Embarrasing details continue to pile up for Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett, as witnesses in the Bonusgate trial expose inexplicable gaps in Corbett's three-year, multi-million dollar investigation.
Today, convicted conspirator P.J. Lavelle admitted that then-Majority Whip, now Speaker of the House Keith McCall hired him on the state payroll to do political fundraising. (Associated Press 2/19/2010)
Today was certainly not the first that Corbett's crack investigators have heard this allegation. Page after page of e-mail evidence, turned over to defendants by the prosecutors and submitted as exhibits in Mike Veon's pretrial motion in July, detail the political work Lavelle and other staff did for McCall on state time.
Mike Veon is on trial on multiple felony counts for his employment of Lavelle. Corbett can't deny that he knew when he charged Veon that the same allegations applied to McCall, but he can't explain why he left McCall alone and went after Veon.
Corbett promised to follow the evidence wherever it led, but he didn't explain what he would do with it when he got there.
No corpus delicti no case:
ReplyDeleteYep, if Mike Veon is on trial on multiple felony counts than almost all of the legislature and senate should be on trial too. BUT IT AIN't!
AG Corbett cannot have it both ways,Corbett can't deny that he knew when he charged Veon that the same allegations applied to McCall, but he can't explain why he left McCall alone and went after Veon either now?
Corbett promised to follow the evidence wherever it led, but so far he either has no case against Veon anymore, or he has to indict all of his friends too.
Hypocrisy comes in the shade of White Hair, Corbett has either seen God or a Ghost he cannot see, with chains around his knees?
The Prosecutors have to be worried and no wonder why they want to rap up the case as early as possible now, they have no case anymore.
Without a valid cause of action there's no corpus delicti.
If there's no corpus delicti a case has no standing.
There are numorus cases dealing with corpus delicti and all say the same thing.
Without a corpus delicti the plaintiff has no standing.
In order to have a corpus delicti a case requires a valid "cause of action."
A valid cause of action requires three elements.
The three elements are:
1) a violation of a legal right,
2) damage or injury,
3) redress-ability by the court.
If the prosecutor fails to meet all three elements required to file a valid cause of action, then, the prosecutor has no standing, thus, the court has no jurisdiction.
After establishing no one's legal rights have been violated everything after that is besides the point.
Let this sham of a Trial play out, in the end, Corbett looks more foolish every day!
For example:
ReplyDeletePretend you are in court as one of the defendants a defendant who was arrested for campaigning on state time.
Before anything else, ask the judge does corpus delicti apply in this case?
They can only answer yes because corpus delicti literally is the essence of the supposed criminal act.
Then I would ask the prosecutor "did you file a valid cause of action against my clients?"
Of course, the prosecutor will have to answer yes, because, if they answered no, then, they just said they do not have a valid case against you.
Therefore, after they answer yes, Veon Defense Team asks them "how many elements are required to file a valid cause of action?"
Any argument by the prosecutor as to why that is not germane to the case is flatly wrong because these elements are central to the case.
So of course, they are going to have to answer that there is three required elements.
Then Veon Lawyers ask the prosecutor what are these three elements.
By answering, the prosecutor themselves are going to be impeaching their own case because they will not be able to cite an injury or damage, or, a violation of a legal right to anybody.
They will not have any evidence of a complaining party, nor will they be able to cite an imagined aggregate known as a state as the injured party because the government itself through numerous cases has ruled the government is not obligated to protect the public.
This is as a result of protecting the government from lawsuits when they fail to protect, even in cases where there was a restraining order.
Basically, what is going on here is the constitution lays out why we have a government, which is to protect and maintain "individual rights."
Well, that then is also, what the jurisdiction of the court and the police is going to be limited to.
Anything beyond that is acting in ultra vires.
So these become central questions as to what the court is doing.
That is why all the cases on standing and corpus delicti deal on violation of a legal right.
So, if the defendants have been charged with working on state time and stealing state resources to work with on state time, have they violated anyone's legal rights?
No.
So does the court have jurisdiction, or, the plaintiff have standing? No and no.
These are points that the courts are not happy to get into because they do not like getting into their own rules when their own rules do not benefit them.
This kind of defending of your rights will likely prompt intervention and threats from the judge.
If that were to happen, I would have a few questions for the judge.
Of course, all while maintaining a level of honor so as not to get into a condition of conflict to stave off a valid charge of contempt.
The questions I would ask the judge if he or she was trying to intervene against my questions with regard to defendants rights.
I would first ask the judge if I had a right to a fair trial.
After he answered that yes I do, then, I would ask the judge if it were possible for me to get a fair trial if there were a conflict of interest.
Of course, he or she would have to answer that no I could not get a fair trial if there were a conflict of interest because there would be an inherent interest against me.
Then I would ask the judge who is it that he or she represents?
And then ask isn't it a conflict of interest to have a judge, who represents the state who is the pretended plaintiff against me, intervene with my asking the plaintiff questions regarding my rights?
Dismiss this Trial!
So, AG Corbett, now that 6 of your State Witnesses have been refuted, exocerated Mike Veon and the other defendants, and implicated others under oath that have not been charged by you as Attorney General, when are you going to start doing your job???
ReplyDeletePoor, poor Tommy, what'cha gonna do? Things look bad for you, hey, what'cha gonna do?
Oh now Prosecutors, how low can you stoop? You make a sordid group, hey, how low can you stoop?
Poor, poor Tommy, sold out by his OAG Staffers, Situation's grave, hey, sold out due to his Campaign!
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."---Martin Luther King Jr.
ReplyDelete"Any Prosecutor, can indict anybody, before any grand jury, for almost anything. The Federal Crimes codes are so vast, if you look at the crimes in the federal code, you wont believe the thousands and thousands of crimes, often times overlapping, often times very technical, but you could almost look at the United States code and you could find a crime to fit almost anybody that you were investigating."
Bennett Gershman, Pace School of Law
Expert on Prosecutorial Misconduct
"The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove" highlights only a very small number of many cases across the country where tactics used by the Department of Justice are questionable, if not illegal.
It is necessary to examine not only the methods....but the motives.
Thanks to Project Save Justice for allowing us to post it on this site.
"A Prosecutor who alleges enough wrongdoing will always get a conviction--the jury assumes, the defendant must have done something."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Please Join
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and sign the letter below requesting Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate selective and political prosecutions by the Department of Justice.
WEBSITE:
http://www.politicalprosecutions.org/
Corbett: I don't expect my prosecutions to last for long.
ReplyDeleteNever fool myself that my campaign for Governor will come true.
Being used to trouble I anticipate it, since my days at waste Management.
But all the same I hate it, wouldn't you?
Chorus RCC-Republican Campaign Committee:
Corbett: So what happens now?
RCC: Another trial in another hall
Corbett: So what happens now?
RCC: Take your picture off the OAG wall
Corbett: Where am I going to?
RCC: You'll get by, you always have before
Corbett: Where am I going to?
Corbett: Time and time again I've said that I don't care.
That I'm immune to the truth, that I'm hard through and through
But every time my trials matters all my words desert me.
So my own staff can hurt me, and they do.
Corbett: So what happens now?
RCC: Another trial in another hall
Corbett: So what happens now?
RCC: Take your picture off the OAG wall
Corbett: Where am I going to?
RCC: You'll get by, you always have before
Corbett: Call in three months time and I'll be fine, I know.
Well maybe not that fine, but I'll survive teh Primary anyhow.
I won't recall the names and places of each sad occasion
But that's no consolation here and now.
Corbett: So what happens now?
RCC: Another trial in another hall
Corbett: So what happens now?
RCC: Take your picture off the OAG wall
Corbett: Where am I going to?
RCC: You'll get by, you always have before
RCC: So Don't ask anymore.
I can't remember everything I learned in civics class and Pennsylvania History, so who would hear the case when Tom Corbett is tried for the same thing that he accuses everyone else for? And shouldn't he know that he is wrong, because he was the one that defined everyone else's wrong-doings? Did he really find Mary Beth Buchanan and hire her? It makes sense and it seems that they might all be conspirators? Is Mary Beth Buchanan running for Lieutenan t Governor on the Corbett ticket? Wouldn't that sort of be an unbalanced ticket? Where is Toomey running out of and is he tied in with them? I can't figure out who a good, loyal Republican should vote for this year? Are you confused, too? Corbett seems to be confused. Bush seemed to be confused. I hope thay don't mess it up for Sara Palen.
ReplyDeleteHey, Anonymous. This isn't Evita, so don't cry. And it ain't Joseph and his Amazing Coat. It isn't even High School Chorus Line. It's Casablanca.
ReplyDeleteBut, you are right, TOM CORBETT doesn't know his game. But, the people will.
I can't remember everything I learned in civics class and Pennsylvania History, so who would hear the case when Tom Corbett is tried for the same thing that he accuses everyone else for? And shouldn't he know that he is wrong, because he was the one that defined everyone else's wrong-doings? Did he really find Mary Beth Buchanan and hire her? It makes sense and it seems that they might all be conspirators? Is Mary Beth Buchanan running for Lieutenan t Governor on the Corbett ticket? Wouldn't that sort of be an unbalanced ticket? Where is Toomey running out of and is he tied in with them? I can't figure out who a good, loyal Republican should vote for this year? Are you confused, too? Corbett seems to be confused. Bush seemed to be confused. I hope thay don't mess it up for Sara Palen.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship started with Sebastiano "Sonny" Della Universita defending himself in a trial in which a fairly
ReplyDeletenew Assistant United States Attorney was the prosecuting attorney.
Over the years the friendship grew, and the Assistant United States Attorney became a Judge.
One can find out where to start, tags never go away.
The 10 Commandments of Cross Examination
ReplyDelete1. Be brief.
2. Short questions, plain words.
3. Always ask leading questions.
4. Don't ask a question to which you do not know the answer.
5. Listen to the witness' answers.
6. Don't quarrel with the witness.
7. Don't allow the witness to repeat his direct testimony.
8. Don't permit the witness to explain his answers.
9. Don't ask the "one question too many."
10. Save the ultimate point of your cross for summation.
Veon's attorney Dan Raynak pointed out Lavelle didn't have Veon's authorization and repeatedly accused Lavelle of forgery and lying on the forms.
ReplyDeleteLavelle's expenses, paid for with taxpayers' money, totaled about $2,780 for five trips to Beaver Falls over a two-month period. The expense forms stated that Lavelle was traveling to work in Veon's district office and meet with the lawmaker, the former Veon aide testified.
Costanzo said later that Lavelle was being reimbursed for expenses he incurred while traveling to Beaver Falls. "The kid wasn't pocketing the money," Costanzo told reporters.
OH REALLY, AG PROSECUTOR COSTANZO SAYS IT IS OK TO CONDONE FORGERY, LYING, AND BE REIMBURSED FOR EXPENSES ON STATE TIME, WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION BY MIKE VEON.
BUT LETS HOLD MIKE VEON ON CRIMINAL CHARGES???
LOOKS LIKE THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS A WEIRD SENSE OF WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT CRIMES.
AG PROSECUTOR COSTANZO LOOKS LIKE AN IDIOT AND SHOULD BE FIRED FOR SUCH REMARKS, EVEN WORSE, HIS OWN WITNESS, SAID VEON NEVER TOLD HIM TO WORK ON STATE TIME?????
AG PROSECUTOR COSTANZO IS ADVOCATING FORGED PERSONAL EXPENSES ON STATE TIME IS OK, BUT PROSECUTING VEON FOR WHAT NOW?????
WHAT A JOKE!!!!
maybe now that the cat is out of the bag someone will ask manzo about getting call girls for rendell aka "guv x" while in NYC.
ReplyDeleteGuilty is guilty is guilty.
ReplyDeleteThe jury will remember that. Bye bye boys.
I think the jury will remember who wasted their time and their (taxpayer) money trying to prosecute people using liars, cheaters and admitted felons as their "star" witnesses! These "stars" have one by one become "falling stars"! The defense has to provide reasonable doubt, right? Can the prosecution even get two of their felon witnesses to agree with one another?
ReplyDeletePeople don't like having their intelligence insulted!!!
Note: The jury is made up of people!
Sorry to have to dumb it down for ya, but looks like that's what ya need if you're dumb enough to post "guilty is guilty is guilty" after hearing this testimony!!!
Anonymous said...Guilty is guilty is guilty. The jury will remember that. Bye bye boys. February 20, 2010 12:14 PM...
ReplyDeleteI quite agree, Manzo, Foreman, Brubaker, and Lavelle so far, and Webb escapes but caught lying with OAG preparation.
Now add some Prosecutors and Corbett and his OAG Campaign Staff to the lists, and you got Guilty and Guilty and Guilty!
Bye Bye Governor!
Senior Deputy Attorney General E. Marc Costanzo later told reporters testimony sheds light on "a pattern of arrogance" from the defendants.
ReplyDelete"They're there because the taxpayers put them there," Costanzo said. "The arrogance is such that they think they can do whatever they want, and they're really free with how taxpayers' money is spent."
YEP, PJ LAVELLE PLEAS GUILTY TO CAMPAIGNING ON STATE AND TESTIFIED HE FORGED MIKE VEON SIGNATURE TO REIMBURSE FOR CAMPAIGNING ON STATE HIMSELF WITHOUT MIKE VEON'S PERMISSION.....Yet, Costanzo calls that reasonable and not a crime????
When the Attorney General Prosecutors talk of arrogance they should look at themselves, as they condone crimes for their witnesses.
Guess not everyone is equal under Pennsylvania OAG Justice.
This is pretty humorous stuff. You lawyers love the loop holes.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a travesty that Corbett is allowed to run for office while all of this is going on.
With that said, I love the 'Everybody Does It' defense.
I'm going to try that next time I get a speeding ticket. But I bet I'll still have to pay the fine.
You scumsucking politicians need to quit hiding behind these veils and realize you are raping the public. PA doesn't need a full time legislature to begin with. You are all proving that by saying you all spend so much time working on your re-elections rather than something that might help the taxpyers. Forget party lines - you are all corrupt and greedy, no matter what the legal defense.
Please continue this game. It will help stir a revolution that will cost you all in the long run.
And Brett Cott/Signor Volkswagon - weren't you already caught doing these same deeds in another state?
Heard you got indicted the nite before your wedding. Bet that sucked ...
Hope you all rot. Corpus Dilecti this. Guilty is guilty.
Well, little Miss Sunshine Dogood certain set all you evil politicians straight. if that is possible.
ReplyDeleteshe sounds like an armchair activist to me who can complain but does not have the vigor or the know how to even get her name on the ballot.
It is people like her that keep the status quo and their flawed system running because she doesn,t know ho to run,,,(only her mouth)...Too, bad this isn't A TALE OF TWO C
ITIES..she would be the Perfect
Tricontuese..madam Du Farge...knitting at the guillotine.
All talk and no action puts pounds on the hips and you don't need that.
Geet out and be active. (Personally, I don't think you can do much more than Talk the talk, and everyone knows that's cheap.
e
go Team Casa! This will be a great week for the People. Corbett should quit masquerading. Mardi Gras is over!!
ReplyDeleteI love the 'Everybody Does It' defense.
ReplyDeletePlease try to pay attention. There is no legal argument being made. No one here is raising a defense.
The question is not whether Mike Veon should or should not be convicted of the charges against him. That is for the court to decide.
The question is why, when Tom Corbett believed what Mike Veon did was a crime, and knew full well at the time of the charges that Keith McCall (among others) did it too, Corbett charged Veon and not McCall.
Does anyone have an answer?
Signor Ferrari said...I love the 'Everybody Does It' defense. Does anyone have an answer February 22, 2010 11:15 AM....
ReplyDeleteYeah, I do, Corbett wants to be Governor with a Republican majority in House and Senate, and Supreme Court!
This was never about justice!
Karen Steiner-Blaner after her testimony ahs to be one of the most ungrateful, lazy, and very poor employee the HDC ever hired.
ReplyDeleteShe should be fired for violating Work Rules, and then she talks about the very people that hired her as jokes.
In gratitude is the blackest of sins and Karen Steiner-Blaner is the type of person that proves it.
If she cried on doing the job, then sent thank yous over the bonuses, then says she did not like her job, and now says her bosses were a joke, well, what does thats ay about her judgment????
The HDC employees are At Will Employees and can be dismissed anytime for anything.
Karen Steiner-Blaner is a parasite not an employee on a level of a pin worm?
Anonymous said..."In gratitude is the blackest of sins and Karen Steiner-Blaner is the type of person that proves it."
ReplyDeleteSo we hear once again how everyone is a useless liar. Anyone who sees things differently or perhaps more objectively than you do must be worthless????? You guys have been in politics too long. You probably even believe your own drivel. Round and round and round you go. You're starting to sound like a broken record and the ad hominem attacks are so filled with spite and hate that it makes one wonder how long it will be until one of you pops. Last time I checked, ingratitude (one word) was not only not a sin, but it wasn't even against the law. Lord only knows what this woman has to be grateful for, from you lot.
Anonymous said...Last time I checked, ingratitude (one word) was not only not a sin, but it wasn't even against the law. Lord only knows what this woman has to be grateful for, from you lot. February 22, 2010 7:14 PM
ReplyDeleteOh yeah it is, and if the woman hates her job so much why did she stay in it, praise everyone for a bonus and now says she felt it was very very wrong?
Manzo's picked another good one to hire, and then blames Veon???
New witness, same old lemming like response from Veon/Cott disciples..."ungrateful, liar, thief..." and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
ReplyDeleteIn the world of reality, there will be 30 or so witnesses that will say the exact same thing…but they will all be tagged “liars” by the true believers…pathetic.
Time’s a ticking, boys, times a ticking.
How many people reading this are in a position to quit their job just because they don't like it? Get real. It's the economy, stupid. I hate paying taxes. I want to cry knowing that my tax dollars wasted on so many things. Should I go ahead and quit paying taxes because I hate it? Will Mr. Walk defend me pro bono for following his advice when I'm on trial for tax evasion?
ReplyDeleteThe only ones who are getting their legal representation at no cost to themselves are those who are doing the AG's bidding. The House Democratic Caucus is essentially paying staffers to help the AG win his case in exchange for leaving the rest of the members alone. It's craven and disgusting, and it's costing the taxpayers many times over what the original "crimes" cost.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...New witness, same old lemming like response from Veon/Cott disciples..."ungrateful, liar, thief..." and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. In the world of reality, there will be 30 or so witnesses that will say the exact same thing…but they will all be tagged “liars” by the true believers…pathetic.
ReplyDeleteTime’s a ticking, boys, times a ticking. February 22, 2010 8:15 PM"....
Only one problem with your Diatribe Words of Deceit and Spin, so far all the OAG Witnesses have admitted they are LIARS UNDER OATH!
So, you are right times a ticking, and the OAG Cases are falling apart when they try to change normal political practices into criminal practices.
The OAG claims all these crimes occurred but so many have been left alone at the OAG discretionary, arbitrary, and capricious evil intent to elect Corbett Governor on the claim of saving Taxpayers money.
When they are spending State Money for Corbett’s Campaign and ruining people in the process of their misuse of State resources without investigating Corbett’s Staffers and Senate Political Friends.
Anonymous said...The only ones who are getting their legal representation at no cost to themselves are those who are doing the AG's bidding. The House Democratic Caucus is essentially paying staffers to help the AG win his case in exchange for leaving the rest of the members alone. It's craven and disgusting, and it's costing the taxpayers many times over what the original "crimes" cost. February 22, 2010 10:29 PM....."
ReplyDeleteYes, the OAG has charged these employees did Campaign not State work on State time.
Yet, what are these employees doing now, doing no work but testifying on State time with State pay.
This is a Witch-Hunt and it will not stand, karma is coming, Dick Cheney just had a Heart Attack.
No evil deeds in the name of virtues stand without consequences.
The OAG case so far is a joke and fair-minded Jurors will see through it, as well Judges on Appeal should the OAG hide their own misdeeds.
Sebastiano "Sonny" Della Universita practices are alive and well, but by others.
ReplyDeletePhone calls are being made, and at the right time, shocking information will be coming out, but on Corbett and Jubelrier, not others being charged.
Valdez Is Coming & Justice Is Coming With Him!
Anonymous said...Time’s a ticking, boys, times a ticking. February 22, 2010 8:15 PM"
ReplyDeleteA Grand Jury, is a prosecutor's tool. A prosecutor is free to present anything that encourages an indictment and withhold information that would preclude an indictment.
This is how Prosecutors misuse the Grand Jury system for political gain.
The Prosecutors choose whom they will charge and whom they will not investigate.
When prosecutors vicariously and maliciously select who will be tried, without a thorough investigation or lie to a private jury, they are in effect preempting and exercising the powers of the judicial branch and public juries.
They are contravening the cornerstone of our federal and state Constitutions - the separation of powers.
Prosecutors, totally ignored the witnesses, coercion, withholding of exculpatory evidence, and perjury. They actually abet the lies of witnesses for their own career goals, not for justice.
As I related in giving Immunity, Prosecutors have enormous liberty in determining what is a legitimate case.
Prosecutors do not have to verify the truth of an allegation (an assertion made without proof) and the veracity of witnesses before they file a criminal pleading.
In this way, Prosecutors can ruin lives and reputations at will. Here follows an example.
Often, the Prosecutors and their Witnesses violate the law relating to perjury and obstruction of justice.
Criminal trials are costly and even with a favorable outcome, some will remain with the belief that the accused was guilty.
Some prosecutors have claimed that the accused was vindicated by a jury on the basis of a technicality - that of innocence.
The falsely accused can bring action against the accuser but has no recourse against the prosecutor because of immunity.
This is something few witnesses know, and only after they find out, do they turn on the Prosecutors, but the Prosecutors are long gone by that time hiding behind Imunity for themselves.
So, hope they keep their jobs, they will be paying off the others legal fees and damages.
Here is what upsets me so much on these clever selected cases by AG Corbett.
ReplyDeleteA prosecutor charges a man with rape.
The prosecution does not present physical evidence that the crime occurred because it does not exist.
The defense proves that the defendant was at a reunion with friends and relatives some 500 miles away when the alleged rape occurred.
The prosecutor claims that the witnesses are the defendant's relatives and friends and by these relationships, they would lie for the defendant (in effect, calling them liars - a tort).
Then the defense presents a video tape, recorded by a store's security camera, and a credit card voucher signed by her.
The video tape depicts the accuser purchasing clothing and signing the voucher at a distant mall at the time of the alleged rape.
The jury convenes and since it cannot return a factual finding of innocence, it has to return a "not guilty" verdict.
However, both the Prosecutors and Accusers usually have no subsequent civil or criminal prosecutions of an accuser and prosecutor under these circumstances, for their lies and failures to not bring the charges.
Thus, Prosecutorial preference is a vestige of the long discredited notion of class ascendancy and is a sign of arrogant self-importance such as AG Corbett's bid for Governor.
Prosecutors convict innocent people for self-gratification, higher social status, political gain, and money.
Of course, they are not alone.
The Prosecutors have the help of dishonest cops, discontented and guilty employees, opportunity snitches, political opponents, and crooked crime lab workers.
These people often received glowing recommendations and other career boosts, by helping the Prosecutors to put on their cases, even if it means others are not investigated or innocent.
Admission of, or reporting wrongdoing hurt a person's career, or changes political power, and often used to cause fear among others that may not go along or told to remain silent.
Only afterwards does everyone learn what happen.
For example, revealing that falsification by forensic chemist led to the wrongful conviction and execution of those accused.
All that happens that once another chemist, discovered the fabrication, that honest chemist has to resign citing a hostile work environment, because she does her job honestly and not a Prosecutors want for convictions.
This is what is going on at Bonusgate Trial.
AG Corbett has had 3 years to investigate the Republican and Democratic Caucuses Senate, but he not performs one investigation.
Corbett claims he is busy on the House, but by the time, any true investigation takes place, he will use the misuse of Immunity Witnesses to be elected Governor.
Regardless of what the entire truth will reveal, Corbett and his Prosecutors will be long gone building their careers on lies of the witnesses they chose to prosecute or exonerate.
Here is what is needed to reform the abuses of AG Corbett's Staffers against anyone that opposes his political accendary.
ReplyDeleteSee if you agree if they are fair proposals and practice sto ensure true justice is practiced not political and career goals for OAG Staffers.
We need new reforms in dealing with malicious attorneys and judges. There is a need for more safeguards.
There should be a public advocate agency that is charged with the investigation and discipline of attorneys and judges.
They should be allowed to randomly audit civil and criminal cases.
Require prosecutors and judges to post a bond (or carry insurance) of some substantial amount ($5 million) to cover legal fees, court costs, loss of employment, loss of property, and intangible losses of the aggrieved person.
Have the power to permanently remove malicious prosecutors and judges from office, when found in error and intended political gain.
Have the power to permanently disbar attorneys and prevent the reinstatement of judges to the bar, when found in particiaption of civil rights violations for political gain.
Publicly censure malicious prosecutors, attorneys, and judges, when found in violation of civil rights.
Maintain a registry of verified complaints, so records of their behavior is open to the public.
All instances of gross misconduct should result in the permanent loss of immunity and civil rights of the Prosecutors and Judges.
Gross misconduct may include:
1. Filing criminal complaint and then dropping it.
2. Destruction of, or concealing evidence of innocence.
3. Theft, destruction, or material alteration of transcripts and court records.
4. Remove time limitations for the discovery of malicious prosecution.
5. Sharply limit the immunity of attorneys, prosecutors, and judges..
6. Apply same penalties to supervisors of prosecutors who know about the illegal practices of a malicious prosecutor and fail to do anything to stop it.
7. Ban pretrial questionnaires. as of now, part of the jury selection process is that the prospective jurors have to complete a lengthy Prosecutors questionnaire on the spot.
This process is a search for biased jurors and not for an impartial jury.
8. Jurors and prospective jurors should be treated with civility and respect.
Too many judges and attorneys arrogantly patronize the public.
The jurors in criminal trials are virtual prisoners of any Judge and the prosecution.
During the trial the jurors can be sequestered for any length of time and their rooms and personal effects were subject to search and seizure.
9. Courtroom testimony should be recorded by tamper revealing technology. This can be implemented with current encryption and compression technology.
10. After deciding for a not guilty verdict, if so moved, a jury might issue a signed certificate of a Factual Finding of Innocence. They can do this privately.
What the Public needs is a Posting in very Courthouse. They should Post a prominent notice in every courtroom that:
ReplyDeleteThe prosecutor is not under oath to tell the truth.
Prosecutors enjoy immunity from civil liability even when they intentionally lie.
Prosecutors enjoy immunity from civil liability even when they intentionally allow perjured testimony.
Prosecutors enjoy immunity from civil liability even when they conceal evidence of innocence.
Prosecutors enjoy immunity from civil liability for intentional wrongdoing against the accused.
Judges enjoy immunity from civil liability even when they abuse the accused, a juror, a witness, an attorney, or another party.
The cause of malicious unlawful convictions doesn’t rest solely in the imperfect workings of our criminal justice system if it did we might be able to remedy most of it.
ReplyDeleteA crucial part of the problem rests in the hearts and souls of those whose job it is to uphold the law.
This is why the Prosecutors that did lower themselves to the Campaign Staffers of AG Corbett's Governors campaign need to stand up to this kind of abuse.
New cases are coming out:
ReplyDeleteTo succeed in an action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove that the prosecution was:
1 Initiated by the defendant;
2 Terminated in favour of the plaintiff;
3 Undertaken without reasonable and probable cause; and
4 Motivated by malice or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect.
The Manzo's hired Karen Steiner-Bladder and dirceted her, not Veon.
ReplyDeleteKaren Steiner-Bladder as proved so far in all testimony, Mike Manzo was the Ring Leader doing all kinds of things on his own for himself, his wife, and his income.
Yet, the OAG whole case depends on Manzo's Honesty?
Hope the Defense gets to show how Karen Steiner-Bladder was big culprit with Manzo's all along.
Manzo is known for Kickbacks too!
The Veon/Cott legal dictionary:
ReplyDeleteProsecutorial Misconduct: when you don't like being charged for what you absolutely did and knew to be illegal.
Hypocrisy: not sure. It's like, not fair, because other people run for office. Maybe they do it the right way, but still... not fair.
Selective Prosecution: screaming "why me?" as a defense?
WITNESS IMMUNITY FOR WITNESSES THAT COMMITTED CRIMES:
ReplyDeleteWhat do we mean by immunity?
Generally in any criminal proceeding before a court or Grand Jury a person may refuse to answer a question or produce evidence of any kind on the ground that (he/she) may be incriminated thereby, if there is a basis for (his/her) refusal.
In The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania we have a law whereby under certain conditions the court may order the witness to testify, and the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of (his/her) privilege against self-incrimination.
However, none of (his/her) testimony or any information derived directly or indirectly from his testimony which was compelled by the court order may be used against the witness in any criminal case, EXCEPT, as with any other witness, a prosecution for perjury or for giving a false statement.
The fact that the witness has been granted immunity with respect to any testimony which might incriminate (him/her) is a factor which you should consider in evaluating (his/her) testimony and in determining the weight you will give to the testimony.
The testimony of such a witness should be given careful scrutiny.
In weighing (his/her) testimony, therefore, you may consider whether in order to obtain the immunity for (himself/herself), (he/she) is telling a lie to you or whether, having been granted immunity, (he/she) is telling the truth.
If you believe this witness to be credible and worthy of belief, you have a right to accept (his/her) testimony in the same manner as any other witness' testimony.
It is important that you understand, however, that the immunity granted the witness is not immunity from prosecution, but simply immunity from the use of (his/her) testimony against (him/her) in a criminal proceeding.
In other words, what (he/she) is saying in court or any information derived directly or indirectly from what (he/she) says in court may not be used against (him/her) in a criminal proceeding by the State, but the State is not precluded from prosecuting (him/her) for a crime on other evidence that is not derived directly or indirectly from (his/her) evidence given here in court.
All witnesses at all times, irrespective of any immunity claims, are subject to perjury charges if they lie in sworn testimony.
ReplyDeleteMany years ago, a lower-level judge in New York City purchased coffee from a street vendor, but did not like it.
ReplyDeleteHe had the vendor arrested, put into handcuffs, and then dragged before the snarling judge in his courtroom to be lectured on the evils of bad coffee.
The outraged vendor sued and won a large judgment, but SCOTUS (US SUPREME COURT) stepped in and overturned the verdict (and the judgment, of course) and ruled that since the judge was sitting on his bench, he had the power to do whatever he pleased.
In subsequent rulings, courts have spread immunity to prosecutors and police and others in government "acting in their official duties." The reasoning of the courts and legislators (who also have written immunity into various statutes) is that the duties that these government employees are so important that they cannot work under the stress of being sued for their misconduct.
For example, Michael Nifong, the architect of the infamous Duke case, is claiming that the law protects him for whatever he did in that case; the reason he is legally vulnerable, it turns out, is that Nifong also directed the police investigation of the case, and it was as an investigator that he engaged in much of his egregious conduct. However, he has absolutely no legal vulnerability for his lying in court, his public statements, his desperate attempts to manipulate the case timelines, and his changing of the charges after the infamous December 15 hearing in which attorneys were able to get one of his star witnesses to admit that he and Nifong agreed to withhold important exculpatory evidence.
(Nifong’s vulnerability came because the North Carolina State Bar was able to file charges against him, and ultimately disbarred him for what he did as a prosecutor. Likewise, Judge W. Osmond Smith III jailed Nifong for a day for lying in court to him about the evidence. However, the real victims of Nifong’s predations could do nothing regarding what he did in his "official" prosecutorial actions.)
Likewise, the police in Durham are claiming the same immunity and the two judges, Ronald Stephens and Kenneth Titus, who gave Nifong a free hand in their courtrooms to do a number of outrageous things, are absolutely immune for their official actions.
Whether or not the federal judge handling the civil case will agree with the police officers is another matter.
If one steps back and examines the reasons given for immunity, they translate to the following:
Judges and Legislators are not willing to expose the government employees in the "justice" system to legal liability because it might "distract" them from their duties or make them legally vulnerable.
This reasoning is rich, very rich, and absolutely ironic.
What they are saying is that police and those employed by the courts should not be subject to the very legal procedures that they force upon the rest of us.
They are saying that they cannot trust the courts to do what is right if THEY are sued.
The same people who drag us into court, who charge us with ridiculous "crimes," and who impose judgment after judgment on us, cannot possibly be expected to face the system that governs the rest of us, as it might "distract" them from their duties.
That should strike everyone as hypocritical at best and utterly dishonest at worst.
If the court system is good enough for us, why is it not good enough for the people who are in charge of that system?
The Corbett Legal dictionary:
ReplyDeleteProsecutorial Misconduct: When you never investigate your own Political Friends in Power in the Republican senate, because Mike Long that worked on State Time and took the biggest Bonuses on Pro Tem Senator Jubelrier is now working for Corbett Campaign?
Hypocrisy: not sure. It's like, not fair, because other people run for office like Joan Orie Melvin and her sister Senator Joan Orie and Senator Ward campaigned on State Time but never investigated by AG Corbett? We never know if maybe they do it the right way, but still... not fair.
Selective Prosecution: Screaming "why me?" as a defense? AG Corbett Staffers, WHY NOT US? WE DID IT TOO!
This Bonusgate Trial reminds me of the old Soviet Union, which had "yellow-curtain" shops in which only those who were paid in "Class-D Rubles" could shop.
ReplyDeleteThose were the people who were politically-connected and who either were members of the Communist Party or who had the most "prestigious" jobs.
All of the other workers in the "Workers’ Paradise" were paid in regular Rubles and were not permitted to enter those stores.
AG Corbett Staff and selective subsequent investigations is precisely that of the "yellow-curtain" shops; all Lawmakers are equal, but those employed as police officers, prosecutors, and judges are more equal than everyone else.
If lawsuits for misconduct should not be imposed upon these miscreants, then why should the rest of us be left vulnerable to them?
If these legal procedures are good enough for other Americans, then why are they not good enough for the government "law" employees?
We cannot make police, prosecutors, and judges into honest people. However, we also have to understand that the very immunity that protects these government employees also provides a powerful incentive for fundamentally dishonest people to seek these careers.
ReplyDeleteWhat other line of work permits those duly employed to lie, to kill, to kidnap, and to engage in other acts of oppression and bullying with almost no consequences for such behavior?
It is not enough to say that lawsuits would "distract" these "public servants" from their duties (as is claimed).
After all, everyone outside this "justice" system faces such lawsuits, and the courts have ruled that such suits are just fine.
As we have seen in the current economic meltdown, ultimately the lies that some of the players attempted to foist on the market were discovered, and the market participants exacted a brutal form of justice.
That does not happen in the "justice" system.
Instead, when someone like Nifong actually does face some small consequences for criminal behavior, we are told that it is "extraordinary."
Wow! A prosecutor lies in court, hides evidence, foists a major frame on innocent people, and we are supposed to believe that it is "extraordinary" that he loses his job.
No, we cannot make sociopaths like Tom Corbett or Michael B. Nifong honest people.
However, we can take away their legal immunity and make them vulnerable to the same sanctions that the rest of us face.
That would provide a small amount of justice in a system in which the participants no longer care about being just.
No, the reasons given are not morally or even legally legitimate.
They are nothing but an exercise in raw power, the power of the state.