not based on advanced DNA technology and was used as an alibi for Crist to say he has conducted DNA testing that came out inconclusive.
There is only the word of Barbara - Lisas mother -to say the body in the garden is Lisa. When was she is credible witness?
What did the prosecutor Mike Benito do in this case? He " helped" the jailhousesnitch to add evidence details to his testimony. Look into the misconduct of the prosecution done to get an easy conviction of Wayne Tompkins.
Why this long time to prove his innocence? The State of Florida denied in 2001 that there were DNA items to DNA test. They said they were LOST. Only after the report from FDLE of what was available to test, was the truth of this revealed.
Florida cannot take more exonerations. It is too costly to pay the compensation. Wayne Tompkins wrongful conviction issues had to be silenced in one week, after new aspects were disclosed
So he is killed.
Compare to the wrongful Florida cases of Juan Melendez and Rudolph Holton. Or Frank Lee Smith, who was exonerated posthumously by DNA in Florida. Why did they all wait so long on death row for their freedom? Because this legal system does not work
Innocence does not matter in US.
This case is full of the worst of a death penalty conviction. Only the alert eye will look in.
Continue to silence the cases by killing those who cry out their innocence.
An angry federal judge held Justice Department attorneys in contempt Friday for failing to deliver documents to former Sen. Ted Stevens' legal team, a rare punishment for prosecutors in a case where corruption allegations have spread to the authorities who investigated him.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said it was "outrageous" that government attorneys would ignore his Jan. 30 deadline for turning over documents.
Last month, Sullivan ordered the Justice Department to provide the agency's internal communications regarding a whistleblower complaint brought by an FBI agent involved in the investigation into the former Alaska senator. The agent, Chad Joy, objected to Justice Department tactics during the trial, including failure to turn over evidence and an "inappropriate relationship" between the lead agent on the case and the prosecution's star witness.
Stevens was convicted last October of lying on Senate disclosure documents about hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and home renovations from an Alaska businessman. In November, Stevens lost his bid for re-election to the Senate seat he had held since 1968.
The contempt citation doesn't immediately change anything for Stevens, who remains a convicted felon and is awaiting sentencing. It could help his appeal, however, since it bolsters his lawyers' argument that prosecutors repeatedly withheld evidence from them during the trial.
Sullivan said after the government turns over the documents he's demanded, he will hold further hearings to hear arguments about whether the case was so damaged that Stevens deserves to have his conviction thrown out and a new trial take place.
During Friday's hearing, Sullivan repeatedly asked three Justice Department attorneys sitting at the prosecution's table whether they had some reason not to turn over the documents he asked for. They finally acknowledged they did not, and Sullivan exploded in anger.
"That was a court order," he bellowed. "That wasn't a request. I didn't ask for them out of the kindness of your hearts. ... Isn't the Department of Justice taking court orders seriously these days?"
He said he didn't want to get "sidetracked" by deciding a sanction immediately and would deal with their punishment later. But he ordered them to produce the material by the end of the day.
"That's outrageous for the Department of Justice - the largest law firm on the planet," he said. "That is not acceptable in this court."
Sullivan held all three lawyers in contempt. Two are senior Justice Department attorneys; William Welch is chief of the public integrity section and his principal deputy is Brenda Morris. The third was a new member to the prosecution team, trial attorney Kevin Driscoll.
As Sullivan called them out individually and wrote down their names, he demanded to know who else on their team was involved in withholding the information. Patty Merkamp Stemler, chief of the Justice Department's appellate section, was sitting in the back of the courtroom but stood up and gave her name.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the contempt citations.
Judges rarely hold prosecutors in contempt. The most notable recent case occurred in September 2007, when a North Carolina judge jailed prosecutor Mike Nifong for one day on a contempt charge for lying during the rape case against Duke lacrosse players.
But sanctioning federal prosecutors is even more unusual. A Washington bankruptcy judge did so in 1987, ruling that the Justice Department unlawfully tried to put a financially troubled computer firm out of business. In 1995, a federal judge in Texas held a prosecutor in contempt for refusing to provide him information that had been sealed by another judge.