Showing posts with label Prosecutors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prosecutors. Show all posts

Sunday, March 16, 2014

D’oh! John Doe prosecutors claim secrecy protection – after filing secret documents

D’oh! John Doe prosecutors claim secrecy protection – after filing secret documents
http://watchdog.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/03/oops.jpg


By M.D. Kittle | Wisconsin Reporter


MADISON, Wis. – The comedy of errors apparently continues from prosecutors-turned-defendants in a civil rights lawsuit filed against them by a fed-up conservative political activist.


Again, the mishap involves confusion over apparently sealed court documents.


In their legal response to a motion to dismiss the Democrat-launched John Doe investigation into conservatives, the prosecutors’ legal counsel claim that the probe’s “Secrecy Orders” as well as Wisconsin law concerning such secret inquiries “limit Defendants’ ability to make a full evidentiary showing as to why Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.”


.

OOPS, THEY DID IT AGAIN: Attorneys for prosecutors in a politically charged John Doe probe have filed court documents in a civil rights lawsuit, documents they claim they could not fire, according to a legal response filed Friday by the conservative suing the prosecutors.



In other words, the prosecutors are asking Milwaukee Federal Judge Rudolph Randa who is hearing the lawsuit to deny Eric O’Keefe’s motion to stop an investigation alleged to be robbing conservative groups of their First Amendment rights, but the prosecutors can’t show evidence as to why.


There’s just one problem, as O’Keefe’s attorneys point out in their response: The defendants have already filed with the court the materials they claim they cannot disclose to the court.


The defendants include Democrat Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, his lieutenants, Assistant DA’s Bruce Landgraf and David Robles, John Doe Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz, and Dean Nickel, a shadowy contracted investigator involved in the probe. Retired Judge Gregory Peterson, the presiding judge in the John Doe, also is named as a defendant in the civil rights suit.


In a scheduling conference on the lawsuit Thursday, the prosecutors’ attorneys repeatedly told the judge that Wisconsin law bars disclosure in the lawsuit of materials covered by the John Doe Secrecy Order, according to the plaintiffs’ motion to amend Randa’s scheduling order in the case.  They claimed “disclosure of such information in this litigation at this time could subject Defendants to criminal prosecution, that they were uncertain that this risk could be ameliorated by an order of (the federal court), and that they preferred to seek action by the John Doe Judge or other state officials.”


The prosecutors want more time to make their to make their case against O’Keefe’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the secret probe.


But the prosecutors’ attorneys have already filed documents – under seal – with the court that they claim must not be filed with the court on penalty of law, according to O’Keefe’s response. The exhibits filed include “various materials covered by the John Doe Secrecy Order.” Those documents apparently are sealed but available to the judge, according to the response.


All of the materials were documents the defendants told the judge they could not use to show why the motion for preliminary injunction should be dismissed.


The judge granted the prosecutors’ request, giving their attorneys until April 15 to file a supplemental response. Randa did, however, set a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion for April 30. That hearing is contingent on what Randa decides to do about the defendants’ motion to dismiss O’Keefe’s entreaty to shut down the John Doe probe. That decision is expected to be issued on April 14.


Milwaukee attorney Samuel Leib, who is representing Chisholm, Landgraf and Robles, did not return a call seeking comment. Neither did attorney Randall Crocker, who is serving as legal counsel for Schmitz. The prosecutors’ attorneys are being paid $ 175 an hour by the state – aka Wisconsin taxpayers.


David Rivkin, attorney for O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, another plaintiff in the civil rights suit, declined to comment on the plaintiffs’ response.


Earlier this week, Nickel’s legal team did not properly redact large sections of their legal response, information supposed to have been kept out of the public eye. As first reported by Wisconsin Reporter, the information became visible when copying and pasting them into a Word document, Wisconsin Reporter discovered.


The documents unveiled a previously sealed decision by Peterson. The judge, in late January stayed part of his own ruling ordering John Doe prosecutors to return private property seized in raids on several conservative targets. The judge has quashed several subpoenas, ruling the prosecution did not provide probable cause in carrying them out.


“The issue in this case is the scope of Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws. The State’s theory is that various parties engaged in illegal coordinated activities during the recent recall elections. I concluded, however, that the coordinated activities are not prohibited under the statutes,” the judge wrote in a sealed document quoted in Nickel’s loosely redacted response.


Nickel’s response has since been properly redacted, but the redacted information still shows up on Wisconsin Reporter’s PDF link.


Contact M.D. Kittle at mkittle@watchdog.org



  1. Sources: Secret probe targeting conservatives is abuse of prosecutorial powers

  2. Scary! Phantom prosecutor in Dems’ war on conservatives disappears inside courthouse

  3. EXCLUSIVE: Judge in Democrat-led John Doe probe recuses herself

  4. Democrats’ ‘intelligence-gathering’ spreads in Wisconsin

  5. Democrats tap anti-terror expert to head secret probe of Wisconsin conservatives

  6. Sheriff Clarke: John Doe case shows Milwaukee DA is ‘weaponized for political purposes’

  7. Clarke: John Doe into conservatives ‘unbridled,’ ‘dangerous’ and ‘tainted’

  8. Sources: New judge named in Democrat-led secret probe

  9. Vendetta justice? Criticism growing about John Doe prosecutor Bruce Landgraf

  10. Will Wisconsin’s own ‘Miserable’ inspector jail conservative activist for speaking out about Dem probe?

  11. Conservative targets bring in big guns to Democrat-led John Doe fight

  12. ‘Dangerous’ game: Former FEC official blasts Democrats’ secret investigation of conservative groups

  13. Center for Media and Democracy: Liberals are morally superior

  14. Wisconsin Dems suddenly support political investigations

  15. WI Republican attorney general to represent judges in Democrat-led John Doe probe

  16. Republicans speak out about silent John Doe targeting conservatives

  17. Biggest secret in John Doe may be just how judges and special prosecutors are selected

  18. WSJ: John Doe judge deals body blow to secret probe targeting conservatives

  19. Vos: Wait until John Doe in ‘rearview mirror’ before revisiting law

  20. Lawsuits looming in Wisconsin’s crumbling John Doe probe?

  21. Conservative to Democrat prosecutors: Shut down secret political probe or face civil rights lawsuit

  22. John Doe target O’Keefe taking on IRS, too

  23. Lawmaker: Wisconsin’s John Doe like Christie’s ‘Bridgegate’

  24. Target files civil rights lawsuit against Wisconsin’s John Doe prosecutors

  25. Disparate treatment: Civil rights lawsuit claims conservative speech trampled

  26. Liberal group looking to take Wisconsin’s John Doe national

  27. John Doe judge: ‘Results of the John Doe speak for themselves’

  28. John Doe special prosecutor appeals judge’s ruling quashing subpoenas

  29. John Doe prosecutor pushed for brain-damaged man’s conviction in ATF debacle

  30. Conservatives counterpunch John Doe prosecutors’ move to stall injunction

  31. Shadowy John Doe investigator invokes federalism in civil rights lawsuit

  32. John Doe prosecutors wanted higher-priced lawyers, source says

  33. Secret agent Dean Nickel’s defense: ‘Dean Nickel is not responsible’

  34. D’oh! John Doe prosecutors claim secrecy protection – after filing secret documents


Please, feel free to “steal our stuff”! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more



Watchdog.org




Read more about D’oh! John Doe prosecutors claim secrecy protection – after filing secret documents and other interesting subjects concerning NSA at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Prosecutors rest case in conspiracy trial of bin Laden son-in-law

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Prosecutors rest case in conspiracy trial of bin Laden son-in-law

Thursday, February 27, 2014

U.S. Prosecutors: Barrett Brown & Anonymous “Secretly Plotted Overthrow of Government” … lol

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



U.S. Prosecutors: Barrett Brown & Anonymous “Secretly Plotted Overthrow of Government” … lol

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Judge: The failure of prosecutors to divulge exculpatory evidence has reached epidemic proportions



The failure of prosecutors to divulge exculpatory evidence in criminal cases has reached epidemic proportions, the 9th Circuit’s top judge wrote Tuesday.

Reacting to the federal appeals court’s refusal to reconsider the case of man convicted in 2003 for possessing Ricin with intent to use it as a weapon, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski stated that an absence of “professional discipline” and a lack of real consequences has loosed “an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land.”


Named for the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark case from 1963, Brady v. State of Maryland, the Brady rule generally requires prosecutors to hand over all exculpatory evidence to the defense.


Kenneth Olsen, who was arrested in 2001 after co-workers discovered his “Terrorist Encyclopedia” and suspicious web searches, claimed that a Brady violation occurred in his case when Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Eastern District of Washington failed to divulge a damning investigation of the forensic scientist who helped secure his conviction.


Fellow employees also found chemistry equipment and a “wealth of internet printouts and books on poisons and methods of harming people and exacting revenge,” in Olsen’s workspace, according to the court. Some of the evidence, including a bottle of allegedly “spiked” allergy pills, was handed over to Washington State Patrol forensic scientist Arnold Melnikoff. After deciding that the pills might contain ricin, Melnikoff sent them to FBI analysts, who later found traces of deadly poison.


Olsen claimed that the pills had been contaminated by Menikoff before he had sent them to the FBI. Melnikoff denied the charge, while admitting that he examined the pills on a bench that had previously held “ricin-positive” items. Olsen also noted that Melnikoff was at the center of a scandal in the Montana State Crime Lab where an innocent man had spent 15 years in prison for raping a child based on incorrect DNA analysis.


A subsequent report on Melnikoff’s work in Montana and Washington found a history of incompetence and “the presence of unexplained contaminants in his laboratory.” The Washington State Patrol eventually fired him for incompetence and gross misconduct.


Olsen’s attorney knew that the state was investigating Melnikoff, but he did not know that the report had been finished for two months before the trial even began, according to Kozinski.


 ”Rather than inform defense counsel and the court of these important developments, the Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case materially understated the scope, status and gravity of the investigation,” Kozinski wrote. “He claimed that the investigation was ‘purely administrative’ and revolved around a decades-old complaint limited to DNA testing, which wasn’t at issue in Olsen’s case.”


 Sentenced to 10 years behind bars and 5 years of supervised release, Olsen appealed his conviction to the 9th Circuit, alleging, among other things, a Brady violation. A three-judge panel unanimously affirmed in January, and on Tuesday the appeals court refused Olsen’s request for en banc review.


Judges Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, Sidney Thomas and Paul Watford joined Kozinski in a vigorous dissent to that ruling.


“Had Melnikoff been fully impeached, the only evidence from which the prosecutor could’ve proven Olsen’s intent to use ricin as a weapon would have been a few Google searches and bookstore receipts,” Kozinski wrote.


“The panel’s ruling is not just wrong, it is dangerously broad, carrying far-reaching implications for the administration of criminal justice,” Kozinski added. “It effectively announces that the prosecution need not produce exculpatory or impeaching evidence so long as it’s possible the defendant would’ve been convicted anyway. This will send a clear signal to prosecutors that, when a case is close, it’s best to hide evidence helpful to the defense, as there will be a fair chance reviewing courts will look the other way, as happened here.”


While Brady violations occur in all courts, Kozinski noted three recent cases in the 9th Circuit where the disclosure rule played a role, including United States v. Sedaghaty, Aguilar v. Woodford, and United States v. Kohring.


“Protecting the constitutional rights of the accused was just not very high on this prosecutor’s list of priorities,” Kozinski wrote. “The fact that a constitutional mandate elicits less diligence from a government lawyer than one’s daily errands signifies a systemic problem: Some prosecutors don’t care about Brady because courts don’t make them care.”


Olsen’s attorney, Peter Offenbecher, of Seattle’s Skellenger Bender, said Tuesday that, “as usual, Chief Judge Kozinski is right on the mark.”


 ”The panel opinion in Olsen will embolden unscrupulous prosecutors to hide obviously exculpatory evidence because there is no consequence for them even if they are caught red-handed,” he said.


“This is a sad day for the criminal justice system.”
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/12/10/10-36063%20web.pdf




MassPrivateI



Judge: The failure of prosecutors to divulge exculpatory evidence has reached epidemic proportions