Reply With Quote
Oh, I'm not. As I'm sure a few investigative reporters won't either.
We'll see if anyone's efforts bear fruit, eh?
No, I'd have to go find his name but, that District has a U. S. Attorney whose office made the decision to seek dismissal.
Oh, I'm not. As I'm sure a few investigative reporters won't either.
We'll see if anyone's efforts bear fruit, eh?
Tell me Yoni: what, other than Sullivan's notoriety/star power, has caused you to defend his prosecution as an appropriate use of public resources?
Does it really bother you so much that people blaze up in national parks?
The principle the judge forwarded:
“a dismissal would result in persons in similar situations being treated unequally before the law. … persons charged with the same offense on the Cape Cod National Seashore were routinely given violation notices, and if they did not agree to [pay the fine] were prosecuted by the United States Attorney … there was no apparent reason for treating Mr. Sullivan differently from other persons charged with the same offense.”I'm firmly in favor of the decriminalization of all narcotics, from pot to heroin.Does it really bother you so much that people blaze up in national parks?
Meh, people make calls to get out of traffic tickets all the time.
The so-called principle cited is no more than LE custom. If the custom changes, that may indicate no more than a change in official priorities.
OTOH, the US Att'y should probably trouble itself to dispel any appearance of disparate treatment that may have arisen in this case, as you suggested above. The appearance of a multi-tiered system of justice undermines public confidence in it.
Wouldn't you think the judge who normally hears these case would have been aware of the "custom" changing?
Yes, it should. But, methinks they would have if they could and hope to keep any sense of propriety over the matter.
The U. S. Attorney?
I see no reason to assume so. It's been a short time since the change in administrations. Any change in official priorities might be of very recent vintage.
Well, I do. I guess we'll see if anyone takes up the challenge to investigate.
The law is the law. Do you not agree, former law enforcement official?
Traffic tickets are different than federal crimes. The U. S. Attorney office isn't usually in the habit of engaging in small town political favors.
So the law isn't the law. You are in favor different treatment for different people under the same law if those people have the right connections.
You think those people should be above the law.
I am not at all surprised.
You haven't established this is the case. You just assume that's what's happened.
To be fair, it is a plausible inference; but it is not the only one, and you give it no support other than your own private conviction it happened. I at least was able to point to a recent change in public policy consistent with the decision.
They need to make that legal.
What would the max. punishment be? 500 dollar fine?
Is this really a big deal?
No, I just decided to ignore your leading and irrelevant question and try to get back to the issue at hand; which was, why did the U. S. Attorney intervene on Sullivan's behalf.
You also don't know what you're talking about. I don't think anyone is above the law, I've never taken advantage of my position in law enforcement and I've never been ask to intervene on anyone's behalf. That doesn't discount the fact it happens. And, it happens at a local level because there are tens of thousands of local fiefdoms and well, local politics is what it is.
That doesn't usually translate to a federal office without there being consequences over the corruption. But, if you're willing to accept that, just say so.
It's not about the crime. It's about the favor.
There was no crime. It's about discretion.
So your indignation is based on partisanship, as is your respect for the law.
So I do know what I'm talking about.You also don't know what you're talking about. I don't think anyone is above the law, I've never taken advantage of my position in law enforcement and I've never been ask to intervene on anyone's behalf. That doesn't discount the fact it happens. And, it happens at a local level because there are tens of thousands of local fiefdoms and well, local politics is what it is.
Why are you automatically speculating that it's corruption? Oh, that's right -- your partisanship. Again, why speculate?That doesn't usually translate to a federal office without there being consequences over the corruption. But, if you're willing to accept that, just say so.
Did you do anything to stop the political favoritism and ticket fixing when you were in law enforcement, Serpico?
My impression is that the consensus around NR is that Afghanistan should not be abandoned.
True, but there have been rumblings. Was it Lowry who started to waver last week?
First, I'm not indignant. Second, I'm simply asking if Sullivan received a favor from the U. S. Attorney and, if so, why?
No, actually you don't. Ticket fixing is not nearly as common as you and others in here seem to believe.
Why not speculate? The U. S. Attorney refused to tell the judge why he requested the dismissal.
Yeah, I didn't participate...and, if it happened with others, it must not have been much because, I wasn't witness to it.
Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.thinks this is messed up.
Tim Geitner thinks this is unethical.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions