British cops to be sued AFTER their innocent victim dies


A judge has allowed a critically ill cancer victim to sue police for wrongful arrest – even though he will probably be dead by the time the case gets to court.

Keith Johnson has already given his evidence and undergone cross-examination so the trial can go ahead even after he passes away.

The father-of-four, who was given two weeks to live by doctors, alleges he suffered a nightmare 14-hour ordeal after a caravan he bought turned out to be stolen.

And in what is believed to be a legal first, District Judge Phillip Mackenzie granted his dying wish for justice by ruling he could give his evidence now, so it may be heard from beyond the grave.

The trial is listed for December, but Mr Johnson, 49, is already defying his two-week prognosis which he received in July.

He is seeking aggravated and exemplary damages for wrongful arrest and unlawful imprisonment after police handcuffed him and carted him off to a police station. He suffered his ordeal despite showing officers a receipt which proved he purchased the caravan from a reputable dealer, and calling the salesman.

After he was released without charge, he vowed to sue – but was subsequently diagnosed with bowel cancer. If his case is successful, any compensation will go to his family.

Mr Johnson gave his evidence at Worcester County Court in front of Judge Toby Hooper and was cross-examined by Andrew Waters, barrister for West Mercia Police. The force says it is not yet ready to provide its own witnesses for the trial.

Mr Johnson told The Mail on Sunday: ‘I am so glad that the judges had compassion – this was an awful ordeal the police put me through. I suffer from asthma and was put in a van with no air-conditioning.

‘The cancer hit me out of the blue and I went from 14 st to 7 st 3 lbs, but I wanted to get justice before I died and that may now happen thanks to the judges in the case.’

His wife Elizabeth, 40, added: ‘It’s taken us to hell and back – firstly the police harassment and treatment of Keith on that day, and then the cancer. It’s terrible what they have put us through. It is an absolute nightmare.’

Mr Johnson bought the five-berth Swift Azzura caravan from Malvern Caravans in Powick, Worcestershire, for £1,500. After driving it to his daughter’s house nearby, the family went shopping.

They returned to find officers at the house, who told Mr Johnson they had received a tip-off that the caravan was stolen. The chassis number revealed it had been illegally taken from Birmingham months previously.

Despite showing police the receipt, Mr Johnson was arrested on suspicion of theft and taken to Worcester police station where he was held for eight hours. Officers from West Midlands Police, the force which dealt with the original theft, eventually collected him and drove him to Smethwick police station in their area.

Following a seven-minute interview he was released with no further charge. He then had to pay to get a taxi to take him the 70 miles home. Mr Johnson’s lawyer Nick Turner, of Malvern-based Russell & Co, said: ‘I have never dealt with a case as compelling as this or as unusual. I believe it is unique and certainly has never happened here in Worcestershire.

‘The judge showed great sympathy with Mr Johnson and allowed his evidence to be heard on the basis that it was highly unlikely that he’d still be with us at the time of the trial.

‘It is almost a dying declaration and Mr Johnson is very keen that justice is done. The case was brought forward to this December, but Keith’s got only days to live if the prognosis is correct.

‘When he came to see me and told me the doctors had given him just two weeks to live I knew it would require a judge with real understanding to listen to his evidence in advance.’

Top civil law QC David Lock said: ‘In certain circumstances evidence is often given ahead of a trial but I am unaware of anything as radical as this happening before. It is understandable that police would like enough time to get their case together and the judge is using flexibility so that justice can be served.’

West Mercia Police said: ‘It is not appropriate to comment at this stage of proceedings.’

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

British police officer facing the sack for setting dog on boy, 15, and kicking him in the throat as he made arrest

The kid was undoubtedly scum but kicking anybody while they are down is always dubious

"A police dog handler who kicked a 15-year-old boy in the throat while his dog attacked him may be thrown out of the police force.

PC Kevin Peel, 44, assaulted the teenager in the early hours of the morning in a supermarket car park after the boy, who was carrying a bag of bolt croppers, tried to flee with other youngsters from police. Westminster Magistrates Court heard how the teenager initially fled on his bike before he was caught outside Sainsbury's in Vauxhall, south London.

The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told the court he struggled to breathe after the Metropolitan Police Service officer kicked him twice in the throat, and called him a 'thieving c***'.

The trial heard he and a number of friends were being pursued by officers in marked cars in the early hours of the morning on 17 July last year.

The teenager said he had attempted to flee as he was carrying bolt-croppers, but said that after cycling away from the rest of the group, he was followed by Peel’s car which had its windows down. 'He was telling me to stop or he was going to let the dog out,' he said.

The teenager said he continued to cycle around the car park but after dumping the bag near some trolleys he stopped and rested against a wall of the supermarket near to the police car.

He said the dog then jumped out of the window of the vehicle and bit him, causing him to come off his bike.

The victim, who is now 16, said he was left lying on his back on the ground while the seven-stone German Shepherd named Oscar continued to bite him before Peel got out of the car and approached him.

Giving evidence behind a screen, the boy told the court: 'He started kicking me on my waist. This is while the dog was biting me. 'Then he kicked me in my throat the second time. I couldn’t breathe properly. I was coughing', he said.

Peel, from Crawley, West Sussex, denied kicking and swearing at the boy and said he was trying to get the police dog off the boy. Asked if he had kicked the boy Peel, a serving police officer since 1990, said: 'Of course I didn't.' 'I was actually fighting with the police dog to get away.'

Finding Peel guilty of assault, District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe said: ‘I have to say that I cannot see how a kick could possibly be considered reasonable force in the position where there is a 15 year-old boy already on the ground and there are three police officers and one police dog.

‘But I have to say in all the circumstance of this case, having heard the evidence, I have absolutely no doubt that you kicked him and I find you guilty of assault.’

She acquitted Peel of a public order offence, in relation to his use of the word ‘c***’, but fined him £500 plus £500 costs and a £50 victim surcharge.

The district judge said the boy would not receive any compensation as he did not receive any lasting injuries.

Peel’s lawyer, Matthew Butt, said the verdict meant the policeman would lose his job 'without any doubt'.

Earlier, PC Vincent Turner, a witness to the episode, told the court how he encouraged the victim to take deep breaths to help him get his breath back after he had been kicked.

Shaven-headed Peel, dressed in dark suit and blue tie, wept as the verdict was announced. He was supported by several fellow officers in the public gallery.

The boy later received a police caution for going equipped for theft, the court heard.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Muslim restaurant worker is jailed for life for strangling a teenager and dumping her body on a golf course five years after boyfriend's conviction for the killing was quashed



A restaurant waiter who murdered a young woman was jailed for life yesterday – 11 years after her boyfriend was wrongly convicted of her killing.

Shahidul Ahmed strangled 19-year-old shop assistant Rachel Manning after she rejected his sexual advances on her way home from a fancy-dress party in December 2000.

He then bludgeoned her face with a car steering lock in an attempt to make her unrecognisable before hiding her body in undergrowth on a golf course.

Miss Manning’s boyfriend Barri White was convicted of her murder in 2002 and was only freed after a retrial in 2008.

The couple’s friend Keith Hyatt, now 58, spent two and a half years in jail after being found guilty of helping Mr White cover up the murder. His conviction was also quashed, albeit after serving his sentence.

Ahmed, a father of five, was arrested in 2010 after police matched his DNA to traces left on the steering lock and Miss Manning’s clothes. Officers had taken a DNA sample six months earlier after arresting him for sexually assaulting a female student.

She had got into his car after mistakenly thinking he was a taxi driver and only managed to escape after a passerby came to her rescue.

Ahmed, 41, who was born in Bangladesh and lived in Bletchley, Buckinghamshire, was found guilty at the end of a retrial at Luton Crown Court yesterday. A jury failed to reach a verdict at his first trial in February.

Sentencing him to life imprisonment with the order that he serve a minimum of 17 years, Mr Justice Wilkie said: ‘For almost ten years you lived undetected with the knowledge of what you had done.

‘You must have been aware that two other people, Barri White and Keith Hyatt, had suffered the agony of being accused, convicted and imprisoned for offences of which they were wholly innocent and although this was eventually put right, nothing can bring back either Rachel’s lost life or their lost years. Fortunately, out of the misfortune of the woman attacked by you in 2010, the police were at last able to identify you as the person who had attacked her, then killed her.

‘You took out your anger and frustration on her much-loved face and disfigured it by great violence, having sought to dispose of her where she would not be found for a sufficient time to enable you to cover your tracks.’

He told Miss Manning’s parents: ‘No one can imagine the grief you must have suffered. I can only admire the stoicism you have shown in this court and convey to you my profound sympathy over the loss of your daughter Rachel and everything that has happened since then until today.’

On the night of December 9, 2000, Miss Manning went with Mr White to a Seventies-themed fancy-dress party in Milton Keynes. They went on to Chicago’s nightclub but Miss Manning later walked off alone to catch a taxi.

At 2.43am, she used a phone box to call her flatmate in Wolverton, a suburb of Milton Keynes, and said she was upset. She also called Mr White, then aged 20, and told him she was lost.

They agreed to meet at a Blockbuster video store where he and Mr Hyatt would pick her up. When they arrived at 3.13am in Mr Hyatt’s van she was not there. It is likely that she was already dead.

A two-year investigation by the BBC’s Rough Justice programme uncovered glaring errors in the prosecution case.It commissioned new DNA and forensic tests which proved it was impossible for the men to have committed the crimes.

In 2007, two and a half years after the programme was screened, the Court of Appeal quashed their convictions. Mr White faced a retrial a year later and was cleared.

Yesterday, Mr White said: ‘I feel over the moon that justice has finally been done and really happy that Rachel’s family have finally got justice and the closure they deserve.’

Despite his protestations of innocence, many in jail believed he was the ruthless killer of a defenceless teenager. In some high security prisons, he asked to be placed in solitary confinement because he feared for his safety.

After years of legal battles and living with the stigma of being branded a murderer, he still thinks about the life they might have led together.

‘I was going to ask her to marry me on Christmas Day,’ he said. ‘I had bought the ring. You never know, if she had been here today we might still be married and have two lovely kids. It’s just a question now.’

Mr White’s conviction was quashed at the Court of Appeal in 2007 and he was acquitted at a retrial the following year.

However, he has never received a penny in compensation for his lost years. ‘I deserve a life back,’ he told the BBC. ‘Getting compensation and an apology from the police, that would be my justice.

‘It was six years of my life, my whole twenties, pretty much. They’re supposed to be the best years of your life, but I was rotting in jail.’

When asked about facing Rachel’s parents Liz and Paul during his numerous court appearances, he said: ‘It wasn’t nice them looking at me like I actually was the murderer of their daughter. I wanted to say that it wasn’t me. I loved their daughter too much.’

Despite another man now starting a life sentence for their daughter’s murder, her family still, in part, blame Mr White.

In a stinging statement, they said yesterday: ‘We believe Rachel would still be with us today if she had not been abandoned by her boyfriend the night she was attacked, killed and brutally battered. We cannot forget that.’

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Shamed police chief's year of holidays while suspended on full pay

A senior police chief spent a year touring holiday destinations while suspended on full pay from his £131,000-a-year job. Stuart Hyde, 53, racked up thousands of miles indulging his passion for walking and sightseeing – all while a misconduct inquiry was carried out.

The temporary chief constable of Cumbria visited idyllic French villages as well as Andorra, the Isle of Man, and beauty spots all over the North of England.

His grand tour took place as detectives from an outside force undertook a meticulous investigation into a raft of damaging claims against him.

They found Mr Hyde failed to record gifts and hospitality, abused an air-miles scheme, misused his official credit card and neglected his duties.

But yesterday he was welcomed back to his force as deputy chief constable after the new chief ruled he should receive only ‘advice’ over his actions. Mr Hyde is now responsible for ‘strategic IT developments’ and will remain in post until he retires on December 31.

He will then – thanks to his gold-plated final salary pension –collect up to £80,000 a year, depending on the size of any lump sum he takes.

Speaking last night, MPs reacted with disbelief to a decision which caps a shameful saga that leaves taxpayers saddled with a bill of up to £500,000.

John Woodcock, a Labour MP who represents Barrow and Furness, said: ‘After a year of dithering over the investigation, officers still haven’t come back with a clear case and so Stuart Hyde is allowed effectively to come back in and then retire.

Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron said: ‘It has been an appalling waste of money and must have diverted the police from their priorities, however much they tried not to.’

Mr Hyde was suspended from duty in September 2012 when Cumbria Police Authority was passed a dossier of evidence questioning his behaviour.

The officer, who had just returned from a trip to Washington DC, was accused of serious misconduct, including corruption. But while the inquiry ground on, Mr Hyde charted his travels on his personal website.

In August he posted pictures from Andorra and from the villages of Saint Papoul and Lastours in the South of France. In June, he went to the Isle of Man and in April posted pictures from Mont Noir, on
the Franco-Belgian border. Closer to home he toured beauty spots across Cumbria and the Yorkshire Dales.

Mr Hyde had already posted pictures of himself riding up Mount Ventoux in Provence, which features in a famous stage of the Tour de France. In one, the heavily-built policeman wore a T-shirt declaring himself to be a ‘pie-eating man mountain’.

The inquiry by South Wales Police, which took place as another chief was brought in from Merseyside to replace him, concluded there was no evidence of misconduct.

But it found that Mr Hyde should be given ‘appropriate advice’ on a dozen issues from his use of Twitter to his failure to provide receipts for spending on an official credit card.

Investigators highlighted how trips outside Cumbria, including to overseas events, accounted for nearly a quarter of his time over a nine-month period.

They said the acting chief had an ‘unconventional and unprofessional’ approach to business and did not record some gifts and hospitality. Investigators also found Mr Hyde used air miles accrued through his work to pay for personal flights to Tunisia, a clear breach of guidelines.

Cumbria’s new acting chief constable Bernard Lawson said his colleague’s behaviour ‘fell short’ of that required by a senior public servant. But he said he could still return to work ‘under a detailed plan to ensure lessons are learnt’.

Mr Hyde said he had ‘always worked hard for the people of Cumbria’ and that his suspension has been a ‘difficult time’. He said: ‘I recognise fully the need to improve the way I manage myself and my accountability. ‘I look forward to the opportunity to rebuild relationships and develop an innovative technology strategy for the force.’

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Police officer 'beat a suspect so badly that his skull was visible' after row over loud music


Mullett

A former police officer launched a 'savage and sustained' attack on a man when a dispute over loud dance music spilled into violence, a court was told.

Robin Mullett, aged 40, is accused of leaving his victim with a gash in his head so deep his skull was visible.

The former constable was said, along with his sister, Nicola, 46, to have confronted Robert Cummings - who lived in a maisonette flat above their mother in Rowley Regis in the West Midlands.

They knocked on the door of the property at around 11.15am on December 22 last year.

But the encounter turned to violence, the court was told, with Mr Mullett, of Stourport- on-Severn in Worcestershire, punching and then stamping on Mr Cummings as he lay curled up in a ball while Miss Mullett, of Brockmoor, Brierley Hill, allegedly kicked him.

Both deny a charge of wounding with intent in relation to Mr Cummings and a charge of common assault against his mother, Laura Cummings. Miss Mullett also denies assault against another man at the scene.

Former policeman Mullett claims he acted in self-defence after Mr Cummings had grabbed him around the throat on the doorstep of the property.

Stuart Lody, prosecuting at Birmingham Crown Court, said: 'Whether the purpose was to speak to the occupants or to perpetrate immediate unlawful violence is not necessarily clear. 'But as soon as the door was opened by Laura Cummings, a very violent incident took place.'

He said the attack was the culmination of a noise dispute between the Mulletts’ mother and the Cummings family. The former constable had made complaints on behalf of his mum, who, it was claimed, suffered an angina attack as the result of ‘drum and bass’ music being played too loudly.

Mr Lody said Nicola Mullett forced her way into the Church Road property by jamming her foot in the door. And it was when Robert Cummings responded to his mother’s calls for help that he came under attack from both Robin and Nicola.

'He was subjected to a savage and sustained attack by both defendants, although the main attack was carried out by Robin Mullett. 'He hit Robert Cummings several times to the face who went to the ground and tried to roll up into a ball.

'At that stage he was repeatedly kicked and stamped on, which caused a gash five centimetres in length and which went through to his skull. 'The attack carried on after that. Nicola Mullett kicked Robert Cummings when he was on the ground.'

Giving evidence to the jury of five men and seven women, Mr Cummings said he could do nothing to protect himself from the assault.

He said: 'I went into the kitchen and there’s a mirror. 'When I looked into it, I could see my skull. It happened so fast, the first five or six punches were just one after the other.'

Both were arrested when they went to Rowley Regis police station later that day to lodge a complaint against Mr Cummings for assault.

During cross-examination it was suggested Mr Cummings - who received a suspended jail sentence in 2012 for threatening to kill his ex-partner - had grabbed Mr Mullett by the throat.

Brian Dean, representing Mr Mullett, said Mr Cummings had been accused by his ex-partner of grabbing her around the throat in a similar manner during a domestic row in 2011. He also accused Mr Cummings of 'massively exaggerating' the assault.

Mr Cummings denied he grabbed Mr Mullett, saying it was the former police officer and his sister who launched the attack.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Watched Cops Are Polite Cops

How requiring police to wear video cameras will protect your constitutional rights

Who will watch the watchers? What if all watchers were required to wear a video camera that would record their every interaction with citizens? In her ruling in a recent civil suit challenging the New York City police department’s notorious stop-and-frisk rousting of residents, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Federal District Court in Manhattan imposed an experiment in which the police in the city’s precincts with the highest reported rates of stop-and-frisk activity would be required to wear video cameras for one year.

This is a really good idea. Earlier this year, a 12-month study by Cambridge University researchers revealed that when the city of Rialto, California, required its cops to wear cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and the use of force by officers dropped by almost 60 percent. Watched cops are polite cops.

Jay Stanley, a policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), calls police-worn video cameras “a win/win for both the public and the police.” Win/win because video recordings help shield officers from false accusations of abuse as well as protecting the public against police misconduct. The small cameras like the AXON Flex from Taser International attach to an officer’s sunglasses, hat, or uniform.

In order to make sure that both the public and police realize the greatest benefits from body-worn video cameras, a number of policies need to be implemented. For example, police officers must be subject to stiff disciplinary sanctions if they fail to turn their cameras on each time they interact with the public. In addition, items obtained during an unrecorded encounter would be deemed a violation of the subject’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and excluded as evidence, unless there were extenuating circumstances, such as a broken camera. Similarly, failure to record an incident for which a patrolman is accused of misconduct should create a presumption against that officer.

Officer-worn video cameras do have the potential to violate the privacy of citizens. After all, the police frequently are dealing with people when they are having one of the worst days of their lives. For instance, police often enter people’s houses to investigate incidents. In such cases, video of someone’s literal or metaphorical dirty laundry is nobody else’s business. Consequently, Stanley argues that strong rules regarding the retention, use, and disclosure of videos from police-worn cameras must be established and enforced. For example, videos should be retained for no more than 30 to 60 days, unless flagged. Of course, if the video contains evidence of a crime it should be retained just as any other evidence would be. Flagging would also occur for any incident involving force or a citizen complaint. With the appropriate strong privacy protections in place, very little of police-recorded video would ever be retained or viewed.

Officers should also be required to notify people that they are being recorded. Some preliminary evidence suggests that both police and citizens behave better when they know that they are being recorded. Additionally, the police should not have discretion to release any video to the public. For example, police would be barred from “leaking” videos like that of the drunken actress Reese Witherspoon being arrested in Atlanta for disorderly conduct after a traffic stop. (For what it is worth, the Atlanta police department denies releasing the Witherspoon scene.) Anyone who is recorded, on the other hand, should have access to the video and they should be allowed to consent to public release. Subjects who are incidentally recorded should be blacked out or blurred if the video is released. (The ACLU’s Stanley notes that video used as evidence in a public trial would likely be made available to the public.)

Besides those privacy concerns, what possible objections could there be to requiring every officer to wear a camera? Some contend that since practically every citizen can now record police activity using their cellphones, police-worn cameras will be unnecessary. But some states have made it illegal to record people in public without their consent, and the police are often adamant about enforcing that prohibition when the camera is turned on them. Even when the law does permit recording without consent, the police have, in some cases, confiscated a citizen’s cellphone and allegedly erased inculpating video.

In addition, citizen recordings will often be incomplete or misleading. People typically start recording only after an encounter turns aggressive, so the context of what is happening is lost.

Won’t police officers resist wearing video cameras? Initially perhaps, but most patrol officers are now becoming comfortable with dashboard cameras in their cruisers. A 2004 study for the International Association of the Chiefs of Police found that in cases where police misconduct was alleged, in-car video evidence exonerated officers 93 percent of the time. The same report further noted that dashboard cameras enhanced officer safety, improved agency accountability, reduced agency liability, simplified incident review, enhanced new recruit training, improved community perceptions, helped advance case resolution, and enhanced officer performance and professionalism. In fact, the Atlanta police officer in the Witherspoon dashcam video does come off as quite professional. Body-worn cameras will clearly augment all of those objectives.

The upshot of obliging police to wear video cameras is that it turns the tables on functionaries of the surveillance state. It gives citizens better protection against police misconduct and against violations of their constitutional rights. And it protects good cops against unfair accusations, too. Requiring police to wear video cameras should be universally adopted sooner rather than later.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Did Political Clout Subvert Justice in Wrongful Conviction Case?

After spending most of his 59 years behind bars for a crime he almost certainly did not commit, Stanley Wrice could finally taste freedom. Everything was going his way -- or so it seemed.

Last year, Wrice won a ringing victory before the Illinois Supreme Court, which unanimously ordered a hearing on evidence that he had been tortured into falsely confessing to an interracial gang rape in 1982. The justices, noting that the alleged torturers were two Chicago cops working for disgraced Comdr. Jon Burge, sent the case to a Cook County judge to decide if Wrice should win a new trial..

More good news followed for Wrice. The judge presiding over the hearing would be Evelyn Clay, a widely respected veteran jurist who, like Wrice, was African-American. Judge Clay let it be known from the start that she would not tolerate stalling tactics by the special prosecutors, a group of private lawyers appointed by Presiding Judge Paul Biebel -- Clay's boss -- to defend Burge torture cases at public expense.

Clay repeatedly ruled against the special prosecutors, and in Wrice's favor, on every important motion. On Jan. 25, the judge stunned courtroom observers by expanding the hearing beyond the torture claim to include new evidence that Wrice was truly innocent -- and that the Cook County State's Attorney's Office had concealed old evidence from his lawyers. "[Wrice] has successfully established a substantial showing of actual innocence," Clay ruled in a written opinion that she stood up to read. She ordered the hearing for Sept. 23rd.

Meanwhile, Wrice's cause was further buoyed when Judge Clay approved his lawyers' witness list for the hearing. The witnesses included ex-Mayor Richard M. Daley, who was state's attorney when Burge and his "Midnight Crew" tortured scores of African-American suspects. Also on the list was Illinois Appellate Judge Bertina Lampkin, who prosecuted Wrice when Daley ran the office. In a bold move, Wrice lawyer Jennifer Bonjean, a Brooklyn-based civil rights attorney, slapped Daley and Lampkin with subpoenas at work.

Since Daley had repeatedly sidestepped the stand, where he would be forced to explain what he knew about the torture scandal, the specter of him testifying before Judge Clay was chilling. Wrice wanted to see the powerful politician who unjustly sent him to prison for 100 years wilt under questioning by Bonjean. But perhaps this very prospect would prompt the special prosecutors to drop the case.

"It would really be a heartfelt blessing to be released prior to the hearing, and I believe it will happen," Wrice wrote in a recent letter. "I don't see what the State stands to gain by prolonging the obvious."

It turned out to be wishful thinking,

Last Tuesday, Judge Clay was summoned to the principal's office. After meeting with Presiding Judge Biebel in his chambers, Biebel's staff attorney hastily arranged a teleconference with lawyers from both sides. At 2 p.m., on the phone, Clay dropped a bombshell. She was off the case.

"I have determined I should recuse myself," Clay began, citing an unspecified "appearance of impropriety." She said the case would be "transferred to Judge Biebel for reassignment [to a different judge]," according to a transcript of the proceeding.

Bonjean wasn't buying it. "Judge, can you state on the record the basis for your recusal?" she asked.

"Well, I prefer not," Clay replied. After a pause, she added, "I know some of the parties that's involved, and--"

"I believe every judge in that courthouse would probably know many of the parties involved," Bonjean interrupted, "so I think it is not only fair, but necessary that this Court identify the basis for this recusal...[Otherwise], the appearance of impropriety is actually far greater than saying I want to keep it a secret why I'm recusing myself."

Bonjean noted that Clay's about-face curiously happened "after subpoenas were issued for the former Mayor Daley and [Judge] Lampkin." The point was not lost on Clay. "I've already indicated that I know some of the parties involved," she replied.

"The Court, though, has known of those parties for 18 months. The witness list was filed months ago," Bonjean pressed.

"This is true," Clay admitted, "and I do apologize."

The teleconference came to a close when Biebel indicated that he would announce a new judge on Sept. 4th.

After 31 years of confinement in maximum security prisons, Stanley Wrice will have to wait even longer for justice. Despite his recent legal triumphs, the torture victim will do more time while Clay's replacement gets up to speed on the case and makes rulings that could slow his momentum, or halt it altogether.

"Another scheme, another way to deny me justice," Wrice said by phone on Friday from the Pontiac Correctional Center. "Why should this be more delayed? What power do they have to get judges to recuse themselves? What else do they have to hide?"

Bonjean thinks she knows. "My belief is that there are political forces connected to Daley and Lampkin who gave Biebel marching orders to...reassign this to a judge who would be inclined to keep them off the stand," she wrote in an email. "I don't think this was Clay acting on her own accord. This was all Biebel, who is a puppet for greater political powers at play."

Too cynical? Unfair? Biebel and his many admirers would say so.

But, in fact, Daley's brother William is running for governor of Illinois. His powerful aides, some from his stints in the Obama administration, would be mortified by the prospect of the former mayor being challenged under oath about a notorious police scandal on his watch.

And, in fact, Richard Daley has dodged the stand in several torture cases. Twice judges have barred his testimony in civil rights cases despite compelling evidence that he knew about the torture scandal -- while it was happening. In two other cases, the City spent millions to settle lawsuits by torture victims after Daley had been subpoenaed -- but before he could testify.

As for Judge Biebel, he famously appointed two high-ranking former prosecutors with close connections to the late Mayor Richard J. Daley's political machine to investigate the allegations of torture. Not surprisingly, their report absolved the late mayor's son of responsibility and failed to seek indictments against Burge or his fellow officers. (Burge was later convicted in federal court of perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in covering-up the torture.)

Judge Biebel also assigned a judge to preside over the upcoming manslaughter trial of Richard and William Daley's nephew -- until the judge turned out to have worked as a prosecutor under Daley. That judge was replaced by a judge from a suburban county -- who turned out to have ties to the Daley political machine.

But never before has a judge suddenly dropped out at the final stage of a wrongful conviction case after allowing a defense attorney to call clout-heavy lawyers -- a former mayor and state's attorney, and a sitting appellate judge -- as witnesses.

If Bonjean's allegations are true, high-ranking officials have obstructed justice to promote a political agenda. Nothing less than a full-blown federal investigation is needed. Everyone who has subverted Stanley Wrice's decades-long fight for freedom must be held accountable.

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Canadian authorities refuse to compensate innocent man for 14 years in prison

The federal attorney general's office says it and the RCMP acted in good faith and should not be held liable for the wrongful murder conviction of a Manitoba man who spent 14 years in prison for a teenage girl's death.

The office has filed a statement of defence in Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in response to a $14.5-million lawsuit that Kyle Unger filed almost two years ago over his conviction. It wasn't until 2009 that he was formally acquitted.

Brigitte Grenier was killed near Roseisle, Man., where she was attending a rock concert.Brigitte Grenier was killed near Roseisle, Man., where she was attending a rock concert. (CBC)
Unger, who is now 42, was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Brigitte Grenier after a rock concert south of Winnipeg. Her body was found in a creek near Roseisle, Man., on June 24, 1990.

The attorney general's office says Unger, whose name was cleared in 2009, bears at least partial responsibility for what happened.

"The (police) investigation was devoid of bad faith or any purpose inconsistent with a full, fair and proper criminal investigation," the defence statement reads.

Any losses or damages suffered by Unger "were caused or significantly contributed to by the plaintiff's own conduct, which includes, but is not limited to, his repeated admissions of having committed the offence for which he was convicted."

Unger was sentenced to life in prison along with his co-accused, Timothy Houlahan, but as the years went by the evidence used to convict him began to unravel.

An RCMP hair analysis expert had testified at Unger's trial that a hair found on Grenier's sweater belonged to Unger. It was the only physical evidence against him and DNA tests in 2005 showed the hair belonged to someone else.

The only witness who claimed to have seen Unger kill Grenier was Houlahan, who committed suicide in 1994 while he was waiting for a retrial he was granted when he appealed his conviction. Unger's attempts to appeal were rejected.

The other key piece of evidence -- a confession Unger gave to undercover police officers -- also came into question. In what is known as a Mr. Big sting, the officers posed as gang members looking to recruit Unger and said he had to prove to them he had committed a serious crime if he wanted to join them in their lucrative lifestyle.

Unger told them he had killed Grenier, but got several facts wrong. He mentioned a bridge at the concert site that had actually been built several months after Grenier's death.

In 2009, the federal justice minister determined that the conviction had probably been a miscarriage of justice. Months later, Unger was formally acquitted.

Unger's lawsuit alleges that police and Crown attorneys relied on faulty science, ignored evidence that pointed to Houlahan as the killer, and used a flawed undercover sting to get a false confession.

"The plaintiff was led to believe that if he said he committed the Grenier murder, he would receive a career, money, respect, companionship and many things sorely lacking in his life," Unger's statement of claim reads.

The statement of defence rejects the idea.

"The Crown says that the undercover investigation was designed to collect evidence to determine whether or not the plaintiff was involved in the murder."

The attorney general's office also defends the hair analysis as the accepted scientific practice at the time.

"At all material times, (hair analyst Jim) Cadieux used contemporary established and accepted scientific procedures to conduct the microscopic hair comparison testing."

The federal attorney general's office is asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit.

Unger is also suing the Manitoba attorney general's office and the provincial Crown attorneys who prosecuted him. They have not yet filed statements of defence.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

British quick draw McGraw who tasered a blind man because he thought white stick was a samurai sword will NOT face criminal charges

Why couldn't the cop have waited until he had got a bit closer to the man? He can't have been very close if he mistook a white cane for a sword. The cop was a coward at least



A police officer who tasered a blind man because he mistook his white stick for a samurai sword will not face any criminal action, the Crown Prosecution Service has revealed.

Colin Farmer who is registered blind was walking to meet friends in Chorley, Lancashire last year when he was tasered to the ground by the officer. Mr Farmer, 63, is 'stunned' the man responsible will not face charges, but is relieved the case has been resolved since the incident last October.

The victim was hit by a 50,000 volt Taser after reports were received of a man walking through the town centre in with a martial arts weapon.

Mr Farmer, who is registered blind after suffering two strokes and walks at a 'snail’s pace', was on his way to a pub to meet friends for a drink and did not realise anything was wrong until the officer tasered him.

He said he heard shouting on the street but did not know what it was about, and initially thought he was going to be attacked by 'some hooligans'.

He was then struck by the gun which releases electric currents to stun muscles, and fell to the ground in Peter Street, dropping his white stick before a policeman handcuffed him. When the mistake was realised he was taken to Chorley Hospital for treatment and was later released.

An investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission has now been completed.

After a file was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service a decision was made not to press charges against the officer.

Malcolm McHaffie, deputy head of CPS Special Crime Division, said: 'On The basis of the evidence provided, including CCTV footage and police log record, I have determined that no charges should be brought against the officer.

'The circumstances are unusual because the officer was acting on the basis of erroneous reports from members of the public that the victim was carrying a samurai sword.

'Anyone accused of an assault who may have acted under a mistaken belief as to the facts must be judged on the facts as they believed them to be.

'In addition, police officers are entitled to use reasonable force in order to effect an arrest and where the officer is under a mistaken belief as to the facts the question is whether, in the circumstances as he believed them to be, the force was reasonable.

'The officer has been informed by the police control room that they had received reports that a man was walking around the streets of Chorley carrying a sword.

'It appears the reflective nature of the stick used as a walking aid by the victim, who is partially sighted, led members of the public to mistake it for a weapon. 'The officer, who was acting on this misinformation, made the same mistake.

'Having considered all the evidence in this case, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to prove to the criminal standard that the suspect did not believe that the man he saw, in a busy town centre with people nearby, was carrying a sword.

'The evidence also suggested the victim did not respond to the officer’s challenge.

'While the officer was completely mistaken (and the victim wholly innocent of any suggestion of any offence) I do not consider the action taken by the officer in the circumstances as he mistakenly believed them to be were unreasonable and I have therefore concluded that no charges should be brought.'

Mr Farmer said: 'In a strange way I’m relieved, simply because these things can go on so long. 'At last I feel there is some progress being made.I’m bemused by it, but I just want this to move forward. 'There is no doubt what the police said themselves - I’ve been put through a terrible ordeal. I’ve been through a living nightmare.'

Mr Farmer lodged a claim for damages against Lancashire police in January.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

WI: Police tackle man for photographing protest

A photographer and activist was aggressively arrested at the Wisconsin Capitol on Monday during a daily singalong protest.

Video of the incident uploaded to YouTube showed two police officers approaching Damon Terrell, who can be heard saying, “This is not illegal.” As Terrell backed away, one of the officers grabbed him. Terrell ended up on the ground with three officers on top of him.

Another video uploaded to YouTube showed four officers carrying Terrell out of the rotunda by his arms and legs.

Christopher J. Terrell, Damon’s brother, was also arrested for participating in the “Solidarity Sing Along” demonstration in the Capitol.

“The brothers have had a history of demonstrating and arrests by the capitol police, at times that has involved the brothers shouting at officers,” said Michael Phillis of the Wisconsin-Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The daily demonstrations began during the 2011 budget protests. A judge struck down portions of the Walker administration’s restrictions on demonstrations in July, but groups of more than 20 people still require a permit to demonstrate.

Earlier this month, a Wisconsin lawmaker and a state official were both threatened with arrest for merely observing the demonstration.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

The police state and the Great Tomato Raid

A self-sufficient communal farm in Arlington, Texas called "Garden of Eden" was raided by SWAT forces looking for a marijuana grow but they found only tomato plants instead.

While it's now old news in North Texas, Police State Watchers around what used to be a "free country" might be interested in knowing just how incredibly dull-witted and unaccountable America's militarized cops have become.

(Keep in mind while reading this report that police forces all over America routinely disqualify applicants if their IQs are too high.)

According to Storyleak.com, It seems to have begun when an Arlington police detective was "researching" the sustainable organic community online and discovered a description of the food grown there as "uber dank culinary artistry" which she unaccountably interpreted as pothead slang for growing and selling marijuana.

Had she been smart enough to consult the Urban Dictionary she would have learned that for today's youth "uber" means "the ultimate, the best" and "dank" means "something of high quality." Checking a mainstream dictionary she would have discovered "culinary" means "relating to the kitchen" and "artistry" means "artistic quality."

A non-cop without the IQ restrictions might have quickly concluded that "uber dank culinary artistry" meant "Really great home-grown food."

But this SWAT cop put two and two together and came up with "420" – cannabis!

Taking that "evidence" and a "confirmed" marijuana grow sighting from a police helicopter the SWATs got a search warrant from a judge who also apparently had a cop-level IQ.

That plus an "inspection and abatement warrant" from code enforcement officers listing such trivial victimless offenses as tall weeds, high grass, improper land use and running a food business out of their homes, became the justification for a full-blown military style SWAT raid that lasted several hours, terrorized the compound's occupants, destroyed most of their crops and left them with $3,600 worth of fines.

Reports run from the pedestrian in the status quo press (Ft. Worth Star-Telegram) to an unusually hysterical Anonymous video report claiming it was a nefarious plot to destroy organic food in a Police State effort to force everyone to eat GMO frankenfood.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Nine-month ordeal of men taken to court after catching migrant burglar on their roof as British police waited on the ground

Crap British justice again

Two men were dragged to court for apprehending a Romanian they caught burgling their business.

A nine-month ordeal ended for Steven Iliffe, 54, and son Daniel, 26, yesterday when a judge threw out the case against them.

They had begged police to go on a roof to arrest career criminal Petre Ilie. But officers were barred by their superiors, via their radio, due to health and safety rules.

Eventually, the father and son, both former soldiers, went on the roof themselves to tackle the armed man.

They were stunned when the police later arrested them on suspicion of attempted murder – and later charged them with the lesser offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Yesterday, the pair said they were considering legal action against Leicestershire Police.

Mr Iliffe senior said he had suffered a heart attack in a cell triggered by the stress of his arrest at their scrap metal business in Hinckley, Leicestershire, last December.

He added: ‘We had suffered a string of burglaries and went up onto that roof only because the police had refused to do so.’

He said he grabbed Ilie by the shoulder and ‘walloped’ him once to the chest to restrain him, while his son admitted striking the intruder on the hand with a wooden roof baton to try to dislodge an eight-inch metal roof bolt from his grasp.

Mr Iliffe junior is said to have struck the suspect again before the pair managed to drag him off the roof and down a ladder to police. But a PC waiting on the ground claimed to have seen them carry out a ferocious assault.

Leicester Crown Court was told yesterday that Ilie, 39, already had ‘a number of convictions for burglary, failing to surrender and breaching court orders’ in the UK under the name Christopher Tudor. In 2010 he was deported but sneaked back into the UK. He was then arrested again alongside the Iliffes.

Father-of-four Ilie admitted burglary with intent to steal and the attempted burglary of a nearby business earlier that night. He was sentenced to 26 weeks in jail and deported for a second time on his release in March this year.

The Iliffes’ trial had been for the judge to consider a defence application to throw the case out as an ‘abuse of the court process’.

The application hinged on a decision by the UK Border Agency to refuse permission for Ilie to be returned to the UK to give evidence because he was a ‘flight risk’ – having been deported twice – and might disappear in the UK.

The Iliffes claimed they could not have a fair trial if Ilie could not be cross-examined. The judge agreed and granted the application.

Original report here. (Via POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Sick Britain again

A businessman who confronted a burglar raiding his premises appeared in court yesterday accused of attacking him.

Andrew Woodhouse, 43, was chasing thieves off his property when he claims one of them 'came at' him with a wooden stick.

Father-of-five Woodhouse allegedly used the stick to injure the man's legs before holding him down while his wife called the police.

But when officers arrived they arrested Woodhouse and held him in a cell for 18 hours.

He appeared at Newport Crown Court yesterday charged with grievous bodily harm with intent which has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Andrew Taylor, defending, said: 'Mr Woodhouse apprehended two of the burglars at his tyre depot. 'It happened after two or three men decided they were going to remove a large quantity of diesel from his premises.

'Mr Woodhouse has been interviewed by police and has provided a full explanation about what happened. 'There is a CCTV recording of the incident and we are waiting to see the footage.'

Woodhouse denies the charge and was given bail until next month.

A Facebook page has been set up in support of Woodhouse, of Abergavenny, South Wales with more than 2,000 supporting him.

Woodhouse was in bed with his wife Lisa at their detached home in the village of Govilon, near Abergavenny, when his burglar alarm went off at about 12.30am. The alarm is fitted to his business premises on an industrial estate a mile from his six-bedroom £350,000 home.

Woodhouse drove to his business premises where the alleged assault happened.

His wife Lisa said her husband was prepared to go through the legal process to clear his name. She said: 'But I fail to see where there was any intent on Andrew's part. 'He didn't intend to get up in the middle of the night to assault anyone. All he did was protect his property.

'People may think he took the law into his own hands but what was he supposed to do, stand by and watch?'

Woodhouse employs six staff including two of his sons at the family business, which was set up 20 years ago.

The firm has lost £15,000 in recent years to thefts of diesel and tools.

Two fuel thieves who stole £50 worth of diesel from Woodhouse's premises on the night of the alleged assault have been dealt with in court. Timothy Cross, 31, and Kevin Green, 52, took two jerry cans of diesel from Woodhouse's tyre depot in Abergavenny. Cross and Green both admitted theft and were fined £75 by Cwmbran magistrates.

Original report here. (Via POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

　

　

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Virginia Woman Falsely Accuses Man Of Rape And Sends Him Away For Four Years Before Recanting . . . Given Just 60 Days In Jail To Be Served On Weekends

This is one area where the Brits do better. Such women usually get a couple of years in the big house there

I have previously discussed the pattern of prosecutors in either not charging false rape victims or seeking relatively light sentences despite the incarceration of innocent men. (here, here, here, here, here, and here) While I would never recommend a prison sentence for a rape victim who simply identified the wrong man by mistake, the most disturbing cases are those involving false rape claims. For an example of this problem, you need to go no further than the case of Elizabeth Paige Coast.

Coast, 26, accused Johnathan C. Montgomery, a former neighbor of raping her in 2000 when she was 10 years old and he was 14. She later admitted that she made up the story and lied on the witness stand at his June 23, 2008, trial.

Montgomery’s life was ruined and he spent four years in jail. Coast however was sentenced by Hampton Circuit Court Judge Bonnie L. Jones to just two months in jail and ordered to make $90,000 in restitution for perjury. Jones suspended the rest of the five-year sentence and even allowed Coast to serve the remainder on weekends so not to disrupt her life.

Coast blamed her crimes on her reading adult material on the Internet by her mother. When her strict religious mother caught her, the mother (Coast claims) suggested that she was viewing the material because she had been sexually assaulted. She said that the jumped at the excuse to get out of trouble. She said she gave her mother the name of Montgomery when pressed to identify the assailant. Her lawyer insisted that, because she came forward, any jailing would send the wrong message to others who lie about crimes.

Hopewell Commonwealth’s Attorney Richard K. Newman asked for a 10-year sentence with six years suspended so she would serve the same length of time as Montgomery.

I certainly agree that Coast should be credited with coming forward. However, she is now 26. That means that this man went to jail when she was 22. She was 17 when he made the allegations.

Sixty days on weekends sends a message of a different kind: that false rape victims are not subject to the same punishment afforded others who file false police reports, ruin lives, or commit perjury.

Perhaps the most infamous refusal to charge such a case involved Crystal Gale Mangum, 33, the stripper who falsely accused members of the Duke lacrosse team. She became a national celebrity as activists warned that anything but long criminal sentences would be proof of racism by the prosecutors. Durham D.A. Mike Nifong joined this lynch mob atmosphere despite the absence of forensic evidence to support the claim of rape.

When he was removed and the lie was exposed however North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper refused to prosecute Mangum, who ruined the lives of these students and triggered racial tensions in the region. Cooper simply let her walk in a disgraceful but politically expedient decision.

Notably, there is no published review of the original case and the evidence against Montgomery. There appears only the evidence of the accuser in the case and it makes me wonder about the prosecutor’s role in the case.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

“Punishment for this offense has been achieved”

With those words, which are found near the end of an August 8 motion to dismiss a spurious battery charge against Sandpoint, Idaho resident Rita Hutchens, the author – Bonner County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Shane Greenbank – incriminates himself.

For about a year, Greenbank tirelessly pursued a charge he knew to be entirely devoid of merit. His petulant motion to dismiss – a document littered with grammatical errors that occurred because the author’s protruding lower lip obstructed his view of the computer screen – offers unambiguous proof that his objective was not to convict Hutchens of an actual crime. Instead, he sought to inflict punishment on her for seeking redress for criminal violence she suffered at the hands of a Sandpoint, Idaho police officer.

Rita Hutchens is a tiny 57-year-old internationally respected quilt artist who has never committed a violent act against anybody. She was accused of “criminal battery” because she allegedly threw a ballpoint pen at a desk in the Sandpoint City Hall while doing research for a potential lawsuit against the city.

That writing utensil supposedly ricocheted off the desktop and glanced harmlessly off the blouse of a deputy city clerk named Melissa Ward. The supposed victim suffered no injury and did not press charges. Yet his incident, insisted Greenbank in a complaint filed last October 5, was a violent assault and a “grave offense against the peace and dignity of the state of Idaho.”

Greenbank, whose flair for rhetorical exaggeration would strike a hormonal adolescent girl as excessive, accused Hutchens of “willfully and unlawfully us[ing] force or violence upon the person of Melissa Ward.” Bear in mind that this was not a case in which a pen was employed as a shank, as occurred in a previous episode here in Idaho, nor was the pen hurled like a javelin. It was tossed carelessly at a desk, which means that there was no criminal intent – an indispensable element of an actual crime.

The same cannot be said of the assault she endured at the hands of a Sandpoint police officer named Theresa Heberer, who attacked Hutchens in front of her home in November 2011. After jumping Hutchens from behind and handcuffing the victim, Heberer held a lengthy conference with her supervisor in an effort to contrive a charge that would justify an arrest. They eventually settled on “obstruction,” a charge that was thrown out of court by Judge Barbara Buchanan several months later.

“There was no reason to touch her,” Judge Buchanan observed. “She did not have to answer [Officer Heberer’s] questions. She has a Fifth Amendment right not to do that…. You can’t be charged with resisting and obstructing for exercising your Fifth Amendment right, and she did have every right to say, `I don’t want to answer your questions, I want to go in my house.’ There is no basis for an arrest, there is no reason for a search warrant.”

After seeking medical treatment for the injuries she had suffered, Hutchens filed a damage claim with the City of Sandpoint. When that request was denied, she filed a notice of tort claim against the city. She was doing research into that claim on August 8 2012, when the pen-throwing incident took place.

The existing audio record of the August 8, 2012 confrontation at Sandpoint City Hall was made by one of several city officials who had surrounded Hutchens while she was trying to examine records of her unlawful arrest. Her chief antagonist was city attorney Scott Campbell, whose office had turned down her damage claim several weeks earlier. The specific official who rejected that claim was Lori Meulenberg, who had prosecuted the obstruction charge against Hutchens.

Hutchens wanted to be left alone to examine the records without Campbell and others swarming her and looking over her shoulder. It should be recalled that she was the victim of a violent crime committed by one of their associates. She finally gave voice to her exasperation.

“I’m tired of you people! Just leave me alone!” she exclaimed. “I just want to look at the record, which I have a right to do, now, in private.”

“Actually, you don’t have a right to do [that] in private,” Campbell said in a taunting voice that oozed condescension.

As Hutchens attempted to read the records, Campbell continued to violate her personal space in a fashion that he would have considered legally actionable if he had been on the receiving end. This could be considered a deliberate provocation, and if so it had the intended effect.

“Do not look over me!” she shouted at Campbell, who continued to behave like an adolescent bully.

“Is this a public place, Rita?” Campbell said, mockingly. “I have as much right to be here in a public place as you have.”

At this point, Hutchens took the initiative to de-escalate the situation by saying that she would leave and “come back tomorrow with a witness.”

What this means is that Hutchens was not looking for a fight; she was looking to avoid one. She was never the aggressor in any sense. Outnumbered, harassed, and mocked by city officials who had no respect for her rights, she withdrew from the office, allegedly throwing down a ballpoint pen as she left.

A few seconds after Hutchens departed, the silence was broken by Melissa Ward, the supposed victim.

“She just threw a pen at me,” Ward snickered. Yes, the “victim” laughed at the incident.

“Should we prosecute her?” an audibly amused Campbell asked Ward.

Significantly, there is no indication that Ward – the identified “victim” – agreed that Hutchens should be prosecuted. Ward's giggling comment is the only indication that a pen was thrown by anyone. Hutchens adamantly insists that she didn't hurl the object, but simply left the building in disgust.

Scot Campbell is on the right.
After Hutchens was charged with battery last November, she filed a subpoena demanding that Ward, the purported victim, provide a signed criminal complaint. Campbell, who instigated the persecution campaign against Hutchens, filed a motion to quash that subpoena.

That motion was granted by the Idaho First District Court, which ruled that “requiring Ms. Ward, the victim in this matter, to provide a signed complaint is unreasonable.”

In what sense would it be “unreasonable” to require the alleged victim of criminal battery to sign a complaint? Ward didn’t require medical treatment, and she’s not functionally illiterate, so she is physically and intellectually capable of either writing or dictating a coherent narrative. The only way that the term “unreasonable” has relevance here is as a description of the charge itself – and Campbell’s desire to prevent any critical scrutiny of the incident responsible for that charge.

Rita's midnight arrest, April 16, 2013.
The confected charge was a misdemeanor offense. Yet after Hutchens declined to appear at a pre-trial hearing late last year, an acting judge named Don Swanstrom (who is no longer in service, and might not have been authorized to act as a judge at the time) issued a day-or-night bench warrant for her arrest.

According a 2011 state Supreme Court ruling (Idaho v. Skurlock), a warrant of that kind is generally inappropriate because at night time people enjoy “a heightened expectation of privacy that should not be disturbed by a knock on the door and the presentation of a search warrant.”

Nonetheless, three officers kicked in the front door to Hutchens’ home on April 16 and dragged her away. In the course of this Gestapo-grade act of overkill, one of the officers discovered what was identified as “drug paraphernalia” under her sofa – which resulted in yet another charge being filed against her.

The judge who was originally tapped to hear the “paraphernalia” case was Lori Meulenberg – yes, the same Lori Meulenberg who prosecuted the obstruction charge and subsequently denied Hutchens’ damage claim for the injury she suffered during her unlawful arrest in November 2011.

Finally, on July 23 – more than three months after this case was reported in detail in this space – the Bonner County Daily Bee published a story offering a critical examination of the campaign to incarcerate Rita Hutchens.


“Despite being a low-level offense, the battery case against Rita Nancy Hutchens has some of the trappings of a high-stakes affair,” observed the Bee. The article noted that the midnight arrest was questionable (at best), and that the treatment of Hutchens “stirred dismay by those in the community who contend law enforcement and the courts are running amok in Bonner County.”

It was likewise notable that the case was “being closely followed by city officials. City Attorney Scot Campbell attended [the July 19] hearing, as did police Chief Corey Coon and Det. Derrick Hagstrom.”

Why was the crème de la scum of Sandpoint’s ruling clique so interested in this trivial case, and so perversely determined to see Rita Hutchens incarcerated? Why did Shane Greenbank insist on having her submit to a mental evaluation – a demand that resulted in her being arrested for contempt on two occasions?

Shortly after Hutchens was seized in her home in a midnight police raid, Greenbank filed a motion demanding that she be forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because of what he described as “unusual behaviors and affects – both in court and in her filings.” He also made the remarkable claim – without providing a molecule of supporting evidence -- that he had also been “battered” by Hutchens “outside of court when he served papers to her in the clerk’s office….”


The absence of any further description may lead the otherwise uninformed reader to assume that Rita Hutchens, who is 5’1” tall and weighs about 110 pounds, knocked Greenbank on his tax-fattened ass, which is something he richly deserves. What happened, in fact, is that Greenbank shoved a sheaf of legal documents into her face – and Hutchens shoved them right back. This, we are supposed to pretend, was an act of criminal “battery.”

It should be acknowledged, I suppose,that this act would be sufficient to hurt Mr. Greenbank’s feelings. He is an individual of remarkably delicate sensibilities: About five years ago, while defiling Kootenai County as an assistant prosecutor, Greenbank was slapped down by a judge who declared a mistrial in a domestic violence case because Greenbank, in an attempt to manipulate the jury, started crying during his opening statement.

After initially trying to deny what he had done, Greenbank was forced to admit: “I did have tears running down my face, I did have snot running down my face.” First District Judge Fred Gilber pointed out to the snot-faced prosecutor that this was not the first time the Kootenai County Prosecutor’s Office had been censured “for appealing to the passions or prejudice of the jury.”

Greenbank’s repeated demands that Hutchens undergo a psychiatric evaluation were similarly intended to prejudice the public against her. This is a violation of the ethical standards that govern prosecutors (yes, I was also surprised to learn that such guidelines exist, although they do nothing to inhibit the corrupt ambition of those who occupy the office).

Rule 3.8(f) of the ABA’s ethical standards specifies that prosecutors must refrain from making “comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused”; Rule 3.6(a) forbids prosecutors to make comments that they know or reasonably should know “will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

Greenbank’s untutored speculation about Hutchens’ mental health was widely reported, echoed by camp-followers of the ruling municipal clique, and had a hugely damaging impact on her public reputation.

Rita Hutchens in her metier.
“They set out to destroy my reputation – really, to destroy me,” Hutchens told Pro Libertate. “The claims they made about my mental health were in the paper all the time, and it’s absolutely destroyed my business. If this had actually gone to trial, there’s no way I could have been treated fairly by a jury after they had done so much to prejudice the community against me.”

After being incarcerated for contempt of court in mid-July, Hutchens finally underwent the psychological evaluation, which resulted in a terse and unembellished statement that she was entirely sound of mind. This didn’t deter the irrepressibly snotty Mr. Greenbank from using his motion to dismiss the charge to traduce his victim one last time.

“[W]hile it is unfortunate that the psychological evaluation did not result in some treatment recommendation that may benefit the defendant – and, by extension, the public – the State has done all it is able to do in order to minimize further risk to the public,” sneered Greenbank. He neither explained why his judgment of Hutchens’ psychological condition was superior to that of a credentialed mental health professor, nor did he provide any evidence that she ever posed a risk to the public.

The down-market Javert took some measure of comfort in the gratuitous suffering he had inflicted by incarcerating, impoverishing, and defaming an innocent and helpless woman whose “defiance” (his word) simply had to be punished.

Since Hutchens “has spent many more days in jail than she would have if she had actually been convicted of this offense,” Greenbank gloated, “punishment for this offense has been achieved.”

It is widely known, though rarely acknowledged, that prosecutors pursue punishment at the expense of both truth and justice. Bonner County is host to a specimen of that tribe in whom resides the distilled malice one so often finds in that occupation, untempered by the rudimentary intellectual discipline necessary to maintain the pretense of a commitment to principle. Greenbank’s persecution of Rita Hutchens was nothing less than criminal, and if so much as a particle of justice still exists he will face the consequences of his actions.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

LAPD’s hypocrisy about gun prosecutions

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) is extremely aggressive in enforcing federal, state, and local firearm regulations. In fact, years ago it created its very own "Gun Unit" that is dedicated to investigating and prosecuting violations of firearm laws. Since its creation, the LAPD Gun Unit has earned a notorious reputation for being unduly aggressive in prosecuting these cases, and for interpreting the confusing, numerous, and complicated California and federal firearm laws extremely broadly. Simply put, the LAPD attempts to criminalize as much firearm related activity as possible. In doing so, it has made criminals out of lots of well-intentioned and harmless civilians.

For years our office has defended our clients in and out of court from the Gun Unit's proclivities. We have resisted the LAPD's efforts to push criminal charges against people for inadvertent violations of firearm laws or for acts that are not clearly (or even likely) criminal. Rarely, if ever, did LAPD express concerns about making sure our clients' acts were criminal or not an innocent mistake.

So it came as a surprise to us to read an article in the Los Angeles Times that the LAPD now says it needs help from the federal government's lawyers to determine whether LAPD SWAT officers violated federal firearm laws by purchasing and reselling special edition Kimber brand pistols. These special edition Kimber handguns were made specifically for LAPD SWAT officers. But those officers apparently then resold the firearms for profit to other LAPD officers and to civilians. The problem? If the officers who originally ordered the guns intended to resell them from the start, they likely violated federal law by lying on the federal 4473 firearm purchase form. And if they did it more than once for profit, they likely violated the law by failing to have the required federal firearm dealers license needed to resell firearms.

Ironically, the laws that cover these resales really aren't that complicated, especially when compared to many other gun laws LAPD has unhesitatingly interpreted and enforced against civilians. The main one is 18 USC § 922(a)(1)(A), a federal statute that prohibits "Engaging in the Business of Dealing in Firearms Without a License."

What does "engaging in the business" mean? Federal law allows a person to sell firearms without a license up to a certain point. But once a person establishes a pattern of sales, selling guns repeatedly, the person can be considered "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. At that point the person needs to have a federal firearms license.

The courts have made fairly clear what constitutes a violation of 18 USC § 922(a)(1)(A), explaining that the government must show the defendant:

"was not a licensed dealer, that he 'devote[d] time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms,' 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C), and that he acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful."

United States v. Allah, 130 F.3d 33, 45 (2d Cir. 1997).

So whether the LAPD SWAT officers violated federal law could turn on several questions, including, for example, whether they made repetitive purchases and resales of the special edition Kimber pistols, and if so, whether they had profit as a motive. Of course, there is plenty of legal precedent and case law to aid the LAPD and prosecutors in answering these questions. See for example this legal memorandum (.pdf) from Michel & Associates. Perhaps they can't find it? More likely, they found it and didn't like what it says.

There is another element to this case that makes it potentially even more egregious: the person who exposed the reselling of the Kimber pistols -- LAPD Lieutenant, Officer in Charge of the Armory, Armando Perez -- may have been retaliated against for having done so. In a whistle blower lawsuit he has filed against the City and the LAPD, Perez alleges that after he requested an investigation into the Kimber pistol sales, fellow officers filed complaints against him. He received a five-day suspension, and he was ostracized and threatened at work. Perez's lawsuit reveals a troubling fact. The Internal Affairs investigation into the Kimber pistols resulted in a mere 39-page report, while the report into complaints against Perez was 257 pages. This fact is even more troubling in light of the Inspector General's subsequent report concluding that the Internal Affairs' investigations into the Kimber pistol matter had been "deficient."

It is infuriating that LAPD is so reluctant to judge its own officers' conduct as criminal without input from the FBI. Not because the officers deserve to be prosecuted, they don't. But, it is because when it comes to prosecuting civilians, LAPD has routinely relied on its own employee's (non-lawyers) opinions (who are cross-designated as both LAPD officers and ATF (federal) agents) to pursue criminal cases against people for alleged violations of firearm laws without having any such reluctance.

Had civilians done what these LAPD SWAT officers are alleged to have done, LAPD would not hesitate. It would have issued press-releases about their arrests, supplied mug-shots and photos of the seized guns to the media, and labeled the sellers as "dangerous gun runners." But the shoe is on the other foot. Now that it is LAPD's officers being investigated, suddenly LAPD thinks the law is unclear and the officers deserve the benefit of the doubt.

What makes this situation even more curious is the fact that Sacramento Sheriffs' Department deputies were charged by federal prosecutors for practically identical conduct. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/01/california-sheriff-deputies-accused-illegally-selling-weapons

One of those deputies has already pleaded guilty and his status conference for sentencing is scheduled on August 29.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/29/4766481/former-sacramento-county-deputy.html

The other deputy being charged is currently scheduled for a jury trial on December 2, but that could change at his August 8 status conference. Why Sacramento deputies are being aggressively prosecuted, while LAPD officers are getting a pass so far, is confounding.

To be clear, the point is not that these officers should be prosecuted. They shouldn't be. The fact that they may be considered to be dealing firearms illegally even though they made all transfers through licensed dealers shows how enforcing this law can lead to absurd results. This wasn't a notorious criminal enterprise selling guns to bad guys. These were collectable firearms being sold to collectors. But if LAPD routinely pursues cases against law-abiding and well-intentioned civilians based on legal interpretations that lead to injustice, their own officers should suffer the same fate. No double standards!

Police are not above the law, and civilians should not be held to a higher standard of understanding the law than those who should know better; in fact, the exact opposite should be the case.

The take away from this should be that firearm laws are generally harmful to the law-abiding, and do not protect the public from the truly dangerous. This LAPD case, and the Sacramento case showing police officers (most likely) inadvertently violating the law, demonstrate that. But again, while these dumb laws remain on the books, there should be no double standards.

Our office has submitted to LAPD requests for records concerning this matter under California's Public Records Act, most of which were denied as seeking "privileged information." But we are awaiting response on additional records requests, which we will make available on www.CalGunLaws.com if and when we receive them.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

"They Kidnapped our Child": Why CPS Needs Transparency Now

In April 2013, police officers and a social worker from Sacramento County's Child Protective Services entered the home of Anna and Alex Nikolayev and took their baby, Sammy, away from them. They had no warrant.

"What they'd done was, basically, kidnapped our child with the help of police," says Alex Nikolayev. The young, first-time parents were not notified of where Sammy was being taken and wouldn't find out for a full 24 hours. According to the Nikolayevs, the dispute stemmed from the parents' desire to obtain a second medical opinion before subjecting Sammy to major heart surgery.

The Nikolayev's story made national headlines thanks to footage from a camcorder Anna Nikolayev set up on the kitchen table. It also caught the attention of California Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, who spearheaded an audit of the agency.

"The secrecy by which CPS operates is a massive problem," says Donnelly. "Because when you have secrecy and unchecked power, you have a recipe for corruption and abuse."

The secrecy surrounding CPS stems from the nature of California's juvenile dependency courts which only allow limited press access and seal all court records. While media and other interested parties can petition the court to open the records, this can be a lengthy process and by no means guarantees results. ReasonTV petitioned the court to open the records in the Nikolayev's case and, almost two months later, we have still not received a ruling from the judge.

While the closed nature of juvenile dependency courts is intended to protect the privacy of minors, the effect is an opaque system in which social workers present evidence to judges under the cloak of "confidentiality." Only in extreme or unusual cases - such as when parents release clandestine footage of their child being forcefully removed from their home without a warrant - do CPS stories tend to capture the public's attention.

Another example of a case that garnered some media attention is that of Deanna Hardwick, a mother who lost custody of her children for six and a half years. She successfully fought back and sued Orange County CPS after jurors found that social workers "lied, falsified evidence, and suppressed exculpatory evidence" and "did so with malice." Orange County ended up paying out almost $11 million in damages.

"The system is set up in a way that it's encouraged to remove the children from the protective parent," says Hardwick. "Because it generates a lot of funding."

The issue of funding is one that many critics of CPS are quick to raise, most prominently and frequently by the late Georgia state senator Nancy Schaefer. While the funding incentives for any government agency can be complicated and seemingly impossible to divine, Orange County Social Services Agency Director Michael Riley, who oversees Orange County CPS, testified in a deposition related to Hardwick's case that putting more children into the foster system theoretically could boost the agency's budget.

"Let's say you spend ten dollars a year. So, then, for the following year, your base then would be ten dollars," says Riley. The lawyer questioning Riley then points out that failure to use the entire base would result in a lowering of the base for the next year. He then asks Riley if the funding stream is tied to how many children they bring into Orange County's children's home, Orangewood.

"It's tied to the number of children we have in the foster system," says Riley.

ReasonTV reached out to both Sacramento County and Orange County Social Services Agencies in the production of this story, and representatives from both organization were happy to talk with us. However, because of the closed dependency courts, neither representative would comment on the details of specific cases. The absurdity of this charade reached such heights that Sherri Heller, who runs Sacramento County's Health and Human Services, told us that she could not even confirm nor deny that Sacramento County CPS was even involved in the Nikolayev case, despite widespread reporting and video evidence that it was.

And it's not just parents and children who suffer from the secrecy. CPS workers and their managers say they are not happy about the situation either and feel that more openness and transparency would help them to communicate their side of the story clearly.

"Most of us in this field are eager for the public to understand what happened and why," says Heller. "It is a source of great dismay to us when we are accused of hiding behind the confidentiality law."

In the immediate wake of the Nikolayev case, parents gathered in Sacramento to support the audit and testify in front of the audit committee. The audit is set to proceed in the next few months, and the auditor will choose three county agencies to examine. But for parents like Deanna Hardwick, who's experienced the power of this agency first-hand, a state-level audit is just the beginning of a broader movement towards transparency and accountability.

"Once the American people are able to be made aware that this is going on, I think that will be a real step forward towards making sure that there's accountability and making sure that the agency is working towards keeping families together rather than separating them," says Hardwick.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Beware Warrior Cops

John Stossel

We need police to catch murderers, thieves and con men, and so we give them special power -- the power to use force on others. Sadly, today's police use that power to invade people's homes over accusations of trivial, nonviolent offenses -- and often do it with tanks, battering rams and armor you'd expect on battlefields.

In his book "Rise of the Warrior Cop," Radley Balko recounts the rise of police SWAT teams (SWAT stands for Special Weapons And Tactics) armed with heavy military equipment. SWAT raids began as rarely used methods of dealing with violent situations, like hostage-takings.

But government always grows.

In the 1970s, there were about 300 SWAT raids per year. "As of 2005," says Balko, "100 to 150 per day."

What began as a few specialized groups of police trained to address genuine threats to safety has degenerated into small armies descending on organic farms where farmers sell unpasteurized milk and legal medical marijuana dispensaries getting raided as if they were heavily armed threats.

The increase began under Nixon-era politicians who wanted to look "tough on crime," even if that meant exaggerating the threat posed by illegal drugs. As the futile war on drugs escalated, cops worried that drug users would destroy evidence if cops knocked and announced themselves. So they stopped doing that, changing a centuries-old rule that treated citizens' homes as their castles -- castles whose owners must be presented with a warrant before police can enter.

Soon, every police department wanted a SWAT team -- and many were more interested in getting cool military gear than in considering the potential downside -- like terrorizing innocent people, raiding the wrong house and causing violence.

"I found over 50 cases where a completely innocent person was killed in one of these raids," says Balko. Often this happens because the homeowner does not realize who is breaking down his door in the middle of the night.

Iraq War veteran Jose Guerena just knew that armed men were bursting in. So he picked up his semi-automatic rifle. Before he could take the safety off, police fired 71 bullets, hitting him 22 times.

Police raided his house because they suspected drugs were there. But after Guerena was killed, police found no drugs and no evidence of drug dealing. Today, the vast majority of SWAT raids are about drugs, not terrorism or hostage situations. Guerena's brother was arrested on drug charges. Balko says, "It appears Guerena's crime was being related to someone."

Now that the public is finally starting to have doubts about the drug war, another type of war has arrived: the War on Terror. The idea that domestic enemies need to be raided and rooted out -- that law enforcement should be given a free hand or we could all be killed -- got a new lease on life.

And a new source of funding.

Despite laws clearly saying that soldiers may not be used for domestic policing except in very special circumstances, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security now offer armored vehicles -- tanks and troop transports, body armor and stun grenades -- to police departments, large or small.

Local police jumped at the chance to have new toys -- so they expanded the circumstances under which those toys get used.

A sheriff in quiet Concord, N.H., cites people not so different from me as an excuse for getting DHS money to buy an armored vehicle. In an application for what is essentially a tank, he wrote that groups like the Free State Project -- libertarians who moved to New Hampshire seeking increased individual freedom -- pose "daily challenges" to the police of Concord.

Free Staters better watch out next time they get into an argument over a traffic ticket.

Most libertarians argue that police, courts and military are legitimate functions of government. We focus our skepticism on completely illegitimate government actions, like corporate welfare.

But few freedoms are more basic than being able to sleep securely in your bed without armored men bursting through your door.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here