Law

Sgt. Derek Hale, returned from two tours of duty in Iraq, was in Wilmington, Delaware for a “Toys for Tots” campaign in November of last year sponsored by the Pagan Motorcycle Club, which he had recently joined. He was house-sitting for a friend, sitting on the steps outside the house, when the friend’s ex-wife showed up with her two kids. An unmarked police car and black SUV also showed up, and Hale, clad in a hooded sweatshirt and jeans, was told to take his hands out of his pockets. He was tasered less than a second later, which dropped him to the ground, with his right hand out of the pocket and spasming involuntarily. He was again asked to remove his hands from his pockets, and tasered again, causing him to roll onto his side and vomit. Howard Mixon, a contractor working nearby, shouted that this was “overkill,” to which a black-clad officer responded, “I’ll f*****g show you overkill!" Lt. William Brown of the Wilmington Police Department proceeded to do just that–as Hale was being tasered a third time, and attempting unsuccessfully to extricate his left hand from his pocket as his body convulsed from the tasering, Brown shot Hale three times in the chest, killing him. There were no drugs found, nor any evidence of a crime. There was no warrant for Hale’s arrest–he was a “person of interest” in a drug investigation of his motorcycle club. Wilmington police claim that Hale was killed because Lt. Brown “feared for the safety of his fellow officers and believed that the suspect was in a position to pose an imminent threat.” Police say they recovered pepper spray and a switchblade from Hale’s body, though Hale’s stepbrother says he never carried a knife other than a Swiss Army knife. Several Wilmington police falsely claimed that Hale had been charged with drug trafficking two days before he was killed, which was used by Virginia police to obtain a warrant to search Hale’s home in Manassas, which found nothing incriminating. Derek Hale’s widow and parents have now filed a lawsuit against several Delaware police officers, with the support of the Rutherford Institute and a private lawfirm. If the above details are accurate, why isn’t Lt. William Brown on trial for murder? (Details from Pro Libertate by way of The Agitator, the latter of which seems to have multiple stories like this every week. The comments of the former include some observations that the Pagan Motorcycle Club is heavily involved in criminal activity, which should be taken into consideration but still wouldn’t justify a killing in cold blood.) ...

You aren’t allowed to say if you’ve received a National Security Letter. But there’s no law that says you can’t say that you haven’t received one. Thus, rsync.net has a “warrant canary”–they periodically post a cryptographically signed statement that they have not, to date, received any PATRIOT Act warrants or had any searches and seizures. If they stop updating the statement, then you can draw your own conclusions. The second of these library signs uses the same principle: “The FBI has not been here [watch closely for removal of this sign]." (Via jwz’s blog, where some commenters question whether the recent Washington Post piece by the recipient of a National Security Letter is truthful. Note that the ACLU has a lawsuit going on about this case, which I previously noted back in 2005.) ...

Yesterday’s Washington Post prints a first-hand anonymous account from the head of a small ISP who received a National Security Letter from the FBI, which was an apparent abuse of authority: Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand – a context that the FBI still won’t let me discuss publicly – I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled. Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn’t abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters. Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case – including the mere fact that I received an NSL – from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie. I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.More at the Washington Post.

Here’s Demetri Martin on the Daily Show commenting on the Viacom lawsuit against Google. This is one that’s better to watch on YouTube than on Comedy Central… (Via Tim Lee at the Technology Liberation Front.) Historical Comments cowmix (2007-03-24): "This video is no longer available."he he he

Radley Balko reports at the Agitator on the political reasons behind the firing of U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton of Arizona. The only reason for his filing in documents released from the Justice Department is that former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert complained that Charlton refused to pursue marijuana cases unless they involved at least 500 pounds of marijuana. This seems like a reasonable strategy for something that shouldn’t even be illegal in the first place, and certainly should be a lower priority than other issues. But it also seems that the White House was not happy that Charlton and one of the other fired U.S. Attorneys were not pursuing obscenity cases that were being sent to them by the Justice Department. The Justice Department’s “porn czar,” Brent Ward, sent a memo to recently resigned DOJ Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson titled “Obscenity Cases” which said: We have two U.S. Attorneys who are unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them. They are Paul Charlton in Phoenix (this is urgent) and Dan Bogden in Las Vegas. In light of the AG’s [Attorney General’s] comments at the NAC to ‘kick butt and take names’, what do you suggest I do? Do you think at this point that these names should go through channels to reach the AG, or is it enough for me to give the names to you? If you want to act on what I give you, I will be glad to provide a little more context for each of the two situations."Adult Video News did further investigation, and found that Charlton had taken an obscenity case, but it would be far-fetched to call it a “good case.” It was an obscenity case against an adult video store in Arizona, while simultaneously another video store chain was selling and renting the same titles that the first video store was indicted for selling. The reason the second chain wasn’t also prosecuted? It had recently declared bankruptcy and was being run by trustees from the federal government. And it appears that this inequity in treatment may be the reason why Charlton declined to pursue the original case, after it was brought to his attention by attorneys from the indicted store. More details and links at The Agitator. And there’s more on the other attorney firings at TPM Muckraker. UPDATE (March 26, 2007): Balko has further comments on Charlton’s firing based on the emails that have been released from the DOJ. Charlton was the #1 prosecutor in the nation for number of cases, and had the backing of Sen. Jon Kyl, but was fired anyway. Was it for his refusal to prosecute low-level pot cases, for his investigation of Rep. Rick Renzi, or was it because he was promoting the idea that the FBI should videotape interrogations and interviews of suspects, an idea which was scuttled because the FBI and DOJ didn’t want juries to see what actually happens in such interrogations. UPDATE (April 27, 2007): The New York Times editorialized yesterday about the connection between Charlton’s firing and his investigation of Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi: ...

Via Will Wilkinson, the February 12, 2007 issue of The New Yorker has a nice profile of the Churchlands (PDF) which discusses their history and views on mind and brain (without once mentioning the term “eliminative materialism”): One afternoon recently, Paul says, he was home making dinner when Pat burst in the door, having come straight from a frustrating faculty meeting. “She said, ‘Paul, don’t speak to me, my serotonin levels have hit bottom, my brain is awash in glucocorticoids, my blood vessels are full of adrenaline, and if it weren’t for my endogenous opiates I’d have driven my car into a tree on the way home. My dopamine levels need lifting. Pour me a Chardonnay, and I’ll be down in a minute.’”Wilkinson points out that he has adopted similar use of scientific language about physical states to describe his mental states, and agrees with the Churchlands that this enhances the ability to describe what he’s feeling: I think that once one gets a subjective grasp of the difference between the effects of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, adrenaline, glucocorticoids, prolactin, testosterone, etc., monistic conceptions of pleasure and happiness become almost self-evidently false, and a kind of pluralism comes to seem almost inevitable as the trade-offs between different kinds of physical/qualitative states become apparent. Wilkinson’s blog post on the subject is here. I was also interested to see that the Churchlands are advocates of using the evidence from neuroscience in ethical and legal contexts, which brings to mind Jeffrey Rosen’s recent article in the New York Times (March 11, 2007) on “The Brain on the Stand." ...

A Justice Department review of 293 National Security Letters issued by the FBI found 22 instances (7.5%) of apparent violations of FBI and Justice Department regulations. The FBI issued more than 19,000 National Security Letters in 2005. UPDATE: This story has now hit CNN, which has more details. The Justice Department’s inspector general says the FBI is guilty of “serious misuse” of National Security Letters and that use of them may be underreported by as much as 20%. The audit found that more than half of NSLs were used to get information about U.S. citizens. CNN reports 26 violations, of which 22 were the FBI’s fault and 4 were caused by errors by the recipients of the National Security Letters. UPDATE (March 10, 2007): FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have acknowledged that the FBI broke the law, apologized, and promised to stop further such intrusions. Gonzales left open the possibility of criminal prosecutions against FBI agents or lawyers who misused their PATRIOT Act powers. UPDATE (June 14, 2007): An audit has discovered that the above-reported 26 violations were the tip of the iceberg. 10% of National Security Letters have been reviewed, and the total number of violations is now over 1,000. UPDATE (March 7, 2008): This year’s audit has shown that the NSL abuses continued through 2006 and that the FBI underreported to Congress the number of NSLs by more than 4,600. UPDATE (January 20, 2010): Yet further evidence of FBI abuses in collecting telephone records has been uncovered.

Alberto Santos, the mayor of Kearny, New Jersey, has spoken out on the David Paszkiewicz affair, with a cogent statement. Historical Comments Einzige (2007-03-09): I note with some dismay (but no real surprise) that the Mayor's recommendations don't seem to include any sort of disciplinary action against Mr. Paszkiewicz.

Today’s Arizona Republic reports that “Big lenders and Wall Street investors are going after Arizona mortgage brokers, appraisers, real estate agents, title firms, and home buyers for fraud”: Dozens of civil lawsuits alleging the gamut of mortgage fraud, from cash-back deals to lying about income on loan documents, have been filed against Valley firms and individuals during the past few months. Fraud experts and regulators say the lawsuits are only the beginning as the fallout from mortgage fraud starts to hit the Valley. Cash-back scams involve getting a mortgage for more than a home is worth and pocketing the extra money. The deals inflate home values and leave lenders with losses from loans worth far more than the house itself.A few specific suits mentioned: Phoenix’s Biltmore Bank is suing Security Title, appraiser Kittelman & Associates, and Tucson resident and house flipper Frank Padilla (who already was indicted and pleaded guilty to fraud and money laundering) over a $1.3 million loan for $800,000 property. A Lehman Brothers investment trust and Aurora Loan Services are suing the parent company of First National Bank of Arizona for 38 home loans which misrepresented home values and income, debt, and employment of borrowers. The plaintiffs bought the loans and want the bank to buy them back. Transnational Financial Network is suing Lending House Financial and a Scottsdale investor “who purchased 22 homes within days of each other last spring” for failure to disclose debt level or the fact that the investor was purchasing multiple homes (which were all foreclosed upon). Tucson mortgage lender First Magnus is suing its former Phoenix-based loan officer, Tyson Rondeau, for fraud and negligence, saying that bad loans are costing it $1 million. That lender itself has been investigated by the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions for misrepresentations and failure to disclose facts, and has agreed to pay a $200,000 fine. The article quotes attorney Michael Manning, who is working for some of the above plaintiffs, saying that “This is the tip of the iceberg, but I think regulators got on top of it faster than in the mid-1980s.” I’m not sure how fast they got on top of the S&L issues in the eighties, but they’re at least three and a half years late to the party this time around–when these fraudulent deals were working, the regulators were uninterested. Now that they’re failing and the house of cards is collapsing, suddenly they gain an interest. This is because all of these players–the plaintiffs and the defendants–knew what was going on. They were all profiting from it. The regulators and lawsuits are just a way for the larger players to cover their asses after the fact and avoid paying the full price for what they must have known was bound to ultimately happen. ...

Ed Babinski, in a lengthy post at Debunking Christianity, points out that several early abolitionists were denounced as atheists and infidels because of their attacks on the slave trade, that William Lloyd Garrison’s first anti-slavery speech in Boston was in “the infidel hall owned by Abner Kneeland … who had been sent to jail for blasphemy” because “every Christian sect had in turn refused … Garrison the use of [their] buildings,” and that Pastor John Newton, the author of the song “Amazing Grace,” was a slave trader for years after his conversion to Christianity, contrary to the story Arlo Guthrie has told on stage: “Editor’s Bookshelf: Amazing Myths, How Strange the Sound: An interview with Steve Turner, the author of Amazing Grace: The Story of America’s Most Beloved Song” by David Neff, Christianity Today, March 31, 2003) John Newton was a pastor and author of “Amazing Grace” and “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken.”… INTERVIEWER: What mythology did you yourself hold that you discovered was wrong when you did your research? TURNER: I think I just knew the basic skeleton of this story. I knew Newton was a slave trader, I knew that he had been in a storm, and I knew he’d written a song. I didn’t really know the sequence in which that happened. Arlo Guthrie tells the story on stage that Newton was transporting slaves and the storm hit the boat, he was converted on the spot, changed his mind about slavery, took the slaves back to Africa, released them, came back to England, and wrote the song. That would be nice. That would be the way we’d like to write the story. But the fact is that he took years and years before he came to the abolition position. And he never captained a slave ship until after he became a Christian. All his life as a slave captain was actually post-conversion. The majority of Christians were in favor of the slave trade. The ship owner that he worked for had a pew in the church in Liverpool. It was not uncommon at all for prominent Anglicans to also be involved in the slave trade. And it made me wonder, what things are we involved in that we think are fine but in centuries to come people will think, How could they possibly have done that? […] Newton’s tender ship captain’s letters that he sent home to his beloved Mary showed complete lack of concern for the African families he was breaking up. A telling passage from one letter cites “the three greatest blessings of which human nature is capable” as “religion, liberty, and love.” But referring to those he had helped to enslave, he wrote, “I believe… that they have no words among them expressive of these engaging ideas: from whence I infer that the ideas themselves have no place in their minds." When it came to denouncing the slave trade, Newton would not commit himself publicly until the mid-1780s—nearly 30 years after the issue was first broached in Parliament, 20 years after the Countess of Huntingdon began campaigning for equal treatment of the races, and 14 years after John Wesley wrote his Thoughts on Slavery.Ed has much more at Debunking Christianity. ...