U. S. District Court Judge Rules Flipping the Bird Is Free Speech.
A motorist who flipped off a police officer and received a disorderly conduct ticket has won a ruling that his gesture was protected by the First Amendment.
David Hackbart first gave the bird to a motorist who blocked his parking space, and then to a voice telling him to stop—which turned out to be that of an officer, according to the opinion (PDF posted by the Wall Street Journal) by U.S. District Judge David Cercone of Pittsburgh.
"Hackbart, in this instance, was expressing his frustration and anger when he gestured with his middle finger to both the driver behind him and to [the officer]," Cercone wrote. "Both gestures are protected expressions under the First Amendment, unless they fall within a narrowly limited category of unprotected speech such as obscene speech or fighting words."
Cercone granted Hackbart's motion for summary judgment and allowed the civil rights lawsuit to proceed to trial on related issues, according to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. Hackbart is claiming the incident caused him physical pain and suffering, emotional trauma, humiliation and distress, according to Legal Blog Watch, citing a story in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Judge Rules Pole Dancing Is Art .
Judge Rules Pole Dancing Is Art Qualifying for Sales Tax Exemption
After reviewing DVDs of exotic dancers, an administrative law judge has determined that pole dancing is "no small feat"--and it's also art qualifying for a tax exemption.
The judge, Catherine Bennett, ruled the Albany-area club Nite Moves was entitled to a “dramatic arts” tax exemption and did not have to pay $129,000 in sales taxes, the New York Law Journal reports. The state of New York had contended it was owed taxes on cover charges and dancer fees paid between 2002 and 2005.
Judge Bennett ruled after hearing from a University of Maryland dance scholar and watching videos of dance routines at the club, the story said.
"The videos depicted dance routines that incorporated acrobatic pole maneuvers, splits and other patterned repetitions," Bennett said. "The pole maneuvers in particular are no small feat to accomplish, and attempting such a performance without the skill and a planned routine of steps could prove dangerous."
"The fact someone may believe that this entertainment is not appropriate for any audience is not the issue," she said.
Nite Moves' lawyer, Andrew McCullough, is a Mormon and a board member of the Utah chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He told the New York Law Journal he sees similarities between objections to strip clubs and new Mormon temples.
“They say, 'It's lights, it's traffic, it's noise,' ” he said. “But what they really mean is, 'We don't like your kind.' ”
After reviewing DVDs of exotic dancers, an administrative law judge has determined that pole dancing is "no small feat"--and it's also art qualifying for a tax exemption.
The judge, Catherine Bennett, ruled the Albany-area club Nite Moves was entitled to a “dramatic arts” tax exemption and did not have to pay $129,000 in sales taxes, the New York Law Journal reports. The state of New York had contended it was owed taxes on cover charges and dancer fees paid between 2002 and 2005.
Judge Bennett ruled after hearing from a University of Maryland dance scholar and watching videos of dance routines at the club, the story said.
"The videos depicted dance routines that incorporated acrobatic pole maneuvers, splits and other patterned repetitions," Bennett said. "The pole maneuvers in particular are no small feat to accomplish, and attempting such a performance without the skill and a planned routine of steps could prove dangerous."
"The fact someone may believe that this entertainment is not appropriate for any audience is not the issue," she said.
Nite Moves' lawyer, Andrew McCullough, is a Mormon and a board member of the Utah chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He told the New York Law Journal he sees similarities between objections to strip clubs and new Mormon temples.
“They say, 'It's lights, it's traffic, it's noise,' ” he said. “But what they really mean is, 'We don't like your kind.' ”
Friday, March 20, 2009
CHANGE Is Coming To Capital Punishment
(3/18/09) New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who has supported capital punishment, signed legislation to repeal New Mexico's death penalty, calling it the "most difficult decision in my political life."
The new law replaces lethal injection with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The repeal takes effect on July 1, and applies only to crimes committed after that date.
"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said.
Europe's human rights watchdog hailed the decision as "a victory for civilization." The American Civil Liberties Union called it "a historic step and a clear sign that the United States continues to make significant progress toward eradicating capital punishment once and for all."
But the New Mexico Sheriffs' and Police Association opposed repeal, saying capital punishment deters violence against police officers, jailers and prison guards. District attorneys also opposed the legislation, arguing that the death penalty was a useful prosecutorial tool.
"I'm worried for our law enforcement officers who are out there courageously doing their job every night. We've lost a layer of protection and it's a sad day in New Mexico," Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White said.
New Mexico becomes only the second state after New Jersey to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Fourteen other states do not impose capital punishment.
"The tide is turning and the end of this cruel and inhuman form of punishment in the United States is only a matter of time," said Terry Davis, the secretary general of the 47-nation Council of Europe.
All European nations have banned or suspended capital punishment.
The repeal passed the state Senate by a 24-18 vote and was approved by the House a month earlier. With Richardson facing a midnight deadline to decide whether to sign or veto the legislation, he said he made the decision in the late afternoon after going to the state penitentiary.
There he saw the death chamber and visited the maximum security unit where those sentenced to life-without-parole could be housed.
"My conclusion was those cells are something that may be worse than death," the Democratic governor said at a news conference in the Capitol. "I believe this is a just punishment."
The governor also caught a glimpse of one of the two men on death row, Robert Fry. The repeal doesn't affect the death sentences of Fry or the other inmate, Timothy Allen, and Richardson said he wouldn't commute those sentences.
Richardson said he has long believed — and still does — that the death penalty was a "just punishment" in rare cases for the worst crimes. But he said he decided to sign the repeal legislation because of flaws in how the death penalty was applied.
"More than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years in this country, including four New Mexicans — a fact I cannot ignore," he said.
"Even with advances in DNA and other forensic evidence technologies, we can't be 100 percent sure that only the truly guilty are convicted of capital crimes."
Currently, New Mexico allows for the death penalty for certain murders, including killing a child, a law enforcement or correctional officer and a witness to a crime. New Mexico has executed one person since 1960.
The governor solicited input over the weekend from state residents. He said he got to 12,000 responses by phone, e-mail and visits, with more than three-fourths in favor of repeal.
"It was never popular in New Mexico," said Patrick Tyrell, a social worker and longtime lobbyist for repeal whose brother-in-law was murdered in 1984.
Roman Catholic Bishop Ricardo Ramirez of the Diocese of Las Cruces, said the governor "has made New Mexico a leader in turning away from the death penalty with all its moral problems and issues of fairness and justice."
A former congressman and member of President Bill Clinton's cabinet, Richardson said he was disturbed that death rows contain so many minorities. And, from a foreign policy perspective, the death penalty "did not seem to me to be good moral leadership and good foreign policy."
"This is a milestone that will make other states stand up and take notice," said Larry Cox, executive director, Amnesty International USA.
In Montana, a proposed ban has cleared the Senate and is pending in the House. In Kansas, a bill failed to clear the Senate this week.
There he saw the death chamber and visited the maximum security unit where those sentenced to life-without-parole could be housed.
"My conclusion was those cells are something that may be worse than death," the Democratic governor said at a news conference in the Capitol. "I believe this is a just punishment."
The governor also caught a glimpse of one of the two men on death row, Robert Fry. The repeal doesn't affect the death sentences of Fry or the other inmate, Timothy Allen, and Richardson said he wouldn't commute those sentences.
Richardson said he has long believed — and still does — that the death penalty was a "just punishment" in rare cases for the worst crimes. But he said he decided to sign the repeal legislation because of flaws in how the death penalty was applied.
"More than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years in this country, including four New Mexicans — a fact I cannot ignore," he said.
"Even with advances in DNA and other forensic evidence technologies, we can't be 100 percent sure that only the truly guilty are convicted of capital crimes."
Currently, New Mexico allows for the death penalty for certain murders, including killing a child, a law enforcement or correctional officer and a witness to a crime. New Mexico has executed one person since 1960.
The governor solicited input over the weekend from state residents. He said he got to 12,000 responses by phone, e-mail and visits, with more than three-fourths in favor of repeal.
"It was never popular in New Mexico," said Patrick Tyrell, a social worker and longtime lobbyist for repeal whose brother-in-law was murdered in 1984.
Roman Catholic Bishop Ricardo Ramirez of the Diocese of Las Cruces, said the governor "has made New Mexico a leader in turning away from the death penalty with all its moral problems and issues of fairness and justice."
A former congressman and member of President Bill Clinton's cabinet, Richardson said he was disturbed that death rows contain so many minorities. And, from a foreign policy perspective, the death penalty "did not seem to me to be good moral leadership and good foreign policy."
"This is a milestone that will make other states stand up and take notice," said Larry Cox, executive director, Amnesty International USA.
In Montana, a proposed ban has cleared the Senate and is pending in the House. In Kansas, a bill failed to clear the Senate this week.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Federal Judge Reverses Conviction Of Terrorist Supporter.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. – U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz threw out one conviction against a former Navy sailor accused of passing along information about ship movements, dealing a post-mortem blow to a Bush administration that had praised the case as a success.
On 4 March Judge Mark Kravitz overturned last year's conviction of Hassan Abu-Jihaad, of Phoenix, on a charge of providing material support to terrorists, citing the language of the law. He upheld his conviction for disclosing classified national defense information.
Abu-Jihaad was a Naval signalman aboard the USS Benfold. He was accused of passing along information including the makeup of his Navy battle group and a drawing of the formation the group would use to pass through the dangerous Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf in April 2001.
The ship was not attacked.
Judge Kravitz said that Abu-Jihaad received a fair trial and denied a motion for a new trial. But he said he was overturning one of the convictions "for reasons largely related to the language" of the law.
To convict Abu-Jihaad of providing material support to terrorists, the jury had to find that he provided personnel or physical assets. But Judge Kravitz said there was no evidence that would allow the jury to conclude Abu-Jihaad provided personnel or willfully caused the battle group document to be placed on a computer floppy disc, which could be considered a physical asset.
But in upholding the other charge, the judge said Abu-Jihaad had motive, citing his praise of the attack on the USS Cole as a "martrydom operation," that he had access to the secret information and that he was in frequent communication with the suspected terrorism supporters.
"This was not an open and shut case," Judge Kravitz wrote. "In many ways, it was a difficult case for the government to prove."
Dan LaBelle, Abu-Jihaad's attorney, said the ruling pleased him. "It's very thorough and thoughtful," he said.
Abu-Jihaad's conviction was hailed last year by top national security officials and federal investigators as a model of cooperation among government agencies. Prosecutors say they are reviewing the latest ruling.
Abu-Jihaad, who was honorably discharged in 2002, faced up to 10 years in prison on each count. He sought a new trial in October, saying prosecutors lacked evidence and inflamed the jury by playing videos he bought that promoted violent jihad, or holy war.
Prosecutors say investigators discovered files on a computer disk recovered from a suspected terrorist supporter's home in London that included the ship movements, as well as the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles to terrorists.
Ahmad, who lived with his parents, where the computer file was allegedly found, and was arrested in London, is to be extradited to the U.S.
On 4 March Judge Mark Kravitz overturned last year's conviction of Hassan Abu-Jihaad, of Phoenix, on a charge of providing material support to terrorists, citing the language of the law. He upheld his conviction for disclosing classified national defense information.
Abu-Jihaad was a Naval signalman aboard the USS Benfold. He was accused of passing along information including the makeup of his Navy battle group and a drawing of the formation the group would use to pass through the dangerous Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf in April 2001.
The ship was not attacked.
Judge Kravitz said that Abu-Jihaad received a fair trial and denied a motion for a new trial. But he said he was overturning one of the convictions "for reasons largely related to the language" of the law.
To convict Abu-Jihaad of providing material support to terrorists, the jury had to find that he provided personnel or physical assets. But Judge Kravitz said there was no evidence that would allow the jury to conclude Abu-Jihaad provided personnel or willfully caused the battle group document to be placed on a computer floppy disc, which could be considered a physical asset.
But in upholding the other charge, the judge said Abu-Jihaad had motive, citing his praise of the attack on the USS Cole as a "martrydom operation," that he had access to the secret information and that he was in frequent communication with the suspected terrorism supporters.
"This was not an open and shut case," Judge Kravitz wrote. "In many ways, it was a difficult case for the government to prove."
Dan LaBelle, Abu-Jihaad's attorney, said the ruling pleased him. "It's very thorough and thoughtful," he said.
Abu-Jihaad's conviction was hailed last year by top national security officials and federal investigators as a model of cooperation among government agencies. Prosecutors say they are reviewing the latest ruling.
Abu-Jihaad, who was honorably discharged in 2002, faced up to 10 years in prison on each count. He sought a new trial in October, saying prosecutors lacked evidence and inflamed the jury by playing videos he bought that promoted violent jihad, or holy war.
Prosecutors say investigators discovered files on a computer disk recovered from a suspected terrorist supporter's home in London that included the ship movements, as well as the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles to terrorists.
Ahmad, who lived with his parents, where the computer file was allegedly found, and was arrested in London, is to be extradited to the U.S.
Man Killed After Attacking Judge In Court
FRESNO, Calif. – David Paradiso, 28, accused of killing his girlfriend was shot to death in a Stockton courtroom 4 March after he attacked Judge Cinda Fox, the judge presiding over his murder trial.
Paradiso was shot by a police detective after he left the witness stand and began attacking San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Cinda Fox during a break in proceedings, said Dave Konecny, a spokesman for the sheriff's department.
Paradiso took the stand to testify around 2 p.m. and was quickly asked by prosecutors why he killed his girlfriend Eileen Pelt.
He responded: "Cause she deserved to die."
Paradiso's mother, Debra, stood up and started yelling, leading the judge to call a recess. As jurors filed out, Paradiso left the stand and approached the judge from behind "with an unknown cutting instrument," Konecny said.
Karen McConnell, a county spokeswoman, said witnesses reported seeing Paradiso lift the judge and begin punching and possibly stabbing her when bailiffs ran to her aid and shots rang out. Lodi Police Det. Eric Bradley has been placed on administrative leave while the shooting is being investigated, city spokesman Jeff Hood said.
"He was going after her jugular, just as he did to the victim in this case," his attorney, Chuck Pacheco, told the Lodi News-Sentinel. "He was not stopping stabbing her, going for her neck. Bradley did the right thing."
Fox, who had a bandage on her left arm as she was carried out of the courthouse on a stretcher, told reporters, "I'm OK," before being taken to a hospital. She was released later Wednesday. Calls to her home were not immediately returned.
The courthouse immediately went on lockdown, although people were allowed to leave after the building was secured, McConnell said.
Konecny said he did not know how Paradiso obtained a weapon. He said at least two bailiffs were on duty in the courtroom at the time of the attack.
Paradiso was on trial for allegedly stabbing his girlfriend, Eileen Pelt, in the neck as his mother drove them in her car. Debra Paradiso told police her son forced her to drive to Amador County, where he dumped the body.
Paradiso's attorney, Charles Pacheco, said in opening arguments last week that his client was high on methamphetamine at the time. Pacheco did not immediately return a call Wednesday seeking comment.
Aaron Paradiso, the suspect's brother, told KCRA-TV of Sacramento that his brother was "crazy" and said he had told authorities and attorneys that he shouldn't be put on the stand. He said his mother had warned deputies that the family believed Paradiso had a cutting weapon from some sort of clipper or scissors.
Concerns about courthouse security have grown since 2005, when an unshackled defendant being escorted into an Atlanta court for a rape trial stole a deputy's gun and went on a shooting rampage. A jury found Brian Nichols, 37, guilty in November of murdering the deputy, a judge and two others.
Paradiso was shot by a police detective after he left the witness stand and began attacking San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Cinda Fox during a break in proceedings, said Dave Konecny, a spokesman for the sheriff's department.
Paradiso took the stand to testify around 2 p.m. and was quickly asked by prosecutors why he killed his girlfriend Eileen Pelt.
He responded: "Cause she deserved to die."
Paradiso's mother, Debra, stood up and started yelling, leading the judge to call a recess. As jurors filed out, Paradiso left the stand and approached the judge from behind "with an unknown cutting instrument," Konecny said.
Karen McConnell, a county spokeswoman, said witnesses reported seeing Paradiso lift the judge and begin punching and possibly stabbing her when bailiffs ran to her aid and shots rang out. Lodi Police Det. Eric Bradley has been placed on administrative leave while the shooting is being investigated, city spokesman Jeff Hood said.
"He was going after her jugular, just as he did to the victim in this case," his attorney, Chuck Pacheco, told the Lodi News-Sentinel. "He was not stopping stabbing her, going for her neck. Bradley did the right thing."
Fox, who had a bandage on her left arm as she was carried out of the courthouse on a stretcher, told reporters, "I'm OK," before being taken to a hospital. She was released later Wednesday. Calls to her home were not immediately returned.
The courthouse immediately went on lockdown, although people were allowed to leave after the building was secured, McConnell said.
Konecny said he did not know how Paradiso obtained a weapon. He said at least two bailiffs were on duty in the courtroom at the time of the attack.
Paradiso was on trial for allegedly stabbing his girlfriend, Eileen Pelt, in the neck as his mother drove them in her car. Debra Paradiso told police her son forced her to drive to Amador County, where he dumped the body.
Paradiso's attorney, Charles Pacheco, said in opening arguments last week that his client was high on methamphetamine at the time. Pacheco did not immediately return a call Wednesday seeking comment.
Aaron Paradiso, the suspect's brother, told KCRA-TV of Sacramento that his brother was "crazy" and said he had told authorities and attorneys that he shouldn't be put on the stand. He said his mother had warned deputies that the family believed Paradiso had a cutting weapon from some sort of clipper or scissors.
Concerns about courthouse security have grown since 2005, when an unshackled defendant being escorted into an Atlanta court for a rape trial stole a deputy's gun and went on a shooting rampage. A jury found Brian Nichols, 37, guilty in November of murdering the deputy, a judge and two others.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Old Judges Don't Just Fade Away, They Loose Their Appeal.
U.S. District Court Judge Pleads Guilty to Obstruction of Justice
WASHINGTON – U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent pleaded guilty today to obstruction of justice in federal court in Houston, Acting Assistant Attorney General Rita M. Glavin and Andrew R. Bland III, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Houston office announced.
Kent, 59, a district judge in the Southern District of Texas, pleaded guilty to making false statements to a special investigative committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit during an investigation of a judicial misconduct complaint filed against him. Kent’s guilty plea was accepted by the Hon. Roger Vinson, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, who was sitting by designation in the Southern District of Texas.
A grand jury in the Southern District of Texas indicted Kent in August 2008 on two counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse for his alleged repeated assaults on an employee of the Office of the Clerk of Court, identified as Person A. In January 2009, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Kent, maintaining the original charges and adding one count each of abusive sexual contact and aggravated sexual abuse for Kent’s alleged repeated assaults on another U.S. District Court employee, identified as Person B. The January 2009 superseding indictment also added one count of obstruction of justice, alleging Kent obstructed an investigation into a misconduct complaint filed by Person A.
As part of his plea, Kent admitted that in both 2003 and 2007, he engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with Person A. He also admitted that he engaged in non-consensual contact with Person B from 2004 through at least 2005. According to court documents, when Person A filed a misconduct complaint against Kent, the Fifth Circuit appointed a committee to investigate whether Kent had engaged in unwanted sexual contact with Person A or any other individuals. Kent admitted that when he appeared before the committee in June 2007, he falsely testified about his conduct with Person B.
Sentencing is scheduled for May 11, 2009.
The case is being prosecuted by Senior Deputy Chief Peter J. Ainsworth and Trial Attorneys John P. Pearson and AnnaLou T. Tirol of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, which is headed by Section Chief William M. Welch II. The case was investigated by the FBI.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, February 23, 2009
WWW.USDOJ.GOVCRM
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888
(ABA Journal. 23 Feb 2009)
U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in a plea deal that avoids a trial scheduled to begin today.
The plea resolves five other charges of aggravated sexual abuse based on allegations Kent fondled two court employees, the Houston Chronicle reports. The obstruction charge is based on accusations Kent lied in a court internal probe of sexual abuse allegations. The government is seeking a three-year prison term when Kent is sentenced on May 11, although the charge carries a maximum of 20 years in prison, Texas Lawyer reports.
Kent’s lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, says his client intends to retire from the bench, the Texas Lawyer story says.
DeGuerin said last week that his client’s contact with the women was consensual, and he was merely trying to protect one of the women when he lied in the court investigation.
Kent usually speaks loudly and clearly, but he nearly whispered his guilty plea today, the Chronicle says.
After the court hearing, DeGuerin read a statement to reporters, according to the Chronicle report. "A trial would have been long, embarrassing and difficult for all involved,'' he said.
Legal experts have said prosecutors upped the ante when they charged Kent under a section of the obstruction law that was strengthened after the collapse of Enron. "It's the Martha Stewart case," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers in an interview with the Houston Chronicle last month. "You can prove obstruction sometimes even when there is no underlying crime
WASHINGTON – U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent pleaded guilty today to obstruction of justice in federal court in Houston, Acting Assistant Attorney General Rita M. Glavin and Andrew R. Bland III, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Houston office announced.
Kent, 59, a district judge in the Southern District of Texas, pleaded guilty to making false statements to a special investigative committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit during an investigation of a judicial misconduct complaint filed against him. Kent’s guilty plea was accepted by the Hon. Roger Vinson, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, who was sitting by designation in the Southern District of Texas.
A grand jury in the Southern District of Texas indicted Kent in August 2008 on two counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse for his alleged repeated assaults on an employee of the Office of the Clerk of Court, identified as Person A. In January 2009, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Kent, maintaining the original charges and adding one count each of abusive sexual contact and aggravated sexual abuse for Kent’s alleged repeated assaults on another U.S. District Court employee, identified as Person B. The January 2009 superseding indictment also added one count of obstruction of justice, alleging Kent obstructed an investigation into a misconduct complaint filed by Person A.
As part of his plea, Kent admitted that in both 2003 and 2007, he engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with Person A. He also admitted that he engaged in non-consensual contact with Person B from 2004 through at least 2005. According to court documents, when Person A filed a misconduct complaint against Kent, the Fifth Circuit appointed a committee to investigate whether Kent had engaged in unwanted sexual contact with Person A or any other individuals. Kent admitted that when he appeared before the committee in June 2007, he falsely testified about his conduct with Person B.
Sentencing is scheduled for May 11, 2009.
The case is being prosecuted by Senior Deputy Chief Peter J. Ainsworth and Trial Attorneys John P. Pearson and AnnaLou T. Tirol of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, which is headed by Section Chief William M. Welch II. The case was investigated by the FBI.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, February 23, 2009
WWW.USDOJ.GOVCRM
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888
(ABA Journal. 23 Feb 2009)
U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in a plea deal that avoids a trial scheduled to begin today.
The plea resolves five other charges of aggravated sexual abuse based on allegations Kent fondled two court employees, the Houston Chronicle reports. The obstruction charge is based on accusations Kent lied in a court internal probe of sexual abuse allegations. The government is seeking a three-year prison term when Kent is sentenced on May 11, although the charge carries a maximum of 20 years in prison, Texas Lawyer reports.
Kent’s lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, says his client intends to retire from the bench, the Texas Lawyer story says.
DeGuerin said last week that his client’s contact with the women was consensual, and he was merely trying to protect one of the women when he lied in the court investigation.
Kent usually speaks loudly and clearly, but he nearly whispered his guilty plea today, the Chronicle says.
After the court hearing, DeGuerin read a statement to reporters, according to the Chronicle report. "A trial would have been long, embarrassing and difficult for all involved,'' he said.
Legal experts have said prosecutors upped the ante when they charged Kent under a section of the obstruction law that was strengthened after the collapse of Enron. "It's the Martha Stewart case," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers in an interview with the Houston Chronicle last month. "You can prove obstruction sometimes even when there is no underlying crime
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Big Brother Tracks Your Every Move.
Is this useful information, or a waste of time?
The oversize white envelope bore the blue logo of the Department of
Homeland Security. Inside, I found 20 photocopies of the government's
records on my international travels. Every overseas trip I've taken
since 2001 was noted.
I had requested the files after I had heard that the government tracks
"passenger activity." Starting in the mid-1990s, many airlines handed
over passenger records. Since 2002, the government has mandated that
the commercial airlines deliver this information routinely and
electronically.
A passenger record typically includes the name of the person
traveling, the name of the person who submitted the information while
arranging the trip, and details about how the ticket was bought,
according to documents published by the Department of Homeland
Security. Records are made for citizens and non-citizens who cross our
borders. An agent from U.S. Customs and Border Protection can generate
a travel history for any traveler with a few keystrokes on a computer.
Officials use the information to prevent terrorism, acts of organized
crime, and other illegal activity.
I had been curious about what's in my travel dossier, so I made a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for a copy.
My biggest surprise was that the Internet Protocol (I.P.) address of
the computer used to buy my tickets via a Web agency was noted. On the
first document image posted here, I've circled in red the I.P. address
of the computer used to buy my pair of airline tickets.
(An I.P. address is assigned to every computer on the Internet. Each
time that computer sends an e-mail—or is used to make a purchase via a
Web browser — it has to reveal its I.P. address, which tells its
geographic location.)
The rest of my file contained details about my ticketed itineraries,
the amount I paid for tickets, and the airports I passed through
overseas. My credit card number was not listed, nor were any hotels
I've visited. In two cases, the basic identifying information about my
traveling companion (whose ticket was part of the same purchase as
mine) was included in the file. Perhaps that information was included
by mistake.
Some sections of my documents were blacked out by an official.
Presumably, this information contains material that is classified
because it would reveal the inner workings of law enforcement.
Here's the lowdown on the records.
The commercial airlines send these passenger records to Customs and
Border Protection, an agency within the Department of Homeland
Security. Computers match the information with the databases of
federal departments, such as Treasury, Agriculture, and Homeland
Security. Computers uncover links between known and previously
unidentified terrorists or terrorist suspects, as well as suspicious
or irregular travel patterns. Some of this information comes from
foreign governments and law enforcement agencies. The data is also
crosschecked with American state and local law enforcement agencies,
which are tracking persons who have warrants out for their arrest or
who are under restraining orders. The data is used not only to fight
terrorism but also to prevent and combat acts of organized crime and
other illegal activity.
Officials use the information to help decide if a passenger needs to
have additional screening. Case in point: After overseas trips, I've
stood in lines at U.S. border checkpoints and had my passport swiped
and my electronic file examined. A few times, something in my record
has prompted officers to pull me over to a side room, where I have
been asked additional questions. Sometimes I've had to clarify a
missing middle initial. Other times, I have been referred to a
secondary examination. (I've blogged about this before.)
When did this electronic data collection start? In 1999, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (then known as the U.S. Customs Service) began
receiving passenger identification information electronically from
certain air carriers on a voluntary basis, though some paper records
were shared prior to that. A mandatory, automated program began about
6 years ago. Congress funds this Automated Targeting System's
Passenger Screening Program to the tune of about $30 million a year.
How safe is your information? Regulations prohibit officials from
sharing the records of any traveler — or the government's risk
assessment of any traveler — with airlines or private companies. A
record is kept for 15 years—unless it is linked to an investigation,
in which case it can be kept indefinitely. Agency computers do not
encrypt the data, but officials insist that other measures — both
physical and electronic — safeguard our records.
I wonder if the government's data collecting is relevant and necessary
to accomplish the agency's purpose in protecting our borders. The
volume of data collected, and the rate at which the records is growing
and being shared with officials nationwide, suggests that the
potential for misuse could soar out of hand. Others may wonder if the
efforts are effective. For instance, I asked security expert Bruce
Schneier Schneider about the Feds' efforts to track passenger
activity, and he responded by e-mail:
"I think it's a waste of time. There's this myth that we can pick
terrorists out of the crowd if we only knew more information."
On the other hand, some people may find it reassuring that the
government is using technology to keep our borders safe.
Oh, one more thing: Are your records worth seeing? Maybe not, unless
you've been experiencing a problem crossing our nation's borders. For
one thing, the records are a bit dull. In my file, for instance,
officials had blacked out the (presumably) most fascinating parts,
which were about how officials assessed my risk profile. What's more,
the records are mainly limited to information that airline and
passport control officials have collected, so you probably won't be
surprised by anything you read in them. Lastly, there may be a cost.
While there was no charge to me when I requested my records, you might
charged a fee of up to $50 if there is difficulty in obtaining your
records. Of course, there's a cost to taxpayers and to our nation's
security resources whenever a request is filed, too.
However, if you are being detained at the border or if you suspect a
problem with your records, then by all means request a copy. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection is required by law to make your records
available to you, with some exceptions. Your request must be made in
writing on paper and be signed by you. Ask to see the "information
relating to me in the Automated Targeting System." Say that your
request is "made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. 552)." Add that you wish to have a copy of your
records made and mailed to you without first inspecting them. Your
letter should, obviously, give reasonably sufficient detail to enable
an official to find your record. So supply your passport number and
mailing address. Put a date on your letter and make a copy for your
own records. On your envelope, you should conspicuously print the
words "FOIA Request." It should be addressed to "Freedom of
Information Act Request," U.S. Customs Service, 1300 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229. Be patient. I had wait for up to a
year to receive a copy of my records. Then if you believe there's an
error in your record, ask for a correction by writing a letter to the
Customer Satisfaction Unit, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, Room 5.5C, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20229
(By Sean O'Neill (AP))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
