| What is going on in the U.S. Attorney's Office?; Case goes Cold against (Ret.) Police Officer | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 3 2012, 09:33 PM (207 Views) | |
| Mason | Jun 3 2012, 09:33 PM Post #1 |
|
Parts unknown
|
A D.C. case went cold after the U.S Attorney's office says it was unable to serve a (Ret.) Police officer with papers to appear in court (a summons). A Washington Times reporter investigating called the number listed on the paperwork in the case and the (Ret.) Police officer answered immediately. He asked him to come in that he was wanted - and he came in, just like that. There's a Video of in the incident at this link. The victim had a built in Camera. http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/2/dc-vehicle-owner-wanted-connection-bike-collision-/ Now, the U.S. attorney's office is scrambling. Unsure of changes, if any, now. . Edited by Mason, Jun 3 2012, 09:36 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Jun 3 2012, 09:53 PM Post #2 |
|
Why would a U.S. Attorney’s Office be involved in an accident case, even if it may have been a hit & run? |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Jun 3 2012, 09:58 PM Post #3 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Cause DC doesn't have a State Government. Feds. The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia is unique among U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the size and scope of its work. It serves as both the local and the federal prosecutor for the nation’s capital. On the local side, these prosecutions extend from misdemeanor drug possession cases to murders. On the federal side, these prosecutions extend from child pornography to gangs to financial fraud to terrorism. In both roles, the Office is committed to being responsive and accountable to the citizens of the District of Columbia. The Office also enforces the law and defends the interests of the United States in civil suits brought in the district. Its location in the seat of the federal government gives it responsibility for many cases of national importance, including far-reaching challenges to federal policies and employment practices. . Edited by Mason, Jun 3 2012, 10:01 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Jun 3 2012, 10:08 PM Post #4 |
|
Oh! |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 3 2012, 10:36 PM Post #5 |
|
It was the US Attorney's office in DC which prosecuted a college student for shouting at someone who had struck him in the head from behind and knocked him down. The prosecution utilized 9 federal attorneys plus 8 additional staff, for a two-day trial. It was, AFAIK, the first time a DC court trial had ever been held for the misdemeanor offense of shouting at someone. DC declared a Crime Emergency during the trial after a British political activist was murdered during a hold-up. Still, it could allocate considerable resources to the shouting case. When it was suggested later that the witnesses for the prosecution might be prosecuted for perjury, the US Attorney included their names on a list of persons to be recognized for having come forward to testify in difficult cases. Most of those named had testified against drug dealers, gang members, etc., at considerable risk to their lives. It was thereafter suggested that this had been the US Attorney's way of signalling that the prosecution witnesses had nothing to fear from perjury charges, the US attorney (prosecutor) still had their backs. (This was the same US Attorney who refused to seriously prosecuted such well-connected persons as Patrick Kennedy and Cynthia McKinney.) Justice in DC is, IOW, nothing if not political... Edited by Quasimodo, Jun 3 2012, 10:36 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 3 2012, 10:43 PM Post #6 |
|
It was also the US Attorney for DC which refused to seriously prosecute a NYPD officer who was charged with raping a woman in DC. Judge John Bayly sentenced him to 24 months probation and a $2000 fine. The victim claimed she was attacked in a bathroom during National Police Week events. A few years before, during National Police Week events, officers attending the event were accused of rowdy behavior, including stripping in a hotel lobby and spraying a fire-extinguisher in the hallways. Such collegiate behavior was not punished with their being banned from Georgetown, sent to take alcohol counseling, probation, fines, or continual harassment from a judge with threats of being jailed. In DC, who you are seems to matter more than the nature of your offense, IMHO... |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 3 2012, 10:45 PM Post #7 |
|
Judge Bayly also permitted a man who claimed to have a cell phone inside his head, and who had tried to jump the White House fence to meet with Chelsea Clinton, probation, a fine of $50, and an order to stay--not out of Georgetown--but at least one block away from the White House. (Some crimes obviously imperil the republic and require a more serious sentence, than do others.) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 3 2012, 10:54 PM Post #8 |
|
In 2000 a drunken student struck another student (David Shick) with the result that Shick died; his assailant was not prosecuted and had only to write a 10-page paper about it for his school(Georgetown). In 2007 DC police arrested a student and accused him of assault a gay man. Police made no investigation before the arrest, and took the student into custody while he was in class taking an exam. Activists used his arrest to pressure his school (Georgetown) into accepting a gay program. The only problem was, the student could prove via a surveillance tape that he had been far away at the time. Police had been under pressure from activists for failing to solve a number of anti-gay hate crimes. Instead of releasing the student (arrested late on Friday, forcing him to remain over the weekend in jail--although he was offered release if he would sign a statement confessing to the assault)--the US Attorney's office decided to press charges anyway. Over the next nine months the office kept reducing the terms necessary for the student to accept a plea deal. The student refused (he was innocent). Finally, after considerable legal expenses, and after school was out, the US Attorney's office dropped the charges, saying it was unable to place the student at the scene of the crime (without actually saying he was innocent). By then the activists has moved on elsewhere. -------------------------------------- Do I believe there is justice in DC? DC, which is the nation's capitol, ought to have the finest jurists serving on its benches--exemplars of their profession. From the above, justice in DC appears to be more of a matter of what the Washington Post will say about the verdict, than about justice. (MOO) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 3 2012, 11:01 PM Post #9 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 3 2012, 11:09 PM Post #10 |
|
Edited by Quasimodo, Jun 3 2012, 11:11 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 4 2012, 12:32 AM Post #11 |
|
Just sickening. Sickeningly embarrassing, in fact. Embarrassing how they bought the media metanarrative hook, line, and sinker and then jumped on the bandwagon to teach these guys a lesson. These are senior officials in the criminal justice system, and they were played like pawns by the likes of nitwits like Gottlieb and Nifong. Gottlieb never even went to college and, yet, was able to play the pull sthe strings of these senior people in the criminal justice system like a marionette. Freakin' idiots. Unfortunately, though, they're idiots who hold a lot of power. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Jun 4 2012, 06:59 AM Post #12 |
|
...the misdemeanor offense of shouting at someone. That seems like a rather strange charge. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 4 2012, 08:36 AM Post #13 |
|
Remember, this took place because of a false accusation in Durham. If anything, the judge--accepting the presumption of innocence--should have been bound to wait until the veracity of the charges in Durham was proven. Because otherwise it would be possible to violate the terms of a diversion agreement by doing nothing at all, except be the passive object of another's false accusations. Which would be contrary to all concepts of US justice. (And, if the diversion agreement in question was typical of DC, it required the recipient to actually have broken the law, not to have been accused of breaking the law, for the agreement to have been violated.) Clearly someone wanted a conviction in DC as a means of further pressuring a witness in the Durham case (with continual threats of being jailed for that offense). Which would be considered witness tampering (a la Elmo, etc.) |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 4 2012, 08:48 AM Post #14 |
|
That's what I would have thought too! Else, the working assumption is: you get arrested, you're guilty. Then why even have a trial? Have we reverted to some kind of third world country? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |






2:33 PM Jul 11