Majikthise

Sean Bell verdict protests scheduled for Saturday?

If you know of a protest scheduled to take place today (Saturday) in New York City, please send me an email ASAP.

I would like to photograph the event. Note to protest organizers: I will make my photographs available to you at no charge.

I am deeply saddened and disappointed by the verdict in the Bell case. I didn't expect the police shooters to beat the rap for carelessness as well as murder.

I know the accused have the right to waive a trial by jury, as the Bell shooters did.  However, it seems unfair on some basic level that the criminal justice system got to try its own, without input from a civilian jury.

Update: The National Action Network was reportedly organizing a protest in Harlem today. This morning, when I called the National Action Network hotline to ask for directions to the rally, I was told that no demonstrations were scheduled for today. I don't know if plans changed at the last minute or what, but NY1 is reporting that a rally took place outside the National Action Network building in Harlem.

Does anyone know if it is still going on? Or whether there are any other actions planned for today by the National Action Network, or other groups?

AP photographer Bilal Hussein reportedly set free

Free Bilal Hussein Committee just sent out the following announcement by email:

News just came in that our dear colleague Bilal Hussein is free at last!! Hemos recibido la noticia que nuestro querido colega Bilal Hussein esta libre al fin!!

The AP confirms that the 36-year-old photojournalist was released to his colleagues in Iraq last night. The U.S. military accused Hussein of collaborating with insurgents.

An Iraqi court exonerated Hussein earlier this month of terrorism charges against him . The United States issued a statement this week saying that Hussein was no longer considered a threat.

Political non-prosecution: DOJ defers prosecution of Monsanto, other corporate offenders

Bribe to Indonesian official: Several thousand dollars,
Deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department: One million dollars,
Impunity: Priceless.

[HT: DJA, Ryan] 

Jury foreman alleges political prosecution in Pennsylvania

The strange case of the Democratic forensic pathologist, the $3.96 fax bill, and the two-year federal investigation...

Political prosecution in Mississippi

Don Siegelman isn't the only victim of political prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department.

Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, Jr. discusses his experiences on the other side of the justice system with Larisa Alexandrovna.

Diaz argues that he was singled out for prosecution because of his personal and political ties to Paul Minor, a successful trial lawyer and one of the biggest Democratic donors in the state.

Minor was constant thorn in the side of Mississippi Republicans who were hoping to reshape the state supreme court with the help of the Chamber of Commerce.

Diaz and his supporters allege that US Attorney Dunnica Lampton engineered a politically motivated prosecution to derail Minor and Diaz a few months before the gubernatorial elections.

Minor and Diaz are longtime friends and political allies. When Diaz ran for office, Minor was his trusted adviser. Minor also personally guaranteed a loan to the Diaz campaign. Loan guarantees are both legal and common in Mississippi elections.

As a judge, Diaz never ruled on a single case involving Minor or his firm. Yet, somehow a legal campaign loan became a pretext for federal bribery charges. Diaz was tried and acquitted twice. The first trial was for bribery. The second was for tax evasion. The second time around, prosecutors tried to convince a jury that Diaz was legally required to report Minor's loan as personal income. The loan wasn't personal income, it was all spent on the campaign. The jury took just 15 minutes to acquit Diaz on the tax evasion charge.

I've only told you part of the Diaz story. The full version has many twists and turns , including an FBI agent getting exiled to Guantanamo, a chronically tardy judge, real conspiracies, fictitious conspiracies, suspicious burglaries, suspected arsons, and a despicable attempt to use children as leverage to exact a false guilty plea from a parent. Read the whole thing.

It's hard out there for an Afghan warlord

Note to Afghan warlords, if an American private security consulting firm promises you safe passage to the United States, don't just assume it's their promise to make:

Investigators' promises to an Afghan warlord of safe passage in America will not protect him from facing trial in Manhattan on heroin charges next month, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

Bashir Noorzai, the leader of a 1 million-person tribe in southern Afghanistan, had traveled to New York voluntarily in 2005, aiming to gain an audience with American diplomats who could help him shore up his power in Afghanistan. The trip had been organized by employees of a shadowy and short-lived security company, Rosetta Research & Consulting LLC, that was seeking to help the federal government conduct investigative work in foreign countries. Contractors at the firm had courted Mr. Noorzai, believing at one point that the warlord had information to offer about Osama bin Laden, according to transcripts of conversations involving the contractors as well as an interview with a former government official. [NY Sun]

According to the article, the DEA is trying to make a case against Noorzai for growing opium poppies on his land (in Afghanistan?). He has been held in solitary confinement for three years.

Here's the really interesting part:

In a court opinion yesterday, Judge Laura Taylor Swain rejected Mr. Noorzai's argument that he should be released because trickery was used to convince him to come to New York. Judge Swain's decision said that a foreign criminal suspect was entitled to release if both kidnapping and torture — not just deceit — were used to convey him here.

Mr. Noorzai's "allegations of deceit and government misconduct, which do not implicate physical abuse of any kind, are insufficient to provide any basis" for his release, Judge Swain wrote. [NY Sun]

So, if the US government were to transfer Guantanamo detainees to American soil, as Human Rights Watch fears it will, we'd have to let them go right?

[HT: TS of Instaputz.]

Citigroup to pay $33 million to settle sex discrimination lawsuit

Yesterday, Citigroup agreed a $33 million to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit launched by a group of female brokers:

Citigroup Inc. has agreed to pay $33 million to about 2,500 current and former female brokers at the company's Smith Barney subsidiary to settle a discrimination lawsuit.

A federal judge in San Francisco still has to approve the proposed settlement of a lawsuit filed by four women in 2005 that accuses company managers of doling out clients disproportionately to male brokers.

Citigroup also agreed to change the way it awards bonuses and partnerships and alter how accounts are assigned, according to court documents. [AP]

Uzbekistan legalizes money laundering until 2013

Attention, terrorists, drug dealers, and corporate criminals: The Republic of Uzbekistan has legalized money laundering until 2013.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen) warned American banks about the threat on March 20:

The Government of Uzbekistan has taken a series of legal actions that undermine the jurisdiction's AML/CFT regime. Uzbekistan had made progress in addressing AML/CFT deficiencies by enacting an AML/CFT law that went into effect in January, 2006. However, the Government of Uzbekistan subsequently suspended implementation of the law through a series of decrees until January 1, 2013.

Among other things, the decrees suspend the authority of Uzbekistan's financial intelligence unit to collect and analyze information on, and monitor, financial and property transactions; identify possible money laundering and terrorist financing mechanisms and channels; share information on identified crimes with law enforcement agencies for criminal prosecution; and cooperate and exchange information with foreign agencies and international organizations on AML/CFT issues based on international obligations and agreements of Uzbekistan. The decrees also suspend reporting, programmatic, and customer identification/due diligence requirements for covered entities. Moreover, the decrees subject reports to secrecy legislation and call for the General Prosecutor to strengthen bank secrecy "to prevent interference with activities of banking and other credit organizations" (Presidential Decree No. PP-565, January 12, 2007). The most recent decree (No. PP-3968, February 20, 2008) prohibits financial institutions, law enforcement, and other supervising bodies from inquiring about the sources of cash deposits in any amount, upon threat of civil or criminal penalty.

Following the latest presidential decree, which criminalizes official inquiries about the source of cash transactions, a global anti-money laundering body known as the Financial Action Task Force issued the following statement:

"The FATF is particularly concerned that a series of presidential decrees in Uzbekistan has effectively repealed the anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime in that country and generates a money laundering/financing of terrorism (ML/FT) vulnerability in the international financial system." [FATF, February 28, 2008 (.pdf)]

These stark warnings have generated remarkably little media attention.

In the global financial system, loopholes in one jurisdiction can have repercussions worldwide. For example, if a wealthy Saudi Arabian wanted to discreetly sponsor some jihadis bound for Afghanistan, lax anti-money laundering laws in neighboring Uzbekistan might make his life easier. Or, suppose someone with suitcases of cash from the opium trade wanted to bank that money to buy some weapons. Uzbekistan might be a good place to do that.

This week, the US is sending a diplomat to Uzbekistan for talks:

But, in a possible sign of political relaxation in a country the West says tolerates little dissent, the government has pardoned six jailed human rights activists this year.

President Islam Karimov, ruling Central Asia's most populous nation since 1989, has also promised to liberalize Uzbekistan's rigid financial system and he has softened his critical stance towards the West.

Some Tashkent diplomats have linked the shift in Uzbekistan's stance to Karimov's bid to emerge from global isolation.

Uzbekistan has large gas and oil reserves and is also among the world's top 10 gold producers and the No. 2 cotton exporter.

Acting U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central Asia Pamela Spratlen was due to arrive in the Uzbek capital Tashkent for talks later on Thursday, an embassy statement said.

"We are convinced that the involvement of the Uzbek government in a discussion on a broad range of topics that are on our bilateral agenda," the statement quoted U.S. Ambassador to Uzbekistan Richard Norland as saying.

He listed potential topics as regional safety, trade and investment, cultural exchange and human rights. [Reuters]

It's not clear whether the timing of the US visit had anything to do with the recent changes in Uzbekistan's money laundering laws. 

The hijacking of the Justice Department

Scott Horton has two excellent posts about how the US Attorney purge of 2007 relates to the ongoing erosion of federal law in the United States of America. The first, from March 15, recaps the purge itself, and the cover-up that followed:

Of George W. Bush’s cohort of U.S. Attorneys, one of the most highly regarded—perhaps even the most highly regarded—was John McKay, who headed the office in Seattle. He was included in the December 7 massacre. McKay has now authored a law review article that examines the history of the scandal, reviews the legal issues that it raises, and provides some observations on the trajectory the matter is likely to take going forward. It’s called “Train Wreck at the Justice Department,” and it was published in volume 31 of Seattle University Law Review. [Harper's]

We've heard a lot about selective prosecution of Democrats lately. In this post, from March 17, Horton explains the DOJ's other political mandate, to protect Republicans, including Jack Abramoff.

I've been citing Horton a lot lately. As an attorney and an international human rights lawyer, Horton has a rare perspective on the deterioration of American justice. As a human rights lawyer, he gets a lot of business from countries where the justice system is instrument of partisan politics.

I had the pleasure of meeting Horton while working on Raw Story's investigation of the Don Siegelman case.

I probably never would have taken that assignment if it hadn't been for Horton's writing. At first, I didn't want the Raw Story assignment because I assumed Siegelman was guilty. I knew nothing of the case besides the headlines, but I figured he must have done something. He was convicted wasn't he? Even if this was a selective prosecution, he was probably still guilty even if he was singled out. Right? Why should journalists waste their time championing some sketchy politician who had already been convicted on public corruption charges?

My editor urged me to read Horton's Siegelman Chronicles. The series changed the way I look at government. I already knew the DOJ scandals off by heart, but I didn't understand the bigger picture.

Stacking the Justice Department with political hacks is the final component of Karl Rove's plan for a Permanent Republican Majority. The Permanent Majority is permanent because the ruling party writes the laws, picks the judges, and directs the prosecutors. But what happens to the majority if the other side gets in and fires all the hacks? That's where the selective prosecutions come in. It's a matter picking off serious rivals one by one. That way, the Dems who survive will be too spineless to clean house, even if they do come to power.

If you want to see the process in microcosm, study Don Siegelman's home state of Alabama, aka Karl Rove's laboratory.    

Spitzer coerced by the Public Integrity Section

Am I the only one who is appalled that the Justice Department forced Eliot Spitzer out of office?

Sources: Lawyers for Spitzer negotiate possible plea deal

5:32 PM EDT, March 11, 2008 

Lawyers for Gov. Eliot Spitzer are negotiating a possible plea deal with federal prosectuors stemming from his alleged involvement with a prostitution ring, sources said.

Several sources said that the one serious bargaining chip that Spitzer has to possibly avoid being charged with a serious felony, such as money laundering or avoiding federal currency rules, is to work out a deal in which he would give up the governorship. In return, prosecutors would assure him that he only would have to plead at most to a misdemeanor or even less and be in effect guaranteed that he would not have to go to prison. [Newsday]

If the foregoing is true, you could describe the same scenario another way: Federal law enforcement approached the sitting governor of New York and threatened to charge him with felonies unless he resigned his office.

The spin is that Spitzer used his office as a bargaining chip, but it takes two parties to negotiate. It doesn't matter who made the opening bid. If it's true that the feds offered anything in exchange for Spitzer's resignation, we have proof that this was a political sting all along.

For whatever reason, Spitzer's prompt resignation was very important to the feds. It was so important to them that they may have been willing to give up on some rather serious charges to get Spitzer out of power. If the DOJ was dispassionately pursuing justice, wouldn't it have cared more about the alleged felonies than about whether a damaged governor stayed in office?

How could the Justice Department to enter into such negotiations? Resignation is a political decision, not a matter of criminal justice.

I'm glad Spitzer resigned. His behavior was reckless and selfish and self-indulgent and hypocritical. He betrayed the people, his party, and his family. He made himself the object of ridicule. Spitzer's hold on power was contingent upon his squeaky clean image. When he lost that reputation, it was all over. (By contrast, if Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno got caught with a hooker, I wouldn't demand his resignation. Bruno's constituents didn't elect him as a righteous instrument of justice.)

Spitzer needed to go, but it wasn't the federal government's place to force him out.