Far be it from us to speculate on the motives of the Tribune-Review, which heretofore has been Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's biggest cheerleader.
But as the prosecution's "bonusgate" case against Mike Veon and company appears to be crumbling around Corbett, the Trib appears to be clearing a little room on its dance card.
The disaster unfolding in Courtroom One of the Dauphin County Courthouse is not listed among the reasons Rohrer might best Corbett in the upcoming Republican primary. No, Rohrer deserves a second look because he "understands budgets better than the vast majority of lawmakers." He'll "be a formidable debater." Or perhaps it's just that he "might be in the right place at the right time."
Unspoken is the fact that Corbett just may have wasted three year's time, millions of dollars and untold Commonwealth resources on a politically-motivated investigation with very little to show for it.
If Corbett's biggest boosters are now searching for an escape hatch, can the crashing and burning be far behind?
GERLACH MADE A BIG MISTAKE DROPPING OUT!
ReplyDeletedeadline for filing petitions for the office of governor is 5pm on Tuesday, March 9, 2010. It would appear that the GOP needs a qualified candidate to apply. TAKE HEED.
ReplyDeleteI criticized Tracie Mauriello Reporter of the Post-Gazette earlier on her Tweets and reporting of what was going on at Trial.
ReplyDeleteI am now praising her, she has been far better, more focused, and outright very professional, and it needs to be recognized.
When someone changes and improves one needs to say it, I just did.
Way to go Tracie, you stepped up, not off!
Anonymous said...deadline for filing petitions for the office of governor is 5pm on Tuesday, March 9, 2010. It would appear that the GOP needs a qualified candidate to apply. TAKE HEED.
ReplyDeleteMarch 1, 2010 10:16 PM
Not going to happen, it is Corbett's to lose.
However, Specter just took the lead in the Democratic Primary.
I still suspect, there is going to be a September or October surprise, on the Republicans.
Remember, Specter knows where all the bodies of politic on state time are buried better than Corbett's group.
District Attorney Steve Zappala Grand Jury is still being presented, and will be out before the election.
In addition, Specter is on the Judiciary Committee, and for far too long too many Republican Prosecutors have been prosecuting Democrats to win key elections.
Never forget tables are meant for turning, and people are bound to change.
Plus, bridges are meant for burning, when the people and memories they join are no longer the same!
We shall see!
From I have read on twitters, there is no question, Veon's Lawyers have placed him in a great position for an easy Appeal, Hung Jury, or Acquittal.
ReplyDeleteCorbett's AG Prosecutors just defined their illegalities too broad, conducted sloppy outright violation of Pennsylvania Bar Rules, and there evidence is not standing up to Cross-Examination at this Trial.
Corbett thinks it is enough to bne elected to governor, until other evidence comes out on his own investigation and himself.
Why the Immunity Witnesses have to lie and why they are being caught in lies:
ReplyDeleteThe current sentencing situation is a sort of witch's brew of a poison put together making an abominable poison:
Conspiracy charges bring in the lowest level offenders that were caught in their own crimes and thus become eligible to testify against others targeted by the Prosecutors.
The only way they can avoid Prison Time is to provide substantial assistance to a prosecutor and if it means telling a wild story to avoid Prison, there are many people who will do that.
Also, do not forget, that it is the prosecutor who decides whether or not your substantial assistance, your testimony, is good enough to get the prosecutor's motion to reduce your sentence.
So the incentive is, "I'll tell any story I can." I mean these aren't exactly saints that we're dealing with here, these people broke work rules, sought out bonuses, and did campaign work on their own, then caught, said they were made to do it.
Yet, after cross-examination all of sudden they all have said Mike Veon never ordered them to do it.
They are people who are often very desperate.
They realize, "If I can get five years instead of 30 years, if I tell a story against that other guy, tell me what I have to say, I'll say it."
Even worse, none of them wants to pay back the bonuses they have said under oath was criminal according to the OAG standards.
Even AG Corbett is not making them payback the bonuses even as he alleges they are criminal and taxpayers money?
Keeping their jobs has been an OAG Agreement as well; yet, the AG is claiming he is protecting taxpayer’s money?
Recent investigative reports in major newspapers across America document that excess by prosecutors, both federal and local, is on the rise and often in flagrant violation of the very laws prosecutors are sworn to defend.
ReplyDeleteFrom Boston to Los Angeles, from Seattle to Pittsburgh and all points between, intensive media exposes reveal that our nation’s vaunted “War on Crime” has become a war on the rights of American citizens.
And the dark side of that war is finally coming to light:
Prosecutors who cheat.
Prosecutors who cut corners.
Prosecutors who knowingly offer false testimony and fabricated evidence.
Prosecutors who conceal evidence of innocence from the defense and the court.
Prosecutors who trample defendants’ rights, and the Constitution.
Why? Because to them, winning isn’t everything — it’s the only thing.
That win-at-any-cost attitude is a national problem, occurring in federal, state and county courthouses across the country.
Cases such as that one inspired Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter Bill Moushey’s 1996 investigative series “Protected Witness,” in which he explored the federal witness protection program, a secretive bureaucracy that rewards high-level, often violent, organized crime figures and drug kingpins who turn in their underlings.
While investigating “Protected Witness,” the Post-Gazette says, Moushey uncovered more than 100 cases in which defendants, lawyers and witnesses questioned the motives and actions of federal agents and prosecutors.
He expanded his research, contacting families, academics, advocates and congressmen; interviewing lawyers, many of them former federal agents and prosecutors themselves, and hundreds of federal inmates.
He had soon collected more than 14 boxes of misconduct complaints, based on an examination of more than 1500 cases coast-to-coast. It was that research that became the basis for his recent series “Win at All Costs,” which ran in the Post-Gazette November 22 through December 13, 1998.
“Hundreds of times during the past ten years, state and federal agents and prosecutors have pursued justice by breaking the law,” Moushey says in his series.
“They lied, hid evidence, distorted facts, engaged in cover-ups, paid for perjury and set up innocent people in a relentless effort to win indictments, guilty pleas and convictions.
Rarely were these federal officials punished for their misconduct.
“Victims of this misconduct sometimes lost their jobs, assets and even their families.
Some remain in prison because prosecutors withheld favorable evidence or allowed fabricated testimony.
Some criminals walk free as a reward for conspiring with the government in its efforts to deny others their rights.”
Strong words, but Moushey backs them with case after case of injustice. “Perjury,” Moushey concludes, “has become the coin of the realm in federal law enforcement.”
He quotes a former U.S. Attorney, appointed by Ronald Reagan for the Middle District of Florida.
“It’s a result-oriented process today, fairness be damned,” said Robert Merkle, who served from 1982 to 1988. "The philosophy of the past ten to fifteen years [is] that whatever works is what's right.”
The Court denied absolute immunity to prosecutors who had fabricated evidence ... a misuse of investigative techniques legitimately directed at exploring ... by absolute immunity even if he or she is instructing the witness to lie....410 F.3d 630
ReplyDeleteCorbett Cell Calls Could Be A Problem
ReplyDeleteSeemingly a "catch-22" for candidate
MARCH 2, 2010 | by JIM PANYARD
E-MAIL PRINT SHARE COMMENT (0) TEXT SIZE A A A
State Attorney General Tom Corbett has said he frequently uses his campaign cell phone to call his office when he is on the road or campaigning for governor across the state.
It appears, however, the state's chief law enforcement officer may have violated state campaign laws by doing so.
What Mr. Corbett and his staff have claimed is the use of his campaign cell phone actually saves taxpayer dollars since he is not using his state taxpayer funded phone. Attorney General Tom Corbett may have violated state campaign laws by using his cell phone to call his office. Photo courtesy of the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General.
According to the Pennsylvania Election Code, expenditures, in this case the payment or reimbursement of Mr. Corbett's campaign phone bills, are defined as being used "for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election... (or)...to compensate any person for services rendered to a candidate or political committee."
It might seem like making a mountain of the proverbial mole hill, except Mr. Corbett is prosecuting 25 State House members, former members, and staffers for using tax dollars to run political campaigns, while he is simultaneously running for the Republican nomination for Governor.
This leads to the question of whether Mr. Corbett's campaign phone calls to the Attorney General's office were for campaign business or official business.
If for campaign issues, the calls would be in violation of the law for having state employees engage in political activities on taxpayer time. If for official business, it would represent a use of campaign funds for purposes other than "...influencing the outcome of an election..." an apparent violation of campaign laws.
Section 1634.1 of the State Election Code calls for fines of up to $1,000 per violation of the code and up to a year in jail. Additionally, willful violations can result in removal from elected office.
Under state law the prosecution of such offenses must be brought through the Attorney General's office.
The Attorney General's office did not return calls seeking comment on this issue.
Jim Panyard is a reporter for the Pennsylvania Independent. He can be reached at Jim@PAIndependent.com
Related : Elections and Campaigns
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
BECOME A FAN ON FACEBOOK
RSS FEEDS
MY PA INDEPENDENT
PA Independent
PAindependent
PAindependent State's Unemployed See Benefits Shortened http://ow.ly/16HFKk 3 hours ago reply
PAindependent Corbett Cell Calls Could Be A Problem http://ow.ly/16HCku 5 hours ago reply
PAindependent Poll: Pennsylvanians Overwhelmingly Distrust Government http://ow.ly/16Hw9F 9 hours ago reply
PAindependent Alternate State Pension Plan Would Cost $8 Billion http://ow.ly/16H5Ti yesterday reply
PAindependent Holden's Office Mum on Mailings http://ow.ly/16H1ZW yesterday reply
Join the conversation
I hope Rohrer does win the primary. Jack Wagner will wipe the floor with his ass in November. And yes, I am assuming Jack will easily beat Onorato in the primary...even though Danny Boy has a good amount of cash in the coffers. Jack has got one thing that Dan will need to spend plenty of money to get and that's statewide name recognition.
ReplyDelete-E
How are these attacks going, guys? Need any new ideas for your defense? I would love to hear Rayovac say that scientology made you do it.
ReplyDeleteLewis, who no longer works for the House, testified under a grant of immunity.
ReplyDeleteUnder cross-examination by Veon attorney Dan Raynak, Lewis acknowledged that she never heard Veon tell her to campaign on state time without taking leave. But she also insisted he was unquestionably in charge, was copied in on campaign-related e-mails and that she believed he knew exactly what his staff was doing.
"In our world -- Rep. Veon's office -- you don't dare cross him," Lewis said.
Raynak said after the hearing that Lewis was unable to give specific reasons to back up her opinions
HHHHHMMMMNNNN.....Did we not read how Jason Lawerence refused to do any campaign work off state time, and he was given a letter of recommendation from Jen Brubaker,,,,,,guess Veon was not the beast Lewis tried to described under oath, after all!
@ Anonymous 11:28
ReplyDeleteThe letter came very early in my tenure, even before the '05 Minger special election.
Ms. Brubaker's tone after my failing to participate in that election or the '06 primary changed dramatically--threatening to fire me.
I sincerely doubt that letter would have been forthcoming at that point in time and going forward. But my admission was long-secured by then, and I was in the last two or three months of my employment in Harrisburg.
So there's really no basis for comparison there. But since you bring it up, there is a basis for comparison between the threat of firing and Ms. Lewis' testimony that toeing the line of doing campaign work on state time, and aiding and abetting theft from taxpayers (see the current testimony about basketball dinners) was the only choice one had, if one was relying on their Harrisburg job as their career.
Fortunately I was not--am not now, and never will be--which gives me a good deal of latitude to speak openly and truthfully. After all, who am I going to upset, convicted felons and their conspirators?
Anonymous said...How are these attacks going, guys? Need any new ideas for your defense? I would love to hear Rayovac say that scientology made you do it. March 3, 2010 8:41 AM
ReplyDeleteWhatever do you mean, Melissa Lewis just testified Veon did not know about her leave slips, or order her to campaign?
The OAG showed all these Leave Slips, but can never prove Veon's Job was to oversee every one of these Leave Slips, this is why Staffers were hired to do it.
Yet, Staffers such as Melissa Lewis got caught signing her own Leave Slips and then cooperates with the AG to prevent herself from prosecutions.
None of the AG Immunity Witnesses has yet to provide any proof Veon order and oversaw their crimes, they gave nice opinions, beliefs, and they thought, but that is not proof.
These are adults, not children, they knew their jobs and rules, and trying to blame others will not wash with the Jurors.
This has been proven by every witness so far, except Smith that will be brought back since she refused to answer Defense Questions.
No one is arguing Selective Prosecutions, but the AG ignored that Bonuses can be given out for many reasons not campaign work and it is not a crime like the AG thinks, the Defense is showing it with every witness and will continue to do so, why are you so worried the AG may lose his cases?
It seems so odd that the Attorney General did not bring you in to testify to the grand jury, given all your first-hand knowledge of criminal activity and willingness to speak so openly (so willing that you used an alias to post here and then blocked access to your profile in a panic that someone would find out who you are)
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine why. Is the OAG even more incompetent than the current state of the case would indicate? Or did you simply have no first-hand knowledge of anything illegal?
PoliticsPA: Toomey declines to endorse Corbett
ReplyDeleteBy Alex Roarty
PoliticsPA Staff Writer
roarty@politicspa.com
HARRISBURG — Pat Toomey, just minutes after receiving the state Republican Party’s endorsement, said Saturday afternoon that he will not endorse any other GOP candidate running in 2010, including Republican gubernatorial front-runner Tom Corbett.
“I’m just going to focus on my race,” Toomey told reporters after being repeatedly asked about a potential endorsement.
Corbett received the state party’s endorsement shortly after Toomey did, and, along with Lieutenant Governor candidate Jim Cawley, shared the stage at the end of the GOP’s meeting as the party’s official ticket.
If party and Corbett officials were bothered by Toomey’s decision not to endorse the endorsed gubernatorial candidate, who faces state Rep. Sam Rohrer in a primary, they didn‘t show it.
“That’s his business,” said state party Chairman Rob Gleason, Jr.
He added later, “I wouldn‘t even pretend to comment on that.”
Brian Nutt, Corbett’s campaign manager, said Toomey’s decision to withhold a formal endorsement is “more semantics than anything else.”
“They’re going to be a lot of opportunities, a lot of events where the three of them will be” at the same event, said Nutt, speaking of the endorsed ticket.
Corbett is the heavy favorite against Rohrer, but his candidacy is one most observers and GOP strategists take seriously.
The state lawmaker is trying to position himself as the fiscally conservative, grassroots alternative to Corbett, who has a law and order background and the support of nearly every Republican official.
An endorsement from Toomey, who remains a favorite of many conservatives, would hurt Rohrer’s message while boosting Corbett’s fiscal conservative credentials.
Toomey’s decision not to endorse cuts both ways. Many of Rohrer’s supporters have been vigilant Toomey backers in the past, and endorsing Corbett might alienate their support.
Toomey was scheduled to speak at Rohrer’s “Mobilize for Liberty” campaign event Saturday, but he did not appear.
“Perhaps communication broke down,” said one of the event’s speakers. “We’re not sure.”
The Toomey campaign had said it had a scheduling conflict that prevented him from speaking.
The Riponsitter (Jason) said...
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous 11:28
The letter came very early in my tenure, even before the '05 Minger special election.
Ms. Brubaker's tone after my failing to participate in that election or the '06 primary changed dramatically--threatening to fire me......March 3, 2010 11:59 AM
But Jason, you were NEVER FIRED, and got a recommendation too, so how can you say Mike Veon was behind it all....
...I mean you are in Law School, you do know what evidence is and you not being FIRED and being given a great recommendation by a Convicted Felon to get you into Law School, is not a threat but Proof that Mike Veon never threaten you at all!
Now maybe Brubaker threaten you but she was under orders from Manzo and Foreman that were proven UNDER OATH, they broke many Laws and misused State resources on their own without many knowing, including Veon and DeWeese?
Now Jason, do you not know the difference between opinions and facts, facts show you were given a recommendation, your opinion that Veon threaten you, is pretty weak, is it not, be honest?
The Riponsitter said...I sincerely doubt that letter would have been forthcoming at that point in time and going forward. But my admission was long-secured by then, and I was in the last two or three months of my employment in Harrisburg. March 3, 2010 11:59 AM
ReplyDeleteJason, "Your Doubt" sincere or otherwise is not proof either.
If you did not need the Recommendation Letter why did you ask for it?
It does ring true, does not compute, and quite frankly, you sound like a liar!
Under oath, no one would believe you, because you asked for the Recommendation, and you cannot just wish it away!
The Riponsitter (Jason) said...So there's really no basis for comparison there. But since you bring it up, there is a basis for comparison between the threat of firing and Ms. Lewis' testimony that toeing the line of doing campaign work on state time, and aiding and abetting theft from taxpayers (see the current testimony about basketball dinners) was the only choice one had, if one was relying on their Harrisburg job as their career. March 3, 2010 11:59 AM
ReplyDeleteJason, the Defense is not even through with the Basketball Dinner Cross-Examination, and you rsuh to a conclusion of guilt, and claim to be in Law School?
Just what is it about the "basketball dinners" that you believe is illegal, Jason? Every lawmaker with a contingency account has used it to purchase meals on days he or she collected a full per firm. The House controller even issued a memo after Veon's arrest clarifying that lawmakers who consume meals purchased with House funds that are served "on campus" (as Veon's Tuesday night dinners were) did NOT have to deduct the cost of the meal from their per diems. We believe that policy has since changed. The only reason Veon was charged was that the Corbett campaign didn't know what contingency accounts were or how they were for or how they were used. You'll note that none of the many, many other lawmakers who used their contingency accounts to purchase meals and collected full per diems has been charged.
ReplyDeleteThe Riponsitter (AKA Jason Lawrence), said...Fortunately I was not--am not now, and never will be--which gives me a good deal of latitude to speak openly and truthfully. After all, who am I going to upset, convicted felons and their conspirators? March 3, 2010 11:59 AM
ReplyDeleteWell, sorry Jason, you are not free to post anything or speak freely on a Criminal Trial going on under Anonymous Name on the Internet as a Chicago Law Student or claiming you have been a witness to a crime.
Second, you are violating the Chicago Law Student Honor Code of Ethics since you say you have wide latitude to discuss anything germane to this Criminal Case.
Third, you have committed Defamation by calling current Defendants CONVICTED and CONSPIRATORS when this is not the truth at all.
Fourth, the only CONVICTED FELONS and CONSPIRATORS are the ones testifying for the Office of the Attorney General.
Consequently, right now you are in violation of Chicago Law Student Honor Code and you are subject to discipline, should a complaint be filed against you.
Let me remind of what you are under at Chicago Law School Ethical Guidelines:
The American Bar Association (ABA), which accredits law schools, does not specifically address academic integrity or student ethics in its standards for accreditation.
All but two of the law schools accredited by the ABA have devised their own academic conduct and integrity rules, according to a 2006 report by the ABA Standing Committee on Professionalism.
The others rely on the policies of the universities to which they belong.
The ABA accredits 200 law schools, all of which report cheating, ethics violations, and broad student violations to their state bar associations, the report said.
The ABA's Standards for Approval of Law Schools reflect the accrediting bodies
expectation that law schools assist the bar in screening prospective attorneys. AM. BAR
ASS'N, STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF LAW SCHOOLS, STANDARD 501(b),
http://www.abanet.orgllegaled/standards/chapter5.html(last visited Apr. 19, 2004).
Standard 501 (b) states that "A law school shall not admit applicants who do not appear
capable of satisfactorily completing its educational program and being admitted to the
bar." [d.
The students of University of Chicago Law School recognize an overriding obligation to ethical conduct.
Each student shall act with honor throughout all phases of law school academic life.
Various ethics issues first arise in connection with admission of
Law students, In fact, the majority of situations involving law student dishonesty most likely stem from applicants' failures to reveal past conduct required to be disclosed on applications for admission to law school.
Engages in any conduct with the purpose of avoiding or circumventing other law school rules governing academic life; attempts to commit any of the above offenses.
Current and former law students, faculty, or an employee of Chicago University University may report suspected Honor Code violations.
All reports of suspected Honor Code violations must be in writing.
Jason, this is not a threat, just asking you check with your Honor Code Ethical Advisers on what you can and cannot post on the Internet during a Criminal Trial, you do not have wide latitude, and in fact of higher duty and obligation to be aware of Anonymous Postings on the Internet in violation of Chicago Law School regulations of Law School Students.
You took torts so you are aware of Defamation of a Business Reputation, but you must have missed The Rules of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers, prospective and current Law Students to become Lawyers. Better, check it out before you continue and find yourself in a pickle you did not know about?
This is not a threat either, just trying to help you know about a Law Student’s Honor Code Provision, so someone does not file a complaint against you.
Signor Ferrari said...The only reason Veon was charged was that the Corbett campaign didn't know what contingency accounts were or how they were for or how they were used. You'll note that none of the many, many other lawmakers who used their contingency accounts to purchase meals and collected full per diems has been charged. March 3, 2010 12:57 PM
ReplyDeleteThis has been the big problem with Attorney General Corbett's Misinterpretation of many laws all along these charges, at the Grand Jury, and his own definition of the law within his own arrogance and ignorance.
Yet, it the AG wasting millions of State Dollars on Criminal Charges he cannot sustain in a Court of Law.
Jason, the only person that begged and asked for a Letter of Recommendation from a CONVICTED FELON is YOU!
ReplyDeleteNo question various law school
ReplyDeleteinterests served by character screening.
These institutional interests
include identifying students who might disrupt a safe and healthy
learning environment as well those whose admission and graduation
might adversely affect the law school's reputation.
Law students are subject to "reputational integrity" and justified law school inquiry about an applicant's past that school admissions personnel make admissions decisions based on
a defined policy or position for evaluating histories of
applicants.
Finally, character and fitness inquiries on law school applications serve consumer interests by identifying potential admissions problems
before the student invests time and money in obtaining a legal
education.
Especially, such questions reveal the hurdles applicants will
encounter in obtaining admission to law practice after law school based on his or her behavior during law school.
Professional responsibility professor and volunteers in the state attorney disciplinary system representatives speak to
first year students, explaining to them the criminal background check
that the State Board will conduct before sworn into the State Attorney License Board.
The Board representatives also
emphasize the importance of candor and the need to amend law
school applications if students did not provide accurate information on their law school applications. Or when a law student’s behavior came under complaint during law school.
Following these presentations,
numerous students amend, triggering the particular schools
procedure for handling application misrepresentation.
The Honor Council review will determined that there was sufficient cause to believe that the applicant may have violated the Honor Code by failing to make
truthful and complete disclosure when brought by complaints of their behavior.
The range of sanctions
under the Honor Code included suspension and expulsion. Depending on the circumstances, counseling may suffice.
During the counseling session, students can learn the purpose of character and fitness inquiries.
In counseling students, the Board expects the schools to explain the fiduciary role of attorneys and the importance of truth telling and candor.
At the end of the session, students should fully appreciate how the lack of candor bears on current fitness to practice law.
Full disclosure: it is imperative that you honestly and fully answer all questions, regardless of whether you believe the information requested is relevant. Your responses on your Declaration are evaluated as evidence of your candor and honest. An honest "yes" answer to a question on your Declaration is not definitive as to the Board's assessment of your present moral character and fitness, but a dishonest "no" answer is evidence of lack of candor and honesty, which may be definitive on the character and fitness issue.
This is notice is on every students the bar application warning on full disclosure and underscore the fact that lack of candor reflects adversely on their fitness to practice.
Third, you have committed Defamation by calling current Defendants CONVICTED and CONSPIRATORS when this is not the truth at all.
ReplyDeleteFourth, the only CONVICTED FELONS and CONSPIRATORS are the ones testifying for the Office of the Attorney General.
Okay--first, I was referring to the latter, since I didn't have a relationship with any of the four defendants, but sorry for not making that clear. But if it'll make you happy--add the word "alleged" in there before conspirators, with my sincere apologies.
Second, I'm no longer a student, so I see no point in the excessive quoting of a code that is, the best I can tell, aimed at honesty on resumes/applications and in taking exams, submitting papers etc. and that only applies to current students.
Third, I've been entirely forthcoming about these events with both my school while I was a student and my future employer. It's not the most fun in the world to have to go to a partner's office and explain why the individual listed as your direct supervisor was charged with multiple felony offenses that--in legal terms--would go to character and fitness...and that in her emphatic words, you had nothing to do with them.
I also underwent an extensive interview with the OAG's office. I guess I kept my head buried in the sand too well to be of use to them.
So, I'm confused as to what I possibly could not have been forthcoming about on my law school application or have lied about since. I'd also cite my willingness to go on the record in the PG as an example of my character and fitness--I still care deeply that the citizens of PA that I served are served with honesty and integrity.
But I'll leave it here--and go speculate as to the outcome of this elsewhere. It's way too echo chambery. I've posted how anyone can get in touch with me--if you want to come out of the shadows (but your lawyer is probably telling you, with good reason, that's a bad idea) and have an actual discussion, please do.
If we could take a break from some loser law student's ramblings and the endless responses for a moment...
ReplyDeleteIsn't anyone concerned that there is a very well explained article about the Attorney General of Pennsylvania either breaking the Crimes Code or the Election Code, all while prosecuting others for allegedly engaging in the same behavior???
He and his crew argue that these are real crimes as they apply to others, and yet he believes his is exempt because he is an office holder seeking a higher office.
Where is that hard-hitting investigative reporting when you need it?
I still say it's a story for 60 Minutes, Dateline, Nightline and the like.
ReplyDelete"AG Accused of the Same Crimes He's Prosecuting"
Just pitch it. Someone will bite.
Poor, poor Mike Veon...he had to eat all that sushi, all that Thai food, all those ribs from the Pit - on the taxpayers...then, he had to take all of those trips to Sturgis, Salt Lake City, and Nashville, along with his wife and Harley's - on the taxpayers...then, as a final insult, he voted himself a $35,000 raise, when the median income of his legislative district is $33k...truly a man of the people!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhile these may be excellent reasons to oust a politician from office, voting for a payraise and using a House contingency account to purchase meals are not criminal offenses, or else every committee chair and member of leadership from both parties would be in handcuffs. (Well, the unpopular Democrats would be in handcuffs. The others would be gently escorted to the local district magistrate).
ReplyDeleteSignor Ferrari said...While these may be excellent reasons to oust a politician from office, voting for a payraise and using a House contingency account to purchase meals are not criminal offenses, or else every committee chair and member of leadership from both parties would be in handcuffs. (Well, the unpopular Democrats would be in handcuffs. The others would be gently escorted to the local district magistrate). March 4, 2010 10:05 AM
ReplyDeleteHere and here, and well said, especially when Senator Jubelrier did the same things, but Corbett never went after him?
The fact is the People ousted both for that pay raise, but only Corbett took that opportunity of unpopularity to try and add convicts clothing to Mike Veon and he great years of Public Service, while ignoring Corbett's Republican colleagues.
This is the type of branding that comes back to haunt you, when you seek out a few to raise yourself, and you know it is wrong, but you keep lying to yourself.
Corbett's is in for a woe of troubles and should be ashamed of himself.
Anonymous said...Poor, poor Mike Veon...he had to eat all that sushi, all that Thai food, all those ribs from the Pit - on the taxpayers...then, he had to take all of those trips to Sturgis, Salt Lake City, and Nashville, along with his wife and Harley's - on the taxpayers...then, as a final insult, he voted himself a $35,000 raise, when the median income of his legislative district is $33k...truly a man of the people!!!!
ReplyDeleteMarch 4, 2010 9:25 AM
Mike Veon like the Man he is, has admitted that mistake publicly, he never ran from his political mistakes in judgment.
Yet, this is not illegal, and it is being used to illegally to put him away for a Governor Campaign.
If it was illegal, Senator Jubelrier and Brightbill, along with Perzel, should be before the Grand Jury on the same charges.
When a Politician loses an election, it is proof; he was rejected from his people.
Mike Veon accepted it and it does not erase the over 30 years of Public Service, not excuse AG Corbett for his own duplicity of staging these events as proven on Cross-Examinations by the Defense Attorneys.
Anonymous said...I still say it's a story for 60 Minutes, Dateline, Nightline and the like. "AG Accused of the Same Crimes He's Prosecuting" Just pitch it. Someone will bite. March 3, 2010 9:35 PM.....
ReplyDeleteIt is not a story, it is a fact, and it will come out eventually.
Corbett does not know it, but he has crippled his own career no matter where it takes him.
Corbett is a Nifong in gestation waiting to break an egg!
Anonymous said...Third, you have committed Defamation by calling current Defendants CONVICTED and CONSPIRATORS when this is not the truth at all. Fourth, the only CONVICTED FELONS and CONSPIRATORS are the ones testifying for the Office of the Attorney General. Okay--first, I was referring to the latter, since I didn't have a relationship with any of the four defendants, but sorry for not making that clear. But if it'll make you happy--add the word "alleged" in there before conspirators, with my sincere apologies. March 3, 2010 4:35 PM
ReplyDeleteWell, nice to see you admitted it, you do know that Business Reputation Tort Actions require no proof of damages, just that you said it or published it, to a third party, and it was false in content.
You still should be ashamed of yourself for forgeting the alleged, but thank you for the admission anyway.
Second, I'm no longer a student, so I see no point in the excessive quoting of a code that is, the best I can tell, aimed at honesty on resumes/applications and in taking exams, submitting papers etc. and that only applies to current students.
Third, I've been entirely forthcoming about these events with both my school while I was a student and my future employer. It's not the most fun in the world to have to go to a partner's office and explain why the individual listed as your direct supervisor was charged with multiple felony offenses that--in legal terms--would go to character and fitness...and that in her emphatic words, you had nothing to do with them.
I also underwent an extensive interview with the OAG's office. I guess I kept my head buried in the sand too well to be of use to them.
So, I'm confused as to what I possibly could not have been forthcoming about on my law school application or have lied about since. I'd also cite my willingness to go on the record in the PG as an example of my character and fitness--I still care deeply that the citizens of PA that I served are served with honesty and integrity.
But I'll leave it here--and go speculate as to the outcome of this elsewhere. It's way too echo chambery. I've posted how anyone can get in touch with me--if you want to come out of the shadows (but your lawyer is probably telling you, with good reason, that's a bad idea) and have an actual discussion, please do.
Anonymous (AKA Jason Lawerence Riponsitter) said...Second, I'm no longer a student, so I see no point in the excessive quoting of a code that is, the best I can tell, aimed at honesty on resumes/applications and in taking exams, submitting papers etc. and that only applies to current students.
ReplyDeleteThird, I've been entirely forthcoming about these events with both my school while I was a student and my future employer. It's not the most fun in the world to have to go to a partner's office and explain why the individual listed as your direct supervisor was charged with multiple felony offenses that--in legal terms--would go to character and fitness...and that in her emphatic words, you had nothing to do with them. I also underwent an extensive interview with the OAG's office. I guess I kept my head buried in the sand too well to be of use to them. March 3, 2010 4:35 PM
My on my, with your backtracking of what you posted, it is clear your fitness to practice law should be questioned?
You have admitted to Business Reputation Defamation and your posting of trying to correct it in a backhanded apologies are proof of your guilt, not exoneration.
You first posted how you were so high and mighty when it came to judging others other OAG Investigation, and now you say you took a dive during the OAG interview investigation, proving you have a dubious character, to say the least, and even in your own words, wow!
Yep, you should post here you are the biggest Hypocrite Poster to appear here!
Anonymous (AKA Riponsitter) said...
ReplyDeleteSo, I'm confused as to what I possibly could not have been forthcoming about on my law school application or have lied about since. I'd also cite my willingness to go on the record in the PG as an example of my character and fitness--I still care deeply that the citizens of PA that I served are served with honesty and integrity. But I'll leave it here--and go speculate as to the outcome of this elsewhere. It's way too echo chambery. I've posted how anyone can get in touch with me--if you want to come out of the shadows (but your lawyer is probably telling you, with good reason, that's a bad idea) and have an actual discussion, please do. March 3, 2010 4:35 PM
You bet you are confused, you say in some posts "you are honest and forthcoming", and in others, you admit you kept things from the Prosecutors in your OAG interviews.
You commit actionable torts against other people, and now you claim you are fit to practice law?
Hey...I know...maybe Mike can lead the pay raise effort in Cell Block D...Brett can coordinate the campaign!
ReplyDelete"You bet you are confused, you say in some posts "you are honest and forthcoming", and in others, you admit you kept things from the Prosecutors in your OAG interviews."
ReplyDeleteHaving read this sordid thread, I don't see what you could possibly construe as him saying he kept things from the OAG.
If you're referring to the head in the sand line, you're torturing the English language. Any reader not bent on laughably distorting his comments would know what he's saying is that he didn't know enough to provide the OAG with useful grand jury or trial testimony.
But hey, keep doing what you do best--attack, attack, attack...because that's obviously gotten you a lot further than him. Oh wait...
Pray tell, "Anonymous," how on earth would you know whether your fellow poster has gotten further in life than the esteemed Mr. Lawrence?
ReplyDeleteAnd it the esteemed Mr. Lawrence didn't know enough to provide any useful information to the OAG, what is the foundation for his assertions here on this forum?
Dear Mr. Lawrence, how can we miss you if you won't go away? LOLLOLLOL
Raynak wants to know where the evidence is that these people did no legislative work.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the Defense is right on challenging the AG Office on how they ignored exculpatory evidence before the Grand Jury.
The AG Office often said in all of their Presentments that no legislative work was conducted, or that staffers never worked on legislative work, the tried to bolster their charges with testimony by their state paid witnesses and guilty pleaders when they presented their case.
Yet, on Cross-Examination, every one of the state witnesses and guilty pleaders had to recant their previous testimony, and admit, legislative work was conducted or they did not know and the words "Never," "No Work," were false as presented by the AG Office after all.
This is what happens when you try to make a case where there is none, and the AG Office has to rely on state paid liars and convicted felons to make their case while ignoring the exculpatory evidence they refused to admit at the Grand Jury Hearings.
Anonymous said...But hey, keep doing what you do best--attack, attack, attack...because that's obviously gotten you a lot further than him. Oh wait...March 4, 2010 3:36 PM
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about AG Corbett's Prosecutors conduct or Corbett's Campaign, they have been on the attack for over 3 years now?
Anonymous said...Having read this sordid thread, I don't see what you could possibly construe as him saying he kept things from the OAG.
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to the head in the sand line, you're torturing the English language. Any reader not bent on laughably distorting his comments would know what he's saying is that he didn't know enough to provide the OAG with useful grand jury or trial testimony. March 4, 2010 3:36 PM
What is laughable is your own excuse making for Jason and then claiming someone distorted Jason's words?
Jason's used his own words to catch himself, no one posted them for him but him, he apologized, admitted he made mistakes in his judgments, and in his own words bragged about how he side-step the OAG and was clever enough to used them to avoid any testimony.
So much for your attacks on Casa and spin on Jason, you now look like a clown, and it is due to your posts, not anyone else!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHey...I know...maybe Mike can lead the pay raise effort in Cell Block D...Brett can coordinate the campaign!
March 4, 2010 1:23 PM
I doubt they will end up where alleged Senator Jane Orie and Senator Ward may end up.
The Zappala Grand Jury is almost finish, and their Computer Disc Traces, are something one cannot take back after staffers giving testimony before a Recorded Grand Jury along with Video Taping of working on Campaigns, results in convictions based on real evidence, not made up twisted testimony.
Zappala did it right, unlike AG Corbett attempts to find crimes by a Runaway Grand Jury directed by his Staff, that was not recorded and built on convicted liars testimony that has been destroyed on Cross-Examination.
Political Blowbacks are not good for anyone.
This is what happens when one contrives Prosecutions for political gain.
There are always unintended consequences that are suffered by innocent people due to the uncontrolled aggressor law enforcement agency.
The staffers suffering from such tactics, the Political Blowback typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political persecution without a discernible direct cause, because such non-crimes were ill defined by a sordid Attorney General bent on higher office.
Elliot Spitzer experienced it in spades, so did District Attorney Nifong in his persecution of the Duke University false rape charges.
When the Attorney General misdirects his focus on the public whose name the law enforcement say they are acting upon to protect.
Only to find later that the agency acted, thinking the public will remain ignorant of the effected secret political attacks on their political opponents will never become known in time.
A counter reaction happens such as a Political Blowback that provoked such political revenge or a counter-attack against them, revealing their wayward purpose.
Specifically, Political Blowback denotes the resultant, wrongful consequences of poorly conducted Grand Jury hearings, reported as news fact, by and for media purposes, for a campaign goal over a true sense of justice and ignoring to investigate his own Political Party.
When AG Corbett in a deliberate and intentional act decided to hide his responsibility via media manipulation, it will blowback on him, not protect him.
Generally, Political Blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret political strategy operation, thus, it is synonymous with consequences of attacks on political opponents making them victims.
In turn, the other Political Party seeks revenge and justice using the exact same AG Corbett accusations against his own political party that thinks, the their own responsible political leaders are invulnerable.
In the end, they wish they never brought such false charges since the blowbacks captures their own political operations, staffers, and lawmakers, as defined by their own misdeeds.
I remember when so-called mighty moral Republican Congressional and Senatorial Leadership went after President Clinton for his sexual deeds on Federal Time, then all of a sudden, Republican after Republican had to admit their own Affairs and resign from Leadership positions.
It was a sad view of MADS, Mutual Assured Destruction Self-Created.
I do not look forward to seeing more Political Blowbacks to unfold before this election year is over!
One thing we hope all the Twitters start to post on during the trial.
ReplyDeleteIt is not that some Jurors are writing down information and taking notes, but it is more important when they writing down information.
If such jurors are writing more during Cross-Examination then it is clear they are listening to the Defense.
If it is when the OAG Prosecutors are presenting their case, then it depends on how many are actually writing down such information.
It would be nice to se some Twitter telling us WHEN the Jurors are writing down the trial testimony.
Tracie has done that but we would like to see more of it.
For Anonymous March 5, 2010 11:26 AM, a little reminder of Political Blowbacks:
ReplyDeleteBush Ignores Blowback For Libby Case Pardon:
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace
(2007-06-06)
Just a day after former Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison for lying to federal investigators in the CIA leak case, President George Bush ignored potentially-devastating political consequences today by issuing a full pardon to Richard Armitage, the unindicted former Deputy Secretary of State who actually leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the media.
Mr. Bush also pardoned columnist Bob Novak, who published the former CIA agent’s name and then withheld the identity of the leaker from prosecutors, along with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, who also knew Mr. Armitage leaked but failed to disclose the fact. The president said he’s still considering whether to pardon prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who also concealed Mr. Armitage’s name while continuing to question Mr. Libby.
White House sources say pardons could also be on tap for former Ambassador Joe Wilson, Ms. Plame’s husband, and the former spy herself.
Although they also have not been charged, an unnamed source said, “The president is a bold man, who may not wait for the courts to render judgment before he dispenses mercy.”
Mr. Armitage, Mr. Novak, Mr. Woodward, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms. Plame and Mr. Wilson remain at large.
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2611
OOPS....FOR AG INVESTIGATOR AGENT SOOP TESTIMONY FALLS INTO THE SOUP AND STOOPS TO STUPID,,,,,,
ReplyDeleteNOW FOLLOW THE BOUNCING AG CHART CREATED BY, OF, AND FOR AG TESTIMONY BY AG AGENTS, COMPLIMENTS OF PPG TWITTER:
AG Soop: "This is state goverment. There are 3,000 employees. ... If leave is not in the system then it does not exist.
Judge shuts Soop down after Raynak complains he is editorializing.
Getting contentious here. Raynak: "I'll make it simple for you sir." Soop: "You don't have to make it simple for me, sir."
Prosecutor Fina objects. Judge says Raynak questions are appropriate & Soop needs to answer.
Raynak is focused right now on which agents Soop talked to when he compiled chart about Romanelli petition challenge.
Raynak suggests that agents have been in court "sitting around on state time doing absolutely nothing." Judge cuts him off.
Judge wants to know if the chart was based on testimony in this trial. Soop says no. He worked in it thruout investigation.
Raynak points out he made mistake on chart. He should not have included name of Janet MacNeil (nee Nero) on chart.
Soop says he made a mistake. Raynak: "You do not proof your work very well, do you?" Soop: "I proof my work."
TSK, TSK, TSK, ONCE AGAIN HAD THE AG PROSECUTORS ALLOWED GRAND JURY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANTS INSTEAD OF CREATING AG CHARTS WITH ERRORS, THEN AG AGENTS SOOP WOULD NOT LOOK SO SO STUPID?
When Attorney General Investigators "often make false arrests, tamper with evidence and commit perjury on the witness stand," according to a draft report of the Mollen Commission, the panel investigating law enforcement corruption, is not news anymore.
ReplyDeleteProsecutors, defense counsels and judges routinely observe police witnesses testify to information that would test the credulity of a 7-year-old.
Yet it is very rare for a judge to reject police testimony as false.
Moreover, despite remarks you quote from prosecutors that they have prosecuted police officers for perjury, it cannot be established and one has neither seen nor heard of such a case in over 16 years.
It is far more frequent when the perjury just cannot be ignored for a prosecutor to offer a previously unavailable plea bargain or quietly let a case be dismissed on procedural grounds.
For defense lawyers, it is heartening to read that those on the Mollen Commission reached the same conclusion about the veracity of many Police Officers, Attorney General Investigators, and Prosecutors that have been reached long ago.
The legislature needs to force law enforcement agencies to impose a few more checks on the activities of its more "creative" investigators, if they choose to identify them instead of ignoring and protecting them for their own ambitions.
Nevertheless, for all the talk of policing law enforcement, we might be better served to question the motives of judges and prosecutors whose tacit approval of lying officers gives them license unabated by law.
It is those responsible for administering justice who can do the most to insure that law enforcement agencies perform their testimonial functions honestly.
When the judges and prosecutors are unwilling or unable to do that, it should surprise no one that perjury by law enforcement agents is common and wrong.
MORE ON OOPS THE AG AGENT SOOP BEING CAUGHT IN SOME MISTAKES OF HIS OWN INVESTIGATION, AND ADMITTING IT UNDER OATH.....
ReplyDeleteRaynak has no more questions. Next: Bill Fetterhoff, attorney for defendant Steve Keefer.
Fetterhoff has questions regarding caucus purchase of millions of e-mail addresses used to send campaign e-mails.
Email: Buxton authorizes Manzo to pay invoice for email list.
The list was to be sent directly to Buxton, according to the invoice.
Fetterhoff is asking Soop about the chart he created listing people who participated in Nader petition challenge.
The names on that chart were culled from data collected by staffer Eric Webb, who testified previously in this case.
Webb list indicated which people worked on campaigns, not where they worked on them.
Fetterhoff points out that 1 witness had said Keefer was in Hbg on days Soop recorded him as being in Beaver Falls.
The dates in question are at the beginning of August 04.
Fetterhoff is asking about another group of dates when Keefer traveled to Beaver.
Fetterhoff asks Soop if he is aware that Keefer was tentatively assigned to work at a legislative event while there.
Fetterhoff points out the event was a Saturday, so Keefer would have been entitled to a comp day for working it.
The event was a children's fair.
LUNCH BREAK, AND NO SOUP FOR SOOPS!
OOPS, SOOP IN THE SOUP OF CROSS-EXAMINATION...THE OAG CREATING THAT CHART AND PLACING IT INTO EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN THE BIGGEST MISTAKE SO FAR IN THE MANY MISTAKES THE OAG PROSECUTORS HAVE MADE AT TRIAL.
CANNOT WAIT UNTIL AFTER LUNCH AND THE PROSECUTORS TELL "OOPS SOOP" WHAT TO SAY ON CROSS IN AFTERNOON...ANY BET IT CHANGES, IMAO!
I feel for OAG Agent Soop, it is not easy having your investigative work reviewed in court and being embarrassed by its shoddy work of mistakes.
ReplyDeleteThe larger problem of "TestiLYING" is perjury and other forms of in-court deception by the prosecution’s witnesses and agents.
This puts prosecutor's point-of-view under question and then what are the prosecutor's legal and ethical duties and obligations?
Once the evidence presented has been discounted on cross-examination, should the prosecutors withdraw it, knowing it is no longer justice to use such destroyed evidence due to their own agents?
These questions, and others, are important to ask, discuss, and answer because a judicial "system" that is supposed to adjudicate guilt and innocence yet permits lies, no matter how small or infrequent, is no system at all.
Under our adversarial system of justice, competing, zealous advocates argue their causes before neutral jurors and impartial arbiters are implicit in such a system are the belief that those zealous advocates should fight fairly.
Using lies does not promote justice; it distorts justice.
The problem of this kind of TestiLYING is immeasurable, problem impervious to quantitative measurement, and thus should not be allowed before a jury.
The term "TestiLYING" was actually coined by police officers in New York City that after being caught in lies, admitted often testify to fabricating evidence.
They testified that they often used the term among themselves to usually refer to perjury committed by fellow police officers, detectives and agents of various law enforcement agencies, in the belief to persuade them that what they were doing was morally acceptable.
Even some prosecutors admitted "TestiLYING" has also been used to describe other forms of in-court deception and is an amorphous problem, not easily understood or fixed, but a real one in our criminal justice system.
The problem with defining "TestiLYING" is that it is a new term to describe a concept that is not easily definable or understandable.
When prosecutors permit witnesses, agents and officers to be deceptive in court, the rationale goes, he is "not quite lying" but "not quite testifying truthfully and completely" either.
They say, TestiLYING is seen as a middle ground between pure honesty and pure dishonesty.
It is because they rationalize they can tread ethically within this middle ground because they feel that they have society's best interests at heart: the conviction of the guilty.
Still, this alleged "ethical middle ground" is perhaps the best evidence of the ethical problems with TestiLYING.
It is an invented word in part to avoid acknowledging that TestiLYING involving committing perjury and other illegal acts.
The fact that they do not call their actions perjury or deception or some other term with clearly unethical implications evinces their belief that TestiLYING, in whatever form, illegal or legal, is somehow justified.
If they believed their actions were clearly wrong, there would be no need to create a new word. Lying, perjury, and deceit all characterize deception negatively.
Yet, prosecutors helping witnesses and agents TestiLYING is seen as morally acceptable, however, because it is deception used against someone (the defendant) who is himself morally blameworthy.
They feel, TestiLYING is viewed as a small moral compromise that can prevent a larger moral wrong, the non-conviction of a guilty defendant.
So, Agent Soop is not just a victim of his own work product, but a victim of the AG Campaign Staff, trying to prove something he cannot verify accurately since it was, is, and for a Campaign Plan, not a sense of seeking true justice.
I will explain more, later!
Here is how Arizona handled TestiLYING as you put it, they created a Brady List, after a Blue Ribbon Panel picked to investigate Pennsylvania Prosecutors, they can create a lists for prosecutors that have credibility issues too, not just police, agents, and investigators.
ReplyDeleteCounty attorney may put Lovejoy on Brady List
Nick R. Martin, Tribune
October 26, 2008 - 6:19PM
Two months after failing to convict him in a criminal trial, the Valley's top prosecutor is considering placing a Chandler police sergeant on a list of discredited cops.
Chandler police Sgt. Tom Lovejoy was acquitted of an animal cruelty charge in August when a judge ruled that the death of his police dog was an accident, not a crime.
Now, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, which lost the case, is considering whether to place Lovejoy on what's known as the Brady List, a compilation of Valley police officers who are said to have credibility issues.
The list, in effect, is a blacklist of sorts for local law enforcement, kept by prosecutors who may need to disclose issues with a witness' credibility at trial.
"I would say, unequivocally, that this was not in response to the not-guilty verdict," Scerbo said.
Lovejoy was charged in 2007 with misdemeanor animal cruelty after leaving his dog, Bandit, in the back of a police vehicle for nearly 13 hours that August, killing him.
Prior to his trial in San Tan Justice Court, Lovejoy and his lawyer spent a year locked in a sometimes ugly battle with the county attorney's office, trying to get the charge dropped.
The letter, dated June3, 2008, asked for "any and all information ... relevant to an integrity issue involving Sergeant Lovejoy as the subject of the investigation."
The letter was sent about two weeks after the Tribune reported that the sergeant was one of eight officers disciplined earlier in the year following an internal police department investigation.
With it, the department included a letter from its legal adviser, Michael McNeff, saying that the city believed the case "does not involve possible Brady Material."
Still, just six days later, the office sent a letter to Lovejoy saying he was being considered for the list.
The so-called Brady List comes from a 1963 Supreme Court ruling that requires prosecutors to tell defense attorneys about any police officers who may have credibility issues on the witness stand.
Some prosecuting agencies use the list sparingly.
For example, the King County Prosecutor's Office in Washington had just 11 officers on its Brady List as of mid-2007, according to a report in the Seattle Times.
In Maricopa County, however, prosecutors had placed 328 officers on the list as of May 2007.
However, he added that he isn't too worried about the consequences.
Being on the list can mean that a defense attorney may get to tear apart the officer's credibility on the witness stand, but it doesn't change his day-to-day police work, he said.
"The Brady List to me is nothing," Lovejoy said. "It doesn't affect an officer's ability to do his job."
Scerbo said he did not known when, if ever, the county attorney's office would decide whether or not to put Lovejoy on the list, but he called the process a "very routine matter."
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/128991
Anonymous 2:00 PM.... You Posted:
ReplyDeleteThe so-called Brady List comes from a 1963 Supreme Court ruling that requires prosecutors to tell defense attorneys about any police officers who may have credibility issues on the witness stand.
Some prosecuting agencies use the list sparingly.
For example, the King County Prosecutor's Office in Washington had just 11 officers on its Brady List as of mid-2007, according to a report in the Seattle Times.
In Maricopa County, however, prosecutors had placed 328 officers on the list as of May 2007.
How Pennsylvania Investigators, Police Officers, and Agents are on this list in Pennsylvania?
Does AG Corbett have such a list in compliance with the Supreme Court Ruling? If not, why not?
I never heard of such a listing in Pennsylvania, can anyone research it, Thanks.
In any criminal case, prosecutors are required by law to alert the other side to relevant problems with officers or witnesses, so that the accused can get fair treatment by being able to challenge their accusers' credibility.
ReplyDeleteThose prosecutors have built the list themselves to spotlight the haphazard way prosecutors learn about officers whose credibility on the witness stand can be attacked.
To be fair, all too often, from the prosecutors' point of view, they find out about problems just before trial, or during trial or plea-bargaining, and they feel blindsided, unable to shore up weaknesses in their cases.
In many instances, prosecutors find out about problems with an agent, witness, or fellow prosecutor at the last minute from a defense lawyer.
Many go on with the case anyway in fear of losing it.
This is the worst way for prosecutors to find these things out, because it destroys the prosecutor's case and is a waste of law enforcement resources, few want to admit too.
Most Defense Attorney's Bar Association have been advocating it for years, and would hope that it would find out from a department independently, but they've prosecutors never do it.
We need more Offices of Professional Accountability to oversee Prosecutors, internal investigations and their behavior is producing witnesses later caught lying under oath, as guided by wayward Prosecutors and Investigators.
Nonetheless, this is good for the Prosecutors too, and especially society.
Some Prosecutors that took it upon themselves to launch a review into dozens of cases of their investigators, witnesses and fellow prosecutors actually saw the blessing in dismissing wrongful cases before they came to trial.
They saved the Offices money and embarrassments of wrongful convictions or worse dismissals based on faulty evidence, secured by their own employees.
The prosecutions of 30 other criminal cases were found in jeopardy, and they avoided a scandal of them.
Now some Police Associations and Prosecutors become upset at Citizen-Review Boards and the Brady Listings.
They blast back, calling the allegations false and suggesting politics were at play. Imagine that, Law Enforcement crying about POLITICS?
Yet, when Citizen-Review Boards reviews the investigations, and Prosecutors Offices have audits including the not just the Chief's role but ambitious political Prosecutors, a higher rate of convictions occur, more than dismissal.
The bigger problem is the qualifications of the Review Boards can become controversial, it is important to have honest and well-educated people on these Boards assisted by Attorneys.
Often the Attorney Generals Prosecutors will be reviewed and their work ends up being monitors to assure society justice equally for all citizens.
Pennsylvania needs to be diligently keeping track of Prosecutors Cass overturn on Appeal, OAG Investigators, and Police Officers with credibility problems.
It is not just a proposal but also the Law of the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Brady v. Maryland.
The 1963 ruling states a prosecutor is obliged to provide the accused with any evidence that might help his or her defense, including information that could be used to challenge the credibility of police officers or other witnesses.
If that information is not handed over, cases could be dismissed, allowing suspects to go free.
The lawyers could face discipline by the State Bar Association.
Moreover, the law presumes that if one attorney in a prosecutor's office knows of a credibility issue with a law-enforcement officer, then the entire office is on notice.
The next time that officer's name comes up in a case, the prosecutor is obligated to turn information over if it is relevant.
There is no excuse, even if some in the office do not know about it.
Prosecutors not in compliance with Brady are in violation of their ethics and subject to discipline at the very least.
Looks like Mr. Soops may be added to the Brady Lists, IF THE PAOAG HAS ONE?
Based on what I heard from the AG Office Investigators, they did a worse job than the AG's Immunity Witnesses and Guilty Pleaders.
ReplyDeleteI guess it only goes to show when AG Agent Investigators tried to lie about their mistakes, they had a tougher time, knowing they could be caught in lies.
You have to wonder why the AG Prosecutors put their own Agent Investigators on last for their cases against the Defendants, now you need wonder no more, they never had a case.
LONG LIVE DISCO
ReplyDeleteIts clear the investigators never "investigated" anything... they listened to the campaign staff and the lawyers who thought they found a crime and then searched for the criminals...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...Its clear the investigators never "investigated" anything... they listened to the campaign staff and the lawyers who thought they found a crime and then searched for the criminals...
ReplyDeleteMarch 5, 2010 11:24 PM
This was clear on how the Agents testified at Trial, they were unprepared, could not proof their work because it was based on lying witnesses prepared by the OAG Prosecutors, and the Cross-Examination showed how poorly the Grand Jury was conducted by the OAG Prosecutors.
When you have pig in slop investigation, then have campaign staffers influence whom will be indicted, and AG Corbett running for Governor, you end up with a travesty of a trial as seen the last 4 weeks.
What is worse they have ruined good people's lives for their own personal gain, and wastwed more Tax dollars than they ever will prove against the Defendants, and they could care less about it.
Shame on AG Corbett and his Campaign Staffers!
Dan Raynak, Veon's attorney, said there was "no credible evidence" linking Veon to a conspiracy to use state tax dollars for political campaigns.
ReplyDelete"If it's garbage in, it should be garbage out now," Raynak told Lewis.
"We believe we've proven the case and wish it would have been shorter. We wish it had been less contentious, and we wish it had been more civil," said Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, who charged yesterday that Veon's defense team deliberately dragged out the case.
The state Attorney General's Office ended its presentation after calling 29 witnesses.
Most commonwealth witnesses were cross-examined by four defense lawyers because of the multiple defendants in the case.
"We covered two witnesses in two weeks. If we had covered two witnesses in one week, we may have called more witnesses," Fina said.
"What they didn't like was us cross-examining their witnesses and showing their true colors," Raynak said.
Cott's lawyer, Bryan Walk, predicted his client would be acquitted.
Lewis yesterday ruled against motions by defense lawyers to dismiss the charges.
He didn't rule on a motion to toss out subpoenas for current House Democratic lawmakers.
Raynak said he believes all of those subpoenaed will testify.
SALVATION COMING TEAM CASA, HERE IS A SALUTE TO YOUR STAMINA, STRENGTH, AND COURAGE IN THE FACE CHARGES THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BROUGHT, EXCEPT FOR THE WANTON AND CARELESS BLIND AMBITIONS OF TOM CORBETT & HIS CAMPAIGN STAFFERS!
ReplyDeleteWell I heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do ya?
Well it goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall and the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Well Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you to her kitchen chair
And she broke your throne and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
Well baby I've been here before
I've seen this room and I've walked this floor
I used to live alone before I knew ya
I've seen your flag on the marble arch
Love is not a victory march
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah
Well there was a time when you let me know
What's really going on below
But now you never show that to me do you?
And remember when I moved in you?
And the holy dove was moving too
And every breath we drew was Hallelujah
Well maybe there's a God above
But all I've ever learned from love
Was how to shoot somebody who'd OUT DREW YA
And it's not a cry that you hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen in the light
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
It will be interesting to see what the defense witness legislators do when put on the stand. The suspense is killing me. I hope it lasts.
ReplyDelete