[Update]:Today is election day in the LMJC, and while House has no opposition and will be returned to the bench, there is a choice for district attorney. While I don't know Doug Woodruff and have not followed his campaign, nonetheless Buzz Franklin needs to be replaced if for no other reason than to send a message that people like him do not belong in public office.
This is not an official endorsement of Woodruff, but consider it to be an official Non-Endorsement of Buzz Franklin. That man does not deserve a single voter, period. [End Update]
In 1990 I was a jury foreman in a civil case in Walker County. The jury found for the plaintiff and afterward, the defense attorney and I had a long conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of his case.
Likewise, prosecutors often will speak to jurors after a verdict, be it guilty or not guilty. Prosecutors like to know what they did right -- and what they did wrong.
However, following the Craft verdict no prosecutor spoke to a juror. In fact, some of the jurors actually attempted to contact Buzz Franklin's office in order to be able to speak to either Chris "Cruisemaster" Arnt or Len "the man" Gregor. No one in that office was interested in speaking to a juror despite the opportunity.
This is highly suspicious. I have known prosecutors who believed they had a good case and lost, and they wanted to know why. In this case, Franklin even put out a statement after the trial attacking the jury and making a claim that Arnt and Gregor had put on a "compelling case for conviction." Now, if these men really believed Craft was guilty and that they had presented a great case to jurors, then I am sure they would have wanted to know what went wrong.
Instead, they continued to claim jury misconduct and lamented a child molester being set free. In other words, they continued to lie.
Lying is something that both Buzz Franklin and "judge" Brian Outhouse do, and they do it with ease. Outhouse, when confronted about a piddly thing like a campaign sign, lied to Channel 3 News. In other words, he could not even tell the truth about a small thing.
One hopes that the voters of the LMJC have had enough of these two miscreants. Franklin not only lied in his press release after the Tonya Craft acquittal, but he also refused to meet with any Craft jurors to find out just why they disagreed with him and the "compelling case for conviction."
If the LMJC voters do re-elect Franklin and Outhouse, they will be making a statement that they prefer dishonesty to honesty. Also, they had better hope that they don't fall into the system the way that Tonya Craft, James Combs, Brad Wade, and others have done, for they will find out the hard way that there are no honest people employed in the LMJC, or if they are honest, they are quite silent.
Showing posts with label Brad Wade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brad Wade. Show all posts
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The LMJC and the Culture of Legal Corruption
When my family moved to Lookout Mountain in 1964, I must admit that parts of the region known as Northwest Georgia were reminiscent of places I have seen in Third World countries. Until moving there, I never had seen tarpaper shacks, children at school with what seemed to be permanently dirty faces, and general, grinding poverty.
Much has changed in that region since then. While there still are poor people, the poverty I saw hardly is widespread anymore, and in many ways, the region can be a pleasant place in which to live. Unfortunately, its legal climate is still stuck in 1964, a time when it was de facto legal in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit for a white man to murder a black man.
My father brought us down to the LMJC when Covenant College moved from St. Louis to the old Castle in the Clouds, and at Covenant, which is located in Dade County, black students were told in no uncertain terms that they were NOT to be seen walking south of the college's property, and especially along Highway 157. In fact, over the years, a number of black students did receive death threats from the good people residing in the LMJC, but no one was killed. I'm sure that had someone killed one of Covenant's black students, he would not have been charged or prosecuted.
This was a time when the Dade County portion of Sand Mountain had a sign that declared: "N*gger, don't let the sun set on you here." The people there meant every word, and I still would caution any black person from venturing up there without an armed escort. That was the kind of place the LMJC was then, and while I don't see the same overt racism that once characterized the place, the area's "justice" system is racist, as Len Gregor proved during the Tonya Craft trial, when he lied to jurors, telling them that Ms. Craft has slept with a black man.
Now, for the most part, I do consider many of the people living in the LMJC to be honest, or at least decently honest. Unfortunately, they put up with a culture of corruption that exists with police, prosecutors, and, yes, judges.
To be fair, the LMJC hardly stands alone. My friends from Texas tell me horror tales of Williamson County police, courts, and prosecutors, and K.C. Johnson has a great post on his blog about the legal corruption that permeates Durham County, North Carolina. Interestingly, in many ways, the corruption of the LMCJ and Durham County seems to be similar.
What makes this point even more interesting is that demographically and politically, the two places hardly could be more different. The LMJC is overwhelmingly white and politically conservative. The most prominent college in that district, Covenant College, is both theologically and socially conservative. The region abounds with "Bible-believing" churches and I would venture to say that a large portion of the population claims to be "saved."
Durham County, on the other hand, is dominated by the hard left, including a coalition of blacks and activists associated with Duke University. Duke would be the antithesis of Covenant, its student body dominated by "hookup" culture, and the university does everything it can to promote gratuitous sex by handing out condoms everywhere and promoting disgusting things like the "Sex Workers Show" on campus. The university there is not "liberal" by any means; no, it is hard left, and though it is tied to the United Methodist Church, the university itself is virulently hostile to anything that might smack of Christianity.
Yet, when it comes to issues of justice, these communities are mirror images of each other. Durham was made infamous by its attempt to railroad three Duke University lacrosse players into prison for allegedly raping a black stripper, Crystal Mangum. As the case wore on, it became clear that the prosecutor, Michael Nifong, was lying and hiding exculpatory evidence, even while he rode the case to electoral victory, as the black voters of that county demanded a trial (and one person told Newsweek that it did not matter if the players were guilty, as they should be convicted solely because they were white).
The North Carolina State Bar intervened, and ultimately the charges were investigated by special prosecutors employed by North Carolina's attorney general. After a thorough investigation, the AG declared the players to be "innocent" and told the media that Nifong was a "rogue prosecutor." Later in 2007, the State Bar stripped Nifong of his law license, and he was removed as Durham County's AD.
Just five years later, Nifong's successor, Tracey Cline, a black woman who was second chair in the lacrosse case (and who lied about her involvement in it -- lying is part of the legal culture in that county), was removed from her office because of inflammatory statements she made in publicly attacking the senior judge in that county. (The judge also is black.) So, twice in five years, Durham County has seen its top prosecutors removed forcibly from office for misconduct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, why would I compare the LMJC to Durham, despite all of its cultural and racial differences? Like Durham, the prosecutors in the LMJC have a sorry history of withholding evidence and fabricating documents. Unlike Durham, there is no state bar and apparently no judicial or legal apparatus at all in the State of Georgia that effectively deals with prosecutorial misconduct.
However, like Durham, the LMJC has a policy of taking sex cases to trial no matter what the evidence might be. And like Durham, prosecutors in the LMJC always take the side of an accuser in a sex crime, no matter how specious the evidence actually might be, and like Nifong, LMJC prosecutors, once they latch onto a sex case, take a "win at all costs" mentality that throws justice out the window.
It was not just the Craft case. Brad Wade sits in prison and the case that Len Gregor brought against him was so dishonest and so bogus that it is hard to believe he was convicted of child molestation. The reason is one more strike against the LMJC: defense attorneys in that district know that their job is to offer up defendants to the altar of conviction.
Now, when someone is charged with a crime in the LMJC, that person faces a terrible dilemma: hire a local attorney (which prosecutors and judges prefer) and automatically get convicted, or hire someone outside the LMJC who will be roundly attacked by prosecutors, sneered at by judges, yet might be willing to put up a real defense. In the Craft case, prosecutors Chris Arnt and Len Gregor routinely launched verbal attacks against Tonya's defense team, made snide remarks, tried to disrupt defense attorneys while they were questioning witnesses, yet "judge" Brian House not only ignored the misconduct of the prosecutors, but actually teamed up with them in an attempt to rig a conviction.
(While I know there are some attorneys in the LMJC who have integrity, nonetheless the judges and Buzz Franklin and his minions have made it absolutely clear that an aggressive defense is not permitted -- even while prosecutors are permitted to run wild. The one exception is Bobby Lee Cook, who is permitted to win once in a while.)
The jurors in the Craft case did something that neither House nor the prosecutors ever could imagine them doing: demonstrate integrity. The shocked, ashen look on House's face when the verdict was being read spoke volumes to the integrity or the lack thereof of the people in the LMJC who are in positions of authority.
You see, if there is one thing that I believe characterizes the LMJC is the belief of the principals in that district who really seem to believe that they ARE the law, and that they are entitled to do whatever they damn well please. Anyone who followed the Duke Lacrosse Case can attest to the arrogance of prosecutor Mike Nifong and everyone else in the Durham "justice" system. Like Buzz Franklin, Arnt and Gregor, Nifong knew that his authority alone could force a bogus case to trial, and he also believed that a Durham jury would be craven enough to convict the players despite the fact that Nifong had no evidence -- and he knew he had no evidence, which is why he continuously lied to judges throughout the proceedings.
Likewise, House teamed with Arnt, Gregor, and Tim Deal not only to help Deal commit a felony (fabricating a document during the trial in order to fill a huge hole in the evidence), but also meeting secretly with the prosecutors in order to further their strategy. Observers at the hearings before the trial began told me that House was utterly hostile to ANY attorney for Craft that did not come from the LMJC and that he routinely and automatically ruled against the defense no matter how ridiculous the prosecution's position might have been.
The trial itself was a farce, but the difference -- and this was a huge difference -- was that the jurors did not take the bait from House and the prosecutors and act in a hostile manner toward the defense. House, Arnt, and Gregor believed that the jurors automatically would discount EVERYTHING the defense did because neither they nor their expert witnesses were from the LMJC, but that is not what happened. Instead, the jurors acted like people who wanted to do justice, and did not act like House, Arnt, and Gregor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of this raises a question as to why this kind of legal corruption exists in the LMJC. Why are police and prosecutors permitted to literally commit felonies in broad daylight, yet nothing is done? Why the silence from the media and the other gatekeepers, and especially the churches and the largest and most influential "gatekeeper" in the LMJC, Covenant College?
Other than one pastor, no one in a position of influence has spoken out about the massive lawbreaking, lying, and misconduct that has become the very trademark of the LMJC. During the Craft trial, no one from Covenant demonstrated a whit of concern as to what was happening, and at least one administrator there is friends with Holly Kittle, who to me represents everything that is wrong with the LMJC.
(Covenant says that it is "reclaiming the world for Jesus Christ," but the one part of the world that matters -- its own backyard -- apparently is off-limits when it comes to "reclaiming" for Christ. As I see it, the people there believe that legal trouble is for "other people," and if by chance someone from Covenant were to be falsely accused, most likely the administration and faculty there would do what evangelical Christians usually seem to do when one of their own is in crisis: shoot their wounded and move along.)
In the end, we see small, dishonest people gaining enormous amounts of power and authority, and they use it like a club against the innocent. Tonya Craft, Brad Wade, and James Combs can tell you that when it comes to dishonesty, no one does it better than the police, judges and prosecutors of the LMJC. Perhaps in my lifetime, someone, somewhere in a position of authority in Northwest Georgia will do what is right, but I have my doubts.
Much has changed in that region since then. While there still are poor people, the poverty I saw hardly is widespread anymore, and in many ways, the region can be a pleasant place in which to live. Unfortunately, its legal climate is still stuck in 1964, a time when it was de facto legal in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit for a white man to murder a black man.
My father brought us down to the LMJC when Covenant College moved from St. Louis to the old Castle in the Clouds, and at Covenant, which is located in Dade County, black students were told in no uncertain terms that they were NOT to be seen walking south of the college's property, and especially along Highway 157. In fact, over the years, a number of black students did receive death threats from the good people residing in the LMJC, but no one was killed. I'm sure that had someone killed one of Covenant's black students, he would not have been charged or prosecuted.
This was a time when the Dade County portion of Sand Mountain had a sign that declared: "N*gger, don't let the sun set on you here." The people there meant every word, and I still would caution any black person from venturing up there without an armed escort. That was the kind of place the LMJC was then, and while I don't see the same overt racism that once characterized the place, the area's "justice" system is racist, as Len Gregor proved during the Tonya Craft trial, when he lied to jurors, telling them that Ms. Craft has slept with a black man.
Now, for the most part, I do consider many of the people living in the LMJC to be honest, or at least decently honest. Unfortunately, they put up with a culture of corruption that exists with police, prosecutors, and, yes, judges.
To be fair, the LMJC hardly stands alone. My friends from Texas tell me horror tales of Williamson County police, courts, and prosecutors, and K.C. Johnson has a great post on his blog about the legal corruption that permeates Durham County, North Carolina. Interestingly, in many ways, the corruption of the LMCJ and Durham County seems to be similar.
What makes this point even more interesting is that demographically and politically, the two places hardly could be more different. The LMJC is overwhelmingly white and politically conservative. The most prominent college in that district, Covenant College, is both theologically and socially conservative. The region abounds with "Bible-believing" churches and I would venture to say that a large portion of the population claims to be "saved."
Durham County, on the other hand, is dominated by the hard left, including a coalition of blacks and activists associated with Duke University. Duke would be the antithesis of Covenant, its student body dominated by "hookup" culture, and the university does everything it can to promote gratuitous sex by handing out condoms everywhere and promoting disgusting things like the "Sex Workers Show" on campus. The university there is not "liberal" by any means; no, it is hard left, and though it is tied to the United Methodist Church, the university itself is virulently hostile to anything that might smack of Christianity.
Yet, when it comes to issues of justice, these communities are mirror images of each other. Durham was made infamous by its attempt to railroad three Duke University lacrosse players into prison for allegedly raping a black stripper, Crystal Mangum. As the case wore on, it became clear that the prosecutor, Michael Nifong, was lying and hiding exculpatory evidence, even while he rode the case to electoral victory, as the black voters of that county demanded a trial (and one person told Newsweek that it did not matter if the players were guilty, as they should be convicted solely because they were white).
The North Carolina State Bar intervened, and ultimately the charges were investigated by special prosecutors employed by North Carolina's attorney general. After a thorough investigation, the AG declared the players to be "innocent" and told the media that Nifong was a "rogue prosecutor." Later in 2007, the State Bar stripped Nifong of his law license, and he was removed as Durham County's AD.
Just five years later, Nifong's successor, Tracey Cline, a black woman who was second chair in the lacrosse case (and who lied about her involvement in it -- lying is part of the legal culture in that county), was removed from her office because of inflammatory statements she made in publicly attacking the senior judge in that county. (The judge also is black.) So, twice in five years, Durham County has seen its top prosecutors removed forcibly from office for misconduct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, why would I compare the LMJC to Durham, despite all of its cultural and racial differences? Like Durham, the prosecutors in the LMJC have a sorry history of withholding evidence and fabricating documents. Unlike Durham, there is no state bar and apparently no judicial or legal apparatus at all in the State of Georgia that effectively deals with prosecutorial misconduct.
However, like Durham, the LMJC has a policy of taking sex cases to trial no matter what the evidence might be. And like Durham, prosecutors in the LMJC always take the side of an accuser in a sex crime, no matter how specious the evidence actually might be, and like Nifong, LMJC prosecutors, once they latch onto a sex case, take a "win at all costs" mentality that throws justice out the window.
It was not just the Craft case. Brad Wade sits in prison and the case that Len Gregor brought against him was so dishonest and so bogus that it is hard to believe he was convicted of child molestation. The reason is one more strike against the LMJC: defense attorneys in that district know that their job is to offer up defendants to the altar of conviction.
Now, when someone is charged with a crime in the LMJC, that person faces a terrible dilemma: hire a local attorney (which prosecutors and judges prefer) and automatically get convicted, or hire someone outside the LMJC who will be roundly attacked by prosecutors, sneered at by judges, yet might be willing to put up a real defense. In the Craft case, prosecutors Chris Arnt and Len Gregor routinely launched verbal attacks against Tonya's defense team, made snide remarks, tried to disrupt defense attorneys while they were questioning witnesses, yet "judge" Brian House not only ignored the misconduct of the prosecutors, but actually teamed up with them in an attempt to rig a conviction.
(While I know there are some attorneys in the LMJC who have integrity, nonetheless the judges and Buzz Franklin and his minions have made it absolutely clear that an aggressive defense is not permitted -- even while prosecutors are permitted to run wild. The one exception is Bobby Lee Cook, who is permitted to win once in a while.)
The jurors in the Craft case did something that neither House nor the prosecutors ever could imagine them doing: demonstrate integrity. The shocked, ashen look on House's face when the verdict was being read spoke volumes to the integrity or the lack thereof of the people in the LMJC who are in positions of authority.
You see, if there is one thing that I believe characterizes the LMJC is the belief of the principals in that district who really seem to believe that they ARE the law, and that they are entitled to do whatever they damn well please. Anyone who followed the Duke Lacrosse Case can attest to the arrogance of prosecutor Mike Nifong and everyone else in the Durham "justice" system. Like Buzz Franklin, Arnt and Gregor, Nifong knew that his authority alone could force a bogus case to trial, and he also believed that a Durham jury would be craven enough to convict the players despite the fact that Nifong had no evidence -- and he knew he had no evidence, which is why he continuously lied to judges throughout the proceedings.
Likewise, House teamed with Arnt, Gregor, and Tim Deal not only to help Deal commit a felony (fabricating a document during the trial in order to fill a huge hole in the evidence), but also meeting secretly with the prosecutors in order to further their strategy. Observers at the hearings before the trial began told me that House was utterly hostile to ANY attorney for Craft that did not come from the LMJC and that he routinely and automatically ruled against the defense no matter how ridiculous the prosecution's position might have been.
The trial itself was a farce, but the difference -- and this was a huge difference -- was that the jurors did not take the bait from House and the prosecutors and act in a hostile manner toward the defense. House, Arnt, and Gregor believed that the jurors automatically would discount EVERYTHING the defense did because neither they nor their expert witnesses were from the LMJC, but that is not what happened. Instead, the jurors acted like people who wanted to do justice, and did not act like House, Arnt, and Gregor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of this raises a question as to why this kind of legal corruption exists in the LMJC. Why are police and prosecutors permitted to literally commit felonies in broad daylight, yet nothing is done? Why the silence from the media and the other gatekeepers, and especially the churches and the largest and most influential "gatekeeper" in the LMJC, Covenant College?
Other than one pastor, no one in a position of influence has spoken out about the massive lawbreaking, lying, and misconduct that has become the very trademark of the LMJC. During the Craft trial, no one from Covenant demonstrated a whit of concern as to what was happening, and at least one administrator there is friends with Holly Kittle, who to me represents everything that is wrong with the LMJC.
(Covenant says that it is "reclaiming the world for Jesus Christ," but the one part of the world that matters -- its own backyard -- apparently is off-limits when it comes to "reclaiming" for Christ. As I see it, the people there believe that legal trouble is for "other people," and if by chance someone from Covenant were to be falsely accused, most likely the administration and faculty there would do what evangelical Christians usually seem to do when one of their own is in crisis: shoot their wounded and move along.)
In the end, we see small, dishonest people gaining enormous amounts of power and authority, and they use it like a club against the innocent. Tonya Craft, Brad Wade, and James Combs can tell you that when it comes to dishonesty, no one does it better than the police, judges and prosecutors of the LMJC. Perhaps in my lifetime, someone, somewhere in a position of authority in Northwest Georgia will do what is right, but I have my doubts.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Why do things like this make me suspicious?
A recent death at the Dade County Jail, ostensibly by suicide, is one of those things that makes me suspicious. According to the Times-Free Press:
Yet, this is Dade County, the place where Brad Wade was convicted after what essentially was a crooked trial in which Len "The Man" Gregor withheld evidence, lied to jurors, suborned perjury and gave the world a look at how he later would act in the Tonya Craft trial, which was just as crooked. This is Dade County, where "judge" brian outhouse resides in the judge's chair, and his exploits of operating his office outside of the bounds of the law already have been laid out in this blog.
Again, maybe the story that Dade County officials are telling is the truth and things transpired just as they claim. However, given that the "law enforcement" mechanism in that county -- and in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit in general -- operates almost completely outside the law, I reserve the right to be skeptical, very skeptical.
A Dade County, Ga., inmate was found dead in his cell 14 minutes after being jailed for driving under the influence of alcohol, authorities said.At least that is the story readers are told. And maybe it is true. Perhaps Cochran was so depressed about many things, including his arrest, that he just snapped and killed himself. We never will know.
A detention officer found Joseph Cochran, 29, dead at 4:40 Tuesday morning, Sheriff Patrick Cannon said. Authorities believe Cochran used his thermal underwear to hang himself, Cannon said.
Cochran had been arrested earlier in the morning and charged with DUI. He was in the holding cell when he was found, Cannon said.
“It’s a sad situation,” the sheriff said.
Yet, this is Dade County, the place where Brad Wade was convicted after what essentially was a crooked trial in which Len "The Man" Gregor withheld evidence, lied to jurors, suborned perjury and gave the world a look at how he later would act in the Tonya Craft trial, which was just as crooked. This is Dade County, where "judge" brian outhouse resides in the judge's chair, and his exploits of operating his office outside of the bounds of the law already have been laid out in this blog.
Again, maybe the story that Dade County officials are telling is the truth and things transpired just as they claim. However, given that the "law enforcement" mechanism in that county -- and in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit in general -- operates almost completely outside the law, I reserve the right to be skeptical, very skeptical.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Who is this guy kidding?
In a recent op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal, James Kirchick, a contributor to The New Republic, deals with the recent statements of Shane Bauer after being released from an Iranian prison.
Now, I must admit that Bauer made statements following his release (Iran accused Bauer and two other American hikers in that region of being spies) that most Americans would not find agreeable, and Kirchick jumps on them heavily -- and with some justification:
For example, I suspect that Brad Wade and Brad Cooper would laugh at the notion that American courts were "transparent." Because prosecutors are immune from serious punishment for acts of blatant misconduct, hiding exculpatory evidence, lying, and suborning perjury (sorry, but disbarment is not serious compared to innocent people going to prison) we have seen U.S. courts -- state and federal -- turn into charnal houses for the innocent.
A recent article in the New York Times spelled out what has been happening:
In both cases, the defendants had been acquitted at the state level, and while the verdicts were unpopular, constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy should have been honored. Instead -- with approval of the courts -- the defendants were charged in federal court with different "crimes" for the same acts.
Not surprisingly, jurors got political message in both cases and the defendants were found guilty. The second time around, the system "got it right." It does not matter that in the process of "getting it right," courts and prosecutors destroyed one of the most important legal protections that anyone could have.
At the founding of this country, the law followed the natural rights views of the great English jurist William Blackstone, and the bedrock of criminal law was "mens rea, or Latin for "a guilty mind." Intent was a big portion of the law, and prosecutors were not to pursue criminal charges unless they also could prove that an individual intended to commit a crime, and did not just ignorantly run afoul of some arbitrary rules.
That situation no longer exists, as the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out in a stunning article:
People are expected not only to know all of the laws that are passed (the courts have ruled that "ignorance of the law is no excuse") and the ONLY people who are not punished for ignorance of the law are police, prosecutors, and judges. I am not kidding.
Thus, we often see prosecutions made for political -- yes, political -- reasons. Why did Michael Nifong pursue rape charges against the three Duke students he knew were innocent of any crimes? Because he wanted to win an election, and he knew that his actions, no matter how outrageous, were popular with a number of political constituencies, including the "Progressive" crowd at the New York Times, which supported him until his case utterly fell apart.
And Rockwell is correct that all of this is a prescription for tyranny, the very kind of tyranny that Kirchick claims does not exist in the USA, only in rogue countries like Iran. How did this come about? It is very simple: Progressives, including people like Herbert Croly, who founded The New Republic, believed that individuals should not have protections against State power because a society could "progress" only if the State could advance the agendas of the intelligentsia without interference from "obsolete" documents like the U.S. Constitution.
Thus, most of the rights that were guaranteed (not granted, as Progressives like to claim) by the Constitution now either have been breached or have disappeared altogether. We literally are at the mercy of police, prosecutors, and judges, who are free to frame whom they like and unless one can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars quickly, people who are targeted pretty much disappear.
None of this excuses what Iran did to the three hikers, nor does it explain or justify everything that Bauer told the media. For that matter, many of the same leftist groups with whom Bauer is associated have been front-and-center in the destruction of rights in this country.
Iran is governed by a rogue and cruel regime and I have no use for people who engage in torture, beatings, and imprisonment of people simply for their political or religious beliefs. However, we really should not kid ourselves that Americans are above acting like the Iranians. From the CIA renditions to Guantanamo to the daily abuses of the law and outright decency that prosecutors commit while they are "just doing their jobs," people in this country who legally operate without boundaries also are capable of cruelty and outright murder.
Now, I must admit that Bauer made statements following his release (Iran accused Bauer and two other American hikers in that region of being spies) that most Americans would not find agreeable, and Kirchick jumps on them heavily -- and with some justification:
On July 31, 2009, you're traversing a mountain trail in Iraqi Kurdistan, near the Iranian border. You're with one of your best friends and your girlfriend. Suddenly a group of Iranian border guards capture you, and the next thing you know you're in Tehran's infamous Evin prison accused of "illegal entry" and "espionage."But, it is the next paragraph that I do find objectionable and, frankly, untrue: "Mr. Bauer didn't name any of the "political prisoners" allegedly held in America's jails—because there aren't any." He goes on:
Your girlfriend is kept in solitary confinement and you can see her only for an hour each day. The Iranian government prevents you from contacting your family for almost a year, at which point they decide to let your mother visit you for two days at a Tehran hotel.
While your captors treat you humanely and provide three square meals a day, your Iranian co-prisoners aren't so lucky. Every night you hear their screams. Evin is the world's most notorious torture dungeon, where political dissidents (men and women) are routinely raped, beaten and subjected to all manner of physical and psychological abuse.
Ahmad Batebi, a student activist who spent 17 months in solitary confinement there, reports that guards kicked him in the teeth, dunked his head into a toilet "stopped up with feces," and whipped his back and testicles with a cable. When he tried to sleep, they slashed his arms with a knife and rubbed salt in the wounds.
As you sit in this hellhole, no less than the president of the United States takes up your cause, insisting that you "never worked for the United States government," that you're "simply open-minded and adventurous" and "represent the best of America and of the human spirit."
Following two years of strenuous work on the part of committed American diplomats, you are freed on $500,000 bail, paid by the billionaire Sultan of Oman. And what is the first thing you say upon your release?
"Two years in prison is too long and we sincerely hope for the freedom of other political prisoners and other unjustly imprisoned people in America and Iran."
The American justice system is far from perfect. But it is transparent, offers the right of appeal, and is routinely challenged by a free press and active civil society. Moreover, it doesn't imprison people for their political beliefs.I wish that were true. I wish that there were real transparency, and I wish that the appeals courts actually took more time to examine convictions that have occurred in kangaroo courts.
For example, I suspect that Brad Wade and Brad Cooper would laugh at the notion that American courts were "transparent." Because prosecutors are immune from serious punishment for acts of blatant misconduct, hiding exculpatory evidence, lying, and suborning perjury (sorry, but disbarment is not serious compared to innocent people going to prison) we have seen U.S. courts -- state and federal -- turn into charnal houses for the innocent.
A recent article in the New York Times spelled out what has been happening:
After decades of new laws to toughen sentencing for criminals, prosecutors have gained greater leverage to extract guilty pleas from defendants and reduce the number of cases that go to trial, often by using the threat of more serious charges with mandatory sentences or other harsher penalties.Furthermore, it is clear that many prosecutions in the USA are done for political purposes or to appeal to a political constituency. A couple of examples include the federal trials of the police officers in the Rodney King beating case in Los Angeles and of Limerick Nelson, who was acquitted in state court of stabbing a rabbinical student to death in Brooklyn.
Some experts say the process has become coercive in many state and federal jurisdictions, forcing defendants to weigh their options based on the relative risks of facing a judge and jury rather than simple matters of guilt or innocence. In effect, prosecutors are giving defendants more reasons to avoid having their day in court.
“We now have an incredible concentration of power in the hands of prosecutors,” said Richard E. Myers II, a former assistant United States attorney who is now an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina. He said that so much influence now resides with prosecutors that “in the wrong hands, the criminal justice system can be held hostage.”
In both cases, the defendants had been acquitted at the state level, and while the verdicts were unpopular, constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy should have been honored. Instead -- with approval of the courts -- the defendants were charged in federal court with different "crimes" for the same acts.
Not surprisingly, jurors got political message in both cases and the defendants were found guilty. The second time around, the system "got it right." It does not matter that in the process of "getting it right," courts and prosecutors destroyed one of the most important legal protections that anyone could have.
At the founding of this country, the law followed the natural rights views of the great English jurist William Blackstone, and the bedrock of criminal law was "mens rea, or Latin for "a guilty mind." Intent was a big portion of the law, and prosecutors were not to pursue criminal charges unless they also could prove that an individual intended to commit a crime, and did not just ignorantly run afoul of some arbitrary rules.
That situation no longer exists, as the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out in a stunning article:
For centuries, a bedrock principle of criminal law has held that people must know they are doing something wrong before they can be found guilty. The concept is known as mens rea, Latin for a "guilty mind."The paper then takes the case of Wade Martin in Alaska:
This legal protection is now being eroded as the U.S. federal criminal code dramatically swells. In recent decades, Congress has repeatedly crafted laws that weaken or disregard the notion of criminal intent. Today not only are there thousands more criminal laws than before, but it is easier to fall afoul of them.
As a result, what once might have been considered simply a mistake is now sometimes punishable by jail time.
When the police came to Wade Martin's home in Sitka, Alaska, in 2003, he says he had no idea why. Under an exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, coastal Native Alaskans such as Mr. Martin are allowed to trap and hunt species that others can't. That included the 10 sea otters he had recently sold for $50 apiece.The article gives a number of other cases in which conduct by individuals that they never even thought might violate the law led either to prison time or criminal convictions and probation. Why does this happen? It happens because American prosecutors have become all-powerful. Lew Rockwell writes:
Mr. Martin, 50 years old, readily admitted making the sale. "Then, they told me the buyer wasn't a native," he recalls.
The law requires that animals sold to non-Native Alaskans be converted into handicrafts. He knew the law, Mr. Martin said, and he had thought the buyer was Native Alaskan.
He pleaded guilty in 2008. The government didn't have to prove he knew his conduct was illegal, his lawyer told him. They merely had to show he had made the sale.
Those raised on a steady diet of courtroom television shows believe that they are true to the way justice is meted out. This is completely naive. Trials in federal criminal cases are rare. Nine in ten cases are settled in pleas like the above case. Only 3 percent of the cases go to trial. Among those that go to trial, the defendant wins once in every 212 times.He continues:
What this means is that there is no way out for the accused. The prosecutors have all the power. Not even the judge has discretion because lawmakers have mostly taken that liberality away in the name of cracking down on crime. This happened all through the 1980s and 1990s, and the prosecutorial dictatorship has entrenched itself to become the norm since 2001. For the last ten years, the police state has had free rein.
It was not "liberals" or "conservatives" who did this. It was both parties acting with massive support of the American public, as tyrants in the public sector licked their chops. This was a result of security-minded madness, and even now hardly anyone cares.
Today, every single citizen, no matter how free he or she may feel in daily life, is in reality a sitting duck. You can be made to disappear. There is essentially no way you can escape once the feds sweep you into their net. There is no justice. The total states of the past used to pretend to have trial-based convictions. The total state of the present doesn’t even bother. It just puts a sack over your head and takes you away.When Rockwell writes that we now are in a police state, he is not using hyperbole. The USA IS a police state. It has by far the highest number of people incarcerated (more than two million) of any country in the world and a fourth of the entire world's prison population.
People are expected not only to know all of the laws that are passed (the courts have ruled that "ignorance of the law is no excuse") and the ONLY people who are not punished for ignorance of the law are police, prosecutors, and judges. I am not kidding.
Thus, we often see prosecutions made for political -- yes, political -- reasons. Why did Michael Nifong pursue rape charges against the three Duke students he knew were innocent of any crimes? Because he wanted to win an election, and he knew that his actions, no matter how outrageous, were popular with a number of political constituencies, including the "Progressive" crowd at the New York Times, which supported him until his case utterly fell apart.
And Rockwell is correct that all of this is a prescription for tyranny, the very kind of tyranny that Kirchick claims does not exist in the USA, only in rogue countries like Iran. How did this come about? It is very simple: Progressives, including people like Herbert Croly, who founded The New Republic, believed that individuals should not have protections against State power because a society could "progress" only if the State could advance the agendas of the intelligentsia without interference from "obsolete" documents like the U.S. Constitution.
Thus, most of the rights that were guaranteed (not granted, as Progressives like to claim) by the Constitution now either have been breached or have disappeared altogether. We literally are at the mercy of police, prosecutors, and judges, who are free to frame whom they like and unless one can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars quickly, people who are targeted pretty much disappear.
None of this excuses what Iran did to the three hikers, nor does it explain or justify everything that Bauer told the media. For that matter, many of the same leftist groups with whom Bauer is associated have been front-and-center in the destruction of rights in this country.
Iran is governed by a rogue and cruel regime and I have no use for people who engage in torture, beatings, and imprisonment of people simply for their political or religious beliefs. However, we really should not kid ourselves that Americans are above acting like the Iranians. From the CIA renditions to Guantanamo to the daily abuses of the law and outright decency that prosecutors commit while they are "just doing their jobs," people in this country who legally operate without boundaries also are capable of cruelty and outright murder.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
My Own Path to the Tonya Craft Case -- and Beyond
Once upon a time, I pretty much was a law-and-order Republican. True, I had some libertarian tendencies, but when it came down to the vote, I generally went for the GOP. I bought into the "tough on crime" politicians, and I remember when I heard that there had been no convictions in the McMartin case, I thought the jury had made a big mistake.
In other words, I pretty much bought into what the authorities were telling me. If children were being sexually molested in droves, well, the law needed to get tough.
Then one night I watched an episode of PBS's show "Frontline," which dealt with the accusations of child molestation in the Little Rascals case in Edenton, North Carolina. At that point, the whole thing hit me: this was a farce, a total farce. I began to follow the case, including Bob Kelly's trial, and in the end he was convicted when three holdout jurors decided to vote "guilty," something that all three later admitted that they wish they had not done.
At the time, I was doing freelance writing for the Christian publication, World Magazine, and I asked publisher Joel Belz if I could go to Edenton to do an investigation. He turned me down, saying he did not want to be seen as "supporting child molesters." I have not written for World since, and Mr. Belz and I have had a strained relationship at best.
(It got worse after World in 2001 awarded then-Attorney General John Ashcroft with its "Daniel of the Year" award. Ashcroft presided over unwarranted federal expansion into our lives in a way that no AG, not even Janet Reno, had done, and his enthusiasm for state-sponsored executions left me cold. Ashcroft's penchant for expanding the reaches of federal criminal law also has convinced me that he was and is the enemy of individual liberty, and his harshness in going after people who really were not guilty of what historically could be called real crimes demonstrates his utter contempt for decent people. World's uncritical support for him pretty much cemented my break with the publication.)
During my grad school years at Auburn, I moved from Republican to outright libertarianism, and my association with the Ludwig von Mises Institute began in those years, and it continues. I received both an economic AND a political education there, and I keep on learning.
Because World was not interested in my taking a hard look at what clearly was an injustice, I had no forum from which to write. The Internet and Lew Rockwell's site (Lewrockwell.com) would change that when Crystal Mangum falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of raping her at a party, I believed it was obvious from the start that she was lying.
Most of the mainstream media believed Mangum, but Lew let me go with my own instincts and go with it I did, writing nearly 70 articles on the case and coming to understand the power of the blogosphere. I was not the only "citizen-journalist" to jump on this, as historian and college professor K.C. Johnson with his Durham-in-Wonderland blog skewered prosecutor Michael Nifong's case and played a major role in the charges being dropped and Nifong being disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar.
In the spring of 2009, I started this blog, but it tended to be very unfocused, as it reflected my own interests and thoughts. Let me say, however, that Tonya's case really did help me focus this blog on something about which I am passionate: the increasing abuse of the law and of innocent people by the authorities. (My other blog, Krugman-in-Wonderland, focuses on economic analysis and policies and contrasts the viewpoints of modern statism and Keynesianism with Austrian Economics.)
There seems to be no shortage of such abuse in my old home judicial district where I lived off and on for more than 30 years. When I lived there, I was not aware of the utter abuse of innocent people by prosecutors, and the way that police and prosecution witnesses regularly lie under oath. (In other words, the law-and-order Republican in me could not see then what now has been obvious to me: the LMJC has been "captured" by the "bad guys.")
While Tonya has been acquitted, nonetheless other cases remain (along with Tonya's custody fight to gain back her children). There is the injustice done to Brad Wade, there is the Eric Echols case, and there are others as well, just in the LMJC. Furthermore, I won't concentrate just on the LMJC (although one could do that full-time, given the lawlessness of those entrusted with "protecting" the law in that district), as there are people all over this country being wrongfully accused and convicted.
In other words, there is work to be done. Thanks to all readers of this blog who have contributed and who have helped make this venture worthwhile.
In other words, I pretty much bought into what the authorities were telling me. If children were being sexually molested in droves, well, the law needed to get tough.
Then one night I watched an episode of PBS's show "Frontline," which dealt with the accusations of child molestation in the Little Rascals case in Edenton, North Carolina. At that point, the whole thing hit me: this was a farce, a total farce. I began to follow the case, including Bob Kelly's trial, and in the end he was convicted when three holdout jurors decided to vote "guilty," something that all three later admitted that they wish they had not done.
At the time, I was doing freelance writing for the Christian publication, World Magazine, and I asked publisher Joel Belz if I could go to Edenton to do an investigation. He turned me down, saying he did not want to be seen as "supporting child molesters." I have not written for World since, and Mr. Belz and I have had a strained relationship at best.
(It got worse after World in 2001 awarded then-Attorney General John Ashcroft with its "Daniel of the Year" award. Ashcroft presided over unwarranted federal expansion into our lives in a way that no AG, not even Janet Reno, had done, and his enthusiasm for state-sponsored executions left me cold. Ashcroft's penchant for expanding the reaches of federal criminal law also has convinced me that he was and is the enemy of individual liberty, and his harshness in going after people who really were not guilty of what historically could be called real crimes demonstrates his utter contempt for decent people. World's uncritical support for him pretty much cemented my break with the publication.)
During my grad school years at Auburn, I moved from Republican to outright libertarianism, and my association with the Ludwig von Mises Institute began in those years, and it continues. I received both an economic AND a political education there, and I keep on learning.
Because World was not interested in my taking a hard look at what clearly was an injustice, I had no forum from which to write. The Internet and Lew Rockwell's site (Lewrockwell.com) would change that when Crystal Mangum falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of raping her at a party, I believed it was obvious from the start that she was lying.
Most of the mainstream media believed Mangum, but Lew let me go with my own instincts and go with it I did, writing nearly 70 articles on the case and coming to understand the power of the blogosphere. I was not the only "citizen-journalist" to jump on this, as historian and college professor K.C. Johnson with his Durham-in-Wonderland blog skewered prosecutor Michael Nifong's case and played a major role in the charges being dropped and Nifong being disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar.
In the spring of 2009, I started this blog, but it tended to be very unfocused, as it reflected my own interests and thoughts. Let me say, however, that Tonya's case really did help me focus this blog on something about which I am passionate: the increasing abuse of the law and of innocent people by the authorities. (My other blog, Krugman-in-Wonderland, focuses on economic analysis and policies and contrasts the viewpoints of modern statism and Keynesianism with Austrian Economics.)
There seems to be no shortage of such abuse in my old home judicial district where I lived off and on for more than 30 years. When I lived there, I was not aware of the utter abuse of innocent people by prosecutors, and the way that police and prosecution witnesses regularly lie under oath. (In other words, the law-and-order Republican in me could not see then what now has been obvious to me: the LMJC has been "captured" by the "bad guys.")
While Tonya has been acquitted, nonetheless other cases remain (along with Tonya's custody fight to gain back her children). There is the injustice done to Brad Wade, there is the Eric Echols case, and there are others as well, just in the LMJC. Furthermore, I won't concentrate just on the LMJC (although one could do that full-time, given the lawlessness of those entrusted with "protecting" the law in that district), as there are people all over this country being wrongfully accused and convicted.
In other words, there is work to be done. Thanks to all readers of this blog who have contributed and who have helped make this venture worthwhile.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Bradley Wade's Conviction
As readers of this blog know, Tonya Craft was not the only person that the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit tried to railroad into prison on false child molestation charges. Before Tonya Craft, there was Brad Wade, who was convicted three years ago in Dade County of child molestation charges.
Len "The Man" Gregor prosecuted the case, and Stacy Long of the rogue Children's Advocacy Center was the main prosecution "expert" witness. The trial lasted for three days, and in the end, the jury dutifully convicted Mr. Wade, and now he is in prison to serve a 10-year-term for something he clearly did not do.
Mr. Wade appealed his conviction, and this past week, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed it, and I must admit that even someone as hardened to state injustice as I am still was shocked by the justices' willful blindness. The court took all of the arguments, and then played the game of "let's pretend that the trial was fair."
Mr. Wade's appeal was based upon three points: (1) His counsel was not competent and clearly not prepared for the trial; (2) The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence; and (3) The line of questioning that Long asked in her interviews of the children was dishonest and suggestive. In all three situation, the justices turned a blind eye.
The "incompetent counsel" is always difficult for justices to understand, as they operate on the premise of: If you are charged with a crime, it is your duty and responsibility to get good counsel. However, there are a number of problems with that mindset.
First, most law-abiding people never come in contact with the courts, unless it is traffic court. Furthermore, people like Mr. Wade, who never had been in trouble with the law, operate upon the assumption that judges are impartial and prosecutors are honest and never would try to frame him or anyone else. Thus, Mr. Wade, like many criminal defendants, never understood what was happening.
Second, and more important, most of us simply have no idea who is competent to provide representation. We know of the "big name" criminal lawyers, but in order to even secure their services, one must have hundreds of thousands of dollars of spare change up front. The justices certainly know this, and they know that even false charges, like those that Ms. Craft faced, still are going to cost a defendant upwards of a million dollars.
(In the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, the families of the accused Duke University students had to pay more than $1 million apiece and that case did not even come to trial. The charges were ludicrous, but that did not matter.)
Now, if the justices are proud of the fact that they are presiding over this kind of unjust system, I wish they would come right out and say it, as opposed to making claims that it is fair and just. Instead, the judges hold criminal defendants to very high standards ("You should have known he was a bad lawyer"), but actual attorneys to low standards ("There, there, you are not a bad lawyer"), and then hold prosecutors and other judges to even lower standards.
On the point that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence, the justices seem to be saying in their opinion that since (to them, at least) the evidence was not a "magic bullet," then whether or not the prosecution lied and withheld it is irrelevant. I am of the belief that prosecutors should be held to the highest possible standards of honesty and integrity, but apparently, the powers that be are in disagreement on that point.
The last point -- that the evidence the prosecution was horribly tainted because of Long's manipulative interviews -- was crucial in my view. Furthermore, with Ms. Craft being acquitted (and Long having been one of the prosecution witnesses), the justices should have had their radar at full power.
Mr. Wade's expert witness, Amy Morton, presented a devastating critique of the interviewing techniques that Long used. I was struck not only with Ms. Morton's criticism of the process, but also the way that she systematically explained WHY proper interviewing techniques are so important when children are involved.
There is one point I believe that needs to be made that the justices seem to ignore: The original charges came out of a custody dispute in which his ex-wife used the charges to gain legal leverage. ALL justices should be wary of charges that come from a source that has everything to gain by making them.
Judges have a strong incentive to protect their fellow players, and many judges have come from the ranks of prosecutors. I don't know the background of the Georgia justices that made this decision, but it is clear as I read through the document that they have refused to see the obvious.
Ms. Morton's document was excellent both in its attempt to educate the justices on real problems that come about in child interviews for sexual molestation, but also demonstrating that Long violated about every rule in the book. The absolute cavalier way in which the justices dismissed her words is disturbing but not surprising.
In my thinking, there are a number of reasons why the justices are afraid to deal with the fact that Long is a dishonest and unqualified interviewer. First, Long has testified in a number of other such cases, and if the court deems her to be unreliable here, then the justices could open a number of other convictions for scrutiny.
In this April 17 post, I point out that when popular prosecution witnesses are discredited, then ALL verdicts in which those witnesses had a hand are tainted. (The post deals with rogue prosecution favorites like Steven Hayne and Michael West in Mississippi, as well as the infamous Joyce Gilchrist of Oklahoma.) Appeals judges worship the term "finality," and the prospect of overturning a guilty verdict because a prosecution "expert" witness coaxed outright whoppers from children no doubt worries the justices who would rather that wrongfully-convicted people just shut up and enjoy their stretch in prison. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that actual innocence really is no defense at all. Justices are much more comfortable with the notion that everyone charged and convicted MUST be guilty.
One of the most difficult things to fathom is that appeals judges operate on the assumption that trials are fair, impartial, that prosecutors never lie, and that witnesses for the prosecution always tell the truth. That "judge" Brian Outhouse, and "Alberto-Facebook" and "The Man-Narcissist-Misogynist" are considered by the courts to be the soul of integrity and honesty should give us pause as to what our "justice" system has become.
No doubt, Len "The Man" Gregor is pointing to this "victory" as "proof" that he presented a "compelling" case against Tonya Craft. That is nonsense. Instead, we see once again that the State of Georgia and the LMJC honor and reward dishonest people and grind honest and good people into the dirt.
The decision by the appeals court not only is devastating to Mr. Wade, but also to his mother and sister, who have faithfully maintained Mr. Wade's innocence. We know they will pick up the pieces and make further appeals in the hope that sooner or later, someone in a position of authority will listen to them. Like Mordecai of the Book of Esther, who waited outside the king's gates crying for justice, mother and sister wait for someone in authority to do the right thing.
Len "The Man" Gregor prosecuted the case, and Stacy Long of the rogue Children's Advocacy Center was the main prosecution "expert" witness. The trial lasted for three days, and in the end, the jury dutifully convicted Mr. Wade, and now he is in prison to serve a 10-year-term for something he clearly did not do.
Mr. Wade appealed his conviction, and this past week, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed it, and I must admit that even someone as hardened to state injustice as I am still was shocked by the justices' willful blindness. The court took all of the arguments, and then played the game of "let's pretend that the trial was fair."
Mr. Wade's appeal was based upon three points: (1) His counsel was not competent and clearly not prepared for the trial; (2) The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence; and (3) The line of questioning that Long asked in her interviews of the children was dishonest and suggestive. In all three situation, the justices turned a blind eye.
The "incompetent counsel" is always difficult for justices to understand, as they operate on the premise of: If you are charged with a crime, it is your duty and responsibility to get good counsel. However, there are a number of problems with that mindset.
First, most law-abiding people never come in contact with the courts, unless it is traffic court. Furthermore, people like Mr. Wade, who never had been in trouble with the law, operate upon the assumption that judges are impartial and prosecutors are honest and never would try to frame him or anyone else. Thus, Mr. Wade, like many criminal defendants, never understood what was happening.
Second, and more important, most of us simply have no idea who is competent to provide representation. We know of the "big name" criminal lawyers, but in order to even secure their services, one must have hundreds of thousands of dollars of spare change up front. The justices certainly know this, and they know that even false charges, like those that Ms. Craft faced, still are going to cost a defendant upwards of a million dollars.
(In the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, the families of the accused Duke University students had to pay more than $1 million apiece and that case did not even come to trial. The charges were ludicrous, but that did not matter.)
Now, if the justices are proud of the fact that they are presiding over this kind of unjust system, I wish they would come right out and say it, as opposed to making claims that it is fair and just. Instead, the judges hold criminal defendants to very high standards ("You should have known he was a bad lawyer"), but actual attorneys to low standards ("There, there, you are not a bad lawyer"), and then hold prosecutors and other judges to even lower standards.
On the point that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence, the justices seem to be saying in their opinion that since (to them, at least) the evidence was not a "magic bullet," then whether or not the prosecution lied and withheld it is irrelevant. I am of the belief that prosecutors should be held to the highest possible standards of honesty and integrity, but apparently, the powers that be are in disagreement on that point.
The last point -- that the evidence the prosecution was horribly tainted because of Long's manipulative interviews -- was crucial in my view. Furthermore, with Ms. Craft being acquitted (and Long having been one of the prosecution witnesses), the justices should have had their radar at full power.
Mr. Wade's expert witness, Amy Morton, presented a devastating critique of the interviewing techniques that Long used. I was struck not only with Ms. Morton's criticism of the process, but also the way that she systematically explained WHY proper interviewing techniques are so important when children are involved.
There is one point I believe that needs to be made that the justices seem to ignore: The original charges came out of a custody dispute in which his ex-wife used the charges to gain legal leverage. ALL justices should be wary of charges that come from a source that has everything to gain by making them.
Judges have a strong incentive to protect their fellow players, and many judges have come from the ranks of prosecutors. I don't know the background of the Georgia justices that made this decision, but it is clear as I read through the document that they have refused to see the obvious.
Ms. Morton's document was excellent both in its attempt to educate the justices on real problems that come about in child interviews for sexual molestation, but also demonstrating that Long violated about every rule in the book. The absolute cavalier way in which the justices dismissed her words is disturbing but not surprising.
In my thinking, there are a number of reasons why the justices are afraid to deal with the fact that Long is a dishonest and unqualified interviewer. First, Long has testified in a number of other such cases, and if the court deems her to be unreliable here, then the justices could open a number of other convictions for scrutiny.
In this April 17 post, I point out that when popular prosecution witnesses are discredited, then ALL verdicts in which those witnesses had a hand are tainted. (The post deals with rogue prosecution favorites like Steven Hayne and Michael West in Mississippi, as well as the infamous Joyce Gilchrist of Oklahoma.) Appeals judges worship the term "finality," and the prospect of overturning a guilty verdict because a prosecution "expert" witness coaxed outright whoppers from children no doubt worries the justices who would rather that wrongfully-convicted people just shut up and enjoy their stretch in prison. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that actual innocence really is no defense at all. Justices are much more comfortable with the notion that everyone charged and convicted MUST be guilty.
One of the most difficult things to fathom is that appeals judges operate on the assumption that trials are fair, impartial, that prosecutors never lie, and that witnesses for the prosecution always tell the truth. That "judge" Brian Outhouse, and "Alberto-Facebook" and "The Man-Narcissist-Misogynist" are considered by the courts to be the soul of integrity and honesty should give us pause as to what our "justice" system has become.
No doubt, Len "The Man" Gregor is pointing to this "victory" as "proof" that he presented a "compelling" case against Tonya Craft. That is nonsense. Instead, we see once again that the State of Georgia and the LMJC honor and reward dishonest people and grind honest and good people into the dirt.
The decision by the appeals court not only is devastating to Mr. Wade, but also to his mother and sister, who have faithfully maintained Mr. Wade's innocence. We know they will pick up the pieces and make further appeals in the hope that sooner or later, someone in a position of authority will listen to them. Like Mordecai of the Book of Esther, who waited outside the king's gates crying for justice, mother and sister wait for someone in authority to do the right thing.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Children's Advocacy Center and Brad Wade
[Update, June 8, 2010, 5:45 PM]: Yes, it is true. The four judges of the LMJC have recused themselves from the Eric Echols case. Why? Gee, I can think of a few thousand reasons, but this really should send a message to Buzz Franklin: Drop the charges NOW!
I will make another point that needs to be made. The ONLY way that the prosecution can present a criminal case in court is to suborn perjury. There is no other way to get it done, and I will say up front that whoever is the ADA bringing the case (and Chris Arnt and Len Gregor no longer want to be associated with this ugly baby they brought into the world), he needs to get rid of it. Should he actually bring it to trial and suborn perjury, I can guarantee that he will have to answer to a complaint that will be turned into the Georgia State Bar.
This case already has badly damaged or perhaps ruined the legal careers of Arnt and Gregor and has made the LMJC a legal laughingstock. No use to engage in complete scorched earth policy, folks. The sooner people in this district put the Tonya Craft case behind them, the better off they will be, and the first step is to drop the charges against Mr. Echols.
[End Update]
Long before the representatives of the Children's Advocacy Center tried to frame Tonya Craft, they managed to do the same with Brad Wade. Unfortunately, the frame worked, and Stacy Long was successful in convincing a jury that Mr. Wade was a child molester, and he is serving time in prison for something that clearly he did not do.
First, if you want to understand firsthand what happened to Mr. Wade, please read the blog that his sister, Angie Granger, has created. Ms. Granger is a real saint, a very lovely person whom I have had the honor of getting to know throughout Tonya Craft's trial and the aftermath. Would be that every man had a sister like this.
Second, the evidence against Mr. Wade was every bit as specious and contradictory as the evidence against Ms. Craft, but the difference was that Ms. Craft had good counsel. The more I read about Mr. Wade's trial, the more I realize just what a difference a good attorney really makes, especially if the client is innocent.
In Mr. Wade's case, we see the information being put together, but it is being put together for an appeal of the conviction, not while the original trial is taking place. For this phase, Mr. Wade's defense has the services of Amy H. Morton, who is well-credentialed in her field and who is utterly critical of Long's interviewing techniques, which are dishonest and manipulative.
Ms. Morton's affidavit notes that children are especially susceptible to biased interviewing techniques, and she goes through a very detailed explanation of why it is important that interviews with children be done according to certain protocols and procedures. As one can surmise, these protocols and procedures completely were missing from what Long and others and the CAC have done.
I must admit that does not surprise me. In my own conversations with CAC people, I get the sense that these people believe that because they "help children," anyone who would question their methods is the Very Spawn of Satan. Their arrogance knows no bounds, and in a recent conversation I had with someone from the CAC, that person even insinuated that Dr. Nancy Aldridge, one of the most respected authorities in the country on interviewing children suspected of being sexually abused, is nothing but a cheap liar. Even though no one at the CAC keeps abreast of the academic and professional literature pertaining to their live of work, nonetheless they have the view of themselves that they are above the fray, and that to question anything they do is to question God Himself.
As I read through Ms. Morton's affidavit, I am struck that she gets it. Here is someone who understands interviewing techniques, and demonstrates that understanding. Thus, her criticism needs to be taken seriously.
In her criticism of Long's interview with one of the accusers, Ms. Morton writes that the interview with one of the children is:
Ms. Morton points out that the interviews were biased from the start, and that Long engaged in "leading questions," along with "repeated questioning" and a "confirmatory bias," which is a bias in which the interviewer has pre-conceived outcomes. Furthermore, Long failed to deal with "coaching" and "third-party influence."
Moreover, Ms. Morton found evidence that the actions of the accusing children did not square with what they were alleging in their interviews with Long, all of which Ms. Morton writes "makes reliability a significant concern in this case." This is the professional's way of declaring that there were red flags all over the place.
Of course, Long is not a serious interviewer. The entire process was done to offer Wade up to the prosecution, and Len Gregor (who prosecuted this case) and "judge" Kristina Cook Graham were all too happy to be part of the railroad.
What happened? An innocent man was sentenced to prison while the real criminals at the CAC and the LMJC are free. If the Tonya Craft case made your blood boil, well let us just say that the Brad Wade case will turn your blood white hot.
I will make another point that needs to be made. The ONLY way that the prosecution can present a criminal case in court is to suborn perjury. There is no other way to get it done, and I will say up front that whoever is the ADA bringing the case (and Chris Arnt and Len Gregor no longer want to be associated with this ugly baby they brought into the world), he needs to get rid of it. Should he actually bring it to trial and suborn perjury, I can guarantee that he will have to answer to a complaint that will be turned into the Georgia State Bar.
This case already has badly damaged or perhaps ruined the legal careers of Arnt and Gregor and has made the LMJC a legal laughingstock. No use to engage in complete scorched earth policy, folks. The sooner people in this district put the Tonya Craft case behind them, the better off they will be, and the first step is to drop the charges against Mr. Echols.
[End Update]
Long before the representatives of the Children's Advocacy Center tried to frame Tonya Craft, they managed to do the same with Brad Wade. Unfortunately, the frame worked, and Stacy Long was successful in convincing a jury that Mr. Wade was a child molester, and he is serving time in prison for something that clearly he did not do.
First, if you want to understand firsthand what happened to Mr. Wade, please read the blog that his sister, Angie Granger, has created. Ms. Granger is a real saint, a very lovely person whom I have had the honor of getting to know throughout Tonya Craft's trial and the aftermath. Would be that every man had a sister like this.
Second, the evidence against Mr. Wade was every bit as specious and contradictory as the evidence against Ms. Craft, but the difference was that Ms. Craft had good counsel. The more I read about Mr. Wade's trial, the more I realize just what a difference a good attorney really makes, especially if the client is innocent.
In Mr. Wade's case, we see the information being put together, but it is being put together for an appeal of the conviction, not while the original trial is taking place. For this phase, Mr. Wade's defense has the services of Amy H. Morton, who is well-credentialed in her field and who is utterly critical of Long's interviewing techniques, which are dishonest and manipulative.
Ms. Morton's affidavit notes that children are especially susceptible to biased interviewing techniques, and she goes through a very detailed explanation of why it is important that interviews with children be done according to certain protocols and procedures. As one can surmise, these protocols and procedures completely were missing from what Long and others and the CAC have done.
I must admit that does not surprise me. In my own conversations with CAC people, I get the sense that these people believe that because they "help children," anyone who would question their methods is the Very Spawn of Satan. Their arrogance knows no bounds, and in a recent conversation I had with someone from the CAC, that person even insinuated that Dr. Nancy Aldridge, one of the most respected authorities in the country on interviewing children suspected of being sexually abused, is nothing but a cheap liar. Even though no one at the CAC keeps abreast of the academic and professional literature pertaining to their live of work, nonetheless they have the view of themselves that they are above the fray, and that to question anything they do is to question God Himself.
As I read through Ms. Morton's affidavit, I am struck that she gets it. Here is someone who understands interviewing techniques, and demonstrates that understanding. Thus, her criticism needs to be taken seriously.
In her criticism of Long's interview with one of the accusers, Ms. Morton writes that the interview with one of the children is:
...is riddled with errors and improper technique and represents a missed opportunity to discover whether or not (child's) allegations were influenced by anything other than his own experience. As a result, the reliability of (child's) statements may have been negatively impacted by improper forensic technique.As an academic, I can say that while the layperson might look on this as ambivalent, in reality, this is very harsh language. (We are not permitted to say something like, "Whoever interviewed this kid is a total idiot, and should be cleaning toilets instead of engaging in forensic interviews." People like Ms. Morton might LIKE to be able to say something like that, but court documents do not permit such strongly-worded statements.)
Ms. Morton points out that the interviews were biased from the start, and that Long engaged in "leading questions," along with "repeated questioning" and a "confirmatory bias," which is a bias in which the interviewer has pre-conceived outcomes. Furthermore, Long failed to deal with "coaching" and "third-party influence."
Moreover, Ms. Morton found evidence that the actions of the accusing children did not square with what they were alleging in their interviews with Long, all of which Ms. Morton writes "makes reliability a significant concern in this case." This is the professional's way of declaring that there were red flags all over the place.
Of course, Long is not a serious interviewer. The entire process was done to offer Wade up to the prosecution, and Len Gregor (who prosecuted this case) and "judge" Kristina Cook Graham were all too happy to be part of the railroad.
What happened? An innocent man was sentenced to prison while the real criminals at the CAC and the LMJC are free. If the Tonya Craft case made your blood boil, well let us just say that the Brad Wade case will turn your blood white hot.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
New Blog on Brad Wade Case
[Update, Saturday May 29, 2010, 2:30 PM]: I will be off through the weekend. My next new post will be Tuesday morning, June 1. Have a great Memorial Day!
[End Update]
Ever since a Dade County jury convicted her brother three years ago of child molestation, Angie Granger has worked hard to help Brad Wade appeal the conviction and to put out an account that differs with the one prosecutor Len Gregor gave. (Yes, I know everyone is shocked that The Man would help to fabricate a dishonest account of something.)
Angie has launched a blog, "Brad Wade Justice," and I would encourage readers to visit it and make constructive comments. She and her family deserve our support, just as people supported Tonya Craft.
As I have noted before, the Tonya Craft trial did not occur in a vacuum. For many years, prosecutors on Buzz Franklin's staff have been fabricating evidence and police have lied in court in order to push the "keeping the LMJC safe for children" crusade, one that also has a payout in Mondale Act money. In my view, there really is nothing worse than having government officials like Franklin, Gregor, and Chris Arnt who are in positions of power and trust use their authority in order to push lies.
From what I have read, Gregor's father went to West Point, a place that has an honor code. Unfortunately, the son, who learned none of the lessons of honor, is a man of dishonor, a bully, and someone who knowingly targets innocent people and plays the "let's see if I can convict an innocent person" game that apparently defines the man's career. What he did to Brad Wade was an obscenity, and anyone who saw his performance in the Tonya Craft trial can attest that The Man is a narcissist of the highest order.
Have a great Memorial Day weekend. It is my fervent hope that the people who gave up their lives in service of their country do not have their memories further sullied by bullies like Len Gregor, who have spit on everything decent and honest and true, narcissists who insist that the truth is a lie and a lie is the truth.
[End Update]
Ever since a Dade County jury convicted her brother three years ago of child molestation, Angie Granger has worked hard to help Brad Wade appeal the conviction and to put out an account that differs with the one prosecutor Len Gregor gave. (Yes, I know everyone is shocked that The Man would help to fabricate a dishonest account of something.)
Angie has launched a blog, "Brad Wade Justice," and I would encourage readers to visit it and make constructive comments. She and her family deserve our support, just as people supported Tonya Craft.
As I have noted before, the Tonya Craft trial did not occur in a vacuum. For many years, prosecutors on Buzz Franklin's staff have been fabricating evidence and police have lied in court in order to push the "keeping the LMJC safe for children" crusade, one that also has a payout in Mondale Act money. In my view, there really is nothing worse than having government officials like Franklin, Gregor, and Chris Arnt who are in positions of power and trust use their authority in order to push lies.
From what I have read, Gregor's father went to West Point, a place that has an honor code. Unfortunately, the son, who learned none of the lessons of honor, is a man of dishonor, a bully, and someone who knowingly targets innocent people and plays the "let's see if I can convict an innocent person" game that apparently defines the man's career. What he did to Brad Wade was an obscenity, and anyone who saw his performance in the Tonya Craft trial can attest that The Man is a narcissist of the highest order.
Have a great Memorial Day weekend. It is my fervent hope that the people who gave up their lives in service of their country do not have their memories further sullied by bullies like Len Gregor, who have spit on everything decent and honest and true, narcissists who insist that the truth is a lie and a lie is the truth.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Before Tonya Craft, there was Brad Wade
As I have noted before, the Tonya Craft trial did not occur in a vacuum. The Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit has long made prosecution of alleged child molestation a top priority, and Ms. Craft was caught up in that web of deceit and prosecutorial misconduct.
Given the patchwork of lies that prosecutors Len Gregor and Chris Arnt had to put together in an unsuccessful attempt to throw Ms. Craft into prison for life, one would wonder why they believed they could convince a jury she was a child molester. I believe that the success the LMJC had in railroading Brad Wade into prison three years ago -- done pretty much under the radar, unlike the trial against Ms. Craft -- had much to do with the confidence that Buzz Franklin's office had as it rolled over the cliff.
I want to examine the conviction against Mr. Wade over a number of posts, investigating things like the dearth of evidence, the alliance of Gregor (who prosecuted the case) with "judge" Kristina Graham, and the utter dishonest testimony by Stacy Long of the (What else?) Children's Advocacy Center. However, in today's post, I want to explore what I absolutely believe to be true: Gregor never believed Wade had molested anyone, but pushed the trial anyway.
That is a terrible accusation to make against someone, I realize, and if I am wrong, I will have done a major wrong to Gregor. Because I cannot know what was going on in his mind during the trial, in the end all I can do is to surmise rather than have a definite answer. Nonetheless, from everything I can see and have been able to find, I am confident that although Len Gregor has not told me personally that he believed Brad Wade was innocent, nonetheless the facts of the case itself are such that it is hard to draw any other conclusion.
Unlike the case against Tonya Craft, there is the very real possibility that there WAS molestation of a young child. In fact, the three-year-old child who was the subject of part of the trial claimed "the boys" as doing things that clearly were molestation, yet the authorities were not interested. Furthermore, as we saw in the Craft case, there is other testimony from another child that differs wildly within a year's time, after constant questioning from (Who else?) Long.
Yet, why would Len Gregor and the LMJC go after Brad Wade instead of investigating what the child in question originally claimed? It seems to me that the answer is quite simple: there is nothing in it for Gregor if he goes after juveniles. The Big Prize for a prosecutor is to gain a conviction against an adult, not a teenager, and Gregor, who narcissistically refers to himself as "The Man," always likes to get the big enchilada, even if he must be dishonest to do it.
One thing "The Man" was able to do early was to have exculpatory evidence withheld on the basis of "rape shield" laws. Now, the "rape shield" laws were enacted not to keep exculpatory evidence out, but rather to keep the defense from delving into irrelevant aspects of a rape accuser's past. Unfortunately, prosecutors whose motto is "Win at all costs," have found ways to prop up questionable charges by scheming with judges (most of whom are former prosecutors themselves) to keep the jury from hearing information that could acquit someone.
Indeed, that is what happened in the trial against Mr. Wade. Gregor, as we shall see in upcoming posts, teamed with "judge" Kristina Graham to keep important information from the jury, information that certainly might have had an influence on a jury not to rush to the "guilty" verdict. There are a number of irregularities and incidents of misconduct, which would seem to fit any trial which "The Man" prosecuted, and future posts will examine them.
During the Tonya Craft trial, Gregor declared that Mr. Wade's mother, Glenda Shull, who often was in the courtroom, was not there because she cared about the fate of Ms. Craft, but rather "because she hates me." Indeed, after seeing how "The Man" railroaded her son and so many other innocent people, I don't think I would be surprised if Ms. Stull had some negative feelings toward this prosecutor.
(Mr. Wade's sister, Angie Granger, also was in attendance at the Tonya Craft trial, and her appearance also seemed to unnerve "The Man." She has been a tireless advocate for her brother, and one hopes that she will be able to see her brother vindicated.)
My purpose in writing on the Wade conviction is twofold. First, and most important, I believe that Mr. Wade was innocent of the charges and that Gregor either knew he was innocent or should have had his doubts about this case. Second, I want to demonstrate that the prosecutors in the LMJC are out of control and that their "win at all costs" mentality is destroying families, all in the name of "protecting the children," of course.
This is a very sad story. A man sits in prison, and lives are shattered. It did not begin with Tonya Craft, and I will be doing my best to show it does not end with her, either.
Given the patchwork of lies that prosecutors Len Gregor and Chris Arnt had to put together in an unsuccessful attempt to throw Ms. Craft into prison for life, one would wonder why they believed they could convince a jury she was a child molester. I believe that the success the LMJC had in railroading Brad Wade into prison three years ago -- done pretty much under the radar, unlike the trial against Ms. Craft -- had much to do with the confidence that Buzz Franklin's office had as it rolled over the cliff.
I want to examine the conviction against Mr. Wade over a number of posts, investigating things like the dearth of evidence, the alliance of Gregor (who prosecuted the case) with "judge" Kristina Graham, and the utter dishonest testimony by Stacy Long of the (What else?) Children's Advocacy Center. However, in today's post, I want to explore what I absolutely believe to be true: Gregor never believed Wade had molested anyone, but pushed the trial anyway.
That is a terrible accusation to make against someone, I realize, and if I am wrong, I will have done a major wrong to Gregor. Because I cannot know what was going on in his mind during the trial, in the end all I can do is to surmise rather than have a definite answer. Nonetheless, from everything I can see and have been able to find, I am confident that although Len Gregor has not told me personally that he believed Brad Wade was innocent, nonetheless the facts of the case itself are such that it is hard to draw any other conclusion.
Unlike the case against Tonya Craft, there is the very real possibility that there WAS molestation of a young child. In fact, the three-year-old child who was the subject of part of the trial claimed "the boys" as doing things that clearly were molestation, yet the authorities were not interested. Furthermore, as we saw in the Craft case, there is other testimony from another child that differs wildly within a year's time, after constant questioning from (Who else?) Long.
Yet, why would Len Gregor and the LMJC go after Brad Wade instead of investigating what the child in question originally claimed? It seems to me that the answer is quite simple: there is nothing in it for Gregor if he goes after juveniles. The Big Prize for a prosecutor is to gain a conviction against an adult, not a teenager, and Gregor, who narcissistically refers to himself as "The Man," always likes to get the big enchilada, even if he must be dishonest to do it.
One thing "The Man" was able to do early was to have exculpatory evidence withheld on the basis of "rape shield" laws. Now, the "rape shield" laws were enacted not to keep exculpatory evidence out, but rather to keep the defense from delving into irrelevant aspects of a rape accuser's past. Unfortunately, prosecutors whose motto is "Win at all costs," have found ways to prop up questionable charges by scheming with judges (most of whom are former prosecutors themselves) to keep the jury from hearing information that could acquit someone.
Indeed, that is what happened in the trial against Mr. Wade. Gregor, as we shall see in upcoming posts, teamed with "judge" Kristina Graham to keep important information from the jury, information that certainly might have had an influence on a jury not to rush to the "guilty" verdict. There are a number of irregularities and incidents of misconduct, which would seem to fit any trial which "The Man" prosecuted, and future posts will examine them.
During the Tonya Craft trial, Gregor declared that Mr. Wade's mother, Glenda Shull, who often was in the courtroom, was not there because she cared about the fate of Ms. Craft, but rather "because she hates me." Indeed, after seeing how "The Man" railroaded her son and so many other innocent people, I don't think I would be surprised if Ms. Stull had some negative feelings toward this prosecutor.
(Mr. Wade's sister, Angie Granger, also was in attendance at the Tonya Craft trial, and her appearance also seemed to unnerve "The Man." She has been a tireless advocate for her brother, and one hopes that she will be able to see her brother vindicated.)
My purpose in writing on the Wade conviction is twofold. First, and most important, I believe that Mr. Wade was innocent of the charges and that Gregor either knew he was innocent or should have had his doubts about this case. Second, I want to demonstrate that the prosecutors in the LMJC are out of control and that their "win at all costs" mentality is destroying families, all in the name of "protecting the children," of course.
This is a very sad story. A man sits in prison, and lives are shattered. It did not begin with Tonya Craft, and I will be doing my best to show it does not end with her, either.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Taking Thursday Off: I'm Grading Papers; Future Posts
[Update, Thursday 11:05 AM]: Eric Echols was a guest today on WGOW-FM, and I will say the guy gave a tour de force interview. As I have said before, if Chris Arnt and Len Gregor continue to push these false charges -- and they ARE false charges -- they only will dig their hole deeper.
Here is the link to the interview. As you will note, it is quite interesting. On an editorial note, I will say that Mr. Echols has conducted himself quite honorably throughout this ordeal, and I along with a lot of other people will not let this issue go until the authorities in Catoosa County drop the charges.
[End Update]
This is finals week here at Frostburg, and I am grading term papers and final exams for my MBA economics class. (Yes, I do have a day job and my superiors expect me to turn in my work on time!)
Future posts will deal with Eric Echols and the bogus case against him, as well as serious questions about the validity of the conviction that Len Gregor gained against Brad Wade three years ago. I have received a number of documents on that case which raise real doubts as to the veracity of the interviews by (You guessed it) the CAC staff, and Gregor's steamrolling of the defendant. There also are other child molestation cases from the LMJC that are questionable, and I will look into those.
I'll also be posting on the case for disbarment of Chris Arnt and Gregor, explaining the rules of the State Bar of Georgia and how I believe these men have violated them. I'm sure there will be other developments, too.
In other words, even though Tonya Craft's acquittal is more than a week back in our rear-view mirrors, nonetheless the whole case opened a window into the sorry and execrable practices of those in the LMJC that supposedly enforce and follow the law. So, stay tuned. There's plenty more to cover.
Here is the link to the interview. As you will note, it is quite interesting. On an editorial note, I will say that Mr. Echols has conducted himself quite honorably throughout this ordeal, and I along with a lot of other people will not let this issue go until the authorities in Catoosa County drop the charges.
[End Update]
This is finals week here at Frostburg, and I am grading term papers and final exams for my MBA economics class. (Yes, I do have a day job and my superiors expect me to turn in my work on time!)
Future posts will deal with Eric Echols and the bogus case against him, as well as serious questions about the validity of the conviction that Len Gregor gained against Brad Wade three years ago. I have received a number of documents on that case which raise real doubts as to the veracity of the interviews by (You guessed it) the CAC staff, and Gregor's steamrolling of the defendant. There also are other child molestation cases from the LMJC that are questionable, and I will look into those.
I'll also be posting on the case for disbarment of Chris Arnt and Gregor, explaining the rules of the State Bar of Georgia and how I believe these men have violated them. I'm sure there will be other developments, too.
In other words, even though Tonya Craft's acquittal is more than a week back in our rear-view mirrors, nonetheless the whole case opened a window into the sorry and execrable practices of those in the LMJC that supposedly enforce and follow the law. So, stay tuned. There's plenty more to cover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
