There is something terribly wrong with the federal judicial system when a United States District Court Judge appointed by President George W. Bush can joke about a defense attorney’s request for directed verdict of not guilty in a case where the defendant before her might possibly spend the rest of his life in jail.
There also may be something terribly right with the federal judicial system when a United States District Court Judge appointed by President Clinton can write a 64 page memo with 190 footnotes dismissing fraud charges because the Justice Department prevented the defendants from putting on a defense on their own behalf.
In the Padilla first case, Judge Marcia Cooke appears to have walked a tightrope pulled taut by the zeal of the Justice Department. While she refused to have Padilla appear in her courtroom in handcuffs, she also made it clear that she wasn’t interested in how Padilla had been treated for three and a half years in a Naval brig where he suffered from systematic sensory deprivation at the very least and possibly other forms of torture. The judge was certain this treatment didn’t render him mentally unfit to stand trial. From there it was mostly downhill for Padilla and his two co-defendants, Adham Hassoun and Kafah Jauuouisi charged with conspiracy to “commit acts of murder, kidnapping, and maiming outside the United States.”
Meanwhile in New York, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan — not known as a civil libertarian –has gutted what the government claimed at one time was the largest criminal tax case in U.S. history “against 16 former partners at KPMG LLP and two others accused of designing and selling fraudulent shelters to wealthy individuals,” wrote Wall Street Journal reporter Paul Davies.
At one recent hearing, Judge Kaplan said the government had turned the case into “a holy mess for itself.” On July 26, he ruled that federal prosecutors violated the Fifth Amendment rights of two former KPMG partners by “deliberately” coercing them to speak with investigators before they were indicted; he barred the statements from being used at trial. A week earlier, he delayed the trial by four months, citing government delays in turning over information to defense lawyers, and the unresolved legal fee dispute. Judge Kaplan is considering imposing sanctions on the government and hinted that he could dismiss the case.
This is how Judge Kaplan characterized the prosecution in the first paragraph of his lengthy memo :
The government threatened to indict, and thus to destroy, the giant accounting firm, KPMG LLP (“KPMG”). It coerced KPMG to limit and then cut off its payments of legal fees of KPMG employees. KPMG avoided indictment by yielding to government pressure. Many of its personnel did not. They await trial, four of them deprived of counsel of their choice and most of the others unable to afford the defenses that they would have presented absent the government’s interference.
Days later Judge Kaplan dismissed charges against 13 defendants from the accounting firm KPMG.
Now, compare Judge Kaplan’s remarks to Judge Cooke’s remarks at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case against the three defendants as detailed by the AP’s Curt Anderson.
Defense attorneys insisted the government evidence did not prove the existence of such a conspiracy. Padilla attorney Michael Caruso pointed out that Padilla’s voice is heard on only a handful of the intercepted phone calls and is never overheard discussing any type of violence.
“There’s not an agreement by Mr. Padilla to commit a murder. If there was a plan, he was not a willing participant,” Caruso said.
Hassoun lawyer Jeanne Baker contended that her client was interested “with passion” in assisting Muslims in conflict zones such as Chechnya, Bosnia and Somalia but mainly for humanitarian reasons. She said that Hassoun has no connection to al Qaida and that FBI intercepts in which he urges others to travel to battle areas did not necessarily mean they had violent intent.That brought a rejoinder from the judge.
“Well, he wasn’t telling people to go there to open lemonade stands,” Cooke said.
It’s possible Judge Cooke may be auditioning to be the next Judge Judy or, failing that, auditioning for a seat on the Supreme Court next to Justice Antonin Scalia, who, a new study concludes, is 19 times as funny as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
(with Christopher Austin)



206 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
hey Lew!
The best judiciary money can buy…
Zed
Oops, Right On, Lew!!!
near-zed!
(ok – in the neighborhood zed)
Hi Lew – thanks for your work!
Hey Mike and punaise!
wow, so close.
More bull from the bullshit DOJ. Plus, they just reapproved torture for the CIA. AND yesterday said that they wouldn’t follow up on any contempt charges brought by Congress against the White House.
That’s one wacky DOJ. No?
Melanie Morgan is the new Anne Coulter.
Morgan defended her comments on having Bill Keller, NYT tried for treason and put to death when found guilty.
I don’t understand why MSNBC gives people like her an audience.
She was on opposite Naomi Wolf, who handled the outrageous Melanie Morgan with grace and efficiency.
No more Federalist Society members confirmed to the bench ever, at any level.
Not even traffic court.
GeorgeSimian at 8
Not only that but what about the one a couple of days earlier “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq”
Almost everyone on FDL fits their description of a target.
Judge Judy lives in my building-53 & Sutton Place in Manhattan. (Dick clark too.)
Hardball Debate (with Barnacle subbing) is Mark Green (of Air America) vs. David Rivkin (former Reagan DOJ Official. Subject is, “Has Bush overreached in his use of executive privilege?” Crawler under screen is “Is Bush Above the Law?”
For some reason David Rivkin is wearing a clown suit.
Lew, it sounds like Padilla’s lawyers might have grounds for a mistrial or at least a strong appeal.
Rivkin looks like he should be drinking water while a puppet talks for him.
-GSD
Hi Lew, thanks — again!
Phoenix Woman at 14
Yes, I think there are issues that can be appealed. I say that as an observer not a lawyer. But that means years more in the can for Padilla.
Lew-Have you seen this DC Circuit Court decision handing Shrub another slap-down, in regards to DTA and the CSRT at Gitmo? Here’s a snippet and the link is below:
“The Court stressed that it will expect to examine all government information bearing on an individual detainee’s case, and not just the specific evidence that the government used in deciding to keep a detainee in military prison. ‘The court must be able to view the government information with the aid of counsel for both parties; a detainee’s counsel who has seen only a subset of the government information [used as actual evidence] is in no position to aid the court.’
‘The Court cannot, as the DTA charges us, consider whether a preponderance of the evidence supports [a detention] determination without seeing all the evidence, any more than one can tell whether a fraction is more or less than one half by looking only at the numerator and not at the denominator,’ Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote for the Court. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson joined the opinion in full.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/mova……html#more
Phoenix Woman @ 14
The judge would have to declare a mistrial. Not going to happen.
CTuttle at 18
Oh man, yes, you nailed it! The courts are starting to read the papers, they finally get that the vast majority of this country does not want leadership who tortures, and worse, defends that torture.
Payback’s coming. The more Bush digs in, the deeper his “historical” grave will be — as well as the Republicans who follow and defend.
If the Padilla case makes you sick, wait until the Federal Courts start ruling against challenges to the Republican Dictatorship. The judicial fix is in; that is the only explanation for Fred Fielding’s behavior. “The WH staff has global immunity from the Rule of Law”.
Lew, the linky to the Kaplan opinion does not work. Bummer. It probably contains all the authorities for holding that interfering with the free exercise of the right to counsel is grounds for dismissal, which is clearly what occurred in the Padilla case.
CTuttle at 18
And hey man (?), thanks for a perfect link!
BigMitch at 22
The Wall Street Journal requires subscription.
Sorry.
Couldn’t the Bush admin. Justice dept. have purposely screwed up the case of the accounting corporation? It makes them look good for prosecuting and then they can throw the lawyers under the bus for “incompetancy”, quietly give them jobs at lobbying firms or think tanks, and get the case dismissed so the corp. is off the hook. This certainly isn’t out of the realm of possibility is it?
Lew Koch @ 23
I thought you might enjoy it, and, yes, I’m a dude!!! ;-)
Bush signed an exec. order today, that — according to MSM reports — prohibits torture against all detainees, and applies Geneve Convention protocols to “al Q*eda detainees.”
Do you suppose this apparent reversal is related to the fact that Padilla is going to be big in the news soon, and Joe* will hear what his government is doing to detainees, which will shock him.
* Joe is Mr. Sixpack, also known as John Q. Public.
kirk murphy @ 5
Kirk! I was just wondering where you were last night. We’ve missed you.
Lew, great post. Having this judge is a disappointment. If Padilla is guilty of involvement in terrorism, I want him found guilty. But if not, I want justice for him. We deserve to know the truth.
BigMitch at 22
You’re absolutely right on the right to counsel. But the decision is poetry– See “United States of America against Jeffrey Stein et al.” for the full opinion.
I’m interested in the odds for reversal. This judge appears to be a poster child for the consequences of placing ideology over competence.
Neil @ 9
Bet Melanie wishes she had chosen a different cosmetic surgeon. Sad.
I know this is probably way uncool of me to say, but you people at FDL are waaaaaaaaaaay cool.
Lew Koch @ 29
Find it here.
So are you, Lew.
Hello everyone, hi lew!
hate to comment and leave…but the comments on the SCOTUSblog link featured a very nice quote from A Man for All Seasons about law for our safety’s sake!
Rule of Law.
cheers!
Please forgive this OT.
I am sorry to be driving by – but if anyone can tell me who I can write at MSNBC to thank them for replacing Tucker with Schuster tonight! I was about to turn the station off until I saw Schuster.
Thanks to all – now, must leave for a while. Love you all!
((((((Jane)))))))))))
Kathie
Hugh at 30
Reversal will NOT come at the hands (or dragging knuckles) of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Padilla will have to go to the Supreme Court for Justice and even there who knows. The Supremes came close to freeing him — but that “was in another country, and besides, the witch is dead.”
…er, make that “wench is dead.”
(((((KathieinMN)))))
_ _ _ _
and hi Loo Hoo – it’s really nice to be back at the Lake.
Lew at 32 said it for me…
KathieinMN @ 36
Dan Abrams
dabrams@msnbc.com
BigMitch @ 33
Ignore that link. Follow this one for the decision of the court. Sorry.
GOPervert update for this week.
Also, looks like Chris Shays, the only GOP’er left in New England’s congressional delegation has pulled a Cynthia McKinney and gotten rough with a police officer.
Let’s see if the two are given the same media treatment.
-GSD
BigMitch @ 13
That’s a prom suit for the gentleman who hasn’t a date to the prom.
Loo Hoo. Lew. Hugh.
just an observation.
Eureka Springs @ 40
many thanks!
And special thanks to Kirk for the hug. You have no idea how much I appreciated and need that today. Again, my love to all.
BigMitch @ 13
I gotta tell you — For five years I produced a television three hour live Saturday night talk show. It was devoted to conversation and enlightenment. These days television talk shows have become like dog fights. I cannot bear to view them.
GSD @ 42
CNN did cover but not in the shrill way they treated the Mckinney’s episode. Shay’s will not be charged though cause he’s a white repub.
Kathie, you are most welcome. May these days bring you all the hugs you need.
BigMitch @ 13
I missed that segment. I turned to watch the McLaughlin Group that airs at 7:30 EST Friday. John Podhoritz was subbing in for Pat Buchanon. Tony Blankley was there too. Neither conservative could cross their legs because they’re too fat.
McLaughlin covered Gates breakdown at the funeral of a popular American vet killed in Iraq on his fourth tour – said it signals Gates concern that lives are being lost needlessly.
Arianna Huffington sat in the first progressive chair. She’s graceful and persistent. Eleanor Clift held her own, as usual.
Tell more about the segment on Hardball.
The guy that was hosting Hardball, Mike Barnicle is a former Boston Globe columnist. For years he wrote about people on the street, their problems, and waxed morally on what the anecdote said about society.
Then, the Globe found out that he was making the stuff up. He has a family member on the Boston Police force who told him stories at the famous cop bar where they’d drink together. Barnicle wasn’t even speaking with someof these people directly. He was using the stories from his relative on the police force. He moved on to talk shows.
Lew, thanks for your posts. Hopefully the jury can put aside their 9/11 fears and render a fair verdict. I fear that if he has to go through the appeals process the outcome won’t change.
Today’s executive order:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news…..720-4.html
JPL at 47
I remember, bitterly, the Gary Hart debacle. It’s stayed with me because he was that rare exception — a cool and smart politician. I had an appointment to meet him in a downtown Denver coffee shop. I’m waiting outside for him, waiting for the limo and the guards and the lackeys…and there he is, down the block, walking toward me, alone, completely alone. And it was a great interview…and then he walked out…alone.
I’ve read his pre-9/11 reports and it was an even deeper loss for this country when the papers were rags then…and now.
Tithonia @ 34
Ditto that one.
GSD @ 15
No. The unfortunate choice of attire made him look like the dummy!
Loo Hoo. @ 31
I know!! Didn’t she look freakishly bad? I thought: she should stick to radio. At first, I wondered if they had booked a marionette.
must-see editorial cartoon says it all (the lower one. the upper one refers to a local garbage strike).
Neil @ 55
“…in the event of a a ocean landing, please use Ms. (Evil Personified) Morgan’s lips as a flotation device…”
Lew Koch @ 46
Unfortunately, as I read your words, the image on my screen is a Tour de France is of a bicycle hitting a dog.
Kirk: I see you got your f, finally.
punaise @ 56
it’s a good one
ccmask @ 59
thanks for the Lake’s patience with my learning curve….
ccmask @ 59
Kirk’s got f!
I know!! Didn’t she look freakishly bad? I thought: she should stick to radio. At first, I wondered if they had booked a marionette.
Unfortunately, it’s a bit too much to ask of a marionette to pull off the smug, condescending attitude of MMorgan.
Plus, since marionette’s don’t talk, you lose the whole “specious” factor.
Lew, I live in Roswell, GA just north of Atlanta, dog fights are not a great analogy here. Anyway they hiss more like kittens half the time.
GSD @ 42
GSD, that was an okay scandal, but I want to see the DCMadame call on the “surprising senator.” I want to see it tonight!
The Bush administration’s ham-handed handling of this case against KPMG LLP personnel makes a person wonder if this wasn’t done deliberately.
In other words, what if Justice Department officials and investigators actually did things that would cause a federal judge to throw out the case against KPMG LLP, making it appear that the Bush administration was taking seriously any allegations of corporate corruption?
Thus, what I’d like to know is what campaign contributions KPMG LLP officials have made over the last ten years, and to which political party or individuals.
Based on the allegations that have been made against KPMG LLP officials, I’d bet that they have primarily contributed money to the RNC and Republican Party candidates. This would support my contention that the Bush administration’s Justice Department bungled the investigation and prosecution of KPMG LLP with the intent of giving a federal judge enough ammunition to throw out parts, or even the whole, of the case. If the federal judge is a Bush appointee, then every Republican involved is complicit in obstructing justice in this charade.
I still don’t see how the prosecution managed to rest without ever presenting a case against Padilla.
GSD, that was an okay scandal, but I want to see the DCMadame call on the “surprising senator.” I want to see it tonight!
I’m still pulling for Senator Byrd to be the “surprising” senator. At which time, I think the nation should rise as one, and give him a standing ovation.
hi lew!
JPL at 63
So…I guess I should have said “bear baiting.”
punaise @ 44
I’ll pull an OKK here.
:÷)
Our system of justice, if it can be called that, has me worried. And as to Judge Cooke? Perhaps it would be judicious if I did not comment directly. At this time. I reserve the right to possibly redirect and cross-examine later.
And the only question now before the Court is whether a criminal defendant has a right to obtain and use in order to prepare a defense resources lawfully available to him or her, free of knowing or reckless government interference. Given all that has been said above, this Court concludes that such a right is basic to our concepts of justice and fair play. It is fundamental.
KPMG decision at 52
(dismissing case vs. individual defendants because the large CPA firm refused to pay for their attorney, yielding to DOJ pressure.)
Lew Koch @ 46
I turn it off too. The dems ought to set strict guidelines for appearances. There is no reason that anyone should have to talk over someone else on, for example, Meet the Press.
Lew Koch @ 52
The NY Times did a series of the threat of terrorism around the same time. Cheney was on a talk show, probably Meet the Press talking about the report briefly but then went into detail about his energy concerns. Cheney’s energy taskforce was the most urgent matter before the nation. Several months later we know what happened.
“Well, he wasn’t telling people to go there to open lemonade stands,” Cooke said.
Too bad that wasn’t in front of the jury – though it does show judicial bias. I understand that the 11th Circuit is Defendant-Hell, but the sheer volume of errors made by this judge might be too much for even them to ignore.
The Oracle at 66
Call me crazy or naive, but I don’t think at that level of the Justice Department, they’re that all smart. Brutish, yes, but finesse it not their way of handling things. They just pick up a legal “bat” and wail away. These are mid-level political hacks who got lucky and passed the bar and joined the Young Republicans. And remember, they get a judge by lottery. And from the righteous anger Kaplan exhibited, I’d say there might even be bar association ethics violations.
Lew Koch @ 52
Lew, I hate to disagree with you on this. Gary hart was and is a smart man but he got real stupid when he basically told the press covering him “I didn’t do it and you can’t catch me.” That’s a big red flag.
punaise @ 56
That is excellent! Nix/Bush
If you go to the site for US Attorney SDNY (Michael Garcia), they have nothing on the KPMG disaster but they do have a picture up of their Financial Litigation team winning an award.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/
I would like to know about Garcia. I have the impression that he is a good Bushie. The KPMG case is an indication that he may be in over his head in the important SDNY district (Comey used to run it)
Lew Koch @ 76
Whew! One less tinfoil hat to wear.
dakine01 at 77
Yeah. I took it to be arrogance on his part (hubris is too tasty a word to use here.) He did get his ass handed to him, but somehow, his walking up by himself was..impressive, On the other hand, he, or one of his people could have said, “Hey, go by yourself and impress this young fool journalist.” And then I bought it hook, line and sinker, baited freshly in Roswell, GA.
Last night in the car Lahoma and I stumbled across some local talk show on the radio about our legal system and folks were calling in. Lahoma said, I don’t like to deal with lawyers. And I replied why not? So she says because they’re always trying to “drag things out of people”. And I know the game by now, and so asked her “what things”. She said, cut it out kiddo! End of that story.
BigMitch @ 27
Also known as if it bleets like a sheep…..
oh geez; KO has a fake harry potter zigzag scar on his forehead…
eCAHNomics, will you be at YK2?
Anyone here tonight attending?
Gary Hart might have acted like an arrogant bronco but his knowledge of foreign policy and terrorism was immense.
“Well, he wasn’t telling people to go there to open lemonade stands,” Cooke said.
My gawd.
“In other words, there are two distinct types of constitutional errors: trial errors,which occur during the presentation of evidence at trial, and structural errors, which are overarching and permeate the entire proceeding. … Structural errors, on the other hand, ‘defy analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards.’ The effect “[t]he entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end. Prejudice is so likely that case-by-case inquiry into prejudice is not worth the cost.
“Structural defects exist – and prejudice must be presumed — where a defendant is actively or constructively denied counsel at a critical state of the trial or where defense counsel is burdened by an actual conflict of interest.”
KPRG opinion at 68
Loo Hoo. @ 85
Probably not. I’d like to go, but the following week I’m going to visit my sick brother upstate. I’m still procrastinating on making a real decision, though. Exactly what are the dates?
JPL @ 86
that’s why it was so disappointing that he did what he did. I believe that he could have given Ray-guns a much better battle than Mondale did. But because of his stupidity and thinking with the little head, we lost the opportunity to maybe have avoided a lot of the sh*t that has gone down in the last twenty plus years.
BigMitch at 88
How does this NOT also apply to Padilla?
BigMitch @ 27
I’m wondering if it is some kind of pre-emptive move to influence SCOTUS’ review of the Boumediene and al Odah cases, re: the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act.
tw9ff @ 25
Unlikely. The DOJ lawyers in the KPMG case did everything strictly by the book, i.e., the so-called “Thompson memo” outlining procedures to be used in investigating white collar cases. Most criminal defense lawyers seem to think the Thompson memo was an act of outrageous overseach by DOJ. In contrast, most tax lawyers believe that the stuff the defendants were selling was utterly bogus. So there you are, firmly on the horns of the fundamental dilemma of criminal law: do you let obviously guilty people go in order to deter government misconduct?
dakine01 @ 90
I saw him on his last book tour. Arrogance seems like an understatement. His sense of his own self-importance was enough to put me off anything he said, and I usually tolerate any bad behavior if the ideas are good.
Bush signs whatever Rove puts in front of him.
Hugh at 92
In my opinion, one way to influence the Court would be a massive Democrat victory in 08…I mean massive, with tons of long time, long term Republican going down in defeat.
BigMitch @ 88
Lew, Do you think that they can use this opinion as grounds for appeal in the Padilla case?
Oh boy. Here’s Hillary’s response to Edelman in case you’ve been busy all day too. I hadn’t seen it and it is brilliant!
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe…..cdef_gates
JPL at 96
I think in my non-lawyer head, there is massive error in the Padilla case. Not so much for the other two. But Padilla’s history — and the illegalities foisted on him — that his case reeks with it, in the same way the public is now just starting to get a picture of the corruption of the entire Bush administration.
The Oracle @ 66
707!
Oh, wait. You’re serious about this? Mmmmmkayyy …
Read the opinion. Then read Jeralyn’s post on TalkLeft from earlier in the week. Then maybe we can have a useful dialogue.
With the Bush packed Supreme Court and federal courts, the days of a fair and impartial hearing are long gone. Negation of habeas corpus and (if the Republicans get in 2008) Miranda are the icing on the cake.
Democrats. We turn our eyes to you for redress.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 101
after W has had his way with Lady Liberty he says “OK, you can redress now.”
eCAHNomics @ 89
Aug. 2-5. Please come if you possibly can. I’d love to meet you and a lot of FDLers will be there. I think all of the dem candidates have committed; I know that Hillary, Barack and John will be there. Also key dem Congresscritters. I’m guessing key reporters/writers and Joe and Valerie will be there along with Scott Ritter etc. It will be the place to be if you can possibly make it.
Lew Koch @ 100
I agree, and Burns@93 highlights the obvious pratfalls of Padilla with; “So there you are, firmly on the horns of the fundamental dilemma of criminal law: do you let obviously guilty people go in order to deter government misconduct?” In Padilla’s case, yes!, it is so egregious it begs for his acquittal!!!
JPL @ 97
Would be nice, but don’t bet on Judge Kaplan’s opinion surviving its trip to the Second Circuit intact and unscathed. The very part you quoted, about how a harmless-error analysis is unnecessary, is a real stretch.
Loo Hoo at 104
I’ll be there and hope to meet as many of you as possible. And then it’s off (maybe) to Miami for closing and a verdict.
Let me know off list where I can meet some of you.
ya know … I would really love to see terms like “joe sixpack” vanish from our discourse. With 70% of the American people against Bush and given that the folks who are still supporting Bush are often Joe Crude Oil Profits and similar wealthy profiteers, I really want to know why we persistently engage in class stereotyping … especially since it ruins our chances of building a good progressive alliance.
What really gets to me is that we have three non-lawyer guys, Cheney, Rove and Bush, deciding law.
Loo Hoo
Link?
I just looked on dailykos & couldn’t see anything giving details. Maybe I’m blind?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 108
They assume that Abu Gonzo and John Yoo are representative of the intellect of ALL lawyers and react accordingly.
Lew Koch @ 91
I have just finished reading the Kaplan decision and I agree that it is brilliant. He demonstrates point by point that government interference with the right to counsel of choice can infect the entire proceeding, and that an appropriate remedy might be dismissal. The facts of the Padilla case are exponentially worse, from the government’s point of view.
There was a hearing in the District Court, IIRC, in which Padilla’s claim was rejected. A judge can sometimes cover up his or her “result oriented” legal reasoning by making non reviewable findings of fact, most especially on the credibility of witnesses.
My $.02 is that if Padilla’s judge didn’t make some pretty strong findings of fact he has a good shot at an appeal because of the governments conduct which made it impossible to assist his counsel.
Lew Koch @ 107
Wonderful! Jane, Chrisy and Marcy will be up early on the second, so be there the night before if possible.
dakine01 @ 110
Can you explain Loo to me? What makes him tick? He must have something on the ball to be on faculty at Berkeley. Or maybe I should be asking what makes Berkely tick? Or both?
Loo Hoo at 113
I live 30 minutes from there.
eCAHNomics @ 110
YearlyKos 2007
There is one thing I understand, and understand well. Only one thing stands between me and where the ‘authorities’ might unlawfully want to put me. And that one thing is the law.
eCAHNomics at 114
If anyone has any solid info on Yoo, I’d be very, very interested.
Perhaps we should have standardized tests for Judges? The ABA and other legal groups could help draft the questions. Not political, legal knowledge.
BigMitch @ 111
Did you read the decision rendered in my link at 18? I think a lot of it pertains directly to Padilla and his lack of counsel and his counsel’s lack of access to any exculpatory evidence!
Lew Koch @ 115
Then when we get there and meet up, let’s talk restaurants, blues clubs etc.! Do we get to meet Rachel too?
eCAHNomics @ 113
I have no idea what runs through Yoo’s brain. But I would dearly love to see Garry Trudeau have Joanie Caucus Redfern lead a protest at Boalt over Yoo being on the faculty there.
Loo Hoo:
Thx. Found it. Will decide tomorrow. Must juggle a few other balls.
Loo Hoo at 121
Rachel takes the bar in 72 hours. She may be giving herself a short vacation about then, but I sure as hell will ask her.
JPL @ 96
Kaplan is a district court judge, so his opinion is not binding on any other judge. But the authorities he cites are very persuasive.
I respectfully disagree with burnspbesq@105. The magnitude of the violation of Padilla’s rights make it impossible to conduct a harmless error analysis. If a defendant is not given his Miranda warnings, (i.e. denied 6th A. rt to counsel) prejudice is presumed. If his confession is used at trial, prejudice is presumed. N’est pas?
dakine01 @ 110
Not very comforting. But perhaps true. ;0)
Loo Hoo. @ 115
Try this link:
http://yearlykosconvention.org/yks
I have a lot of trouble with the KPMG decision. These aren’t schlubs, they are rich accountants. They can afford decent lawyers, if not the best KPMG’s money could buy. Their offense is serious. The tax shelters were abusive, and cost the government cash losses, and the cost of fighting the tax returns, and the cost of the criminal investigation. The issues are complex, indeed, but the people indicted were the ones who devised the scheme, and so it isn’t the case that they need experts to show why they were right, they are supposed to be experts themselves.
The plain fact is that tons of people go to jail because they don’t have the money to pay for decent lawyers and have to settle for whatever their County government will pay for. So, screw KPMG and its skeezy CPAs. Let them get a Public Defender.
Fozzetti @ 119
I think we should have competency tests for people running for the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We do for becoming a teacher, lawyer, doctor, restaurant worker etc.
Fozzetti @ 119
I think we should have competency tests for people running for the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We do for becoming a teacher, lawyer, doctor, restaurant worker etc.Lew Koch @ 123
masaccio @ 127
You make good points, but they don’t apply to the Padilla case. The legal reasoning of Kaplan’s decision should give comfort to Padilla’s lawyers.
BEST LUCK TO RACHEL!!
Good luck, Rachel!
Does anyone find the relatively low key response to BushCo’s declaration that the DC USA may not pursue any contempt charges involving executive privilege odd. I had hoped there would be much more outcry and more demands for the use of inherent contempt. I know there has been some discussion but I would have expected much more. Have we just exhausted our ability to be outraged? Any ideas?
BigMitch at 125
The Government can claim that on this conspiracy charge, he had an attorney and that he was given legal advice (to shut the hell up, I expect) but he’s not on trial for the dirty bomb or blowing up high rise charges — those even the government admits were obtained extralegally. This is a different charge, which is why Judge Cooke, in all her wisdom, wouldn’t allow the tapes of Padilla’s torture-questioning into evidence or even allow it to be alluded to.
I believe, generally speaking of course, that our lawyers (Democratic lawyers) are qualitatively better than their lawyers (Republican lawyers). It might in fact possibly be ‘a priori’.
jinx, Loo Hoo! :)
realworld @ 133
What? I was out all day, but WTF?
realworld @ 133
I think it’s a got-lost-on Friday afternoon thing. One of the committee heads (don’t think it was Conyers, but can’t remember who) said they’d have a response when they received official notice. There’s MUCH more to come on this, but today was not the day.
kirk murphy @ 136
÷)
Mitch, have you read my 119 or 18? The DC Circuit repudiated many of Shrub’s assertions about DTA and CSRT, it begs the question whether it’s applicable to Padilla or not?
BigMitch @ 124
Mitch,
All due respect, you misunderstood. At 105, I was suggesting that on the facts of the KPMG case, the discussion of harmless-error is a stretch.
Perhaps I’m thinking about this too simplistically, but I’ve always understood the harmless-error inquiry to be “was the error of such magnitude that had it not occurred, no reasonable and properly instructed jury could have convicted?” That’s why I think it’s premature to even talk about harmless error in the KPMG case.
In contrast, Padilla is getting a trial (of sorts). If he is convicted, you can be absolutely certain that on appeal, DOJ will argue than any error made by the trial judge was harmless because the evidence of guilt was simply overwhelming. That argument, if made, will be a crock, but bet on it being made.
jayt @ 68
LOL!
June Bond, a Republican from Spartanburg, introduced Ann Romney as her husband’s starter wife and trophy wife “all in one,” a clear reference to his rivals. Giuliani is thrice married; Thompson’s second wife is more than two decades younger.
Lew Koch @ 134
The one point I fervently hope Padilla’s counsel raises, is the chain of custody of Padilla’s ‘Application Form’!!! I think that comprises the true Achilles heel for the prosecution!
Loo Hoo. @ 128
Having taken two of them, I’m here to assure you that a bar exam is anything but a test of lawyering skill. The fact that I passed two of them should be ample evidence of that.
The bar exam is, as my antitrust economics prof from undergrad school once said, a “non-financial barrier to entry.”
CTuttle at 145
A very big deal was made about the chain of evidence on cross — and the guy said there was no chain. That was the point I was hammering when I said that Padilla in his cell in the Navy brig, blindfolded for hours on end, could have been told, “Take this.” He does. He handles the outside and the back. And surprise, there’s his fingerprints. No “date” can be put on fingerprints, unless they’re fresh, fresh, fresh.
Loo Hoo. @ 137
Look here
burnspbesq @ 145
As an eCAHNomist, I’m happy to see you understand what these tests are all about. They are also about the regulated industry capturing the regulators. After all, it’s lawyers who make up the tes, isn’t it? On Wall St. we had to jump thru some test hurdles to get “registered” on the exchanges, even if we were in research, as I was. It is a joke.
Lew Koch @ 146
And that is the crux of their ‘proof’ that Padilla was involved in AQ!!!
OT-Bill Clinton has a blog on his Africa project, but looks like others write most of the posts. Also, looks like there’s no blog roll for FDL to jockey a position onto.
http://clintonafrica.org/2007/
CTuttle @ 140
I just finished reading it. I think the holding is a repudiation of the Bushco’s arguments regarding the standards and conduct of review of the decision to hold someone as an ‘enemy combatant’ but it doesn’t bear on the Padilla case.
Just imagine what the GOP will do to the law if they get in, in ‘08. I want my party to work harder.
BigMitch @ 151
You don’t think the access proviso they enumerate has any bearing?
Geez, Realworld. Thanks, anyway. I’ll take a “no thank you” helping of that.
burnspbesq @ 141
Ahhh, thank you for the clarification. In the KPMG case the decision I just read didn’t dismiss the case, necessarily. I was reading it with Padilla in mind. I think KPMG may have been forced to provide attorneys for the accountants, a remedy obviously not available to Padilla.
Big Mitch, I am not suggesting that the KPMG case is like the Padilla case. Lew wants to argue that a trial can be so shot through with error that the “harmless error” standard isn’t applicable. The notion that the KPMG has reached that standard is just ludicrous, for the reasons I give above. I also cannot remember a case with a holding like that from law school, though that was long age and far away.
I want to hear from Senator Clinton just exactly what she would do, as a lawyer, and President, to help Lady Liberty stop crying.
Democrats. I am tired of fried baloney. I want filet mignon.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 158
Where’s the Beef??? ;-)
I’ll tell you one thing. This sure was a poor choice of words for Edelman to end his letter with to Hillary.
It’s like an automatic e-mail reply from Revlon, in response to an unsatisfied customer and a tube of mascara:
snip
I appreciate your interest in our mission in Ira1q and would be happy to answer any further questions.
Sincerely,
Eric S. Edelman
Hillary’s the big winner on this!
ccmask at 162
I mean, come on, who does Hillary Clinton think she is. She talking about stuff she doesn’t know a thing about. We’re all familiar with Eric Edelman’s theories on war, and the place of women in it. I mean, the man has authored texts!
If my party wins by default it will not be a satisfying win. Senator Clinton, you are poised to win by a landslide. Forget the consultants. Do and say what your brain and gut tells you to.
She of the cleavage.
masaccio @ 156
I see your point.
Judge Cooke’s has held that the torture statements that served as the sole basis for the original arrest warrant are ok.
She is then treating all the military detention, after Comey handed Padilla over for the military to disappear away from prying eyes and have their way with for years, as a carve out. Because Gov is, according to Judge Cooke, not seeking to present any evidence that was generated during that military non-pow, suspended Geneva Conventions detention – she is treating it as if it has no effect on the trial. From the time Padilla was released from DOJ authorized torture-available detention, he has had a lawyer.
Of couse, she didn’t really allow anyone to get into when and how the fingerprints on the application – which she did allow into evidence – came about. From the descriptions, the most likely time and place for those to have come into being were during the torture-authorized detentions, with no lawyer.
She has also ruled the mental effect of being held in blackhole, torture-authorized, military detention for years, with no charges, and the mental effect of knowing that if he is acquitted, he can go back to the So Car. blackhole for years more DOJ approved torture, all with no recourse —- those things just don’t interfere with his ability to function and assist in his defense.
Now, apparently, she’s found that “disappearing ink” section of 18 USC – the one where the failure by someone you know to open lemonade stands is a crime attributable to you.
It’s been a blessing having that kind of judicial component to support the Executive and Legislative branches in their battle against lemonadus termitus.
From us to you Senator Clinton:
I scare myself when I’m promoting your candidacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..mp;search=
Mary @ 166
Do you agree that this is the strongest point on appeal, and that it is a harmless error analysis?
Hi Lew!
Let’s bottom line this in the best terms for Padilla.
He gets acquitted, found not guilty on all charges and the government chooses not to appeal.
What does society do with a man so obviously damaged as this man is? How do we begin to care for him when he has been subjected to tortures that will be with him forever and he has probably been injected with God knows what concoctions from the old MKULTRA recipe books?
Where do we begin to make this man whole again?
james at 171
You don’t. If Padilla is found not guilty I believe he will be re-arrested.
Lew Koch @ 170
Kafka’s never around when there’s another good story to be written.
Neil @ 49
Wow! That was the most amazingly concise replay of The McLaughlin Group I’ve ever, ever seen. I’m not being snarky – I feel like I didn’t miss a thing!
Thanks for the post Lew. Would you happen to have a link to this “mujahadeen data form”? (I found one, but it was broken…)
Dru at 175
I have it as a pdf file among a gazillion pieces of evidence including the endless phone transcripts. It’s like the application form for a half-assed convenience form. It’s basically dreck.
Lew Koch @ 170
Wouldn’t that be Triple Jeopardy? Considering Ashcroft’s allegations weren’t filed, then, if Padilla is acquitted and they arrest him, maybe the third time would be the charm!!!
For my people in the Lone Star State. Thanks for last night. Next time we will stay longer. Love you guys and gals. ;0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..mp;search=
Lew Koch @ 174
I’m curious; is it in English or Arabic? and which language did he fill it out in? Thanks
Moyers is covering the Yes Men this week..
Have I said lately how much I love Bill Moyers?
GordonM @ 172
Alas, I have to wait another 5 hours for it! Ariana was excellent last week on McLaughlin, her and Eleanor did a one-two on Pat and Tony!!!
Dru at 178
English (a little), Arabic, some – someone who once read a book to join the Human Resources Department but never got past the first chapter.
CTuttle @ 175
Well, at least he won’t know the difference.
James @ 169 – look on the streets to see the answer to those questions when applied to Vietnam vets who came home with their own damage. Or in the graveyards. Or look out at the returning vets parades now.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/20/16138/2072
Bush’s DOJ have done Kafka one better on numerous occassions. From the pre-MCA habeas hearings for GTIMO, there was the case of Chinese Uighurs that made it to a Dist Ct judge (and this will be the same issue that may come up with the new CSRT rulings). The Judge reviewed the manner in which the Chinese were sold to the US and the complete lack of any evidence that they were ever combatants of any kind, and ruled that they clearly were not enemy combatants.
But he couldn’t do anything about it. He couldn’t rule that they be turned over to China – bc they faced torture there (that’s why they had fled to Afghanistan) He couldn’t rulet that they be allowed to come to and stay in the US – bc that’s a solely Exec Branch immigration decision. Congress didn’t give a ratsass what happened. So he found that the US Gov was unlawfully and probably in a war crimes posture holding these people with ongoing violations of the Geneva Conventions every day. And he could do nothing.
In another case, a detainee had been found at his CSRT to be an enemy combatant based solely on 200 pages of “secret” evidence. When lawyers were finally able to get access to that evidence, turns out it was all EXCULPATORY. However, they were advised that under Bushlaw, they couldn’t discuss the exculpatory material in trying to free their client bc it was – you know – secret.
The London chef, bipolar, who they held for years, under the impression that he was a “general” in al-Qaeda who had run an al-Qaeda training camp — he ended up with around 3 years of SOLITARY at GITMO (those bipolar guys just don’t handle torture as well as the rest, you know) turns out his “secret evidence” was a statement from “some guy” (probably the same guy who sold the chef to the US) about the training camp. Once lawyers finally got the info (and in something that the recent ruling requiring courts to get to see secret evidence won’t correct bc there will be no lawyers and no counter advocacy) they were able to prove very easily thatthe chef was in Britain, making omlettes and curlicues, the whole time he was supposedly ‘generalling’ at the al-Qaeda training camp.
If Kafka were alive, he’d dream of the bizarre and call it DOJesque.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 176
Love you too, OKK. I haven’t looked at this one yet, but love Dan Hicks. I was on the cover of his first album, done in a small nightclub called “The Alley” in Escondido, CA. The original Hotlicks. Naome!
Jumping to the bottom of comments, so please forgive me if this has been posted (from NYT’s front page minutes ago):
A federal appeals court ordered the government yesterday to turn over virtually all its information on Guantánamo detainees who are challenging their detention, rejecting an effort by the Justice Department to limit disclosures and setting the stage for new legal battles over the government’s reasons for holding the men indefinite
This is question is way OT, but begs to be answered –
Why is Eric Edelman, the Defense undersecretary who attacked Hillary yesterday, still in a job? He received a recess appointment in Aug. 2005, and his term ended Jan. 2007. Why is he still considered an undersecretary??
http://www.mindfully.org/Refor…..9aug05.htm
pol @ 185
On reason might be that Gates was given an opportunity to repudiate what he said to HRC and declined to do so.
BigMitch 168 – there’s not enough to give a legal opinion, but from a personal, gut level reaction – yes. How do you do that to someone, not for an hour, a day, a week, a month, but for month after month after month and end up with someone who can assist in their defense. It just offends any standards of decency or morality or rationality. Or law.
BigMitch @ 186
True, but that doesn’t answer the question. Howw does he still have a job?
Liberal Heart at 186
Just glanced at the story. Let’s see if the Court of Appeals holds the same.
From Lahoma and me to you. Sweet dreams and good night. We’re going for a moonlight swim out back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkkM7K6smQA
Liberal Heart @ 184
If you want to read a synopsis and the decision look at my comment 18!!!
Loo Hoo. @ 188
Another Vacancies Act violation Leahey or Waxman may want to pursue!
Loo Hoo. @ 183
Completely cool! ;0)
CTuttle @ 191
Thank you!
Think Progress has a take on this issue, Lew:
http://thinkprogress.org/
Liberal Heart @ 194
You’re most welcome!!! 8-)
“If Kafka were alive, he’d dream of the bizarre and call it DOJesque.”
Mary…
;0)
Fyodor D. anyone?
Loo Hoo at 197
I see and I see it was the Court of Appeals which makes it something very, very serious, at least to this non-lawyers head.
Now for the really bad news.
Yankees lose and Boston wins. Big MItch bummed out.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 197
President Gregor M.
TRex and some horseman of the apocalypse are upstairs
Trex in the house. Come on up, y’all!
LooHoo, I and GrandmaJo will be there.
Regarding the latest opinion in the KPMG case, my prediction is that Kaplan’s opinion will be reversed by 2nd Circuit and/or SCOTUS, which will hold that it does not violate the constitution to require KPMG to cut off payment of the attorney’s fees for current or former partners/employees as a condition of KPMG’s deferred prosecution agreement with the prosecutors. But KPMG, if it is in breach of a contract by failing to pay the attorney’s fees, can be held civilly liable for the breach of contract. (There is a case in the midwest where the criminal defendant won a large judgment against the former employer under these circumstances, after being convicted in the criminal case.)
Kaplan went off the deep end before and was reversed by the 2nd Circuit, and this time he is wrong again. He is correct only in that the government acted in a morally despicable manner by requiring KPMG to cut off payment of fees to the (former) partners as part of KPMG’s deal with the government. But morally despicable conduct is not the same thing as unconstitutional conduct.
It is dirty pool to take steps to deprive criminal defendants of the funds to pay for a good attorney, but prosecutors do that all the time. Examples I have witness first hand: 1) Forfeiture proceedings where all of the defendant’s assets are sought to be civilly forfeited to the government, 2) Having the IRS do a “jeopardy assessment” to collect taxes of the defendant and then IRS seizes all of the defendant’s assets. Then the defendant gets charged with a non-tax crime. The prosecutors telling KPMG that they must cut off payment of fees to its (former) partners as part of a deferred prosecution agreement is no different in a constitutional sense than are the the two other examples discussed above. The constitution gives you the right to an attorney if you are a criminal defendant. It does not give you the right to the attorney that costs a bundle or even to an attorney who understands the leaky tax shelter.
There is no way that the KMPG prosecution is being intentionally botched by prosecutors. KMPG asked for trouble by taking a scorched earth approach in their dealings with IRS. Congress got involved. KPMG still acted very arrogantly, qualitatively more arrogant than its competitors, and paid the price.
Pursuing a criminal tax case as a prosecutor, particularly one involving a leaky Big 4 Accounting firm tax shelter, is complicated and difficult, even where the defendants do not generate any sympathy. This is particularly true if the prosecutor does not have a very strong substantive tax background.
Just a query. Seems to me if even Padilla’s application to the Taliban is legitimate…that document was made years before the US government declared them as “terrorists” and “enemies of the US”.
Essentially this trial applies an ex post facto standard. What Padilla did in 1998 was not a crime until 2001. Short of having substantial evidence that he actually engaged in combat against the US I can’t see how the application is relevant as documenting guilt.
He could have joined to fight the Northern Alliance…or the Iranians…or the Russians if they returned…IN AFGHANISTAN.
In order to suggest that Padilla was intent on fighting the US they’d need to show that when he applied he already knew that the Taliban or Al Qaida was going to attack the US…that he was, in fact, aware of such plans.
Lew,
I generally don’t comment in the threads to your terrific work on the Padilla. Since I typically do not have a chance to read your articles until the next morning, I assume no one will see my caboose comments; however, just in case. . .
Thank you. I’ve thoroughly appreciated reading your articles at FDL. This subject is a judicial nightmare and you are doing a great service by coving it.
Actually, nightmare does not begin to describe this travesty. This case is also an indictment of our national cowardice. We are facing a (im)perfect storm. On one stormfront, there is a pervasive national anxiety caused by our crippling and oh-so-credible fear of brown people coupled with 24/7 media fed panic over their terrorist brethren’s plans for an oh-so-imminent mass scale vaporization TO BE UNLEASHED ON THE US ANY MINUTE NOW! (tap.tap.tap. on the shoulder, BOO!). On the other stormfront, we have a deepening and conservatively hardwired hysterical phobia of the rule of law and disdain for our bill of rights. Both fronts constantly fed by Republican weathermen.
Jose Padilla is the defendant of record. However, each day this travesty continues, history records another conviction against the U.S. for criminal disregard of our constitutional heritage and our fearful dismissal of human and civil rights. I almost wish we could plead a collective defense of insanity, but the intentional and willful top-down conspiratorial disdain for our laws and history makes that impossible.
No matter what the verdict in the Padilla trial, this case’s indictment of the United States for abandoning the rule of law to adopt a mentality of fear will stay on our record. The last six years are not subject to appeal.
sláinte,
cl