Slouching Towards Oblivion

Showing posts with label justice system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice system. Show all posts

Saturday, January 08, 2022

A Win


It's kind of a shitty win when it seems mostly about feeling compelled to cheer as somebody goes down. It's specially bad when I have to be all cheery and shit because our "justice system" actually got one right.

That's not to say we haven't see some justice lately - Derek Chauvin's gonna be in prison for a good long time, and Ghislaine Mazwell is headed for a leisurely stay at the Gray Bar Hotel, and over 700 Jan6 assholes have been nabbed, most of whom are - or will be - going away for a while.

Add:
  • Heather Heyer's killer may very well die in a Virginia prison
  • Richard Spenser and Jason Kessler, plus some other notable assholes have been roasted hard in civil proceedings that are stripping away all their monetary armor, leaving them cold broke and hungry (as it fucking should be).
So there's that.

I just hate the fact that we have to tiptoe along the edge all the time. Like we can expect justice all we want - we can hope the bad guys will be caught and made to pay a price for their fuckery - but we can't really count on a system that seems to be running on cash contributions and political considerations. If you've got enough money, you can drag it all out, and quite possibly skate.

Maybe things are beginning to shade in the right direction, especially considering the DA in the Arbrey case is facing criminal charges for basically trying to blow it all off (see below). She got caught, and she may well have to pay, but there's the rub - why the fuck can't we trust some of these the cops?

WaPo: (pay wall)

Ahmaud Arbery’s killers sentenced to life in prison, two with no possibility of parole

The three White men convicted of murdering Ahmaud Arbery nearly two years ago in a case that sparked nationwide outrage and protests, were sentenced Friday to life in prison, two of them without the possibility of parole.

Travis McMichael, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan chased and killed Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, in February 2020. Their pursuit of Arbery in pickup trucks through suburban streets near Brunswick, Ga., ended with Travis McMichael fatally shooting Arbery, who was unarmed. All three face federal hate-crime charges in a trial that is expected to begin next month.

“A resident of Glynn County, a graduate of Brunswick High, a son, a brother, a young man with dreams was gunned down in this community,” Judge Timothy Walmsley said before pronouncing the sentences. “As we understand it, he left his home apparently to go for a run, and he ended up running for his life.”

The courtroom was still as Walmsley paused for a minute of silence — a fraction of the five minutes Arbery ran before he was cornered and shot. Walmsley said he “kept coming back to the terror” Arbery must have felt as he was chased through the neighborhood of Satilla Shores in the coastal Georgia community.

Prosecutors sought to remove the possibility of parole for the McMichaels, but not for Bryan, and the judge agreed. He said that Bryan demonstrated early on that he “had grave concerns that what had occurred should not have occurred,” while the McMichaels “turned their backs” and “walked away” after Arbery fell bleeding to the street.

The judge noted how Greg McMichael told police that they had Arbery “trapped like a rat.” Then, Walmsley said, there was the “absolutely chilling” moment captured on video when Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at Arbery, who was caught between two trucks.

Travis McMichael and his father, Greg McMichael, were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and William “Roddie” Bryan was sentenced to life. (Reuters)

He echoed prosecutors’ condemnations of vigilantism and seemed to rebuke the McMichaels’ defense that they suspected Arbery of theft in a neighborhood on-edge about crime.

“The most violent crime in Satilla Shores was the murder of Ahmaud Arbery,” Walmsley said.

Activists and civil rights leaders praised the men’s convictions in November as hard-won justice in the case, which saw no arrests until more than two months after Arbery’s death. The three men were charged only after Bryan’s cellphone video of the event went viral, thrusting the killing into the national spotlight and leaving many outraged at a justice system that they said showed little care for Black lives.

Georgia law prescribes a minimum sentence of life in prison for murder, which left the question of parole up to Walmsley. Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty. All three men were convicted of felony murder, or committing felonies that caused Arbery’s death.

Travis McMichael, now 35, was also convicted of malice murder, which requires intent to kill, but faced the same punishment as his 66-year-old father and 52-year-old Bryan.

How shaky cell phone video changed the course of the Ahmaud Arbery murder case

In Georgia, those serving life sentences for serious violent crimes such as murder are not considered for parole until they have served 30 years.

Arbery’s family, their attorneys and advocates hailed the sentences as another victory, while also saying they will continue to seek accountability for the killings of other Black Americans.


Friday’s sentencing showed the results of “sustained movements for justice,” said Ben Crump, an attorney for Arbery’s father. Civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton, who attended the trial, said in a statement that the sentencing “shows us that even in the Deep South, with 11 White jurors and only one Black juror, that White men can now be sentenced to life in prison for killing a Black man, something unimaginable not long ago.”

Lead prosecutor Linda Dunikoski said Friday that the McMichaels should not be able to seek parole because they showed “thoughtlessness” and a “demonstrated pattern of vigilantism,” arming up and pursuing dangerous confrontations rather than calling the authorities first. Members of Arbery’s family took the stand to tearfully urge the maximum penalty for all involved.

“Ahmaud never said a word to them,” Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, said to the court. “He never threatened them. He just wanted to be left alone. They were fully committed to the crimes — let them be fully committed for the consequences.”

Defense lawyers called the McMichaels first-time offenders who deserved leniency because they did not set out on that day in February 2020 to kill Arbery. Bob Rubin, a lawyer for Travis McMichael, argued that his client should be given the chance to prove himself worthy of release some decades later. He highlighted the younger McMichael’s young son and past service in the Coast Guard.

Wanda Cooper-Jones, the mother of Ahmaud Arbery, reacts as Judge Timothy Walmsley sentences Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan on Friday in Brunswick, Ga. (Stephen B. Morton/AP)

“The urge to seek vengeance is strong and understandable in the family,” Rubin said. “Lord knows, if I was in their position, I would be seeking the same thing. But vengeance is not the foundation of our sentencing, in our criminal justice system. Redemption is.”

Kevin Gough, who represents Bryan, said his client was unarmed, expressed remorse and cooperated with authorities in 2020, turning over video footage and retracing the path of the chase with an investigator.

Lawyers for the defendants, who plan to appeal their conviction, argued that their clients had legal grounds to apprehend Arbery on suspicion of burglary. They said the McMichaels and Bryan sought to perform a “citizen’s arrest” and that Travis McMichael shot Arbery in self-defense.

During their trial, Travis McMichael testified that Arbery struck him and grabbed his gun, leading him to fear for his life in the final moments of the cellphone footage that went viral in spring of 2020. A truck obscures the first part of their confrontation in the video.

At the trial, Dunikoski urged the jury to be skeptical of Travis McMichael’s story, which differed from his early account to police in some key details.

“All he’s done is run away from you,” she told Travis McMichael during cross-examination. “ … And you pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at him.”

The McMichaels and Bryan were also each convicted of aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit a felony. The McMichaels were both sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years; Bryan was given a suspended sentence, meaning that if he is released from prison he would serve further time on probation.


The judge’s decision will not mark the end of the widely watched case.

The first district attorney to handle the case faces rare criminal charges on allegations that she showed bias and instructed against arrest. And the role of race in Arbery’s killing will take center stage next month when the McMichaels and Bryan go to trial on the federal hate-crime charges.


Just before Friday’s hearing, Lee Merritt, an attorney for Cooper-Jones, told reporters that prosecutors approached Arbery’s mother to ask whether she would consider a plea deal involving 30 years’ imprisonment for the federal charges. Cooper-Jones rejected the idea, he said. After sentencing, Merritt and Crump affirmed that the family has no desire to negotiate, and said the federal trial will be a welcome opportunity to explicitly confront the role racism played in the defendants’ actions.

“We get to have the real record out about their hate, about the hatred that drove these individuals. That story has to be told,” said activist and lawyer Barbara Arnwine, who attended the trial and sentencing. “Because how can America ever get over hate if we don’t confront it?”

Barry Paschal, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of Georgia, said Justice Department guidelines prevent officials from “discussing anything related to pleas.”

Prosecutors implied in the fall that the McMichaels and Bryan targeted Arbery in part because of his race and jumped to conclusions about a man they suspected of break-ins. But officials did not seek to prove a motive, and during the trial did not use texts and social media posts offered early in the case as evidence that the defendants were racist.

The federal indictment charges the McMichaels and Bryan with interference with Arbery’s rights and attempted kidnapping. Specifically, it alleges the defendants used “force and threats of force to intimidate and interfere with Arbery’s right to use a public street because of his race.”

Arbery’s family said he was out jogging on Feb. 23, 2020, the day he was killed. The shooting occurred less than two miles from his home.

Ahmaud Arbery’s family speaks before his killers’ sentencing
Ahmaud Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, said in a sentencing hearing on Jan. 7 that her son’s convicted killers “chose to target” him. (Reuters)

Defense lawyers, however, pointed to surveillance footage of Arbery entering an under-construction property in their clients’ neighborhood of Satilla Shores — incidents they said had put residents on edge. Arbery was in the unfinished home just before the shooting and also a few times in the months leading up to it.

Travis McMichael testified that he suspected Arbery of theft after hearing that things went missing from the home. But surveillance footage never showed Arbery taking anything, and he was not found with any stolen items.

Greg McMichael told police that he spotted Arbery running past his house that day in February 2020, and went to tell his son. Then, he said, they grabbed their guns and drove after him. Bryan joined in his own vehicle after watching the McMichaels chase Arbery past his porch. “I figured he had done something wrong,” Bryan later told authorities. Bryan was recording with his cellphone when the chase turned deadly.

In court Friday, Arbery’s sister remembered him as a jokester who loved to run. His mother recalled a “loving baby who seemed to never tire of hugs, cuddling and kisses.”

After the sentencings, Cooper-Jones said authorities who initially dismissed Arbery’s killing did not realize how people would rally behind her, so that she did not have to fight a “long hard fight” alone.

“I knew that today would come,” she said.

Saturday, January 02, 2021

Let's Get Active


WaPo:
Judge dismisses Gohmert lawsuit seeking to stymie Biden electoral college count

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a long-shot lawsuit by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) that sought to overturn the presidential election, saying neither the congressman nor his allies have legal standing to pursue the case.

The judge’s Friday night ruling tosses out what many election law experts considered a far-fetched theory to challenge the formal mechanism by which President-elect Joe Biden will be affirmed as the winner of the race for president.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle issued an order dismissing the case because, he found, neither Gohmert nor his fellow plaintiffs have a sufficient legal stake in the process to justify the lawsuit. Kernodle was nominated to the federal bench by President Trump.

The judge’s ruling comes less than 12 hours after lawyers for Gohmert filed court papers arguing that Vice President Pence has far more power than the government claims to alter the outcome of the presidential election. Gohmert’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal later Friday night.

The piece goes on to explain just how silly the court sees this latest attempt to be, and that (basically) making shit up about what you presuppose will happen isn't a good premise in law.

But here's the thing:
For better than 25 years, "conservatives" have spent lots of time and energy and money making loud noises about how much they hate "judicial activism" - what they say is the courts making law.

But those same "conservatives" are constantly petitioning the courts to do exactly that - create law, made-to-order, custom-fit and purpose-built to support the Republicans' ambitions.

Republicans are acting like they hired those judges to be their own private contractors who're paid to do whatever the GOP tells them to do.

Saturday, September 12, 2020

Glimmers

There are still some good people in positions of power who're fighting for us.

Glenn Kirschner - Justice Matters

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0mLllIZoUPE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

On Bill Barr

Bill Barr is our very own Roland Freisler.

Staff and faculty at GW Law issued a statement censuring AG Barr that's 5 ½ pages long, followed by 3 ½ pages of signatures.


June 23, 2020

STATEMENT REGARDING ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM H. BARR FROM MEMBERS OF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL FACULTY

INTRODUCTION
As full-time faculty, deans, legal professionals, or emeriti at the George Washington University Law School, we write with a heavy heart to condemn a series of acts and omissions by William P. Barr, the Attorney General of the United States, which have undermined the rule of law, damaged public confidence that the law applies equally and fairly to all persons, and demonstrated contempt for basic constitutional rights. In short, Attorney General Barr has failed to fulfill his oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

We feel a special obligation to speak out because of the long relationship Attorney General Barr has with our law school and our university. Our law school stands for the core values of the rule of law, the fair and equal application of the law to all persons, and the protection of constitutional rights. Our school granted Attorney General Barr his J.D. in 1977. He served on our school’s Board of Advisors, donated money to and raised money for us. We once took pride in Mr. Barr’s successful career, including his service three decades ago as Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General, and named our Dean’s Suite in his honor. Our university awarded him an honorary degree in 1992.

Sadly, in his current (second) term as Attorney General Mr. Barr has demonstrated repeated disregard of the principles for which our institution stands. Since 2019 Attorney General Barr has made the Department of Justice unrecognizable to those of us who prize its independence from politics and its commitment to the highest standards of the legal profession. We cannot remain silent in the wake of the damage he has done to the integrity of the Department, the rule of law, and the constitutional order. Our school’s relationship with Attorney General Barr places us in a unique position, and imposes a unique duty on us to candidly confront his abuse of the office of the Attorney General and his betrayal of professional norms and the Constitution.

William Barr’s actions as Attorney General since 2019 have undermined the rule of law, breached constitutional norms, and damaged the integrity and traditional independence of his office and of the Department of Justice. He obfuscated and misled the American public about the results of the Mueller investigation. He wrongfully interfered in the day-to-day activities of career prosecutors, and continues to do so, bending the criminal justice system to benefit the President’s friends and target those perceived to be his enemies. He participated in the forcible removal from public space of peaceful protesters, exercising their First Amendment rights to speech and assembly in order to protest racial injustice. His actions have posed, and continue to create, a clear and present danger to the even-handed administration of justice, to civil liberties, and to the constitutional order.

THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AND REPORT
On March 22, 2019, after finishing his investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election and the relationship of Russia to the Trump campaign, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III delivered his Report to Attorney General Barr. Two days later, on March 24, 2019, Attorney General Barr issued a four-page “summary” of the Mueller Report in a public letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On March 27, 2019, Special Counsel Mueller stated in a letter to Attorney General Barr that the representations made in the March 24, 2019 letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of th[e] [Special Counsel's] Office's work and conclusions." Special Counsel Mueller asserted that the Attorney General’s letter had confused the public and "threaten[ed] to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed [ ] Special Counsel [Mueller]: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations." Attorney General Barr did nothing to address Special Counsel’s Mueller’s concerns. Instead, at a press conference on April 18, 2019, Attorney General Barr falsely claimed that Mueller had found that there was no “collusion” between Russian agents interfering in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign.

A comparison of the actual text of the Mueller Report with the Attorney General’s statements about the Report reveals that Attorney General Barr misstated what Special Counsel Mueller did in his investigation and what that investigation concluded. Attorney General Barr’s assertion that Mueller found no “collusion” is misleading because Mueller, who limited his investigation to possible crimes, never examined “collusion.” Although the Mueller Report stated that the investigation “did not establish” that the Trump campaign criminally conspired with the Russian government, it did find extensive links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. But from the time Attorney General Barr first wrote his March 24th letter until the actual release of the redacted Mueller Report almost a month later, the public was prevented from knowing that the Mueller Report expressly found such links. Meanwhile, Attorney General Barr’s misrepresentations took root.

We regard Attorney General Barr’s purported summaries as misleading and deceptive, and we must ask ourselves why he issued them. The only answer that seems plausible is that Attorney General Barr intended the result that Special Counsel Mueller warned about: i.e., to create public confusion about critical aspects of the Mueller investigation and to undermine full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation. We are not alone in our conclusion. United States District Judge Reggie B. Walton wrote on March 5th of this year, in a case seeking disclosure of an unredacted copy of the Mueller report, that “review of the redacted version of the Mueller Report by the Court results in the Court's concurrence with Special Counsel Mueller's assessment that Attorney General Barr distorted the findings in the Mueller Report.”

Special Counsel Mueller was duly appointed in accordance with Department of Justice regulations. He investigated on behalf of the American people, and he had every right to expect that his work would be fairly presented to the American people. The American people had every right to expect the same. Attorney General Barr prevented this from happening. The Attorney General’s statements were disingenuous, at best, and certainly deceitful. In distorting the Mueller Report to be consistent with the President’s desired narrative, Barr elevated loyalty to the President above the needs of the body politic. The American people have the right to expect candor from their chief law enforcement officer, especially on grave matters of state.

THE SENTENCING OF ROGER STONE
Attorney General Barr disregarded principles of even-handed justice and the rule of law in connection with the sentencing of convicted felon Roger Stone. Career prosecutors in the Department of Justice who had successfully prosecuted Mr. Stone submitted a sentencing memorandum recommending a sentence consistent with the relevant federal sentencing guidelines. Shortly thereafter, and after the President publicly criticized the Department’s recommendation, the Department withdrew that recommendation and substituted a recommendation for a lighter sentence. Career prosecutors withdrew from the case.

In response, roughly 2,000 veterans of the Department of Justice (“DOJ Alumni”) joined in a Feb. 16, 2020 public letter criticizing the President and Attorney General Barr. We borrow from that public statement in describing the significance of the Stone case. 

The letter explains:
...it is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors [who serve as civil servants without political appointments], who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President. That is what Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case. And, worse, he did so after the President publicly condemned the sentencing recommendation that line prosecutors had already filed in court.
We agree with the DOJ Alumni that the public could only conclude that the Attorney General believed that fulfilling the President’s personal wishes was more important than ensuring even- handed justice for all federal criminal defendants.

Attorney General Barr’s conduct poses a grave threat to the fair administration of justice and to the notion that we all stand equal before the law. No one should receive special treatment in a criminal prosecution because of a close personal or political relationship with the President. This is not fidelity to the rule of law and to even-handed justice. It is fidelity to the whims of the President, the stuff of autocracies, not a constitutional republic.

THE CASE OF MICHAEL FLYNN
The Attorney General’s conduct in the case of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was also deeply problematic. As is well known, General Flynn was indicted for lying to the FBI when agents interviewed him about earlier false statements he had made to the incoming Vice President and White House Chief of Staff. In discussion with those two officials, Flynn had falsely denied that he had discussed with the Russian Ambassador to the United States the sanctions the Obama administration had imposed on Russia for its interference in the 2016 election. In fact, Flynn had requested that Russia not retaliate for the sanctions. The FBI had proof that Flynn was lying because of material it uncovered during what the DOJ Inspector General found to be a properly predicated and legally-conducted intelligence operation. Because the Russians also knew and could likely prove that Flynn had lied, Flynn’s lies posed a security threat of the highest order to the United States in the event the Russians used their knowledge to blackmail Flynn.

After information that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and the Chief of Staff became public, Flynn was out as National Security Advisor, whether because he resigned or because the President fired him. President Trump said he “had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” Flynn, fully advised by competent counsel, entered a guilty plea to the charges that he had lied to the FBI.

Thereafter, President Trump repeatedly and publicly complained that Flynn had been mistreated and subjected to a “witch hunt.” After Flynn pleaded guilty before two federal judges, the Department moved to dismiss the charges against Flynn and to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. This motion appeared in an extraordinary filing signed by a single political appointee after the career prosecutors on the case had refused to sign. The facts set forth above and in many public sources indicate that the Department’s purported justification for making the motion cannot withstand scrutiny, given the ample evidence that the investigation was well- founded and the fact that Flynn admitted under oath and in open court that he told material lies to the FBI in violation of longstanding federal law.

In response to the Department’s motion to dismiss the charges, Judge Emmett Sullivan appointed former United States District Judge John Gleeson as amicus to argue against the motion and to address whether perjury charges should be contemplated against Flynn. Judge Gleeson’s deeply researched amicus brief filed on June 10, 2020 argues persuasively that “[t]he reasons offered by the Government are so irregular, and so obviously pretextual, that they are deficient”; “the facts surrounding the filing of the Government’s motion constitute clear evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse”; and “[t]hey reveal an unconvincing effort to disguise as legitimate a decision to dismiss that is based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of President Trump.”

Whether or not the Department’s motion is granted, the salient fact is that the motion was made at all. DOJ Alumni, including many who had protested the revised sentencing memorandum in the Stone case, also criticized the motion in the Flynn case. The Attorney General once again sought to do a favor for the President, despite Flynn’s lies to his superiors and to the FBI, and Flynn’s robust admission to criminal acts. As the DOJ Alumni put it in a public letter on May 11, 2020: “Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are autocracies, not constitutional republics.”

CLEARING LAFAYETTE SQUARE
Attorney General Barr’s actions on the Mueller Report, and in the Stone and Flynn matters, harmed public confidence in the Department of Justice. This confidence was further undermined by his participation in the unconstitutional dispersal of people lawfully gathered in Lafayette Square on the evening of June 1, 2020, to protest the murder of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer. “Before the start of a city-imposed curfew,” a June 10 letter from DOJ alumni stated, “federal law enforcement officers in riot gear reportedly fired rubber bullets, chemical gas, smoke canisters, and stun grenades at peaceful protesters, and otherwise used excessive force, physically injuring many people, including journalists and an Episcopal priest who had come to give food and water to the protestors.” These measures put scores of innocent people at serious physical risk.
Although Attorney General Barr has denied issuing any orders to the law enforcement officers, spokespersons for the Department of Justice and the White House have said he was in charge and gave the orders. We need not attempt to resolve those discrepancies here. It is undeniable that the Attorney General, who was on the scene, made no effort to assure that the First Amendment rights of lawful protestors were protected. He made matters worse by participating with President Trump in a photo opportunity in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church, whose leaders had neither been asked for nor granted permission for partisan exploitation of their house of worship. At a critical moment in American history, Attorney General Barr could have been a leader in protecting Americans’ First Amendment right to express their outrage at our nation’s long history of institutional racism, and police brutality against people of color. Instead, Attorney General Barr stands on the wrong side of history.

CONCLUSION
William Barr’s actions as Attorney General since 2019 have undermined the rule of law, breached constitutional norms, and damaged the integrity and traditional independence of his office and of the Department of Justice. He obfuscated and misled the American public about the results of the Mueller investigation. He wrongfully interfered in the day-to-day activities of career prosecutors, injecting partisan politics into the criminal justice system by bending its administration to benefit the President’s friends and target those perceived to be his enemies. He participated in the forcible removal from public space of peaceful protesters, exercising their First Amendment rights to speech and assembly in order to protest racial injustice, so that he and the President could have a photo opportunity in front of a church that did not request or consent to their presence. His actions have posed, and continue to create, a clear and present danger to civil liberties and the constitutional order.
The undersigned join other legal professionals who have expressed their alarm about the ways in which Attorney General Barr is undermining constitutional governance. By Protect Democracy’s count, an estimated 2,500 attorneys – Republicans and Democrats -- who formerly worked at the Department as career or political appointees signed letters dated February 16, May 11, and June 10, 2020, in response respectively to the Stone sentencing memorandum, the Flynn motion, and the police assault on protesters in Lafayette Square. 

The May 11 letter explained:
“Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice, not as an arm of the President’s political apparatus.” The DOJ Alumni concluded that Attorney General Barr’s conduct had damaged the Department’s “integrity” and that he had “assaulted the rule of law.” We agree. Indeed, nearly all of the signatories below who are Department alumni also signed one or more of those letters.
The DOJ Alumni initially called upon Attorney General Barr to resign, though they conceded he was unlikely to do so. They requested that Congress exercise its oversight authority to review Barr’s official conduct and formally censure him. They further asked the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to initiate a formal inquiry into Barr’s conduct. We endorse all of those requests.
We express the most severe opprobrium for Barr’s actions as Attorney General. We are not motivated by political partisanship. We include members of both major political parties, and of none. We have different legal specialties and represent a broad spectrum of approaches to the law. Our diversity is a strength as we pull together to respond to a time of national crisis, exacerbated by an Attorney General who has fallen well below the minimal threshold his office requires.
As individuals, as attorneys, and as educators and scholars, we cherish shared values to which we have pledged our professional lives: respecting and promoting the rule of law, training and setting positive examples for future generations of attorneys, and working toward a more perfect union. By this letter, we seek to demonstrate to our current and former students, our colleagues in the legal profession and legal academia, and the general public that we are deeply disturbed by Barr’s actions as Attorney General since 2019 and their implications for our democracy. Attorney General Barr has besmirched the basic values of our law school and the legal profession.

Signed:
Stephen Saltzburg
Wallace and Beverley Woodbury University Professor


Catherine J. Ross
Professor of Law & Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor


Ira C. Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus


Michael Abramowicz
Oppenheim Professor of Law


Jerome A. Barron
Harold H. Greene Professor of Law Emeritus & former Dean


Jeremy Bearer-Friend
Associate Professor of Law


Paul Schiff Berman
Walter S. Cox Professor of Law & former Dean


Francesca Bignami
Professor of Law & Leroy Sorenson Merrifield Research Professor

Natalia V. Blinkova
Visiting Associate Professor, Fundamentals of Lawyering


Christopher Alan Bracey
Interim Dean & Professor of Law


Donald Braman
Associate Professor of Law


Robert Brauneis 
Professor of Law

Karen Brown
Theodore Rinehart Professor of Business Law


Naomi R. Cahn 
Professor of Law

Rosa CelorioAssociate Dean for International and Comparative Studies & Burnett FamilyProfessorial Lecturer in International and Comparative Law and Policy

Mary Cheh
Professor of Law & Elyce Zenoff Research Professor


Donald Clarke
Professor of Law & David A. Weaver Research Professor


Thomas Colby
Professor of Law & John Theodore Fey Research Professor


Charles Craver
Freda H. Alverson Professor of Law


Lawrence A. Cunningham
Professor of Law & Henry St. George Tucker III Research Professor


Christy DeSanctis
Professor of Legal Writing


Michael DeSanctis,
Visiting Associate Professor, Fundamentals of Lawyering Program


Renee DeVigne
Associate Dean for Student Academic Development & Professorial Lecturer in Law


Laura A. Dickinson
Professor of Law & Oswald Symister Colclough Research Professor


Susan Fine
Associate Dean for Professional Development and Career Strategy


David Fontana
Professor of Law & Samuel Tyler Research Professor


Jack Friedenthal
William F. Howrey Professor of Law, Emeritus & former Dean


Iselin Gambert
Professor of Legal Research and Writing


Theresa Gabaldon
Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law


Miriam Galston
Associate Professor of Law


Robert L. Glicksman
J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law


Phyllis Goldfarb
Jacob Burns Foundation Professor Emerita of Clinical Law & Associate Dean Emerita for Clinical Affairs


Jeffrey Gutman
Professor of Clinical Law


Emily Hammond
Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Professor of Law & Glen Earl Weston Research Professor


Susan Jones
Professor of Clinical Law


Laird C. Kirkpatrick
Professor of Law & Louis Harkey Mayo Research Professor


Laurie S. Kohn
Interim Dean, Jacobs Burns Community Legal Clinics & Professor of Clinical Law


Cynthia Lee
Edward F. Howry Professor of Law


Brooke Ellinwood McDonough
Visiting Associate Professor, Fundamentals of Lawyering


Joan Meier
Professor of Clinical Law & Director, National Family Violence Law Center at GW


Peter H. Meyers
Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus


Alan B. Morrison
Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law


Dawn Nunziato
Professor of Law & William Wallace Kirkpatrick Research Professor


Anne Olesen
Professor of Clinical Law


Spencer Overton 
Professor of Law

Scott Pagel
Professor of Law & Associate Dean for Information Services


Todd Peterson
Professor of Law & Carville Dickinson Benson Research Professor


Richard J. Pierce, Jr.
Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law


Erika Pont
Visiting Associate Professor, Fundamentals of Lawyering Program


Peter Raven-Hansen
Professor of Law & Glen Earl Weston Research Professor, Emeritus

Alfreda Robinson
Associate Dean for Trial Advocacy & Professorial Lecturer at Law & (for identification) President and CEO, National Bar Association


Roger Schechter 
Professor of Law

Steven L. Schooner
Nash & Cibinic Professor of Government Procurement Law


Joshua Schwartz
E. K. Gubin Professor of Government Contracts Law


Dinah Shelton
Mannatt/Ahn Professor of Law, Emerita


Eric Sirulnick
Professor of Clinical Law, Emeritus


Peter Smith
Professor of Law & Arthur Selwyn Miller Research Professor


Daniel J. Solove
Professor of Law & John Marshall Harlan Research Professor


Jessica Steinberg
Associate Professor of Clinical Law


Ralph G. Steinhardt
Lobingier Professor of Comparative Law and Jurisprudence

Joan Strand
Professor Emerita of Clinical Law


Sonia Suter
Professor of Law & The Kahan Family Research Professor


Roger H. Trangsrud
James F. Humphreys Professor of Complex Civil Litigation and Civil Procedure


Robert Tuttle
Professor of Law & Berz Research Professor of Law and Religion


Karen Wahl
Reference/Legal History and Rare Books Librarian


Kate Weisburd
Associate Professor of Law


Christopher Yukins
Lynn David Research Professor of Government Procurement Law

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

First Step

45* crows about moving on Criminal Justice Reform - signing the First Step Act, and parading Kim and Kanye through the White House to celebrate. But then, of course, he doesn't follow thru, making sure the thing is funded.


And at this point - of course again - we have to consider the probability that the funding is being withheld on purpose. He wanted the optics. He wanted nothing but the appearance of being the guy who helps all those unfortunates and blah blah blah.

It was just an episode on the little reality TV show that he runs in his head.

My suspicion is that the Prisons-For-Profit guys got in his ear, reminding him that their campaign contributions might have to diminish if the program ends up costing them money.

And it becomes nothing but another cheap paint job.

Monday, May 06, 2019

Government Is Deadly


The death penalty is a really thorny issue. First, I think I can say definitively there are people in the world we just don't need; people we're better off without - Saddam Hussein, Charlie Manson, Celine Dion come to mind, but we know that too often we're killing the wrong people. 

New and emerging forensic techniques have turned up false convictions all over the place, and the death penalty being a permanent "solution" makes it kinda hard to say, "Oops - dang, I guess we got that one wrong" and go on to whatever's next.

The fact that we keep trying to find "more humane ways" of killing people only points up the fact that we're working maybe a little too hard to rationalize our attempts to substitute retribution for justice.

"...we are some real motherfuckers" is the big takeaway in this John Oliver piece:

Thursday, May 02, 2019

Milbank Gets One Right


Dana Milbank can sound just like Maureen Dowd - the jaded and cynically casual observer pretending to be above the fray; as if nothing as mundane as politics can ever touch them.

So maybe this is a sign that he's beginning to see what's what. (I'll not hold my breath. The guy is paid pretty well to pimp the balance-at-any-cost narrative)

Anyway - here's the Milbank, the whole Milbank, and nothing but the Milbank at WaPo:

Eight-year-old Liam Daly became an Internet sensation when he penned a letter to his grandfather, William Barr, while sitting in the front row at Barr’s confirmation hearing in January.

“Dear Grandpa,” he wrote. “You are doing great so far. But I know you still will.”

Alas for Liam, and for all of us, it was not to be. Now, just weeks on the job as President Trump’s attorney general, Grandpa has disgraced himself. The speed with which Barr trashed a reputation built over decades is stunning, even by Trump administration standards.

Before, Barr was known as the attorney general to President George H.W. Bush and an éminence grise of the Washington legal community. Now he is known for betraying a friend, lying to Congress and misrepresenting the Mueller report in a way that excused the president’s misbehavior and let Russia off the hook.

Three weeks ago, Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) asked Barr about reports that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team complained that Barr’s four-page summary of their work didn’t “adequately or accurately” portray their findings. “Do you know what they’re referencing?” Crist asked.

“No, I don’t,” Barr replied under oath, speculating that they “probably wanted more put out.”

Grandpa was fibbing.

Thanks to The Post’s reporting, we now know that two weeks before Barr denied knowledge of the Mueller team’s displeasure, he received a letter from Mueller complaining that Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions” and resulted in “public confusion.”

Barr, caught in flagrante delicto in his deception, told senators Wednesday that “the question was relating to unidentified members” of Mueller’s team, not Mueller himself — a technical answer that might get him off for perjury but doesn’t avoid the conclusion that he deliberately misled Congress and the public.

Three weeks ago, Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) asked Barr about reports that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team complained that Barr’s four-page summary of their work didn’t “adequately or accurately” portray their findings. “Do you know what they’re referencing?” Crist asked.

Why didn’t Barr disclose the Mueller letter when Crist asked the question? Barr replied that Crist had posed “a very different question.”

Um, right.

Of equal concern, Barr rejected Mueller’s requests to release more of the report to clear up the confusion. “At that point, it was my baby,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. “It was my decision how and when to make it public, not Bob Mueller’s.”

It was his baby, and he smothered it — thus allowing Barr’s misrepresentation of Mueller’s report (characterized by Trump as “total exoneration”) to harden.

Barr’s mistreatment of Mueller is all the more appalling because, during his confirmation hearing, Barr boasted that the two men and their wives were “good friends” and would remain so. Barr reportedly told a senator privately that he and Mueller were “best friends,” that their wives attended Bible study together and that Mueller attended the weddings of Barr’s children.

If so, Barr’s betrayal reminds us: If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. In addition to his unilateral clearing of Trump on obstruction of justice (something Mueller did not do), Barr also echoed Trump’s claim that there was “no collusion” (a question Mueller did not address) and that there had been “spying” against Trump’s campaign.

Barr continued undermining Mueller on Wednesday, calling Mueller’s letter to him “a bit snitty” and saying Mueller should have ended the investigation if he didn’t think it in his purview to say whether Trump committed a crime. And Barr eagerly played Trump’s defense lawyer.

Mueller’s finding that Trump repeatedly leaned on White House counsel Don McGahn to get Mueller fired?

Barr devised the implausible explanation that Trump only wanted Mueller replaced by “another special counsel.”

And Trump instructing McGahn to say publicly that Trump didn’t order Mueller fired? “Not a crime,” Barr argued.

Barr also defended his assertion that Trump “fully cooperated” with the investigation, even though he refused to be interviewed and tried to get then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to unrecuse himself and shut down the inquiry.

“I don’t see any conflict between that and fully cooperating with the investigation,” Barr reasoned.

And what about Trump’s mob-style tactics to thwart cooperation with Mueller? “Discouraging flipping in that sense is not obstruction,” Barr declared.


Even Barr’s choice of pronouns — “we have not waived the executive privilege,” he said — showed he was Trump’s lawyer, not America’s attorney general.

Repeatedly, Barr said it didn’t matter that Trump had deceived the public. “I’m not in the business of determining when lies are told to the American people,” he said. But now Barr, by misrepresenting his dealings with Mueller, has gotten himself into the business of lying to the American people.

Even an 8-year-old knows lying is wrong, whether it’s legal or not. Surely Grandpa Barr should have. The attorney general owed better to his “friend” Mueller, and to the rest of us.


Thursday, October 04, 2018

And Then It Clicked

Catching up with some of the video I've missed this week, I hit the 8:00 mark of John Oliver's post - "Fights on boats in Rhode Island" - and the connection snapped into place. Almost literally; like when you crash and you hear the pop of a ligament of the crunch sound of breaking bone.


I heard that snapping sound in my mind as I remembered the characterization of a guy named George Huguely - a lacrosse player at UVa who "accidentally" murdered his girlfriend, Yeardley Love in 2010.

Among the stories of Huguely's mercurial personality, there were stories of Huguely losing his temper - usually when he'd been drinking - screaming at people (his dad, or maybe step-dad in particular) while boating in Virginia and Maryland.

These prep school overprivileged legacy pukes need to be put to work picking up trash along the highways - not in positions of power where they are rewarded for their shitty little bullying behavior, and where they can be useful to a Daddy State by continuing that behavior.

It can't be surprising when a guy like 45* goes along with like-minded guys at The Federalist Society, and picks a guy like Kavanaugh.

Friday, August 04, 2017

Crime And Punishment

Sturm und Drang abounds over the "Murder-by-Text" trial (and as of yesterday the sentencing) of Michelle Carter.

The Hill, David Shapiro:

With the news in that a Massachusetts judge sentenced homicide-by-text defendant Michelle Carter to fifteen months in prison and six years on probation, many are outraged at the perceived leniency of the sentence.

They may have a point, but only because brutally harsh sentences have become the norm in American criminal justice, and with devastating effects. The past decades have witnessed massive “sentencing inflation” as periods of incarceration have become longer and longer.
In the past 40 years, the incarceration rate in the United States skyrocketed by 500 percent. The United States now locks up more of its people than Russia and China — some 2.2 million of us. According to the Sentencing Project, “Changes in law and policy, not changes in crime rates, explain most of this increase.” 


If Carter’s sentence seems short, it is because we are weighing it on a broken scale.
Increasing rates of incarceration at best has a minimal effect on crime, and may have no effect at all. In other words, mass incarceration is all about politics, not public safety.



We've been through a long and damaging period of "Law-n-Order" that's done little but make real the grotesque Dickensian villainy of the Prison Entrepreneur, and a Coin-Operated Justice System.



Maybe we're seeing something of a backlash now.

But we still have to contend with certain Daddy Staters, per Charlie Pierce:

Were you wondering if Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was still the prickly authoritarian yahoo that he's always been, now that he has gotten on the bad side of the president*? Wonder no longer, says The Washington Post.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Pimping The Obvious


WaPo:
The nation’s opioid epidemic is changing the way law enforcement does its job, with police officers acting as drug counselors and medical workers and shifting from law-and-order tactics to approaches more akin to social work.
Departments accustomed to arresting drug abusers are spearheading programs to get them into treatment, convinced that their old strategies weren’t working. They’re administering medication that reverses overdoses, allowing users to turn in drugs in exchange for treatment, and partnering with hospitals to intervene before abuse turns fatal.
“A lot of the officers are resistant to what we call social work. They want to go out and fight crime, put people in jail,” said Capt. Ron Meyers of the police department in Chillicothe, Ohio, a 21-year veteran who is convinced that punitive tactics no longer work against drugs. “We need to make sure the officers understand this is what is going to stop the epidemic.”
Officers are finding children who were barricaded in rooms while their parents got high, and they are responding to the same homes for the same problems. Feelings of exasperation course through some departments in which officers are interacting with the same drug users over and over again, sometimes saving their lives repeatedly with naloxone, a drug that reverses an opiate overdose.
How much more are we going to expect the cops to do? I like it better that they're helping people instead of shooting them, but we can't just keep piling more tasks on them because we're not willing to be inconvenienced by it all.

Anyway, isn't it amazing how "the drug problem" can move so suddenly from, "government handouts and mollycoddling won't make up for the moral deficiency of those people", to something more like, "maybe we should start looking at this as a public health issue".

And gee - it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the enormously powerful circle jerk of Coin-Operated Politicians, and their buddies in the Rent-a-Prison bidness, and the DEA as an organization of Confiscation For Fun and Profit with guns and permission to fuck you out of everything you own.

The truly obvious though, is simply that the drug thing really hasn't mattered as long as it was "an urban problem", and we were just fucking over the brown people. Now that it's come to the great American Cracker Barrel, we should try something that might be a better approach? Something we could've been doing this whole time? Because it works better? And we've always known that?

Two things:
  1. I wonder how many well-connected leeches will suddenly discover their life-long passion for providing Re-Hab services - as a proper Market-Based solution, you understand -  and of course financed by taxpayers.
  2. This is another one of those things the hippies have been trying to get the cement heads to understand for a very long time.
And you can color me un-fucking-surprised.

Today's Tweet

And in case you're at all confused by that - 
It'd be nice if I could be more comfortable thinking this is a signal that we're starting to understand there are way more facets to the "drug problem" than we've been conditioned to believe.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Saturday, August 20, 2016

America's Sheriff

Contradictions exist, but they cannot prevail.

via HuffPo:
PHOENIX, Aug 19 (Reuters) - A federal judge recommended on Friday that prosecutors bring criminal contempt charges against Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio, finding that the controversial sheriff had violated court orders stemming from a 2007 racial profiling case.
--and--
“When a federal court finds that a law enforcement official has lied under oath and willfully flouted court orders, that official must be held to account,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project.
So here's the thing: When you're trying to preserve and protect what you believe to be "American" by employing strategies and tactics that are decidedly Un-American, then you've got a monster contradiction on your hands that has to be resolved.

And like I've said a time or two before -

I hear "Arpaio", I think "Sheriff"
And when I hear "Maricopa", I think "Nottingham"