So you don't care about Jose Padilla


PDA






Fletchette
January 16, 2006, 11:27 PM
It only happens to terrorists, right?

Check out this smuggled letter from a guy accused (not proven) of tax fraud (not "terrorism"):

So much for ‘Rights of the Accussed’.
http://www.justiceforwalt.com/public/fromwalt_11_05.html

(This is the text of a letter received from Walt in the DC jail in late November. it was handwritten in pencil on the back of recycled legal documents, transcribed by his assistant, Donna. Some minor edits have been made for legal and space considerations.)

I am a United States citizen, but I find myself in what could be described as a third world prison. I have been incarcerated since February 28, 2005, prior to my trial on a financial/tax matter related to my job of the last twelve years managing the endowment of a not-for-profit organization. I am 52 years old and have never been involved in any serious criminal matters or even a minor financial scandal.

The prison is near the edge of the Capitol City of the country. I moved into this city 21 years ago thinking it would be a comfortable place to work and live. I travel a lot for my work but was always happy to return to my home here. I never believed that the government...in this country would turn its attention against me.

The city is reasonably prosperous but, unfortunately, the political climate which is nominally “free” and “democratic” has been edging into a more polarized and "security-conscious" attitude.

Nevertheless, I remained here because I was comfortable. My home is on the top floor of a building with a view of the river which passes from the mountains down through the city. Having lived here so long I know the territory: which restaurants are good, which shops have the things I need and, of course, I have developed many personal connections over a long period of time. When I learned about the IRS and Justice Department's investigations, I could have easily remained overseas, but I chose not to. I did so because I am certain of my innocence, and naively believed that would actually make a difference once the authorities invested sufficient time into their “investigation” to want a result.

Perhaps I was an easy target. I lived in this capitol city but never sought to 'buy" any political influence, unlike many corporate leaders and financiers. Many of my business activities are outside the country and my goal has always been to achieve on merit and hard work, not through politics, favors or corrupt dealings like, unfortunately, much of the business in this city. Some of the causes I have supported were not politically popular.

The jail in which I have been placed is one of two facilities in the city. One is the older jail which is falling apart but still overflowing with inmates. The other, newer facility, of which the government is very proud, is next door to the old facility, yet is also overcrowded.

When I was charged my lawyers tried to convince the judge to release me. However, the prosecutor convinced him that so much of my life was outside the country there was nothing here to hold me. Very senior government officials had made public comments about this case and the judge, perhaps out of caution, decided to play it safe and incarcerate me.

I am housed in a unit in “Building D”. This building holds around 350 persons. I have now been here for eight months or so trying to prepare for my trial. I had a top law firm working on the case during the investigation. This firm had worked with me for many years on other matters. I believe the government has intimidated this firm into dropping out of the case. They will not even return my phone calls.

I was able to hire one of the most prestigious law firms in the city. They were very costly. This firm has won some major cases against the government. A few months after I hired this firm the government helped to block the funds which were paying for my defense. This firm no longer wants to hear from me either.

A few months after my incarceration, possibly due to the poor air quality in the prison, I came down with a very serious respiratory infection. I repeatedly asked to see a doctor but had to wait four weeks while the infection worsened. Finally, I saw a person claiming to be a doctor. I was not given the antibiotics needed to cure the infection. I waited another four weeks and was having some very serious breathing problems. From outside the facility my family and friends began calling. To avoid bad publicity, the senior doctor finally saw me and provided the correct medication.

Building D is fully enclosed with tiny windows which can not be opened. During the hottest part of the year, the air conditioning failed in the building. The inside temperature during the day was like an oven, often reaching above 130 degrees F and never going below 100 degrees for weeks at a time. This continued for six weeks. The local newspaper finally wrote an article about the conditions and the air conditioning was repaired within a few days.

The warden was clearly not focused on medical care or infrastructure of his facility. He spent some of his time visiting the individual rooms of the inmates to make sure that no personal pictures were taped on the wall. He would tear them down personally or have his assistant do it.

Lawyers visiting their clients in the facility often wait an hour or more for their clients to walk the five minutes to the visiting halls. The staff required to “escort” prisoners was often busy with private matters and could not be bothered.

The prisoners are allowed to receive paperback books sent by family and friends. The books are to be sent by book dealers or publishers directly. Most of the books sent to me were returned. This happened over thirty times. I did receive books a few times. Perhaps the person in charge of "returning books" was off duty those days.

My legal and personal mail is often lost or delayed. Outgoing mail sometimes never arrives. The commissary sells stamps but for five weeks my orders were blocked so I had no stamps. One of my friends tried to send me some in a personal letter. The stamps were “seized” and I was told that this "contraband" (stamps) could be considered to be part of an “escape attempt” (!).

The first draft of this story was taken from among my personal and legal documents during a search of my room. Some other documents were also taken. This is supposed to be illegal under this country’s Constitution. That did not seem to concern the official much.

Now my lawyers are not allowed to see me in person. My case involves a lot of documents but we must work with thick glass separating us. We can not talk to each other because the electronic “phone” does not work. We must try to shout through the glass.

On November 29, 2005, I was moved into “total segregation”. I did not get to keep any of my things. I was placed in a dirty room. I do not have soap, shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrush, towels, pillows, clean sheets, toilet paper, brush or a comb. I have no legal tablets. I managed to hold onto one pen. I am writing this on the back of another document. Five days ago most of my legal documents have been taken away from me and put into storage. When I asked for toilet paper one of the guards jokingly suggested I prepare a “shopping list”. I have not been allowed to use the phone here.

My remaining hope is that my lawyers can make sense of the documents they have and present a convincing case in my trial. I still have hopes for justice as my third world prison is in the city of Washington, DC and only a few miles from my home in Georgetown. I have lived in the Washington area all my life and still have some faith and hope that the truth and an impartial jury will win my freedom.

Walt Anderson
November 30th, 2005
Control Detention Facility
Washington, DC

If you enjoyed reading about "So you don't care about Jose Padilla" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Wllm. Legrand
January 16, 2006, 11:34 PM
Until it happens to them or a close family member, 90% of Americans don't give a whit about civil rights.

Yet I see all those "Support the Troops" magnet bumber signs out there....meaningless.

Until someone they know is raped in prison, the prevailing attitude is, "*** 'em."

Jose Padilla. Terrorist. Right. The way things are going, and the way the laws are written, some of what is written here could pass for "domestic terrorism".

Land of the Free....Home of the Brave....

Yeah....

cbsbyte
January 16, 2006, 11:36 PM
If this is true I feel very sorry for the man. This is only one side of the story. What is the other?

Well I read the website including the public transcripts. It looks like he used offshore accounts through false companies so he would not have to pay income tax, and business tax on his earnings. Well under US law this is illegal. Now the question of his being detained and not be allowed a trial is up to interupation depending on whose side you believe. He could be using current public information about illegal abuses of terriost to make himself look simpathatic.

Fletchette
January 16, 2006, 11:43 PM
If this is true I feel very sorry for the man. But, I don't know what he is being charged on or the circumstances for his arrest arrested. This is only one side of the story. What is the other?

The other side of this story may never be known, for I doubt that he will get a fair trial. I do know he was charged with tax evasion, but even the guilty deserve a fair trial and legal council.

joab
January 16, 2006, 11:45 PM
this the same walt Anderson that wanted to turn the space station into shopping center or something.

The guy could best be describes as eccentric, I don't think I would trust his word, as to conditions and treatment, by itself

O.J was held for about a year wasn't he?

Fletchette
January 16, 2006, 11:50 PM
this the same walt Anderson that wanted to turn the space station into shopping center or something.

The guy could best be describes as eccentric, I don't think I would trust his word, as to conditions and treatment, by itself

Let me get this straight; because this man is eccentric he can be arrested, and held without bail for a year? Even if you don't believe his inside accounts it is an uncontestable fact that he is being held without bail and has no contact with anyone (except for shouting to his lawyers through thick glass).

TrapperReady
January 16, 2006, 11:50 PM
If it's the space entrepeneur, he's indicted for owing over $200 million in taxes.

The following link has a few stories:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/03/space_entrepren.html

Fletchette
January 16, 2006, 11:51 PM
...and that means that we can suspend the Constitution?!?:banghead:

cbsbyte
January 16, 2006, 11:55 PM
...and that means that we can suspend the Constitution?!?:banghead:

Do you know for a fact he is telling the truth or anything he said is true. Sorry, we don't know if any of the information about is treatmeant in prison is even true. He could be lying.

TrapperReady
January 16, 2006, 11:55 PM
No. BUT <--- big BUT

He seems to be eccentric enough that I would like to see some sort of corroberation of his side of the story before I get my shorts in a bunch.

Fletchette
January 16, 2006, 11:58 PM
Do you know for a fact he is telling the truth or anything he said is true. Sorry, we don't know if any of the information about is treatmeant in prison is even true. He could be lying.

I know for a fact that he has been charged with a crime (not convicted) and cannot contact anyone except his lawyers, and that is only through the thick glass.

Why can't he speak with family or friends? Why no bail?

joab
January 17, 2006, 12:00 AM
Let me get this straight; because this man is eccentric he can be arrested, and held without bail for a year? Even if you don't believe his inside accounts it is an uncontestable fact that he is being held without bail and has no contact with anyone (except for shouting to his lawyers through thick glass).OK here we go again
Please show me where I said that he should be arrested for being eccentric.
Or I can just show you where I said that due to eccentricity ( polite word for being a nut job) his word cannot be taken as gospel.

As someone who has been in jail before I find his account to be fantastic to point of utter cow flop.

But just because he says it's true then it must be to some people.
There isn't even any proof that the letter actually came from him and if it did and he has to smuggle a pen into his cell and all his mail is intercepted and censored how the hell did he get the letter out.

Suspending disbelief is fine when watching Cinderella but real life requires a little common sense

Flight risks usually get held without bond, didn't they hold OJ for about a year

joab
January 17, 2006, 12:01 AM
I know for a fact that he has been charged with a crime (not convicted) and cannot contact anyone except his lawyers, and that is only through the thick glass.How do you know that for a fact?

And where has the constitution been suspended?
He had his due process on the bail issue and it was denied just like it was for OJ

cracked butt
January 17, 2006, 12:01 AM
He 'forgot' to report 1/2 billion in income, yet he's trying to paint himself as a middle aged innocent man who has a little mixup with the IRS. :rolleyes:
I really feel bad for him, I really do. Maybe he and Kenneth Lay can be bunkmates.

Waitone
January 17, 2006, 12:01 AM
The internet is a great tool. You can learn of stuff you never knew existed.

You can also be the subject of scams and propaganda based on the word of one individual and a server.

Maybe true, maybe not. Can't tell. I'll withhold my comments about a fascist US until I learn more. I will not be stampeded by self-serving propaganda. There is always at least two sides to every story. I draw no conclusions until I see at least two sides. Skepticism and cynicism are two sides of the same coin.:D

cracked butt
January 17, 2006, 12:04 AM
Why no bail?


Owing a few hundred million $$s and having a record of living under a number of aliases in several different countries would fall under my definition of 'flight risk.'

cracked butt
January 17, 2006, 12:08 AM
Here's a short but sweet background on Mr Anderson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Anderson

Or you can go to the website Flechette posted and read the actual indictments, its an eye opener.

cbsbyte
January 17, 2006, 12:10 AM
I rest my case until further verfiable information is found. Personally, I have no synthpathy for con artist and people who take advantage of the system for their own personal gain. I dislike the IRS, but doing what he did was still illegal under the current law. Some people are held in jail for years until a court is able to hear there case.

bg
January 17, 2006, 01:32 AM
The internet is a great tool. You can learn of stuff you never knew existed.
I apologize for going off topic, but the above member's
remark induced me to recall this sort of disturbing, at least to
me, website I saw featured on CNN one time and how easy
it really was to find info regarding others..> :uhoh:
www.abika.com

cracked butt
January 17, 2006, 01:42 AM
I apologize for going off topic, but the above member's
remark induced me to recall this sort of disturbing, at least to
me, website I saw featured on CNN one time and how easy
it really was to find info regarding others..>
www.abika.com


Thanks for the link, I'll have to send it to my Father-in-law. It will save him a lot of money in the long run if he can weed out the deadbeat or drug dealers that try to rent apartments from him.

Fletchette
January 17, 2006, 02:19 AM
The way the justice system is supposed to work:

1) Police/DA suspect an individual of a crime.

2) Police gather evidence. This often entails convincing a judge that there is sufficient evidence to violate the suspects privacy. If the judge agrees there is sufficient evidence, he can issue a search warrant. If not, the police cannot violate the suspects privacy.

3) Once sufficient evidence is gathered, the police arrest the suspect and charge him with a crime. If they cannot charge him of a crime in a reasonable amount of time (a couple of days) he must be released.

4) Once the accused is charged with a crime he is allowed legal council. If he cannot afford it, legal council must be provided to him. The accused and the legal council must be given adequate time to assemble a legal defense. Unless the accused poses grave danger to the community, he must be allowed to post bond (bail) and released pending trial.

5) A trial must be scheduled in a reasonable amount of time (speedy trial). If a Grand Jury agrees that there is enough evidence to proceed, then the accused must stand trial. If not, he must be released and charges dropped.

6) After a fair trial, where the defense is allowed to examine all the evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, a jury of citizens (not the government) decides guilt or innocence. (Note: This is where the accused is deemed guilty). If guilty, the defendant may file for appeal. If innocent, the government may not retry the defendant a second time on the same charges.

The way the system is currently working:

1) The police/DA suspect a individual of a crime (or simply don’t like him).

2) The police arrest the individual, may or may not charge him, and put him in a cell.

3) No one gets to talk with the individual.

4) Years go by. People forget, or make excuses and assume that the government is right.

Fletchette
January 17, 2006, 02:21 AM
I dislike the IRS, but doing what he did was still illegal under the current law. Some people are held in jail for years until a court is able to hear there case.

How do you know he did it?

Some people are indeed held for years before trial, that does not make it right.

stevelyn
January 17, 2006, 02:58 AM
I rest my case until further verfiable information is found. Personally, I have no synthpathy for con artist and people who take advantage of the system for their own personal gain. I dislike the IRS, but doing what he did was still illegal under the current law. Some people are held in jail for years until a court is able to hear there case.

Yeah...........as if he's a violent offender and a danger to the public.:rolleyes:

cracked butt
January 17, 2006, 03:19 AM
1) The police/DA suspect a individual of a crime (or simply don’t like him).

2) The police arrest the individual, may or may not charge him, and put him in a cell.

3) No one gets to talk with the individual.

4) Years go by. People forget, or make excuses and assume that the government is right.


To make that leap of faith you would have to believe the claims made by Mr Anderson. I don't.

IndianaDean
January 17, 2006, 03:20 AM
Tax evasion. Charged for evading something that by its definition is supposed to be voluntary, not mandatory.

Cosmoline
January 17, 2006, 03:23 AM
I suspect if you looked at his actual file you'd see a waiver of speedy trial signed by him or his attorney. This website sets off my BS o' meter. It sounds like someone complaining about how a bail hearing went.

cracked butt
January 17, 2006, 03:27 AM
Tax evasion. Charged for evading something that by its definition is supposed to be voluntary, not mandatory.


How exactly is it voluntary?

tellner
January 17, 2006, 04:39 AM
A conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged.
A liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested.

:rolleyes:

Jeff White
January 17, 2006, 05:07 AM
flechette said;
The way the system is currently working:

1) The police/DA suspect a individual of a crime (or simply don’t like him).

2) The police arrest the individual, may or may not charge him, and put him in a cell.

3) No one gets to talk with the individual.

4) Years go by. People forget, or make excuses and assume that the government is right.

I beg to differ with you, but this is how the system is currently working. I have first hand knowledge of this:

1) An alleged criminal act is reported to the police. Sometimes we stumble onto one in progress, but mostly someone reports it after the fact.

2) The police investigate. This includes searching for physical evidence, interviewing the victim and witnesses (if any) and suspects (if any).

3) If enough evidence can be found to charge a suspect, he/she is arrested and taken to the nearest jail. Here in Illinois the suspect can post bond right there at the jail for misdemeanor offenses. The bond is already set and the jail is authorized to accept it for the court. Suspects charged with felony offenses are booked into the jail and the next day that court is in session they are taken to the court house where they are arraigned and bond is set. Once bond is set, the suspect can post bond and secure his/her release. In most cases they only have to come up with 10% of the actual bond. If the suspect cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed at this time.

If the suspect can't make bond, they sit in jail until their trial date. Under Illinois law, you are entitled to go to trial within 120 days. If the suspect's crime was not too serious, the states attorney may order his/her release before arraignment if he decides not to file the case. This happens more then you think it does, because there aren't enough prosecutors, public defenders, judges or courtrooms to get all those cases tried by 120 days. If the crime is serious enough to charge but the caseload is such that a jury trial would be impossible to conduct within the 120 day timeframe, the suspect is offered a plea bargain in order to dispose of the case. The theory is that the suspect will get some punishment for his/her criminal act.

While sitting in jail awaiting trial, the suspect gets visitors during recognized visiting hours and earns or loses priviledges according to his/her behavior.

4) Trial happens, suspect is either aquitted or found guilty.

In the case under discussion here, the suspect is a man of some financial means and many overseas connections. I'm not at all surprised that the judge granted the prosecutions no bail request. It would be a terrible waste of resources to build a case that complex and never be able to bring the suspect to trial.

I'm sure Cosmoline is right. The suspect, most likely under the advice of counsel, signed a waiver giving up his right to a speedy trial. I'm sorry that jail isn't exactly the lifestyle he's accustomed to living. But he signed the waiver. I would bet the prosecution was ready to go to trial within days of his arrest.

Sorry but this is nothing like the Jose Padilla case.

Jeff

joab
January 17, 2006, 08:27 AM
3) Once sufficient evidence is gathered, the police arrest the suspect and charge him with a crime. If they cannot charge him of a crime in a reasonable amount of time (a couple of days) he must be released.This among other things is icorrect.
You are held on suspicion of a misdemeaner for 3 days a felony is 21 days.

The police don't charge you they arrest you, the DA decides whether to chrage you.

And I ask again
How do you know for a fact that he is not allowed to see his lawyers except by shouting through glass?

How do you know any of hisaccusations are factual?

What is your personal connection to the case?

k_dawg
January 17, 2006, 08:55 AM
Jose Padilla had hearings in court after court after court.

Hardly an example of someone locked way without any due process.

hammer4nc
January 17, 2006, 09:15 AM
I love how the statists, (most usually .gov employees, why is that?) are moved to discredit stories claiming government misconduct. Standard fare: quote chapter and verse of the regs, thus proving the claims false. What makes you think the regs are always followed?

Faith?

El Tejon
January 17, 2006, 09:51 AM
Jeff White, I would merely add that if the defendant cannot afford his bail, he may motion the court for a reduction of his bond.

joab, the Supremes have held that there must be a probable cause finding within 48 hours, whatever the crime.

hammer, the rules and regs are NOT always followed. That's why the "system" has bleeding-heart, mamby-pamby criminal coddlers like El Tejon about. When the rules are not followed as they are not followed every single day, we throw a yellow flag and jump up and down.

For an alleged offense such as this case, it is not unusual in federal court for the bail to be set at no bond, at least initially. The defendant may motion the Court for a reduction of the bond, or ask for a speedy trial. Denial or interference with meetings with his attorney is very strong grounds for a vacation of any conviction.

Cosmoline, how could you say such a thing? Are you telling this jury that PEOPLE IN JAIL WANT OUT? I remind you, sir, that you are under oath.:D

bogie
January 17, 2006, 10:07 AM
The guy is a flight risk, and quite possibly has been up to other stuff too... You don't get moved to "segregation" on a whim, or to "stifle" your voice. Guy probably wants bail so he can boogie.

buzz_knox
January 17, 2006, 11:12 AM
I love how the statists, (most usually .gov employees, why is that?) are moved to discredit stories claiming government misconduct. Standard fare: quote chapter and verse of the regs, thus proving the claims false. What makes you think the regs are always followed?

Faith?

What makes you believe the claims presented in this purportedly smuggled letter and a website dedicated to dear old Walt are true? Oh, it's faith, right?

El Tejon
January 17, 2006, 11:16 AM
buzz, it's on the Internet; it must be true!

"My source: the Internet." Peggy Hill:D

rick_reno
January 17, 2006, 11:23 AM
I don't buy his arguement - and as the header suggested regarding Mr. Padilla - No, I don't care. Until someone convinces me otherwise, I still put him on the terrorist side of the ball. He might be a quaterback, or he might be a waterboy - we'll probably never know.

yucaipa
January 17, 2006, 11:43 AM
The man was denied bail, it happens all the time it's not unconstitutional.

He doesn't like the food,medical care,housing etc.,who in there does ?

The jails/LE are sued daily over them, around DC the jails are all run by "court order & injunctions," If you didn't like it in jail take it up with the judge they're one running the jails now days.

What does any of this have to do with Padilla ?

If Jose was given access to the legal system like this man is,I would stop sticking up for him,because of the principles involved.

Personally I think Jose's a puke and should spend his life in jail,but thats another post.

Fletchette
January 17, 2006, 02:58 PM
What makes you believe the claims presented in this purportedly smuggled letter and a website dedicated to dear old Walt are true? Oh, it's faith, right?


The website was put up by a friend of Walt whom I know. So while I do not know Walt directly, I do know his friend.

Why can't we simply follow the rules and charge Padilla with a crime (without holding in prison without charge for years)? Why can't Walt Anderson post bail as he is clearly not a threat to society? Why is it that people feel that it is ok to ignore the Constitution when their personal opinion is being followed?

Fletchette
January 17, 2006, 03:00 PM
I don't buy his arguement - and as the header suggested regarding Mr. Padilla - No, I don't care. Until someone convinces me otherwise, I still put him on the terrorist side of the ball. He might be a quaterback, or he might be a waterboy - we'll probably never know.

I read this post, and then read your sig line.

?

Fletchette
January 17, 2006, 03:05 PM
And I ask again
How do you know for a fact that he is not allowed to see his lawyers except by shouting through glass?

How do you know any of hisaccusations are factual?

What is your personal connection to the case?

See above reply - I know the website operator. He is a close frind of Walt. Even if Walt is making up stuff about his treatment inside prison, it is uncontestable that he is being denied communication with friends, family and even legal defense. His lawyers (third string) are the only ones allowed to talk (shout) with him, and only occasionally.

Also, I'll give you three guesses as to which friend tried to send Walt stamps that got confiscated...

buzz_knox
January 17, 2006, 03:21 PM
The website was put up by a friend of Walt whom I know. So while I do not know Walt directly, I do know his friend.

Why can't we simply follow the rules and charge Padilla with a crime (without holding in prison without charge for years)? Why can't Walt Anderson post bail as he is clearly not a threat to society? Why is it that people feel that it is ok to ignore the Constitution when their personal opinion is being followed?

Dear old Walt probably isn't getting bail as he's a flight risk. They tend to not get bail.

joab
January 17, 2006, 05:36 PM
it is incontestable that he is being denied communication with friends, family and even legal defense. His lawyers (third string) are the only ones allowed to talk (shout) with him, and onlyNo it is not incontestable. It is only the word of this friend.

How does a billionaire not have a team of lawyers that can make this appear on the 6 o clock news every night?

where's his dream team?

You still have done nothing to corroborate his story, in fact you have simply given a motive for blindly believing his story.

And again where has the constitution been subverted?

hammer4nc
January 17, 2006, 08:27 PM
For those eager to accept .gov's pronouncements villifying someone, all I'm asking is don't discount the possibility of a politically motivated, malicious prosecution, and govt. corruption (whatever it takes) to destroy someone.

Case in point: ATF vs. David Hudak:

CTV.ca News Staff

Updated: Fri. Feb. 13 2004 10:45 AM ET

It’s been a long year and a half for David Hudak. In August 2002, the Canadian’s New Mexico ranch was raided by several law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Hudak was charged with illegally possessing nearly 2,400 missiles and warheads, and a cache of weapons worth an estimated $83 million was seized from his property.

From the way the ATF painted it to the media outlets camped outside the ranch at the time of the raid, Hudak was a security threat, training elite Arab forces at his remote facility. Less than a year after the 9/11 attacks, this portrayal played on America’s terrorism paranoia, and the media had a field day speculating about what Hudak was up to.

In fact, Hudak was running a specialized training facility called HEAT – High Energy Access Tools – where clients learned tactics such as hostage rescue and explosives handling. But contrary to what the ATF and other departments would have had people believe, it was all above board – and not only was Hudak’s business legal, he had even previously provided training and equipment to local Canadian police forces, the RCMP and the Department of National Defence.

But that didn’t stop the American government from going after him, or from throwing every available resource at the high-profile case. Hudak’s lawyers, Bob Gorence and Tim Padilla, say officials were out to make their case – at any cost -- from the beginning.

“They were going to go that way no matter what the evidence would show,” says Padilla. “If they had done their homework … they would have found out a lot of other things, but they didn’t want to find that out, so they didn’t do it.”

“There was a great disparity of resources, and obviously, that’s the way when you’re taking on the entire United States government,” says Gorence. “They had limitless, limitless resources with regard to all the lawyers they could throw at it – ATF agents, customs agents, FBI agents. … They were traveling around the world, up to Canada, enlisting the support of the RCMP to do whatever they needed, executing search warrants in Canada.”

Ken Walton, a retired FBI agent who now works as a legal investigator, took on Hudak’s case, and he says he was appalled at the way the ATF and other government departments conducted their investigation. “It was not a professional investigation, it was shoddy. It was essentially an effort to uncover information that would support a pre-conceived idea. The preconceived idea was that something was wrong with David Hudak.”

In examining the evidence against Hudak, Walton says it was clear there were “aberrations.” In fact, he goes as far as to say the investigation was so poor, “the U.S. government would not ordinarily tolerate (it) let alone condone (it).”

“There were statements by investigators that seemed inappropriate; there were investigative techniques that, based on my experience after 24 years in the FBI, were not authorized and were not appropriate … I still think that there was improper activity on the part of the United States government in the investigation and the prosecution.”

Walton is quick to point out that the ATF is the same agency behind the botched raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993. But he says the driving force behind Hudak’s prosecution is higher up. “I think ATF was marching to the drum of the U.S. Attorney’s office,” he says.

Gorence agrees that the Hudak case was a top-level operation. “You know, as they say, a fish stinks from the head down,” he says. “In the end, I put full responsibility on this, not on these investigative agencies – whether it’s Alcohol and Tobacco, Firearms, U.S. Customs Service -- the fault in this case lies squarely with … the U.S. Department of Justice and his prosecutors out in New Mexico, because in the end, they’re the ones that had all of the facts. … They knew exactly where David got these things, these alleged warheads, and they knew exactly the circumstances.”

Hudak’s case took 14 months to come to trial, and inside the courtroom, the prosecution used all kinds of bells and whistles to play on the jurors fears of terrorism. Evidence included a video produced by the U.S. government where two of Hudak’s “missiles” were used to blow up a car. “Of course there was no testimony whatsoever of any (explosives) ever being in a car for the purpose of a car bomb,” says Gorence. “What they also did was that they wasted $81,000 of U.S. taxpayer money on that test.”

But members of the jury saw through the scare tactics. In the case of the missiles, jurors weren’t convinced that Hudak intended to use them for the purpose expressed by the prosecution. “He bought them as demolition charges and that’s what he was going to use them for was demolition charges – and nothing else,” says juror John Turner.

“After getting halfway through, you just wonder. All the pieces weren’t falling together,” says Shannon Haynes, who also sat on the jury.

“He had been open and honest with the federal government. He had the FBI out (to see his ranch prior to his arrest), he had the ATF out, he had the local sheriff and some other people out, so he was being open and honest about what they were doing,” says Turner. “You begin to wonder why all of a sudden they decided that they didn’t like what he was doing.”

When the trial finally came to a close, it took the jurors less than a day to reach a unanimous verdict: Not guilty. The acquittal should have ended Hudak’s nightmare, but it didn’t – not by a long shot. Before he could even leave the courtroom to enjoy his first taste of freedom in more than a year, Hudak was ordered back into custody. This time he was charged with a visa violation, because the papers that allowed him to stay in the U.S. had expired while he was in prison.

Gorence calls the development “truly unbelievable.”

“When you combined how it was charged with how long he’d stayed in jail -- the idea that the U.S. government in their mean-spiritedness and refusal to accept defeat, decided in a very punitive way, ‘Let’s just keep him in jail longer.’ And on this ridiculous immigration matter – that David is no longer legally in the country because his visa expired. But the visa expired because he was in custody for 15 and a half months.”

The jurors were furious. “They’re undermining our decision,” says Roberta Garcia.

“Why do we have a trial,” says Haynes. “Why do we have the right to a trial, because obviously, the government’s going to turn around and they’re going to make will of it what they want anyway.”

Hudak was finally released on bail in November 2003, almost 16 months after he was taken into custody. But until his immigration hearing, scheduled for March, he can’t return home to his wife and sons in Vancouver.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Department of Justice don’t want to talk about the case, and they refused W-FIVE’s requests for an interview. But in a written statement, the Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico stood by its handling of the case. (Read the statement here).

While Hudak’s legal battle may not paint a flattering picture of the American system, one would expect that as a Canadian facing life in prison on the weapons charges, Hudak would have received assistance from his own government. But as W-FIVE’s investigation reveals, that wasn’t the case.

Because he had previously held contracts with Canadian government and law enforcement agencies, Hudak’s lawyers tried to get officials to come down to New Mexico to testify as to the type of work he did. But after months of emails, the government refused – and in fact, agreed to help out the prosecution if required. Initially, the Canadian Justice Department refused to comment on the case, but finally, officials said the request had been denied because Hudak’s lawyers didn’t go through the proper channels.

Dan McTeague, a federal Liberal who was recently appointed to the new position of Secretary of Canadians Abroad, calls the handling of Hudak’s case “unsettling.” Because the Hudak matter was working its way through the system before McTeague’s appointment, he was unable to comment on what went wrong in that particular case. But he insists that regardless of the message the Hudak case sends, Canadians can count on their government if they run into trouble internationally.

“No stone should be left unturned in trying to help a Canadian who finds themselves in a difficulty before the law in any country,” he says. “I certainly can’t respond to what happened before my time, and that’s not an excuse, but the reality for me is that if there is a David Hudak somewhere in the world today, I suggest they contact my office as soon as possible.”

After a year-and-a-half-long legal battle that still isn’t over, those words are probably of little comfort to David Hudak. And he’s not optimistic that he will be the only Canadian to ever face this fight.

“I’m a good guy and I’ve worked for them for 18 years building these businesses,” he says. “If this can happen to me, it can happen to anybody – and that is a scary thought.”

link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/1076685047318_72094247/?hub=WFive&subhub=PrintStory

joab
January 17, 2006, 08:41 PM
So should I now find a link to a flawless arrest, investigation, prosecution and conviction to counter your above post.

How would that apply to the case of Walt Anderson?

Nobody here has called the government infallible.
There's just a general opinion that Walt (and his friend's) word is questionable

hammer4nc
January 17, 2006, 08:42 PM
Quite a big gap between fallible and vindictive...

joab
January 17, 2006, 08:48 PM
Quite a gap between Hudak and Anderson

Fletchette
January 17, 2006, 10:53 PM
No it is not incontestable. It is only the word of this friend.

How does a billionaire not have a team of lawyers that can make this appear on the 6 o clock news every night?

where's his dream team??

Ugh. Well, if you had actually read the letter, you would have seen that his assets were frozen so that he could not hire a "Dream Team". Imagine the outcry if O.J. Simpson's assets were frozen during trial.


You still have done nothing to corroborate his story, in fact you have simply given a motive for blindly believing his story.

Since turn about is fair play; what have you done to corroborate your position (that the govenrment is not railroading this guy)? Any proof? At least I know someone close to the issue. You are simply believing the govenrment because you want to. Battered wife syndrome.

And again where has the constitution been subverted?

Oh, where to begin? Not allowing bail for a suspect that is no threat to society. Not allowing legal council. Freezing assets without proof of guilt. No speedy trial. No grand jury.

You know, there once was a time when the average American agreed that the government should not be able to arrest someone without charge or trial, put them in jail and throw away the key. In fact, I remember this being one of the reasons the Soviets were so 'evil'.

I guess principles do not amount to much nowadays.

joab
January 17, 2006, 11:09 PM
You are simply believing the government because you want to.No I'm simply not drinking Anderson's koolaide ( that was in response to your ridiculous BWS comment)

I guess principles do not amount to much nowadays.There you go anybody that does not believe your buddy has a principle deficiency

Fletchette
January 17, 2006, 11:48 PM
So, in your opinion, has the government ever made a mistake or abused it's authority? Waco? Ruby Ridge? Eleon Gonzoles? Wen Ho Lee? Eminent domain?

Or were all these cases hunky-dory in your world?

I ask because you seem to have two different standards of proof - one which says that the accused must have all sorts of uncontestable proof (and even that may be suspect), and another standard where the government doesn't have to prove a thing - you just take their story on face value.

Government said he evaded paying taxes - you believe them, even without a trial. The government's word is good enough for you.

Government said Jose was a terrorist - you believe them, even without a trial. The government's word is good enough for you.

That is the definition of Battered Wife Syndrome. You believe what you want and ingore facts that may prove otherwise.

cracked butt
January 18, 2006, 12:41 AM
http://www.justiceforwalt.com/publicrecords.html

Oh, where to begin? Not allowing bail for a suspect that is no threat to society. Not allowing legal council. Freezing assets without proof of guilt. No speedy trial. No grand jury.


Try reading from the website you linked on your first post. go here: http://www.justiceforwalt.com/publicrecords.html Then click 'grand Jury Indictment' Of course this document might have been made up by a secret society of Trilaterals that fly around in black helicoptors too.:rolleyes:

Bail- sure the jusdge should have set bail. $200,000,000 would be a fair level of bail considering that is how much Anerson allegedly owes to the government. If he posts bail, shows up to trial and wins, he gets it back. If he skips bail and moves to Switzerland ala Marc Rich, We The People get the tax revenue that was originally owed and we won't have to pay to house and feed poor Mr Anderson in substandard government housing for the rest of his miserable life. Its a win-win situation.

joab
January 18, 2006, 12:43 AM
So, in your opinion, has the government ever made a mistake or abused it's authority? Waco? Ruby Ridge? Eleon Gonzoles? Wen Ho Lee? Eminent domain?How many times do we have to do this.
Please point out where I have said that the government is infallible, or better yet look to my post to see where I have said that I am not making that claim. And then point out where the Anderson case and these intersect

I ask because you seem to have two different standards of proof - one which says that the accused must have all sorts of incontestable proof (and even that may be suspect), and another standard where the government doesn't have to prove a thing - you just take their story on face value.Please show me my example of two standards or that I want the accused to have incontestable proof of their innocence. The only one that has brought up the term incontestable ids you. And then you fail to even try to prove that incontestability.
I simply think that your friend is full of crap based on my own experience with criminals and the criminal system and his history plus the fantastic unbelievability of his claims

Government said he evaded paying taxes - you believe them, even without a trial. The government's word is good enough for you.Please point out where I even suggested that I believed that he was guilty of tax evasion. A little reading comprehension goes a long way here. I simply stated that the conditions that he claims to be kept under are unbelievable which brings doubt to his entire story

Government said Jose was a terrorist - you believe them, even without a trial. The government's word is good enough for you.Please point out any post on this entire forum where I have even commented either way on Padilla. When you get tired of searching come back and tell me exactly how you come up with an opinion of my opinion of the case

That is the definition of Battered Wife Syndrome. You believe what you want and ingore facts that may prove otherwise.Sounds like you may have a little dose of it yourself .

Read my sig. It was put there for people like you.

Address the comments that I have actually made which were about comments that you actually made nothing else.

You come here making fantastic claims and when asked to prove them you try to put it on me to counter prove them. That's not the way it works here and you know it.

but instead of even attempting to actually prove your case you insult the intelligence of any that don't drink your koolaide. I would give you a definition of that, but I don't know what it means other than to blindly follow another with no validation of the cause

Derby FALs
January 18, 2006, 12:53 AM
Jose Padilla had hearings in court after court after court.

Hardly an example of someone locked way without any due process.

He wasn't charged with a crime for three years and when he was it wasn't the crimes which Ashcroft announced. He was denied access to his lawyer until roughly a week before the Supreme Court was to hear his case in 2004.

hammer4nc
January 18, 2006, 09:55 AM
Re: IRS is rife with corruption; hilarity ensues as the apologists line up to defend the agency (they're not infallible!), demonize imprisoned victims...:uhoh:

Shall we discuss the soon to be released Barrett report, or start a new thread?

Example of "fallibility":

Report: Clinton administration quashed fraud case against Cisneros
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
New York Daily News

WASHINGTON - A special prosecutor's long-delayed report charges that a coverup at senior levels of the Clinton administration killed a tax fraud case against former Cabinet member Henry Cisneros, the New York Daily News has learned.

David Barrett's 11-year, $23 million probe, which will be released Thursday, states in stinging terms that the Clinton coverup succeeded.

Cisneros was forced to admit in 1999 that he had made secret payments to a mistress before serving as Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Barrett went on to investigate tax fraud charges stemming from those under-the-table payments.

Then-IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson, a close friend of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was involved in efforts to quash the probe, a source close to the case alleged.

But Richardson's role was cut from Barrett's report, which went through 26 drafts, because Democratic law firm Williams & Connolly successfully pressured Barrett to remove a section of the report naming her, a source said.

The law firm represents Cisneros, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

A Williams & Connolly attorney declined to comment.

Before Cisneros' 1999 guilty plea, Barrett's office began a second phase based in part on allegations in a 1997 memo to IRS headquarters by whistleblower John Filan, an IRS criminal investigations chief in Texas.

In a memo obtained by the Daily News, Filan accused top Clinton officials, including senior IRS lawyer Barry Finkelstein, of covering up Cisneros' tax fraud case by transferring it to two inexperienced lawyers in Washington.

Filan wrote that the two got orders "to kill the case from Barry Finkelstein at the outset."

Reached Tuesday night, Finkelstein declined to comment.

One of Cisneros' then-defense attorneys, Cono Namorato - who is now chief of IRS internal affairs - referred a reporter to Barrett's report.

Fletchette
January 18, 2006, 02:23 PM
http://www.justiceforwalt.com/publicrecords.html



Try reading from the website you linked on your first post. go here: http://www.justiceforwalt.com/publicrecords.html Then click 'grand Jury Indictment' Of course this document might have been made up by a secret society of Trilaterals that fly around in black helicoptors too.:rolleyes:


My apologies; I was not clear in that I was talking about both the Anderson and the Padilla case (the Padilla case had no grand jury). However, you don't have to believe in secret societies to acknowledge the fact that the government is abusing its authority.

[Bail- sure the jusdge should have set bail. $200,000,000 would be a fair level of bail considering that is how much Anerson allegedly owes to the government. If he posts bail, shows up to trial and wins, he gets it back. If he skips bail and moves to Switzerland ala Marc Rich, We The People get the tax revenue that was originally owed and we won't have to pay to house and feed poor Mr Anderson in substandard government housing for the rest of his miserable life. Its a win-win situation.

Fair enough. But the judge did not set bail. Mr. Anderson is in prison for a long time without trial. Can we agree that this is wrong?

joab
January 18, 2006, 02:23 PM
Example of "fallibility":Please point out where any body participating in this discussion has claimed that the government is "infallible" or above corruption.

The if you can please point out where your link corroborates the conditions that Anderson claims to be held under or even correlates to Anderson's case at all

This is really getting boring.

Claims are made about a certain case. Those claims are left not only unproven but attempts are made to sway the argument in other directions to cloud the fact that those claims have not been proven.

buzz_knox
January 18, 2006, 02:34 PM
Fair enough. But the judge did not set bail. Mr. Anderson is in prison for a long time without trial. Can we agree that this is wrong?

Nope. Excessive bail is prohibited, but where there is a likelihood of flight, it's well-settled that bail isn't guaranteed. Basically, where no amount of bond would insure that the defendent will remain in the jurisdiction, they don't get it. So no, your argument goes against the weight of American jurisprudence so agreeing that it's wrong would be agreeing to a falsehood.

Fletchette
January 18, 2006, 02:55 PM
Please point out where I have said that the government is infallible, or better yet look to my post to see where I have said that I am not making that claim. And then point out where the Anderson case and these intersect

You have not said that the government is infallible, in fact you have gone out of your way to state the opposite. However, you have assumed that because Mr. Anderson is eccentric we cannot believe his story and dismiss the whole affair and assume that the government is handling this case well, based soley on the governemnt's word.

Please show me my example of two standards or that I want the accused to have incontestable proof of their innocence. The only one that has brought up the term incontestable ids you. And then you fail to even try to prove that incontestability.
I simply think that your friend is full of crap based on my own experience with criminals and the criminal system and his history plus the fantastic unbelievability of his claims

Ok, this is entering the realm of philosophy. "Prove to me that we are real and not just someone's dream". We know that Mr. Anderson was arrested and held without setting bail from public records. We also know that he has been held for eight months and will easily spend a year in prison before his trial, again from public records. If this is 'contestable' then we simply are living in two differnent realms.

The conditions of the prison are not validated, but the above two points are.



Please point out where I even suggested that I believed that he was guilty of tax evasion. A little reading comprehension goes a long way here. I simply stated that the conditions that he claims to be kept under are unbelievable which brings doubt to his entire story

You haven't.

Please point out any post on this entire forum where I have even commented either way on Padilla. When you get tired of searching come back and tell me exactly how you come up with an opinion of my opinion of the case

You haven't.

Sounds like you may have a little dose of it yourself .

Read my sig. It was put there for people like you.

Address the comments that I have actually made which were about comments that you actually made nothing else.

You come here making fantastic claims and when asked to prove them you try to put it on me to counter prove them. That's not the way it works here and you know it.

but instead of even attempting to actually prove your case you insult the intelligence of any that don't drink your koolaide. I would give you a definition of that, but I don't know what it means other than to blindly follow another with no validation of the cause

Fair enough. Upon review of my postings I agree that I erred and attacked your intelligence rather than your arguement. My apoligies. As I said before I have a personal connection to this case and my emotions got the better of me.

My position is this:

Many people (in the community in general; I am not insinuating anyone specifically here) assume that someone is guilty simply because the government says so. The Jose Padilla case is a classic example. I am concerned that the Anderson case is starting to look like the Padilla case. All I am arguing for is that the accused gets a fair trial. If he is found guilty, then he should serve his sentence.

It is this presumption of guilt, based solely on the government's word, which alarms me.

Sindawe
January 18, 2006, 03:04 PM
It is this presumption of guilt, based solely on the government's word, which alarms me.+100 Sadly, this is a phenomena which has plagued this nation from day one.

joab
January 18, 2006, 05:38 PM
you have assumed that because Mr. Anderson is eccentric we cannot believe his story and dismiss the whole affair and assume that the government is handling this case well, based solely on the government's word.No I have assumed that since he is "eccentric, and because his claims are not believable to me any more than the word of every other accused that has ever been incarcerated and claims over the top claims of abuses that are just not realistic, that his word is not enough to independently support his claims. I have made no comment on the government's handling of the case. You choose to assume that I support them in the matter. When have formed no opinion of Anderson's guilt or innocence and have presented no evidence of having that opinion here. You choose to assume that because I don't believe his fantastic story of prison life that I believe him to be guilty of the crime he was arrested for.

Ok, this is entering the realm of philosophy. "Prove to me that we are real and not just someone's dream". We know that Mr. Anderson was arrested and held without setting bail from public records. We also know that he has been held for eight months and will easily spend a year in prison before his trial, again from public records. If this is 'contestable' then we simply are living in two different realms.

The conditions of the prison are not validated, but the above two points are.It is contestable, bail was set. At the bail hearing he was deemed to be a flight risk and bail was denied. Whether you agree with it or not due process was observed. You are not guaranteed bail you are only guaranteed a hearing on bail.
This proving that we are real or a dream crap is just further digressive diversion by you.
You have made claims based on the word of a man that is not acceptable as undeniable proof I'm not asking you to prove that any of us are or are not a dream I'm simply asking you to provide proof of your claims.
I can get the same line of BS from 99% of the prisoners in county lock up, hell I told similar stories when I was there and for awhile afterwards and I felt I was being truthful but the facts did not verify my version of the events

As I said before I have a personal connection to this case and my emotions got the better of me. Respectfully I think that is your whole case in a nutshell.
Your l;loyalty to a friend (of a friend) is not totally uncomendable, but it is hardly proof of you charges.
You should hear what my mother says about Orange County deputies based on my accounts of my case.

It is this presumption of guilt, based solely on the government's word, which alarms me.And it's the presumption of innocence based solely on the fact that he is an acquaintance that fails to stir me to outrage

Fletchette
January 18, 2006, 07:15 PM
And it's the presumption of innocence based solely on the fact that he is an acquaintance that fails to stir me to outrage

I thought everyone was supposed to be presumed innocent...

A related question: assuming that Mr. Anderson did indeed sign a waiver of his right to a speedy trial, as is often the case with the stated purpose is to let the accused have adequate time to build a defense, is it not duplicitous for the govenrment then to deny bail and keep him in jail for a much longer period of time?

If so, then might it not be good advice to refuse to sign such a waiver? To me, it seems like it is used as bait (to let you have 'enough time' to prepare) but is then abused as an open-ended sentence if bail is subsequently denied.

joab
January 18, 2006, 07:35 PM
I thought everyone was supposed to be presumed innocent...I'm not a lawyer, officer of the court or a juror, I'm entitled to form an opinion if I want to

is it not duplicitous for the government then to deny bail and keep him in jail for a much longer period of time?No, he had options and took the one best suited to his needs.
My bond hearing was about 12 hours after I was arrested, before I was even officially charged with any crime. I would imagine, but do not know for sure, that Anderson followed a similar time table

If so, then might it not be good advice to refuse to sign such a waiver?depends on how much faith you have in your lawyer and the strength of your case

hammer4nc
January 18, 2006, 08:30 PM
joab posted:
Please point out where any body participating in this discussion has claimed that the government is "infallible" or above corruption.

You're confusing two very different concepts- infallibility, and corruption; in the above sentence, and in response to my posting of the Hudak case.

The Hudak case had nothing to do with flaws in procedure or fallibility. So your threat to post a link to flawless conviction of some other criminal to counter the Hudak post really missed the point, yes? While one might excuse an honest mistake on the part of .gov, that's NOT what was featured in Hudak.

You asked: How would that apply to the case of Walt Anderson?

Similarities: Both cases involve prosecution of a successful businessman by an alphabet agency. Outlandish claims by prosecutors at the outset, in both cases. Attempts to demonize the defendant prior to trial. A political component, in both cases. The Hudak case is rare because for once the defendant didn't cave to strong govt. pressure to plead out to a reduced sentence; the jury (and the public, for once) got to see .gov's propensity to float lies in an attempt to convict, and use other coercive tactics, as SOP. Hudak was acquitted in a day. So, its not a question of being "infallible", or "flawless", OK? I don't know why you would even bring that issue up in the first place.

I posted a reference to the Barrett report, to illustrate endemic, documented corruption within the IRS. Feel free to defend the honesty of the IRS in light of this report; I'd love to see that one. Once and for all, this is NOT a question of flawlessness, or infallibility. Please don't continue to mix up examples of willful corruption with honest mistakes. Not even in the same ballpark.

joab
January 18, 2006, 09:03 PM
You're confusing two very different concepts- infallibility, and corruption; in the above sentence, and in response to my posting of the Hudak case.No actually I was responding directly to your post pointing that the government was fallible, and I know that was the point of your post because you actually used the words "example of fallibility".
The Hudak case had nothing to do with flaws in procedure or fallibility. So your threat to post a link to flawless conviction of some other criminal to counter the Hudak post really missed the point, yes?No. You post a link of what, on the surface ( I have done no research to form an opinion), seems to be a bad prosecution as a way of validating Anderson's claims of abuse and malicious prosecution.
It therefore follows that I could post a link to an honorable prosecution to counter your claims. Thereby rendering your link void and we can all start over and actually address the case that inspired the thread, yes?
Similarities: Both cases involve prosecution of a successful businessman by an alphabet agency. Outlandish claims by prosecutors at the outset, in both cases. Attempts to demonize the defendant prior to trial. A political component, in both cases. The Hudak case is rare because for once the defendant didn't cave to strong govt. pressure to plead out to a reduced sentence; the jury (and the public, for once) got to see .gov's propensity to float lies in an attempt to convict, and use other coercive tactics, as SOP. Hudak was acquitted in a day. So, its not a question of being "infallible", or "flawless", OK? I don't know why you would even bring that issue up in the first place.And they were prosecuted by the same officials? For the same crime? with the same evidence? Both kept behind glass with no phone link to their lawyers?

Why did I bring Up what issue?

I posted a reference to the Barrett report, to illustrate endemic, documented corruption within the IRS. Feel free to defend the honesty of the IRS in light of this report; I'd love to see that oneMaybe some day one of you will get it
Where have I anywhere defended or even mentioned the IRS. Why is it just because I don't accept Anderson's accounts of fantastic prison abuses do I now find my self accused of agreeing with the IRS or any government agency involved with the case

Once and for all, this is NOT a question of flawlessness, or infallibility. Please don't continue to mix up examples of willful corruption with honest mistakes. Not even in the same ballpark.Please don't mix up the digression that you are trying to put across as actually answering the challenge issued. Corroborate the accusation of prison abuses put forth by Anderson.
Quit trying to divert the issue with word games and smokescreens. It's getting tiresome

We all know that you are a state hater and I am a so called statist. And the government is evil, corrupt and practices ritual drowning of kittens.

Now it is obvious that you believe Anderson's story because of your distrust of the government and I don't believe it because of my distrust of people in precarious positions that will only benefit from the sympathy generated by making wild unsubstantiated claims against the government.

Now both of you prove your case with actual evidence, even circumstantial will do, that pertains to this case or I win.

You started this not me, I have to prove nothing because it is not possible to prove a negative

In any event please stick to the case at hand

Fletchette
January 18, 2006, 10:01 PM
I'm not a lawyer, officer of the court or a juror, I'm entitled to form an opinion if I want to

Yes, but we are talking about the government presuming guilt. In both the Padilla case and the Anderson case (the Hudack case is new to me) the government seems to be stretching, if not breaking, the rule of law. In the Anderson case, asking someone if they want waive their right to a speedy trial so they may 'have time to prepare an adequate defense', then freezing the accused assets and limiting his ability to communicate with his attorneies is simply dirty pool.

The Padilla case is even more blatent (although I acknowledge that you have not defended the government's position on that one).

Hammer4nc does raise a legitimate point: a mistake is entirely different from intended harm. In the Wen Ho Lee case something like 56 charges were thrown out after it was made clear that the government had no evidence - after Mr. Lee spent over 200 days in solitary confinment for the stated purpose "to break him".

The government has indeed abused it's authority on numerous occasions - not simply a mistake. I think that the Anderson case has many of the same qualities that makes it highly probably that Mr. Anderson is getting railroaded. That is not to say that he is ionnocent; I am saying that he is not getting a fair trial.

joab
January 18, 2006, 10:25 PM
Yes, but we are talking about the government presuming guilt.No we are not. you made a comment directly responding to this comment made by me And it's the presumption of innocence based solely on the fact that he is an acquaintance that fails to stir me to outrageto which I made the comment that you are now responding to. Please, no more diversion tactics

Hammer4nc does raise a legitimate point: a mistake is entirely different from intended harm. In the Wen Ho Lee case something like 56 charges were thrown out after it was made clear that the government had no evidence - after Mr. Lee spent over 200 days in solitary confinment for the stated purpose "to break him".
And this is pertinent to Anderson how exactly. Is Anderson being accused as a traitor,terrorist or a tax evader

I think that the Anderson case has many of the same qualities that makes it highly probably that Mr. Anderson is getting railroaded.You may very well be correct but nothing you have offered in this thread has proven that or even given rise to substantial doubt as to the governments case against him. Nothing has even attempted to prove the allegations of abuse claimed by him.

Your views of this case are fueled by loyalty to a friend which even though I don't find compelling I do respect and to a degree find admirable.

hammer's views seem to be fueled simply by state hatred which I find at best non productive.

My views come from my own personal interaction with the criminal elements and the criminal system. I have come to trust these intuitions as they have rarely been proven wrong and have usually been proven correct.

We are never going to agree until some kind of tangible evidence is provided

hammer4nc
January 19, 2006, 09:22 AM
hammer's views seem to be fueled simply by state hatred...

Joab, I truly appreciate you not accusing me of being a member of Al Qaeda, simply for disagreeing with you...but then again, I'm assuming your next government promotion doesn't turn on proving that allegation (fingers crossed)? :p

joab
January 19, 2006, 05:55 PM
Joab, I truly appreciate you not accusing me of being a member of Al Qaeda, simply for disagreeing with you...allegationDisagreeing with me has nothing to do with it. The thought process that you use to develop that opinion, and just about every other opinion that I have read from you, is what I judge your attitude on.

but then again, I'm assuming your next government promotion doesn't turn on proving that That would be a good assumption, But I'm betting that you meant that in a sarcastic way.

Here's a question for you
Why is it that the government can be deemed guilty of malfeasance based on a letter but the letter writer is not held to any standard of proof other than that he took the time to write it

Fletchette
January 19, 2006, 11:43 PM
Here's a question for you
Why is it that the government can be deemed guilty of malfeasance based on a letter but the letter writer is not held to any standard of proof other than that he took the time to write it

I'll try to answer that. If the stated rule of law is that the government cannot do "A", and a letter is received by someone in prison accusing the government of doing "A", "B" and "C", AND "A" is verifiable from other sources, then it is entirely logical to suspect the govenment of doing "B" and "C".

Now, in this case "A" would be denying Mr. Anderson due process. The specific charge against the government is that they are holding Mr. Anderson for an unreasonable amount of time without trial and de facto denying him legal council by freezing his accounts (needed to pay attorneys) and drastically limiting his ability to communicate with whatever attorneys will take his case.

As for holding for an "unreasonable" amount of time; this is debatable and Mr. Anderson probably got hoodwinked into signing this right away under the guise of 'having enough time to prepare an adequate defense'.

Freezing his assets: completely verifiable. Some people do not think that this is denying Mr. Anderson due process but I do as it limits his ability to pay attorneys he had on retainer. Combined with limitng his ability to communicate (admittedly second-hand information for us, but not to whomever is representing him) this is destroying any attempt at building an adequate defense.

This assertation is based on the real-world effect the government's actions result in. It would be like saying that, "we didn't violate his Freedom of Speech, we only put duct tape on his mouth". The effect of the government's action, even if it is not specifically prohibited, is to violate his stated rights.

.41Dave
January 20, 2006, 12:23 AM
The system is broken. Here is some more evidence of that.

http://www.post-gazette.com/win/

joab
January 20, 2006, 08:30 AM
This assertion is based on the real-world effect the government's actions result in. It would be like saying that, "we didn't violate his Freedom of Speech, we only put duct tape on his mouth". The effect of the government's action, even if it is not specifically prohibited, is to violate his stated rights.But that would require proof that there was even duct tape on his mouth. and the fact that he is telling you that there is duct tape on his mouth kinda disputes that

I'll try to answer that. If the stated rule of law is that the government cannot do "A", and a letter is received by someone in prison accusing the government of doing "A", "B" and "C", AND "A" is verifiable from other sources, then it is entirely logical to suspect the government of doing "B" and "C".That is along the same lines as Boortz' contention that if a girl smokes she must be having sex and if she has a tattoo she's easy


But your using that same logic and the many alias of Anderson the off shore accounts and flights of fancy we could surmise that Anderson is guilty on this circumstantial evidence.


I have a question for Hammer
If ,as you point out,fallibility is not the same as corruption and the Haduk case demonstrates governmental corruption, why then did you use the Haduk case as an example of fallibility.
Come on, you can admit it.
You went and looked up the definition of fallible after that post failed to make your point and you ran out of ammo, didn't you;)

Fletchette
January 20, 2006, 02:28 PM
But that would require proof that there was even duct tape on his mouth. and the fact that he is telling you that there is duct tape on his mouth kinda disputes that

Merely an example. If we received a letter from someone that the government put duct tape on his mouth, and then it was subsequently verified that the government did indeed do that, then it behooves us to investigate any other charges against the government. Reasonable suspicion.

That is along the same lines as Boortz' contention that if a girl smokes she must be having sex and if she has a tattoo she's easy

I do not know who Boortz is or why he said it, but I would have to disagree.

But your using that same logic and the many alias of Anderson the off shore accounts and flights of fancy we could surmise that Anderson is guilty on this circumstantial evidence.

Not quite. You are forgetting that the burden of proof is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. This is an asymetric standard defined in the Constitution and is part of the rule of law. The accused should not have to prove his innocence even if his circumstantial actions are counter to the social norm. This applies whether you have off-shore bank accounts or tattoos.

joab
January 20, 2006, 05:13 PM
If we received a letter from someone that the government put duct tape on his mouth, and then it was subsequently verified that the government did indeed do that, then it behooves us to investigate any other charges against the government.But the l;letter did not say that he had duct tape on his mouth it said that he was not allowed to send or receive mail (letters) Just an example
I do not know who Boortz is or why he said it, but I would have to disagree. Radio talk show host. It his theory that if a girl has started smoking she has started having sex and any girl with the "Tramp Stamp" tattoo is your best bet if you want to get lucky, actually it's a sure thing.

It's an example of you A = B and C argument

You are forgetting that the burden of proof is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. This is an asymetric standard defined in the Constitution and is part of the rule of law. The accused should not have to prove his innocence even if his circumstantial actions are counter to the social norm. This applies whether you have off-shore bank accounts or tattoos.I'm not forgetting anything. You are asking us to assume that the government is guilty based on a formula that you have come up with.
I contend that by using that same formula we can just as easily assume that Anderson is guilty.

We are not officers of the court or jurors we are entitled to make our own opinions by whatever means we choose. I actually have formed no opinion as to his or the government's guilt or innocence only on the credibility of the evidence presented against the government.

If you enjoyed reading about "So you don't care about Jose Padilla" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!