NY Times editorial "Selective Prosecution"

Go to Original

Selective Prosecution
The New York Times | Editorial

Monday 06 August 2007

One part of the Justice Department mess that requires more scrutiny is the growing evidence that the department may have singled out people for criminal prosecution to help Republicans win elections. The House Judiciary Committee has begun investigating several cases that raise serious questions. The panel should determine what role politics played in all of them.

Putting political opponents in jail is the sort of thing that happens in third-world dictatorships. In the United States, prosecutions are supposed to be scrupulously nonpartisan. This principle appears to have broken down in Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department - where lawyers were improperly hired for nonpolitical jobs based on party membership, and United States attorneys were apparently fired for political reasons.

Individual Democrats may be paying a personal price. Don Siegelman, a former Alabama governor, was the state's most prominent Democrat and had a decent chance of retaking the governorship from the Republican incumbent. He was aggressively prosecuted by both the Birmingham and Montgomery United States attorney's offices. Birmingham prosecutors dropped their case after a judge harshly questioned it. When the Montgomery office prosecuted, a jury acquitted Mr. Siegelman of 25 counts, but convicted him of 7, which appear to be disturbingly weak.

The prosecution may have been a political hit. A Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson, has said in a sworn statement that she heard Bill Canary, a Republican operative and a Karl Rove protégé, say that his "girls" - his wife, the United States attorney in Montgomery, and Alice Martin, the United States attorney in Birmingham - would "take care" of Mr. Siegelman. Mr. Canary also said, according to Ms. Simpson, that Mr. Rove was involved.

Georgia Thompson is a Wisconsin state employee wrongly put in jail on corruption charges by the Milwaukee United States attorney. Despite strong evidence that she was innocent, Steven Biskupic prosecuted Ms. Thompson for corruption and got a conviction. The news hit shortly before a bitterly fought governor's race, and opponents of James Doyle, the state's Democratic governor, used the conviction to attack Mr. Doyle as corrupt. An appeals court later freed Ms. Thompson, but only after she had spent months in jail.

The committee has requested documents from the Justice Department about those two cases. It should also look into the investigation of Senator Robert Menendez by Christopher Christie, the United States attorney for New Jersey. Based on the facts that have come out, Mr. Menendez appears to have done nothing wrong. But word of the investigation leaked out in the fall of 2006, damaging Mr. Menendez's reputation just when Republicans were trying to defeat him. It is unclear whose idea it was to conduct an investigation so close to the election of Mr. Menendez's lease of a building he had sold years earlier.

The Bush administration is throwing roadblocks in Congress's way. It missed a deadline for turning over documents, and it has refused to make some of the principal actors available to testify. The Judiciary Committee should not be deterred. If Americans are being put in jail for political reasons, Congress must put a stop to it.

-------

How Criminal Law Enforcement Nullifies the 4th Amendment

Target people by stating that they have committed a traffic offense, regardless of whether that’s true.

Handcuff people immediately upon ordering them out of their vehicles, and later justify this by stating that the person tried to escape, whether or not that’s true

Use anything as an excuse for a “drug” dog, such as a tissue in one’s pocket with staph infected band aids, and NO contraband as “marijuana” for being soft.

Have a “drug” dog that does not visible sign, (e.g. not by barking and scratching) after being placed inside of car, and NOT walked around the car, and later claim that the dog “signed” after walking around the car, whether or not true. Such a dog becomes automatic probable cause whether or not it actually smells anything as if it is trained to “sign”, it can do so for a treat.

Take key from person by force, and later state that it had been left in the ignition.

To cover up the testilying , ensure that the police video is NOT working.

Bear False Wittness. TESTILIE!!! Lie under oath! The politicians bore false wittness when they passed these laws -- Cannibas 0 deaths; Tobacco 40 million worldwide annually -- so you must do the same.

The Ends Justify the Means and White is Black and Black is White whenever we say.

U.S. President G.W. Bush throwing the 1st ball of the baseball season

G.W. Bush, Pope John Paul II, and Laura Bush

U.S. President G.W. Bush, Cardinal Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts

I made a post regarding McCarrick only 2 weeks prior to my August 5, 2006 ambush

Karl Rove, G.W. Bush, Pope Benedict

Nationals Baseball Stadium Blocks the South Capitol Mall


http://www.whitehouse.gov/baseball/2005/11.html

How Criminal Law Enforcement Nullifies the 1st Amendment

Target people based upon “information” – aka orders w/o any detailed info to distinguish whether political.

“Research” people without looking at their writings, hence failing to look at the possibility of politically motivated surveillance and enforcement.

And then violate the 4th Amendment, testilie, and claim that the police video was "just grey static".

How Courts and State Legislatures Nullify the Constitution

Accept police testimony without reservation, creating situation intrinsically anti-defendant via discouraging counter testimony from defendants, while nullifying the constitutional presumption of innocence..

Don’t question instances where the police video is supposedly “just grey static”.

Don’t require working police video.

Don’t allow discovery of such things as inter-agency memos or even police reports from the arresting officers.

My August 5, 2006 Ambush Police Video "just grey static"

"The defendant was confrontational with the officers. He asked why they stopped him repeatedly. The defendant immediately requested a lawyer.

Originally the officers anticipated that the traffic stop would be video-taped. However, when they went to review the tape from the police cruiser, they discovered that it was not working properly and that it was just grey static."

COMMONWEALTH'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT"S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY, page 1, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA v. DOUGLAS WILLINGER CASE NO. FE2007-181

Somehow I am not surprised for this apparently politically motivated illegal stop and search, with at least 5 police cars and 23 black suited police, including Federal.

Note that the Commonwealth of Virginia does not require police video.

And my attorney advised me that the judge simply believes the police, hence there is no point to my testifying.

Apparantly, criminal courts lack safe-guards against the abuse of warrantless wiretapping through U.S. Homeland Security as revenge for such writings as this, this, and this, in my blog spotlighting the blacked-out issue of the abortion of what would have been Washington, D.C.'s South Capitol Mall.

FOLLOW THE LINKS for this continuing story!