President-Elect Trump Facing Court Date for Fraud and Racketeering Charges

by Nomad

Trump Heads To Court For Fraud And Racketeering Before Inauguration

Donald Trump may have thought that the 75 current lawsuits filed against him and the Trump Organization would simply go "poof" when he was elected president, but boy is this uninformed president-elect wrong "bigly." The Supreme Court has ruled that becoming president of the United States does not shield an individual from private litigation concerning matters…

Not-so-Funny Money: A Short Tale of Bitter Litter in Mississippi

by Nomad

According to a local Mississippi paper, a day of hard labor pea-picking for eight Pontotoc County inmates was interrupted with another request. They were called to pick up loose $100 bills scattered about Highway 9 North.

A Dash for Highway Dough

It must have seemed like a delightful diversion, a dream come true. However, all was not what it seemed.
The abandoned cash was just a film prop, and each bill- though convincing from a distance- was emblazoned with words "For Motion Picture Use Only."

Where exactly the fake cash originally came from was unclear. Pontotoc County Sheriff Leo Mask speculated that somebody must have been hauling theater equipment. A movie reel was also found along the road.
An investigation is ongoing and the sheriff department will keep the fake loot until somebody comes forward to claim it.

Mob Control: Do Trump's Mafia Connections Reflect His Lack of Ethics and Accountability?

by Nomad

Any presidential candidate should expect some in-depth scrutiny about his business relationships. In Donald Trump's case, his past contact with the Mafia opens up a lot of questions.

As a rule, front-runner presidential candidate Donald Trump likes to denigrate reporters who report things he doesn't like. Or things he doesn't want the public to become aware of.
As an egomaniac, he likes to be in control of the message. And the message must always display the positive side of the Trump story.

For instance, when New York journalist Wayne Barrett published an unauthorized biography of Trump, Trump blasted the author and his reputation.
Insinuating that the author was on some kind of personal vendetta, Trump called Barrett “a second-rate writer who has had numerous literary failures" and his book "boring, non-factual, and highly inaccurate.”

In fact, Barret has been an investigative reporter and senior editor for the Village Voice for over 20 years. Trump might try to paint Barrett as some kind of tabloid columnist but Barrett is currently a Fellow at the Nation Institute and contributor to Newsweek.

Barrett's bio reads:

He has been an adjunct at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism for years, teaching courses on investigative and political reporting, as well as advising students on investigative projects.

In addition, Barrett was awarded the 1990 Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism Alumni Award as well as numerous other journalism prizes.

As far as the book, James B. Stewart, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, has called it "exhaustively researched"a penetrating portrait" and "the definitive account of how Trump got ahead and why he fell." If Trump fell, he was not too badly bruised or otherwise traumatized.

Trump might think otherwise or he might wish the rest of the world to think Barrett is "second-rate" but Barrett is no hack. Not any more than Trump is a failed real estate mogul.

Of course, the tycoon-turned presidential candidate has every reason to consider the author a threat and was apparently ready to silence him. 

Capital Punishment: Another Example of How Ted Cruz is On the Wrong Side of Public Opinion

by Nomad

Candidate Cruz's long-held support for capital punishment may have helped build his career but today, given the shift in public attitudes, it could be the kiss of death in the general election.

Since the time he was a Supreme Court clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist, Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has been an ardent supporter of the death penalty. The adjective may actually be an understatement.

In some ways, Supreme Court clerks have the power of life and death in their hands. They are charged with evaluating death row petitions and issuing memos about the cases. Such memos normally consist of a brief review of the facts and then a dispassionate legal analysis as to whether the court should hear the case.

Cruz took that responsibility seriously. From what you read, his determination to justify the death penalty in the cases before him was a bit unseemly. Many who worked with Ted Cruz as a clerk, felt that he took a personal interest in highlighting the most gruesome aspect of each case.

How We Came to Accept Police Brutality as the Norm 2/2

by Nomad

In Part One of this two part series we discussed the origins of the present problem between the black community and law enforcement. Reagan's get-tough on crime was based on a theory that came with some direct warnings about the potential for discrimination. The president chose to ignore them.

Reagan's anti-crime crusade led to giving law enforcement more freedom to do their job. At least that was how it was portrayed in conservative circles at the time. That policy was called "pro-active policing." 

Problems with Pro-Active Policing
An  ultra-conservative American libertarian think tank, The Cato Institute, paints a very different picture of the policy today. A site run by that organization, which attempts to highlight police misconduct, describes pro-active policing as..

the use of nearly autonomous elite police units that are trained to be more aggressive than regular officers as a response to gang and drug related violence by targeting people they suspect of being criminals before they commit crimes. These units are encouraged to use whatever tactics they can get away with in order to get results, those results being a high arrest rate.

Like the later preemptive strike doctrine of the Bush era, it is easy to see in retrospect how easily pro-active policing could be abused. The danger of this practice was that notion that police should be responsible for preventing crime before it happens. How is that even possible? 

Well, one description might remind you of the sci-fi film "Minority Report"

In proactive policing, law enforcement uses data and analyzes patterns to understand the nature of a problem. Officers devise strategies and tactics to prevent or mitigate future harm. They evaluate results and revise practices to improve policing. Departments may combine an array of data with street intelligence and crime analysis to produce better assessments about what might happen next if they take various actions.

This high tech description however tends to gloss over the more controversial aspect, a highly visible street presence which is intended to intimidate criminals before they commit crimes.  The more intimidating, the better.

Ironically, what developed over time was a gang mentality of thugs within the police force.

These teams tend to be close-knit and insular, trained to use highly aggressive tactics with very little oversight, and taught to think and act like the gang members and drug dealers they investigate while under cover.

In other words, the balance between the lawless and the lawful was so blurred that it was difficult to see which element was the greater threat to the community. The police force- especially when made up of white officers- took all of the appearances (as well as the mentality) of an occupying military.  

How We Came to Accept Police Brutality as the Norm 1/2

by Nomad

With all the protests around the country against abusive law enforcement, it is a good time to ask how we as a country got into this situation. Is it simply a matter of racism permeating police departments or does it go deeper?

With all of the safeguards hard-wired into the Constitution, how could we have allowed it to happen?

A Simple Question of Trust

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.    Frederick Douglas

There's been a lot of superficial analysis about the reasons for the nationwide protests in the wake of the Brown and Garner cases. The fact that US law enforcement can literally get away with murdering unarmed citizens in front of witnesses has shocked the nation. 

(In fact this phenomenon has been going on for decades and if anything, the patience of the black community is the truly surprising aspect.) 

Racism in the country's police departments has been blamed. A broken-down justice system has also been pointed to. In fact, it's all of those things but there's a deeper problem as well:  A lack of trust in the law enforcement agencies by the black and minority communities. 

This lack of trust has been further reinforced by a lack of credibility of the oversight process after possible violations have occurred.

It's not something that should be under-estimated. Trust is the glue that holds the entire justice system together. Without trust, the entire structure of law and order collapses pretty quickly. Now America has begun to question whether we might not have bestowed too much trust in law enforcement.  

Every time a case of police brutality goes unpunished, it becomes a double failure for the entire justice system. Firstly, from the offense itself and secondly, by the damage it does to public trust.

Blaming the Victim: Republicans and America's Rape Culture

by Nomad

Recent remarks by a Wall Street Journal commentator reveal that there are still people who are confused about the subject of rape. A high level of intoxication of both the victim and the rapist, he claimed, makes them both responsible for the crime. 

The Sheikh and the Outrage

Let us start in another country and another culture, not to pass judgement but to reveal a widespread mentality in its most obvious expression.

For hundreds of years, the West has always held a peeve with the way strict Islam deals with its female followers. This is particularly true when it comes to the burka or the scarf-like hijab.
When a prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly made a remark about immodestly dressed women were inviting trouble. During a Ramadan sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali implied that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame. 

According to one article:

There were women, he said, who 'sway suggestively' and wore make-up and immodest dress "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."Women, he told his followers,  who do not cover themselves are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators.

So, by the Sheikh's reckoning, it is the men who are prey to those predatory temptresses with their pretty naughty traps. Women, the Sheikh also stated,  were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat."

As soon as these words hit the tabloids, there was the predictable outrage throughout Australia and eventually the globe. It was tainted with that kind of attitude we often hear when discussing other cultures.
It runs something like: "It's an outrage! At least, we are better than that!"

In any case, it also sold lots of newspapers. And while the Sheikh eventually apologized but it's hard to believe he thought what he said was absolutely wrong. And why should he apologize, it is after all a standard teaching of the religion.

(It is normally not stated in such graphic terms.)

In the Islamic publication, "Could Not Answer" it says:

The harm given to youngsters, to people and to the State by women who go about naked, and with strong smells of perfume, and wanton ornaments is worse and more threatening than that of alcohol and narcotics. Allah has commanded that women and girls to cover themselves lest His born servants fall into disasters in this world and vehement torments in the hereafter.

Many Islamic scholars have an elaborate (some would say labored) rationale. Women, they would say, are precious that they must be protected. Putting their bodies on display for all the world to see is a form of disrespect for women. 

For example, another cleric in Copenhagen created his own storm by carrying the teaching to the next level when he told his followers:

“Women are not entitled to respect when they walk around without a Hijab. They are to blame for it when they are attacked”

He also said:

“All the crimes that occur against women is because they are not covered. When they are not covered, you have no respect for them.”

It is the West that disrespects women by allowing them to prance around, swaying and all, revealing their bare midriffs, or wrist, or chins. 

It is probably not all that shocking to learn that this particular cleric was reportedly later arrested for sexual assault, accused of pulling his penis out and chasing a 23-year-old woman around in a park in Sweden. I wonder how this woman brought this attack upon herself. (That's sarcasm, by the way. )

In any case, according to this line of thinking, women who do not cover themselves reduce themselves to irresistible temptations for hapless men who are unable to control themselves.
As I said, that's another culture and does not represent mainstream Muslim culture. But what about American culture? Are there really some people who still hold women responsible when they become victims of rape?

Aaron Swartz: Was the DOJ Prosecution Political or Something More?

by Nomad

In what might seem as "stating the obvious" Huffington Post has an article about the prosecution / persecution by the Justice Department of Aaron Swartz. 

In a past post, we looked at the case in which Swartz, who committed suicide in January, had been indicted and faced prison time for downloading millions of academic articles from an online archive. 

According to the article:

A Justice Department representative told congressional staffers during a recent briefing on the computer fraud prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz that Swartz’s “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto” played a role in the prosecution.

The manifesto said sharing information was a “moral imperative” and advocated for “civil disobedience” against copyright laws pushed by corporations “blinded by greed” that led to the “privatization of knowledge.”

“We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world,” Swartz wrote in the manifesto.