|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 4, 2006 5:56:21 GMT -5
2006-09-29
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA – Even after his family testified how they fear him, loathe him and have disowned him, Richard W. Hamlin, the former Sacramento prosecutor and defense attorney convicted of torturing his wife and abusing his children, shook his head in denial as he was sentenced Friday to life in prison.
"I'm numb inside. I started to become angry. I'm just really depressed," said Hamlin's 14-year-old son.
The boy told the judge that his 46-year-old father, who has been in custody for the past two years, is still a danger to the family.
"If he gets out, it will not be him sitting in that chair. It will be me," the boy said, looking at his father with an icy stare.
Hamlin was convicted in January of torturing his wife by punching her, stabbing her with writing pens, cutting her with a sword and pistol-whipping her over a nine-month period beginning in June of 2003 and ending Feb. 28, 2004, with his arrest in El Dorado County.
In a bizarre scheme involving mind-control, satanic cults, child molestation and extortion, Hamlin turned his children against their mother telling them she was evil and that he had to beat the demons out of her.
One night in the family van after Hamlin pistol-whipped his wife with a derringer, their two boys pointed paint-ball pistols at their mother's head, trial evidence showed.
Hamlin, who was a Sacramento County deputy district attorney for four years and well-known defense attorney for an additional 13 years, lived a lavish lifestyle before his arrest, rubbing shoulders with judges, politicians and U.S. attorneys.
He and his wife, Susan, herself a lawyer, lived in a million-dollar mansion in El Dorado Hills. Then the couple, who were often seen at expensive restaurants and popular midtown nightclubs, vanished from Sacramento's night life. Hamlin began to miss his court appearances.
He declared bankruptcy in his $700,000-a-year law practice, and his home was in foreclosure when he concocted a plan to extort a fortune from his then 71-year-old Fresno father-in-law by threatening to sue him for molesting Susan Hamlin when she was a child, according to El Dorado County Deputy District Attorney Vicki Ashworth.
Richard Hamlin, who has since surrendered his license to practice law, represented himself in the three-month-long trial. Hamlin argued that he was a victim of a plot hatched by his father-in-law, an agricultural researcher, whom Hamlin described as a leader of a satanic cult.
Hamlin would spend hours with his wife attempting to get her to talk about and chronicle her "repressed memories" of sexual abuse, the jury was told.
Defense witnesses testified that Susan Hamlin confessed her role in a murder plot in minute detail to relatives, friends and a family pastor and to sheriff's detectives.
On Friday, Susan Hamlin, who has been giving interviews focusing on domestic violence since her former husband's conviction, said she lied to others to survive.
"Victims of domestic violence don't live to tell their story; they turn up dead -- their voices forever silenced," she said.
"I did not die. I did whatever I had to do to stay alive and save my (children). I am a survivor," Susan Hamlin said in a halting voice as she read her prepared statement.
"What terrified me the most was the sword," she said. "Rick waved the sword around wildly, lunged at me with the sword pointed at me, pinned me to the wall with the tip of the sword to my chest."
Also speaking at the sentencing hearing was the Hamlins' 11-year-old daughter, who described graphic details of the beatings.
"I remember one time when my father was in my room, I saw him drag my mom by her hair," the girl said, avoiding eye contact with her father.
"I think my father should go to prison because he was such a bad parent," she said.
The Hamlin's 8-year-old daughter, who came to court with a doll tucked under her arm, walked up to the witness stand to testify accompanied by her mother. But when it came time to speak, she said she couldn't. Her mother read her statement for her.
"My dad hurt us. Now I am still afraid to go to sleep because I'm afraid he is going to come back," the girl wrote.
"He told us he was going to get rid of our mom and get us a new mom," the girl's letter said.
The victims' impact statements lasted about 30 minutes. Most of the nearly four-hour sentencing hearing was devoted to Hamlin attempting to convince Judge Eddie T. Keller that he deserved a new trial or that the life term on the torture count amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
Hamlin and his co-counsel, public defender Robert Banning, argued that the torture count shouldn't stand because the jury acquitted Hamlin of about half of his 18 charges.
One of the jurors who convicted Hamlin of torture, who sat in the audience, wrote the judge earlier saying she thought life in prison was too harsh and that she felt pressured by other jurors during the nine days of deliberation.
In rejecting the defense requests, Keller said he "seriously questioned" the credibility of the juror who claimed that today she would not convict Hamlin of torture.
The judge said the punishment fit the crime because Hamlin's domestic violence was "inspired by pure evil" and though he "inflicted the nightmare upon his four children," Hamlin was neither remorseful nor contrite.
Hamlin will be eligible for parole in about seven years.
But their younger daughter said in her letter to the court she doesn't want to see her father again.
"All I ever wanted was a daddy that loved me. I wanted two parents that loved me, but I only got one. Please don't let my daddy come back," she said.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 4, 2006 5:56:21 GMT -5
2006-09-29
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA – Even after his family testified how they fear him, loathe him and have disowned him, Richard W. Hamlin, the former Sacramento prosecutor and defense attorney convicted of torturing his wife and abusing his children, shook his head in denial as he was sentenced Friday to life in prison.
"I'm numb inside. I started to become angry. I'm just really depressed," said Hamlin's 14-year-old son.
The boy told the judge that his 46-year-old father, who has been in custody for the past two years, is still a danger to the family.
"If he gets out, it will not be him sitting in that chair. It will be me," the boy said, looking at his father with an icy stare.
Hamlin was convicted in January of torturing his wife by punching her, stabbing her with writing pens, cutting her with a sword and pistol-whipping her over a nine-month period beginning in June of 2003 and ending Feb. 28, 2004, with his arrest in El Dorado County.
In a bizarre scheme involving mind-control, satanic cults, child molestation and extortion, Hamlin turned his children against their mother telling them she was evil and that he had to beat the demons out of her.
One night in the family van after Hamlin pistol-whipped his wife with a derringer, their two boys pointed paint-ball pistols at their mother's head, trial evidence showed.
Hamlin, who was a Sacramento County deputy district attorney for four years and well-known defense attorney for an additional 13 years, lived a lavish lifestyle before his arrest, rubbing shoulders with judges, politicians and U.S. attorneys.
He and his wife, Susan, herself a lawyer, lived in a million-dollar mansion in El Dorado Hills. Then the couple, who were often seen at expensive restaurants and popular midtown nightclubs, vanished from Sacramento's night life. Hamlin began to miss his court appearances.
He declared bankruptcy in his $700,000-a-year law practice, and his home was in foreclosure when he concocted a plan to extort a fortune from his then 71-year-old Fresno father-in-law by threatening to sue him for molesting Susan Hamlin when she was a child, according to El Dorado County Deputy District Attorney Vicki Ashworth.
Richard Hamlin, who has since surrendered his license to practice law, represented himself in the three-month-long trial. Hamlin argued that he was a victim of a plot hatched by his father-in-law, an agricultural researcher, whom Hamlin described as a leader of a satanic cult.
Hamlin would spend hours with his wife attempting to get her to talk about and chronicle her "repressed memories" of sexual abuse, the jury was told.
Defense witnesses testified that Susan Hamlin confessed her role in a murder plot in minute detail to relatives, friends and a family pastor and to sheriff's detectives.
On Friday, Susan Hamlin, who has been giving interviews focusing on domestic violence since her former husband's conviction, said she lied to others to survive.
"Victims of domestic violence don't live to tell their story; they turn up dead -- their voices forever silenced," she said.
"I did not die. I did whatever I had to do to stay alive and save my (children). I am a survivor," Susan Hamlin said in a halting voice as she read her prepared statement.
"What terrified me the most was the sword," she said. "Rick waved the sword around wildly, lunged at me with the sword pointed at me, pinned me to the wall with the tip of the sword to my chest."
Also speaking at the sentencing hearing was the Hamlins' 11-year-old daughter, who described graphic details of the beatings.
"I remember one time when my father was in my room, I saw him drag my mom by her hair," the girl said, avoiding eye contact with her father.
"I think my father should go to prison because he was such a bad parent," she said.
The Hamlin's 8-year-old daughter, who came to court with a doll tucked under her arm, walked up to the witness stand to testify accompanied by her mother. But when it came time to speak, she said she couldn't. Her mother read her statement for her.
"My dad hurt us. Now I am still afraid to go to sleep because I'm afraid he is going to come back," the girl wrote.
"He told us he was going to get rid of our mom and get us a new mom," the girl's letter said.
The victims' impact statements lasted about 30 minutes. Most of the nearly four-hour sentencing hearing was devoted to Hamlin attempting to convince Judge Eddie T. Keller that he deserved a new trial or that the life term on the torture count amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
Hamlin and his co-counsel, public defender Robert Banning, argued that the torture count shouldn't stand because the jury acquitted Hamlin of about half of his 18 charges.
One of the jurors who convicted Hamlin of torture, who sat in the audience, wrote the judge earlier saying she thought life in prison was too harsh and that she felt pressured by other jurors during the nine days of deliberation.
In rejecting the defense requests, Keller said he "seriously questioned" the credibility of the juror who claimed that today she would not convict Hamlin of torture.
The judge said the punishment fit the crime because Hamlin's domestic violence was "inspired by pure evil" and though he "inflicted the nightmare upon his four children," Hamlin was neither remorseful nor contrite.
Hamlin will be eligible for parole in about seven years.
But their younger daughter said in her letter to the court she doesn't want to see her father again.
"All I ever wanted was a daddy that loved me. I wanted two parents that loved me, but I only got one. Please don't let my daddy come back," she said.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 25, 2006 1:41:06 GMT -5
2006-09-24 CLEVELAND, OHIO - CYA can mean a lot of things. It means "see you" in Internet slang. Or, it stands for the Canadian Yachting Association or the California Youth Authority. More commonly, such as in Cuyahoga County, it's an acronym for "cover your ass". Especially in the case of former Oak Harbor bio-tech and patent attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner, currently imprisoned in Erie County Jail since Aug. 21 after retiring visiting judge Richard Knepper found her guilty without trial, without hearing and without formal charges having been brought, for allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. According to the docket for the Cuyahoga County Court, a hearing for an undisclosed reason has been scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 28 at 9 a.m. by Judge Shirley Strickland Safford in Courtroom 21B in the Justice Center in Cleveland. Although it appears the order was issued Sept. 19 and filed on Sept. 20, as of Saturday neither Baumgartner nor her husband was aware of it. **WARRANT FOR REMOVAL** DEFENDANT TO COURTROOM 21B ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 FOR HEARING SET FOR 09/28/2006 AT 09:00 AM. CLERK ORDERED TO SEND COPY OF THIS ORDER TO THE DEFENDANT IN ERIE COUNTY JAIL AND TO THE WARDEN OF ERIE COUNTY JAIL. SHERIFF ORDERED TO TRANSPORT DEFENDANT ELSEBETH BAUMGARTNER, DOB: 05/12/1955, GENDER: FEMALE, RACE: WHITE. 09/19/2006 CPBXM 09/20/2006 15:38 The assault on Baumgartner and the ongoing denial and violations of her constitutional rights was led on Aug. 18 before Knepper by Kevin Baxter, Erie County prosecutor who has publicly admitted his conflict of interest involving Baumgartner and previously disqualified himself and his office from all matters relating to her. Despite court rules and statutes that the court will appoint a special prosecutor in such matters, Baxter, not the court, handpicked Daniel Kasaris, his former assistant and currently an assistant prosecutor in Cuyahoga County. But that didn't stop Baxter from personally castigating Baumgartner in court on Aug. 18, in response to a motion filed by defendant Elizabeth Ohlemacher who accused Baxter and local police officers of sexual misconduct. According to Baumgartner, Kasaris was not in the courtroom and he had made no motion on Aug. 21 to revoke her bond, the previous motion having been denied on Aug. 18 by Knepper. Although Baxter has been removed from involvement in cases involving Baumgartner, he went on the attack of her on Aug. 18 but lost when Judge Richard Knepper denied the motion of the Erie County prosecutor's office to revoke Baumgartner's bond based on informal allegations by the Erie County prosecutors office in response papers to Ohlemacher's motion that Baumgartner had helped her write them. No formal charges have reportedly been brought against Baumgartner for the unauthorized practice of law. When the issue was raised orally on Aug. 18 by Baxter and his assistant, Sandy Rubino, Knepper said he wasn't going to "go there" and wouldn't hear such allegations. He then recused himself. On Monday, Aug. 21 at a hearing for Ohlemacher before Knepper, he acted in the Baumgartner case after he had disqualified himself, then revoked her bond without jurisdiction and in the absence of a formal complaint or hearing and then again, recused himself. Baumgartner said she had been sequestered outside the courtroom, was never called as a witness in the case although she had been subpoenaed, was not represented by counsel and was never served any criminal charges for allegedly practicing law without a license. Baumgartner's disbarment as an attorney came after she stood up at a Port Clinton city council meeting in 2001 and opposed a proposed contract between the city and the Island Express Boat Lines, a ferry boat company in which Baxter had a financial interest. Five days after the hearing, Baxter used his position and office to charge her with falsification for speaking at a public hearing, criminalizing free speech, and it's been downhill since there. The motion filed on Aug. 17 in Erie County Common Pleas court and signed by Ohlemacher's mother, Elizabeth Leser, stated that Ohlemacher, an inmate at Erie County Jail, wasn't saying anything in her motions that hadn't been said before concerning Baxter, local police officers and the court's "sad track record of protecting women's, blacks' and children's rights to equal protection". But while Knepper, on Aug. 21, revoked Baumgartner's $25,000 bond which had been in effect in Erie without having jurisdiction to do so because he had recused himself from her case three days previous, her $25,000 bond in Cuyahoga County remains in effect although she was incarcerated in the Cuyahoga County for three days the mid-September. Baumgartner faces charges in Erie County of grand theft auto for the alleged stealing of her own corporate vehicle, felony fleeing and resisting arrest. So far, neither administrative judge Roger Binette or Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court has assigned a judge to replace Knepper in the Baumgartner case, thus the case has been left in limbo for over 30 days while Baumgartner remains incarcerated, being denied a bond hearing and other legal options. Moyer has his own prejudice and conflict of interest involving Baumgartner, as in November, 2002, she attempted to have Moyer federally investigated for allegedly "manipulating the Ohio visiting judge system in order to affect political case outcomes". As a result of her charges of governmental and in particular judicial corruption and whistleblowing activities, Baumgartner was disbarred by the Ohio Supreme Court, described as a "threat to the public safety". She faces charges in Cuyahoga County on two indictments, one on the complaint of retired visiting judge Richard Markus who says she intimidated him with emails and retaliated against him by criticizing his judicial performance using a criminal tool, a computer to do so. She has also been charged with intimidation and retaliation on complaint of her former business partner and his wife, Bryan and Mandy DuBois, for posting entries on the blog, Erie Voices, owned by Arbor Group LLC of which she is the general manager. Those charges are scheduled for trial on Nov. 13. She says Kasaris' motion to join the two Cuyahoga cases together, which she opposed as being too prejudicial, was denied by Saffold. Jamie Dalton, prosecution spokesperson, says it was approved. So far, none of the transcripts from the Aug. 18, Aug. 21 or Sept. 13 hearings have been made available. The transcript from the June 1 hearing when Knepper found Baumgartner in contempt is available. www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/070206TroublingIssues.htmlAlthough a warrant was issued to effect Baumgartner's transfer from the Erie County Jail to the Cuyahoga County Jail for the trial which was to have started Sept. 13 was served on Erie County Jail on Sept. 8, she was not transferred to the Cuyahoga County Jail until Sept. 12. According to the Cuyahoga County court docket, she had been free on bail in the Cuyahoga County charges until Sept. 12 when it indicates she was jailed. The docket shows that she was "leaving jail" on Sept. 15, the day she was transferred back to the Erie County Jail. The case involving the complaints against her brought by Judge Markus is marked closed while the case involving the DuBois case is marked open. The DuBois case indicates that she is free on bail which she is not. On Sept. 13, Saffold had wanted to set a new trial date for two weeks but Kasaris had said that he was unavailable. With a hearing now set for Sept. 28, it appears he has become "available" but so far, the purpose of the hearing is unknown. It appears that it may be a bond hearing for the purposes of revoking Baumgartner's Cuyahoga County bond based on the Erie County incarceration by Knepper. There has been little press coverage regarding the matter by the Ohio newspapers except for highly prejudicial coverage by the Sandusky Register and Port Clinton News Herald which would warrant the basis for a motion to remove the venue of all hearings and trials to a county other than Erie, Cuyahoga or Ottawa. The newspaper, its managing editor Cindy Jacoby and Ottawa County prosecutor Mark Mulligan, have been sued for libel by Baumgartner after she received permission to do so by Markus. In that Markus has labeled her as a vexatious litigator, she must ask permission in order to file court papers in civil matters. Mulligan just requested and received an extension to file his response in the matter. It is unknown if he is being represented by private legal counsel retained by himself or if the county is picking up the tab. The Ohio courts have tried to assert that the vexatious litigator also applies to criminal matters and has consistently refused to hear her criminal appeals because of her label despite her Sixth Amendment right to first appeal in criminal actions. www.co.lucas.oh.us/Appeals/DecisionsPDF/2804.pdfBaumgartner had been scheduled to begin trial in the Erie County grand theft charge on June 1 but when she appeared, Knepper removed the hearing to a closed courtroom and found her in contempt, ruling that she had improperly talked with prospective jurors and that she was too obstreperous, or talkative, during the hearing at which she was appearing pro se. She was sentenced to Erie County Jail for 45 days, released on July 15. She filed her notice of appeal and asked for a bond hearing pending appeal but the Sixth District Court of Appeals refused to render a decision in the matter until July 17, two days after her release date, saying she was precluded from filing a criminal appeal because of being labeled a vexatious litigator by Markus. The vexatious litigator statute is applicable only to civil actions, not criminal appeals. Baumgartner says that retired visiting judge Knepper had no jurisdiction in her trial at all in that the law prohibits visiting judges from adjudicating criminal trials. She has filed for an order in the Erie County case suppressing all evidence obtained and for dismissal of the charges on grounds that officers and or agents of the Village of Bay View Police Department, Ottawa County Sheriff's office and Ohio Highway patrol unlawfully detained Baumgartner on May 20, 2005, pursuant to an unlawfully issued bench warrant and without observing any conduct which would lead them to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot or that she may be armed and dangerous. She has requested a suppression hearing prior to trial. So far, there has been no ruling on the suppression motion or hearing held. www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/052906OhioWhistleblower.htmlIn a conversation recorded by Erie Voices, Ottawa County Sheriff Robert Bratton told Baumgartner's former business partner DuBois in November, 2004 that there had always been questions "floating" regarding the legitimacy of the bench warrant, the pretext under which Baumgartner was arrested for grand theft and fleeing, which contained no charges. While Baumgartner has vigorously contested the legality of the warrant and has now moved for its suppression and dismissal of all charges due to Fourth Amendment violations of illegal search and seizure, Sheriff Bratton said it won't matter if the warrant stands up in court or not. "It doesn't matter if that was a good warrant or a bad warrant." Captain Paul Sigsworth of the Erie County Sheriff's Department had terminated the police pursuit of Baumgartner last May 20, citing the totality of the situation did not warrant a vehicular pursuit. Baumgartner was arrested in Huron County by the Ohio Highway Patrol who said that the "chase" was controlled and Baumgartner was polite but very upset about what was happening to her". She feared mistreatment in Ottawa county by Bratton and nemesis Ottawa County prosecutor Mark Mulligan which is why she said she wished to be arrested in Huron County and held in Huron County Jail where she perceived she would receive a fair hearing rather than in Ottawa County. She had opposed Mulligan for the post of Ottawa County prosecutor in a previous election but despite the obvious conflict of interest, Mulligan refused to disqualify himself from prosecuting charges against Baumgartner. The Sandusky Register has, seemingly intentionally, attempted to taint the Erie County jury pool by slanting its coverage of Baumgartner. In a news story appearing on June 3 and July 19 in the Sandusky Register, it was correctly reported that she was facing charges of resisting arrest, failure to comply with police and motor vehicle theft for a May 2005 low speed chase. However, a month later, Register reporter Evan Goodenow had escalated the matter to a high speed chase. Baumgartner has said that Baxter and others in the criminal justice system are using their positions to retaliate against her for her allegations which "included widespread case fixing via manipulation of special prosecutor and/or visiting judge appointments to protect far ranging corrupt activity in Ohio including pay to play and the facilitation of federal grant fraud, insurance fraud and /or thefts of public resources including sensitive biotechnologies by Ohio law firms such as Benesch Friedlander, Coplan and Aronoff; (Cleveland) Baumgartner & O'Toole (Sheffield Lake); Roetzel and Andress (Akron and Toledo); Murray and Murray (Sandusky), Spengler Nathanson, and Eastman and Smith (Toledo). Later reports to the USDOJ included allegations of protection of extortion, drug trafficking, weapons running, and various sex crimes including child pornography and other crimes against women and children by compromised prosecutors, judges and law enforcement officers including federal officers, prosecutors and Judges David Katz, Patricia Gaughan and others", Baumgartner says. She was employed by Medlen & Carroll LLP, a patent law firm specializing in biotechnology patents and technology transfer, from 1993 through 1996. The firm had offices in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Boston/Cambridge Mass and Toledo, Ohio. She ran the Midwest office in Toledo. "The firm filled an enormous void for these highly specialized services in Ohio and the area. The firm was quickly was hired by the University of Michigan, Case Western Reserve University's School of Medicine several biotechnology companies and Ohio University's Edison Biotechnology Institute". Baumgartner had originally been jailed for 234 days on a misdemeanor charge for "basically standing up and speaking at a city council meeting in 2001. Five days later she was arrested on technical charges of falsification. The charges stemmed from statements she made questioning a ferry boat contract awarded to Erie County prosecutor, citing affidavits from some of her law clients who were alleging the boats were being used for illegal drug running with full knowledge of state politicians, law enforcement and federal officials. Further, she questioned the legality of awarding the lucrative Lake Erie contract since she said it amounted to nothing more than "a political favor" as another company was overlooked which was more competent and provided the same ferry boat service for less money. "All I did was speak out and use my right as a citizen to question our government," said Baumgartner, adding that she must have struck a nerve that night, leading to corruption at the highest levels of Washington, as well as Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, Thomas Moyer, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Jim Petro, Ohio Attorney General. Legal observers say the technical law used to arrest Baumgartner for falsification was never intended for mere statements made at open forum city council, but rather the falsification misdemeanor law was intended for official government hearings when witnesses are placed under oath. "They just twisted the law and I was jailed," said Baumgartner in 2005. "As a lawyer, respected in my community, I never thought this could happen in America, but I am living proof it can and it's not over yet." As a bio-tech attorney representing influential clients, she says her legal problems intensified when she notified state and federal authorities about sensitive bio-tech information allegedly being hi-jacked, information which she says could have been used to wage bio-tech warfare against the U.S. But instead of receiving cooperation from federal agencies, she says any serious investigations were stonewalled and instead she became the brunt of harassment and illegal surveillance for reporting the alleged bio-tech misappropriation of information. In addition to the bio-tech and ferry boat matters, Baumgartner was also involved in what she also tried to save her local school district $1.5 million involved in a contract scam, a scam she said involved top officials and that some of the money may have ended up in the coffers of George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign as a for return on political favors. GOP fundraiser and Taft appointee Thomas Noe, has been convicted of funneling illegal campaign contributions to the Bush campaign. "I think they wanted to contain the scandal brewing to the state and local levels and this why they came down hard on me," added Baumgartner. After serving 234 days and then losing her law license, Baumgartner became involved in Erie Voices, a web site dedicated to reporting on alleged state and federal political corruption. Upon her indictment earlier this year for her alleged intimidation of her former business partner and his wife, Baumgartner said the charges were related to Erie Voices in Erie County while she resided in Ottawa County. However, she has been indicted in Cuyahoga County which she says has no jurisdiction in that the alleged incidents did not occur in Cuyahoga County. She said then that "it appears Cuyahoga is trying to boot strap the case to the current case in Cuyahoga (the Markus complaint) in order to keep the case there to complicate my defense and deny me a fair trial. Those of you who have followed the story know that while I was held in the state mental hospital, Bryan and Mandy allegedly stole Erie Voices from my family and turned it in to a Baumgartner bash and disinformation site". "When I got out and started aggressively publishing the truth of what happened including the fact that over $35,000 had been allegedly misappropriated from us or our company exclusive of equipment and the value of the contents of the website itself (well over $50,000 invested) the DuBois felt the truth intimidated them. "It was at this point that the site was shut down by the DuBois at the government's urging in order that all the evidence necessary to my defense, the public good and of their own intimidation of my family and me was not available. This was also the reason for the February raid on my home, based on an affidavit signed by the DuBoises, to obtain all my computer records related to pay to play, and my evidence gathered related to the website."
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 25, 2006 1:41:06 GMT -5
2006-09-24 CLEVELAND, OHIO - CYA can mean a lot of things. It means "see you" in Internet slang. Or, it stands for the Canadian Yachting Association or the California Youth Authority. More commonly, such as in Cuyahoga County, it's an acronym for "cover your ass". Especially in the case of former Oak Harbor bio-tech and patent attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner, currently imprisoned in Erie County Jail since Aug. 21 after retiring visiting judge Richard Knepper found her guilty without trial, without hearing and without formal charges having been brought, for allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. According to the docket for the Cuyahoga County Court, a hearing for an undisclosed reason has been scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 28 at 9 a.m. by Judge Shirley Strickland Safford in Courtroom 21B in the Justice Center in Cleveland. Although it appears the order was issued Sept. 19 and filed on Sept. 20, as of Saturday neither Baumgartner nor her husband was aware of it. **WARRANT FOR REMOVAL** DEFENDANT TO COURTROOM 21B ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 FOR HEARING SET FOR 09/28/2006 AT 09:00 AM. CLERK ORDERED TO SEND COPY OF THIS ORDER TO THE DEFENDANT IN ERIE COUNTY JAIL AND TO THE WARDEN OF ERIE COUNTY JAIL. SHERIFF ORDERED TO TRANSPORT DEFENDANT ELSEBETH BAUMGARTNER, DOB: 05/12/1955, GENDER: FEMALE, RACE: WHITE. 09/19/2006 CPBXM 09/20/2006 15:38 The assault on Baumgartner and the ongoing denial and violations of her constitutional rights was led on Aug. 18 before Knepper by Kevin Baxter, Erie County prosecutor who has publicly admitted his conflict of interest involving Baumgartner and previously disqualified himself and his office from all matters relating to her. Despite court rules and statutes that the court will appoint a special prosecutor in such matters, Baxter, not the court, handpicked Daniel Kasaris, his former assistant and currently an assistant prosecutor in Cuyahoga County. But that didn't stop Baxter from personally castigating Baumgartner in court on Aug. 18, in response to a motion filed by defendant Elizabeth Ohlemacher who accused Baxter and local police officers of sexual misconduct. According to Baumgartner, Kasaris was not in the courtroom and he had made no motion on Aug. 21 to revoke her bond, the previous motion having been denied on Aug. 18 by Knepper. Although Baxter has been removed from involvement in cases involving Baumgartner, he went on the attack of her on Aug. 18 but lost when Judge Richard Knepper denied the motion of the Erie County prosecutor's office to revoke Baumgartner's bond based on informal allegations by the Erie County prosecutors office in response papers to Ohlemacher's motion that Baumgartner had helped her write them. No formal charges have reportedly been brought against Baumgartner for the unauthorized practice of law. When the issue was raised orally on Aug. 18 by Baxter and his assistant, Sandy Rubino, Knepper said he wasn't going to "go there" and wouldn't hear such allegations. He then recused himself. On Monday, Aug. 21 at a hearing for Ohlemacher before Knepper, he acted in the Baumgartner case after he had disqualified himself, then revoked her bond without jurisdiction and in the absence of a formal complaint or hearing and then again, recused himself. Baumgartner said she had been sequestered outside the courtroom, was never called as a witness in the case although she had been subpoenaed, was not represented by counsel and was never served any criminal charges for allegedly practicing law without a license. Baumgartner's disbarment as an attorney came after she stood up at a Port Clinton city council meeting in 2001 and opposed a proposed contract between the city and the Island Express Boat Lines, a ferry boat company in which Baxter had a financial interest. Five days after the hearing, Baxter used his position and office to charge her with falsification for speaking at a public hearing, criminalizing free speech, and it's been downhill since there. The motion filed on Aug. 17 in Erie County Common Pleas court and signed by Ohlemacher's mother, Elizabeth Leser, stated that Ohlemacher, an inmate at Erie County Jail, wasn't saying anything in her motions that hadn't been said before concerning Baxter, local police officers and the court's "sad track record of protecting women's, blacks' and children's rights to equal protection". But while Knepper, on Aug. 21, revoked Baumgartner's $25,000 bond which had been in effect in Erie without having jurisdiction to do so because he had recused himself from her case three days previous, her $25,000 bond in Cuyahoga County remains in effect although she was incarcerated in the Cuyahoga County for three days the mid-September. Baumgartner faces charges in Erie County of grand theft auto for the alleged stealing of her own corporate vehicle, felony fleeing and resisting arrest. So far, neither administrative judge Roger Binette or Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court has assigned a judge to replace Knepper in the Baumgartner case, thus the case has been left in limbo for over 30 days while Baumgartner remains incarcerated, being denied a bond hearing and other legal options. Moyer has his own prejudice and conflict of interest involving Baumgartner, as in November, 2002, she attempted to have Moyer federally investigated for allegedly "manipulating the Ohio visiting judge system in order to affect political case outcomes". As a result of her charges of governmental and in particular judicial corruption and whistleblowing activities, Baumgartner was disbarred by the Ohio Supreme Court, described as a "threat to the public safety". She faces charges in Cuyahoga County on two indictments, one on the complaint of retired visiting judge Richard Markus who says she intimidated him with emails and retaliated against him by criticizing his judicial performance using a criminal tool, a computer to do so. She has also been charged with intimidation and retaliation on complaint of her former business partner and his wife, Bryan and Mandy DuBois, for posting entries on the blog, Erie Voices, owned by Arbor Group LLC of which she is the general manager. Those charges are scheduled for trial on Nov. 13. She says Kasaris' motion to join the two Cuyahoga cases together, which she opposed as being too prejudicial, was denied by Saffold. Jamie Dalton, prosecution spokesperson, says it was approved. So far, none of the transcripts from the Aug. 18, Aug. 21 or Sept. 13 hearings have been made available. The transcript from the June 1 hearing when Knepper found Baumgartner in contempt is available. www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/070206TroublingIssues.htmlAlthough a warrant was issued to effect Baumgartner's transfer from the Erie County Jail to the Cuyahoga County Jail for the trial which was to have started Sept. 13 was served on Erie County Jail on Sept. 8, she was not transferred to the Cuyahoga County Jail until Sept. 12. According to the Cuyahoga County court docket, she had been free on bail in the Cuyahoga County charges until Sept. 12 when it indicates she was jailed. The docket shows that she was "leaving jail" on Sept. 15, the day she was transferred back to the Erie County Jail. The case involving the complaints against her brought by Judge Markus is marked closed while the case involving the DuBois case is marked open. The DuBois case indicates that she is free on bail which she is not. On Sept. 13, Saffold had wanted to set a new trial date for two weeks but Kasaris had said that he was unavailable. With a hearing now set for Sept. 28, it appears he has become "available" but so far, the purpose of the hearing is unknown. It appears that it may be a bond hearing for the purposes of revoking Baumgartner's Cuyahoga County bond based on the Erie County incarceration by Knepper. There has been little press coverage regarding the matter by the Ohio newspapers except for highly prejudicial coverage by the Sandusky Register and Port Clinton News Herald which would warrant the basis for a motion to remove the venue of all hearings and trials to a county other than Erie, Cuyahoga or Ottawa. The newspaper, its managing editor Cindy Jacoby and Ottawa County prosecutor Mark Mulligan, have been sued for libel by Baumgartner after she received permission to do so by Markus. In that Markus has labeled her as a vexatious litigator, she must ask permission in order to file court papers in civil matters. Mulligan just requested and received an extension to file his response in the matter. It is unknown if he is being represented by private legal counsel retained by himself or if the county is picking up the tab. The Ohio courts have tried to assert that the vexatious litigator also applies to criminal matters and has consistently refused to hear her criminal appeals because of her label despite her Sixth Amendment right to first appeal in criminal actions. www.co.lucas.oh.us/Appeals/DecisionsPDF/2804.pdfBaumgartner had been scheduled to begin trial in the Erie County grand theft charge on June 1 but when she appeared, Knepper removed the hearing to a closed courtroom and found her in contempt, ruling that she had improperly talked with prospective jurors and that she was too obstreperous, or talkative, during the hearing at which she was appearing pro se. She was sentenced to Erie County Jail for 45 days, released on July 15. She filed her notice of appeal and asked for a bond hearing pending appeal but the Sixth District Court of Appeals refused to render a decision in the matter until July 17, two days after her release date, saying she was precluded from filing a criminal appeal because of being labeled a vexatious litigator by Markus. The vexatious litigator statute is applicable only to civil actions, not criminal appeals. Baumgartner says that retired visiting judge Knepper had no jurisdiction in her trial at all in that the law prohibits visiting judges from adjudicating criminal trials. She has filed for an order in the Erie County case suppressing all evidence obtained and for dismissal of the charges on grounds that officers and or agents of the Village of Bay View Police Department, Ottawa County Sheriff's office and Ohio Highway patrol unlawfully detained Baumgartner on May 20, 2005, pursuant to an unlawfully issued bench warrant and without observing any conduct which would lead them to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot or that she may be armed and dangerous. She has requested a suppression hearing prior to trial. So far, there has been no ruling on the suppression motion or hearing held. www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/052906OhioWhistleblower.htmlIn a conversation recorded by Erie Voices, Ottawa County Sheriff Robert Bratton told Baumgartner's former business partner DuBois in November, 2004 that there had always been questions "floating" regarding the legitimacy of the bench warrant, the pretext under which Baumgartner was arrested for grand theft and fleeing, which contained no charges. While Baumgartner has vigorously contested the legality of the warrant and has now moved for its suppression and dismissal of all charges due to Fourth Amendment violations of illegal search and seizure, Sheriff Bratton said it won't matter if the warrant stands up in court or not. "It doesn't matter if that was a good warrant or a bad warrant." Captain Paul Sigsworth of the Erie County Sheriff's Department had terminated the police pursuit of Baumgartner last May 20, citing the totality of the situation did not warrant a vehicular pursuit. Baumgartner was arrested in Huron County by the Ohio Highway Patrol who said that the "chase" was controlled and Baumgartner was polite but very upset about what was happening to her". She feared mistreatment in Ottawa county by Bratton and nemesis Ottawa County prosecutor Mark Mulligan which is why she said she wished to be arrested in Huron County and held in Huron County Jail where she perceived she would receive a fair hearing rather than in Ottawa County. She had opposed Mulligan for the post of Ottawa County prosecutor in a previous election but despite the obvious conflict of interest, Mulligan refused to disqualify himself from prosecuting charges against Baumgartner. The Sandusky Register has, seemingly intentionally, attempted to taint the Erie County jury pool by slanting its coverage of Baumgartner. In a news story appearing on June 3 and July 19 in the Sandusky Register, it was correctly reported that she was facing charges of resisting arrest, failure to comply with police and motor vehicle theft for a May 2005 low speed chase. However, a month later, Register reporter Evan Goodenow had escalated the matter to a high speed chase. Baumgartner has said that Baxter and others in the criminal justice system are using their positions to retaliate against her for her allegations which "included widespread case fixing via manipulation of special prosecutor and/or visiting judge appointments to protect far ranging corrupt activity in Ohio including pay to play and the facilitation of federal grant fraud, insurance fraud and /or thefts of public resources including sensitive biotechnologies by Ohio law firms such as Benesch Friedlander, Coplan and Aronoff; (Cleveland) Baumgartner & O'Toole (Sheffield Lake); Roetzel and Andress (Akron and Toledo); Murray and Murray (Sandusky), Spengler Nathanson, and Eastman and Smith (Toledo). Later reports to the USDOJ included allegations of protection of extortion, drug trafficking, weapons running, and various sex crimes including child pornography and other crimes against women and children by compromised prosecutors, judges and law enforcement officers including federal officers, prosecutors and Judges David Katz, Patricia Gaughan and others", Baumgartner says. She was employed by Medlen & Carroll LLP, a patent law firm specializing in biotechnology patents and technology transfer, from 1993 through 1996. The firm had offices in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Boston/Cambridge Mass and Toledo, Ohio. She ran the Midwest office in Toledo. "The firm filled an enormous void for these highly specialized services in Ohio and the area. The firm was quickly was hired by the University of Michigan, Case Western Reserve University's School of Medicine several biotechnology companies and Ohio University's Edison Biotechnology Institute". Baumgartner had originally been jailed for 234 days on a misdemeanor charge for "basically standing up and speaking at a city council meeting in 2001. Five days later she was arrested on technical charges of falsification. The charges stemmed from statements she made questioning a ferry boat contract awarded to Erie County prosecutor, citing affidavits from some of her law clients who were alleging the boats were being used for illegal drug running with full knowledge of state politicians, law enforcement and federal officials. Further, she questioned the legality of awarding the lucrative Lake Erie contract since she said it amounted to nothing more than "a political favor" as another company was overlooked which was more competent and provided the same ferry boat service for less money. "All I did was speak out and use my right as a citizen to question our government," said Baumgartner, adding that she must have struck a nerve that night, leading to corruption at the highest levels of Washington, as well as Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, Thomas Moyer, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Jim Petro, Ohio Attorney General. Legal observers say the technical law used to arrest Baumgartner for falsification was never intended for mere statements made at open forum city council, but rather the falsification misdemeanor law was intended for official government hearings when witnesses are placed under oath. "They just twisted the law and I was jailed," said Baumgartner in 2005. "As a lawyer, respected in my community, I never thought this could happen in America, but I am living proof it can and it's not over yet." As a bio-tech attorney representing influential clients, she says her legal problems intensified when she notified state and federal authorities about sensitive bio-tech information allegedly being hi-jacked, information which she says could have been used to wage bio-tech warfare against the U.S. But instead of receiving cooperation from federal agencies, she says any serious investigations were stonewalled and instead she became the brunt of harassment and illegal surveillance for reporting the alleged bio-tech misappropriation of information. In addition to the bio-tech and ferry boat matters, Baumgartner was also involved in what she also tried to save her local school district $1.5 million involved in a contract scam, a scam she said involved top officials and that some of the money may have ended up in the coffers of George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign as a for return on political favors. GOP fundraiser and Taft appointee Thomas Noe, has been convicted of funneling illegal campaign contributions to the Bush campaign. "I think they wanted to contain the scandal brewing to the state and local levels and this why they came down hard on me," added Baumgartner. After serving 234 days and then losing her law license, Baumgartner became involved in Erie Voices, a web site dedicated to reporting on alleged state and federal political corruption. Upon her indictment earlier this year for her alleged intimidation of her former business partner and his wife, Baumgartner said the charges were related to Erie Voices in Erie County while she resided in Ottawa County. However, she has been indicted in Cuyahoga County which she says has no jurisdiction in that the alleged incidents did not occur in Cuyahoga County. She said then that "it appears Cuyahoga is trying to boot strap the case to the current case in Cuyahoga (the Markus complaint) in order to keep the case there to complicate my defense and deny me a fair trial. Those of you who have followed the story know that while I was held in the state mental hospital, Bryan and Mandy allegedly stole Erie Voices from my family and turned it in to a Baumgartner bash and disinformation site". "When I got out and started aggressively publishing the truth of what happened including the fact that over $35,000 had been allegedly misappropriated from us or our company exclusive of equipment and the value of the contents of the website itself (well over $50,000 invested) the DuBois felt the truth intimidated them. "It was at this point that the site was shut down by the DuBois at the government's urging in order that all the evidence necessary to my defense, the public good and of their own intimidation of my family and me was not available. This was also the reason for the February raid on my home, based on an affidavit signed by the DuBoises, to obtain all my computer records related to pay to play, and my evidence gathered related to the website."
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 21, 2006 17:04:55 GMT -5
September 12th, 2006
A rookie Federal Heights police officer who blew the whistle on four Westminster officers for allegedly using too much force during an arrest last summer took the stand Monday during the first day of their trial.
Officer Jon Hess kneeled on the floor in front of the witness stand, his right fist pumping into an imaginary person on the ground, demonstrating to the jury the amount of force he said the officers used on a man Aug. 27, 2005.
Three members of an elite police unit and another officer were pulled off the streets last year after two Federal Heights officers said they witnessed excessive force during the arrest. One Westminster veteran officer, Mark Toth, was fired within three months of the event.
Toth has since filed a lawsuit against the city of Federal Heights, officer Donald Vallero and Hess, citing numerous claims, including defamation, and seeking more than $100,000 damages.
The officers, Toth, Norman Haubert and Jason Poppenger are charged with third-degree assault, official misconduct and filing a false report, all misdemeanors. Officer Chris Pyler was charged with official misconduct and filing a false report.
Adams County prosecutor
Thomas Quammen spent 10 minutes in opening arguments describing the events during the arrest of Scott Danielson, who had eluded officers earlier in the day.
The prosecution contends that officers may have hit Danielson up to 30 times in his lower back during the arrest. After he was in custody, pictures were taken of Danielson's shoulders, back and legs showing bruising, Quammen said.
During their opening statements, the four defense attorneys for the four officers repeatedly told the jury their clients are innocent and were within the boundaries of the law. They said medics examined Danielson after the arrest and determined he was not seriously injured and did not need to be treated.
According to a Broomfield police report, Danielson, then 40, turned abruptly in front of another car, which hit his car on Broomfield's Main Street during the afternoon of Aug. 27, 2005.
Danielson left the scene, driving west on 116th Avenue in his red Toyota Corrolla, and passed a Broomfield police car, which gave chase until losing him, the report said.
Westminster officers later spotted Danielson's car and pursued him to Federal Heights.
The officers set out stop sticks near West 90th Avenue and Federal Boulevard and were able to stop him.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 21, 2006 17:04:55 GMT -5
September 12th, 2006
A rookie Federal Heights police officer who blew the whistle on four Westminster officers for allegedly using too much force during an arrest last summer took the stand Monday during the first day of their trial.
Officer Jon Hess kneeled on the floor in front of the witness stand, his right fist pumping into an imaginary person on the ground, demonstrating to the jury the amount of force he said the officers used on a man Aug. 27, 2005.
Three members of an elite police unit and another officer were pulled off the streets last year after two Federal Heights officers said they witnessed excessive force during the arrest. One Westminster veteran officer, Mark Toth, was fired within three months of the event.
Toth has since filed a lawsuit against the city of Federal Heights, officer Donald Vallero and Hess, citing numerous claims, including defamation, and seeking more than $100,000 damages.
The officers, Toth, Norman Haubert and Jason Poppenger are charged with third-degree assault, official misconduct and filing a false report, all misdemeanors. Officer Chris Pyler was charged with official misconduct and filing a false report.
Adams County prosecutor
Thomas Quammen spent 10 minutes in opening arguments describing the events during the arrest of Scott Danielson, who had eluded officers earlier in the day.
The prosecution contends that officers may have hit Danielson up to 30 times in his lower back during the arrest. After he was in custody, pictures were taken of Danielson's shoulders, back and legs showing bruising, Quammen said.
During their opening statements, the four defense attorneys for the four officers repeatedly told the jury their clients are innocent and were within the boundaries of the law. They said medics examined Danielson after the arrest and determined he was not seriously injured and did not need to be treated.
According to a Broomfield police report, Danielson, then 40, turned abruptly in front of another car, which hit his car on Broomfield's Main Street during the afternoon of Aug. 27, 2005.
Danielson left the scene, driving west on 116th Avenue in his red Toyota Corrolla, and passed a Broomfield police car, which gave chase until losing him, the report said.
Westminster officers later spotted Danielson's car and pursued him to Federal Heights.
The officers set out stop sticks near West 90th Avenue and Federal Boulevard and were able to stop him.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 18, 2006 11:23:40 GMT -5
2006-09-16
LOUISIANA - In a rather bizarre ruling that has marine industry officials worried, Judge Robert G. James of the United States District Court, Western Division of Louisiana, has said that it is criminal trespass for the American boating public to boat, fish, or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters in the US.
In the case of Normal Parm v. Sheriff Mark Shumate, James ruled that federal law grants exclusive and private control over the waters of the river, outside the main shipping channel, to riparian landowners. The shallows of the navigable waters are no longer open to the public. That, in effect, makes boating illegal across most of the country.
"Even though this action seems like a horrible pre-April fools joke, it is very serious," said Phil Keeter, MRAA president, in a statement. "Because essentially all the waters and waterways of our country are considered navigable in the US law, this ruling declares recreational boating, water skiing, fishing, waterfowl hunting, and fishing tournaments to be illegal and the public subject to jail sentences for recreating with their families."
Last month, James rejected the findings of the Magistrate judge who found earlier that the American public had the right under federal law and Louisiana law to navigate, boat, fish, and hunt on the waters of the Mississippi river up to the normal high water line of the river. Judge James Kirk relied on the long established federal principles of navigation that recognized the public navigational rights "!entitles the public to the reasonable use of navigable waters for all legitimate purposes of travel or transportation, for boating, sailing for pleasure, as well as for carrying persons or property for hire, and in any kind of watercraft the use of which is consistent with others also enjoying the right possessed in common."
"MRAA is working with the Coast Guard, state boating law administrators, and NMMA to fight this onerous ruling," said Glen Mazzella, MRAA chairman, in the statement.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 18, 2006 11:23:40 GMT -5
2006-09-16
LOUISIANA - In a rather bizarre ruling that has marine industry officials worried, Judge Robert G. James of the United States District Court, Western Division of Louisiana, has said that it is criminal trespass for the American boating public to boat, fish, or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters in the US.
In the case of Normal Parm v. Sheriff Mark Shumate, James ruled that federal law grants exclusive and private control over the waters of the river, outside the main shipping channel, to riparian landowners. The shallows of the navigable waters are no longer open to the public. That, in effect, makes boating illegal across most of the country.
"Even though this action seems like a horrible pre-April fools joke, it is very serious," said Phil Keeter, MRAA president, in a statement. "Because essentially all the waters and waterways of our country are considered navigable in the US law, this ruling declares recreational boating, water skiing, fishing, waterfowl hunting, and fishing tournaments to be illegal and the public subject to jail sentences for recreating with their families."
Last month, James rejected the findings of the Magistrate judge who found earlier that the American public had the right under federal law and Louisiana law to navigate, boat, fish, and hunt on the waters of the Mississippi river up to the normal high water line of the river. Judge James Kirk relied on the long established federal principles of navigation that recognized the public navigational rights "!entitles the public to the reasonable use of navigable waters for all legitimate purposes of travel or transportation, for boating, sailing for pleasure, as well as for carrying persons or property for hire, and in any kind of watercraft the use of which is consistent with others also enjoying the right possessed in common."
"MRAA is working with the Coast Guard, state boating law administrators, and NMMA to fight this onerous ruling," said Glen Mazzella, MRAA chairman, in the statement.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 13, 2006 7:59:22 GMT -5
Every so often an event happens which captures the essence of the times better than thousands of words ever could. One such instance occurred in a Long Beach, California criminal courtroom.
The defendant, Ronnie Hawkins, was acting as his own lawyer at a sentencing hearing before Municipal Judge Joan Comparet-Cassani. A chronic substance abuser in his forties--HIV positive and burdened with a lengthy criminal record--Hawkins was facing a sentence of 25 years to life in prison under California's barbaric "three strikes" law after being convicted of shoplifting $265 worth of painkillers.
Below Hawkins's jail jumpsuit, he was wearing a two-pound belt with a battery pack. Manufactured by Stun Tech, Inc., the belt is designed to deliver an eight-second 50,000-volt electronic shock when activated by a transmitter controlled by the court bailiff. For two years, Los Angeles County has been placing the device on prisoners who supposedly pose a risk of flight or violence during court appearances, but it had never before been activated in a courtroom.
During the sentencing hearing Hawkins kept trying to speak over the judge. Comparet-Cassani told him, "You are wearing a very bad instrument, and if you want to feel it, you can, but stop interrupting me." Hawkins replied, "You are going to electrocute me for talking?" Comparet-Cassani said, "No, sir, but they will zap you if you keep doing it." After Hawkins again spoke, Comparet-Cassani said, "One more time. One more time. Go ahead."
When Hawkins declared, "That is unconstitutional," Comparet-Cassani ordered the bailiff to activate the belt. Stunned observers watched Hawkins drop to the floor, his face contorting and his limbs rigid and shaking for almost 10 seconds.
"I guess that's how a guy feels who goes to the electric chair," Hawkins said in a later interview. "It was like a stinging in my spine and then a lot of pain in my back. I was paralyzed for about four seconds." Hawkins added, "This is America. What about the Constitution? What about my rights to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment?"
This is America.
Hawkins filed a civil rights suit against the judge this week, but he will never see a dime because the Supreme Court has already given judges immunity for ordering courtroom assaults by bailiffs. Instead, Comparet-Cassani will continue to sit as a judge, with her like-minded colleagues of the California judiciary, collecting a six-figure salary for the job of defining and enforcing constitutional rights.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 13, 2006 7:59:22 GMT -5
Every so often an event happens which captures the essence of the times better than thousands of words ever could. One such instance occurred in a Long Beach, California criminal courtroom.
The defendant, Ronnie Hawkins, was acting as his own lawyer at a sentencing hearing before Municipal Judge Joan Comparet-Cassani. A chronic substance abuser in his forties--HIV positive and burdened with a lengthy criminal record--Hawkins was facing a sentence of 25 years to life in prison under California's barbaric "three strikes" law after being convicted of shoplifting $265 worth of painkillers.
Below Hawkins's jail jumpsuit, he was wearing a two-pound belt with a battery pack. Manufactured by Stun Tech, Inc., the belt is designed to deliver an eight-second 50,000-volt electronic shock when activated by a transmitter controlled by the court bailiff. For two years, Los Angeles County has been placing the device on prisoners who supposedly pose a risk of flight or violence during court appearances, but it had never before been activated in a courtroom.
During the sentencing hearing Hawkins kept trying to speak over the judge. Comparet-Cassani told him, "You are wearing a very bad instrument, and if you want to feel it, you can, but stop interrupting me." Hawkins replied, "You are going to electrocute me for talking?" Comparet-Cassani said, "No, sir, but they will zap you if you keep doing it." After Hawkins again spoke, Comparet-Cassani said, "One more time. One more time. Go ahead."
When Hawkins declared, "That is unconstitutional," Comparet-Cassani ordered the bailiff to activate the belt. Stunned observers watched Hawkins drop to the floor, his face contorting and his limbs rigid and shaking for almost 10 seconds.
"I guess that's how a guy feels who goes to the electric chair," Hawkins said in a later interview. "It was like a stinging in my spine and then a lot of pain in my back. I was paralyzed for about four seconds." Hawkins added, "This is America. What about the Constitution? What about my rights to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment?"
This is America.
Hawkins filed a civil rights suit against the judge this week, but he will never see a dime because the Supreme Court has already given judges immunity for ordering courtroom assaults by bailiffs. Instead, Comparet-Cassani will continue to sit as a judge, with her like-minded colleagues of the California judiciary, collecting a six-figure salary for the job of defining and enforcing constitutional rights.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 13, 2006 7:42:07 GMT -5
The felony arrest of a five-year-old kindergarten student in Florida, Chaquita Doman, accused of biting and scratching a support teacher, once again throws the spotlight on the ignorance and callousness that characterizes official social policy in the United States.
To read or listen to the account of the incident given by Barbara Frye, a spokeswoman for the Escambia County School District in Tallahassee, one would think that a wild animal or a desperate criminal had broken into the school.
"We had a child who went into a rage," explained Frye. "She was supposed to be in line for lunch and, in doing so, was throwing some furniture and turning some over." The child now faces a felony charge of battery of an educator or elected official.
School officials in Escambia County, in taking action as they did, were merely adopting the policy pursued by the American political and legal establishment in every situation where the social crisis manifests itself: they locked someone up. By any objective human standpoint their response was irrational. This was, after all, a five-year-old child.
The Tallahassee incident provides another glimpse at the levels of social polarization and official indifference that have been reached in the US. The young girl’s anger can only reflect, in some fashion or other, the environment in which she lives. What social problems does this child carry with her to school each day, which found expression in her temper tantrum? One assumes that the incident will only further traumatize her.
On the other hand, school officials and police feel no need to justify the arrest of a young child; it is the logical extension of a process, the criminalization of the poor and the young, that has been going on for years. The claim by the support teacher, Linda Green, that she sought the child’s arrest so that she could receive mandatory counseling, only reveals the sense of powerlessness and despair that pervades many school districts.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 13, 2006 7:42:07 GMT -5
The felony arrest of a five-year-old kindergarten student in Florida, Chaquita Doman, accused of biting and scratching a support teacher, once again throws the spotlight on the ignorance and callousness that characterizes official social policy in the United States.
To read or listen to the account of the incident given by Barbara Frye, a spokeswoman for the Escambia County School District in Tallahassee, one would think that a wild animal or a desperate criminal had broken into the school.
"We had a child who went into a rage," explained Frye. "She was supposed to be in line for lunch and, in doing so, was throwing some furniture and turning some over." The child now faces a felony charge of battery of an educator or elected official.
School officials in Escambia County, in taking action as they did, were merely adopting the policy pursued by the American political and legal establishment in every situation where the social crisis manifests itself: they locked someone up. By any objective human standpoint their response was irrational. This was, after all, a five-year-old child.
The Tallahassee incident provides another glimpse at the levels of social polarization and official indifference that have been reached in the US. The young girl’s anger can only reflect, in some fashion or other, the environment in which she lives. What social problems does this child carry with her to school each day, which found expression in her temper tantrum? One assumes that the incident will only further traumatize her.
On the other hand, school officials and police feel no need to justify the arrest of a young child; it is the logical extension of a process, the criminalization of the poor and the young, that has been going on for years. The claim by the support teacher, Linda Green, that she sought the child’s arrest so that she could receive mandatory counseling, only reveals the sense of powerlessness and despair that pervades many school districts.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 8, 2006 16:32:36 GMT -5
Feb. 16, 2006
In a decision cheered by civil libertarians, an appeals court on Wednesday upheld a controversial court ruling that keeps drug dogs from sniffing on private property without a search warrant.
In April 2002, a tipster ratted out James Rabb of Hollywood, telling authorities he was growing marijuana plants in his home. Police detectives took their drug-detection dog named "Chevy" to the front door of Rabb's home on Polk Street, where the dog sniffed at the door and signaled to his bosses that marijuana abounded.
Chevy's work helped convince a judge to issue a search warrant.
Inside Rabb's home, detectives from the Broward Sheriff's Office found marijuana plants, plus Ecstasy and Xanax tablets. Rabb was charged with possession of 64 cannabis plants and other drugs.
But at trial, Broward Circuit Judge Ilona Holmes threw out the evidence, ruling the search had violated Rabb's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. "It would have opened the door to terrible civil liberties violations," said Charles Wender, Rabb's attorney.
On Wednesday, the Fourth District Court of Appeal once again affirmed Holmes' decision. In its most recent appeal, the state asked the court to consider a 1998 drug-dog case out of Illinois. In this case, a police dog discovered that a speeding driver had a trunk full of marijuana, and the driver, Roy Caballes, received a 12-year sentence for marijuana trafficking.
But Judge Bobby W. Gunther, joined by Judge Gary M. Farmer, said a car is completely different from a home, the latter a most sacred place.
In his 22-page decision, Gunther wrote: "a firm line remains at its entrance blocking the noses of dogs from sniffing government's way into the intimate details of an individual's life. If that line should crumble, one can only fear where future lines will be drawn and where sniffing dogs, or even more intrusive and disturbing sensory-enhancing methods, will be seen next."
"The court has quite clearly said there is a very high expectation of privacy in one's home," said Randall Marshall, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
Assistant State Attorney Claudine M. LaFrance, who appealed the decision, did not return a call from The Miami Herald for comment on Wednesday's ruling. A spokesman for BSO said the agency had not yet had a chance to review the ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 8, 2006 16:32:36 GMT -5
Feb. 16, 2006
In a decision cheered by civil libertarians, an appeals court on Wednesday upheld a controversial court ruling that keeps drug dogs from sniffing on private property without a search warrant.
In April 2002, a tipster ratted out James Rabb of Hollywood, telling authorities he was growing marijuana plants in his home. Police detectives took their drug-detection dog named "Chevy" to the front door of Rabb's home on Polk Street, where the dog sniffed at the door and signaled to his bosses that marijuana abounded.
Chevy's work helped convince a judge to issue a search warrant.
Inside Rabb's home, detectives from the Broward Sheriff's Office found marijuana plants, plus Ecstasy and Xanax tablets. Rabb was charged with possession of 64 cannabis plants and other drugs.
But at trial, Broward Circuit Judge Ilona Holmes threw out the evidence, ruling the search had violated Rabb's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. "It would have opened the door to terrible civil liberties violations," said Charles Wender, Rabb's attorney.
On Wednesday, the Fourth District Court of Appeal once again affirmed Holmes' decision. In its most recent appeal, the state asked the court to consider a 1998 drug-dog case out of Illinois. In this case, a police dog discovered that a speeding driver had a trunk full of marijuana, and the driver, Roy Caballes, received a 12-year sentence for marijuana trafficking.
But Judge Bobby W. Gunther, joined by Judge Gary M. Farmer, said a car is completely different from a home, the latter a most sacred place.
In his 22-page decision, Gunther wrote: "a firm line remains at its entrance blocking the noses of dogs from sniffing government's way into the intimate details of an individual's life. If that line should crumble, one can only fear where future lines will be drawn and where sniffing dogs, or even more intrusive and disturbing sensory-enhancing methods, will be seen next."
"The court has quite clearly said there is a very high expectation of privacy in one's home," said Randall Marshall, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
Assistant State Attorney Claudine M. LaFrance, who appealed the decision, did not return a call from The Miami Herald for comment on Wednesday's ruling. A spokesman for BSO said the agency had not yet had a chance to review the ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 29, 2006 23:58:22 GMT -5
2006-08-29
NEBRASKA – A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.
Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.
"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of drug use or distribution."
"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 29, 2006 23:58:22 GMT -5
2006-08-29
NEBRASKA – A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.
Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.
"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of drug use or distribution."
"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 29, 2006 23:38:49 GMT -5
Thursday, Aug. 24, 2006
The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the government can keep and destroy more than 500 CDs taken from Michael Cohen, owner of Pitchfork Records in Concord, in 2003 even though the state failed to prove that a single disk was illegal.
Cohen was arrested for attempting to sell bootleg recordings. But the police case collapsed when it turned out that most of the recordings were made legally. Police dropped six of the seven charges, and Cohen went to trial on one charge. He beat it after the judge concluded that the recording was legal.
However, the police refused to return Cohen’s CDs. In the state Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling, Chief Justice John Broderick, writing for the majority, reasoned so poorly that it appeared as if he’d made up his mind ahead of time.
Dissenting, Justice Linda Dalianis wrote, perceptively, that “the majority does not explain how statutes prohibiting the production, publication, or sale of certain works render possession of such works unlawful.”
Further, Dalianis concluded that “the state’s failure to establish in any way that the seized property constitutes contraband” made it impossible to justify keeping Cohen’s property.
Indeed, the majority’s reasoning is chilling. The majority concedes that no crime or illegal act was proven, but allows the confiscation anyway by concluding that a crime might have been committed. The majority used words such as “apparently,” “likely” and “would have” to describe the alleged illegal activity.
It should go without saying that speculation by a few judges that a crime might have been committed is a frightening basis for taking someone’s property.
Earlier this year, Nashua police confiscated video recordings of two officers being rude to a citizen at his own home. Though police dropped all charges against Michael Gannon and admitted they could not prove the recordings were illegal, they still kept the tapes.
If someone is found with cocaine or any other item clearly illegal to possess, confiscation is easily justified. But the illegality of these items was never proven, and mere possession was not itself illegal.
If the government can seize and keep a citizen’s property by simply asserting that it is contraband, even when the assertion is unsupported by the facts, then we have entered into dangerous territory.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 29, 2006 23:38:49 GMT -5
Thursday, Aug. 24, 2006
The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the government can keep and destroy more than 500 CDs taken from Michael Cohen, owner of Pitchfork Records in Concord, in 2003 even though the state failed to prove that a single disk was illegal.
Cohen was arrested for attempting to sell bootleg recordings. But the police case collapsed when it turned out that most of the recordings were made legally. Police dropped six of the seven charges, and Cohen went to trial on one charge. He beat it after the judge concluded that the recording was legal.
However, the police refused to return Cohen’s CDs. In the state Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling, Chief Justice John Broderick, writing for the majority, reasoned so poorly that it appeared as if he’d made up his mind ahead of time.
Dissenting, Justice Linda Dalianis wrote, perceptively, that “the majority does not explain how statutes prohibiting the production, publication, or sale of certain works render possession of such works unlawful.”
Further, Dalianis concluded that “the state’s failure to establish in any way that the seized property constitutes contraband” made it impossible to justify keeping Cohen’s property.
Indeed, the majority’s reasoning is chilling. The majority concedes that no crime or illegal act was proven, but allows the confiscation anyway by concluding that a crime might have been committed. The majority used words such as “apparently,” “likely” and “would have” to describe the alleged illegal activity.
It should go without saying that speculation by a few judges that a crime might have been committed is a frightening basis for taking someone’s property.
Earlier this year, Nashua police confiscated video recordings of two officers being rude to a citizen at his own home. Though police dropped all charges against Michael Gannon and admitted they could not prove the recordings were illegal, they still kept the tapes.
If someone is found with cocaine or any other item clearly illegal to possess, confiscation is easily justified. But the illegality of these items was never proven, and mere possession was not itself illegal.
If the government can seize and keep a citizen’s property by simply asserting that it is contraband, even when the assertion is unsupported by the facts, then we have entered into dangerous territory.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 28, 2006 0:09:13 GMT -5
BALTIMORE — The Baltimore City Police Department has used a technical legal argument to win a defamation lawsuit against two of its officers.
But the opposing attorney says the argument — that applications for search warrants are immune from libel — gives police carte blanche to make false statements on court documents and search anyone's home based on lies.
"A police officer can lie about a citizen on a search warrant or an arrest warrant," said attorney Clarke Ahlers. "That's the city's position and the judge agrees. It's absurd that's their public policy."
Jordan Watts, assistant city solicitor, said his office had not yet seen the judge's ruling and could not comment. Ahlers said he received the ruling Saturday.
On Aug. 1, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock dismissed Ahlers' $1.5 million defamation lawsuit, filed by police officers Sgt. Robert L.D. Smith and Vicki Lynn Mengel.
The suit claimed that the former Southwestern District "Flex Squad" members were subject to "public ridicule, scorn, dishonor and embarrassment," because of false statements made by other officers investigating the squad that were released to the media.
Two police officers stated in a Dec. 29, 2005, document that they believed Smith was violating drug laws, and Mengel was planting drugs on citizens to make false arrests, but did not include evidence or specifics to support those claims.
In dismissing the suit, Murdock agreed with the police department's argument that applications for search warrants "are protected from a claim of defamation by absolute immunity."
But Ahlers said the police department's legal arguments show a disregard for the truth.
City police "do not deny that they made intentionally false and malicious statements in contravention of law in the affidavit in support of a search warrant," Ahlers wrote. "They claim absolute immunity for making these false and malicious statements because they were made in the course of judicial proceedings."
But Baltimore Police Department Chief Legal Counsel Karen Hornig wrote that the officers' suit was a "vain attempt to deflect attention from their own involvement in the possible criminal activities of the Flex Squad."
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 28, 2006 0:09:13 GMT -5
BALTIMORE — The Baltimore City Police Department has used a technical legal argument to win a defamation lawsuit against two of its officers.
But the opposing attorney says the argument — that applications for search warrants are immune from libel — gives police carte blanche to make false statements on court documents and search anyone's home based on lies.
"A police officer can lie about a citizen on a search warrant or an arrest warrant," said attorney Clarke Ahlers. "That's the city's position and the judge agrees. It's absurd that's their public policy."
Jordan Watts, assistant city solicitor, said his office had not yet seen the judge's ruling and could not comment. Ahlers said he received the ruling Saturday.
On Aug. 1, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock dismissed Ahlers' $1.5 million defamation lawsuit, filed by police officers Sgt. Robert L.D. Smith and Vicki Lynn Mengel.
The suit claimed that the former Southwestern District "Flex Squad" members were subject to "public ridicule, scorn, dishonor and embarrassment," because of false statements made by other officers investigating the squad that were released to the media.
Two police officers stated in a Dec. 29, 2005, document that they believed Smith was violating drug laws, and Mengel was planting drugs on citizens to make false arrests, but did not include evidence or specifics to support those claims.
In dismissing the suit, Murdock agreed with the police department's argument that applications for search warrants "are protected from a claim of defamation by absolute immunity."
But Ahlers said the police department's legal arguments show a disregard for the truth.
City police "do not deny that they made intentionally false and malicious statements in contravention of law in the affidavit in support of a search warrant," Ahlers wrote. "They claim absolute immunity for making these false and malicious statements because they were made in the course of judicial proceedings."
But Baltimore Police Department Chief Legal Counsel Karen Hornig wrote that the officers' suit was a "vain attempt to deflect attention from their own involvement in the possible criminal activities of the Flex Squad."
|
|