Sonya Sotomayor makes a yoyo of the U.S. Constitution

In 2001, the now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor claimed that race and experience of a judge may and should influence the judge's decisions:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life".

The "richness of experiences" of Justice Sonya Sotomayor have resulted in a series of statements, in and out of court that, for a judge, are quite bizarre.

Of course, it is bizarre for a judge to claim that a decision, reviewing the same record and applying the same law, of a white male judge and a Latina female judge CAN be different.

After all, a judge is supposed to apply the law to the facts in the record, not "draw upon the richness of her experiences", which would make a judge an unsworn witness in the proceedings.

Yet, after making that speech, Sonya Sotomayor was promoted to the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court instead of barred from the bench.

Sotomayor's bizarre "drawings upon the richness of her experience" continued in a string of in and out of court statements in May and June of 2016.

In all of those statements, Justice Sotomayor's pragmatic point of view becomes clear - the ends justify the means, whether they are based on the law or not.

I.

Attorney slave labor is good - if it serves the poor

(Violation of 13th and 14th Amendments are justified)

On May 17, 2016, Justice Sonya Sotomayor claimed that, "had it been in her power", she would have made attorneys to work for free to be entitled to a right to earn a living at all.

That statement indicated that, for Judge Sotomayor, the means, even if the means are violating the U.S. Constitution she is sworn to uphold, justify the end - in the context of her speech, providing forced-labor legal services for the poor.

Forcing people to work in exchange for a right to earn a living is, in fact, in violation of  at least three constitutional provisions: the 13th Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (because other professionals are not required to provide free services in order to be allowed to earn a living).

II.

Jury recall after dismissal is good

Violation of Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, right to impartial adjudication

On June 9, 2016 Justice Sonya Sotomayor authored a majority opinion in a diversity case in federal court which held:

Now.

The main issue was of substantive due process - whether it was fair to allow a dismissed jury who were, for a time being, no longer under oath not to talk to the public about the case and not to read about the case, to be recalled back to additionally deliberate and correct an error.

Since the case was not a federal question case, but a diversity case (the only reason it was in federal court is because the plaintiff and the defendant were citizens of different states within the United States), Justice Sotomayor was BOUND BY LAW to apply the substantive law of the state where the car accident (the subject of the lawsuit) occurred.

That is the requirement of the Erie doctrine.

As any law student will tell you, application of the Erie doctrine is "Civil Procedure 101".

Apparently, the majority in Dietz v Bouldin, including Justice Sonya Sotomayor, failed the competency test as to Civil Procedure 101 by not even mentioning the Erie doctrine or its application.

Instead, Justice Sonya Sotomayor found an "inherent power" of the FEDERAL court to make decisions of substantive law if the end (judicial economy) justifies the means - jury recall.

Since the holding was framed as the "inherent power" of the FEDERAL court (the Erie doctrine be damned), be assured that now juries will be recalled to "correct" whatever the court deems they did wrong in "federal question" cases - civil rights cases.

Not only the recall was a violation of the Erie doctrine where the federal court made a substantive decision without regard to the state law in the state where the litigated events occurred, but committing factual findings to the already "presumed tainted" jury was a clear violation of due process right to impartial court review.

Once the jury is discharged, their oath no longer applying, the jury have had the opportunity to talk to the non-jury member of the public, research the case on their own, and any attempts to verify whether the jury had ACTUALLY done that or not, should be precluded.

The opportunity creates the taint.

That's not what Justice Sotomayor said.

For Justice Sotomayor, the means (judicial economy) justified violation of the U.S. Constitution that she was sworn to uphold.

III.

The righteous 4th Amendment dissent

After Judge Sotomayor claimed in 2001 that, while on the bench, she would draw from the "richness of her experiences" as a "Latina woman",

after Judge Sotomayor claimed in May of 2016 that she would disregard the 13th Amendment in requiring mandatory pro bono service of attorneys as a condition of earning a living, in order to "close the justice gap" (created by attorney regulation, for which the easiest solution is deregulation, not mandated slavery);

after Judge Sotomayor claimed on June 9, 2016 that for purposes of judicial economy, in civil cases, already dismissed - and tainted - juries may be recalled to deliberate some more and "correct mistakes" made before the discharge,

on June 20, 2016 Judge Sotomayor got on the white horse and authored a "fiery" dissent on a 4th Amendment issue protecting civil liberties at large, and once again drawing on the "richness of her experience".

What Sotomayor says in her dissent makes sense. 

Yet, a judge shouldn't be drawing on her own experiences, as she did in her dissent, as Sotomayor does:

 - nullifies the value of the dissent and reduces it to a statement of an unsworn witness in the case.

And, when a judge acts as a yo-yo justifying violation of some constitutional rights, but not others - what is the value of her "fiery dissents" anyway?

Cutting off snakes' heads - episode 2: a new method of New York prosecutors to eliminate criminal defense attorneys

Recently, I wrote about a civil rights lawsuit filed by a criminal defense attorney George Galgano against Putnam County District Attorney and other defendants, for their role in bringing about illegal searches, retaliative investigations and retaliative felony indictment against attorney Galgano.

Apparently, a similar story is developing at this time in St. Lawrence County, New York, against criminal defense attorney Edward F. Narrow, a criminal defense attorney with 15 years of experience.

In an interesting case in St. Lawrence County, New York, a judge denied the motion made by the prosecutor to disqualify the District Attorney's office from a case of a certain defense attorney, Edward F. Narrow, because the DA's office plans to indict Mr. Narrow for a felony for his alleged role in the murder case of Oral "Nick" Hillary accused of murder.

A public scandal erupted when a St. Lawrence County Assistant District Attorney David A. Haggard was leaving his position in the DA's office.

At about the time when he announced that he was leaving his position, the St. Lawrence District Attorney Mary E. Rain, accused ADA Haggard of "collusion" in a criminal case, based on the alleged discussion of that criminal case with defense attorney Edward F. Narrow.

Here is DA Mary E. Rain:

Assistant District Attorneys to DA Mary Rain, listed as of today, are:

New York State law does allow law graduates to practice law on special admission if working in certain public offices, including the District Attorney's office.

But, an order of admission should be first obtained, because allowing an unadmitted individual to practice law is the supervising attorney's responsibility.

Apparently, such "formalities" were not met, and, if there was no order of admission before admission to the bar, DA Mary Rain, in allowing ADA Jirkin to practice law in her office was engaged in the crime of unauthorized practice of law, and that's what attorney Narrow reported.

So, attorney Narrow reported DA Rain for an ethical violation and commission of a crime.

ADA Haggard was leaving the office, after having worked a very short time, less than two years (from April 2014, announced that he is leaving in March of 2016), and was a witness to DA Rain stating that "during the period I worked with Ms. Rain, she indicated to [ADA Haggard] that she intended to use the grand jury to investigate individuals that she disliked", and that the list of those Ms. Rain disliked reportedly included:

• County Attorney Stephen D. Button,
• Chief Public Defender Steven G. Ballan,
• former county Board of Legislature Chairman Joseph R. Lightfoot,
• attorney Edward F. Narrow,
• former County Administrator Karen M. St. Hilaire
• and others.

So, Mr. Haggard, apparently, joint the list of individuals that DA Rain disliked when DA Rain made an extraordinary accusation of collusion against her own subordinate, ADA Haggard, without indicating what the collusion actually was citing "confidential investigation".

So, DA Rain openly bad-mouthed two people she obviously disliked, but claimed "confidential investigation" to allow herself not to be specific.

The claim of collusion by the DA against her own subordinate is extraordinary.

It is usual for a prosecutor to discuss a pending case with a criminal defense attorney.

Prosecutors discuss potential plea bargains with criminal defense attorneys all the time.

In fact, the absolute majority of criminal cases are decided through plea bargains.

So, why did DA Rain allege "collusion" between her own subordinate and a criminal defense attorney?

Attorney Narrow upset DA Rain by complaining to the disciplinary authorities that DA Rain allowed one of her Assistant District Attorneys, Jonathan S. Jirik, to practice law without a license by prosecuting cases before being admitted to the bar.

Jonathan Jirik is not admitted to the bar to this day, I checked today.

DA Rain also reportedly made a false statement that she forewarned a local judge, Judge Richards, that DA Rain is considering an indictment of Attorney Edward Narrow at a court conference, while Judge Richards stated that DA Rain never made such a disclosure at that conference.

So, DA Rain added lying about court proceedings and about disclosures made to the court, yet another ethical violation.

The DA's office asked to disqualify themselves because of a complaint filed by attorney Narrow pertaining to the murder case making the DA's office and the defense witnesses against each other.

The DA's affidavit cited to the case Berger v United States, a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that indicates the dual role of a prosecutor to (1) prosecute crimes vigorously, but at the same time (2) to be fair to the accused.

It is apparent that, when a defense attorney filed a complaint against the prosecutor during the pendency of a criminal case and when the prosecutor is retaliating against the attorney by preparing felony charges against him, the prosecutor cannot be fair to the attorney, and to his clients by extension.

It is also apparent that the DA's office is abusing its power to prosecute a defense attorney who dared to file a disciplinary complaint against the DA's office by investigating the complainant and planning to file a felony indictment against him.

In New York, conviction for a felony automatically disbars the convicted attorney.

So, the DA's office definitely does not play fair with Attorney Narrow where it took Attorney Narrow's (complainant against the DA's office) discipline into their own hands and abusing their power to obtain his disbarment.

Under the circumstances where the DA's office is subject of a disciplinary complaint of Attorney Narrow, the DA's office should seek a special investigator and a special prosecutor not so much or not only in cases where Mr. Narrow appears as a defense counsel, but to investigate and hold grand jury proceedings against Mr. Narrow as a suspect and defendant.

Yet, the DA's office is not seeking such a special investigator and prosecutor, instead, trying to pretend they are following ethical rules while, in fact, they are grossly violating those rules and seeking to disbar Mr. Narrow in retaliation for filing a complaint against the St. Lawrence County District Attorney and her staff.

Criminal defendants have their right to counsel of their choice, so, if attorney Edward Narrow or his office are hired in 59 pending criminal cases, the court must work around those defendants' constitutional right to counsel of their choice and effective representation of counsel.

I am wondering why Edward Narrow himself is not making motions to disqualify the DA's office on his clients' behalf - it is clear that the DA's office is so disgruntled as to Edward Narrow that it cannot be fair to his clients, and the DA's office recognizes it implicitly and explicitly, by making its own motion to disqualify themselves.

It appears that the judge was "playing safe", but here, "playing safe" can cost New York taxpayers, instead of appointment of one special prosecutor, to handle 59 criminal appeals throughout all appellate courts - not a good idea entirely.

Yet, after St. Lawrence County Surrogate Court Judge John F. Richey denied the DA's office its motion to self-disqualify from all cases of attorney Edward F. Narrow, Judge Richey reportedly appointed a special prosecutor to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute attorney Edward F. Narrow.

Guess who Judge Richey appointed to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute attorney Edward F. Narrow?

An attorney who was the defense attorney on the same murder case that is the subject of the investigation, Gary W. Miles, who can be called a witness in the case and who, based on his prior position as defense counsel in the same case as Mr. Narrow was, is in an extremely awkward position that may require him to use his knowledge acquired as a defense attorney to prosecute a crime.

Once again - of all available local counsel, to appoint as special prosecutor of one attorney, based on the attorney's alleged criminal conduct in a criminal case, the attorney's successor in representing the same client in the same case!

What was Judge John F.  Richey thinking when making such an appointment?

He "took the case out of the hands" of one conflicted prosecutor and put it into the hands of a prosecutor no less conflicted?

This extraordinary appointment of a very special prosecutor by Judge Richey prompted me to look into Judge Richey's own biography.

And, of course, Judge Richey is the ultimate insider of the court system, having worked as court attorney for two judges for 26 years before his unopposed election in 2015.

Judge Richey appears to have had no experience in criminal law before he was elected as a Surrogate's judge.

In his pre-election interview on YouTube judicial candidate John F. Richey stated that he is running for the Surrogate's Court because his "entire career was in the Surrogate's Court".

Judge Richey disclosed that in 1989, while working in Surrogate's Court of St. Lawrence County, he was hired as a part-time court attorney by the then-Surrogate Judge Rogers.

Judge Richey indicated that, while working for Surrogate Judge Rogers as her part-time court attorney, Judge Richey continued to maintain his private practice.

After 2 years of working as a part-time court attorney for Surrogate Judge Rogers, Judge Richey added a position as a part-time court attorney for a multi-bench judge Maine in Franklin County and left private practice entirely - in 1991.

In 1992 John F. Richey, according to his court biography (see above) also was elected as a village justice of the Village of Massena, where he "served" as a judge until 2002.

In 1995 John F. Richey's position as a court attorney for Judge Rogers became full-time, and Judge Rogers became an Acting Supreme Court justice.

John F. Richey was the court attorney for Judge Rogers from 1995 up to the time he was elected.

So, from 1992 to 2002 John F. Richey was a justice in a village within St. Lawrence County, and at the very same time, was a court attorney for a judge who carried out appellate functions in the same St. Lawrence County, so Judge Richey's decisions as a village justice were appealable to Judge Richey's employer, Judge Rogers, as assigned judge in County Court cases.

So, Judge Richey knows A LOT about conflicts of interest - he LIVED a conflict of interest, and financially benefited by such conflicts, it appears, for years.

John F. Richey claimed he wanted to be the judge because "he's been there for 26 years".

Apparently, John F. Richey cannot claim inexperience in criminal cases, after having been a court attorney for a multi-bench judge, and after being a court attorney for an Acting Supreme Court justice who must have been handling criminal cases - same as Judge Richey is doing now.

Therefore, appointing a special prosecutor with a conflict instead of a prosecutor with a conflict to investigate and prosecute attorney Narrow was clearly inexcusable.

I also did not see Judge Richey appointing a special prosecutor to investigate DA Mary E. Rain for targeting people she dislikes with criminal proceedings, lying about court proceedings and facilitating unauthorized practice of law.

Possibly because DA Rain works in collaboration with Onondaga County DA William Fitzpatrick, a corrupt yet powerful prosecutor and a law school buddy of the Chief Administrative Judge of the 5th Judicial District James Tormey.

And, a careful courtier such as Judge Richey knows how to please people in power to advance his career, as his career amply demonstrates.

So, is DA Rain unsinkable because of her connection to Judge Tormey's law school buddy now matter level of misconduct she is engaged in as a prosecutor? 

Future will show.

I will continue to cover the story about attorney Edward Narrow and abuse of power in St. Lawrence District Attorney's office.

Stay tuned.





















Stay tuned.

Do robot attorney eliminate the need for law licenses, for human judges, and make access-to-justice super easy and economical?

I wrote on this blog about a robot "hired" to practice law in a U.S. law firm in May of 2016.

Now, two more law firms reportedly started the use of robots in their law practice.


So, as of now, robots are used in law firms for the following "jobs":


The artificial intelligence system used so far is ROSS, made by IBM.

ROSS, reportedly, "can understand your questions, and respond with a hypothesis backed by references and citations".

As a litmus test, if a human being without a law license "understands your questions and responds with a hypothesis backed by references and citations", such a human being is chargeable with a felony unauthorized practice of law.

ROSS also, reportedly, "improves on legal research by providing you with only the most highly relevant answers rather than thousands of results you would need to sift through."

In other words, ROSS makes a determination INSTEAD of a human being, as to what is most relevant to your case when doing research.

Legal research and making such judgment calls during legal research is considered the practice of law, prohibited to anybody but licensed attorneys.

In this case, it is clear that the attorney is not supervising ROSS in how the legal research is done, ROSS is making the decision INSTEAD of the attorney, to "save time" for the attorney, so that the attorney should not "sift through" "thousands of results".

"Additionally, [ROSS] is constantly monitoring current litigation so that it can notify you about recent court decisions that may affect your case, and it will continue to learn from experience, gaining more knowledge and operating more quickly, the more you interact with it."

ROSS is reportedly doing its job better and faster with "experience" and interaction. 

It was also reported in May of 2016 that "other law firms" also signed a license with ROSS

At least two other law firms were already reported as using ROSS:

No.	Name of Law Firm	Name of Robot/Name of Manufacturer	Activity that can be handled by the robot	Is the activity subject to unauthorized practice of law prosecution? Y/N	States and federal courts where the firm is practicing
1	Baker & Hostetler	ROSS/IBM	·        Legal Research/judgment calls on relevancy of cases found; ·        Case analysis/outcome prediction; ·        Monitoring litigation, prompts about new cases and laws that may affect outcome of the case	Yes	All states, all federal jurisdictions
2	Latham & Watkins	ROSS/IBM	Same	Yes	All states, all federal jurisdictions
3	von Briesen & Roper	ROSS/IBM	Same	Yes	Milwaukee, Wisconsin

So, since May of 2016, and increasingly so, the practice of law in the United States is delegated to robots.

Because, if a robot makes a decision which case in the case law the robot found is relevant to a certain case, and the lawyer discards all other cases and goes only with the cases that the robot considered relevant, that is a substitution of the judgment of a lawyer by the "judgment" of a robot.

And, functions that ROSS is carrying out are functions routinely charged as unauthorized practice of law.

Of course, if Baker & Hostetler, Latham Watkins and von Brisen & Roper are using a machine that will allow to make decisions instead of a lawyer based on lightning-speed analysis of information and conjuring up case hypotheticals and case outcomes, other law firms are at a competitive disadvantage.

Since ROSS license is, no doubt, super-expensive, we can soon expect licensing pools to use ROSS collectively.

Moreover, what ROSS ACTUALLY can or cannot do is commercial secret.

So, unlike an attorney who, before licensing, must undergo a background check and a character review, the machine that replaces the judgment of a laywer, may not undergo any "checks" because what it can or cannot do is a patented commercial secret.

Owned by IBM.

And IBM - through stocks - is owned by a lot of judges.

So, please tell me, what is the remaining legal basis for state and federal courts to continue attorney licensing if robots can practice without supervision and instead making decisions INSTEAD OF attorneys?

And, I repeat the question I asked in my previous "robot-related" blog, if the robot can assess cases, review the applicable law faster than any human can, pick relevant cases and apply them to the hypotheticals in front of the court, why not replace ALL of the state and federal judiciary with just one ROSS?

Won't it be super-economical and eliminate judicial corruption into the bargain?

And, won't ROSS, if purchased for public use by the government with free or low-fee access for every citizen and legal resident of this country eliminate the "access to justice" gap by engaging in legal consultations and providing information needed by litigants?

Because - ROSS can do legal research and choose the most relevant cases in the thousands of cases decided across the country by various courts, right?

And can do it for the public.

ROSS can generate hypotheticals based on the specific facts of the case and predict case outcomes based on the law.

And can do it for the public.

Making lawyers in the long run not necessary?

Should we as taxpayers give it a try?

Imagine, you have a problem.

Instead of going to a lawyer, you use your ROSS-subscription subsidized by the government (at your expense as a taxpayer), enter a question into the ROSS-consulting terminal, and get an answer as to how your case, most likely, will be decided by a ROSS-judge, based on the law and facts of your case.

The only problem then will be how to find employment to all suddenly unemployed lawyers and judges.

But that is a happy problem, isn't it?

And, lawyers, who call themselves "intellectual elite", can be then easily re-educated in the professions that are in demand and under-represented in the market.

Case solved?

The death penalty: state v federal "right to kill first" in the South Carolina hate shooting

An "interesting" fight is developing over death penalty in South Carolina.

Last year, a white young man came to a black church and shot 9 people to death.

The man was charged with capital crimes both in the State of South Carolina and in federal court (federal counts reportedly include hate crimes and violation of religious rights).

Now the state and the federal courts are competing on who is going to try Dylann Roof first and who gets to execute him.

The feds scheduled the federal trial ahead of the state trial.

The SC prosecutor ardently asked to allow SC to try Dylann Roof first.

I somehow doubt that the feds even have jurisdiction to try Dylann Roof.

Yes, it is obviously a hate crime.

Yes, the defendant is white and all victims are black, and the crime happened in a black church.

But, the crime was not committed on federal property and does not involve "interstate commerce", and thus, feds should not have been involved in the criminal prosecution, whatever is my position on the death penalty.

I am generally against the death penalty, as my posts on this blog indicate.

Yet, in this case there appears to be no question that the defendant is the perpetrator of the shooting deaths of 9 people.

There are witnesses who observed Dylann Roof when he came to the church, was invited to join in the prayer, and spent some time before he started to shoot.  Enough time for the surviving witnesses to be able to clearly identify him as the shooter.

Unless the defendant is ruled incompetent or not guilty by reason of some kind of mental illness, he, of course, must be held accountable.

In my view, it will not be unfair to demand his life for the lives of 9 people he killed.

Yet, given the law about appellate process in the case, it will cost taxpayers less to keep Dylann Roof alive and serve a life sentence, rather than to put him on the death row.

For the sake of saving taxpayers' money, I would give him a life sentence.

The death penalty - handled by opportunists, sadists and people with mood disorders. Enough?

I wrote on this blog about a Georgia prosecutor "enthralled with the death penalty" (not my words, it is the words of public defenders in a pleading) that she keeps a battery-operated "toy" electric chair in her office.

That indicates clear sadistic tendencies, and a complete unfitness for the position of a public prosecutor who must not only get convictions, but to be fair to criminal defendants.

I also wrote about opportunists in public office who have used, or are using the death penalty for personal gain.

People I wrote about is the former Philadelphia District Attorney and then Chief Judge of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ronald Castille who obtained the death penalty against the victim of sexual abuse that lasted for years since he was 13, and who killed his abuser when he turned 18.  Prosecutor/Judge Castille not only obtained the conviction and death penalty by fraud, but then, when became a judge, refused to recuse from the defendant's habeas corpus petitions 4 TIMES, reinstated his death penalty in 2012 and issued a separate concurring opinion blasting federal defenders representing Terrance Williams for doing their job.

Another opportunist who is getting political capital on the death penalty is Texas Bell County DA Henry Garza.

Henry Garza is currently prosecuting Marvin Louis Guy, the person who shot a police officer as a home invader, not knowing that the armed person who was climbing into his window at night during an unannounced was a police officer.

At the same time, Henry Garza is running for his 5th term as Bell County DA, a position that currently pays $140,000 a year, and is the Chairman and former President of the National District Attorneys' Association.

Henry Garza is capitalizing not only on seeking the death of an innocent person who exercised his right to self-defense in his own home, but, by doing that and not prosecuting those who have sent the police officer to his sure death, he is making sure that similar - completely unnecessary - raids against pot-growers will happen in the future, and will cost more lives to police officers, more lives to criminal defendants, and millions of dollars to taxpayers.

Now there is also a report that the Dallas County DA (Texas, a death penalty state) suffered a THIRD mental health setback and was hospitalized into a psychiatric hospital.

The DA was hospitalized a month ago for depression, now she is hospitalized for "mood disorders".

A person who needs repeated psychiatric hospitalizations, especially those for "mood disorders", has an unlimited discretion to seek death penalty against people?

But - you know what is most interesting?

The news reports says that the reporters allegedly spoke to "mood-disordered" DA's potential opponents in a re-election, and the opponents said that they will NOT make the issue of the DA's mental condition "an issue" in their election campaign.

WHY?

Does political correctness trump people's RIGHT TO LIFE?

And, is it possible that the Dallas DA's mood swings and/or depression are the direct results of the responsibility that humans should not have, to "play God" and hold decisions to seek a government-controlled murder against other people.

A lot is being said about why the death penalty should be abolished.

About mistakes, racism, ineffective assistance of counsel, police and prosecutorial misconduct.

Yet, more and more comes to light as to personalities of prosecutors:

• sadists;
• political opportunists using the death penalty for personal gain, for the advancement of their career;
• mentally ill individuals with mood swings.

Such people should not handle life-and-death decisions.

Yet, with the "mood-disorder" DA, the issue of her mental illness came to life only because she needed to be away from the office, she needed repeated hospitalizations.

That means that, for a while, she was handling her mental illness issues on the job, possibly while handling death penalty cases.

Opportunists can be figured out through conflicts of interest, sometimes years later.

Prosecutors with mental health issues, from sadism to mood disorders, may never be figured out because, short of hospitalization, their records are private. 

The only "safe" way to deal with it is to abolish the death penalty.

Otherwise, you may be allowing a secret psychopathic sadist during one of his/her mood swings to make the decision to seek or not to seek the death penalty.

And - when people's lives are at stake, political correctness should be damned and prosecutors' mental health issues should be made the front and center issues in whether to remove such a prosecutor by any means - public demand for resignation, impeachment, discipline or reelection.

And the same refers to opportunist prosecutors.

Why the National District Attorneys Association chooses the most unethical prosecutors as their Presidents - Part II, #DAHenryGarza The Salesman of The Death Penalty for personal political gain, jeopardizing lives of police officers

I just posted a blog about the interesting pick for President by the National District Attorneys' Association - the corrupt and unethical Onondaga County DA from New York William Fitzpatrick.

This is the current President of NDAA.

One of the previous presidents was not better, if not worse than Fitzpatrick.

His name is Henry Garza, see page 2 of this Board Roster of NDAA.

Henry Garza is a DA from Bell County, Texas.  On top of being the past President of the National District Attorneys' Association, he is NDAA's current Chairman.

DA Garza is proud of his position in the NDAA, as is evident from
DA Garza's official webpage.

DA Garza even states that NDAA is the "Voice of America's Prosecutors".

Making DA Garza, the Chairman of the NDAA, THE voice of the America's prosecutors.

Here is the picture of that "voice".

And here is what that "voice" is currently doing.

DA Henry Garza was elected in 2001 and "is currently serving his fourth term" in Bell County, Texas.

Texas is a death penalty state.

It is the discretion of the DA to seek that death penalty.

This is the man who was deciding whether to seek death on behalf of the government in the State of Texas for 15 years so far.

But, that's the law in the State of Texas, so he is not doing anything wrong for following the law, right?

Let's see.

In November of 2015 DA Garza announced his bid for yet another re-election (by the way, Henry Garza looks older in his 2014 picture than on his current official website picture indicating some vanity issues in DA Garza, an obvious problem for a death penalty prosecutor), compare:

In his re-election bid announced on November 11, 2015, DA Henry Garza claimed that

"he's dedicated to the idea of fairness in criminal justice and plans to continue his dedication to the residents of Bell County."

Once again:

DA Garza is "dedicated to the idea of fairness in criminal justice".

Is he?

In February of 2014, a Texas grand jury returned a "no-bill" and refused to indict a man who shot and killed a police officer during a "no-knock" raid.

Imagine ninja-clad armed people climbing into your window in the wee hours of the morning - are you supposed to presume they are police officers and not defend yourself and your family, with deadly force?

So, a Texas grand jury reasonably concluded that there is nothing to charge the man for when he believed he is being attacked and is risking death from home invaders.

The "no-bill" was returned, once again, in February of 2014, in Burleston County, Texas.

Burleston County DA Julie Renken presented to that grand jury a capital murder case.

The grand jury refused to charge any crime.

Look at the face of a DA who sought death penalty for a person's legal action, an obvious self-defense against a home invasion:

Homey, kind, compassionate, right?

This is the face of an attempted murderer.

Of course, a police media outlet in 2013 reported what happened in a completely different way.

There was no mentioning that it was a no-knock raid.

There was no mentioning that police officers did not identify themselves before storming the Magee residence.

The article only stated that Mr. Magee shot a police officer when "a team of eight deputies served a search warrant at a mobile home".

The search warrant was because of a tip that Mr. Magee was growing marijuana - a non-violent "crime".

Here is a table of similar no-knock raids in several states from 2001 to 2014, as reported by the media, and of results of such raids:

No.	Date	State		Death penalty state? Y/N		Name of fallen police officer	Name of defendant	Race of defendant	Circum- Stances Of the case	Outcome
1	December, 2001	Mississippi	Yes		Ron Jones		Cory Jermaine Maye	Black	Girlfriend and child at home; A no-knock drug raid, a tip from a racist informant; defendant had no prior criminal record, DOB September 9, 1980 – 21 years old at the time of the raid	Charged, convicted of capital murder, sentenced to death;sentence overturned in 2006 on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds; conviction overturned in 2010;  in 2009, the conviction was overturned for denial of the right of vicinage; in 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction for denial of self-defense instruction regarding Maye’s infant daughter;  Maye was coerced to plead guilty to a lesser charge in 2011 in exchange for immediate release and time served
2	January 2008	Virginia	Yes		Jarrod Shivers		Ryan Frederick	White	No-knock drug raid for growing marijuana; Drug raid was based on information from a criminal/informant who DID break into the home of Ryan Frederick 3 days prior	Capital murder, death penalty sought, jury convicted for lesser charge of manslaughter, defendant was sentenced to a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison
3	January 4, 2011	Utah	Yes		Jared Francom		Matthew David Stewart	White	Pot-growing raid with a battering ram;  defendant was an Army veteran; defendant was sleeping and naked when the home was breached, one police officer was killed and several injured	Charged with capital murder, prosecutors announced they will seek death penalty; hung himself in his pre-trial detention cell after a judge denied dismissal of charges based on self-defense
4	December, 2013	Texas	Yes		Adam Sowder		Henry Magee	White	Pot-growing no-knock raid	Capital murder case presented to the grand jury, grand jury refused to indict;  but, indicted for felony possession of marijuana while possessing a deadly weapon
5	May 16, 2014	Texas	Yes		Charles Dinwiddie		Marvin Louis Guy, age 50	Black	No-knock drug raid	Indicted for capital murder, prosecution is seeking death penalty, the trial is set for September 26, 2016

The raids were for growing marijuana.

Washington and Colorado, the states where marijuana was legalized, received, respectively, 70 million dollars in taxes (Washington) and 76 million dollars in taxes (Colorado) in the year 2014. 


Instead, the states of Utah, Mississippi, Virginia and Texas wasted thousands of tax dollars on law enforcement and prosecution of pot-growers, sent police officers into no-knock raids knowing that they may be killed as presumed home invaders, buried at least 5 officers killed as home invaders, paid for injuries of many more and spent and will spend millions of dollars on prosecution, incarceration, feeding, housing and medical treatment of people who killed officers as home invaders, in self-defense.

Officers:

1. Ron Jones, of Mississippi, age 29, on the force for 5 years when killed; survived by parents and two brothers;
2. Jarrod Shivers, of Virginia, age 34, on the force for 8 years when killed, who left behind a wife, a son and two daughters, parents, siblings and grandparents;
3. Jared Francom, of Utah, age 31, survived by a wife and two young children;
4. Adam Sowder, of Texas, age 31, 7 years on the force;
5. Charles Dinwiddie, of Texas, age 47, 18 tears on the force, left behind a wife, two children, parents, multiple siblings, nephews and nieces.

All of what happened is grossly unfair.

To the officers whose lives were cut short.

To their families.

To the people who were put into the position of self-defense, exercised it and were charged with capital murder.

To their families.

The deaths of these five police officers are on their superiors, the prosecutors and the judges who authorized the no-knock raids.

Yet, the officers paid with their lives.

Other officers paid with their injuries.

The officers' families paid with life-long loss and grief.

People who were defending their homes paid with:

1. the life (Matthew Stewart),
2. 10 years in prison and coerced violent criminal record for manslaughter because it was beneath the prosecution to admit they did something wrong and withdraw the charges completely (Cory Maye),
3. the stress and publicity of criminal prosecution (Henry Magee);
4. incarceration for 10 years (Ryan Frederick);
5. possibly, death penalty (Marvin Guy).

There is no indication that ANY of those people who:

1) directed a criminal to break into an apartment to provide a probable cause for the raid (Ryan Frederick's case);

2) sent armed no-knock raids into homes with children (Cory Maey);

3) sent police officers to near-sure deaths because of a POT-GROWING OPERATION, -

that any of these people suffered any repercussions, demotion, discipline, prosecution - anything.

One of these people is the former president and present chairman of the National District Attorneys' Association, the Bell County (Texas) Da Henry Garza.

DA Garza is now, at the same time, running a re-election campaign for his 5th term in office, and is prosecuting Marvin Louis Guy for capital murder of police officer Charles Dinwiddie - instead of prosecuting those who have sent officer Charles Dinwiddie on a no-knock raid that could be perceived by ANY reasonable person as a home invasion, warranting self-defense by deadly force, which is what, in fact, occurred.

Let's compare the dates.

The no-knock raid against Henry Magee, in Texas, occurred in December of 2013 and the grand jury refused to indict in February of 2014.

Instead of rethinking the policy of no-knock raids and protecting police officers from death under similar circumstances, in May of 2014, 3 months after a Texas grand jury refused to indict Henry Magee for the shooting death of officer Adam Sowder, Bell County officials sought an identical no-knock raid, and sent officer Charles Dinwiddie into a sure death.

There are allegations that decisions to prosecute or not prosecute in such cases were racially based.

My table above does not allow for such a conclusion, without more evidence.

3 out of 5 defendants were white.

Prosecution for capital murder was sought against all five defendants.

One of the white defendants hung himself during the trial.

Another white defendant was "no-billed" by the grand jury, after the prosecution presented "hours of testimony".

The only racial aspect in the case of Marvin Guy that I would explore is whether the racial composition of his grand jury was predominantly white - but, in view of grand jury secrecy, I am not sure whether such information will be provided to the defense, and especially to the media.

The case of Marvin Guy is asking for a dismissal or jury nullification.

DA Garza knows this is a clear self-defense case.

But, DA Garza wants to be re-elected, and he won't be re-elected if he is not running a pro-death penalty Republican re-election campaign in the state of Texas, and if he does not cater for law enforcement who wants blood for the death of their brother.

Of course, the death of their brother, even if caused by Marvin Guy's bullet, was actually caused by those brainless public officials who have authorized and sent the no-knock raid team to raid Marvin Guy's home, even after the "no-bill" for Henry Magee.

The other possible racial motivation of the raid is because Marvin Guy, a black man, was chosen for the "no-knock" raid.

After all, growing marijuana is a very common crime, and it is common across all races.

So, why choose a black man for the raid right after a white man was "no-billed" for the same?

And, why DA Garza, who claimed he is running for re-election because he wants "fairness in the criminal justice" system not withdraw charges and end this farce?

DA Garza should know, after all, that to charge a person who is defending against a home invasion, is inherently unfair.

Or, is the sweetness of re-election to the position that pays $140,000 a year outweighing the unfairness of seeking government-authorized murder of a man for exercising his legal right of self-defense?

Apparently, the "voice" of American prosecutors has answered a resounding "yes" to that question.

Henry Garza is no more than a salesman.

Of the death penalty.

At the cost of lives of police officers and the life of the criminal defendant.

At the cost of devastation of families on both sides.

And, until and unless people realize who is the real culprit in the death of officer Charles Dinwiddie, and demand real accountability of the real culprits, more officers will be put in the exact same position, and in the exact same danger of death or serious injury - so that more salesmen like Henry Garza would claim political capital in their election campaigns.