Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Our justice system is great, ain't it?
Topic Started: Jan 6 2016, 07:43 AM (277 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/the_sweetheart_deal_for_bill_clintons_orgy_island_pal_may_be_exposed_and_overturned.html

January 5, 2016
The sweetheart deal for Bill Clinton's Orgy Island pal may be exposed and overturned

(snip)

Federal prosecutors in Florida intentionally kept underage victims of billionaire perv Jeffrey Epstein in the dark about his plea deal, newly unsealed court papers reveal.

The documents also show prosecutors wanted to keep the extent of Epstein’s alleged sex crimes away from a judge reviewing the deal.

“I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention ‘co-conspirators,’ but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana wrote to one Epstein lawyer in September 2007.

Another email shows she agreed to stop sending notifications about the non-prosecution deal to 34 underage girls Epstein allegedly sexually preyed upon after his lawyers complained.

The feds say they struck the deal in return for Epstein pleading to state charges involving a single victim.

Slap on the wrist does not begin to describe the leniency
. Ace summarizes:

This plea involved the slap on the wrist sentence of 13 months -- and he got to spend his waking hours at his Palm Beach mansion. That is, he only had to check into his "jail" eight hours a day.

Note: Epstein slept in a vacant wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade, so he was spared the ordeal of interaction with other prisoners.

So this friend of Bill committed statutory rape on multiple victims and had to check into the Graybar Hotel to sleep in solitude, but once he got up, he was free to go to his lavish Palm Beach mansion for 13 months, and that’s it? And the mainstream media is not at all interested in this? Ann Coulter saw the problem a year ago, speaking to Sean Hannity:



This is a really important story. And I so love that you're pitching it just as a Clinton sex scandal, but it is so much more than that. And it's appalling that the only place that covered it last night -- I watched TV, every station -- was Megyn Kelly. God bless her. At least we got it out there. This is not just a Clinton sex scandal; this is the elites getting cozy and covering up and protecting one another. It also involves the Bush administration, it involves Ken Starr, the lawyers for Epstein.

There are some facts that are absolutely known, there are some that are only allegations right now. But the basic story is that Jeffrey Epstein -- there's a major Palm Beach police investigation, a young girl, 15-year-old girl's mother went to Palm Beach police back in 2006 and said my daughter is being paid to have sex with this rich man in Palm Beach. Palm Beach police staged a very detailed investigation without Epstein's knowledge.

They went through his garbage, they get sworn statements from about a half-dozen of the victims as well as this slightly older girl who was procuring them. The evidence was quite strong and the same prosecutor that was going after Rush Limbaugh for back pain medication for two years wants to just give him [Epstein] a little ticket, just pay ten dollars and that's enough for having sex with these underage girls, that's of course statutory rape in Florida.

The Palm Beach police went mental after they staged this investigation and put all the evidence together. So they went to the federal government. That's where this case comes involved. The U.S. Attorney who actually was a good guy but he is described in a letter to whom it may concern that showed up in The Daily Beast just these astonishing attacks that his office came under from Jeffrey Epstein's defense team including Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, Roy black, all of the legal dream team.

The prosecutors private's lives were investigated and according to the U.S. Attorney they were just pressured, jerked around, everything was appealed. Eventually they get Epstein to agree to plead guilty to a state charge, allegedly sentenced to 18 months, in fact it was 13 months and for 16 hours a day he was allowed to go to his mansion in Palm Beach. So he got basically no jail time. He is a registered sex offender.

There is a federal law sponsored by, among others, [Former] Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and it says victims are asking for, could we please just have the rights of criminals. They want to be notified as a case is going forward. None of that happened in this case. A secret agreement was struck. The documents are under seal. A no prosecution agreement against not only Epstein but his lawyers and all these other friends of his. They are suing under that, they can open this case again. They could breach the no prosecution.

That case has been going on since 2008. That's Jane Doe One, Jane Doe Two. Now, Friday, the new news that brings your favorite topic into this, Bill Clinton, is Jane Doe Three and Jane Doe Four come forward and their allegations involve Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz. One of them, Jane Doe Three, Alan Dershowitz the lawyer and Bill Clinton, of course. So, that is how their names have come into this.

What I do want to say is this is not just
-- I mean, who knows about the specific allegations, of course I'm saying nothing about that. All you can do is read the legal findings. The lawyer bringing this case, one of the main ones, Paul Cassell, is probably the most impressive lawyer in the country. And he's up there with Miguel Estrada. This is not a frivolous case. So keep following this case.

And the fact that thus far this has only been covered on Fox News is shocking. This is not a political thing. This is what MSNBC and the rest of the networks have been describing what they thought these fraternities, what they thought the [Duke] lacrosse rape [case was]. This is the elites circling the wagon and protecting a pederast. It's a shocking case and that's just the known facts.



But now, the prosecutors who handed out the sham punsihemnet may be forced to testify. Michelle Dargan of the Palm Beach Daily News reported into the news vacuum on New Year’s Day:



Two teenage victimes of Palm Beach billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have filed court papers asking to depose top federal officials who were involved in inking the secret deal that saved Epstein from serious federal charges.

FBI agents, current and former federal prosecutors, and Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, are named in the motion filed by attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell on behalf of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. The girls were 14 and 13, respectively, at the time of the sex abuse.

The victims filed the motion, in part, because of a new argument Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee made during a routine status check hearing in November.

Lee said the girls aren’t really victims because they procured other minor girls for Epstein and received money for it so they’re not protected under the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act.

“Apparently, the government believes that because Epstein pressured some of his young victims into performing sexual acts, those victims themselves were complicit in Epstein’s crimes and, therefore, are barred from seeking relief under the CVRA,” the motion says. “There has never been any public document (or other private document that we have seen) in this or any related case that has ‘accused’ Epstein’s young victims of committing ‘the crime’ that Epstein committed.”

The six witnesses they want to depose are: Acosta, FBI Special Agent E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, FBI Special Agent Jason Richards, former First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Menchel and Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana.

Filed in 2008, the lawsuit says the U.S. Attorney’s Office violated the federal Crime Victim’s Rights Act by failing to confer with the victims before signing a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in September 2007. The agreement saved Epstein from serious federal charges and extensive prison time. Edwards and Cassell are fighting to overturn the agreement.

If the agreement is overturned and Epstein faces real punishment, he just might be the type of guy who would sing like a bird to get lenient treatment in exchange for implicating bigger fish with his testimony. No wonder Bill Clinton is stammering when asked about whether his past is a relevant issue in his wife’s campaign.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
this is the elites getting cozy and covering up and protecting one another.


Now, how often does this happen?

Could it have happened in the lax case?

How about in the lax suits?

How many important figures and organizations, with major government contacts, might have been forced to testify to criminal
activity, had those suits gone forward to open court?

I have no idea. But I would have liked an open process in order to find out...




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 

The honored included D.C. police Detectives Cassandra Washington and Bryan Kasul; John Wehrli, National Park Service; Wallace Merriman and Patricia Sanders, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Timika Holiday; Jeffrey Bloxsom; Scott Herdon; Desene and Tamara Lee; Margaret Highsmith; Eva Whitfield; Tony and Terrance Allen; and Shanda Smith.


In 2007, the US Atty for DC announced awards for
citizen-witnesses who had come forward boldly and bravely to testify in criminal cases in spite of fears of retaliation by the accused. These included people who testified against drug dealers, etc., who had the ability to retaliate with physical harm. Oddly, imho, on that list were two persons whom it
was then being bandied about should be charged with perjury. (And those two testified only against a college student-- a totally different class of suspect; making their inclusion in this list of bold and brave witnesses . . . curious, in the opinion of some.)

Some people thought the award to those two was a sign that the DOJ had their backs, and that no perjury charges would be brought.

Was that a case the DOJ didn't want to undergo further public scrutiny? Was that a case which involved rigged justice?

Don't know.


Edited by Quasimodo, Jan 6 2016, 08:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo


There's a reason we remember cases like this -- to remember that justice isn't the private preserve of the elites.

Unfortunately, sometimes our memories fade...



Posted Image


Edited by Quasimodo, Jan 6 2016, 08:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



Anybody wonder why Bill Cosby is a pariah but Bill Clinton is never prosecuted (nor even accused by the media) of the same alleged
offenses?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



Who in the IRS authorized (and it had to be authorized) the sending of a Lien notice to a plaintiff in a legal case?

(A lien which was issued contrary to all IRS procedural requirements, and which turned out to be false in addition?)




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



Why did some of the best and most expensive attorneys in the country suddenly appear (imho) to go supine
during what was considered to be a slam-dunk lawsuit?

:confus:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/baltimore_judge_guts_the_5th_amendment.html

January 8, 2016
Baltimore Judge Guts the 5th Amendment

Just a day after a weeping President Obama attempted to disembowel the 2d Amendment with a series of unconstitutional executive orders, a liberal judge in Maryland, caving to the mob justice

[anybody think judges in Durham would have caved in to mob justice? (Was a change of venue granted--or did the case need a "Durham solution", regardless of the rights of the defendants?)]


in that plagues that benighted city, gutted the 5th Amendment.

[How much of the Constitution and the 14th amendment did Judge Beaty gut--including the right to a speedy trial?]


This occurred during a pre-trial hearing in the case of Officer Caesar R. Goodson, the second Baltimore City policeman to be tried criminally in the allegedly accidental death of small-time hood Freddie Gray. The prosecution asked Judge Barry G. Williams to compel Officer William G. Porter, to testify against Goodson, and the judge, over the strenuous opposition of the defense, granted the motion.

Porter was the first officer brought to trial in the Gray case, presumably because the prosecution believed the case against him to be the strongest. In fact, at trial the case against Porter was shown to be gossamer thin, with the State unable to prove exactly when or how Gray suffered his fatal injury, the defense demonstrating that the medical examiner’s office changed its initial conclusion that the injury was accidental under political pressure, and an absence of evidence that Porter ever did anything to harm Gray. The greatest surprise in Porter’s trial was that despite the dearth of evidence that he committed any crime, that at least one juror voted to convict him.

The mistrial in Porter’s case was disastrous for the prosecution, since they counted on him to provide testimony against his fellow officers either having been convicted or acquitted. The prosecution could have obviated that problem by choosing not to retry Porter, but having promised mob justice to Baltimore’s rioters, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby decided to press on. Porter got a new trial date in June, meaning that he is in jeopardy until then and entitled to the 5th Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination. Since the other charged officers will be tried before then, that would deprive the prosecution of Porter’s testimony, unless it either negotiated a plea agreement in return for what is known as “use” immunity, or granted Porter “transactional” immunity which could compel his testimony.

(snip)

What’s especially remarkable about what happened in that Baltimore courtroom is that both the judge and the prosecutor demonstrated that they clearly knew what they were doing was unconstitutional and unethical but proceeded anyway. Prosecutor Michael Schatzow knows that what he sought, and what the judge gave him, had no basis in Maryland law. Schatzow’s claimed that forcing Porter to testify is “necessary to the public interest.” He might as well have been prosecuting a show trial in the 1930s in Moscow or Berlin.

[Would a lax trial have been a "show trial", with rights tossed out the window (no venue change) and other features guaranteed to bring about
a conviction and hence appease mob justice? Of course, Robert K. Steel thought that would be "best for Duke". ]


By such a legal standard -- necessary public interest -- any and all our constitutional freedoms can be extinguished. It is probably in the "general public interest" that the chronic repeat violent criminals who roam Baltimore’s streets be rounded up and summarily executed. Is Mr. Schatzow in favor of that? Is his boss?

[Is Steel?]

The wholesale rejection of law and logic got worse once Judge Williams announced his ruling. Admitting he was entering “uncharted territory” he granted the prosecution’s motion and in a breathtaking display of judicial activism swept away the rights of an American citizen. Williams’ recognition that he was in uncharted territory betrays his nonjudicial intentions, which are to support this political prosecution at almost any cost.

[Stephens, Titus, Bushfan, Smith...]

"Uncharted territory" really means that he knows that the ruling is without statutory or judicial precedent, which is the basis of the law in Maryland and every other state (and usually taught in about the 9th grade.) Williams also reportedly said during the hearing that Porter’s “extremely important testimony is needed in the Goodson and White cases” which is something you might expect the prosecutor to say, but not the judge.

Besides being blatantly political and unconstitutional, Williams ruling was also logically incomprehensible on its own terms. In issuing the ruling, he warned prosecutors that should they call Porter to testify later, it would be “nigh impossible” to prove that his testimony in Goodson’s case would not impact his retrial. To make any sense of it, you have to believe that Williams just doesn’t know what the words nigh and impossible mean. If he did, he wouldn’t have issued his ruling, since that is exactly what Porter’s attorneys told him in making their case that he could not compel their client’s testimony. What Williams essentially ruled is that what he was doing was unconstitutional, that he knew it was unconstitutional, but that he was going to do it anyway. Moreover, he appears to be content with forcing Porter’s testimony and keeping the man in jeopardy until his retrial, and also with that testimony being used against Porter if the prosecution can figure out a way to get it in.

Porter’s attorneys have appealed the ruling and are asking for an injunction from the appellate courts. Maryland’s appellate judiciary is reliably liberal but hopefully will recognize this for the travesty of constitutional justice it is.

[You can't always count on an appeals court, which is a part of the same brotherhood clique of the black robes as the lower court judges.]



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

POSTER COMMENTS at site (not about Durham, but they might as well have been) :


Quote:
 

Travesty, schmavesty. The LibProgs are on a roll. They're not going to let an outdated list of negative rights penned by a bunch of old white slaveowners get in the way of social justice. You gotta break some eggs to make an omelette. And if a few people have to die in order for that justice to be realized, well boo-freaking-hoo. Whites have been at the top of the heap for far too long. About time they got a taste of their own medicine. String 'em up! Off with their heads! Let's get this party started! /sarc

--------

Er, the scary thing is that I don't find the statements above 'sarcastic' per say but appear to be, to mind mind, an exact representation of the Obama 'liberal' world view and objectives. I am sure this is exactly what is being said in private.




Wahneema? Karla? Justice won't be determined in the courtroom?




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



Quote:
 

http://www.kcentv.com/story/30920537/biker-attorneys-request-to-set-trial-date-denied
Posted: Jan 08, 2016 1:27 PM
Updated: Jan 08, 2016 1:28 PM


WACO -- A Houston-based attorney representing a biker indicted in the Twin Peaks case was denied a request for a trial date Friday.

According to Paul Looney who represents a member of the Cossacks, Cody Ledbetter, 26, Judge Ralph Strother refused to give his client a trial setting and denied making the District Attorney’s Office tell him what his client did wrong in the Twin Peaks incident on May 17th that left nine bikers dead. Looney claims the thousands of pages of discovery documents fail to reference anything his client did wrong at that time.

“In fact, he told me I had to get permission from the prosecutor to set trial, strange,” said Looney.

Looney said his frustration was mounting in the case. This is the third time he’d tried to set a trial date for his client Mr. Ledbetter, the second time since he was indicted in November.

Looney said he might be seeking appellate court assistance next after his motion to quash the indictment, a motion for a bill of particulars, and a motion for the judge to give a trial setting were all denied.

(snip)





Sound familiar? (Isn't there something called the Sixth Amendment? I guess not...)


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply