Showing posts with label Sidney Powell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sidney Powell. Show all posts

May 7, 2022

System Choice — Power to Direct State Violence Is Discretionary, Political and Vicious

The once exonerated Steven Avery faces
his most malicious enemy in the
Democratic Party and a corrupt
Wisconsin Judiciary that has abdicated
its duty to act with impartiality. Damage and
destruction are the aims against Avery
and his nephew who have committed a
mortal sin in Wisconsin: Fighting back
against state violence and corrupt cops.
SPIRITS Goya sneered at malevolent clergy
in Hobgoblins.
Madison, Wisconsin — In Wisconsin, human rights workers fight for the innocent — brutalized by liars populating offices of district attorneys, attorneys general and seemingly an entire state judiciary — yet these same human rights advocates often labor under delusion.

This delusion is that the criminal justice system and the judiciary function in an intellectually honest, non-political fashion objectively finding facts, doctrine and application of law like detached, non-political agents of pure epistemology, so dedicated as to approach hard science.

Lunacy. Worse, it's a lie.

While not every Wisconsin district attorney is a verminous Ken Kratz (driven from law and Wisconsin), or an odious Vince Biskupic (a sitting judge!), nor is every cop a Matt Kenny (still a Madison cop) or Mark Wiegert (still a sheriff) or a cold-blooded killer Stephen Heimsness (sponging off Madison people as he claims he was traumatized for killing the innocent Paul Heenan), misconduct and malignant action of cops and prosecutors incur little costs, commonly garner professional awards, and win plaudits from most judges.

Put another way, cops will kill, and prosecutors will destroy life; and the judiciary, best understood as a cult of high  clergy, will stamp its imprimatur as agents of the Sovereign, smiling down on imprisoned slaves of the state like black-robed kobolds, diminutive "goblin-like creatures with short-tempers and a mischievous spirit."

See, for example, Wisconsin sitting County Circuit Judge Vince Biskupic: "[J]ust stay away from anything to do with [Vince] Biskupic. He will pull you into this (a homicide charge). You have nothing to do with it. He doesn’t care about you or your kids," a lawyer warned an innocent, lest she become another victim of Wisconsin injustice. 

And that was before Biskupic became a Outagamie County judge, and before he resigned in scandal as Outagamie County District Attorney.

Scandal and crime rarely disqualify for service in Wisconsin's criminal justice system.

The Judiciary

Widespread faith in the state and federal judiciaries persist no matter deceit.

This may be changing.

As judicial supremacists in the United States Supreme Court have decided women no longer possess autonomy over their own bodies and no longer have liberty to choose whether they have children, millions of Americans are asking, who the hell do these justices think they are? Monarchs?

It's a good question, but one that up to now was more likely to be brought up by Sidney Powell than the Democrat establishment.

The question of judicial supremacy especially as embodied in the federal judiciary that routinely overrides the will of Congress and the presidency on liberty questions, per Court caprice or service to favored interests, has been staring America in the face for a long time.

Civil disobedience is only now becoming widespread.

During COVID 19 that spurred a body of law governing citizen behavior on public health grounds, sheriffs the nation-over stated as Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling said, "state law does not have the power to supersede or suspend the Constitutional rights of American citizens" (WISC-TV).

Racine's Schmaling and others were not going to let laws or any judge intrude upon liberty (Washington Post, The Guardian).

Following the heroic leaking of the draft Supreme Court opinion eviscerating reproductive liberty enshrined in Roe v. Wade, (Politico) (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization), Democrat prosecutors across the nation raced to declare they will not prosecute women under existing state laws defining abortion as a criminal offense (Washington Post). See Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al. No. 19-1392.

Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D) declared his office will not investigate or prosecute woman or doctors for abortion 'offenses.' Further, Kaul is discouraging district attorneys and law enforcement throughout the state from enforcing an 1849 ban on abortion.

Putting aside why Wisconsin Democrats did not legislate away this ban in 2009 when Democrats had unitary control of state government, Kaul said on social media this week that his determination to protect women's choice would be fought on several fronts, including the courts, "We must speak out against this effort to erode Wisconsinites’ freedom. If the Court abandons precedent and Roe falls, we must fight to protect reproductive freedom—and our other freedoms—in Congress, state legislatures, and state courts."

Human Rights

Disobedience of Court-sanctioned lawlessness is a healthy development for human rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the face of judicial malignancy, commenting on the Roe opinion leak, said people must "live with outcomes we don’t agree with" or the judiciary is imperiled.

Really? In Thomas' view, there is no recourse once the judicial kings and queens have spoken. It's how Thomas and his friends view the Court.

The United States Supreme Court is poised to issue an edict that women are no longer masters of their own bodies, and following the release of this information, Thomas reasons we have to "live" with it.

We can hope that recent disobedience to what Thomas terms an "outcome" will be the beginning of massive civil disobedience, transparency from the Court, and resulting reform that will include mandates that every oral argument, judicial memo and correspondence be revealed to the American people in as close to real-time as possible.

The institutional narcissism and unparalleled arrogance of the judicial branch, working for the police and totalitarian movements needs to come to an end.

Apr 9, 2021

Sidney Powell Hits Tony Evers in Email on Pres Election Litigation Costs: "Wisconsin Governor Evers Meets Kraken"

Attorney Sidney Powell
Madison, Wisconsin — Attorney Sidney Powell is a brilliant advocate with a Clearance Darrowesque passion for her clients' interests.

You need a good litigator in Wisconsin, you might look up Stephen Hurley, Charles W. Giesen, Gary Alan Miller, Jeffrey A. Mandell, Tim Verhoff, Mark Fuhrman, David Knoll, for starters; serious talent to call on for civil and criminal litigation, and transactional work.

Some white collar circles needing someone for complex federal litigation, might call on Sidney Powell.

There are not two sides to the story, there are 100 sides to the story, and as many perspectives and conceptualizations, Powell will show you, and has demonstrated this nature of human affairs, to her clients' satisfaction.

Powell would explode the multi-verse or our republic, if this were critical for her clients. Problem is for many, we live in the multi-verse and the republic.

Sidney Powell has well earned her nickname, the Kraken.

Sidney Powell has lost many admirers for her work against voters, especially Wisconsin voters, in litigation concerning the 2020 presidential election.

Earlier this month, the Wisconsin State Journal reported, "Gov. Tony Evers is asking former President Donald Trump and a GOP official who filed lawsuits challenging Wisconsin’s presidential election results to pay at least $250,000 in legal fees to prevent state taxpayers from having to foot the legal costs the governor’s office accrued defending against the lawsuits."

The state's case filed in federal court is: Trump v. The Wisconsin Elections Commission, et al (Docket Number: 2:20-cv-01785).

Powell's side of the story can be found below, her email and press release reproduced in their entirety.
---

Dear Patriots,

When we wrote to you recently, we promised that you would know FIRST when our work was going to make news.

Today, Sidney and her amazing legal team filed a brief that will no doubt attract media coverage. We want you to know the truth and the reasons behind all of this so you can feel confident in Sidney and Team Kraken and also so that you can explain it to your friends and family who only have time to skim headlines.

There is a lot of behind-the-scenes legal work being done and more filings coming in the weeks ahead. We will always try to get you the facts so that you don't fall into the drain from the spin cycle.

As Sidney wrote recently: There is no way we can avoid horrid press. That's what they do. We stay calm and carry on.

Here is background and a statement on the filing, we will have more for you later tonight.  Stay tuned!!

——

1- A Motion to Strike Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers' unpredicated, untimely and purely political attempt to get sanctions against Team Kraken was filed today.

Here is Sidney's statement on the Wisconsin motion:

Thursday, April 8, 2021

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SIDNEY POWELL'S STATEMENT ON DEFENDING THE REPUBLIC'S MOTION TO DISMISS GOVERNOR TONY EVER'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

We moved to strike Governor Evers' Motion for Sanctions against us because it was without predicate, it was filed over two months after the Seventh Circuit dismissed and ordered the opinion vacated as moot, and long after the district court entered its order vacating its decision. In short, Governor Evers sought sanctions as a publicity and political tactic and for harassment-not based on law.  

To put his actions into perspective, this is the same governor who illegally tried to postpone Wisconsin's April 2020 primary election, only to be struck down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The rules and law do not extend time for filing motions "to infinity and beyond" * to harass a plaintiff in what amounts to nothing more than political grandstanding.

*Buzz Lightyear, TOY STORY (Pixar 1995)

——

As you can see, Sidney and her legal team have strong arguments for the abusive sanctions motion to be struck.  We expect the media "experts" to weigh in with all sorts of spin and lies.

You are armed with the truth and the reasoning.

We appreciate your support, good wishes, and prayers as we seek to expose the Truth and fight for We the People.

Thank you,

Sidney Powell and Team Kraken at DefendingtheRepublic.org

Jan 11, 2021

Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn Banned from Twitter for "Harmful Activity"

Updated - The psychology of the censor is at work following the Jan 6 capitol occupation.

Twitter has permanently banned attorney Sidney Powell, and Michael Flynn, (Just the News).

Their crime? A Twitter spokesperson told media that they were removed "in line with [the company's] policy on Coordinated Harmful Activity."

This is beginning to to look like the banishing of heretics, with some of the hallmarks of a political Putsch.

I don't trust it.

I love Facebook and Twitter for the social media platforms' capacity to further speech, not to smash speech.

Angela Merkel, who knows something about destroying the press and communication of those perceived as unorthodox, condemned Twitter after the social media platform banned Trump.

Liberals are working to banish political movements from the public square. And what the liberal consensus does is not drawing a lot of opponents.

Glenn Greenwald is one.
Strength through unity, unity through faith. And no questions.

Jun 13, 2020

Michael Flynn Oral Arguments — Flynn Likely to Prevail in Federal Court after a Few Months, No Mandamus Order

The criminal law case of a former national security advisor in the Trump administration, Michael Flynn, is the subject of oral arguments before a three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held yesterday.

But the issue before the D.C. appellate court is the conduct of the presiding U.S. district court judge, Emmet Sullivan, in United States of America v. Michael T. Flynn, (No. 20-5143).

Flynn has filed a May 19 Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus that seeks an order that the criminal case be dismissed, per the petitions from both the U.S. DoJ and Flynn.

As Benjamin Wittes reports in Lawfare:

[T]he case before the D.C. Circuit’s remote hearing concerned whether the appeals court should preemptively order Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case on the theory that he has no authority to do anything else. Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, has asked the court for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Sullivan to grant the government’s motion to dismiss, and the government is supporting Flynn. In other words, today’s case pitted both the prosecutor and defendant against—get this—the district court itself. The respondent in today’s case was none other than Judge Sullivan, who is trying to defend his authority to hold a hearing on the motion before him and to seek the input of a court-appointed amicus whom he named to argue against what both prosecutor and defendant want him to do, and to weigh in on the appropriateness of contempt charges against Flynn. Sullivan’s hearing is scheduled for July 16.
The litigation is extraordinary on several fronts, and its nature was signaled by Sullivan's bizarre musing and posturing in open court at a Dec 2017 plea bargain hearing.

Faced with the U.S. DoJ agreeing to a plea deal composed of a single criminal count with no jail time, Sullivan launched into a tirade against Flynn that questioned whether the DoJ had contemplated charges of treason, (The Guardian).

Sullivan's unhinged comments also included voicing his "disgust" and "disdain" towards Flynn.

To understand Emmet Sullivan, one needs to appreciate the political salience of the Democratic Party and intelligence community's determination to often smear politically unorthodox beliefs as Russian-inspired.

Sullivan is an unabashed partisan in a new McCarthyite effort to tar everyone from Flynn to Bernie Sanders to Tulsi Gabbard as Russian assets.

Self-dealing Sullivan is using his court to impose the end-game of his judicial scheming.

Sullivan seeks to delay Flynn's legal victory, gaming that a new administration would feature a new DoJ reaching different determinations in the criminal case, in accordance with Sullivan's charging preferences.

Jun 11, 2020

Michael Flynn Oral Arguments, Friday, June 12, 8:30 AM: D.C. Live at Appellate Court YouTube

Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn
Attorney Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn, former U.S.
national security adviser. - Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
Updated - The U.S. Dept of Justice wants the partisan prosecutorial crusade against Gen. Michael Flynn to end.

Michael Flynn wants this crusade to end. [See the orals at June 12, 8:30 central, YouTube.]

The federal criminal case is at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, (United States of America v. Michael T. Flynn).

But U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has determined that he will take over the prosecution of Michael Flynn while he presides over the case.

Crazy in D.C.

Only the Democratic Party — that will seemingly do anything to get Flynn — could make Michael Flynn into a later-day Dreyfus figure.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Friday, June 12, [8:30 AM Central; 9:30 AM Eastern] before a three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Readers can view the arguments at United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in YouTube.

The appellate court — hearing Flynn's May 19 Petition for a Writ of Mandamus that seeks an order that Sullivan or another judge dispatch the case — is the repository of rigorous legal argument and historical disquisition, specifically ample reference to the jurist Robert Jackson's writings on prosecutorial discretion and the corrupt use of the office of the prosecutor.

For background, analysis and commentary, see How Appealing, and The Federalist. For legal filings, see Sidney Powell.

Jun 1, 2020

Michael Flynn Litigation — Robert Jackson, Prosecutorial Discretion, Rights and Fairness Battle the Democratic Party Faction

Robert Jackson
There are occasions in legal-political battle where one side is corrupt, malicious and unlawful and the other side is, in a phrase, on the side of angels.

Such a case is being litigated now in a federal criminal case in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, (United States of America v. Michael T. Flynn).

Among the extraordinary features of this case is the fact that the United States of America and the defendant, Michael T. Flynn, both have petitioned the presiding federal district court to drop the case in the interest of justice.

But an outlaw U.S. Dist Judge, Emmet Sullivan, is working to prosecute the case by proxy, despite the facts that he is also the presiding judge, and the lawful prosecutors have determined there has not been a commission of crime and that the case is rife with law enforcement misconduct.

One can agree with this finding of the U.S. Dept of Justice, but political factions who want Flynn found guilty of a crime do not have legal authority in a court of law, except with Sullivan. [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. FOKKER SERVICES B.V., APPELLANT (No. 15-3016, 15-3017), Judge Sri Srinivasa: "The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive’s charging authority embraces decisions about whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences."]

Sullivan is tearing up American jurisprudence in his bizarre conduct that, if left uncorrected in appellate court, threatens criminal justice every bit as much as Sullivan's reputation as a jurist, which is in tatters.

But Sullivan is taking his cues from the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Democratic Party, so rights, liberty and justice will have to wait for defendant Flynn — whose only crime appears to be political unorthodoxy.

Writes Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept:

[T]he Justice Department filed a motion seeking to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn based, in part, on newly discovered documents revealing that the conduct of the FBI, under the leadership of Director James Comey and his now-disgraced Deputy Andrew McCabe (who himself was forced to leave the Bureau after being caught lying to agents), was improper and motivated by corrupt objectives. That motion prompted histrionic howls of outrage from the same political officials and their media allies who have spent the last three years pushing maximalist Russiagate conspiracy theories. ...

More disturbingly, liberals and Democrats — as part of their movement toward venerating these security state agencies — have completely jettisoned long-standing, core principles about the criminal justice system, including questioning whether lying to the FBI should be a crime at all and recognizing that innocent people are often forced to plead guilty — in order to justify both the Flynn prosecution and the broader Mueller probe.

The appellate court — hearing Flynn's May 19 Petition for a Writ of Mandamus that seeks an order that Sullivan or another judge dispatch the case — is the repository of rigorous legal argument and historical disquisition, specifically ample reference to the jurist Robert Jackson's writings on prosecutorial discretion and the corrupt use of the office of the prosecutor.

Former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese III and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in Support of Petitioner amicus brief today lays out a brief history of Flynn's case and the edifice of justice exemplified in the writings of Judge Jackson.

States the Meese brief (pp 3-4, Statement of the Case):

On January 29, 2020, General Flynn filed a Motion to Dismiss Case for Egregious Government Misconduct and in the Interest of Justice. That same month, Attorney General William P. Barr tasked Jeffrey Jensen, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, to conduct a review of how the Flynn case had been handled by the Department of Justice. During the week of May 4, 2020, Jensen recommended to the Attorney General that the prosecution be dismissed. On Thursday, May7, 2020, the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the charges with prejudice against Flynn.

On Monday, May 11, 2020, the Washington Post published an op-ed highly critical of the Department’s May 7, 2020 motion, accusing the government of an attempt to corrupt Judge Sullivan and calling for the appointment of independent counsel to act as amicus on behalf of the court.

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020, the day after the Washington Post article appeared, Judge Sullivan said that he would allow third parties to weigh in on the Flynn case, and advised that he was proceeding under the provisions relating to amicus briefs in Local Civil Rules. He also stated that “at the appropriate time”he would set a schedule for interested parties to comment on the case.

Then, on Wednesday, May 13, 2020, just two days after the Washington Post op-ed, Judge Sullivan appointed the co-author of that article, retired District Judge John Gleeson, as amicus curiae: (i) to present the argument opposing the Department of Justice motion to dismiss, and (ii) to “address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not beheld in criminal contempt for perjury.”

On Tuesday, May 19, 2020, General Flynn filed a 44-page Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in this Court asking that:  (i) the prosecution against General Flynn be dismissed as the Department of Justice had requested;(ii) the district court order appointing an amicus curiae be vacated; and (iii) the case in district court be reassigned from Judge Sullivan.

On Thursday, May 21, 2020, a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit issued an order requiring Judge Sullivan to respond in 10 days (i.e., by June 1,2020) addressing the petitioner’s request and inviting the Department of Justice to respond “in its discretion within the same 10-day period” regarding whether Sullivan should be reassigned. The order requested Judge Sullivan to provide information regarding his decision not to immediately grant the DOJ request to dismiss the case against General Flynn.

Four new filings were received by the Court today, June 1.

An argument by Meese prominently notes Jackson's commitment to a society protecting free citizens by a prosecutor who pursues and advocates truth without regard to Party, or any other external interest, (pp 4-12).

Writes Meese: "the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who ... seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches [the] task with humility," (The Federal Prosecutor: An address by Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General of the United States, April 1, 1940)

State the brief:

Argument
I.    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING THAT CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE BROUGHT ONLY FOR VIOLATIONS OF ACTUAL FEDERAL CRIMES.

The Government’s Motion to Dismiss (“Gov’t Motion”) filed in District Court, and two of the amicus briefs filed herein, have all cited former Attorney General and Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Robert H. Jackson in support of opposing claims.

The Government’s Motion to Dismiss cited Justice Jackson’s famous April1, 1940 address to U.S. Attorneys for the proposition that “the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who ... seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches [the] task with humility.” Gov’t Motion at 19. Supporting the Petition for Mandamus seeking dismissal, the amicus brief filed by the States of Ohio, et al. cited a 1940 law review article by Justice Jackson to describe the discretionary power of prosecutors:  “With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.” Ohio, et al.Amicus Brief at 4. That brief contrasted actions of government investigators “discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it,” with what it believes occurred here—“picking the man and then searching the law books ...to pin some offense on him.” Id. at 5.

Opposing the petition for mandamus, the amicus brief filed by the Watergate Group relied on a third 1940 quotation from Justice Jackson that the safety of both citizens and of the Republic “‘lies in the prosecutor who . . .serves the law and not factional purposes.’” Watergate Group Amicus Brief at16.

This amicus brief offers some further thoughts on the lessons to be learned from Justice Jackson’s guidance that can be applied to help decide this case. Long an admirer of Justice Jackson, in 2005, Attorney General Meese wrote a law review article entitled “Robert H. Jackson, Public Servant,” 68 ALBANYL.REV.777 (2005), which traced Jackson’s illustrious career from trial attorney, to General Counsel of the Bureau of Revenue, to Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, to Solicitor General of the United States, and then, in 1940, being sworn in as our nation’s 57th Attorney General, and his subsequent service as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials following World War II.

During Justice Jackson’s brief tenure as Attorney General, he made a lasting contribution to the Department of Justice in promoting fairness in the administration of justice and in protecting constitutional rights. In his Albany Law Review article, former Attorney General Meese identified the central lessons to be learned from Justice Jackson’s April 1, 1940 remarks as follows:

Jackson recognized the power of the government lawyers sitting before him: The prosecutor, he said, has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.... He pointed out the tremendous discretion that is held by prosecution the ability to decide whether to investigate, order arrests, seek an indictment by a grand jury, present a case for trial or dismiss it, and even to make recommendations on sentencing and parole. He went on to say that: While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst. [Id. at 18.]

Based on Justice Jackson’s lessons, as amplified by subsequent developments, three observations are offered for the court’s consideration.

First, Justice Jackson’s article articulated a principle that is applicable to the authority of the government to dismiss the case against General Flynn, when he identified among a federal prosecutor’s powers —the decision to present a case for trial or dismiss it.

Second, Justice Jackson knew that those who wield this great prosecutorial power can, from time to time, act “from malice or other base motives.” If prosecutors can abuse their power, who has responsibility to correct that injustice? Some of the amicus briefs filed herein erroneously would entrust that power exclusively in the federal judiciary. In truth, in the first instance, that responsibility and power is vested in the Attorney General of the United States. Although each federal prosecutor has a measure of authority to act for the United States, “The Attorney General s the head of the Department of Justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 503. Except with respect to certain discrete matters not involved here: “All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General....” 28 U.S.C. § 509. Here, the Attorney General assumed that duty, tasked an experienced prosecutor with investigating the matter, and then took decisive action to fulfill his duty with the filing of the government’s motion to dismiss.

Third, in the 44 years between the time Attorney General Jackson left that office in 1941 and the time Attorney General Meese assumed that position in 1985, and even more since then, the power of the federal prosecutor has only grown.2 An experienced retired appellate federal judge explained the way the federal criminal justice system now works that few could dispute:

2 In 1998, former Attorney General Meese chaired a Task Force of the American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section which reported on The Federalization of Criminal Law. That report, issued 22 years ago, found it impossible to determine exactly how many federal crimes could be prosecuted,but that several thousand were on the-books. Id. at 2.  Although the overwhelming number of prosecutions occurred at the state level, members of Congress found it increasingly difficult to resist the temptation to respond to each wrongdoing reported in the media by criminalizing more and more types of conduct, resulting in an explosion of new federal crimes.

The machinery of federal criminal investigation and prosecution,with its grand juries, wiretaps, DNA tests, bulldog prosecutors, pretrial detention, broad definition of conspiracy, heavy sentences(the threat of which can be and is used to turn criminals into informants against their accomplices), and army of FBI agents, is very powerful; there is a fear that fed enough time and money, it can nail anybody. There is some truth to this, since there are literally thousands of federal criminal laws, many of them at once broad, vague, obscure, and under enforced. [R. Posner, An Affair of State at 87 (Harvard Univ. Press: 1999).]

Of even more direct relevance here, Senior District Judge Jed S. Rakoff explained some of the reasons that people plead guilty:

The... suggestion that a plea bargain is a fair and voluntary contractual arrangement between two relatively equal parties is a total myth: it is much more like a“contract of adhesion” in which one party can effectively force its will on the other party....  [T]he prosecutor-dictated plea bargain system, by creating such inordinate pressures to enter into plea bargains, appears to have led to a significant number of defendants to plead guilty to crimes they never actually committed. [Jed S. Rakoff, “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty,” The New York Review of Books (Nov. 20, 2014).]

This is what happened to General Flynn. See Petition for Mandamus at 3 n.1 and 27 for a discussion of threats to prosecute his son.

While the prosecution of General Flynn was originated by a Special Counsel, the prosecution still was brought on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Motion to Dismiss charges against General Flynn was filed by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, on the authority of the Attorney General of the United States. In that detailed, 20-page motion, the Department of Justice explained its view that General Flynn had actually pled guilty to a crime that did not exist since his statement was not “materially” false with respect to a matter under investigation, as required by the statute, as there was “no legitimate investigative basis.” Gov’t Motion at 1-2. That motion went on to detail improprieties within the FBI in the investigation and prosecution of General Flynn. Id. at3-10. The motion was unusual but not extraordinary, as it was filed consistent with established Department protocols:

Under the Principles of Federal Prosecution, the Government should not prosecute a defendant “unless the attorney for the government believes that the admissible evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact.” Justice Manual 9-27.220. [Motion to Dismiss at 12.]

In such a circumstance, it was the responsibility of the Attorney General to act in accord with the principles laid out by Justice Jackson to terminate a baseless prosecution in the interest of justice.

An amicus brief was filed by Lawyers Defending American Democracy (“LDAD”), an organization formed in 2019, whose first official action was to call for the resignation of Attorney General William Barr. LDAD’s brief asserted that the Flynn petition raised “grave rule of law issues[,] threaten[ing] public confidence in the administration of justice that this and other Article III courts have sought to foster for more than two centuries.”LDAD Amicus Brief at 1.  This is a most remarkable claim for a court system whose job is to “say what the law is” and only, then, with respect to cases and controversies. The duty of courts is not to “foster public confidence,” but to administer the law impartially. See Deuteronomy 1:17. If the courts do the latter, they will inspire the public’s confidence. If courts aspire to do more, then law will become what the judges say it is, and that will lead the nation into judicial supremacy where the people are ruled by judges, not by the rule of law. LDAD seemingly would prefer a world without separation of powers, where the judicial process is the only way that justice may be administered and achieved. 3 See LDAD Amicus Brief at 5.

3 Likewise, LDAD appears to believe that Judge Sullivan must conduct some evidentiary hearing before he rules on the motion to dismiss.  But, as the Fifth Circuit noted, “If [United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir.1973)] is read to place the burden on the prosecutor to prove that dismissal is in the public interest, however, then it is contrary to our rule enunciated in Cowan and to the Supreme Court’s holding in Rinaldi.” United States v. Hamm, 659F.3d 624, 631 n.23 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

General Flynn’s case illustrates how the discretionary acts of the Executive Branch can protect the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, 4 by means of prosecutorial discretion. ...
------
I do not believe Robert Jackson would fair well today as an attorney general as the Democratic Party has become a Party-first movement.

May 19, 2020

Federal Judge Usurps Prosecutors' Authority in Get-Flynn Scheme

Judicial tyranny is as American
as apple pie. Above is Ben Shahn’s
The Passion of Sacco and Vansetti
"Sacco and Vanzetti lie in coffins; in
foreground in front of a colonnaded
neoclassical courthouse (image left).
On the porch behind them hangs a
portrait of the infamous trial judge,
Webster Thayer. Towering over
Sacco and Vanzetti are members of
 the committee that reviewed
convictions: Samuel Stratton, MIT
pres; Lawrence Lowell, Harvard
pres and Robert Grant, retired
judge," (Kuykendall)

Emmet Sullivan Wants to Be Judge, Prosecutor, Pundit and Political Strategist


Update: Daniel Payne reports:

"An federal appeals court Thursday accepted Michael Flynn's request to have the district judge overseeing his case removed and has ordered that judge to explain why he has gone to such great lengths to avoid the Justice Department's request to dismiss the case."

A special three-judge panel has been appointed to review the matter. A June 1 deadline has been set to respond to the request."

"The request, filed on Tuesday by Flynn's legal team, asked the appeals court to remove Judge Emmett Sullivan from the case, claiming the judge was biased against the defendant."
---
 U.S. Dist Judge Emmet Sullivan is trying to reprise the role of a tyrannical judiciary in American criminal law litigation: Convict the defendant of something, anything, by any means necessary.

U.S. government prosecutors moved to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn on May 7, 2020 in an act of prosecutorial discretion that used to draw plaudits from the liberal legal establishment.

Sullivan's response — soliciting outside briefs in opposition to the dismissal; appointing another party in place of the prosecutor; and stalling until still another prosecutor can be appointed — has provoked outrage, but not among the Democratic-leaning prosecutors and corporate media.

This seems confusing. Judges are supposed to be impartial in presiding over criminal cases.

No more. And the Democratic Party and former prosecutors are either silent or applaud Sullivan as he attempts to imprison an innocent man for the rest of his life.

Writes Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept:

Last Thursday, the Justice Department filed a motion seeking to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn based, in part, on newly discovered documents revealing that the conduct of the FBI, under the leadership of Director James Comey and his now-disgraced Deputy Andrew McCabe (who himself was forced to leave the Bureau after being caught lying to agents), was improper and motivated by corrupt objectives. That motion prompted histrionic howls of outrage from the same political officials and their media allies who have spent the last three years pushing maximalist Russiagate conspiracy theories. ...

More disturbingly, liberals and Democrats — as part of their movement toward venerating these security state agencies — have completely jettisoned long-standing, core principles about the criminal justice system, including questioning whether lying to the FBI should be a crime at all and recognizing that innocent people are often forced to plead guilty — in order to justify both the Flynn prosecution and the broader Mueller probe.

But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political advantage.
No civil libertarian Democrats, if such a thing still exists, has registered objection as Sullivan looked to sympathetic retired jurists and intelligence officials to take up his cause.

Even the New York Times is forced to admit Emmet Sullivan's work against Michael Flynn is improper and that the DoJ retains prosecutorial authority. Deep into a startlingly biased Times analysis, Charlie Savage and write:

Either way, the department is arguing that Judge Sullivan has little choice but to drop the case. A 2016 opinion by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which oversee his district, said that the judiciary 'generally lacks authority to second-guess' executive branch decisions about whether to charge or drop a case.

See also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. FOKKER SERVICES B.V., APPELLANT (No. 15-3016, 15-3017), Judge Sri Srinivasa: "The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive’s charging authority embraces decisions about whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences."

Sullivan had given hints of his bias against Flynn, musing in open court in Dec 2018 that Flynn committed "treason," though no such charges were filed or contemplated in the record. (The Guardian).

May 13, 2020

Judge Emmet Sullivan Has No Clothes — Wants Michael Flynn, Flouts Rule of Law to Get Him

Update: Even the New York Times is forced to admit Emmet Sullivan's work against Michael Flynn is improper and the DoJ retains prosecutorial authority. Deep into a startlingly biased Times analysis, readers are treated to:

"Either way, the department is arguing that Judge Sullivan has little choice but to drop the case. A 2016 opinion by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which oversee his district, said that the judiciary 'generally lacks authority to second-guess' executive branch decisions about whether to charge or drop a case."

See also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. FOKKER SERVICES B.V., APPELLANT (No. 15-3016, 15-3017): Judge Sri Srinivasa: "The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive’s charging authority embraces decisions about whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences."
 ---
Prosecutors across the country are disgracing themselves — the very scenario that the jurist Robert Jackson warned us about 70 years ago.

And the judiciary branch appears determined to join the corruption.

Waycross (Georgia) District Attorney George E. Barnhill covered for three racist killers to achieve his plan to protect white supremacists.

This corrupt intent is autocracy. Writes Jay Bookman in the Wisconsin Examiner:

That willingness of the justice system to give safe harbor to the [Georgia killers] McMichaels sends a message to everybody in that community, but particularly to those in the minority.

It says the 'justice system' is not about justice, it’s about control.

Calumet County (Wisconsin) District Attorney Ken Kratz, a sex offender and fabulist, perpetrated a fraud on juries to convict two innocent men, before Kratz was driven from office. Kratz claimed narcissistic personality disorder, drugs and sexual addiction made him do it.

Iron County (Wisconsin) Martin Lipske persecuted the innocent and protected the favored guilty before leaving office under a cloud as reputed probes poked around this beautiful but notorious region in northern Wisconsin.

An innocent Penny Brummer was targeted by bumbling police, maliciously prosecuted and wrongfully convicted of murder because she is an out lesbian.

Crooked prosecutors populate our country, most commonly targeting black and brown folks, but most anyone will do.

Dominating the headlines now is Gen Michael Flynn and the determination of a federal judge to dodge the prosecution in his scheme to both privatize and appropriate the United States Department of Justice (DoJ).

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan wants to do the job of the DoJ after the government dismissed its case against Flynn.

Instead of dismissing the case against Flynn, Sullivan rules he wants to hear what third parties have to say, no matter the position of the prosecution and defense, both of which want the case dropped.

Why doesn't Sullivan just put the case to a popular vote in his next ruling?

The United State Dept of Justice has exercised prosecutorial discretion and dropped a criminal case rife with misconduct and redolent of a political prosecution.

And Sullivan wants Flynn every bit as badly as the DoJ did before the Attorney General and a U.S. Attorney put a stop to this malicious prosecution.

Jun 19, 2017

Mueller Team Investigating Trump-Campaign-Russia Has Fixable Problem

Updated - A Reuters report by Karen Freifeld this morning notes the prosecutorial experience of two members of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller's team: Andrew Weissmann and Kathryn Ruemmler, (New York Times).

Weissman and Ruemmler have garnered plaudits, yet, Weissman and Ruemmler share a troubled history as prosecutors. One wonders why this history does not inform national reporting as indictment Summer begins.

Freifeld's Reuters report notes of Andrew Weissman that he "headed the U.S. Justice Department's criminal fraud section before joining Mueller's team last month, is best known for two assignments - the investigation of now-defunct energy company Enron and organized crime cases in Brooklyn, New York - that depended heavily on gaining witness cooperation."

Omitted is Weissman's conduct on the Enron Task Force that to any fair observer is appalling. Ever hear of the proven innocent James Arthur Brown of Merrill Lynch? Likely not. Bill Fuhs?

Bill Fuhs was pursued by Weissman and colleagues under the ludicorus "honest services" provision of a federal wire fraud statute, (Powell, Enron Barge). Brown was later proven innocent, and on two counts was effectively relieved of the charge stacking-induced perjury and obstruction of justice criminal counts in 2015. [If you live in Wisconsin, mention of honest services may bring to mind the corrupt prosecution of the proven innocent Georgia Thompson in 2007, (U.S. v. Georgia L. Thompson, argued and decided on April 5, 2007))]

Bill Fuhs should never have been indicted, and the prosecutions are a stain on the United States Department of Justice and the American federal judiciary.

Consider as well Kathryn Ruemmler of the Mueller team.

As noted by one of the nation's foremost federal appellate attorneys, Sidney Powell, Ruemmler ignored the mandates of the Brady Rule to disclose exculpatory evidence in the same criminal persecution that her colleague, Andrew Weissmann pursued, in the Enron mania:

They, [Weissmann and Kathryn Ruemmler], not only hid the exculpatory evidence they had yellow-highlighted, [revealing intent of prosecutors to ignore clear evidence], but in defiance of a court order, they gave the defendants misleading summaries instead.

Even the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, whose record on the Enron Task Force’s trials was embarrassing at best with several Supreme Court reversals, held that Ruemmler and her team 'plainly suppressed' evidence favorable to the defense. That finding establishes a clear violation of ethical rule 3.8–not to mention the Supreme Court’s admonition that the United States Attorney 'seek justice.' This is NOT what we would call 'impeccable legal credentials' or 'impeccable judgment'–unless that kind of calculated dishonesty and win-at-any-cost mentality is exactly what you want. Indeed, why is she still practicing law?, (Seeking Justice).

Staffing up one of the most monumental investigative units in American history is not off to an even start.

Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to this republic.

So, why is Robert S. Mueller even considering Andrew Weissmann and Kathryn Ruemmler when their records reveal they pursued innocents, acted without regard to ethics, effectively betraying our country no less?

Trump's PR messages now is that Robert Mueller's investigative dream team is engaging in a withhunt.

With Weissmann and Ruemmleron on the team, the accusation has at least prior plausibility.

My god, Robert Mueller, please don't screw this up. Staff should be beyond reproach.

Consider that prosecutors who pursue innocents without regard to ethics and human decency do not pay a price in their careers at the United States Department of Justice, American law, or society broadly.

Prosecutors should pay a price.

The valuation of this price ought not lead to blotching the pursuit of justice of the most dangerous man on the planet, President Donald Trump, who after-all retains the rights of the innocent as he is being investigated by the United States Department of Justice under the color of law.
-- Both Bill Fuhs and James Brown were among those prosecuted by the Enron Task Force.

May 13, 2014

Book Review: The Federal Prosecutor, An American Horror Story

Licensed to Lie by former Assistant
United States Attorney and Chief of
of the Appellate Section for the
Western and Northern Districts of Texas,
U.S. Department of Justice
At no time in modern American legal history has this book been needed as urgently.

"Overcriminalization is a dangerous trend that should alarm everyone. With over 4,450 crimes scattered throughout the federal code, and hundreds of thousands more hidden in federal regulations, “doing the right thing” just isn’t enough to keep you on the right side of the law. Every day people can become overcriminalization victims in a heartbeat and the consequences can be devastating," notes the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

In Sidney Powell's Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice (Brown Books Publishing Group, 2014) the villain is the United States Department of Justice and a host of federal judges.

In tales rivaling legal thrillers by John Grisham, Ms. Powell cogently lays out stories of death, and corruption plaguing the DoJ in this non-fiction account of the betrayal of America.

The stories are familiar to us as recent history—the Enron collapse and the wrongful prosecution of a beloved U.S. Senator—but what we think we know is turned on its head.

With this work, the former federal prosecutor and appellate attorney Ms. Powell stands among the great whistleblowers in modern American history as she exposes the injustices and inhumanities perpetrated by the self-aggrandizing members of two federal DoJ Task Forces, who had a license to lie and destroy innocent lives.

Many jurists already know of Sidney Powell's brilliance and dedication, and Licensed to Lie should be required reading for every high school political science class, every undergraduate college constitutional law class and is a must-read for any American with a passing interest in freedom.

No one reading this work—with a jaw-dropping foreword written by Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—can do so without being appalled.

Ms. Powell working in various capacities in defense of the innocent faced down prosecutors acting as a veritable Star Chamber in some instances, aided by an oppressive judiciary, unyielding and obtuse.

Powell names the names, and tells the facts, and nothing in the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) ought to be the same after this story is told of criminal justice as an American horror story.

Lawful duties of federal prosecutors such as the disclosure of exculpatory information to the defense (the Brady Rule), were abandoned in the quest to secure criminal convictions of innocent people.

In roughly the same timeframe as the Enron Task Force, DoJ prosecutors from the Public Integrity Section (PIN) of Main Justice targeted U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska; 1968-2009) in a prosecution so contrived, the presiding federal judge, Emmet Sullivan, ordered a special prosecutor empaneled to investigate the prosecution.

The DoJ PIN in this period operated an ongoing investigation into alleged public corruption in Alaska, nicknamed Polar PEN, begun in 2004.

Sidney Powell chronicles the criminal prosecutions and miscarriage of justice committed by Polar PEN, resulting in at least one suicide, the unlawful and wrongful 2008 conviction (later set aside at the request of Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009) of World War II hero and Senator Ted Stevens in a repulsive tableau of prosecutorial misconduct.

"I wondered how much the Enron Task Force had collaborated with the Polar Pen prosecutors and  who had concocted all of these overly creative cases without crimes as bogus 'honest services' allegations. The prosecutors had obviously cross-pollinated to produce baseless crimes and tortured law in both major investigations. The Enron Task Force cabal had about a two-year head start on Polar PEN, but the investigators and prosecutions overlapped for several years," writes Powell. (pp. 238-239)

Similar cases of prosecutorial torture of federal statute occurred in the contemporaneous U.S. Attorneys scandal as the creative employment of the Honest Services statute was used by unscrupulous U.S. attorneys such as Steven Biskupic.

Honest services. This is an ironic statute used by prosecutors who have no conception of honesty and even less regard for public service.

We can be grateful to Judge Richard Posner, of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, for writing an important opinion this last January (Fields v. Wharrie, 2014) establishing the right of the wrongfully convicted to sue corrupt prosecutors, who in Posner's opinion, no longer enjoy the absolute immunity used by prosecutors as a license to lie.

Every prosecutor who withheld exculpatory evidence, as demonstrated by Powell, should face a civil action.

Powell's appellate brief on Honest Services devastated the DoJ's use of its myriad honest services prosecutions, but Powell’s work is about the innocent and the prosecutors, guilty of betrayal.

Someone should write about Sidney Powell, the advocate from the south who just blew the lid off the hidden history of the judiciary and the American prosecutor.

(A longer version of this review appeared here in April 2014.)

Apr 27, 2014

Book Review: The Federal Prosecutor, An American Horror Story

Licensed to Lie by former Assistant
United States Attorney and Chief of
of the Appellate Section for the
Western and Northern Districts of Texas,
U.S. Department of Justice
In Sidney Powell's Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice (Brown Books Publishing Group, 2014) the villain is the United States Department of Justice and a host of federal judges.

In tales that would rival any legal thrillers or action-packed novels by John Grisham or Nelson DeMille, Ms. Powell systematically and cogently lays out stories of death, deceit, and corruption plaguing the DoJ in this non-fiction account of the betrayal of America.

The stories are somewhat familiar to us as recent history—the Enron collapse and the wrongful prosecution of the longest-serving Republican U.S. Senator in history—but what we think we know is turned on its head as we learn what really happened.

With this work, the former federal prosecutor and appellate attorney Ms. Powell stands among the great whistleblowers in modern American history as she exposes the injustices and inhumanities perpetrated by the self-aggrandizing members of two federal DoJ task forces, who truly had a license to lie and to destroy innocent lives without any federal prosecutor having conscience enough to even acknowledge the suffering they caused.

Many jurists already know of Sidney Powell's brilliance and dedication, and Licensed to Lie should be required reading for every high school political science class, every undergraduate college constitutional law class and a must-read for any American of whatever political persuasion with a passing interest in freedom.

No one reading this work can do so without being appalled by the intentional and repeated injustices inflicted onto the innocent.

Steven J. Phillips published No Heroes, No Villains (Vintage, 1978) explaining the procedures of criminal law in a gripping account of a real-life criminal law, murder case. Phillips' classic work today is quaint. In today's culture, the American prosecutor is not a friend, not a force dedicated to justice, and in a civilized and truthful explication is a villain.

"The right to do what the law does not prohibit, without fear of harassment or punishment, is one of the hallmarks of a free society." —Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (foreword)

"I wondered if my friends, Judges Carl Stewart, Jacques Wiener, and, Pete Benavides, along with (Judge) Ewing Werlein, who denied all our motions for release twice, even knew, considered, or cared about what their wrong decision had done to this young man [the proven-innocent Bill Fuhs, represented by Seth Waxman] and his family." —Sidney Powell, Licensed to Lie (p. 144)

Enron Task Force

The Houston-based Enron Company morphed from a hard asset pipeline company into a sociopathic energy-trading company in the 1990s, led by Jeffrey Skilling and Chief Financial Office, Andrew Fastow. (p. 13)

In 2001, Enron—with its myriad equity funds, frauds and shell games—imploded into the largest corporate collapse in United States history.

This collapse was a good thing for some, a perfect opportunity to make careers for a collection of prosecutors lacking ethics and working pathologically in pursuit of power—their own power.

Find some people, make up crimes, prosecute these people, and these innocents and their families will just have to suffer.

This is precisely what occurred, during the Enron Task Force prosecutions that saw innocent Americans implacably pursued by a criminal, out-of-control band of prosecutors operating under cover of the United States of America.

As noted by Sidney Powell, "Incited by public outrage, political pressure and cries for vindication from Enron shareholders, the Department of Justice promptly [January 2002] assembled the Enron Task Force—a joint effort of the department, the SEC, the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Because of the Bush connection to Ken Lay, the Enron Task Force was untethered from the department." (p. 25)

The Task Force was staffed with ambitious prosecutors from across the country, and was given virtually unlimited resources.

The Task Force was also untethered from ethical adult supervision and prosecutors looking to make a career from the ashes of Enron determined to get somebody, anybody in their pursuit of a group of innocents, along with the perpetrators at Enron.

Ms. Powell working in various capacities in defense of the innocent (particularly James Brown of Merrill Lynch) worked tirelessly in her advocacy, facing the corruption of the prosecutors of the Task Force acting as a veritable Star Chamber in some instances, aided by an oppressive judiciary in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, so unyielding and committed to letting obvious injustices go uncorrected that this brilliant veteran jurist, Sidney Powell, witnessed the physical disintegration of innocent people and their families as an oblivious nation immersed by the trauma of 9/11 never knew their story, until now.

Powell names the names, (Task Force leaders and prosecutors, Leslie Caldwell, Andrew Weissmann and Matthew Friedrich, for example) and tells the facts, and nothing in the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) ought to be the same after this story is told of American criminal justice as an American horror story inflicted by federal prosecutors.

Any impediments, lawful duties of federal prosecutors such as the disclosure of exculpatory information to the defense (the Brady Rule), were abandoned in the frenzied quest to secure criminal convictions of innocent people.

The former federal prosecutor, Powell, concludes: "As long as they [a small group of federal prosecutors] are free from accountability, the innocent are at risk and the public can have no confidence in our legal system." (p. 403)

Polar PEN

In roughly the same timeframe as the Enron Task Force was unleashed, overzealous DoJ prosecutors from the Public Integrity Section (PIN) of Main Justice targeted U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska; 1968-2009) in a prosecution so disingenuous and self-consciously artificial that the presiding federal judge, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan (aided in part by an FBI agent who blew the whistle on the prosecutors), after learning of massive and systemic withholding of exculpatory evidence by federal prosecutors, ordered a special prosecutor (Henry F. Schuelke III) be empaneled to investigate the criminal wrongdoing of the prosecution.

The DoJ PIN in this period operated an ongoing investigation into alleged public corruption in Alaska, nicknamed Polar PEN, begun in 2004.

Sidney Powell chronicles the criminal prosecutions and blatant miscarriage of justice caused and committed by Polar PEN, that resulted in at least one suicide, heroic whistle-blowing of prosecutorial misconduct by a FBI agent, Chad Joy, the unlawful and wrongful 2008 conviction (later set aside at the request of Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009) of World War II hero and Senator Ted Stevens that ruined Stevens' political career, and the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the prosecutorial misconduct.

Two main perpetrators of Polar PEN are Matthew Friedrich and Rita Glavin. who took over control and manipulated the prosecution of Stevens, but who, Powell notes, "were way too politically connected and savvy to take the fall." (p. 8)

The failure of the Polar PEN prosecutors of Stevens to turn over exculpatory evidence the prosecution had in its possession should have landed the bunch of legal thugs in prison; the Polar PEN persecutors were guilty though not ultimately held accountable, the grisly suicide of Nicholas Marsh, PEN prosecutor notwithstanding, who found himself on the wrong side of a criminal investigation.

Marsh committed suicide after being investigated for his (and several others') criminal withholding of exculpatory evidence from Sen. Stevens.

Cases without Crimes

"I wondered how much the Enron Task Force had collaborated with the Polar Pen prosecutors and  who had concocted all of these overly creative cases without crimes as bogus 'honest services' allegations. The prosecutors had obviously cross-pollinated to produce baseless crimes and tortured law in both major investigations. The Enron Task Force cabal had about a two-year head start on Polar PEN, but the investigators and prosecutions overlapped for several years," writes Powell. (pp. 238-239)

Powell does not put the corruption of these atrocities in the context of American legal history, in the context of what Attorney General Robert H. Jackson warned federal prosecutors about in his memorable April 1, 1940 address: "Any prosecutor who risks his day-to-day professional name for fair dealing to build up statistics of success has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as defects of character. Whether one seeks promotion to a judgeship, as many prosecutors rightly do, or whether he returns to private practice, he can have no better asset than to have his profession recognize that his attitude toward those who feel his power has been dispassionate, reasonable and just."

It's for the reader to decide the relevancy of jurists like Jackson.

Nor does Powell mention the contemporaneous U.S. Attorneys scandal though the creative employment of the Honest Services statute was used extensively by unscrupulous U.S. attorneys such as Steven Biskupic (Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2001-2008) in his infamous Georgia Thompson prosecution, a case without a crime reversed in oral arguments in a spectacular action by a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2007.

Wrote Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook: "Thompson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 as well as under § 666. Section 1341 forbids 'any scheme or artifice to defraud' that predictably employs the United States mails. What 'fraud' did Thompson commit, and who was the victim? Thompson did not bilk the state out of any money or pocket any of the funds that were supposed to be used. ... (I)n response to McNally v. United States, ... Congress enlarged the scope of criminal fraud by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346. This statute provides: For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. ... It is linguistically possible to understand 'private gain' as whatever adds to the employee's income or psyche-anything the employee would pay to have, rather than pay to avoid-but the Rule of Lenity counsels us not to read criminal statutes for everything they can be worth. ... Thompson's conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal." (U.S. v. Georgia L. Thompson, argued and decided on April 5, 2007)

Honest services. This is an ironic statute used by a gang of outlaw prosecutors who have no conception of honesty and even less regard for public service.

We can be grateful to Judge Richard Posner, also of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, for writing an important opinion this last January (Fields v. Wharrie, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1333) that establishes the right of the wrongfully convicted to sue corrupt prosecutors, who in Posner's opinion, no longer enjoy the absolute immunity used by prosecutors as a license to lie.

Every prosecutor who withheld exculpatory evidence, as demonstrated by Powell, should face a civil action from his and her victims.

Powell's appellate brief on Honest Services devastated the DoJ's use of its myriad "honest services" prosecutions in several cases, a catch-all invention that these prosecutors used for its apparent fun and their profit. (pp. 298-99)

But the suffering endured by the many innocents she describes, and the utter lack of integrity, fair play and justice by the federal prosecutors leave Ms. Powell without faith in the American legal system as a forum where justice might be attained.

Outside of a small group of jurists, and friends and family of the innocents, who among us knows and cares that deceitful federal prosecutors remain free as victims struggle to build shattered lives?

Powell throws this question to the reader:
The games and tactics of (federal prosecutors) Friedrich, Ruemmler, Weissmann, Caldwell, and others on the Enron Task Force should never have been tolerated by the Houston federal judiciary or by the Fifth Circuit—much less invigorated by Friedrich and Glavin as heads of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice to pervert the trial of a United States Senator. There is no telling how many others have been or will be wrongfully convicted as this cabal of corrupt cronies ambitiously climbs and weaves through the highest ranks of the Department of Justice, the FBI and the White House—in between their powerful partnerships in some of our country's most prestigious and influential law firms.

What happened to the defendants in this book can happen to anyone. Blind judges do not render blind justice.

If it were your husband, your sister, your child on trial, what should the rules be? Should the prosecutors be required to disclose everything that only he possesses that is favorable to the defense? Should those who are supposed to enforce the laws be required to abide by them?

Senate Bill 2197, the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act (codifying the Brady Rule), is still sitting in Congress. It would create a clear rule that federal prosecutors must produce all evidence favorable to the defense. (pp. 402-403)
Its fate, and the fate of justice is ultimately up to the American people.

The United States of America seems to have lost its way; it surely has lost its moral compass as the prosecutor and the judiciary inflict grievous harm onto innocent people in the name of justice.

A problem for the public is that what Sidney Powell writes about, what Powell warns us about, occurred and is occurring off the public's radar, beyond our awareness and thus beyond the reach of decency and the rule of law that could not be found by the innocent.