Category Archives: Law

Black Caesar, Black AG

Other than interfering with the decision of Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to declare a state of emergency in Ferguson, on the eve of the grand jury’s decision in the matter of Michael Brown, as well as instructing local law enforcement authorities in “proper” policing, not to mention inserting himself qua long-suffering black man into the narrative of oppression—the attorney general of black America, Eric Holder, delivered these not-so veiled introductions, Friday:

* To Police: “It is vital to engage in planning and preparation, from evaluating protocols and training to choosing the appropriate equipment and uniforms.” (How about adding garlands around the neck, Hawaii-style?)

* Guess whose side the AG is on: The “demonstrations and protests … have sought to bring attention to real and significant underlying issues involving police practices, implicit bias, and pervasive community distrust.”

* Listen-up, you “nation of cowards,” hurry up and change your errant ways: “… demonstrations like these have the potential to spark a sustained and positive national dialogue, to provide momentum to a necessary conversation, and to bring about critical reform.”

* “… progress will not come easily, and long-simmering tensions will not be cooled overnight. These struggles go to the heart of who we are, and who we aspire to be [an Obama oft-repeated cliché], both as a nation and as a people—and it is clear that we have a great deal of important work to do.”

True to type, Holder has taken sides.

MORE.

Keeping A Cool Head About Proceedings In Ferguson

Justice, Law, Race

I’ve described him as “a usually reserved, dignified, civil-rights attorney.” Writing in The Daily Beast, Paul Callan expatiates on those “ill-informed ‘experts'” who’re misleading the public on the grand jury proceedings in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. “There’s No Conspiracy in Ferguson’s Secret Jury”:

… If the evidence provides reasonable cause to believe a crime was committed, the grand jurors’ oath requires a vote to indict.

On the other hand, if Officer Wilson is found to have acted lawfully in his use of deadly force, then he deserves a dismissal and the right to salvage whatever scraps of a normal life will be left for him when the case is over. Only the facts of this case are relevant. The grand jury is not charged with resolving the issue of police brutality or even sending a message about it.

The law authorizes police officers to use deadly physical force in a wider variety of situations than permitted for ordinary citizens. It can be used not only in self-defense but also in certain cases to subdue a fleeing felon who poses a danger to the officer or the public. A police officer has no duty to retreat and can stand his ground even though an encounter with a potentially dangerous suspect might be avoided by backing off and waiting for help. The prosecutor will provide instructions on these and other important legal principles before the grand jury votes to indict or return “No True Bill,” precluding a trial.

Though the grand jury is an imperfect forum for resolving social issues, it works very well in finding truth. …

… The grand jury inquiry affords opportunity to test accuracy of witness accounts. If the witness did in fact witness such a terrible crime, the testimony will survive in the crucible of cross-examination. If true, it will have a discernable consistency with the forensic evidence. Was the witness really in the time and place to have made the claimed observations? Was the suspect raising his hands in a surrender gesture or could the arm placement have been viewed from a different angle as an aggressive “tackle” gesture? How close was Michael Brown to Officer Wilson when he turned in Wilson’s direction? How much time did the officer have to react? Do the varied autopsy reports support or contradict witness testimony? Did Michael Brown have a motive to violently attack the officer?

MORE.

Obamacare: No-Fault Fraud

Healthcare, Law, Republicans, Taxation

Not a peep has the new class of Republican congressmen and senators uttered about the open admission of fraud made by Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare.

Proudly and bombastically Grubber touted the charade in which he partook in swindling “stupid” Americans:

… this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay, so it was written to do that. …. if you had a law that made explicit that healthy people would pay in and sick people would get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever but basically that was really really critical to get this thing to pass… I wish we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this [Obamacare] law than not.

The legal elements of fraud are present:

(1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

You’d think Republicans would pivot into repeal mode right away. Since when is a supposedly sovereign people compelled to suffer under a law they reject?

Loretta Lynch, Next AG

Justice, Law, The Courts, War on Drugs

“If you liked Eric Holder you’ll love Obama’s new AG pick,” warns WND about “federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s pick to become the next attorney general.”

This is true when it comes to waging the wicked War on Drugs. Eric Holder’s only redeeming feature as attorney general was that he put a crimp in the War on Drugs and in “mass incarceration.”

Holder said [correctly] that “too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason.” He boldly worked to change that and could very well go down in history as the Attorney General who began unwinding the war on drugs and steering our country away from mass incarceration.

Lynch was actually a drug prosecutor. The other thing Lynch had no shame in doing was shaking down banks: she extracted a “US$7 billion settlement” from Citigroup.

Chicago Tribune is somewhat contradictory in writing that “Lynch was never part of Obama’s inner circle. But she was close to Holder.” Holder is Obama’s inner circle.

Lynch also “chairs the Justice Department committee that advises Holder on policy decisions. In that role, she traveled to Washington often, working closely with senior Justice officials.”