Section I: Political Watch & White-Collar Crimes
Criminal justice issues, political crimes and shenanigans, or, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” including corporate crimes.
Article 1. Steve Bannon to Report to Prison on July 1, 2024
In October 2022, Steve Bannon was found guilty of two counts of Contempt of Congress. He was convicted of defying a subpoena issued by the House of Representatives to provide documents and testimony regarding the January 6 attack on the Capital. U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols granted a defense motion to allow Bannon to remain free pending appeal. Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison and ordered to pay a $6,500 fine.
Now that the federal appeals court upheld Bannon’s conviction, federal prosecutors in Washington D.C. filed a motion to order the former Trump adviser to surrender and begin serving his sentence. Federal prosecutors wrote, in their motion, “there is no longer a ‘substantial question of law that is likely to result in a reversal or an order for a new trial’…Under these circumstances, the Court ‘shall order’ defendant ‘be detained,’ so the stay of sentence must be lifted.” Bannon was ordered to report to federal prison on July 1, 2024.
Source: NBC News
Article 2. Louisiana and a Fair Public Defender System
Our public defender system guarantees criminal defendants are provided an attorney should they not be able to afford one. It is a basic right in the U.S. Constitution, the 6th Amendment. In addition, the Supreme Court, through Miranda, has assured every criminal defendant will be given a lawyer even if they are not able to afford one. A recent and shocking statistic of Louisiana’s incarcerated reveal 85 percent of inmates are too poor to afford their own attorney. State Public Defenders are paid by the state to represent indigent defendants. This means a portion of the state budget funds their salaries and administrative costs. In the state of Louisiana, public defenders are held accountable to a public defense board. This board was made up of stakeholders including the bar, law schools, and interchurch conferences.
Now Louisiana has a plan for the governor’s office to take control of all “powers, duties, and responsibilities” over the state’s public defender system. A recent law was signed by the governor that places the public defense system in the hands of a single state public defender. That person will serve for a period of two years and at the pleasure of the governor. Under this new law, the public defense board has been made into purely and advisory board. There are no longer safeguards in place to ensure the independence of the indigent defense system. The most alarming aspect of this bill will eliminate every single public defender job across the state of Louisiana with contract public defenders. The governor will cut salaries for current public defenders by 51 percent. He also encourages public defenders to go into private practice for themselves.
Under this contract system, law firms (or a single lawyer) bid to defend indigent clients. It is not surprising the lowest bid wins. Under the current court-appointed public defender system, pressure is usually put on the offender to close cases out quickly as possible and do the least amount of work possible. This is often called the, “fast food justice.” Public defenders are often willing to coerce their client to plead guilty, even when they may have a good defense to prove their innocence.
I don’t’ know what is in store for Louisiana and this new all contract public defender system. Having worked in both, the state of Florida and the federal system, I much rather favor the federal public defender system. The federal public defender system is based on a hybrid system. Each district is provided so much money to hire public defenders. If caseloads exceed the expectation attorneys are to handle, the Federal District Court will assign a private attorney to the case. These attorneys are called “Panel Attorneys.” Panel attorneys are also used when a case involves multiple defendants. The public defender, or any attorney for that matter, cannot represent two defendants in the same case. This would be a conflict of interest.
Source: The Hill
Section II: The Local Drug Corner
News concerning illegal drugs, the business behind illegal drugs, and drug addiction.
Article 1. The Reclassification of Marijuana and What It Means
Marijuana was once considered ‘gateway drug.’ It was believed to entice young teenagers to enter into the world of drug abuse and addiction. Last month, the Department of Justice took a big step in rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I drug, a very strict classification for drugs like heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl (drugs that are highly addictive and have no medical value), to a Schedule III drug, which allows recognition of the drugs medical benefits at the federal level. Several States have already reclassified marijuana, however, the federal system has not.
President Joe Biden announced a “major” move in a video posted to his official account on X. “This is monumental,” Biden said in the message. “It’s an important move towards reversing long-standing inequities…Far too many lives have been upended because of a failed approach to marijuana, and I’m committed to righting those wrongs. You have my word on it.” During his time in office, Biden issued pardons for prior federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana and issued a proclamation granting additional pardons for simple possession, attempted simple possession, and use of the drug. As a result of reclassification, which could take up to one year for the Drug Enforcement Administration to issue its ruling, federal scientists will be able to research and study the potential medical benefits of the drug. Pharmaceutical companies could then sell and distribute marijuana in states where it is legal.
Dr. Kevin Sabet, president of the anti-marijuana legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, based the decision. “It’s become undeniable that politics, not science, is driving the decision and has been since the very beginning. This decision won’t legalize marijuana, and it won’t release anyone from prison or jail,” Sabet said. “This is setting the stage to create the Big Tobacco of our time.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said earlier this month, “Congress must do everything we can to end the federal prohibition on cannabis and address long-standing harms caused by the War on Drugs.”
Source: NBC News
Article 2. Federal Drug Offenses and Estimates Based on Cash Seizure
Cash and illegal drugs go hand in hand. You need cash to buy the drugs and you need a supplier to deliver the drugs. So, in preparing Presentence Reports (PSR) for the federal judiciary, the probation officer must be able to account for every drug amount being applied to a criminal defendant. This information is often provided by the DEA case agent.
For example, the agent will tell the probation officer, “John Smith sold 10 kilograms of cocaine to Joe Smith for $200,000 on June 1.” Therefore, both John and Joe Smith are held responsible for 10 kilograms of cocaine. The case agent then informs the probation officer that upon a search of John Smith’s residence, $20,000 in U.S currency was seized. No such currency was found at Joe Smith’s residence. Joe Smith volunteers to the DEA case agent he only bought 10 kilograms of cocaine from John Smith and John Smith proffers the same.
Because it can be assumed that John Smith sold cocaine to other individuals, the $20,000 in cash seized was the result of John Smith’s drug sales. (He may have sold different quantities to different defendants on different dates). Therefore, John Smith would be held accountable for a total of 11 kilograms of cocaine. The DEA case agent informed the probation officer preparing the PSR that the going rate of cocaine was $20,000 per kilogram. So, the probation officer can convert the $20,000 to 1 kilogram.
John Smith would have to provide an explanation for the extra $20,000 in cash seized at his residence; like the verifiable sale of a vehicle, a legitimate and verifiable bonus received from his employer, etc. If John Smith is unemployed, just his word that he had $20,000 cash on hand, is not a defense against being held accountable for the additional kilogram.
The federal sentencing guidelines has held that the probation office and Courts also may rely on financial records and laboratory capacity to estimate drug weight. When cash is seized from a drug defendant, the courts and probation officer may connect the cash seized with a corresponding drug quantity in the guidelines. But there has to be a credible and reliable basis for connecting the money to a relevant sale. In doing so, the court may take into consideration the proximity of the cash to the drugs, testimony concerning the defendant’s selling habits, and the defendant’s lack of legal sources of income.
The above example is very clean and clear. However, many drug conspiracies are not. There are multiple transactions involving defendants and co-defendants that must be investigated by the federal probation officer preparing the PSR. Even with the help of a seasoned DEA case agent, the process is tedious and difficult.
Source: The U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines
Section III: The Firearms Table
News that will explore the business of firearms and crimes that are committed by firearms.
Article 1. Hunter Biden’s Illegal Purchase Charge
In 2023, Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, was charged with illegally buying a firearm while using drugs. The second count is that he was not truthful about his drug abuse when completing the ATF form declaring he was not a criminal felon or drug addict. The facts are clear. Special counsel David Weiss alleges that Biden bought a gun in October 2018, a time when he was frequently using crack cocaine. Biden has spoken publicly about his struggles with drug addiction.
A person seeking to purchase a firearm cannot be a convicted felon, deemed mentally unstable, or a drug addict. Hunter has not admitted he was using cocaine during the time period he completed the form. Biden’s legal team is arguing the law that prohibits a drug addict from purchasing a firearm violates the Second Amendment. They cite a recent Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which constrained the government’s power to regulate gun ownership.
However, the Bruen decision was ‘quite narrow’ Judge Maryellen Noreika ruled. Noreika is presiding over the case and is a Trump appointee. Noreika wrote that, even though the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the drug-user ban to be unconstitutional in one situation, the ‘vast majority’ of district courts who have reviewed the drug-user ban in the post-Bruen world have upheld it as constitutional.
Biden cannot appeal Noreika’s decision until after the trial. The trial started on June 3, 2024 with jury selection. A charge under this federal statute is easy to prove. The elements to prove the crime occurred are: the person signed the ATF form and reported they were not a convicted felon, drug addict, or suffered from a mental illness, at the time they signed the form. Biden’s defense is that he was not using cocaine when he purchased the firearm. The question remains; once a person is deemed a drug addict, how many years of sobriety must they have to be eligible to purchase a firearm?
Source: Politico
Section IV: Mental Health and Criminal Profiles
The hidden motive of criminals and why mental health is becoming synonymous with the criminal justice system.
Article 1. The Misconception of Mental Illness and Crime
It was often believed that people with mental illness are more prone to commit acts of violence and aggression; therefore, the more chances they will commit a violent crime. The media often portrays the violent criminal as ‘crazy’ or, “suffering from a mental health disorder.” However, there is a large body of data that suggests people with mental illness are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the perpetrator.
It just so happens that people caught inside the criminal justice system are labeled ‘criminals’ when in fact they could be suffering from some type of mental illness. There is a strong commingling of mental health illness and criminal behavior. So much so, it is difficult to separate criminal behavior from mental illness.
According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), “The high levels of reported mental illness in jail and prison populations are primarily due to false labeling of criminals as having a psychiatric illness.” This has led to society viewing behavior and conduct problems as a symptom of psychological disorder, which has led to the false public perception that equates criminality with psychiatric illness.
For example, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is the king of all psychiatric disorders. ASPD is widely and unsystematically applies to a large number of inmates in the prison population. According to the NIH, “there is a debate as to whether ASPD is even a psychiatric illness or just a societal moral judgment. The label is increasingly used to paint criminals as victims of psychiatric illness.”
Do we have only ourselves to blame? In the 1960’s when we closed our state psychiatric hospitals because of deinstitutionalization, it forced many of the mentally ill to live on the streets and be on their own. They did not receive the prescribed medication or essential living needs to help their illness. Because of their living conditions, many psychiatric patients had more contact with law enforcement and the courts. Today, these continued poor living conditions along with the lack of training and staffing in law enforcement, the court system, and correctional system, account for many suffering from mental illness to be incarcerated. The NIH has concluded there, “has been the false perception of a causal relationship between psychiatric illness and criminality.”
While we cannot label every criminal as mentally ill and every person suffering from a mental illness will not end up being a criminal.
Sources National Institute of Health
Leave a Reply