RUDY VERITAS

ICED!

 

                So it turns out that the federal agency tasked with ferreting out child porn has one of its main offices headed by a child pornographer.  Nice!  Anthony Mangione, until recently Special Agent in Charge of the Miami Field Office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has been charged in federal court with possession, transportation and receiving child porn.  Most people aren't aware that it's Customs that hunts down child porn.  Those are the guys who raided my apartment and tore the place apart. 

Unlike Mr. Mangione, I was only charged with possession since there was nothing on my computer tying me to the 11 images they claimed to have found on a lone zip disc somewhere in my apartment.  Mr. Mangione is in a heap of trouble.  But let's not jump the gun.  True, he is not a Justice Department employee which means there won't be a total whitewash of his charges - had he worked at Justice, the 6 month investigation would have merely resulted in a quiet resignation or reassignment -  but ICE looks out for their own too.  By all rights and custom, he should be sentenced to 10 years and have to register as a sex offender in Florida - not a happy thing for the 27 year Customs veteran. 

So will his superiors at ICE "work this out" for him since he's done so much 'good?'  Let's keep an eye on this one.  My hunch is the state crazies in Florida will not sit back and watch the feds let this guy off the hook.  Florida has plenty of state laws to charge this guy with.  Which is why I maintain federal laws in this area are redundant and a terrible waste of money & resources. Here are some stories on his arraignment:

CNN - ICE KIddie Porn

Sun Sentinel - ICE Porn

Also look at this link to a Smoking Gun story as to the insane and questionable lengths the federal government is going to in order to entrap people.  They are now sending out e-mail invites to men to visit porn sites, that once you type in the URL tells you explicitly that the site is not illegal and has a 'Law Enforcement Note.'  Once you preview the site's offerings the FBI captures your IP address and then arrests you.  Does no one else believe this crosses some line constitutionally? 

Addendum - So here's my question:  If Mr. Mangione had viewed these sites as part of his job at ICE and not been arrested, then that's OK legally, right?  But if we now believe that he finds these pictures stimulating can they now charge him with having looked at those sites even in his official capacity?  Is it only OK to look at these sites if you profess to hate what you're looking at?  But if you enjoy it that's when it becomes criminal; even though you've taken no active part in creating the images you're viewing?

I'm guessing to most of you reading this, it all seems to make perfect sense.  However, to the rest of us, there is no other area of the law - none - that these tortured constitutional rationalizations would ever be tolerated by court review.  I'm just saying.

Smoking Gun - FBI's Kiddie Porn Sites

 

Russell Harding

NYT: Repeal Mandatory Minimums

I've written twice this week that while it is very encouraging that the New York Times and Wall Street Journal had front page stories detailing prosecutorial abuses in the justice system, real reform could only start to happen once they transferred that outrage to their editorial page.  Well the NYT did just that and they deserve credit for it.  Naturaly, as evidenced by the language in the editoiral, they come to this view only because there is a racial component to it.  If it were just white defendants being abused, the language leaves little doubt they wouldn't be covering this issue, unlike the WSJ.  But hey, youze takes what you can gets.  

NYT - An Invitation to Overreach

 

Russell Harding

SHARGEL

 

Shargel Complaint

                I noticed that on the day of and day after Ray Harding's sentencing there was a spike in views to this site.  I am sure many of you might have wanted to know my reaction.  Well my reaction took place away from the blogosphere on that day.  My reaction took the form of a complaint against Gerald Shargel filed with the Disciplinary Committee of the NYS Bar Association.  A copy of which is attached herein:  RAH LETTER

Did it bother me that my father and his lawyer sought to scapegoat me as the cause of all his self-created troubles?  Not really.    Ray has become a complete coward, so I honestly expected no better.  Mafia bosses don't treat their children this badly.  Still, however, a shocking thing to read.  Bernie Madoff agreed to all the prosecution asked including a 150 year prison sentence in order to protect his wife and sons.  Ray Harding throws his son on the pyre at every conceivable opportunity.  I just watch him in awe and wonder.  What a despicable and decrepit shadow of himself he's become.  Why have I not spoken to the man in eight years?  The answer is on display every time he throws me under this bus of his own creation.

I say that because as you'll see in the letter to the NYSBA I have no idea what Ray is talking about when he's blaming me for his troubles.  He claims to have conspired to defraud the pension fund of $800,000 out of some necessity to pay my legal bills.  Total news to me when I first read it in April 2008 as part of Attorney General Cuomo's complaint. I never asked Ray for a dime since before I retained Shargel through to this moment and had no knowledge of any payment ever made from him to Shargel. 

But as I say in the letter, every law enforcement and judicial player in this Ray Harding drama accepts his 'excuse'.  If that's true, then Jerry Shargel is guilty of gross ethical misconduct at a minimum and perhaps some criminal activity.  The time for casting about blame is over.  The Bar Assoc. needs to find out the truth as accepted by two Attorneys General and act accordingly against Shargel and stop him from doing this to any future clients.

 

8/5/11    Shargel Response

 

Shargel Response.pdf

Well here's the Shargel response.  I have included the entire submission minus an attached docket of my whole case.  I cannot see its relevance since half of it doesn't include Shargel.  But maybe it's some requirement.  I will be sending the Committee a detailed response next week but here are some quick points now:

1. I don't believe the 'Dear Jerry' letter is authentic.  What does authenticity mean in this instance?  First, it is surely inauthentic in that I never, ever, at any time authorized or asked Ray Harding to make any payments whatsoever to Jerry Shargel.  Never!  Second, as I will detail in my formal response the phrasing, and above all the date, of the letter are highly suspicious.  Clearly Jerry didn't tell his lawyer all the facts if they chose that particular date. I do not believe that this letter, like the Dinkins 'Dear Dad' letter, would stand up to forensic scrutiny.

2. The letter claims I asked Ray to pay Jerry $100,000 of which this is the first payment.  Mr. Ross states that Shargel only received $50,000 from Ray.  What happened to the supposed second installment?  Apparently, that is left to the reader's imagination.

3. Mr. Ross states liberally throughout the response that my accusations are baseless because I knew of all this as he relates a conversation had between me and Shargel where I acknowledged and approved these payments.  The conversation referenced is wholly fictitious, never took place. 

It's a very detailed restatement.  And fortunately for Mr. Shargel, I cannot provide him with enough waivers and acknowledgements.  How convenient that there is no document with my signature to memorialize that conversation.  Can it be that their defense is based solely on a fabricated conversation?  It may be.  Which partially relates to why they chose that date for the letter. 

4. Rather than addressing the fact that numerous law enforcement officials have stated declaratively that Ray paid Shargel (long after March 25, 2003), Mr. Ross dangles this letter before the Committee in the hopes of distracting them.

5. Mr. Ross quotes from this blog and attaches a post as an exhibit.  At least I thank him for that.  He undermines his entire point by including the whole post.  Yes, in October 2009 I stated that I did not believe Attorney General Cuomo's allegation.  I go on to say that should it prove true, I will file a complaint.  That's all correct.  I did not believe Shargel capable of this then.  However, the numerous subsequent statements - on the record - from a host of state officials, not to mention Ray Harding through his attorney, makes the matter beyond dispute.  And I filed a complaint.  What's his point?

6. Most glaringly, the date of March 2003 is long before the alleged criminal activity Ray Harding was charged with or to which he plead guilty.  Clearly, were this payment even real, it would not be the monies to which Cuomo et al. are referring.

7. Mr. Ross calls me a lot of names (i.e angry, disgruntled, etc.).  To the contrary, I am very at peace.  Seeking to redress the wrong committed by Jerry Shargel doesn't make me spiteful or vengeful.  Rather, it makes me committed and determined to seek the truth.  I hope the committee will do the same after receiving my reply.

Lastly, for the record, I would like to correct here at least one of Mr. Ross's many errors.  Ray Harding is not Jerry Shargel's father (Ross letter pg. 4).  Sadly, he is mine.  Ah, were it otherwise.

 

8/21/11    RAH Legal Updates

Two pieces of legal news for me in the last 72 hours.  First, on Friday morning I filed my response to the Shargel Answer to my complaint. 

My response is a little lengthy and perhaps slightly verbose, but I was so offended by the tactics and sloppy logic used by Shargel's lawyer that I went to pains to point them out.  His Answer basically came down to making stuff up that involved me in their alibi and then use that created series of events to claim I knew and approved all along Shargel was taking payments from Ray Harding.  It's the kind of excuse you'd expect from a teenager and not a trio of experienced trial lawyers.

RAH Response

 

 

The Declining Threshold of Guilt

Under the heading of It Never Rains But it Pours, today the Wall Street Journal is continuing a series on the explosion and questionable constitutional nature of many federal criminal statutes.  This follows yesterday's front page New York Times story on the misuse and coercive nature of plea bargains.  The WSJ's thrust is an important one relating to the very foundations of constitutional law. 

Congress has felt it necessary to rewrite centuries of accepted english common law that one must know one is committing a crime in order to be found guilty of that crime.  There are exceptions, like speeding tickets, but in matters that involve prison or felony convictions accepted jurisprudential practice has always relied on mens rea - or guilty mind.  As today's story points out yet again, federal laws are now routinely written without any requirement that defendants have any idea that their acts were criminal when committed. 

What I love most in today's piece is the single response from Justice to these outrageous abuses.  Justice offers the same line, "He plead guilty" as a means of defending its actions.  Sure, the U.S. Department of Justice threatens you with 50 years in prison, an indictment of your whole family and financial ruin unless you plead guilty.  Then, once you are bulldozed into submission, they defend their actions by saying, "See, in front of a judge he said he was guilty and took responsibility."  Pleas today are generally a hoax where the system forces you to lie and then uses that lie against you forever.  Fewer and fewer defendants actually believe in their own guilt.  But once a judge makes you state affirmatively that you accept blame and do so of your own free will, you're stuck with that forever.  And Justice then uses that to defend its Mafia-like behavior.

These stories - while surely not the NYT or WSJ intent - are all part of the larger Tea Party narrative.  The federal government - whether Congress, the Executive branch or the courts - has steadily eroded fundamental constitutional rights.  These stories demonstrate that both anecdotally and statistically.  As I said yesterday, it is all well and good to write and publish these stories on the front page, I applaud both papers for doing it.  But until they start writing a steady drumbeat of editorials calling for major reform, nothing will change.   WSJ - Fed Crime List Grows

Addendum - Let me just say as a side note, that in the same way I am sick and tired of former members of congress - Dick Armey, Bob Barr, Rick Santorum, etc. - suddenly discovering libertarian values once they leave office, I am equally angry over former federal prosecutors who destroy people's lives while in office, only to decry the laws and system they used once out of office.  Somehow they rediscover the constitutional purity of their law school years only after leaving the DOJ.  This is the rankest hypocrisy and most cowardly of positions.  Their 'come to Jesus' moment always takes place after they leave Justice.  We shouldn't admire these people for their candor and forthrightness.  We should condemn them for their duplicity and their opportunistic nature.

 

Russell Harding

Six Flags Sex Offender

The State of Florida just cant seem to keep its craziness in its pants.  Between their nutso governor and the state's obsession with sex offenders, it seems like Florida is trying to win a crazy contest and yet no one else is competing.

Remember that famous Twilight Zone episode that was shot in all shadows so that you didn't see the actor's faces until the reveal at the end?  At which point you discovered that the unfortunate young woman who was so physically repulsive was actually gorgeous (Jed Clampett's daughter) and that normal mainstream society was comprised of hideously ugly pig people.  The episode ends by the young woman being taken to a community separated from normal society so that she could be with "her kind." 

Florida has a modern version of that.  A sex offender village.  Sounds nice, right?  Sounds like ferris wheels, carnival rides and funnel cakes.  Maybe it's like Epcot, with sex offenders from around the world.   Hmmm, maybe not what it seems.  To further make night into day, the woman opening it seems all sympathetic to the plight of sex offenders in Florida who must currently live under highways and bridges.  Her faux empathy reminds me of those California ballot initiatives that seem to want one thing but are actually underwritten by corporate interests wanting the exact opposite. 

This woman isn't doing anyone any favors other than the zany hysterics who think sex offenders are like zombies - walking around everywhere uncontrollably looking for brains, or in this instance toddlers.   It's always these crazy housewives who have no life and nothing better else to do all day but work themselves up into a frenzied panic from watching daytime TV or clicking on every internet ad selling computer tracking chips for their kids.

Where will it all end in Florida?  Who can say, they aren't done yet trying for the gold in the crazy olympics.   Fox 35 - Sex Offender Village

FYI - This is the same Florida governor, Rick Scott, who said that the winner of the Florida Straw Poll would be our next president.  Hmmm, I don't even think Herman Cain believes that.

 

Russell Harding

The Smarmiest Man in America

 If anyone knows former Google exec Doug Edward's home address or e-mail address I would love to post it here so that I can help facilitate the acres of hate mail that's sitting out there waiting to be delivered. 

This is the smug, self-satisfied jerk who asked Obama to please raise his taxes.  He claimed to be "voluntarily unemployed" due to the fact that he's so wealthy from having worked - as he told us in his very cutesy manner - at a "start-up search engine."  People like Doug Edwards and Warren Buffet need to release their tax returns so that we can all see that they are paying "their fair share,"  to quote the president.  Mr. Edwards doesn't need to have his taxes raised.  If he wants to help this profligate beast known as the federal government continue to spend unabated, all he has to do is pay the sticker rate of 35% and not take the deductions that surely bring down his rate to 18 or 20%.  Better yet, just write a monster check to the U.S. Treasury or sell all your Google stock or name the Federal Government as the beneficiary in your will.

But wannabe economist dilettante millionaires and billionaires need to stop putting their hands in the pockets of entrepreneurs and businessmen trying to stay afloat in this Obama depression.

 

Russell Harding

How You Achieve a 98% Conviction Rate

You need to read today's New York Times lead story: Sentencing Shift.  The story uses anecdotal evidence as well as a plethora of statistics to demonstrate what those of us in the criminal justice system already know: nearly everyone takes a plea deal.  Not necessarily because they're guilty, but because the prosecutor can punish you severely if you opt for a trial.  Prosecutors, whether elected like District Attorneys or appointed U.S. Attorneys, want a high win-loss ratio.  It doesn't matter if that's achieved though trial or plea.  In the federal system prosecutors have a 98% conviction rate.  Almost all of that stat is made up from pleas; a win is a win is a win. 

In my own case, I was determined to go to trial and take the stand and argue my case.  I believed in my innocence.  But my lawyer made three things very clear to me: 1. If we went to trial and lost, the Judge, Lewis Kaplan, (who hated my guts and made no effort to conceal that fact) would throw the book at me; 2. the made-up charges that the Feds would have to throw out in a plea deal would be used against me in sentencing even if I were found not guilty of those charges at trial; and 3. If I took the stand and told only the 100% gospel truth, Kaplan would, without any doubt, use his discretion and make a finding that I perjured myself - which, I discovered, he can do unilaterally.  That finding would add years to my sentence. That a judge can find you guilty of perjury for telling the absolute truth, merely because he didn't like that you were defending yourself, was shocking to me.  But Jerry Shargel assured me repeatedly that after watching Kaplan's reaction to me and my case he would absolutely make that finding regardless of what I said on the stand.

So in my case, had I gone to trial and lost, my sentence would have been doubled, I would have had 5 extra years added for a phony finding of perjury, charges that were baseless and would have been discounted by a jury could still have been used against me in sentencing and any reduction in time for pleading guilty - "acceptance of responsibility" - would be lost.   Up until the very last second I was going to go to trial and argue my innocence.  But my lawyers made it clear that with a judge so hostile to me personally, there was really no chance whatever in winning and this would be an exercise in vanity on my part.  So I plead guilty. 

Various scenarios play out like this every day.  Innocent people - or people innocent of the extreme charges brought against them - are bullied by the system into pleading guilty.  The perception the public has from candidates' rhetoric is that criminals have too many rights.  The realities of today's criminal justice system are that defendants have probably never had fewer rights and protections in court.  The diminution of civil liberties, whether from Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court, goes on in earnest every year without abatement.   What will reverse this dangerous trend?  I honestly don't know.  But while stories like today's NYT helps, you need to see the outrage expressed on the editorial page, not the front page.  And in this climate that doesn't look likely.

FYI - For those of you interested in this subject, there is a very accurate - albeit  upsetting - PBS Frontline report entitled The Plea (2004).  It's available at most libraries.

 

Russell Harding

DOJ: Let Them Eat Muffins

This was too good and timely not to post.  I've written often about the two-tired justice system in this country - one for us and the other for Department of Justice employees.  Well today the DOJ Inspector General released an audit listing the outrageous expenditures DOJ makes on parties and conferences.  Examples - $16 muffins, $8 cups of coffee and $600,000 for party planners.  All told they spent $121 million on conferences in 18 months. 

When I was at FMC Devens, a few of us were randomly selected to take part in a survey and were sent to a conference room.  In this room the garbage cans were overflowing with cups, plates and empty boxes from Panera Bread Co.  The receipt for all this was also in the trash.  For what, I learned, was a routine staff meeting, the prison had spent $800 on coffee and pastries.  Even as an inmate in prison, I commented to the people I was with what an incredible waste of money this was.   This is all fine for private industry.  But the BOP/DOJ are not private industry even though their party spending habits would lead you to believe otherwise.

And what is DOJ's unbelievable response to this audit?  They said basically: At the time we did this, no one told us that we couldn't.  Dennis Kozlowski's $6,000 shower curtain (I know, state case) doesn't seem so over-the-top by comparison.  Imagine a private company or not-for-profit spending taxpayer money like this and DOJ came calling.  Indictments and prison for many, to be sure.  Reuters - DOJ's $16 Muffins

 

Russell Harding

Lies Beget Lies and Yet Even More Lies

Am I ever wrong?  Wasn't it just a few days ago that I suggested that while Mayor-for-Life Mike is definitely not the most corrupt man to have been mayor, he is inarguably the most corrupting man to ever hold the job?  Well it appears it's simply not hard to find proof of that contention.  They just keep coming.

I state without reservation that I am sure Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Robert Steel was for most of his life an honest, honorable man; paid his taxes and abided by all federal and state laws.  And then he met Dan Doctoroff and Mike Bloomberg. 

Dan Doctoroff had left as Deputy Mayor to become President of Bloomberg LLP and thought he had everything squared away at City Hall with his chosen successor Robert Lieber.  But Lieber resigned suddenly and Bloomberg was left without a right hand.  Bloomberg is the least hands-on mayor we have had since David Dinkins and can't function without strong Deputy Mayors.  So Doctoroff rushed to find a new man.  He found a Goldman banker named Robert Steel.  Only one problem, Steel lived in Connecticut.  Here is my imagining of the conversation that ensued:

Steel - Thanks for the offer, Dan, but I don't live in New York, I live in Connecticut.  Doctoroff - Do you have an apartment of some kind in the city?  Steel - No, but I could rent one for appearances.  Doctoroff - Great, so don't sweat it then.  Just change your voter registration to that address and you'll be fine.  I'll clear it with the Mayor.

I can guarantee you that conversation took place.  At which point Steel was well on his way to becoming a law breaker.  

He owns a $5.7 million dollar home in Greenwich,Connecticut.  His Mercedes, Lexus, Chevy and Porsche are registered to that address.  His numerous campaign contributions are listed with that address.  His dogs all have their licenses with that address.  His wife - with whom he presumably cohabitates - has all her relevant documentation, including her voter registration, listed with the Greenwich address.

Only recently did he change his drivers license to the NYC address after claiming he's lived here for 15 months (a violation of NYS law in and of itself).  When asked by the Daily News to produce his tax returns with a NYC address, he refused.  NYC employees covered by the residency requirement, like Steel, cannot file their primary tax return  elsewhere.

So we can assume therefore that in keeping with decades old practice, the NYC Department of Investigation (DOI) would immediately launch an investigation in this, right?  Yea, right! 

In the old days, these types of blatant deceptions were quickly discovered by DOI (all City hires must undergo a background check, including fingerprinting).  But as you know as a regular reader of this blog, DOI has made a Faustian bargain to ignore all malfeasance that takes place within City Hall and by the Bloomberg inner circle.  But there's nothing new here.  Our recently departed First Deputy Mayor didn't live in New York City either.  He beat his wife at his primary residence in D.C., not here in New York.  DOI gave him a pass on both those transgressions.

So another law abiding citizen who has entered the web of Mike Bloomberg has become a law breaker.  And now Steel will continue to lie and maintain he's a resident of NYC although all evidence to the contrary contradicts this assertion.  More lies begetting lies.  More innocent victims of the most corrupting Mayor we have ever witnessed.  Be assured, this is not the end of these revelations.  How could they be?  Mike Bloomberg is still in office.  NY Daily News - Steel Residency

 

Russell Harding

Reed Hastings Meet Alben Barkley

Somewhere in Heaven, Alben Barkley is shaking his head.  It would be a good time for Netflix founder and CEO Reed Hastings to look up Alben Barkley on Wikkipedia.  The famous parable, most often attributed to Barkley, goes something like this: Alben Barlkey - U.S. Senator from Kentucky and later Vice President - was campaigning for re-election to the Senate one day and stopped by the farm of an old supporter seeking his vote.

I hope I can count on your vote, Sen. Barkley asked.  I'm not too sure, the farmer replied.  Not sure, the Senator asked with bewilderment.  When your farm was near foreclosure, didn't I call the bank and stop them?  When your son was laid off and needed a job, didn't I call the WPA and get him a job?  When your farm was flooded, didn't I get you federal assistance?  When you had trouble with the Dept of Agriculture, didn't I call them?

Well yea, the farmer replied, but what have you done for me lately?

What part of that lesson about the American people does Reed Hastings not understand?  He had a successful product, Netflix, that offered both DVD by mail and streaming.  His goal was to wean users away from the more costly mail service and get them to go streaming exclusively .  Now the streaming service, while more convenient, is far inferior in terms of content and all users know that.   American consumers want more and better features at an always lower cost.  Not the other way around.  Remember, what have you done for me lately?

So rather than adding value to any drastic change, Hastings added zero value and doubled the price.  In doing so he informed his customers that they had been getting too good a value and would now have to pay up.  He took what was a very loyal customer base and made them some of the most hostile.  Then, when realizing the level of dissatisfaction - from Wall Street, thousands of angry e-mails, and a loss of subscribers - he profusely apologizes and proceeds to screw his customers further by taking away their queues and dividing the business, thus making the service incredibly cumbersome as opposed to seamless.  All the while continuing to provide no added value amidst his heartfelt remorse.   

I am no business genius to be sure.  But how exactly can you tell your customers that they have to pay double for a lesser product and not even offer the hope of improving it?  Currently, when a new movie is released it takes an extra 28 days to show up on Netflix as opposed to Redbox or Blockbuster.  Moreover, when it is available, it's only available on DVD; you might wait years for it to show up on streaming.  Had Reed Hastings, when announcing the price increase, promised that 70% or 80% of all new releases would show up on streaming within 60 days of release, well that would have been something.  But he's not offering that.  He's offering nothing except higher prices and a worse product.  Not to mention that many major studios have withdrawn their product from Netflix, especially streaming.

Steve Jobs offers you improved iPods, iPads and iMacs while lowering the cost for each new item or at least for the item it's replacing.  Reed Hastings, on the other hand, doubles the price and offers you less for your existing product.  Whose business model would you be investing in long-term?  

It seems very clear now this was the plan all along to split the businesses; he just miscalculated badly by deciding to do this in two stages rather than one.  So rather than taking the hit all at once, he stretches out the customer anger and continues to reignite it.  This second round of bad news - without any good news - is only likely to push people over the edge who were wavering as to whether to keep the service at all after the price change. 

American consumers are fucked routinely: Bounty paper towels has reduced by almost half the size of a roll over the last 15 years, but they did it slowly and offered little extras and sales to take the sting out of it.  Tropicana recently reduced the size of their containers by about 8% while keeping the price the same.  Not enough to show but enough to add up.  But imagine if either had said they were reducing the size by 50% tomorrow and charging you the same?  Their market share would plummet and shortly thereafter goodbye Bounty and Tropicana. 

I simply don't get what business course Reed Hastings took that told him creating a hostile customer base in a matter of days would lead to greater profits?  I'm guessing he looked at the NY/NJ Port Authority that recently increased tolls on tunnels and bridges by 50% overnight with no increase in service.  Everyone hates the PA but has no alternative.  I get he wants desperately to get rid of his DVD business and move everyone over to streaming.  But does he really think his customers will just take this lying down without looking for alternatives?  I guess he does.  And that's how great companies become formerly great companies.

 

Russell Harding