First, a major thanks to TChris for posting great stuff today. I headed off for court this morning, and one thing followed another, and I just got back. I haven't seen any news, so here's a place for you to discuss whatever you want while I take a few hours to unravel and get caught up.
(8 comments) Permalink :: Comments
by TChris
If you steal a bottle of vitamins from Wal-Mart, you get prosecuted for a crime. If multinational drug companies steal hundreds of millions of dollars from California by overcharging for medicine, they get sued in a civil action. Seem fair?
Attorney General Bill Lockyer charged that the drug makers, including some of the world's leading pharmaceutical concerns, defrauded the state's Medi-Cal system for at least the past decade. ... "We're dragging these drug companies into the court of law because they're gouging the public on basic life necessities," Mr. Lockyer said at a news conference here. "This scheme has cost California taxpayers potentially hundreds of millions of dollars and is jeopardizing the public health by diverting money away from patient care."
Mr. Lockyer said that each of the companies made as much as $40 million a year in illegal profits. He said he hoped to recover that amount plus the triple damages allowed under the state's false claims act.
(34 comments) Permalink :: Comments
by TChris
After the Supreme Court's Booker decision, federal judges have discretion to impose the sentence that they believe best advances the goals of sentencing, even if that sentence is less than the sentencing guidelines advise. But just how much discretion do they have? We may soon find out, as the government appeals the 22 year sentence imposed on Ahmed Ressam for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, among other crimes. (TalkLeft background here.)
Ressam had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to provide information against other terror suspects in exchange for a shorter sentence. But at his sentencing on July 27, prosecutors asked for [a 35 year] term on the grounds that he had failed to work with them and jeopardized cases they were building against other terror suspects.
In a surprise move, Coughenour sentenced Ressam to 22 years, saying that he believed the sentence reflected "the fairness and transparency of the U.S. justice system."
If it sounds to you like the government is sucking on sour grapes, you're probably right. The court of appeals will review the sentence to decide whether it's "reasonable," a standard of review that should be highly deferential to the sentencing judge, who was in the best position to evaluate Ressam.
The real question in this case is whether federal sentencing should be controlled by district court judges or (as has long been the case) by prosecutors. The answer should come in several months.
by TChris
What started as a joke ended in tragedy as a 14 year old boy put his 5 year old half sister into a large coin-operated washing machine.
The boy put no coins in the machine but it started anyway, [defense attorney John] Graham said. The boy tried "frantically" to stop the washer and free his sister, taking a large rock from the parking lot to smash at the glass, Graham said.
The tragedy was compounded when a Virginia prosecutor charged the kid with manslaughter. That decision was foolish: the boy has been punished enough by the death of his sister, and he had no way of knowing that the machine would start on its own. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed, and the charges were dismissed today.
(11 comments) Permalink :: Comments
by TChris
The first six words of the Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required ...." Perhaps the Boston judge who set $250,000 bail for a 12 year old should look up the word "excessive."
Judge Paul D. Lewis railed against urban youth violence Tuesday after he set cash bail for the South End boy, who Boston police said was found with a loaded gun on Monday.
Urban violence is of concern to everyone, but setting excessive bail to "send a message" is an affront to the Eighth Amendment. The kid is charged with possessing a gun, not with shooting someone. He's presumed innocent of that charge, but even if he's eventually convicted, he faces no more than Department of Youth Services supervision until he's 18. He has no real incentive (and probably no ability) to flee, making it inappropriate to set high cash bail.
(5 comments, 363 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
by TChris
Despite the propogandists who relentlessly proclaim that protest against the war in Iraq is unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops, the American public overwhelmingly believes protesters have the right to protest.
Nearly three weeks after a grieving California mother named Cindy Sheehan started her anti-war protest near President Bush's Texas ranch, nine of 10 people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll say it's OK for war opponents to publicly share their concerns about the conflict.
That 90 percent of the public agrees on anything is amazing. It's heartening to know that the constitutional protection of free speech still commands respect.
(76 comments) Permalink :: Comments
From Law Prof Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy: The 8th Circuit upholds a sentence of 8-plus years for two ounces of pot:
I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves which judges on the Eighth Circuit seem to have their judgment clouded by the wicked weed in US v. Chauncey, No. 04-1529 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2005) (available here (pdf)). The defendant in Chauncey, as a result of a criminal history leading to his classification as a career offender, received a sentence of 100 months after being convicted of possessing with intent to distribute less than two ounces of marijuana. According to Judge Lay's dissent, "Chauncey's undisputed purpose was to help [his friend] obtain marijuana to alleviate the painful effects of her multiple sclerosis."
Go read the rest.
(24 comments) Permalink :: Comments
Former federal prosecutor John Loftus anchors a segment on Fox News called "Inside Scoop with John Loftus." I've never seen it or even heard of it before. But, I likely won't be watching.
A couple whose home was wrongly identified on national television as belonging to an Islamic radical has faced harassment, and police are providing special protection.
But the alleged Islamic radical moved out three years ago. Randy and Ronnell Vorick are the current residents. Loftus gave out the home address on his show.
(12 comments, 187 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
Yale Law Prof and blogger Jack Balkin explains why the Administration should turn over memos from Judge John Roberts to then-Reagan aide Patrick J. Buchanan in March 1986 on the subject of aid to Nicaraguans who were fighting the leftist Sandinista government. Background from the Washington Post is here. Balkin writes:
....during his time in the Reagan Administration John Roberts offered advice on the establishment of the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office (NHAO), an organization used by the Reagan Administration to circumvent the Boland Amendment. For those of you who don't remember, the Boland Amendment made it illegal for U.S. intelligence agencies to provide covert funding to the contras in Nicaragua.
Balkin says that to get around the amendment, Reagan approved a plan by John Poindexter and Oliver North to sell anti-tank and anti-aircraft missles to Iran, the funds from which were then provided to the contras.
(5 comments, 366 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
David Swanson of After Downing Street is in Crawford blogging about Camp Casey. He writes:
I came to Crawford today, and it's a little different from DC in several ways, but mostly it's hotter. I've been to both Camp Caseys, and am blogging this from the cool of the Crawford Peace House. At Camp Casey 1, I went across the road and talked to the half-dozen pro-war protesters. (There are police in the middle who have declared that there must be no interaction, but I didn't ask their permission.) I asked the pro-warers what they would tell Cindy Sheehan her son died for. Some of them couldn't come up with any reason for the war. A couple of them came up with this: Saddam Hussein would not have allowed Cindy Sheehan to protest on his road, and the war is being fought to protect that right in the US.
(6 comments) Permalink :: Comments
For our readers in Miami, experiencing Hurricane Katrina, and those bummed out by the MTV Award pre-show cancellations:The Grateful Dead (sing along with an audio clip here):
What do you want me to do,
to do for you to see you through?
this is all a dream we dreamed
one afternoon long ago
Walk out of any doorway
feel your way, feel your way
like the day beforeJust a box of rain -
wind and water -
Believe it if you need it,
if you don't just pass it on
Sun and shower -
Wind and rain -
in and out the window
like a moth before a flameIt's just a box of rain
I don't know who put it there
Believe it if you need it
or leave it if you dare.
That song can cheer anyone up.
(7 comments) Permalink :: Comments
Digby's on fire - again. All of Digby's writing this summer has been exceptional - this is one of my favorites.
The time is coming when the Washington Press Corps, the Administration and even the networks won't dictate the stories and the slant of coverage. There are too many bloggers now ready to swarm, like a fly on the Administration's neck. They may swat us, but we will just show up again, on its arm, its shoulder, its cheek. They can't control the Cindy Sheehan stories, the takeover of our judiciary, the debacle of the War in Iraq and the War on Drugs. We are gaining.
(3 comments) Permalink :: Comments
| << Previous 12 | Next 12 >> |






