Didn't take them long after Bush's Quantico speech, did it?

S 1604 (Specter, R-PA), to increase criminal penalties relating to terrorist
murders and deny federal benefits to terrorists, to Judiciary. S11349,
remarks and text S11351, CR 9/10/03.

S 1606 (Kyl, R-AZ), to strengthen and enhance public safety through pretrial detention and post release supervision of terrorists, to Judiciary. S11349,remarks and text S11353, CR 9/10/03.

[Thanks to Neal Sonnett, Esq. of Miami for the heads up]
Bills available on Thomas, the Federal Legislation Server. Just type in the bill numbers.

Free Tommy Chong--Action Alert --Tell Congress To Stop Prosecuting Paraphernalia Sellers

Ironically, Tommy Chong was sentenced on September 11, 2003, exactly two years after the worst terrorist attacks in American history. With Osama Bin Laden still on the loose and President Bush admitting that the war on terrorism is far from over, it is preposterous that we would waste valuable law enforcement resources locking up a comedian for selling glass pipes. Can anyone here honestly say they feel safer today because Tommy Chong, a comedian and actor, has been sentenced to 9 months in federal prison for selling pipes on the internet? Of course not. These laws do nothing except make criminals out of otherwise law abiding businessmen.

Will the 9th Circuit halt the recall election?

We are off to Sonoma (wine country) California to speak at the California Public Defender's Association Conference tomorrow. Our topic: Defending the Despised Defendant: Why We do What We Do. Talk about preaching to the choir, if anyone knows the answer to that question, its public defenders, who work impossible hours for low pay, with little or no glory. But it's been one of our more popular talks, even with non-lawyer organizations, and we never get tired of giving it.

We'll check in here tonight but won't resume normal posting until Sunday. Enjoy the weekend.

Bump and Update: Did the feds threaten to prosecute Chong's wife or son if he didn't plead guilty? One of the commenters to our post about Chong's guilty plea in May said he talked to Chong and that's what Chong told him.

I spoke with Tommy, he said that, "if he didn't plead guilt that they, the government, was going to charge his son, Paris, and his wife, Shelby."

We've also heard it from a legal source who is unconnected to the case. It's a rumor at this point, but if true, this should be disclosed so the public can learn about such prosecution tactics.

Here's a detailed news report on yesterday's sentencing. Howard Bashman of How Appealing says the Judge used to be a lawyer at his law firm.

****************
From 9/11...11:56 am.

Absolutely outrageous. Tommy Chong, one half of the team Cheech and Chong, was sentenced today to nine months in federal prison because he had a business that sold bongs and drug paraphernalia on the Internet. Chong was one of those rounded up during one of Ashcroft's massive raids in Feburary during his Operation Pipe Dreams. He was the first defendant of 55 around the country to plead guilty. Chong also forfeited $100,000.00. After getting out of prison, he will have to be supervised for another year. He was fined $20,000. At least he was given a voluntary surrender.

This stinks.

The second session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, taking place from September 8 to 12 in New York, this morning considered the establishment of an International Criminal Bar.

Esteemed counsel Neal Sonnett of Miami tells us:

During the proceedings on September 10th, Registrar Bruno Cathala stated that "without a worthy defense there is no such thing as a fair trial after the judges and the Prosecutor, the defense is the third pillar on which a court of justice rests."

In response, the representative from Canada stated that "the reputation and
ability of the International Criminal Court to succeed will to a great extent rely on its ability to service the needs of defendants and ensure that they obtain proper representation and in this regard, I would like to emphasize that good work has already been done, in terms of assistance in this regard by the International Criminal Bar, and I would urge us to build on its efforts as we develop a plan that will adequately ensure that the services and the infrastructure that is required by the defense bar is provided."

Don't you wish the Department of Defense understood that?

The L.A. Times reports on its latest poll which shows that a recall is favored by 50% of the respondents. With the undecided vote at 3%, that puts the recall in a statistical dead heat.

Bustamante's unfavorability rating has increased, but he still commands a lead over Swarzenegger. Gray Davis' unfavorability rating has decreased.

Here are the election rules:

The first part of the recall ballot is a yes-or-no question on whether to dump Davis as governor. To stay in office, Davis needs a majority vote against the recall. The second part is a list of 135 candidates vying to succeed Davis. If voters kick Davis out of office, the replacement candidate with the highest number of votes will take his job. Voters can pick a successor regardless of their vote on the Davis referendum.

This is very interesting.... Edwards Becomes A Favorite Among Union Members:

The largest union in the AFL CIO decided Thursday to delay making a presidential endorsement. The delay comes as John Edwards has apparently become of the favorites among union members.

The wait by the Service Employees International Union comes two days after the top contenders spoke to union officials in Washington.

Conference participants were asked to rank their two favorites before and after they heard the candidates. Union president David Stern says Edwards vaulted into the top three candidates within the union after he talked to the members. He pushed out Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

....Several union members say they liked Edwards' populist message. He highlighted his working-class background as the son of a mill worker.

Just a few days ago, the news said Howard Dean "wowed them" at their convention.

This is an important endorsement. Gephardt has been a prime contender, then Dean, now Edwards. Looks like it's still up for grabs.

Will the Republicans never learn how to nominate a judge? This editorial from Newsday is right on the money. Some highlights:

The blast of Republican invective that followed Estrada's decision was probably inevitable in the run-up to next year's presidential election. But if the goal is to fill court vacancies and not just make points with the Republican right wing, then President George W. Bush blew it in a way that bodes ill for any Supreme Court nominations on his watch.

Bush should have advised Estrada not to stonewall legitimate Senate inquiries. And he should have allowed senators a look at Estrada's legal writings from his time in the solicitor general's office. Lacking any real sense of what Estrada thinks about the legal issues of the day, senators were right to block his appointment to the powerful U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Stealth nominees shouldn't be rewarded with lifetime jobs on the federal bench. Neither should nominees with ideologies outside the broad mainstream of political thought, like the handful currently being blocked, as Estrada was, by Democratic filibusters.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points has the scoop on this morning's story that talks are underway between Howard Dean and Wesley Clark joining forces. It may be a dirty trick of the Dean campaign. We hope not, that's pretty low.

And forget about that talk that all the retired four-star general and former NATO boss wants is the veep nomination. Supporters say that's a dirty-tricks campaign pushed by rival Howard Dean who's scared of a Clark candidacy. Says Frisby: "Wes Clark firmly believes that he is the best choice to be president, not be vice president or hold any other government post."

Here's more from Josh.

This tonight on the DraftClark website, from this AP article:

There's lots of misinformation going around about what's in Patriot Act I. If you want the straight scoop, a section by section analysis, published by Matthew Bender and Lexis Publishing, try this (we're proud to say we co-authored it.)

For an an in-depth, section-by section analysis of the Patriot Act, for only $19.00, check out Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001: An Analysis by Stanley Mailman; Jeralyn E. Merritt; Theresa M. B. Van Vliet; Stephen Yale-Loehr (published by Lexis Publishing and available on line through the link above or the Lexis.Com bookstore.)

"It contains expert analysis of the important substantive changes included in the Uniting and Strenthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. The organization of the pamphlet tracks the legislation, broken down into sections discussing the statute's provisions with respect to each of the following topics:

enhanced surveillance procedures
money laundering and financial crimes
protecting the border
investigation of terrorism
providing for the victims of terrorism, public safety officers, and their families
information sharing among federal and state authorities
strengthening the criminal laws against terrorism
improved intelligence

The authors describe the important changes made by the legislation and analyze the potential impact of those changes--both positive and negative."

Here is the text of the new terror bill President Bush is promoting. It is H.R. 3037, introduced September 9 by Congressman Tom Feeney.

Several people have asked what's so bad about allowing the Government to bypass the courts and get administrative subpoenas. Here are the details of the provision, with analysis, by Kyle O'Dowd, Legislative Director for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL):

Overview:

• Allows DOJ to issue non-judicial subpoena to persons or entities requiring that they appear (most likely, in the U.S. Attorney’s office) to produce records and answer questions

• Applies to any investigation concerning a Federal crime of terrorism

• Area of questioning not limited to authenticity of any documents produced

• Requires attendance up to 500 miles away

• Allows AG to issue non-judicial gag order and punishes violations with incarceration

• In the event the subpoena is challenged in court, judicial review of the government’s submission is conducted in secret

Analysis:

Tom MacGuire over at Just One Minute has moved to typepad. Adjust your bookmarks.