2 Comments

1. Posted:   May 22, 2012
   Name:   Anonymous

   Great post

   Reply
2. Posted:   May 26, 2012
   Name:   John

   Government agents and prosecutors routinely violates the rights of the citizens of the U.S. and the courts have done little more than look past some of the most egregious conduct. The USA Today’s series shows the frequency that Federal Prosecutors knowingly and deliberately hide Brady evidence when it is not conductive to their “theory” of the case (see, Justice in the Balance series). Here, in Thomas’ case, after looking at PACER docs, shows one way the government starts their unfair practices even before the cuffs are placed on a criminal defendant (see Asset Forfeiture and the Right to Counsel, http://www.thecocklebur.com). It is, quite frankly, disgusting! We throw around the words “Constitutional Rights” like they mean something. For criminal defendants whom could not afford thousands of dollars for private counsel, such as Brian Banks, a California resident who was also faced a circumstance where, most assured, his attorney simply did not want to defend him and “advised” him to plead guilty to a criminal offense he did not commit. An alarming number of “appointed “CJA” compensated attorneys simply take on too many cases with no intention of defending their clients. The average amount of money paid to a CJA compensated attorney is about $10,000 a case. When I questioned a criminal defense attorney in Ohio as to how many CJA cases he had taken on in recent years, he answered, “about 90.” Questioning him about the problem and rising number of defendants complaining to the ‘D-Board’ their appointed attorneys were ignoring them, he responded, “it is a shame, there are a number of CJA attorneys making a living off of taking on CJA cases and just keep continuing the case until the client breaks down and enters a plea.” A Federal Judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania recently recused himself from every case the Federal Public Defenders Office represented because he clearly criticized the PD’s Office for the number of continuances filed in multiple cases. If you believe this is not a pervasive problem, simply read the docket orders in United States v. Vue,No. 2:09-00048 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010). U.S. society has deviated far from the old position of ‘better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent man go free to prison.’ A google search of “Innocent Man freed” will net an unacceptable number of results.
   In Thomas’ case, the Government placed a lis pendant on property that was not even in the charging state. Property the government could not prove in the slightest had anything to do what-so-ever with the crime. The instrument, a lis pendant, is not available under federal forfeiture laws, thus, state law controls the proper procedure for encumbering property pursuant to a lis pendant. The Government ignored this law and simply did what they wanted and placed a lis pendant on an asset not in inclusive in the indictment (substitute asset). The Government charged Thomas with a drug offense, which was mostly substantiated by another cooperating criminal—caught with more than 20 kilos and set free. After constraining all his assets, he was appointed counsel. One of the properties the government knew was under an imminent contract for sale. If Thomas has the significant amount of funds, no doubt, would have been used for an “effective attorney.” However, the Government had other plans: make the property undesirable so no one will buy it by filing a lis pendant. The Government held the property under this cloud for years while Thomas (a) asked in court for better counsel, and (b) specifically requested in court the government release the lis pendent in order for Thomas to pay for “counsel of his choice,” and, (c) would ultimately plead guilty to the offense primarily because the District Judge told him he “would be defending himself” if he continued to dismiss the appointed counsel. Surprisingly, after Thomas managed to anger the court and drag it on for four years and FIVE attorneys, the Government gives the property back claiming it “had no value.” The post plea Motions are telling. The transcripts attached to the Petition, even more so. Thomas requested in court two years prior to his plea that the government release the property but was literally ignored. It is well established law that, if requested, a hearing is necessary if an accused wants to challenge a lis pendant on a “substitute asset.” Not one of Thomas’ five attorneys realized this. It would be Thomas who figured this specific rule, knowing his life depended on it. However, it was too late, he already plead guilty. Although raised in court, the releaf necessary was never give. Now the government contends Thomas “waived” the argument. After Thomas’ plea, the government, when asked to show a nexus to the property at issue, replied they were not required to answer that. Now the Government—and the federal lower courts—held the right to choose counsel of your choice is not a protection afforded by the constitution. The Supreme court better re-review Caplan. There is a huge problem. More convictions translate into more federal prosecutor funding and justification for bigger government. This includes more CJA money for appointed attorneys. I have to say, I love the harsh language Thomas uses expressing his frustration at the “rubber stamping” by clerks and the way Court “squint[s] their eyes” and find some escape to hang their hat on an affirm a Government conviction. I only hope the Supreme Court starts listening!! GO Thomas GO!!
   See my web site : http://www.capitalizingonaddiction.com and Like me at Facebook: ‘Government is out of Control’

   Reply