Wednesday, January 10, 2007

This in by email:

REad the last story about innocent men imprisoned
From: Barbara C. Johnson
Reply To: "Barbara C. Johnson"
To: FATHERS-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: Re: No defense for prosecutorial arrogance
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 5:17 PM
It took a relative to get hurt before Martinek changed sides.
He was on the other side years ago.
Had many a tussle with him while he was at Lawyers Weekly.

Barbara C. Johnson, Advocate of Court Reform and Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
978-474-0833

NEW email: barbaracjohnson@verizon.net
False Allegations: http://www.falseallegations.com
Participating Attorney: http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs2/user/browse.shtml
Campaign 2002: http://www.barbforgovernor.com
-----
The judicial system is very broken. It must be fixed.
There are four people who can do the job:
Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.
Everybody thinks Somebody will surely do it.
It is a job Anybody can do. But Nobody is doing it.
At least I'm trying. What are you doing?

It is dangerous to be right

when the government is wrong.

VOLTAIRE

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
— ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

FOR SALE: 1968 Chev C-60 Fire Truck: Pumper

$A few thou.

email or phone 978-474-0833

polytank -- tank is rustproof

427 cu in motor

5-speed with 2-speed differential

Timing chain is tight, like brand new motor

If you need a truck motor, this is a great one



just-a-dad wrote:
Prosecutorial misconduct is a part of our problem, as well as for some defendants in general. Some prosecutors are all too happy to file charges in cases that do not merit any charges.
Has Martinek not posted on this list, if not I probable only recognize him as a letter writer to the local papers.
No defense for prosecutorial arrogance
By Paul J. Martinek
Tuesday, January 9, 2007

If the Duke University rape controversy highlights anything, it’s that while there may be nothing better than a good prosecutor, there’s nothing worse than a bad one. And by all accounts Mike Nifong, the district attorney of Durham, N.C., is a dreadful one.

He’s thoughtlessly dragged the reputations of several Duke students through the mud based on the continually shifting tale of a supposed rape victim whose credibility was dubious to begin with.

Nifong, who is still pursuing lesser (but still serious) charges against three of the men long after common sense should have told someone in his position that the whole case needed to be dropped, is facing an ethical complaint from the North Carolina bar. And well he should.



Young men who may well have done nothing more than show up for a silly frat party have had their lives turned upside down by an arrogant public official more concerned about his own political fortunes than the ramifications of abusing his power. These Duke students will end up paying huge legal fees to fight these charges - and they may well have to pay even more to defend a civil suit that the “victim” could file regardless of what happens to the criminal case.

And no amount of money will remove the cloud that will hang over these men for the rest of their lives.

It would be nice to think that the Duke case is an aberration. But you could probably walk into many courthouses in Massachusetts and find a similar tale, albeit one that hasn’t been jumped on by national TV networks.

Very few criminal cases capture even the slightest public attention. Most defendants whose rights may have been trampled suffer in anonymity. When they do approach the media, they are inevitably lumped in with the truly guilty, people who reflexively proclaim their innocence no matter what and snivel about how the prison lunch menu violates their Eighth Amendment rights.

Prosecutors in Massachusetts are surely, on the whole, upstanding and ethical. But power can get the best of even good people.

Because prosecutors have enormous discretion, they must be extra careful in how they wield their power - a challenge in a rough-and-tumble criminal justice system that doesn’t always lend itself to thoughtful deliberation.

Decisions about whether to charge someone with a crime have staggering consequences for the individual whose life is about to be changed forever. But some prosecutors seem to lose sight of the enormity of what they’ve been empowered to do. It’s just another day at the office. And if a mistake is made, prosecutors are generally immune from suit.

Mistakes, however, do matter to good prosecutors because they know that their ultimate goal is to put the right person away, not just anyone.

Of course, prosecutors should be on the side of the victim. But people who are wrongly accused of crimes become victims as well - victims of a system that is so eager to get the bad guys that it is willing to look away if some good guys get tarnished in the process.
Even the best prosecutors need to continually remind themselves of the importance of being driven by humility, not ego - of seeking justice, not success.

They need to operate on the assumption that, like all human beings, they can make errors and that when they do the consequences are very grave for those they’ve wrongly targeted.
Attorney Paul J. Martinek is editor of Masslawbrief.com.
Wrongly convicted men describe decades in prison
By Associated Press
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 - Updated: 08:49 AM EST

BOSTON - Joseph Salvati was 35, with a wife and four young children, when he was arrested in the 1965 gangland murder of Edward "Teddy" Deegan.

It would be more than 29 years, eight grandchildren and three great-grandchildren later before he left prison.

On Monday, Salvati, now 74, broke down and sobbed on the witness stand as he described his shock when he was arrested, his decades in prison and his feelings when he learned that the FBI knew he and three other men had been framed.

"I couldn’t believe it - that the FBI could do a thing like this," he said. "This is people who protect you, people you look up to.



"They don’t care - that’s the bottom line," he said, burying his face in a handkerchief.

Salvati, Peter Limone Sr. and the families of two other men who died in prison - Henry Tameleo and Louis Greco - are suing the federal government for $100 million for false imprisonment.

The lawsuit accuses the government of malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy and negligent supervision of FBI agents.

Salvati and Limone were exonerated in 2001 after a state judge found that FBI agents hid evidence from state prosecutors that could have cleared the men in order to protect an informant.

Lawyers for the men claim the FBI did not disclose that Joseph "The Animal" Barboza, a former mob hitman and FBI informant, and his cohort, Vincent "Jimmy" Flemmi were overheard on FBI wiretaps asking for permission to kill Deegan shortly before his murder.

The FBI also had internal memos that showed Barboza - who was the key witness against the four men at their trial - was framing the four men and protecting Flemmi, who was also an FBI informant at the time Deegan was killed.

Salvati was sentenced to life in prison as an accessory to murder. He was released from prison when his sentence was commuted in 1997, after serving a little more than 29 years. Limone served 33 years in prison before being freed in 2001.

Justice Department lawyers have argued during the civil case that federal authorities had no duty to share information with state prosecutors and cannot be liable for the results of a separate state investigation.

Salvati’s lawyers say FBI memos showed the FBI believed Flemmi had killed Deegan, as well as six other people, but agents continued to use him as an informant.

The memos were made public in 2001 after they were discovered by a Justice Department task force probing the FBI’s relationship with gangsters and FBI informants James "Whitey" Bulger and Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi, Vincent Flemmi’s brother.

* * * *
* * * *

Another email:

Steve,
First, I wanted to know if Ken (Raining on Rell's Parade) was interested in meeting Tuesday nights or another time. If you want to forward his contact information you can.
More important, I called Justice Lavery's office about Kaplan and other complaints I received. They didn't say no to a meeting but wanted me to send a written complaint first then call back in a week. I spoke to Deb Fuller of External affair division 860-757-2100. Call and complaint about Kaplan, Stick to facts, only what you saw and heard. If you put on your tinfoil hat and bring up conspiracy theories, don't use my name.
Arnold Menchel works in the attorney Generals office for whistleblowers. His number is 808-5357 Same Deal with Kaplan, stick to facts only. You want to sound credible and just back up our allegations that Kaplan is harming people. Please trust me on this, once an investigation starts we can bring up more allegations.
Enclosed are a portion of the statutes on judicial Conduct. When you read it think about this:
1. Kaplan has a history of misconduct, a pattern of abuse
2. The Chief court admin, Justice Lavery, has the obligation to reprimand this judge
3. Kaplan's Law partner and law clerk were appointed with state funds to represent my children and he is active in my case. I get a notice that Kaplan is delaying each hearing.
4. How do we get ahold of Kaplan's Financials? FOIA??
5. When Kaplan drove to Enfield to meet Parakilas about a pending case and Drove to Hartford to hand in documents for my arrest, did he get compensated by the state for mileage or time ...etc?

Sec. 51-51i. Grounds for removal, suspension and censure. (a) In addition to removal by impeachment and removal by the Governor on the address of two-thirds of each house of the General Assembly as provided in the Connecticut Constitution, a judge shall be subject, in the manner and under the procedures provided in this chapter to censure, suspension or removal from office for (1) conduct prejudicial to the impartial and effective administration of justice which brings the judicial office in disrepute, (2) wilful violation of section 51-39a or any canon of judicial ethics, (3) wilful and persistent failure to perform the duty of a judge, (4) neglectful or incompetent performance of the duties of a judge, (5) final conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, (6) disbarment or suspension as an attorney-at-law, (7) wilful failure to file a financial statement or the filing of a fraudulent financial statement required under section 51-46a, or (8) temperament which adversely affects the orderly carriage of justice.

Sec. 51-45a. Admonishment of judge or family support magistrate by Chief Court Administrator. Whenever the Chief Court Administrator has reason to believe that a judge or family support magistrate has acted in a manner which gives the appearance of impropriety or constitutes an unfavorable judicial or magisterial practice, the Chief Court Administrator may issue an admonishment to the judge or family support magistrate recommending a change in such conduct or practice. Such admonishment shall become a part of any performance evaluation record of such judge or family support magistrate.

Sec. 51-39. Disqualification by relationship or interest. Judge or family support magistrate may act with consent of parties. (a) Except as provided in this section, a judge or family support magistrate is disqualified to act if a relationship between the judge or family support magistrate and a party in any proceeding in court before him is as near as the degree of kinship between father and son, brothers, or uncle and nephew, by nature or marriage, or as near as between landlord and tenant, or if any judge or family support magistrate may be liable to contribute to the damages, costs or expenses of any proceeding before him, or if he may receive a direct pecuniary benefit by the determination of any proceeding before him.

Sec. 51-39a. Use of judicial office for financial gain prohibited. No judge of the Supreme Court, Appellate Court or Superior Court or any family support magistrate shall use his judicial office or any confidential information received through his holding judicial office to obtain financial gain for himself, his spouse, child, child's spouse, parent, brother or sister or a business with which he is associated.

Sec. 51-45b. Medical examination of judge or family support magistrate ordered by Chief Court Administrator, when. Matter referred to Judicial Review Council, when. Whenever the Chief Court Administrator has reason to believe that a judge or family support magistrate cannot fully perform his or her judicial or magisterial duties by reason of mental infirmity or illness or because of drug dependency or addiction to alcohol, the Chief Court Administrator shall direct such judge or family support magistrate to be examined by such qualified medical expert or experts as the Chief Court Administrator shall designate, at the expense of the Judicial Department. If the judge or family support magistrate fails to undergo any such examination or if, upon due consideration of the report of the expert or experts, the Chief Court Administrator is satisfied and concludes that the judge or family support magistrate cannot fully perform his or her judicial or magisterial duties, the Chief Court Administrator shall modify the assignment of the judge or family support magistrate, or shall remove said judge or family support magistrate from any assignment, and shall refer the matter together with the report, if any, of the expert or experts to the Judicial Review Council.

Sec. 51-46a. Statement of financial interests to be reported. (a) Each judge of the Superior Court, each judge of the Appellate Court, each judge of the Supreme Court and each family support magistrate shall file under penalty of false statement, a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the Office of the Chief Court Administrator on or before April fifteenth next for any year in which the judge or family support magistrate holds such position.

(b) The statement, on a form provided by the Office of the Chief Court Administrator, shall include the following information for the preceding calendar year in regard to the judge or family support magistrate, his or her spouse and the dependent children living in his or her household: (1) With respect to the judge or family support magistrate, the statement shall include: (A) The date, place and nature of any activity for which the judge or family support magistrate received compensation other than judicial or magisterial compensation for services rendered and the name of the payor and the amount of the compensation received provided, if the compensation received was a fee for an appearance or the delivery of an address to any meeting of any organization, the report of the fee so received shall be filed within thirty days after receipt of the fee; (B) the name of each security in excess of five thousand dollars at fair market value owned by the judge or family support magistrate or held in the name of a corporation, partnership or trust for the benefit of the judge or family support magistrate, except in the case of a trust established by a judge or family support magistrate for the purpose of divesting himself or herself of all control and knowledge of his or her assets in order to avoid a conflict of interest during his or her term of office, only the existence of the trust and the name of the trustee shall be included, but the value need not be specified; (C) all real property and its location, whether owned by the judge or family support magistrate or held in the name of a corporation, partnership or trust for the benefit of the judge or family support magistrate; (2) with respect to his or her spouse and dependent children living in his or her household, the statement shall include: (A) The name of all businesses with which the spouse or child is associated; (B) the category or type of all sources of income of his or her spouse or each child in excess of one thousand dollars, but amounts of income need not be specified, and the names and addresses of specific clients and customers who provide more than five thousand dollars of income, and amounts of income need not be specified; (C) the name of each security in excess of five thousand dollars at fair market value owned by the spouse or each child or held in the name of a corporation, partnership or trust for the benefit of the spouse or child, except in the case of a trust established by the spouse or child for the purpose of divesting the spouse or child of all control and knowledge of his or her assets in order to avoid a conflict of interest during the judge's or family support magistrate's term of office, only the existence of the trust and the name of the trustee shall be included, but the value need not be specified; (D) all real property and its location, whether owned by the spouse or child or held in the name of a corporation, partnership or trust for the benefit of the spouse or child; (E) any fees or honorariums received for any appearance or the delivery of an address to any meeting of any organization by the spouse or child shall be disclosed within thirty days after receipt of the fee or honorarium.

(c) The statement filed pursuant to this section shall be a matter of public information, except the list of names filed in accordance with subdivision (2) of subsection (b) of this section shall be sealed and confidential and for the use of the Judicial Review Council and the Supreme Court only if an investigation has been initiated under section 51-51j and the Judicial Review Council or the Supreme Court is of the opinion that disclosure of the list is germane to the investigation. The list may be subject to a subpoena in any criminal prosecution, impeachment proceedings or a hearing before the Supreme Court under section 51-51j.

(d) The financial statement, except as provided in subdivision (2) of subsection (b) of this section shall be open to inspection at the Office of the Chief Court Administrator of the Judicial Department or at a place designated by the Chief Court Administrator.

(e) The Chief Court Administrator shall report to the Judicial Review Council any judge or family support magistrate who fails to file any statement required by this section.

Sec. 51-48. Payment of expenses of judges. Each judge of the Supreme Court, judge of the Appellate Court and judge of the Superior Court shall be allowed his necessary expenses while engaged in official duty, to be taxed and paid as are other court expenses.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Hit Counter