At this moment, on the hard drives of at least a few editorial writers around the state, there reside two versions of an editorial.
According to one version, Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's case against Mike Veon and company was weak, his witnesses not credible, the evidence thin. Boo!
According to the other, Corbett's case was airtight, his witnesses steadfast and true, the evidence overwhelming. Yay!
The case is over, of course, and the jury continues to deliberate. Anyone who paid attention to the six-week trial has long since drawn conclusions about the worthiness of Corbett's case. What will determine which version of the editorial sees the light of day is not the worthiness of the case, but the verdict.
We doubt there is an editorial writer in the state who is willing to call the case weak if the jury convicts on most charges, or vice versa. To be completely honest, we doubt there is an editorial writer in the state who's paid enough attention to the case to have developed an informed opinion, not that that will stop them from opining. The reporters in the courtroom, and those who followed their Twitter feeds, have a pretty good idea of what transpired. But "mainstream" media coverage has been shallow, cursory and scant.
Our prediction: rather than offer readers a useful analysis of how candidate Corbett has spent millions of taxpayer dollars and countless state worker man-hours over the last three years, editorial boards will treat the case as they treat most complex subjects - like a horse race.
Treating 4 fine people that worked hard for citizens, and loved doing it, and already ruined in many ways, could become worse, is not a Horse Race, it is an outright Political Witch Hunt of simply the worse kind.
ReplyDeleteCorbett is not out for true justice if he was, all 4 Caucuses were have been investigated at the same time, it is a travesty of misuse of Prosecutorial Power for Governorship Ambitions.
I fear Corbett will get away with it, I hope 1 Juror stands up to his OAG, and pray we find better ways to deal with allegations that can be resolved in mutual interest of true justice.
In 2008 DA John Morganelle, Corbett's opponent, stated all the time that all 4 caucuses should have been investigated simultaneously. He said that Corbett gave the Republicans time to get rid of evidence and would NEVER be prosecuted for bonuses. He was right. Corbett admitted when he arrested Prezel that the House R's obstructed justice as to bonuses. Corbett charged Prezel with issues unrelated to bonuses. There is no evidence to pursue against the senate r's and House R's as to bonuses bc Corbett mishandled the investigation as Morganelle said-- but in 2008 the press was so in love with Corbett that Morganelles word fell on deaf ears.
ReplyDeleteI don't know where the adage comes from but its certainly true: NONE ARE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO REFUSE TO SEE.
ReplyDeleteSome people say I'm a no 'count.
ReplyDeleteOthers say I'm no good.
But I'm just a natural-born travelin' man,
Doin' what I think I should,
Doin' what I think I should.
And I don't give a damn about a greenback dollar,
I spend it as fast as I can, all right,
For a wailin' song and a good guitar,
The only things that I understand, poor boy,
Only things that I understand
When I was a little baby,
My momma told, "Hey, son:
Travel where you will and grow to be a man
And sing what must be sung, poor boy.
Sing what must be sung."
You know, I don't give a damn about a greenback dollar,
I spend it as fast as I can, all right
For a wailin' song and a good guitar,
The only things that I understand,
Only things that I understand
Now that I'm a grown man,
I've traveled here and there.
I've learned that a bottle of brandy and a song,
The only ones who ever care,
Only ones who ever care
You know, I don't give a damn about a greenback dollar,
I spend it as fast as I can, all right
For a wailin' song and a good guitar,
The only things that I understand, poor boy,
Only things that I understand
Some people say I'm a no 'count.
Others say I'm no good.
But I'm just a natural-born travelin' man,
Doin' what I think I should,
Doin' what I think I should.
I don't give a damn about a greenback dollar,
I spend it as fast as I can, all right
For a wailin' song and a good guitar,
The only things that I understand, poor boy,
Only things that I understand
Only things that I understand,
Only things that I understand.
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE.....
ReplyDeleteHave you changed your campaign policies in response to the bonusgate scandal?
SO FAR NO CONVICTION, JUST TRIALS ON DEMOCRATS IN AN ELECTION YEAR?
• Legislative staff: How many state employees work for you, even those whose supervisors are technically the caucus leader?
ALL I KNOW MANY OF THE OAG IMMUNITY WITNESSES ALL TESTIFIED THEY DID NO WORK, BUT KEPT THEIR JOBS, PENSIONS, AND BONUSES WHILE ADMITTING THEY HAD NO WORK TO DO??
What are the duties of each?
RIGHT NOW IN THE HDC AND HDCC, THEY ARE MOSTLY TESTIFYING FOR CORBETT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS, BONUSES, AND PENSIONS
How much compensatory time off did they accrue over the past several years?
HOW MUCH HAS CORBETT STAFFERS ACCUMULATED, OH RIGHT, THE MEDIA NEVER LOOKED INTO IT, CAN YOU LOOK INTO IT NOW?
Did any receive bonuses the Attorney General's Office considers to have been rewards for campaign work, and if so, should they have to return the money?
ASK CORBETT, SO FAR NOT A DIME?
Do you make your Harrisburg staff remain on duty, no matter what, on nights when your chamber is in session?
ALTERNATIVELY, WHEN LAWMAKERS ARE WORKING AFTER HOURS, WHILE STAFF GOES HOME?
• Mailings: How often have you sent out mass mailings to people in your district on the taxpayer's dime? Have you tended to send them out as near to the election as the rules allow?
DID CORBETT? CHECK IT OUT!
• Per diems: Do you accept them?
ARE THEY ILLEGAL?
Have you ever collected a per diem the same day you've consumed a taxpayer-paid breakfast, lunch or dinner?
HAVE YOU?
Do you support changing the rules to ban that type of double-dipping?
YEP, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SENATE?
• Legal fees: Do you support your caucus' use of taxpayer money to provide legal representation to members and employees in the public corruption investigation?
DO NEWSPAPERS MAKE THEIR EMPLOYEES PAY FOR ATTORNEYS WHEN YOU ARE SUED?
Have you obtained legal advice regarding the investigation, and did taxpayers pay for it?
TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY FOR NOTICES IN NEWSPAPERS WHEN THE INTERNET IS NOW AVAILABLE.
• Nepotism: Should there be restrictions on hiring relatives to work for the Legislature?
I DON'T KNOW THE NEW YORK TIMES SEEMS TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP TO FAMILY, HOW MANY MEDIA TYPES HAVE THEIR KIDS WORKING IN THE MEDIA LATER?
Harrisburg's political culture brings to mind the cliche about everyone complaining about the weather, but not doing anything about it.
WELL, WHAT HAVE THE NEWSPAPERS DONE ABOUT ASKING WHY REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED AFTER 3 YEARS?
HOW ABOUT YOU? WHY WITH 800 EMPLOYEES NO REPUBLICAN SENATORS INVESTIGATED?
DO YOU THINK EVIDENCE GETS TOO OLD AFTER AWHILE AND COMPUTER DISC DISAPPEAR OR ARE DESTROYED?
Voters who want to see changes in their General Assembly this year might start by asking a few questions.
YEP, ESPECIALLY FROM NEWSPAPER REPORTERS LIKE YOU THAT NEVER LOOKED INTO CORBETT REASONS WHY REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE NOT INVESTIGATED.
OH, THAT IS RIGHT YOU ARE TOO BUSY LECTURING OTHERS HOW TO BEHAVE, WHILE NOT DOING YOUR JOB? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO YOUR JOB AND ASK BETTER QUESTIONS FOR THE TAXPAYERS TO KNOW ABOUT WHY CORBETT TOOK 3 YEARS NOT TO INVESTIGATE SENATORS??
HECK YOU DID NOT EVEN HAVE TO TO PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS ARTICLE LET ALONE INVESTIGATE WHY OTHER INVESTIGATIONS ARE ASKING SO LONG?
LINK:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/state/s_672801.html
RESPONSE IN CAPS:
ReplyDeleteCorruption Case Suggests Questions For State Lawmakers:
By The Associated Press
Monday, March 22, 2010
Analysis
HARRISBURG — Incumbent Pennsylvania state lawmakers will be making themselves seen in their home districts over the next couple of months as they campaign to be returned to the Legislature for another term.
Those speeches to business groups, appearances at fire hall breakfasts and handshaking at parades will provide a perfect opportunity for voters who have decided they don't like what the 3-year-old investigation into legislative campaign practices has brought to light.
On one level, those accused of converting public resources to win political campaigns are being held accountable by the legal system in the form of grand jury reports, criminal charges, guilty pleas and the trial of former House Democratic Whip Mike Veon and three of his aides.
Jury deliberations in that case are expected to resume this morning.
Still, the facts that have emerged so far strongly suggest that the line between campaign work and legitimate legislative business has been kept blurry in Harrisburg, and that many of the people who have benefited may never pay much of a price for it.
ESPECIALLY REPUBLICAN SENATORS AND REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS AND REPUBLICAN JUDGES DUE TO NEWSPAPERS SILENCE ON REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY GENERAL NEVER INVESTIGATING THEM FOR 3 YEARS????
That is where the speeches, parades and pancake breakfasts come in.
I DON'T KNOW, IF REPUBLICAN CAUCUSES ARE NOT INVESTIGATED AFTER 3 YEARS, HOW CAN ANYTHING COME IN???
AFTER ALL, YOU CANNOT MAKE PANCAKES OUT OF STATISTICS.
Along with the usual topics — highway projects, the state budget, property taxes and national political issues — voters might want to ask their local state representatives and senators a few questions about the scandal that has become known as "bonusgate."
IN ADDITION, WHY IT NEVER WAS INVESTIGATED IN THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUSES?
Here are a few suggestions from someone who has followed the investigation since its inception and spent the past two months in the Veon trial courtroom:
WELL, TELL US WHAT DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THE SENATE INVESTIGATIONS, MORE IMPORTANTLY, TELL US WHAT YOU LEARNED SO FAR?
• The investigation: Did your name turn up in any of the four grand jury reports, or during the trial of Veon or Rep. Sean Ramaley, a Beaver County Democrat acquitted in December?
DID JUBELRIERS, SMITH, LONG, BRIGHTBILL????
• Campaign policies: Do you allow your underlings to work on your campaigns?
DOES CORBETT? DID YOU CHECK IT OUT?
What rules are in place to make sure they properly account for any campaign time?
DID THE REPUBLICANS ACCOUNT FOR IT, OH RIGHT, NO RESULTS FROM ANY INVESTIGATION SO FAR?
What efforts do you make to ensure they don't feel pressured to "volunteer" to electioneer for you?
ASK JANE ORIE, JOAN ORIE MELVIN AND ALL REPUBLICAN JUDGES THAT JUST WON THE ELECTION?
OH SORRY, YOU ARE TOO BUSY LECTURING OTHERS HOW TO BEHAVE, INSTEAD OF ASKING QUESTIONS AS A REPORTER THAT FOLLOWED THIS INVESTIGATION?
I FORGET? SO DID YOU?
Do you maintain a separate campaign office?
HOW ABOUT TWO PHONES TOO?
Does anyone on the state government payroll serve as your campaign manager or treasurer?
I DON'T KNOW DID YOU ASK JUBELRIERS OLD CHIEF OF STAFF THAT SERVES FOR CORBETT NOW?
DID YOU EVER FOLLOW UP A QUESTION TO CORBETT ABOUT IT?
Continued below.......
All Lawyers should start to look into Due Process as a Defense against how Corbett has conducted this kind of investigation, brought charges, and Grand Jury Hearings.
ReplyDeleteIt is a Defense ready waiting for a Supreme Court Ruling, and the Supreme Court would look favorable upon addressing it.
The past thirty years of criminal justice policy have witnessed well-documented increases in public fear, politicization of crime, and punitiveness.
There remain many unanswered questions about the relationships among these changes, but one question remains largely unaddressed:
In this context, how have our notions of due process and justice evolved, and how has criminal justice policy reflected them?
A longstanding scholarly consensus holds that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects only rights to legal process.
However, this consensus is starting to be challenged and new challenges are starting to get a second look from an interpretive significance of the classical natural law tradition that made substantive due process textually coherent, and the emergence of public-meaning originalism as the dominant approach to constitutional interpretation.
The Supreme Court should seriously fill those gaps in now that a new age is dawning in electronics, internet, and future paperless society of when perfect evidence from computer date is tainted from imperfect breakdowns or manipulation.
One widely shared understanding of the Due Process Clause in the late eighteenth century encompassed judicial recognition of unenumerated substantive rights as a limit on congressional power.
This notion of substantive due process originated in Sir Edward Coke's notion of a higher-law constitutionalism that understood natural and customary rights as limits on crown prerogatives prosecutions and parliamentary lawmaking.
In actuality, the American colonies adopted higher-law constitutionalism in their revolutionary struggle, and carried it with them through independence and constitutional ratification.
Natural and customary rights limited the exercise of legislative power in the late eighteenth century through the normative definition of law inherited from the classical natural law tradition, which maintained that an unjust law prosecuted in unjust ways was not really a law.
CONTINUED BELOW.....
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE...
ReplyDeleteAmerican judges and attorneys did not consider legislative acts that violated natural or customary rights to be real laws, regardless of their compliance with a positivist rule of recognition.
Accordingly, deprivations of life, liberty, or property affected on the authority of such acts did not comply with the law of the land or the due process of law, because regardless of the process such acts afforded, the deprivations they imposed were not accomplished by a true law.
The classical understanding of law and the substantive understanding of due process that it underwrote are evident in legal dictionaries and in judicial decisions and arguments of counsel during the years immediately before and after ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.
This is the crux of any challenges in the future.
On balance, these authorities show that one widely held public understanding of Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in the late eighteenth century included judicial protection of unenumerated substantive rights against congressional encroachment or prosecutorial misuse.
Given the contemporary dominance of originalist theories of interpretation, an originalist defense of substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment is important for at least three reasons.
1. Such a defense provides a textual footing for important unenumerated substantive rights against the federal government and state government.
2. Due to the original meanings of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses are widely thought to be identical, the originalist defense dramatically alters the interpretive landscape surrounding Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process, placing on its opponents the burden of explaining how and why the substantive understanding of due process in 1791 was lost by 1868.
3. An originalist defense of substantive due process demonstrates that originalism is consistent with the progressive, common law recognition of individual rights that must be advanced in a world where date can be altered, lost, or manipulated.
We read about “due process of law” in two amendments to the Constitution:
The 5th Amendment: No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
The 14th Amendment: ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE....
ReplyDeleteHowever, everyone does not always view the claims of victory by due process model proponents as just or moral for that matter.
On March 21, 2001 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hailed a 6-3 decision by the United States Supreme Court “holding that pregnant women cannot be subject to warrantless, suspicionless searches simply because they are pregnant”.
The issue in question was presented in Ferguson V. City of Charleston, specifically related to a public hospitals policy that pregnant women be subjected to surreptitious drug screens of their urine, results of which were turned over to the police.
The policy resulted in the arrest of twenty-nine women. The ACLU stated that the decision “sends a clear message that even a conservative court is not willing to allow the serious erosion of our basic constitutional rights in the name of the war on drugs.”
The decision in this case provided an example of the continuing debate in respect to the due process model. The decision rendered in Ferguson V. City of Charleston could be considered a weakness or strength of the due process model dependent upon your particular perspective.
It is impossible to know what the future holds in respect to the American justice system.
The future is often determined not by our intentions but by the uncontrollable events we encounter while pursuing our goals.
Criminal Justice administrators may not be able to achieve every goal they set for their agency but they can maintain a clear and focused philosophy.
The crime control through due process model appears to be the best strategy to deal with crime in the days ahead.
It is interesting to note that Frank Scmalleger’s interpretation and combination of the two models appears to be consistent with the very framework laid out by the founding fathers in the United States Constitution when they wrote,
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Only time will tell.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizures stating,
ReplyDelete“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
The law enforcement community repeatedly complains that the Fourth Amendment limits their ability to combat crime.
Careful study reveals that the limitations upon law enforcement actually stem from the various and never ending decisions rendered by the courts in respect to their interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.
New interpretations may expand or further limit the power of the police.
Such changes often cause confusion and are subject to change and new interpretation at any time by the courts.
Furthermore, the due process model does not limit itself to the Fourth Amendment.
The police must also consider the individual rights of the accused in respect to many of the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
For example, 1) a right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty,
2) a right against arrest without probable cause,
3) a right against self-incrimination,
4) a right to an attorney, and
5) a right to fair questioning by the police.
Of course this is just a small sampling of the individual rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and they are continually subject to change as interpreted by the courts.
Where does it end?
Do the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the many?
Some proponents of the due process model argue that the rights of the one in fact represent the rights of the many.
CONTINUED BELOW.....
Anonymous....March 22, 2010 6:35 AM, I am burry just reading that AP Article, how shallow have the Print Reporters dropped in intelligence?
ReplyDeleteDefense attorney to file document asking jury in Veon case to reach verdict
ReplyDeleteBy Brad Bumsted
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, March 22, 2010
Last updated: 10:36 am
HARRISBURG — A defense attorney in the public corruption trial of former state Rep. Mike Veon and three of his former aides said today he plans to ask the judge to push the jury to reach a verdict.
Karl Rominger, attorney for Annamarie Perretta-Rosepink, said he is filling a motion with the court for the judge to give the jury an "Allen charge," which essentially persuades a deadlocked jury to reach a verdict.
It's not clear the jury is deadlocked.
Today is the seventh day of deliberations. A new juror was added Friday after a juror became ill.
Rominger said in an interview that the departure of the juror, who last Wednesday said jurors were turning against each other, would be cited in the filing.
Veon, 53, formerly of Beaver Falls, is accused of overseeing a scheme to pay $1.4 million in taxpayer money to legislative staffers for work on campaigns.
Veon and former aides Perretta-Rosepink, Brett Cott and Steve Keefer are charged with theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest.
an Allen charge, named for the case Allen v. United States,164 U.S. 492, 501-502, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), is the set of instructions given to a jury when, after deliberation, it reports that it is deadlocked and unable to decide on a verdict.
The purpose of the instruction is to encourage jurors to re-examine their opinions and attempt to reach a unanimous verdict if possible.
"Members of the Jury:
I'm going to ask that you continue your deliberations in an effort to reach agreement upon a verdict and dispose of this case; and I would like for you to consider as you do so.
This is an important case. The trial has been expensive in time, effort, money and emotional strain to both the defense and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a verdict, the case will be left open and may have to be tried again. Obviously, another trial would only serve to increase the cost to both sides, and there is no reason to believe that the case can be tried again by either side any better or more exhaustively than it has been tried before you.
Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the same source as you were chosen, and there is no reason to believe that the case could ever be submitted to twelve men and women more conscientious, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence could be produced.
If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a majority or even a lesser number of you are in favor of an acquittal, the rest of you should ask yourselves again, and most thoughtfully, whether you should accept the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to convince your fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.
Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an honest belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence; but, after full deliberation and consideration of the evidence in the case, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so.
You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.
You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and should take all the time which you may feel is necessary.
I will ask now that you retire once again and continue your deliberations with these additional comments in mind to be applied, of course, in conjunction with all of the other instructions I have previously given to you."
In 2008 DA John Morganelle, Corbett's opponent, stated all the time that all 4 caucuses should have been investigated simultaneously. He said that Corbett gave the Republicans time to get rid of evidence and would NEVER be prosecuted for bonuses. He was right. Corbett admitted when he arrested Prezel that the House R's obstructed justice as to bonuses. Corbett charged Prezel with issues unrelated to bonuses. There is no evidence to pursue against the senate r's and House R's as to bonuses bc Corbett mishandled the investigation as Morganelle said-- but in 2008 the press was so in love with Corbett that Morganelles word fell on deaf ears. But this jury is seeing this for what it is-- a politcal persecution of just one party and not the other.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/03/states_including_pennsylvania.html
ReplyDeleteUnreal. Corbett will stop at nothing to get his headlines....
Nothing positive can come from this, except more face time for Tom Corbett and his crusade for Governor.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIn 2008 DA John Morganelle, Corbett's opponent, stated all the time that all 4 caucuses should have been investigated simultaneously. He said that Corbett gave the Republicans time to get rid of evidence and would NEVER be prosecuted for bonuses. He was right. Corbett admitted when he arrested Prezel that the House R's obstructed justice as to bonuses. Corbett charged Prezel with issues unrelated to bonuses.
March 22, 2010 2:00 PM.....
I quite agree and why Due Process Defense needs to be looked at closely, for actyions unbecoming of an Attorney General.
Corbett was wrong just to charge DFemocarts on Bonusgate, and no one cares, if it was illeghal to give Bonuses to Demcrats and Republicans got them too, well, it is illegal for all.
If it is not illegal for Republicans then it CANNOT be illegal for Democrats!
I fear the Jury missed this important point!
The wheels of justice often grind slowly, but they do grind:
ReplyDeleteVeon guilty of conflict of interest in Bonusgate trial
Monday, March 22, 2010
By Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- Former state Rep. Mike Veon has been convicted of conflict of interest on charges he used taxpayer money for personal and political gain.
A Dauphin County jury is expected to reveal its complete verdict this evening in the criminal trial of Mr. Veon and three former aides. All are charged with theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest in connection with the corruption probe known as Bonusgate.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10081/1044799-100.stm#ixzz0ixM9JkBp
@ anonymous drivel about originalism and substantive due process:
ReplyDelete1. Defendants should be glad you aren't their counsel. This argument doesn't even win in academia, let alone a court.
2. You are aware that the nation's eminent originalists, Thomas and Scalia, scoff at substantive due process, right?
3. Natural law was a dead letter by the evolution of formalism in the early 19th century (pretty much by 1820). Whatever survived was finally put to its last rest in Erie.
But if you'd kindly post the link to the random text generator you're using, I could entertain myself for a while. Or at least the cite to whatever article you're plagiarizing.