Sweetwater scandal: Ed Brand’s claims contradicted
Did he or didn’t he ask for $40,000?
By Susan Luzzaro
San Diego Reader
June 2, 2013
On May 30, the U-T published the testimony of Sweetwater Union High School superintendent Ed Brand, given to the San Diego County Grand Jury late last year.
In November–December 2012, the grand jury conducted secret hearings to inquire into the alleged corruption of trustees, administrators, and contractors in three South County school districts. Ultimately, 15 trustees, administrators, and contractors were indicted as a result of the proceedings.
Brand told U-T reporter Aaron Burgin on May 30, “If I knew what I know when they asked me to come back [as superintendent of the Sweetwater school district], I wouldn’t have done it.” (Brand's first stint as superintendent spanned 1995–2005; he returned in 2011.)
Brand also complained to Burgin that there was too much contractor influence in the district and that three trustees had asked him to go to the president of Seville Group Inc, Rene Flores, for campaign donations. (Seville Group Inc, or SGI, managed the district’s $644 million Proposition O bond until January 2012.)
The U-T reported: “He [Brand] said that within the first six to eight days of his arrival, [Bertha] Lopez, [Pearl] Quiñones, and John McCann asked him to solicit campaign donations from SGI President Rene Flores and Jaime Ortiz, the company’s bond manager.”
In the grand jury transcripts, deputy district attorney Leon Schorr asked Brand: “Did you ask him [Flores] on behalf of McCann, [Jim] Cartmill, [Arlie] Ricasa, Quiñones, or Lopez for any contributions?” Brand answers: “No. Never.”
But in another volume of the transcripts that have been officially released to the public (Brand’s were not) Flores tells deputy district attorney Schorr:
“I want to say something very quick. Dr. Brand in December asked me to give an additional $20,000 to both John McCann and Jim Cartmill and I didn’t do it right away during December for tax purposes. And so I didn’t do it. So he suspended us [SGI] without any reason…and subsequent to that there’s been evaluations done and we have been cleared — my company has been cleared of any wrongdoing.”
So, it seems there is a contradiction in the sworn statements.
Showing posts with label Perjury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Perjury. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
UCLA chemistry professor ordered to stand trial in fatal lab fire
See all posts re UCLA.
See all posts on UCLA from Thank Heaven for Insurance Companies blog.
Sheri Sangji
It isn't just the Medical Center at UCLA that hires lawyers to help it avoid responsibility for unnecessary deaths. The Chemistry Department does it, too.
UCLA chemistry professor ordered to stand trial in fatal lab fire
By Kim Christensen
LA Times
April 26, 2013
UCLA chemistry professor Patrick Harran has been ordered Friday to stand trial on felony charges stemming from a laboratory fire that killed staff research assistant Sheharbano “Sheri” Sangji more than four years ago.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa Lench denied a defense motion to dismiss the case, which is believed to be the first such prosecution involving a U.S. academic lab accident.
Harran is charged with willfully violating state occupational health and safety codes and faces up to 4 1/2 years in prison if convicted.
DOCUMENTS: Report finds fault in death of lab assistant
"We fully expect to vindicate Professor Harran,” his attorney, Thomas O’Brien, said after the hearing. “This was an accident, a tragic accident. We have always maintained that, as the University of California has, and we expect him to be vindicated.”
Sangji, 23, was not wearing a protective lab coat Dec. 29, 2008, when a plastic syringe she was using to transfer t-butyl lithium from one sealed container to another came apart, spewing a chemical compound that ignites when exposed to air. She suffered extensive burns and died 18 days later.
Harran, 43, is accused of failing to correct unsafe work conditions in a timely manner, to require clothing appropriate for the work being done and to provide proper chemical safety training.
From the outset, he and UCLA have cast Sangji’s death as an accident and said she was an experienced chemist who was trained in the experiment and chose not to wear a protective lab coat.
Harran’s lawyers sought to bolster those contentions during a preliminary hearing that spanned several days late last year and in a written motion to dismiss the felony charges or have them reduced to misdemeanors.
Among other things, they argued that Harran believed that Sangji, who had graduated just five months earlier from Pomona College in Claremont with a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, was adequately trained by a previous employer and by a senior researcher in Harran’s lab.
Prosecutors countered that there is no evidence that Harran or anyone else trained Sangji in the handling of the chemicals that set her clothing ablaze, causing severe burns over nearly half her body.
“The bottom line with regard to the lack of training provided by defendant Harran is that, if victim Sangji had been properly trained ... victim Sangji would be alive today,” they wrote in court papers.
Deadly UCLA lab fire leaves haunting questions
Problems at UCLA went unfixed for two months before a young researcher was burned in a chemical accident.
By Kim Christensen
LA Times
March 1, 2009
UCLA's Molecular Sciences Building was mostly closed for the holidays on Dec. 29 as research assistant Sheri Sangji worked on an organic chemistry experiment.
Only three months into her job in the lab, the 23-year-old Pomona College graduate was using a plastic syringe to extract from a sealed container a small quantity of t-butyl lithium -- a chemical compound that ignites instantly when exposed to air.
As she withdrew the liquid, the syringe came apart in her hands, spewing flaming chemicals, according to a UCLA accident report. A flash fire set her clothing ablaze and spread second- and third-degree burns over 43% of her body.
Eighteen excruciating days later, Sangji died in a hospital burn unit.
"It is horrifying," said her sister Naveen, 26, a Harvard medical student. "Sheri wasn't out doing something stupid. She was working in a lab at one of the largest universities in the world. She gets these horrific injuries and loses her life to these injuries and we still don't know how it happened or why it wasn't prevented."
Sangji's death was more than a tragic workplace accident. It also raised serious questions about the university's attention to laboratory safety.
"It was totally preventable," said Neal Langerman, a San Diego consultant and former head of the American Chemical Society's Division of Chemical Health and Safety, whose members were given a detailed account of the incident by a University of California safety official.
"Poor training, poor technique, lack of supervision and improper method. This was just not the right way to transfer these things," Langerman said. "She died, didn't she? It speaks for itself."
Two months earlier, UCLA safety inspectors found more than a dozen deficiencies in the same lab, Molecular Sciences Room 4221, according to internal investigative and inspection reports reviewed by The Times. Among the findings: Employees were not wearing requisite protective lab coats, and flammable liquids and volatile chemicals were stored improperly.
Chemical Safety Officer Michael Wheatley sent the inspection report to the researcher who oversees the lab, professor Patrick Harran, as well as to the head of the Chemistry and Biochemistry Department and a top UCLA safety official. The report directed that problems be fixed by Dec. 5.
But the required corrective action was not taken, records show, and on Dec. 29 all that stood between Sangji's torso and the fire that engulfed her was a highly flammable, synthetic sweater that fueled the flames.
Under scrutiny
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health is investigating, as are the Office of the State Fire Marshal, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. A spokeswoman for Cal/OSHA, the lead agency, said she could not comment on the investigation...
Patrick Harran
Facing felony charges in lab death of Sheri Sangji, UCLA settles, Harran stretches credulity
By Janet D. Stemwedel
Scientific American
July 31, 2012
There have been recent developments in the criminal case against UCLA and chemistry professor Patrick Harran in connection with the fatal laboratory accident that resulted in the death of Sheri Sangji (which we’ve discussed here and here). The positive development is that UCLA has reached a plea agreement with prosecutors. (CORRECTION: UCLA has reached a settlement agreement with the prosecutors, not a plea agreement. Sorry for the confusion.) However, Patrick Harran’s legal strategy has taken a turn that strikes me as ill-advised.
From the Los Angeles Times:
Half of the felony charges stemming from a 2008 lab accident that killed UCLA research assistant Sheri Sangji were dropped Friday when the University of California regents agreed to follow comprehensive safety measures and endow a $500,000 scholarship in her name.
“The regents acknowledge and accept responsibility for the conditions under which the laboratory operated on Dec. 29, 2008,” the agreement read in part, referring to the date that Sangji, 23, suffered fatal burns.
Charges remain against her supervisor, chemistry professor Patrick Harran. His arraignment was postponed to Sept. 5 to allow the judge to consider defense motions, including one challenging the credibility of the state’s chief investigator on the case. …
UCLA and Harran have called her death a tragic accident and said she was a seasoned chemist who chose not to wear a protective lab coat. …
In court papers this week, Harran’s lawyers said prosecutors had matched the fingerprints of Brian Baudendistel, a senior special investigator who handled the case for the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health, with the prints of a teenager who pleaded no contest to murder in Northern California in 1985.
The defense contends that the investigator, whose report formed the basis for the charges, is the same Brian A. Baudendistel who took part in a plot to rob a drug dealer of $3,000 worth of methamphetamine, then shot him. Another teenager admitted to pulling the trigger but said it was Baudendistel’s shotgun.
Baudendistel told The Times this week that it is a case of mistaken identity and that he is not the individual involved in the 1985 case.
Cal/OSHA defended the integrity of the investigation in a statement issued Friday by spokesman Dean Fryer.
“The defendants’ most recent attempt to deflect attention from the charges brought against them simply does not relate in any way to the circumstances of Ms. Sangji’s death or the actual evidence collected in Cal/OSHA’s comprehensive investigation,” it read.
Deborah Blum adds:
Should chemist-in-training approach hazardous chemicals with extreme caution? Yes. Should she expect her employer to provide her with the necessary information and equipment to engage in such caution? Most of us would argue yes. Should chemistry professors be held to the standard of employee safety as, say, chemical manufacturers or other industries? The most important “yes” to that question comes from Cal/OSHA senior investigator Brian Baudendistal.
Baudendistal concluded that the laboratory operation was careless enough for long enough to justify felony charges of willful negligence. The Sangji family, angered by those suggestions that Sheri’s experience should have taught her better, pushed for prosecution. Late last year the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office officially brought charges against Harran, UCLA, and the University of California system itself. …
[Harran's] lawyers have responded to the Baudendistal report in part by focusing on Baudendistal himself. They claim to have found evidence that in 1985 he and two friends conspired to set up the murder of a drug dealer. All three boys were convicted and although, since they were juveniles, the records were sealed, attorneys were able to identify the killers through press coverage at the time. Although Baudendistal has insisted that Harran’s defense team tracked down the wrong man, they say they have a fingerprint match to prove it. They say further that a man who covers up his past history is not credible – and therefore neither is is report on the UCLA laboratory.
I am not a lawyer, so I’m not terribly interested in speculating on the arcane legal considerations that might be driving this move by Harran’s legal team. (Chemjobber speculates that it might be a long shot they’re playing amid plea negotiations that are not going well.)
As someone with a professional interest in crime and punishment within scientific communities, and in ethics more broadly, I do, however, think it’s worth examining the logic of Patrick Harran’s legal strategy.
The strategy, as I understand it, is to cast aspersions on the Cal/OSHA report on the basis of the legal history of the senior investigator that prepared it — specifically, his alleged involvement as a teenager in 1985 in a murder plot.
Does a past bad act like this serve as prima facie reason to doubt the accuracy of the report of the investigation of conditions in Harran’s lab? It’s not clear how it could, especially if there were other investigators on the team, not alleged to be involved in such criminal behavior, who endorsed the claims in the report.v Unless, of course, the reason Harran’s legal team thinks we should doubt the accuracy of the report is that the senior investigator who prepared it is a habitual liar. To support the claim that he cannot be trusted, they point to a single alleged lie — denying involvement in the 1985 murder plot.
But this strikes me as a particularly dangerous strategy for Patrick Harran to pursue.
Essentially, the strategy rests on the claim that if a person has lied about some particular issue, we should assume that any claim that person makes, about whatever issue, might also be a lie. I’m not unsympathetic to this claim — trust is something that is earned, not simply assumed in the absence of clear evidence of dishonesty.
However, this same reasoning cannot help Patrick Harran’s credibility, given that he is on record describing Sheri Sangji, a 23-year-old with a bachelor’s degree, as an experienced chemist. Many have noted already that claiming Sheri Sangji was a experienced chemist is ridiculous on its face.
Thus, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that Patrick Harran lied when he described Sheri Sangji as an experienced chemist. And, if this is the case, following the reasoning advocated by his legal team, we must doubt the credibility of every other claim he has made — including claims about the safety training he did or did not provide to people in his lab, conditions in his lab in 2008 when the fatal accident happened, even whether he recommended that Sangji wear a lab coat.
If Patrick Harran was not lying when he said he believed Sheri Sangji was an experienced chemist, the other possibility is that he is incredibly stupid — certainly too stupid to be in charge of a lab where people work with potentially hazardous chemicals.
Some might posit that Harran’s claims about Sangji’s chemical experience were made on the advice of his legal team. That may well be, but I’m unclear on how lying on the advice of counsel is any less a lie. (If it is, this might well mitigate the “lie of omission” of an investigator advised by his lawyers that his juvenile record is sealed.) And if one lie is all it takes to decimate credibility, Harran is surely as vulnerable as Baudendistel.
Finally, a piece of free advice to PIs worrying that they may find themselves facing criminal charges should their students, postdocs, or technicians choose not to wear lab coats or other safety gear: It is perfectly reasonable to establish, and enforce, a lab policy that states that those choosing to opt out of the required safety equipment are also opting out of access to the laboratory.
See all posts on UCLA from Thank Heaven for Insurance Companies blog.
Sheri SangjiIt isn't just the Medical Center at UCLA that hires lawyers to help it avoid responsibility for unnecessary deaths. The Chemistry Department does it, too.
UCLA chemistry professor ordered to stand trial in fatal lab fire
By Kim Christensen
LA Times
April 26, 2013
UCLA chemistry professor Patrick Harran has been ordered Friday to stand trial on felony charges stemming from a laboratory fire that killed staff research assistant Sheharbano “Sheri” Sangji more than four years ago.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa Lench denied a defense motion to dismiss the case, which is believed to be the first such prosecution involving a U.S. academic lab accident.
Harran is charged with willfully violating state occupational health and safety codes and faces up to 4 1/2 years in prison if convicted.
DOCUMENTS: Report finds fault in death of lab assistant
"We fully expect to vindicate Professor Harran,” his attorney, Thomas O’Brien, said after the hearing. “This was an accident, a tragic accident. We have always maintained that, as the University of California has, and we expect him to be vindicated.”
Sangji, 23, was not wearing a protective lab coat Dec. 29, 2008, when a plastic syringe she was using to transfer t-butyl lithium from one sealed container to another came apart, spewing a chemical compound that ignites when exposed to air. She suffered extensive burns and died 18 days later.
Harran, 43, is accused of failing to correct unsafe work conditions in a timely manner, to require clothing appropriate for the work being done and to provide proper chemical safety training.
From the outset, he and UCLA have cast Sangji’s death as an accident and said she was an experienced chemist who was trained in the experiment and chose not to wear a protective lab coat.
Harran’s lawyers sought to bolster those contentions during a preliminary hearing that spanned several days late last year and in a written motion to dismiss the felony charges or have them reduced to misdemeanors.
Among other things, they argued that Harran believed that Sangji, who had graduated just five months earlier from Pomona College in Claremont with a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, was adequately trained by a previous employer and by a senior researcher in Harran’s lab.
Prosecutors countered that there is no evidence that Harran or anyone else trained Sangji in the handling of the chemicals that set her clothing ablaze, causing severe burns over nearly half her body.
“The bottom line with regard to the lack of training provided by defendant Harran is that, if victim Sangji had been properly trained ... victim Sangji would be alive today,” they wrote in court papers.
Deadly UCLA lab fire leaves haunting questions
Problems at UCLA went unfixed for two months before a young researcher was burned in a chemical accident.
By Kim Christensen
LA Times
March 1, 2009
UCLA's Molecular Sciences Building was mostly closed for the holidays on Dec. 29 as research assistant Sheri Sangji worked on an organic chemistry experiment.
Only three months into her job in the lab, the 23-year-old Pomona College graduate was using a plastic syringe to extract from a sealed container a small quantity of t-butyl lithium -- a chemical compound that ignites instantly when exposed to air.
As she withdrew the liquid, the syringe came apart in her hands, spewing flaming chemicals, according to a UCLA accident report. A flash fire set her clothing ablaze and spread second- and third-degree burns over 43% of her body.
Eighteen excruciating days later, Sangji died in a hospital burn unit.
"It is horrifying," said her sister Naveen, 26, a Harvard medical student. "Sheri wasn't out doing something stupid. She was working in a lab at one of the largest universities in the world. She gets these horrific injuries and loses her life to these injuries and we still don't know how it happened or why it wasn't prevented."
Sangji's death was more than a tragic workplace accident. It also raised serious questions about the university's attention to laboratory safety.
"It was totally preventable," said Neal Langerman, a San Diego consultant and former head of the American Chemical Society's Division of Chemical Health and Safety, whose members were given a detailed account of the incident by a University of California safety official.
"Poor training, poor technique, lack of supervision and improper method. This was just not the right way to transfer these things," Langerman said. "She died, didn't she? It speaks for itself."
Two months earlier, UCLA safety inspectors found more than a dozen deficiencies in the same lab, Molecular Sciences Room 4221, according to internal investigative and inspection reports reviewed by The Times. Among the findings: Employees were not wearing requisite protective lab coats, and flammable liquids and volatile chemicals were stored improperly.
Chemical Safety Officer Michael Wheatley sent the inspection report to the researcher who oversees the lab, professor Patrick Harran, as well as to the head of the Chemistry and Biochemistry Department and a top UCLA safety official. The report directed that problems be fixed by Dec. 5.
But the required corrective action was not taken, records show, and on Dec. 29 all that stood between Sangji's torso and the fire that engulfed her was a highly flammable, synthetic sweater that fueled the flames.
Under scrutiny
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health is investigating, as are the Office of the State Fire Marshal, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. A spokeswoman for Cal/OSHA, the lead agency, said she could not comment on the investigation...
Patrick HarranFacing felony charges in lab death of Sheri Sangji, UCLA settles, Harran stretches credulity
By Janet D. Stemwedel
Scientific American
July 31, 2012
There have been recent developments in the criminal case against UCLA and chemistry professor Patrick Harran in connection with the fatal laboratory accident that resulted in the death of Sheri Sangji (which we’ve discussed here and here). The positive development is that UCLA has reached a plea agreement with prosecutors. (CORRECTION: UCLA has reached a settlement agreement with the prosecutors, not a plea agreement. Sorry for the confusion.) However, Patrick Harran’s legal strategy has taken a turn that strikes me as ill-advised.
From the Los Angeles Times:
Half of the felony charges stemming from a 2008 lab accident that killed UCLA research assistant Sheri Sangji were dropped Friday when the University of California regents agreed to follow comprehensive safety measures and endow a $500,000 scholarship in her name.
“The regents acknowledge and accept responsibility for the conditions under which the laboratory operated on Dec. 29, 2008,” the agreement read in part, referring to the date that Sangji, 23, suffered fatal burns.
Charges remain against her supervisor, chemistry professor Patrick Harran. His arraignment was postponed to Sept. 5 to allow the judge to consider defense motions, including one challenging the credibility of the state’s chief investigator on the case. …
UCLA and Harran have called her death a tragic accident and said she was a seasoned chemist who chose not to wear a protective lab coat. …
In court papers this week, Harran’s lawyers said prosecutors had matched the fingerprints of Brian Baudendistel, a senior special investigator who handled the case for the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health, with the prints of a teenager who pleaded no contest to murder in Northern California in 1985.
The defense contends that the investigator, whose report formed the basis for the charges, is the same Brian A. Baudendistel who took part in a plot to rob a drug dealer of $3,000 worth of methamphetamine, then shot him. Another teenager admitted to pulling the trigger but said it was Baudendistel’s shotgun.
Baudendistel told The Times this week that it is a case of mistaken identity and that he is not the individual involved in the 1985 case.
Cal/OSHA defended the integrity of the investigation in a statement issued Friday by spokesman Dean Fryer.
“The defendants’ most recent attempt to deflect attention from the charges brought against them simply does not relate in any way to the circumstances of Ms. Sangji’s death or the actual evidence collected in Cal/OSHA’s comprehensive investigation,” it read.
Deborah Blum adds:
Should chemist-in-training approach hazardous chemicals with extreme caution? Yes. Should she expect her employer to provide her with the necessary information and equipment to engage in such caution? Most of us would argue yes. Should chemistry professors be held to the standard of employee safety as, say, chemical manufacturers or other industries? The most important “yes” to that question comes from Cal/OSHA senior investigator Brian Baudendistal.
Baudendistal concluded that the laboratory operation was careless enough for long enough to justify felony charges of willful negligence. The Sangji family, angered by those suggestions that Sheri’s experience should have taught her better, pushed for prosecution. Late last year the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office officially brought charges against Harran, UCLA, and the University of California system itself. …
[Harran's] lawyers have responded to the Baudendistal report in part by focusing on Baudendistal himself. They claim to have found evidence that in 1985 he and two friends conspired to set up the murder of a drug dealer. All three boys were convicted and although, since they were juveniles, the records were sealed, attorneys were able to identify the killers through press coverage at the time. Although Baudendistal has insisted that Harran’s defense team tracked down the wrong man, they say they have a fingerprint match to prove it. They say further that a man who covers up his past history is not credible – and therefore neither is is report on the UCLA laboratory.
I am not a lawyer, so I’m not terribly interested in speculating on the arcane legal considerations that might be driving this move by Harran’s legal team. (Chemjobber speculates that it might be a long shot they’re playing amid plea negotiations that are not going well.)
As someone with a professional interest in crime and punishment within scientific communities, and in ethics more broadly, I do, however, think it’s worth examining the logic of Patrick Harran’s legal strategy.
The strategy, as I understand it, is to cast aspersions on the Cal/OSHA report on the basis of the legal history of the senior investigator that prepared it — specifically, his alleged involvement as a teenager in 1985 in a murder plot.
Does a past bad act like this serve as prima facie reason to doubt the accuracy of the report of the investigation of conditions in Harran’s lab? It’s not clear how it could, especially if there were other investigators on the team, not alleged to be involved in such criminal behavior, who endorsed the claims in the report.v Unless, of course, the reason Harran’s legal team thinks we should doubt the accuracy of the report is that the senior investigator who prepared it is a habitual liar. To support the claim that he cannot be trusted, they point to a single alleged lie — denying involvement in the 1985 murder plot.
But this strikes me as a particularly dangerous strategy for Patrick Harran to pursue.
Essentially, the strategy rests on the claim that if a person has lied about some particular issue, we should assume that any claim that person makes, about whatever issue, might also be a lie. I’m not unsympathetic to this claim — trust is something that is earned, not simply assumed in the absence of clear evidence of dishonesty.
However, this same reasoning cannot help Patrick Harran’s credibility, given that he is on record describing Sheri Sangji, a 23-year-old with a bachelor’s degree, as an experienced chemist. Many have noted already that claiming Sheri Sangji was a experienced chemist is ridiculous on its face.
Thus, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that Patrick Harran lied when he described Sheri Sangji as an experienced chemist. And, if this is the case, following the reasoning advocated by his legal team, we must doubt the credibility of every other claim he has made — including claims about the safety training he did or did not provide to people in his lab, conditions in his lab in 2008 when the fatal accident happened, even whether he recommended that Sangji wear a lab coat.
If Patrick Harran was not lying when he said he believed Sheri Sangji was an experienced chemist, the other possibility is that he is incredibly stupid — certainly too stupid to be in charge of a lab where people work with potentially hazardous chemicals.Some might posit that Harran’s claims about Sangji’s chemical experience were made on the advice of his legal team. That may well be, but I’m unclear on how lying on the advice of counsel is any less a lie. (If it is, this might well mitigate the “lie of omission” of an investigator advised by his lawyers that his juvenile record is sealed.) And if one lie is all it takes to decimate credibility, Harran is surely as vulnerable as Baudendistel.
Finally, a piece of free advice to PIs worrying that they may find themselves facing criminal charges should their students, postdocs, or technicians choose not to wear lab coats or other safety gear: It is perfectly reasonable to establish, and enforce, a lab policy that states that those choosing to opt out of the required safety equipment are also opting out of access to the laboratory.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Like many other bullies, Lance Armstrong sued a woman for defamation even though he knew she was telling the truth
Lance Armstrong may be sued by Emma O’Reilly, the
former masseuse and assistant on the US Postal team
Emma O’Reilly, who was called an “alcoholic whore” by Lance Armstrong, is considering taking legal action against him.
By Brendan Gallagher
Telegraph
20 Jan 2013
O’Reilly, a masseuse and assistant on the US Postal team, suffered the verbal abuse from Armstrong and then the nightmare of a 2½-year lawsuit after she made the revelations about the disgraced cyclist in a 2004 book.
But although she is considering taking legal action against Armstrong, she said on Sunday she was also weighing up whether to show him the compassion he never offered her.
Her dilemma seems to demonstrate that of cycling generally. There is the desire to punish the man for his monstrous behaviour but, at the same time, also a hope that an olive branch will encourage him to tell the complete truth, providing the sport with information it badly needs.
“Sometimes in life you should stand up and be counted and women should not be spoken to, and spoken about in the way he did,” O’Reilly said on Sunday when asked about the legal action she might take...
People shouldn’t be able to speak about other people like that and get away with it. The libel laws in England did protect Lance and they didn’t protect the people telling the truth. That is something that has to be addressed...
Emma O’Reilly, who was called an “alcoholic whore” by Lance Armstrong, is considering taking legal action against him.
By Brendan Gallagher
Telegraph
20 Jan 2013
O’Reilly, a masseuse and assistant on the US Postal team, suffered the verbal abuse from Armstrong and then the nightmare of a 2½-year lawsuit after she made the revelations about the disgraced cyclist in a 2004 book.
But although she is considering taking legal action against Armstrong, she said on Sunday she was also weighing up whether to show him the compassion he never offered her.
Her dilemma seems to demonstrate that of cycling generally. There is the desire to punish the man for his monstrous behaviour but, at the same time, also a hope that an olive branch will encourage him to tell the complete truth, providing the sport with information it badly needs.
“Sometimes in life you should stand up and be counted and women should not be spoken to, and spoken about in the way he did,” O’Reilly said on Sunday when asked about the legal action she might take...
People shouldn’t be able to speak about other people like that and get away with it. The libel laws in England did protect Lance and they didn’t protect the people telling the truth. That is something that has to be addressed...
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Thomas Nugent, judge in Bruce Kelman v. Sharon Kramer defamation case between experts on toxic mold, jails one health advocate
See Sharon Kramer's site.
Sharon Kramer, a health advocate who testified in toxic mold cases, was sued in 2010 by a fellow expert for defamation. She was found liable for writing, “Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand" in the article at the bottom of this post. But Kramer says someone else wrote the article, and she was merely referenced as an expert.
In 2012, after a trial, in which Plaintiff was represented by Keith Scheuer and defendant represented herself, Judge Thomas Nugent of San Diego Superior Court ordered Kramer to sign a statement including the words, “I do not believe Dr. Kelman committed perjury."
Judge Nugent threw Ms. Kramer in jail for three days for contempt for refusing to sign this statement. After three days, he freed her, recognizing that she had not made the statement that she was accused of making, and that opposing counsel had simply made it appear that she had made this accusation.
Here's the March 14, 2012 court transcript:
North San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 30, case number 2010-00061530
THE HONORABLE THOMAS NUGENT: “…I recalled you even said that it wasn’t you who had accused the gentleman of perjury or of altering his testimony. It was rather counsel’s efforts to try to make it sound that way. I don’t know if I remember that right or not, if you did say that or that is how you feel.
[Maura Larkins comment: Judge Nugent should not be concerned with Ms. Kramer's feelings--only with her actual publications.]
THE HONORABLE THOMAS NUGENT: More importantly, I would really strongly urge you give every consideration to agreeing to the proposal counsel made which simply said, “I didn’t mean that”. “I didn’t mean to suggest that”. I’m not saying you have to do that. I’m not. You didn’t hear that from me...
SHARON KRAMER: “No. I did not hear the important thing. I did not hear an apology that the courts framed me for libel seven years ago and I am sitting here in handcuffs for speaking the truth about fraud and policy. If you want to send me back to jail, fine. But I’m not signing an apology for the courts doing that...No. What you’re asking me to do is fraud– to collude with the court to defraud the public...
On March 27, 2012 the following post was published on ContemptOfCourtFor.Me:
"[On] March 13...While Mrs. Kramer was unlawfully incarcerated and being given a false criminal record in the County of San Diego, California, Mr. Kelman was rendering an Expert Toxicologist Opinion on behalf of the County of Orange, California. His “expert” opinion was that the Social Security Administration building in which an abnormal number of employees have cancer and autoimmune diseases, is safe for occupancy by the County employees.”
[Maura Larkins comment: Apparently a Louisiana jury did not believe Mr. Kelman, and found that Social Security workers had indeed been sickened by mold.]
...[A]fter being unlawfully incarcerated for refusing to commit perjury which would aid to defraud the public...She was made to appear before the Court...in handcuffs, chains and jail garb with no make up, unbrushed hair & two nights of very little sleep...
While feigning confusion, the Court acknowledged the evidence that Mrs. Kramer was framed for libel by Mr. Kelman’s attorney and the prior courts. No longer mandatory, the Court still strongly urged Mrs. Kramer to sign the fraudulent retraction under penalty of perjury after giving her a false criminal record and incarcerating her for refusing to retract something that she did not do – with the underlying matter having broad adverse impact on public health policy..
On 08/31/2012 there was a Motion Hearing (Civil) at 01:30:00 PM. Ms. Kramer was sanctioned $3000 for three statements.
Jury Finds "Toxic Mold" Harmed Oregon Family, Builder's Arbitration Clause Not Binding
(PRWEB)
March 9, 2005
A Clackamas County jury on Friday (March 4, 2005) held Adair Homes Inc. responsible for faulty construction practices that caused toxic mold to thrive inside Paul and Renee Haynes' new home in Sandy, Oregon. The jury also found Adair's negligence caused illness in Mrs. Haynes and the couple's two small children – Michael, 6, and Liam, 4. The family experienced severe respiratory, digestive and cognitive impairment. One half of a million dollars was awarded to the injured family.
The case is a first in the Northwest to award damages for personal injury to a family exposed to mold in a newly built home. "This verdict is significant because it holds construction companies responsible when they negligently build sick buildings,” said Kelly Vance, the family's attorney.
Adair Homes, Inc. which builds hundreds of residences each year in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, built the house on the Hayne's five acres in early 2002. Four months after moving in and becoming ill, the family discovered rampant mold growth inside the walls of their new home. Dry wall and insulation were installed while the frame was wet from recent heavy rains. Evidence presented during the trial proved there was standing water in the wall cavities and the crawl space long after the construction was completed. This led to the growth of the toxigenic fungi. “You couldn’t have made the framing in that house more wet if you had sprayed it with a firehose," stated Vance.
By the time the Haynes discovered the mold, it was too late. Mrs. Haynes and the children were exhibiting neurologic and immune system damage. Paul Haynes reported the problem to Adair Homes, but the company refused to take responsibility. The family was forced to flee their new house in an effort to save the health of the mother and young sons.
Two separate medical evaluations substantiated that both Renee Haynes and her son, Michael, had mold antibodies in their blood, indicative of dangerous exposure levels to mold. Numerous experts, including a fungal immunologist, an occupational therapist and a neuropsychologist testified concerning the Haynes children's developmental and sensory integration disorders that began shortly after moving into the Adair built home. The family's treating physicians and therapists agreed that Liam’s and Michael’s medical needs from the mold exposure will continue for several years to come. Michael’s teacher testified that he was placed in a special disabled room at school and may need to remain there until at least junior high school. She expects Liam to suffer the same fate.
Amazingly, the Haynes family almost did not even get to tell their story to a jury. Adair, like many other commercial entities, utilizes an arbitration clause in its contract. That clause designates a specific preferred arbitration service. Adair uses Construction Arbitration Services, Inc., a company based far away from Adair's market, in Dallas, Texas. After the case was filed, Adair moved to stay the case pending arbitration and submitted an affidavit from the owner of the arbitration service, Marshall Lippman. The judge allowed the case to go to trial when the family's attorney showed that Lippman had submitted a false affidavit concealing the fact that he had been disbarred by the State of New York and Washington D.C. The disbarments occurred because Lippman had been found to have stolen funds from his clients.
Dr.Bruce Kelman of GlobalTox,Inc, a Washington based environmental risk management company, testified as an expert witness for the defense, as he does in mold cases throughout the country. Upon viewing documents presented by the Hayne's attorney of Kelman's prior testimony from a case in Arizona, Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand. He admitted the Manhattan Institute, a national political think-tank, paid GlobalTox $40,000 to write a position paper regarding the potential health risks of toxic mold exposure. Although much medical research finds otherwise, the controversial piece claims that it is not plausible the types of illnesses experienced by the Haynes family and reported by thousands from across the US, could be caused by "toxic mold" exposure in homes, schools or office buildings.
In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce and ex-developer, US Congressman Gary Miller (R-CA), the GlobalTox paper was disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building industries' associations. A version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be found as a position statement on the website of a United States medical policy-writing body, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Contact:
Sharon Kramer
Mycotic Disease Awareness
760-822-8026
Sharon Kramer, a health advocate who testified in toxic mold cases, was sued in 2010 by a fellow expert for defamation. She was found liable for writing, “Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand" in the article at the bottom of this post. But Kramer says someone else wrote the article, and she was merely referenced as an expert.
In 2012, after a trial, in which Plaintiff was represented by Keith Scheuer and defendant represented herself, Judge Thomas Nugent of San Diego Superior Court ordered Kramer to sign a statement including the words, “I do not believe Dr. Kelman committed perjury."
Judge Nugent threw Ms. Kramer in jail for three days for contempt for refusing to sign this statement. After three days, he freed her, recognizing that she had not made the statement that she was accused of making, and that opposing counsel had simply made it appear that she had made this accusation.
Here's the March 14, 2012 court transcript:
North San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 30, case number 2010-00061530
THE HONORABLE THOMAS NUGENT: “…I recalled you even said that it wasn’t you who had accused the gentleman of perjury or of altering his testimony. It was rather counsel’s efforts to try to make it sound that way. I don’t know if I remember that right or not, if you did say that or that is how you feel.
[Maura Larkins comment: Judge Nugent should not be concerned with Ms. Kramer's feelings--only with her actual publications.]
THE HONORABLE THOMAS NUGENT: More importantly, I would really strongly urge you give every consideration to agreeing to the proposal counsel made which simply said, “I didn’t mean that”. “I didn’t mean to suggest that”. I’m not saying you have to do that. I’m not. You didn’t hear that from me...
SHARON KRAMER: “No. I did not hear the important thing. I did not hear an apology that the courts framed me for libel seven years ago and I am sitting here in handcuffs for speaking the truth about fraud and policy. If you want to send me back to jail, fine. But I’m not signing an apology for the courts doing that...No. What you’re asking me to do is fraud– to collude with the court to defraud the public...
On March 27, 2012 the following post was published on ContemptOfCourtFor.Me:
"[On] March 13...While Mrs. Kramer was unlawfully incarcerated and being given a false criminal record in the County of San Diego, California, Mr. Kelman was rendering an Expert Toxicologist Opinion on behalf of the County of Orange, California. His “expert” opinion was that the Social Security Administration building in which an abnormal number of employees have cancer and autoimmune diseases, is safe for occupancy by the County employees.”
[Maura Larkins comment: Apparently a Louisiana jury did not believe Mr. Kelman, and found that Social Security workers had indeed been sickened by mold.]
...[A]fter being unlawfully incarcerated for refusing to commit perjury which would aid to defraud the public...She was made to appear before the Court...in handcuffs, chains and jail garb with no make up, unbrushed hair & two nights of very little sleep...
While feigning confusion, the Court acknowledged the evidence that Mrs. Kramer was framed for libel by Mr. Kelman’s attorney and the prior courts. No longer mandatory, the Court still strongly urged Mrs. Kramer to sign the fraudulent retraction under penalty of perjury after giving her a false criminal record and incarcerating her for refusing to retract something that she did not do – with the underlying matter having broad adverse impact on public health policy..
On 08/31/2012 there was a Motion Hearing (Civil) at 01:30:00 PM. Ms. Kramer was sanctioned $3000 for three statements.
Jury Finds "Toxic Mold" Harmed Oregon Family, Builder's Arbitration Clause Not Binding
(PRWEB)
March 9, 2005
A Clackamas County jury on Friday (March 4, 2005) held Adair Homes Inc. responsible for faulty construction practices that caused toxic mold to thrive inside Paul and Renee Haynes' new home in Sandy, Oregon. The jury also found Adair's negligence caused illness in Mrs. Haynes and the couple's two small children – Michael, 6, and Liam, 4. The family experienced severe respiratory, digestive and cognitive impairment. One half of a million dollars was awarded to the injured family.
The case is a first in the Northwest to award damages for personal injury to a family exposed to mold in a newly built home. "This verdict is significant because it holds construction companies responsible when they negligently build sick buildings,” said Kelly Vance, the family's attorney.
Adair Homes, Inc. which builds hundreds of residences each year in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, built the house on the Hayne's five acres in early 2002. Four months after moving in and becoming ill, the family discovered rampant mold growth inside the walls of their new home. Dry wall and insulation were installed while the frame was wet from recent heavy rains. Evidence presented during the trial proved there was standing water in the wall cavities and the crawl space long after the construction was completed. This led to the growth of the toxigenic fungi. “You couldn’t have made the framing in that house more wet if you had sprayed it with a firehose," stated Vance.
By the time the Haynes discovered the mold, it was too late. Mrs. Haynes and the children were exhibiting neurologic and immune system damage. Paul Haynes reported the problem to Adair Homes, but the company refused to take responsibility. The family was forced to flee their new house in an effort to save the health of the mother and young sons.
Two separate medical evaluations substantiated that both Renee Haynes and her son, Michael, had mold antibodies in their blood, indicative of dangerous exposure levels to mold. Numerous experts, including a fungal immunologist, an occupational therapist and a neuropsychologist testified concerning the Haynes children's developmental and sensory integration disorders that began shortly after moving into the Adair built home. The family's treating physicians and therapists agreed that Liam’s and Michael’s medical needs from the mold exposure will continue for several years to come. Michael’s teacher testified that he was placed in a special disabled room at school and may need to remain there until at least junior high school. She expects Liam to suffer the same fate.
Amazingly, the Haynes family almost did not even get to tell their story to a jury. Adair, like many other commercial entities, utilizes an arbitration clause in its contract. That clause designates a specific preferred arbitration service. Adair uses Construction Arbitration Services, Inc., a company based far away from Adair's market, in Dallas, Texas. After the case was filed, Adair moved to stay the case pending arbitration and submitted an affidavit from the owner of the arbitration service, Marshall Lippman. The judge allowed the case to go to trial when the family's attorney showed that Lippman had submitted a false affidavit concealing the fact that he had been disbarred by the State of New York and Washington D.C. The disbarments occurred because Lippman had been found to have stolen funds from his clients.
Dr.Bruce Kelman of GlobalTox,Inc, a Washington based environmental risk management company, testified as an expert witness for the defense, as he does in mold cases throughout the country. Upon viewing documents presented by the Hayne's attorney of Kelman's prior testimony from a case in Arizona, Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand. He admitted the Manhattan Institute, a national political think-tank, paid GlobalTox $40,000 to write a position paper regarding the potential health risks of toxic mold exposure. Although much medical research finds otherwise, the controversial piece claims that it is not plausible the types of illnesses experienced by the Haynes family and reported by thousands from across the US, could be caused by "toxic mold" exposure in homes, schools or office buildings.
In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce and ex-developer, US Congressman Gary Miller (R-CA), the GlobalTox paper was disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building industries' associations. A version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be found as a position statement on the website of a United States medical policy-writing body, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Contact:
Sharon Kramer
Mycotic Disease Awareness
760-822-8026
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
George Zimmerman’s wife charged with perjury
George Zimmerman’s wife charged with perjury
By KYLE HIGHTOWER
The Associated Press
June 12, 2012
The wife of Trayvon Martin’s shooter was charged with perjury Tuesday, accused of lying when she told a judge that the couple had limited funds during a hearing that resulted in her husband being released on $150,000 bond.
Shellie Zimmerman, 25, was released on $1,000 bond. George Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder in the teen’s slaying and had been out on the bond after the April 20 hearing. However, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester on June 1 revoked the bond and ordered Zimmerman returned to the Seminole County Jail. Lester in a strongly worded ruling said the Zimmermans lied about how much money they had.
George Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara has said the couple was confused and fearful when they misled court officials about how much money they had. A call and email to him on Tuesday weren’t immediately returned.
Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband’s credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman’s account to his sister’s in the days before the bond hearing.
Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband’s account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam’s Club card.
A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had transfer control of her husband’s account.
Jeffrey Neiman, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said cash transactions in excess of $10,000 usually trigger a reporting requirement by the bank to multiple government agencies — including the IRS.
"If Mrs. Zimmerman intentionally structured the financial transactions in a manner to keep the offense under $10,000, not only may she have committed perjury in the state case, but she also may have run afoul of several federal statutes and could face serious federal criminal charges," Neiman wrote in an email to The Associated Press.
By KYLE HIGHTOWER
The Associated Press
June 12, 2012
The wife of Trayvon Martin’s shooter was charged with perjury Tuesday, accused of lying when she told a judge that the couple had limited funds during a hearing that resulted in her husband being released on $150,000 bond.
Shellie Zimmerman, 25, was released on $1,000 bond. George Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder in the teen’s slaying and had been out on the bond after the April 20 hearing. However, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester on June 1 revoked the bond and ordered Zimmerman returned to the Seminole County Jail. Lester in a strongly worded ruling said the Zimmermans lied about how much money they had.
George Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara has said the couple was confused and fearful when they misled court officials about how much money they had. A call and email to him on Tuesday weren’t immediately returned.
Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband’s credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman’s account to his sister’s in the days before the bond hearing.
Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband’s account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam’s Club card.
A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had transfer control of her husband’s account.
Jeffrey Neiman, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said cash transactions in excess of $10,000 usually trigger a reporting requirement by the bank to multiple government agencies — including the IRS.
"If Mrs. Zimmerman intentionally structured the financial transactions in a manner to keep the offense under $10,000, not only may she have committed perjury in the state case, but she also may have run afoul of several federal statutes and could face serious federal criminal charges," Neiman wrote in an email to The Associated Press.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Sheriff Joe Arpaio pals disbarred for perjury and intimidation
Sheriff Joe’s world crumbles
The controversial Arizona cop is prepping for a possible trial. But already, his closest allies have fallen
By John Dougherty
Apr 18, 2012
With fresh calls for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to face a federal criminal trial, many are predicting the end of his controversial career. What few people realize outside metropolitan Phoenix is how much Arpaio’s world has already fallen apart around him.
One-by-one, Arpaio’s closest allies have been forced from power or severed support, leaving the combative 79-year-old sheriff seeking his sixth term increasingly isolated and vulnerable as emboldened foes sharpen their attacks.
The latest Arpaio political supporter to fall is former Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas, who was disbarred April 10 for engaging in unethical conduct to intimidate and smear his and Arpaio’s political adversaries.
A stinging 247-page opinion written by a three-member Arizona state Supreme Court disciplinary panel supporting the disbarment ruling also concluded there was “beyond reasonable doubt” that Thomas had violated federal civil rights laws.
While Thomas, a Republican, has not been criminally charged, the opinion made it crystal clear that his unethical and allegedly illegal conduct was the result of his “unholy collaboration” with Arpaio, also a Republican, to use their law enforcement powers to retaliate against critics.
Thomas and an assistant prosecutor, Lisa Aubuchon, were disbarred for violating perjury and intimidation laws when they filed criminal charges against Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and two county supervisors, Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley.
All three of the criminal cases, filed in 2008 and 2009, were later dismissed for lack of evidence and conflict of interest issues.
The Supreme Court panel’s opinion stated that evidence indicated Arpaio had conspired with Thomas and Aubuchon to file the charges against the judge and two supervisors.
The Thomas disbarment opinion comes at the same time the Department of Justice has been conducting a three-year grand jury criminal investigation into allegations that Arpaio abused his power to go after opponents. And the federal grand jury criminal investigation is running parallel to a DOJ civil rights violations probe into claims that Arpaio’s deputies routinely targeted Latinos for arrest in an effort to round up and deport illegal immigrants.
Arpaio’s critics are now seizing on the Thomas disbarment opinion to put pressure on DOJ to bring criminal charges against Arpaio, or walk away...
The controversial Arizona cop is prepping for a possible trial. But already, his closest allies have fallen
By John Dougherty
Apr 18, 2012
With fresh calls for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to face a federal criminal trial, many are predicting the end of his controversial career. What few people realize outside metropolitan Phoenix is how much Arpaio’s world has already fallen apart around him.
One-by-one, Arpaio’s closest allies have been forced from power or severed support, leaving the combative 79-year-old sheriff seeking his sixth term increasingly isolated and vulnerable as emboldened foes sharpen their attacks.
The latest Arpaio political supporter to fall is former Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas, who was disbarred April 10 for engaging in unethical conduct to intimidate and smear his and Arpaio’s political adversaries.
A stinging 247-page opinion written by a three-member Arizona state Supreme Court disciplinary panel supporting the disbarment ruling also concluded there was “beyond reasonable doubt” that Thomas had violated federal civil rights laws.
While Thomas, a Republican, has not been criminally charged, the opinion made it crystal clear that his unethical and allegedly illegal conduct was the result of his “unholy collaboration” with Arpaio, also a Republican, to use their law enforcement powers to retaliate against critics.
Thomas and an assistant prosecutor, Lisa Aubuchon, were disbarred for violating perjury and intimidation laws when they filed criminal charges against Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and two county supervisors, Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley.
All three of the criminal cases, filed in 2008 and 2009, were later dismissed for lack of evidence and conflict of interest issues.
The Supreme Court panel’s opinion stated that evidence indicated Arpaio had conspired with Thomas and Aubuchon to file the charges against the judge and two supervisors.
The Thomas disbarment opinion comes at the same time the Department of Justice has been conducting a three-year grand jury criminal investigation into allegations that Arpaio abused his power to go after opponents. And the federal grand jury criminal investigation is running parallel to a DOJ civil rights violations probe into claims that Arpaio’s deputies routinely targeted Latinos for arrest in an effort to round up and deport illegal immigrants.
Arpaio’s critics are now seizing on the Thomas disbarment opinion to put pressure on DOJ to bring criminal charges against Arpaio, or walk away...
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Two Penn State officials charged in connection with sex-abuse investigation
Two Penn State officials charged in connection with sex-abuse investigation
November 05, 2011
By Joe Juliano
INQUIRER
In a development that strikes very close to Joe Paterno's storied football program, Pennsylvania State University athletic director Tim Curley and another university official were charged Saturday with perjury related to a child sexual abuse investigation of longtime Nittany Lions assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office said Curley, 57, and Gary Schultz, 62, Penn State's senior vice president for finance and business, also were charged with failure to report, a summary offense. The perjury count is a third-degree felony punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $15,000 fine.
The charges against Curley and Schultz, both of Boalsburg, Pa., stem from a three-year investigation of Sandusky, 67, who spent 32 years on Paterno's staff, 23 as defensive coordinator, before retiring after the 1999 season. Sandusky was arraigned Saturday in State College on 40 counts related to the sexual abuse case against him, and released on $100,000 bail.
Ads by Google
Humana® Insurance PlansEnroll in An Affordable Humana Medicare Plan by December 7! www.Humana-Medicare.com
AARP® MedicareComplete®insured through UnitedHealthcare. Request an Agent Appointment Today. www.AARPMedicarePlans.com/Advantage
Paterno, in his 46th season as Penn State's head coach, will not be charged, authorities said.
In a four-page release, the Attorney General's Office said Paterno was informed by a graduate-assistant football coach in March 2002 that he had witnessed Sandusky allegedly involved in sexual activity with a boy in the showers of the Lasch Football Complex, where Sandusky maintained an office after his retirement.
"Paterno testified that he then called [Curley] and met with Curley the following day," the release said, "explaining that a graduate assistant had reported seeing Sandusky" involved in the activity.
Sources told the Harrisburg Patriot-News that prosecutors believe Paterno did the right thing. The newspaper also reported that Paterno will testify for the prosecution at Sandusky's trial.
Paterno, 84, the all-time winningest coach in Division I football, had no comment Saturday, athletic department spokesman Jeff Nelson said.
However, Paterno may not be completely in the clear. Twenty of the 40 counts filed against Sandusky, allegedly took place during the time he worked for Paterno, including three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, a first-degree felony.
One accuser, now 27, testified that Sandusky initiated contact with a "soap battle" in the shower that led to multiple instances of involuntary sexual intercourse and indecent assault at Sandusky's hands, a grand jury report said.
Moral responsibility: Would a woman have handled the
Penn State child abuse allegations differently?
by Theresa Walsh Giarrusso
ajc
November 9, 2011
I keep trying to find the right words to write about the alleged child abuse by the former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. I have just been sick about it for days and keep writing draft and draft not expressing exactly what I want to say. But I feel like we should discuss it.
Michael and I lived in the Happy Valley for two years after we first were married. I worked for the local newspaper there as a reporter and an editor. Michael covered central Pennsylvania, including Penn State football, for the AP. We met Joe Paterno on many occasions. I personally talked with him multiple times at university dinners and cocktail parties. He was sweet and very much like a grandfather. I think because I have met many of the people involved in this case, it is even more shocking to me that they didn’t do more to stop this alleged abuse.
A lot is being written about the moral responsibility of Paterno and the other leaders of Penn State. I think the Pennsylvania state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said it best on Monday. While he agrees that Joe Paterno fulfilled his legal requirement when he relayed to university administrators that graduate assistant Mike McQueary had seen Sandusky attacking a young boy in the team’s locker room shower in 2002, the commissioner also questioned whether Paterno had a moral responsibility to do more.
“Somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child,” Noonan said.
“I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone. Not whether you’re a football coach or a university president or the guy sweeping the building. I think you have a moral responsibility to call us.”
I think we all have a moral responsibility to watch out for the children around us – in our neighborhoods, in our schools, in our churches. We can’t turn our heads and hope the system handles it.
We need to use our intuition. (One administrator at a school had a bad feeling about
Sandusky and told him he couldn’t come back to his school.) We need to be observant. We need to ask questions. We need to step in if we see something, and we need to shout loudly if we think something even seems wrong.
I am struck by the similarities between the Penn State case and the Catholic
Church child abuse scandals. These are well-respected men. They are men reporting
to other men. You don’t hear any women’s names mentioned in the chain of command.
Would a woman have made different decisions? Would a woman have called the
police? Would a woman have immediately broken up what McQueary reportedly
testified he saw happening in the locker room shower – the alleged rape of a 10-
year-old boy?
I believe almost any woman would have immediately marched into that shower and
stopped it – even if it was her boss, her father, or someone she respected or
someone she feared.
I’m not trying to slam all men, and I think many men would have also handled things
differently. However, many men were involved and none called the police.
November 05, 2011
By Joe Juliano
INQUIRER
In a development that strikes very close to Joe Paterno's storied football program, Pennsylvania State University athletic director Tim Curley and another university official were charged Saturday with perjury related to a child sexual abuse investigation of longtime Nittany Lions assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office said Curley, 57, and Gary Schultz, 62, Penn State's senior vice president for finance and business, also were charged with failure to report, a summary offense. The perjury count is a third-degree felony punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $15,000 fine.
The charges against Curley and Schultz, both of Boalsburg, Pa., stem from a three-year investigation of Sandusky, 67, who spent 32 years on Paterno's staff, 23 as defensive coordinator, before retiring after the 1999 season. Sandusky was arraigned Saturday in State College on 40 counts related to the sexual abuse case against him, and released on $100,000 bail.
Ads by Google
Humana® Insurance PlansEnroll in An Affordable Humana Medicare Plan by December 7! www.Humana-Medicare.com
AARP® MedicareComplete®insured through UnitedHealthcare. Request an Agent Appointment Today. www.AARPMedicarePlans.com/Advantage
Paterno, in his 46th season as Penn State's head coach, will not be charged, authorities said.
In a four-page release, the Attorney General's Office said Paterno was informed by a graduate-assistant football coach in March 2002 that he had witnessed Sandusky allegedly involved in sexual activity with a boy in the showers of the Lasch Football Complex, where Sandusky maintained an office after his retirement.
"Paterno testified that he then called [Curley] and met with Curley the following day," the release said, "explaining that a graduate assistant had reported seeing Sandusky" involved in the activity.
Sources told the Harrisburg Patriot-News that prosecutors believe Paterno did the right thing. The newspaper also reported that Paterno will testify for the prosecution at Sandusky's trial.
Paterno, 84, the all-time winningest coach in Division I football, had no comment Saturday, athletic department spokesman Jeff Nelson said.
However, Paterno may not be completely in the clear. Twenty of the 40 counts filed against Sandusky, allegedly took place during the time he worked for Paterno, including three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, a first-degree felony.
One accuser, now 27, testified that Sandusky initiated contact with a "soap battle" in the shower that led to multiple instances of involuntary sexual intercourse and indecent assault at Sandusky's hands, a grand jury report said.
Moral responsibility: Would a woman have handled the
Penn State child abuse allegations differently?
by Theresa Walsh Giarrusso
ajc
November 9, 2011
I keep trying to find the right words to write about the alleged child abuse by the former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. I have just been sick about it for days and keep writing draft and draft not expressing exactly what I want to say. But I feel like we should discuss it.
Michael and I lived in the Happy Valley for two years after we first were married. I worked for the local newspaper there as a reporter and an editor. Michael covered central Pennsylvania, including Penn State football, for the AP. We met Joe Paterno on many occasions. I personally talked with him multiple times at university dinners and cocktail parties. He was sweet and very much like a grandfather. I think because I have met many of the people involved in this case, it is even more shocking to me that they didn’t do more to stop this alleged abuse.
A lot is being written about the moral responsibility of Paterno and the other leaders of Penn State. I think the Pennsylvania state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said it best on Monday. While he agrees that Joe Paterno fulfilled his legal requirement when he relayed to university administrators that graduate assistant Mike McQueary had seen Sandusky attacking a young boy in the team’s locker room shower in 2002, the commissioner also questioned whether Paterno had a moral responsibility to do more.
“Somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child,” Noonan said.
“I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone. Not whether you’re a football coach or a university president or the guy sweeping the building. I think you have a moral responsibility to call us.”
I think we all have a moral responsibility to watch out for the children around us – in our neighborhoods, in our schools, in our churches. We can’t turn our heads and hope the system handles it.
We need to use our intuition. (One administrator at a school had a bad feeling about
Sandusky and told him he couldn’t come back to his school.) We need to be observant. We need to ask questions. We need to step in if we see something, and we need to shout loudly if we think something even seems wrong.
I am struck by the similarities between the Penn State case and the Catholic
Church child abuse scandals. These are well-respected men. They are men reporting
to other men. You don’t hear any women’s names mentioned in the chain of command.
Would a woman have made different decisions? Would a woman have called the
police? Would a woman have immediately broken up what McQueary reportedly
testified he saw happening in the locker room shower – the alleged rape of a 10-
year-old boy?
I believe almost any woman would have immediately marched into that shower and
stopped it – even if it was her boss, her father, or someone she respected or
someone she feared.
I’m not trying to slam all men, and I think many men would have also handled things
differently. However, many men were involved and none called the police.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Jury selection begins as Clemens perjury trial opens; judge raps House over audio deposition
Jury selection begins as Clemens perjury trial opens; judge raps House over audio deposition
By Associated Press
July 6, 2011
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
WASHINGTON — Roger Clemens’ perjury trial opened Wednesday with both sides raising the prospect of calling a roster of former baseball stars as witnesses and the judge angrily criticizing Congress for withholding an audiotape of Clemens’ deposition at the heart of the case.
Clemens is accused of lying under oath to the House Government Reform Committee in 2008 when he denied ever using performance-enhancing drugs during his record-setting career as a major league pitcher. The trial began with an intensive jury selection process expected to last into next week...
By Associated Press
July 6, 2011
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
WASHINGTON — Roger Clemens’ perjury trial opened Wednesday with both sides raising the prospect of calling a roster of former baseball stars as witnesses and the judge angrily criticizing Congress for withholding an audiotape of Clemens’ deposition at the heart of the case.
Clemens is accused of lying under oath to the House Government Reform Committee in 2008 when he denied ever using performance-enhancing drugs during his record-setting career as a major league pitcher. The trial began with an intensive jury selection process expected to last into next week...
Friday, June 10, 2011
Researchers answer my question, "Why do nice people, like, say, schoolteachers, lie under oath?"
Nice teachers lie under oath. I've long wondered how Chula Vista Elementary School District, and, I'm sure, every other school district in the country, is able to get employees to lie under oath. But here's something I learned when I was deposing teachers: after they've told several lies, they will compensate by telling the truth a few times. I thought it was guilt that caused the switch, but new research indicates I may have been wrong.
Maybe their self-control was depleted.
They wanted to please their employer and their guilty friends. They really did. But it's hard for nice people to tell lies. They have to force themselves to do it. And after a while, some of them simply get fatigued, and what do you know, out pops a little piece of the truth.
"...Exerting self-control...immpaired self-control on subsequent tasks: Consumers became more susceptible to tempting products; chronic dieters overate; people were more likely to lie for monetary gain."
Why Can’t More Poor People Escape Poverty?
A radical new explanation from psychologists.
Jamie Holmes
The New Republic
June 6, 2011
...In the 1990s, social psychologists developed a theory of “depletable” self-control. The idea was that an individual’s capacity for exerting willpower was finite—that exerting willpower in one area makes us less able to exert it in other areas. In 1998, researchers at Case Western Reserve University published some of the young movement’s first returns. Roy Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne Tice set up a simple experiment. They had food-deprived subjects sit at a table with two types of food on it: cookies and chocolates; and radishes. Some of the subjects were instructed to eat radishes and resist the sweets, and afterwards all were put to work on unsolvable geometric puzzles. Resisting the sweets, independent of mood, made participants give up more than twice as quickly on the geometric puzzles. Resisting temptation, the researchers found, seemed to have “produced a ‘psychic cost.’”
Over the intervening 13 years, these results have been corroborated in more than 100 experiments. Researchers have found that exerting self-control on an initial task impaired self-control on subsequent tasks: Consumers became more susceptible to tempting products; chronic dieters overate; people were more likely to lie for monetary gain; and so on. As Baumeister told Teaching of Psychology in 2008, “After you exert self-control in any sphere at all, like resisting dessert, you have less self-control at the next task.”
In addition, researchers have expanded the theory to cover tradeoff decisions, not just self-control decisions. That is, any decision that requires tradeoffs seems to deplete our ability to muster willpower for future decisions. Tradeoff decisions, like choosing between more money and more leisure time, require the same conflict resolution as self-control decisions (although our impulses appear to play a smaller role). In both cases, willpower can be understood as the capacity to resolve conflicts among choices as rationally as possible, and to make the best decision in light of one’s personal goals. And, in both cases, willpower seems to be a depletable resource...
But the core of the breakthrough is that resolving conflicts among choices is expensive at a cognitive level and can be unpleasant. It causes mental fatigue.
Nowhere is this revelation more important than in our efforts to understand poverty. Taking this model of willpower into the real world, psychologists and economists have been exploring one particular source of stress on the mind: finances. The level at which the poor have to exert financial self-control, they have suggested, is far lower than the level at which the well-off have to do so. Purchasing decisions that the wealthy can base entirely on preference, like buying dinner, require rigorous tradeoff calculations for the poor. As Princeton psychologist Eldar Shafir formulated the point in a recent talk, for the poor, “almost everything they do requires tradeoff thinking. It’s distracting, it’s depleting … and it leads to error.” The poor have to make financial tradeoff decisions, as Shafir put it, “on anything above a muffin.”
Last December, Princeton economist Dean Spears published a series of experiments that each revealed how “poverty appears to have made economic decision-making more consuming of cognitive control for poorer people than for richer people.” In one experiment, poor participants in India performed far less well on a self-control task after simply having to first decide whether to purchase body soap. As Spears found, “Choosing first was depleting only for the poorer participants.” Again, if you have enough money, deciding whether to buy the soap only requires considering whether you want it, not what you might have to give up to get it. Many of the tradeoff decisions that the poor have to make every day are onerous and depressing: whether to pay rent or buy food; to buy medicine or winter clothes; to pay for school materials or loan money to a relative. These choices are weighty, and just thinking about them seems to exact a mental cost...
Some promising approaches have already been tried. Starting in 2002, economists Nava Ashraf, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin created and analyzed a unique type of savings account at a small rural bank on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines. The Green Bank of Caraga’s SEED accounts (Save, Earn, Enjoy Deposits) let clients place restrictions on when they could access their money. SEED clients could set either a date before which or a minimum savings amount below which they couldn’t access their own funds. Twenty-eight percent of existing bank clients who were offered the accounts enrolled in them, and, after one year, the economists found, customers saved over 300 percent more with SEED accounts than they would have without them. The accounts offered an opportunity to circumvent self-control failure, in the same way Ulysses bound himself to the mast to resist the Sirens’ call...
The developed world offers numerous such “commitment products”: certificates of deposit, pension plans, government savings bonds, and education savings accounts, to name a few. But, in the developing world, institutional supports for flagging willpower are far fewer...
COMMENTS:
Michael Dunn said...
Blame the poor. They have bad will power. They have bad genes. They have too many babies. Analyze, medicate and castrate them. It doesn't matter. There will continue to be poor people (primarily the children of other poor people).
Poor people cannot escape their poverty because privileged people are unwilling to share their privilege, and they enact laws and unleash state power to protect their privilege (e.g., union busting, poor houses, bankruptcy "reform," and outright slaughter, as we are seeing in the Middle East).
Furthermore, privileged people inherit the wealth and privilege of their parents, directly through inheritance and indirectly through growing up with financial and social advantages. Poor children, for example, are much more likely to be born with low birth weight, suffer iron deficiency anemia, lead poisoning, malnutrition and numerous other problems that can impair cognitive development and cause learning disabilities. Poor children are read to far less often than middle class children, resulting in an academic achievement gap by the time they are 3. Poor people suffer far more stress than privileged people because of economic uncertainty and because they tend to have low status jobs and little or no control in the workplace. This chronic stress causes the overproduction of cortisol, which impairs memory and learning and increases risk of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and cancer. Thus, there is a linear relationship between wealth and health.
The only solution to poverty (and the achievement gap, which is due almost entirely to social class differences) is to end poverty by ensuring that all members of society have material security. That can only happen if the privileged make do with less.
Blogger Maura Larkins said...
This article is not saying that the poor have less will-power and self-control. It's saying that MORE self-control is required of them by their circumstances. The circumstances, not the people themselves, perpetuate poverty.
The article also notes that in wealthy countries, people get outside help to force them to save. Money is taken out of their paychecks for pension plans, insurance premiums, etc., basically taking decisions out of their hands.
Maybe their self-control was depleted.
They wanted to please their employer and their guilty friends. They really did. But it's hard for nice people to tell lies. They have to force themselves to do it. And after a while, some of them simply get fatigued, and what do you know, out pops a little piece of the truth.
"...Exerting self-control...immpaired self-control on subsequent tasks: Consumers became more susceptible to tempting products; chronic dieters overate; people were more likely to lie for monetary gain."
Why Can’t More Poor People Escape Poverty?
A radical new explanation from psychologists.
Jamie Holmes
The New Republic
June 6, 2011
...In the 1990s, social psychologists developed a theory of “depletable” self-control. The idea was that an individual’s capacity for exerting willpower was finite—that exerting willpower in one area makes us less able to exert it in other areas. In 1998, researchers at Case Western Reserve University published some of the young movement’s first returns. Roy Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne Tice set up a simple experiment. They had food-deprived subjects sit at a table with two types of food on it: cookies and chocolates; and radishes. Some of the subjects were instructed to eat radishes and resist the sweets, and afterwards all were put to work on unsolvable geometric puzzles. Resisting the sweets, independent of mood, made participants give up more than twice as quickly on the geometric puzzles. Resisting temptation, the researchers found, seemed to have “produced a ‘psychic cost.’”
Over the intervening 13 years, these results have been corroborated in more than 100 experiments. Researchers have found that exerting self-control on an initial task impaired self-control on subsequent tasks: Consumers became more susceptible to tempting products; chronic dieters overate; people were more likely to lie for monetary gain; and so on. As Baumeister told Teaching of Psychology in 2008, “After you exert self-control in any sphere at all, like resisting dessert, you have less self-control at the next task.”
In addition, researchers have expanded the theory to cover tradeoff decisions, not just self-control decisions. That is, any decision that requires tradeoffs seems to deplete our ability to muster willpower for future decisions. Tradeoff decisions, like choosing between more money and more leisure time, require the same conflict resolution as self-control decisions (although our impulses appear to play a smaller role). In both cases, willpower can be understood as the capacity to resolve conflicts among choices as rationally as possible, and to make the best decision in light of one’s personal goals. And, in both cases, willpower seems to be a depletable resource...
But the core of the breakthrough is that resolving conflicts among choices is expensive at a cognitive level and can be unpleasant. It causes mental fatigue.
Nowhere is this revelation more important than in our efforts to understand poverty. Taking this model of willpower into the real world, psychologists and economists have been exploring one particular source of stress on the mind: finances. The level at which the poor have to exert financial self-control, they have suggested, is far lower than the level at which the well-off have to do so. Purchasing decisions that the wealthy can base entirely on preference, like buying dinner, require rigorous tradeoff calculations for the poor. As Princeton psychologist Eldar Shafir formulated the point in a recent talk, for the poor, “almost everything they do requires tradeoff thinking. It’s distracting, it’s depleting … and it leads to error.” The poor have to make financial tradeoff decisions, as Shafir put it, “on anything above a muffin.”
Last December, Princeton economist Dean Spears published a series of experiments that each revealed how “poverty appears to have made economic decision-making more consuming of cognitive control for poorer people than for richer people.” In one experiment, poor participants in India performed far less well on a self-control task after simply having to first decide whether to purchase body soap. As Spears found, “Choosing first was depleting only for the poorer participants.” Again, if you have enough money, deciding whether to buy the soap only requires considering whether you want it, not what you might have to give up to get it. Many of the tradeoff decisions that the poor have to make every day are onerous and depressing: whether to pay rent or buy food; to buy medicine or winter clothes; to pay for school materials or loan money to a relative. These choices are weighty, and just thinking about them seems to exact a mental cost...
Some promising approaches have already been tried. Starting in 2002, economists Nava Ashraf, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin created and analyzed a unique type of savings account at a small rural bank on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines. The Green Bank of Caraga’s SEED accounts (Save, Earn, Enjoy Deposits) let clients place restrictions on when they could access their money. SEED clients could set either a date before which or a minimum savings amount below which they couldn’t access their own funds. Twenty-eight percent of existing bank clients who were offered the accounts enrolled in them, and, after one year, the economists found, customers saved over 300 percent more with SEED accounts than they would have without them. The accounts offered an opportunity to circumvent self-control failure, in the same way Ulysses bound himself to the mast to resist the Sirens’ call...
The developed world offers numerous such “commitment products”: certificates of deposit, pension plans, government savings bonds, and education savings accounts, to name a few. But, in the developing world, institutional supports for flagging willpower are far fewer...
COMMENTS:
Michael Dunn said...
Blame the poor. They have bad will power. They have bad genes. They have too many babies. Analyze, medicate and castrate them. It doesn't matter. There will continue to be poor people (primarily the children of other poor people).
Poor people cannot escape their poverty because privileged people are unwilling to share their privilege, and they enact laws and unleash state power to protect their privilege (e.g., union busting, poor houses, bankruptcy "reform," and outright slaughter, as we are seeing in the Middle East).
Furthermore, privileged people inherit the wealth and privilege of their parents, directly through inheritance and indirectly through growing up with financial and social advantages. Poor children, for example, are much more likely to be born with low birth weight, suffer iron deficiency anemia, lead poisoning, malnutrition and numerous other problems that can impair cognitive development and cause learning disabilities. Poor children are read to far less often than middle class children, resulting in an academic achievement gap by the time they are 3. Poor people suffer far more stress than privileged people because of economic uncertainty and because they tend to have low status jobs and little or no control in the workplace. This chronic stress causes the overproduction of cortisol, which impairs memory and learning and increases risk of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and cancer. Thus, there is a linear relationship between wealth and health.
The only solution to poverty (and the achievement gap, which is due almost entirely to social class differences) is to end poverty by ensuring that all members of society have material security. That can only happen if the privileged make do with less.
Blogger Maura Larkins said...
This article is not saying that the poor have less will-power and self-control. It's saying that MORE self-control is required of them by their circumstances. The circumstances, not the people themselves, perpetuate poverty.
The article also notes that in wealthy countries, people get outside help to force them to save. Money is taken out of their paychecks for pension plans, insurance premiums, etc., basically taking decisions out of their hands.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Barry Bonds found guilty of obstruction of justice
Bonds found guilty of obstruction of justice
Mistrial declared in three other charges against home run king
By PAUL ELIAS
NBC Sports
April 13, 2011
A federal jury convicted Barry Bonds of a single charge of obstruction of justice Wednesday but failed to reach a verdict on the three counts at the heart of allegations that he knowingly used steroids and human growth hormone and lied to a grand jury about it.
Following a 12-day trial and almost four full days of deliberation, the jury of eight women and four men could reach a unanimous verdict only on one of the four counts against Bonds. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston declared a mistrial on the others, a messy end to a case that put the slugger — and baseball itself — under a cloud of suspicion for more than three years.
Bonds sat stone-faced through the verdict, displaying no emotion. His legal team immediately asked that the guilty verdict be thrown out and Illston did not rule on the request. She set May 20 for a hearing in the case.
Mistrial declared in three other charges against home run king
By PAUL ELIAS
NBC Sports
April 13, 2011
A federal jury convicted Barry Bonds of a single charge of obstruction of justice Wednesday but failed to reach a verdict on the three counts at the heart of allegations that he knowingly used steroids and human growth hormone and lied to a grand jury about it.
Following a 12-day trial and almost four full days of deliberation, the jury of eight women and four men could reach a unanimous verdict only on one of the four counts against Bonds. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston declared a mistrial on the others, a messy end to a case that put the slugger — and baseball itself — under a cloud of suspicion for more than three years.
Bonds sat stone-faced through the verdict, displaying no emotion. His legal team immediately asked that the guilty verdict be thrown out and Illston did not rule on the request. She set May 20 for a hearing in the case.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Barry Bonds' defense rests without calling a single witness in perjury trial
See all posts re Barry Bonds.
Barry Bonds' defense rests without calling a single witness in perjury trial
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times
April 7, 2011
Reporting from San Francisco -- Attorneys for former Giants slugger Barry Bonds rested Wednesday without calling a single witness, clearing the way for jurors to start deliberating whether baseball's all-time home run king lied under oath when he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, with the support of the prosecution, dropped one of five felony counts against Bonds because of lack of evidence. Bonds, 46, now faces a charge of obstruction of justice and three counts of lying under oath in his testimony before a grand jury in December 2003.
Illston, in another ruling, changed course Wednesday and decided against throwing out evidence that steroids cause testicles to shrink. Bonds' former girlfriend, Kimberly Bell, testified that his testicles shriveled after he began using the drugs.
Bonds' lawyers had summoned a key prosecution witness to return to the stand Wednesday but rested without calling him. The defense decision means jurors will not hear Bonds testify.
Defense lawyers managed to eviscerate two of three main witnesses called by the prosecution. The third, Kathy Hoskins, testified that she saw Bonds' personal trainer inject him with an unknown substance in the navel in 2002.
Bonds told the grand jury the next year that Anderson had never injected him.
The jury of eight women and four men also heard that a urine sample from Bonds taken several months before his grand jury testimony tested positive for a steroid and a fertility drug that is sometimes used in conjunction with steroids.
Bonds admitted to the grand jury that he used two substances identified as steroids but insisted that he thought they were flaxseed oil and arthritis cream. He also testified that he took various pills that Greg Anderson, his personal trainer, gave him and never asked what the pills contained.
Anderson was sent to jail at the start of the trial for refusing to testify, but jurors heard a recording in which Anderson discussed how he injected banned drugs in response to questions about Bonds.
A conviction could lead to a lengthy prison sentence or even home confinement and affect whether Bonds is elected to the Hall of Fame.
In 2007, Bonds surpassed Hank Aaron's record for career home runs, considered the most hallowed record in Major League Baseball.
Barry Bonds' defense rests without calling a single witness in perjury trial
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times
April 7, 2011
Reporting from San Francisco -- Attorneys for former Giants slugger Barry Bonds rested Wednesday without calling a single witness, clearing the way for jurors to start deliberating whether baseball's all-time home run king lied under oath when he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, with the support of the prosecution, dropped one of five felony counts against Bonds because of lack of evidence. Bonds, 46, now faces a charge of obstruction of justice and three counts of lying under oath in his testimony before a grand jury in December 2003.
Illston, in another ruling, changed course Wednesday and decided against throwing out evidence that steroids cause testicles to shrink. Bonds' former girlfriend, Kimberly Bell, testified that his testicles shriveled after he began using the drugs.
Bonds' lawyers had summoned a key prosecution witness to return to the stand Wednesday but rested without calling him. The defense decision means jurors will not hear Bonds testify.
Defense lawyers managed to eviscerate two of three main witnesses called by the prosecution. The third, Kathy Hoskins, testified that she saw Bonds' personal trainer inject him with an unknown substance in the navel in 2002.
Bonds told the grand jury the next year that Anderson had never injected him.
The jury of eight women and four men also heard that a urine sample from Bonds taken several months before his grand jury testimony tested positive for a steroid and a fertility drug that is sometimes used in conjunction with steroids.
Bonds admitted to the grand jury that he used two substances identified as steroids but insisted that he thought they were flaxseed oil and arthritis cream. He also testified that he took various pills that Greg Anderson, his personal trainer, gave him and never asked what the pills contained.
Anderson was sent to jail at the start of the trial for refusing to testify, but jurors heard a recording in which Anderson discussed how he injected banned drugs in response to questions about Bonds.
A conviction could lead to a lengthy prison sentence or even home confinement and affect whether Bonds is elected to the Hall of Fame.
In 2007, Bonds surpassed Hank Aaron's record for career home runs, considered the most hallowed record in Major League Baseball.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Smooth lawyers defend Barry Bonds in perjury case
Prosecutor: Bonds’ Defense ‘Utterly Ridiculous’
In day two of trial, Barry Bonds' attorney charms the audience, but can't rattle steroids investigator
By Zusha Elinson and Steve Fainaru
March 22, 2011
The Bay Citizen
In a smooth baritone that filled up the federal courtroom, Allen Ruby, Barry Bonds’ lawyer, laid out the defense of the home-run king, charging the U.S. government and some of Bonds’ ex-friends with rigging up a baseless perjury case against his client.
Ruby repeated Bonds’ assertion that the slugger used steroids but didn’t know what they were at the time he injected and ingested them. The defense strategy was clear: discredit the government, its witnesses and the media’s portrayal of Bonds — without going so far as to say Bonds is a nice guy...
In day two of trial, Barry Bonds' attorney charms the audience, but can't rattle steroids investigator
By Zusha Elinson and Steve Fainaru
March 22, 2011
The Bay Citizen
In a smooth baritone that filled up the federal courtroom, Allen Ruby, Barry Bonds’ lawyer, laid out the defense of the home-run king, charging the U.S. government and some of Bonds’ ex-friends with rigging up a baseless perjury case against his client.
Ruby repeated Bonds’ assertion that the slugger used steroids but didn’t know what they were at the time he injected and ingested them. The defense strategy was clear: discredit the government, its witnesses and the media’s portrayal of Bonds — without going so far as to say Bonds is a nice guy...
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Roger Clemens indicted on charges of making false statements
Roger Clemens indicted on charges of making false statements
By Cindy Boren
Washington Post
August 19, 2010
Roger Clemens has been indicted on charges of making false statements to Congress about his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
In February 2008, Clemens and Brian McNamee, his former trainer, contradicted one another in testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about whether Clemens had used banned substances.
The hearing came after McNamee had linked Clemens to banned substances in George Mitchell's report on baseball players' use of performance-enhancing drugs. Clemens alleged that McNamee was lying; McNamee reached a deal with federal authorities to avoid prosecution for steroid distribution.
"Whether it's a Member of the Cabinet, a CEO or a professional athlete, if there is evidence that someone has intentionally misled a Congressional investigative Committee, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible," Kurt Bardella, spokesperson for Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking membr of the House committee, said in a statement. "There is no mechanism to justify lying to Congress."
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Perjury on trial: Barry Bonds on March 2 and Stutz v. Larkins on April 3
Barry Bonds is being charged with criminal perjury, but Daniel Shinoff's case is different. On my website I accused Shinoff and his law firm, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, of suborning perjury and other wrongdoing during their representation of Chula Vista Elementary School District during my case. Stutz is now suing me for defamation, and the trial is scheduled for April 3, 2009. I'm furiously working to organize my huge amount of evidence so I can present it at trial.
Here's the Barry Bonds story:
Judge unseals Bonds evidence
By Barry M. Bloom
MLB.com
Feb. 4, 2009
A federal judge in San Francisco on Wednesday unsealed a list of witnesses and evidence to be used by the government against former Giants slugger Barry Bonds in his perjury trial that is slated to begin on March 2.
Among the hundreds of pages of documents is evidence that Bonds failed tests in 2000 and 2001 for the steroids methenelone and nandrolone.
On their witness list is a number of baseball players, including Jason Giambi, although YahooSports.com reported on Tuesday that the former Yankees star, who's back with A's, hasn't yet received a subpoena to appear.
Bonds' attorneys have filed a motion seeking to exclude as evidence blood and urine tests, among other items. A hearing is set for Thursday in the San Francisco court of U.S. District Judge Susan Illston to determine what evidence will be admitted at the trial.
Bonds was indicted on what eventually has turned out to be 10 counts of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, for allegedly lying about the use of performance-enhancing drugs before a grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative in sworn testimony on Dec. 4, 2003.
The indictment, citing the actual grand jury testimony elicited from Bonds, alleges that Bonds lied when asked if he was ever given or was administered with needles anabolic steroids, testosterone or human growth hormone by his former trainer, Greg Anderson, during the period from 2000 to 2002.
In addition, the documents showed that a government-retained scientist said he found evidence that Bonds used the designer steroid THG upon retesting a urine sample the then 39-year-old Bonds supplied as part of baseball's anonymous survey drug testing in 2003. The test had previously been determined to be negative by the labs used by MLB at a time when THG was not among the drugs listed on baseball's banned list...
Here's the Barry Bonds story:
Judge unseals Bonds evidence
By Barry M. Bloom
MLB.com
Feb. 4, 2009
A federal judge in San Francisco on Wednesday unsealed a list of witnesses and evidence to be used by the government against former Giants slugger Barry Bonds in his perjury trial that is slated to begin on March 2.
Among the hundreds of pages of documents is evidence that Bonds failed tests in 2000 and 2001 for the steroids methenelone and nandrolone.
On their witness list is a number of baseball players, including Jason Giambi, although YahooSports.com reported on Tuesday that the former Yankees star, who's back with A's, hasn't yet received a subpoena to appear.
Bonds' attorneys have filed a motion seeking to exclude as evidence blood and urine tests, among other items. A hearing is set for Thursday in the San Francisco court of U.S. District Judge Susan Illston to determine what evidence will be admitted at the trial.
Bonds was indicted on what eventually has turned out to be 10 counts of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, for allegedly lying about the use of performance-enhancing drugs before a grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative in sworn testimony on Dec. 4, 2003.
The indictment, citing the actual grand jury testimony elicited from Bonds, alleges that Bonds lied when asked if he was ever given or was administered with needles anabolic steroids, testosterone or human growth hormone by his former trainer, Greg Anderson, during the period from 2000 to 2002.
In addition, the documents showed that a government-retained scientist said he found evidence that Bonds used the designer steroid THG upon retesting a urine sample the then 39-year-old Bonds supplied as part of baseball's anonymous survey drug testing in 2003. The test had previously been determined to be negative by the labs used by MLB at a time when THG was not among the drugs listed on baseball's banned list...
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Jury finds Steve Castaneda not guilty; Patrick O'Toole apparently will now go after Cheryl Cox, Bertha Lopez, Larry Cunningham...
See all posts re Steve Castaneda.
After the jury came back with a "not guilty" verdicts yesterday in the case of Chula Vista city councilman Steve Castaneda, who was accused of hiding his "intent" to buy a condo while testifying during a grand jury investigation that found no wrongdoing, prosecutor Patrick O'Toole said, "It was a case from our end that we thought had to be brought -- that the obligation to tell the truth under oath is one that we're going to fight for."
Wonderful news! O'Toole says that the obligation to tell the truth under oath is "one that we're going to fight for."
I've been waiting for a long time to hear someone in Bonnie Dumanis' office say this.
I assume this means that O'Toole is finally going to do something about Chula Vista Elementary School District trustees and administrators who obstructed justice and committed or suborned perjury. The District Attorney received my complaint in 2005.
Here is the story from Fox News:
Councilman Found Not Guilty of Perjury in Condo Charges
Last Update: 4/23/2008
A Chula Vista city councilman accused of lying to the county grand jury regarding his personal interest in an apartment complex that was being converted into condominiums was acquitted Wednesday of six of 10 perjury counts.
Prosecutors will decide later whether to retry Steve Castaneda on the remaining four counts on which jurors deadlocked.
"I'm very happy that I'm vindicated. I'm very happy about the fact that I can now go on with my life," Castaneda told reporters outside the courtroom.
Defense attorney Marc Carlos said jurors gave it their best shot -- deliberating for five days after a two-week trial -- before coming to a decision.
"They've had hundreds of exhibits and thousands of pages of grand jury testimony, and that's as good as they can do and there's nothing there," Carlos told reporters. "I think (District Attorney) Bonnie Dumanis should do the right thing and step up and dismiss the remaining counts. They've spent a lot of money on this case and it's gone nowhere."
Prosecutor Patrick O'Toole said: "It was a difficult case. Everybody knew that going in. It was a case from our end that we thought had to be brought -- that the obligation to tell the truth under oath is one that we're going to fight for."
http://www.fox6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3866874d-c8bd-43b4-a142-5eaa4837d9c4
After the jury came back with a "not guilty" verdicts yesterday in the case of Chula Vista city councilman Steve Castaneda, who was accused of hiding his "intent" to buy a condo while testifying during a grand jury investigation that found no wrongdoing, prosecutor Patrick O'Toole said, "It was a case from our end that we thought had to be brought -- that the obligation to tell the truth under oath is one that we're going to fight for."
Wonderful news! O'Toole says that the obligation to tell the truth under oath is "one that we're going to fight for."
I've been waiting for a long time to hear someone in Bonnie Dumanis' office say this.
I assume this means that O'Toole is finally going to do something about Chula Vista Elementary School District trustees and administrators who obstructed justice and committed or suborned perjury. The District Attorney received my complaint in 2005.
Here is the story from Fox News:
Councilman Found Not Guilty of Perjury in Condo Charges
Last Update: 4/23/2008
A Chula Vista city councilman accused of lying to the county grand jury regarding his personal interest in an apartment complex that was being converted into condominiums was acquitted Wednesday of six of 10 perjury counts.
Prosecutors will decide later whether to retry Steve Castaneda on the remaining four counts on which jurors deadlocked.
"I'm very happy that I'm vindicated. I'm very happy about the fact that I can now go on with my life," Castaneda told reporters outside the courtroom.
Defense attorney Marc Carlos said jurors gave it their best shot -- deliberating for five days after a two-week trial -- before coming to a decision.
"They've had hundreds of exhibits and thousands of pages of grand jury testimony, and that's as good as they can do and there's nothing there," Carlos told reporters. "I think (District Attorney) Bonnie Dumanis should do the right thing and step up and dismiss the remaining counts. They've spent a lot of money on this case and it's gone nowhere."
Prosecutor Patrick O'Toole said: "It was a difficult case. Everybody knew that going in. It was a case from our end that we thought had to be brought -- that the obligation to tell the truth under oath is one that we're going to fight for."
http://www.fox6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3866874d-c8bd-43b4-a142-5eaa4837d9c4
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Perjury charge for Roger Clemens?
A jury would be pretty similar to a poll of sports fans, I think.
USA Today
Poll: Majority of fans think Clemens is lying
by Mel Antonen
Despite Roger Clemens' efforts to prove he never used performance-enhancing drugs, the majority of MLB fans still don't believe his testimony.
Clemens could face a Justice Department investigation after denying in Congress he took steroids or human growth hormone, allegations made by his former personal trainer, Brian McNamee.
"The only surprise is that 31% of the fans were duped by Roger Clemens," said Richard Emery, a lawyer for McNamee.
Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, had no comment, and Clemens, who arrived Tuesday in Kissimmee, Fla., so he can pitch to Houston Astros minor leaguers this week, addressed the media briefly.
"Everything's been said that needs to be said," Clemens told reporters. "We're moving forward. It's baseball time."
As a result of the drug-use allegations, Clemens' on-field accomplishments, which include 354 career wins, are suffering, with a higher percentage of fans believing Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame than Clemens. In a phone survey of 456 fans conducted Feb. 21-24, 66% said Rose should be elected to the Hall while 62% said Clemens is deserving. Rose received a lifetime ban from baseball in 1989 for betting on games.
The poll showed 55% of fans think Commissioner Bud Selig should not punish players linked in the Mitchell Report to performance-enhancing drugs. Before the report was released on Dec. 13, 37% did not favor discipline. Selig is looking at the names individually, "and will make public his decisions at the appropriate time," spokesman Rich Levin said.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2008-02-26-clemens-poll_N.htm
USA Today
Poll: Majority of fans think Clemens is lying
by Mel Antonen
Despite Roger Clemens' efforts to prove he never used performance-enhancing drugs, the majority of MLB fans still don't believe his testimony.
Clemens could face a Justice Department investigation after denying in Congress he took steroids or human growth hormone, allegations made by his former personal trainer, Brian McNamee.
"The only surprise is that 31% of the fans were duped by Roger Clemens," said Richard Emery, a lawyer for McNamee.
Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, had no comment, and Clemens, who arrived Tuesday in Kissimmee, Fla., so he can pitch to Houston Astros minor leaguers this week, addressed the media briefly.
"Everything's been said that needs to be said," Clemens told reporters. "We're moving forward. It's baseball time."
As a result of the drug-use allegations, Clemens' on-field accomplishments, which include 354 career wins, are suffering, with a higher percentage of fans believing Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame than Clemens. In a phone survey of 456 fans conducted Feb. 21-24, 66% said Rose should be elected to the Hall while 62% said Clemens is deserving. Rose received a lifetime ban from baseball in 1989 for betting on games.
The poll showed 55% of fans think Commissioner Bud Selig should not punish players linked in the Mitchell Report to performance-enhancing drugs. Before the report was released on Dec. 13, 37% did not favor discipline. Selig is looking at the names individually, "and will make public his decisions at the appropriate time," spokesman Rich Levin said.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2008-02-26-clemens-poll_N.htm
Saturday, January 12, 2008
6 months for obstruction of justice by Marion Jones
Marion Jones joined the club of people who sue for defamation even though they know that their target told the truth.
Bloomberg.com
Marion Jones Gets Six-Month Term for Obstruction
By Patricia Hurtado
Jan. 11, 2008
Marion Jones, the record-breaking sprinter who tearfully confessed she used steroids after years of public denial, was sentenced to six months in prison for lying in two federal grand jury investigations.
Jones, 32, of Austin, Texas, pleaded guilty in October to two counts of obstruction of justice in probes of steroid use in sports and a check cashing scheme allegedly involving fellow athlete Tim Montgomery...
``This was a worldwide lie,'' U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas said at a hearing today in White Plains, New York. He also sentenced her to 800 hours of community service and two years of probation.
...She was the first athlete convicted in the almost five-year-old U.S. government steroid investigation.
...He ordered her to serve 400 hours of community service for each of the two years of probation. Her service should be with children and emphasize the need to tell the truth, the judge said.
Steroid Probe
In court today, Jones cried as she addressed Karas, asking not to be separated from her two sons, ages 7 months and 4 years.
...Karas turned aside her appeal for leniency, saying that, at her plea hearing in October, she failed to fully admit that she used banned substances.
... She said she believed she was taking ``flaxseed oil'' at the time.
``I am troubled by that statement,'' Karas told Jones today. ``That's a very difficult thing to believe that a top- notch athlete, knowing that a razor-thin margin makes the difference, would not be keenly aware and very careful about what he or she put in her body, and the effects.''
Impeding Investigation
Jones was charged with impeding the San Francisco steroid probe of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, or Balco, based in Burlingame, California, and the separate Manhattan investigation of the bad-check cashing scheme.
In addition to pleading guilty to taking substances before the Sydney Olympics, Jones admitted lying about knowing that Montgomery deposited $200,000 in counterfeit checks in a bank account. She lived with Montgomery, the father of her older son, in 2005...
Steve Riddick, 56, a 1976 Olympic gold medalist who was once Jones's coach, was also charged in the check-kiting case. He was convicted of bank fraud after a trial in May and sentenced late today by Karas to 63 months in prison.
Montgomery pleaded guilty in April to conspiracy and bank fraud. His sentencing hasn't been scheduled.
...Barry Bonds, Major League Baseball's all-time home-run leader, was indicted in November on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury about steroid use. Prosecutors said the outfielder told a panel in 2003 that he never knowingly used banned drugs, according to his indictment.
...Congress is returning to the issue of steroids in baseball following last month's report by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, which linked more than 80 players including Pettitte and Clemens to performance-enhancing drugs. The same House committee held hearings in 2005 and urged a tougher drug policy for the sport.
...In February 2006, Jones settled a $25 million defamation lawsuit against Victor Conte, the Balco founder. Conte, who claimed he supplied Jones with performance-enhancing drugs including THG, served a four-month jail term after pleading guilty to steroid distribution...
Bloomberg.com
Marion Jones Gets Six-Month Term for Obstruction
By Patricia Hurtado
Jan. 11, 2008
Marion Jones, the record-breaking sprinter who tearfully confessed she used steroids after years of public denial, was sentenced to six months in prison for lying in two federal grand jury investigations.
Jones, 32, of Austin, Texas, pleaded guilty in October to two counts of obstruction of justice in probes of steroid use in sports and a check cashing scheme allegedly involving fellow athlete Tim Montgomery...
``This was a worldwide lie,'' U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas said at a hearing today in White Plains, New York. He also sentenced her to 800 hours of community service and two years of probation.
...She was the first athlete convicted in the almost five-year-old U.S. government steroid investigation.
...He ordered her to serve 400 hours of community service for each of the two years of probation. Her service should be with children and emphasize the need to tell the truth, the judge said.
Steroid Probe
In court today, Jones cried as she addressed Karas, asking not to be separated from her two sons, ages 7 months and 4 years.
...Karas turned aside her appeal for leniency, saying that, at her plea hearing in October, she failed to fully admit that she used banned substances.
... She said she believed she was taking ``flaxseed oil'' at the time.
``I am troubled by that statement,'' Karas told Jones today. ``That's a very difficult thing to believe that a top- notch athlete, knowing that a razor-thin margin makes the difference, would not be keenly aware and very careful about what he or she put in her body, and the effects.''
Impeding Investigation
Jones was charged with impeding the San Francisco steroid probe of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, or Balco, based in Burlingame, California, and the separate Manhattan investigation of the bad-check cashing scheme.
In addition to pleading guilty to taking substances before the Sydney Olympics, Jones admitted lying about knowing that Montgomery deposited $200,000 in counterfeit checks in a bank account. She lived with Montgomery, the father of her older son, in 2005...
Steve Riddick, 56, a 1976 Olympic gold medalist who was once Jones's coach, was also charged in the check-kiting case. He was convicted of bank fraud after a trial in May and sentenced late today by Karas to 63 months in prison.
Montgomery pleaded guilty in April to conspiracy and bank fraud. His sentencing hasn't been scheduled.
...Barry Bonds, Major League Baseball's all-time home-run leader, was indicted in November on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury about steroid use. Prosecutors said the outfielder told a panel in 2003 that he never knowingly used banned drugs, according to his indictment.
...Congress is returning to the issue of steroids in baseball following last month's report by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, which linked more than 80 players including Pettitte and Clemens to performance-enhancing drugs. The same House committee held hearings in 2005 and urged a tougher drug policy for the sport.
...In February 2006, Jones settled a $25 million defamation lawsuit against Victor Conte, the Balco founder. Conte, who claimed he supplied Jones with performance-enhancing drugs including THG, served a four-month jail term after pleading guilty to steroid distribution...
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Libby decides not to appeal perjury and obstruction of justice convictions
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has decided not to continue his appeal of his obstruction of justice conviction. Good idea. He was already pardoned by George Bush, who thinks that anyone who commits felonies against the United States on Bush's behalf is a good guy.
Scooter apparently decided he didn't want his felonies further discussed in the media--and in the courts.
Scooter apparently decided he didn't want his felonies further discussed in the media--and in the courts.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Thank goodness public entities don't do this sort of thing!
PAUL ELIAS of the Associated says today that Barry Bonds has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. I'm sure glad that I can count on San Diego County Office of Education-JPA and its lawyers and employees not to do that sort of thing.
Oh, wait a minute.
That's exactly what they do, isn't it?
Poor Barry. He got caught, but lawayers like Daniel Shinoff keep going their merry way, intimidating school employees, and turning the justice system on its head.
Here's a quote from the AP story:
"SAN FRANCISCO -- Barry Bonds was indicted Thursday for perjury and obstruction of justice, charged with lying when he told a federal grand jury that he did not knowingly use performance-enhancing drugs."
Oh, wait a minute.
That's exactly what they do, isn't it?
Poor Barry. He got caught, but lawayers like Daniel Shinoff keep going their merry way, intimidating school employees, and turning the justice system on its head.
Here's a quote from the AP story:
"SAN FRANCISCO -- Barry Bonds was indicted Thursday for perjury and obstruction of justice, charged with lying when he told a federal grand jury that he did not knowingly use performance-enhancing drugs."
Sunday, November 04, 2007
The mob moll, the FBI agent and the journalist
A journalist came forward in New York recently to get an FBI agent off the hook for murder. It turned out that he had tapes of a mobster's girlfriend telling a different story than the one she told the court.
I love this story. The cop turns out not to be a murderer, the journalist saves the cop, and the big liar turns out to be the mob moll. There's even a prosecutor who admits he wrongly charged a man. God's in his heaven and all's right with the world.
Murder charges dropped against ex-FBI agent
By Michael Brick and Anahad O'connor
International Herald Tribune
November 1, 2007
Roy Lindley DeVecchio, the retired Federal Bureau of Investigation supervisor charged with murder, walked out of court a free man this morning after prosecutors dropped all charges against him in the wake of new evidence that the government's main witness changed her account and may face perjury charges.
The lead prosecutor, Michael Vecchione, announced the decision to dismiss all charges this morning in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, where DeVecchio, 67, was charged with helping a Mafia informer commit four murders in the 1980s and early 1990s. The trial, which began last month, was upended this week after a reporter revealed that he had taped interviews showing that the prosecution's main witness, Linda Schiro, a gangster's mistress, had given varying accounts and had damaged her credibility.
"Had we been provided with these tapes much earlier in the process, I dare say we would not have been here," Vecchione said as he stood before Justice Gustin Reichbach this morning. "The interest of justice at this point requires me to stand before you and ask you on behalf of the district attorney to dismiss or accept the dismissal of this indictment."
DeVecchio's lawyer, Douglas Grover, told the judge that he did not object to the prosecutor's request. Justice Reichbach then launched into a long speech in which he blasted the FBI for its handling of the informer, and concluded by dismissing all charges.
And with that, DeVecchio, wearing a slight smile on his face, turned around and strolled out of the courtroom as his supporters and fellow FBI agents gave him a round of applause. One of his supporters patted DeVecchio on the back as he made his way toward the exit and said simply, "I was right again."
The decision to drop the charges was a monumental reversal for the Brooklyn district attorney, Charles Hynes. Last year, when Hynes filed state murder charges despite a federal investigation that had cleared DeVecchio, he described the case as "the most stunning example of official corruption that I have ever seen."
Standing down now brought a sensational ending to a case rife with intrigue, plagued with obstacles and built squarely on the word of Schiro, once a Mafia assassin's mistress, whose shifting accounts have been increasingly evident since the new investigation nearly two years ago. Justice Reichbach warned Schiro in court on Tuesday that she could face perjury charges and appointed a lawyer, Gary Farrell, to represent her.
Tom Robbins, the reporter, who works for The Village Voice, said he had struggled with his decision to come forward.
"I did not know what else to do," Robbins said, adding that he had chosen to disclose the tapes after hearing the testimony this week and its role in the case. He said: "No journalist ever wants to go against a source. It's against our creed."
The trial centers on DeVecchio's relationship with his informer, Gregory Scarpa, a notorious capo in the Colombo crime family. Scarpa, known as the Grim Reaper, died in prison in 1994. In the case on trial, state prosecutors accused DeVecchio of giving Scarpa orders to kill rival informers and tips on pending arrests.
But signs of the case's weakness were evident from the start.
Within months of Scarpa's death, investigators for the Office of Professional Responsibility, the internal affairs arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, interviewed Schiro. Their inquiry failed to produce sufficient evidence to charge or discipline DeVecchio.
In 1995, federal prosecutors admitted during a trial that DeVecchio had given some confidential information to Scarpa. Their disclosure led to acquittals for several members of the crime family, but DeVecchio denied any wrongdoing.
In 1997, a federal judge, Jack Weinstein, wrote: "DeVecchio and Scarpa's relationship reflects, to a degree, the manner in which the FBI and other investigatory agencies conduct business with top echelon informants and the hazards associated with doing so."
As the accusations faded from the headlines, Schiro continued to give interviews to writers proposing books about her life with Scarpa. In 1998, she filed an affidavit in federal court in Brooklyn on behalf of Scarpa's son, Gregory Scarpa Jr., who was facing racketeering charges. But when the time came to testify in that case, on Oct. 15, 1998, a judge warned Schiro that she could face perjury charges because of her prior statements to investigators, transcripts show. Schiro left court and elected not to testify.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/01/america/01fbi.4.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)