The post SCOTUS: Partial Victory in Watchlist Case appeared first on .
]]>
Where the government got the information on those original watchlists names remains murky. It can reasonably be assumed that they came from government databases storing tens of thousands of names of real, potential, and imagined terrorists—thousands of whom were placed in those databases after 9/11.
An American Muslim, Yonas Fikre, became another horribly abused victim of the No Fly List beginning in 2010.
Fikre, an American citizen, lived in Portland, Oregon until 2009. He was a member of the as-Saber Mosque in Portland and was employed by a local cellular telephone company. In 2010, he left the country for Sudan, hoping to establish an electronics company in East Africa. Shortly after arriving in Sudan, he was approached by two FBI agents who questioned him about his ties to the as-Saber Mosque and the source of his commercial finances.
The FBI agents then informed Fikre that he had been placed on the No Fly List, meaning he could not fly into, out of, or over either United States or Canadian airspace via commercial airlines. The agents told him they would get his name removed from the list if he became an informant for their agency. He refused.
Five months after this encounter with the FBI, Fikre flew to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on a business trip.
In June 2011, some nine months after he arrived in the UAE, he was seized from his residence by government agents and taken to an unknown location, where he was held and tortured for 106 days. During the tortuous interrogations, Fikre was told that the FBI requested his detention and interrogation.
Fikre was released by UAE authorities in September 2011, after which he was informed that he could not fly to the United States. He managed to make his way to Sweden, where he hired an attorney, conducted a press conference during which he condemned the FBI and his UAE torturers, and requested asylum.
In November 2013, Fikre sought to have his name removed from the No Fly List through a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program called the Traveler’s Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP).
TRIP allows individuals to request that the Transportation Security Administration review their files and remove their names from a watchlist if they are inappropriately placed on it. While neither confirming nor denying his placement on the No Fly List, the DHS denied Fikre’s request to be removed, saying “no correction” was appropriate at that time.
Following a 2014 federal district court decision, the DHS modified TRIP in 2015 by adding procedural safeguards for those seeking redress through the program. These safeguards include individuals being apprised of their placement on a watchlist and any unclassified reasons for the placement.
These safeguards notwithstanding, DHS informed Fikre in February 2015 that he would remain on the No Fly List because he had been “identified as an individual who may be a threat to civil aviation or national security.”
In the wake of this DHS action, Sweden denied Fikre’s request for asylum and returned him to the United States later in 2015. However, before leaving Sweden, Fikre filed a 42 USC Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit in Oregon claiming that his reputation had been ruined by the US government’s stigmatizing him as a suspected terrorist and by causing the termination of his marriage through divorce while he was stranded outside the US.
Less than a year after his return to the United States, while his lawsuit was still pending, DHS informed Fikre that his name had been removed from the No Fly List. The agency did not provide any explanation for the removal decision. The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) then immediately moved to dismiss Fikre’s lawsuit, saying it had been mooted by Fikre’s removal from the No Fly List.
The US District Court in Oregon agreed with the government on the moot issue and dismissed the lawsuit.
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 20, 2018 reversed the district court’s dismissal, finding that the mere removal of Fikre from the No Fly List did not moot the issues raised in his lawsuit.
Turning to civil law principles, the Ninth Circuit informed both the DOJ and the lower court that when a party seeks to moot a cause of action based on a decision to cease the wrongful conduct alleged in the action, the party has a burden to show the court that “wrongful behavior [cannot] reasonably be expected to recur.”
Against that legal backdrop, the appeals court said that the government’s “mere announcement that Fikre was removed” from the No Fly List did not satisfy this burden. The case was remanded back to the district court.
Neither the district court nor the DOJ learned anything from the remand order.
On remand, the DOJ simply submitted a declaration from a government official saying that Fikre would not be “placed on the No Fly List in the future based on currently available information.” The district court deemed this satisfactory and dismissed Fikre’s lawsuit again.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court yet again.
The appeals court essentially said that the law expressed in its first ruling stood and that the government declaration did not offer a reasonable expectation that Fikre would not again be placed on the list. Because the government would not or could not carry its burden to show that Fikre would not again be inappropriately placed on the No Fly List, Fikre’s initial claims of government wrongdoing were not moot.
The government would not give that assurance.
The case made its way to the US Supreme Court. Agreeing with the Ninth Circuit, the high court on March 19, 2024, addressed the mootness issue this way:
“… A case does not automatically become moot when a defendant suspends its challenged conduct and then carries on litigating for some specified period. Nor can a defendant’s speculation about a plaintiff’s actions make up for a lack of assurance about its own. (For that matter, given what little we know at this stage in the proceedings, Mr. Fikre may have done none of the things the government presumes he has, perhaps wishing to but refraining for fear of finding himself relisted.) In all cases, it is the defendant’s burden to establish that it cannot reasonably be expected to resume its challenged conduct—whether the suit happens to be new or long lingering and whether the challenged conduct might recur immediately or later at some more propitious moment. Nothing the government offers here satisfies that formidable standard.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, who filed the case on behalf of Fikre, welcomed the decision as “historic.” Commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision, CAIR stated:
“…Yonas Fikre is an American Muslim who was tortured and imprisoned in the United Arab Emirates at the behest of American officials and then stranded in Sweden because of his status on the No Fly List after he refused pressure from the FBI to become an informant.
“The government took Fikre off the list after CAIR filed suit and tried to argue that Fikre’s case was moot in order to avoid the threat of a court ruling declaring the watchlist unconstitutional. The FBI has previously removed over ten CAIR clients from the No Fly List in response to lawsuits filed by the civil rights group…
CAIR National Deputy Litigation Director Gadeir Abbas, who argued the case for Yonas Fikre before the Supreme Court on January 8th, hailed the decision. ‘The FBI cannot play whack-a-mole with the rights of Muslims. The FBI cannot place innocent Muslims on the No Fly List, only to then block that unconstitutional list from scrutiny by removing those Muslims whenever they file a lawsuit.'”
The government is now between the proverbial horns of a dilemma: it can settle the lawsuit with an admission of wrongdoing without disclosing the reasons it placed Fikre on the No Fly List, or it can fight the lawsuit and disclose in discovery the reasons he was placed on the No Fly List—the latter decision would force the DOJ to produce credible, factual evidence that Fikre engaged in the misconduct, which may not exist, that caused his name to be placed on the list in the first place.
Millions of innocent individuals have been wrongly placed on various government watchlists. Fikre, we believe, was one of those individuals. It’s time for this travesty to end.
The post SCOTUS: Partial Victory in Watchlist Case appeared first on .
]]>The post The Terrorist Watchlist: A Violation of Civil Liberties for Millions appeared first on .
]]>
Federal law enforcement and intelligence communities quickly learned that three of the 9/11 hijackers—Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, and Hani Hanjour—had been stopped by state or local law enforcement officials for routine traffic violations leading up to the three September 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. It was believed by anti-terrorism government agencies that a watchlist would provide law enforcement with opportunities to prevent planned terror attacks, such as 9/11 before they occurred.
The Terrorist Watchlist, during its more than two-decade existence, has not prevented any significant acts of terrorism. What it has accomplished is the placement of nearly 2 million people on the list—thousands of whom should not be on any government law enforcement, much less terrorist, watchlist, according to a December 2023 CBS News investigation report.
That’s because the FBI and other federal government agencies that “nominate” individuals for placement on the list need only have “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is a “suspected terrorist” or someone affiliated, regardless of how remote or innocent, with terrorism. Millions of innocent individuals have been placed on the watchlist but didn’t even know it until they were stopped at an airport or at a border crossing.
“Reasonable suspicion” lies in the unchartered legal terrain between mere speculation and probable cause. The only guidance courts offer for traversing this terrain is that the suspicion must be based on specific, unbiased, and fair circumstances from which a reasonable inference may be drawn.
Put simply; reasonable suspicion allows a law enforcement official to act on a subjective hunch that wrongdoing is amiss, which can later be supported with whatever facts the officer may offer to justify their action.
That’s all it really takes for someone to be placed on a terrorist watchlist, and there are several such lists. The problem is that the FBI or any other agency that triggers a watchlist placement does not have to disclose the basis for the “reasonable suspicion” and, in fact, will neither confirm nor deny that a terrorist watchlist placement has been made.
Government spokesman Monte Hawkins, who has served on the National Security Council since 9/11 and who currently oversees the terrorist watchlists for the Biden administration, told CBS News that “Those 2 million people who are on the list are on there for a reason.” In a sophomoric attempt at justification, he added that most of the placements are not U.S. citizens or legal residents in this country.
Hawkins’ casual dismissal of constitutional concerns about abuses of the watchlists flies in the face of admissions, as conveyed to CBS by other national security officials, that “a lot of” people should have their names removed from the watchlist, but the government does not have either the personnel or resources to audit the watchlist to determine who should be removed.”
What are the individual consequences of being placed on a terrorist watchlist?
There are plenty.
For example, in 2006 alone, some 30,000 airline passengers had their names mistaken for names on the watchlist. This is a minor consequence compared to some of the other difficulties described in the CBS report:
“Being on a watchlist can have significant consequences on people’s lives. In countless civil lawsuits over the past 20 years, people have described how they believe the watchlist caused them to be stopped from flying home after a vacation, to fail a background check to get jobs, or to have their phones and computers searched. Others said it triggered law enforcement to handcuff them at gunpoint or that they were detained and interrogated by foreign intelligence services.
“Over the years, tens of thousands of innocent people have complained to the government about being incorrectly treated like terrorist suspects. According to the Department of Homeland Security, 98% of those who’ve reported complaints were ‘false positive,’ meaning they were flagged because their names were familiar to others in the database.”
Less than a week after the CBS report, NBC News carried a report about a recently released report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The report found that the placement criteria for various government watchlists for identifying and tracking people with possible connections to terrorists were so broad that they could lead to “unwarranted screenings” and stretch terrorism prevention resources too thin.
The Senate report found that travelers entering and leaving the U.S. faced 22 reasons for possible screening and, more significantly, that some of these reasons could violate civil liberties. The Senate report put it this way:
“While protecting Americans from the threat of terrorist attacks is paramount, potential abuse and/or lack of meaningful redress for wrongful screenings by our government risks eroding Americans’ civil rights and civil liberties.”
A 2007 audit of the government terrorist watchlists found that 40 percent of the placements on the list contained factual errors or inconsistencies, and 20% of the placements should be removed altogether.
The tragedy about terrorist watchlists is that individuals wrongfully placed on the list have no redress. They can file a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security about unfortunate “travel experiences” they may have encountered because of the wrongful placement. Still, that kind of complaint will not remove their name from the list.
The American Civil Liberties Union describes the broken terrorist watchlist system this way:
“A bloated, opaque watchlisting system is neither fair nor effective. A system in which innocent people languish on blacklists indefinitely, with their rights curtailed and their names sullied, is at odds with our Constitution and values.”
We agree.
The post The Terrorist Watchlist: A Violation of Civil Liberties for Millions appeared first on .
]]>The post Houston Theft vs. Embezzlement: Key Differences in Federal Law appeared first on .
]]>
In this blog, we’ll delve into the nuances of theft and embezzlement under federal law, exploring their elements, legal definitions, potential defenses, and the importance of seeking representation from an experienced criminal lawyer when facing accusations of financial wrongdoing.
Theft, also known as larceny, is the unlawful taking of property belonging to another person with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. In federal law, theft encompasses a broad range of actions, including theft by deception, theft by fraud, and theft by false pretenses. The elements of theft typically include the unlawful taking, carrying away, or conversion of property belonging to another without their consent and with the intent to deprive them of it permanently.
Embezzlement involves the misappropriation or theft of funds or property entrusted to one’s care or custody. Unlike theft, which involves the unlawful taking of property from someone else’s possession, embezzlement occurs when an individual lawfully possesses the property but wrongfully converts it for their own use or benefit. Embezzlement often occurs in the context of employment or fiduciary relationships, where the perpetrator has been entrusted with managing or safeguarding the property of another.
The primary distinction between theft and embezzlement lies in the relationship between the perpetrator and the property. In theft cases, the perpetrator unlawfully takes property that belongs to someone else without their consent. In contrast, in embezzlement cases, the perpetrator lawfully possesses the property but abuses that trust by wrongfully converting it for their own use.
Another key difference is the intent element. In theft cases, the perpetrator must have the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. In embezzlement cases, the perpetrator typically does not intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property but rather intends to use it for their own benefit temporarily.
Individuals facing theft or embezzlement charges under federal law may have several potential defenses available to them. Common defenses may include lack of intent, lack of knowledge, duress, coercion, or mistake of fact. For example, if the defendant can demonstrate that they had a good-faith belief that they were entitled to the property or funds in question, it may serve as a defense to the charges.
Additionally, defendants may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution or raise procedural defenses related to the investigation or arrest. Each case is unique, and the availability of defenses will depend on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged offense.
Building a strong defense is essential for individuals facing theft or embezzlement charges under federal law. These offenses carry significant legal consequences, including imprisonment, fines, restitution, and damage to one’s reputation and future opportunities. Moreover, federal prosecutors often pursue these cases aggressively, making it imperative for defendants to have skilled legal representation to protect their rights and interests.
An experienced criminal lawyer can provide invaluable guidance, representation, and advocacy throughout the legal process, helping defendants understand their rights, assess the strengths and weaknesses of their case, and develop a strategic defense strategy. By thoroughly investigating the facts, challenging the prosecution’s evidence, and presenting compelling defenses, a skilled attorney can help defendants achieve the best possible outcome in their theft or embezzlement case.
In Houston, distinguishing between theft and embezzlement under federal law is crucial for understanding the legal ramifications of financial misconduct. While both offenses involve wrongful acquisition of property, they differ in key aspects such as the relationship between the perpetrator and the property, as well as the intent element.
Individuals facing accusations of theft or embezzlement must seek representation from an experienced criminal lawyer to build a strong defense and protect their rights and interests. With skilled legal representation, defendants can navigate the complexities of federal law, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and work towards achieving a favorable outcome in their case.
The post Houston Theft vs. Embezzlement: Key Differences in Federal Law appeared first on .
]]>The post Federal vs. State Murder Prosecutions: Differences and Implications appeared first on .
]]>
One of the primary distinctions between federal and state murder prosecutions lies in jurisdiction. State courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed within their respective states, while federal courts have jurisdiction over offenses that violate federal laws or occur on federal property. Determining which jurisdiction has authority over a murder case depends on factors such as the location of the crime, the identities of the victim and perpetrator, and any federal statutes that may apply.
The investigative procedures employed in federal and state murder prosecutions can also differ. State law enforcement agencies typically handle investigations into murders that occur within their jurisdiction, utilizing resources such as forensic analysis, witness interviews, and surveillance footage. In contrast, federal investigations may involve multiple agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and may encompass crimes that cross state lines or involve federal interests.
Another key distinction between federal and state murder prosecutions is the sentencing guidelines that govern each jurisdiction. State sentencing laws vary widely from state to state, with some states imposing the death penalty for certain murder convictions and others mandating life imprisonment without parole. In contrast, federal sentencing guidelines provide a framework for judges to determine appropriate sentences based on factors such as the severity of the offense, the defendant’s criminal history, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
When facing murder charges, defendants may pursue various avenues for defense, depending on the jurisdiction in which they are prosecuted. In state murder prosecutions, common defenses may include self-defense, insanity, or lack of intent, each of which requires careful scrutiny of the facts and evidence surrounding the case. In federal murder prosecutions, additional considerations such as jurisdictional challenges, constitutional violations, or procedural errors may also form the basis of a defense strategy.
Navigating the complexities of federal and state murder prosecutions requires the expertise of an experienced criminal defense lawyer. A skilled attorney can provide invaluable guidance and advocacy throughout the legal process, from the initial investigation to trial and sentencing. They can help defendants understand their rights, assess the strength of the prosecution’s case, and develop a strategic defense strategy tailored to their specific circumstances.
Building a strong defense is essential for individuals facing murder charges, regardless of whether they are prosecuted at the federal or state level. An experienced criminal defense lawyer will meticulously review the evidence against their client, identify potential weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and challenge any violations of their client’s constitutional rights. By presenting a compelling defense and advocating vigorously on behalf of their client, defense attorneys can significantly impact the outcome of a murder prosecution.
Federal and state murder prosecutions present unique challenges and considerations for defendants and their legal representation. Understanding the differences between these two systems, from jurisdictional considerations to sentencing guidelines, is crucial for navigating the complexities of the legal process effectively. By enlisting the services of an experienced criminal defense lawyer, defendants can ensure that their rights are protected, their defenses are robust, and they have the best possible chance of achieving a favorable outcome in their case.
The post Federal vs. State Murder Prosecutions: Differences and Implications appeared first on .
]]>The post What to Do (and Not Do) When Accused of a Federal White Collar Crime appeared first on .
]]>
It is crucial to understand your rights and take the necessary steps to protect yourself in such situations. This blog post sheds light on what to do, and what to avoid, when facing such allegations, emphasizing the importance of seeking legal counsel and building a strong defense.
The initial instinct when faced with accusations, especially serious ones, might be to try and explain or defend yourself. However, it is crucial to prioritize self-preservation and avoid any actions that could potentially jeopardize your legal standing:
Panic can cloud judgment and lead to rash decisions. Instead, take a step back, remain calm, and prioritize understanding the situation.
You have the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. Do not answer any questions from law enforcement officials without consulting with an attorney first.
You have the right to refuse unauthorized searches of your person, property, or belongings. Politely decline any requests and inform them you wish to speak with your lawyer.
Navigating the complexities of a federal white-collar crime investigation and legal proceedings requires the expertise and guidance of a seasoned criminal defense attorney. There are several reasons why seeking legal counsel is paramount to building a strong defense.
An attorney can ensure you understand your rights throughout the process, including your right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to a fair trial.
A lawyer serves as your advocate and representative, working diligently to protect your legal interests and ensure your rights are upheld at every stage.
Experienced attorneys possess the knowledge and skills necessary to build a robust defense strategy, investigating the allegations, gathering evidence, and developing counter-arguments.
Lawyers can effectively communicate with prosecutors and law enforcement on your behalf, potentially exploring plea bargains or alternative solutions, when applicable.
While the specifics of each case vary, here are general practices that can contribute to building a strong defense:
While respecting the attorney’s guidance, actively gather any documentation or information that may be relevant to your case, such as receipts, emails, or communication logs.
While exercising your right to remain silent, be honest and transparent with your attorney throughout the process. Sharing complete and accurate information is crucial for building a strong defense.
Maintain regular communication with your attorney, asking questions and seeking clarification whenever necessary. Open communication fosters trust and allows the lawyer to develop the most effective strategy.
While upholding your legal rights, actively cooperate with your lawyer. This includes providing requested documentation, attending meetings, and following their guidance.
The federal white-collar crime legal process typically involves several stages:
Federal law enforcement agencies investigate the alleged crime, gathering evidence and interviewing potential witnesses.
If sufficient evidence is found, the grand jury issues a formal indictment, outlining the specific charges against the accused.
In court, the accused is formally informed of the charges, enters a plea of guilty or not guilty, and receives pre-trial information and deadlines.
The defense may file motions to challenge the evidence, suppress illegally obtained information, or request dismissal of charges due to procedural irregularities.
If no plea bargain is reached, the case proceeds to trial, where both sides present evidence and arguments to a judge or jury.
The jury or judge reaches a verdict (guilty or not guilty) and if convicted, the court pronounces the sentence based on various factors, including the severity of the crime and the defendant’s criminal history.
Facing a federal white-collar crime accusation can be a daunting experience. However, remembering your right to remain silent, prioritizing self-preservation, and seeking legal counsel are crucial steps towards protecting yourself and potentially building a strong defense.
An experienced criminal defense attorney can guide you through the legal process, fight for your rights, and explore all available options to achieve the best possible outcome. Remember, this blog post is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you face such an accusation, seeking the guidance of a qualified attorney is essential.
The post What to Do (and Not Do) When Accused of a Federal White Collar Crime appeared first on .
]]>The post Federal Weapons Trafficking: Understanding Charges and Defenses in Houston appeared first on .
]]>
Federal weapons trafficking involves the illegal transportation, distribution, or sale of firearms across state lines or internationally. In Houston, a city with a significant presence of federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), cases of weapons trafficking are vigorously prosecuted.
To secure a conviction for federal weapons trafficking, prosecutors must establish several key elements:
Interstate or International Transportation: The weapons must have been moved across state lines or internationally.
Illegal Possession or Sale: The defendant must have knowingly engaged in the unlawful possession, sale, or distribution of firearms.
Intent: Prosecutors must demonstrate that the defendant had the intent to traffic weapons unlawfully.
The penalties for federal weapons trafficking convictions in Houston can be severe and may include lengthy prison sentences, substantial fines, and a permanent criminal record. Factors such as the type and quantity of weapons involved, the defendant’s criminal history, and any aggravating circumstances can influence the severity of the penalties imposed.
Mounting a successful defense against federal weapons trafficking charges requires a thorough understanding of the law and a strategic approach. While every case is unique, some common defense strategies include:
Lack of Knowledge: If the defendant was unaware that the firearms were being trafficked illegally, they may be able to argue lack of knowledge as a defense.
Entrapment: If law enforcement officers induced the defendant to commit the crime, they may be able to claim entrapment as a defense.
Fourth Amendment Violations: Challenging the legality of search and seizure procedures that led to the discovery of the firearms can be an effective defense strategy.
Insufficient Evidence: Prosecutors bear the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A skilled defense attorney can challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Facing federal weapons trafficking charges in Houston is a daunting prospect, but individuals accused of these crimes are entitled to a robust defense. Working with an experienced criminal defense attorney who specializes in federal cases is essential for safeguarding one’s rights and mounting an effective defense.
An attorney with expertise in federal weapons trafficking cases can:
Federal weapons trafficking charges in Houston carry severe consequences, but with the right legal representation, individuals accused of these crimes can effectively navigate the legal process and protect their rights. By understanding the elements of the crime, potential penalties, and available defense strategies, defendants can make informed decisions about their legal options. Building a strong defense with an experienced criminal defense lawyer is paramount to achieving the best possible outcome in federal weapons trafficking cases.
The post Federal Weapons Trafficking: Understanding Charges and Defenses in Houston appeared first on .
]]>The post Time for Change of Leadership at the Harris County DA’s Office appeared first on .
]]>
The truth of the matter, as evidenced by the openly hostile campaign between Ogg and Teare, is that many in the Democratic Party are fed up with the district attorney’s laundry list of shenanigans.
The New Republic reported this past October that “more than 60 Democratic Party leaders submitted a resolution to formally condemn Ogg in weakening voter rights and attacking criminal justice reforms, and her tacit approval of Republican voter-suppression laws. The move also comes after reports of Ogg using her power to investigate members of her own party over personal feuds.”
The tragedy about the Kim Ogg affair is that she promised a reform-minded district attorney’s office—like the one Larry Krasner has delivered to the Philadelphia district attorney’s office—but has delivered a thuggish, vindictive prosecutorial setting comparable to the one maintained by the criminally-indicted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Paxton has long maintained a “toxic work culture” with vindictive attacks on those who oppose his questionable, even criminal, decision-making. Former staff members are currently suing the Attorney General, who is under federal criminal investigation, was impeached last year and is now trying to unseat the judges and Texas legislators involved in political attacks against him.
Ken Paxton has become the symbol of corrupt prosecutorial law enforcement in the State of Texas.
Tragically and unfortunately, D.A. Ogg has become the same symbol in Harris County.
Perception is the only thing that matters in today’s political climate. And Ogg has, through arrogance, mismanagement, and abuse of power, created a perception that she is the only “rule of law” in Harris County; in other words, it’s the proverbial her way or the highway.
More than any law enforcement official, District Attorneys must avoid “any appearance of impropriety” through objective, honest, fair, and transparent decision-making and policies.
District Attorney Ogg has failed miserably to do that. She has split Harris County into bitter disarray with self-centered, self-aggrandized, politically motivated decision-making and policy choices. She repeatedly refuses to address media requests for interviews, preferring to issue bland political statements like, “I will make my case to the voters that I have lived up to the promises I made to the community and crime victims.”
Ogg has a odd relationship with right-wing republicans, who’s agenda is in sharp contradiction with her political rhetoric. For example, she has come under scrutiny for her decision to drop a criminal investigation into Jared Woodfill, a prominent local attorney and right-wing Republican activist, for serious financial crimes. Ogg’s office obtained a search warrant to conduct a raid of his office, “accusing him of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from former clients.” The case was never presented to a grand jury, and experienced career prosecutors working on the case have since left the DA’s office. “Woodfill’s accusers say they’re still waiting for justice. Earlier this month, two of them asked the FBI to look into the case and accused Ogg of dropping it “for reasons contrary to the interests of justice.”
Ogg’s office also has a reputation for filing criminal cases without probable cause, the lowest burden to arrest and detain a defendant, and requesting high bonds in cases without proper analysis or screening. The Houston Chronicle cited 4,500 cases in 2022 alone that had been filed and dismissed because they had no legal basis, according to rulings by local judges. That is double the number of cases dismissed for lack of probable cause by her Republican predecessor in 2016.
There has also been a continual hemorrhaging of professional, experienced career prosecutors, who have left in droves to work in nearby counties. Grumblings around the courthouse have consistently complained of mismanagement, micromanagement and a hostile work environment under Ogg’s reign. Meanwhile, defense attorneys complain of slow compliance with state discovery laws and inability to resolve cases short of setting cases for trial, meaning defendants sit in jail, or under punitive bail conditions, often for years, waiting for cases to be resolved or dismissed.
In a February 16, 2024 report, the Texas Tribune, cited the current conditions facing the Harris County District Attorney’s Office—conditions that are the legacy of Ogg’s tenure in office:
“The next district attorney in Texas’ largest county—and the nation’s third largest—will face major challenges. Harris County is grappling with a mounting criminal case backlog and overcrowding in the county jail, the highest in the state.” The county would not be facing this crisis had Kim Ogg simply delivered on the promises she made to secure two terms in office.
Meanwhile, Sean Teare tells voters through the Tribune that “these are things that are pretty easily fixable, but you’ve got someone in that office right now that has no interest in fixing anything.”
That has been the situation for the past two terms Ogg has guided the district attorney’s office. This crisis has been self-inflicted through personal arrogance, unfulfilled promises, and abuses of the rule of law. It is time for a new DA in Harris County who will deliver on their promises and bring integrity and excellence to the residents of the nation’s 3rd most populated county.
The post Time for Change of Leadership at the Harris County DA’s Office appeared first on .
]]>The post White Collar Crime Prioritized by DOJ appeared first on .
]]>
Many less well-known people are charged and convicted of white-collar crimes nationwide. For example, recently, investigations and charges have been filed against individuals for conspiracies to commit wire fraud in connection with the submission of fraudulent CARES Act loan applications. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, ND Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a federal law enacted in March 2020 to provide financial assistance to those financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The FBI reports that white-collar crime, a term coined in 1939 by criminologist Edwin Sutherland in a speech entitled The White Collar Criminal, costs the U.S. roughly $300 billion each year. This explains why the U.S. Justice Department takes white-collar criminal activity so seriously.
Deputy U.S. Attorney General Lisa Monaco in a March 2, 2023 speech at the American Bar Association National Institute on White Collar Crime said that white collar crime, particularly corporate criminal wrongdoing, “jeopardizes jobs, savings, our economic security, and increasingly, our national security.”
But what is white-collar crime?
As its name suggests, it is a crime associated with getting money or services one is not entitled to receive and is generally non-violent. While the term conjures images of three-piece suits and sneaky boardroom plots, typical white-collar defendants span the economic spectrum.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office often describes them as just “Harris County man and woman,” nothing particularly distinguishing about them—they weren’t CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, they weren’t household names guaranteed to lead the news at night with the announcement of their plea hearing. They are often just middle-class people who sought PPP Loans during the Pandemic but did not qualify for the program and submitted falsified documents to receive federal dollars. Instead of using the funds to support payroll and keep workers employed, they often use the funds to buy motorcycles, accumulate luxury goods, take vacations, and get plastic surgery.
These misrepresentations and misappropriations are the hallmarks of white-collar crimes. Generally, white-collar criminal activity is committed by individuals, corporations, and organizations that have positions of individual, financial, and community trust but violate that trust in some way. It can generally be understood as improperly receiving money or depriving another person of money. Fraud-related criminal activity makes up 63 percent of all white-collar crimes, but the category can include:
White-collar criminal activity can be found in all segments of the population. When these prosecutions were much more in the public eye, there used to be a saying that there were those who were subjects of a federal white-collar investigation and those who would be. This is because the elements of a white-collar criminal case are often shockingly basic and involve fairly common activity.
For example, if Bob wants to buy a house, and the bank asks what his income is, Bob might be tempted to tell the bank that he makes $350,000 a year because he thinks he’ll be able to get a bigger loan for a bigger house. In reality, though, Bob only makes $80,000 a year and has exposed himself to criminal prosecution for bank fraud.
Or, as another example, Steve has a business idea and asks people to invest in his company. He tells potential investors that if they invest $25,000, they will get $100,000 back in five years. Steve, however, knows this isn’t true—expected returns on investment are only 10%, and what’s more, he got so excited about all the investment flowing in that he didn’t invest money in the business; instead, he bought a fancy car and other trappings of success. Steve just exposed himself to criminal prosecution for wire fraud.
Often, we see the government prosecuting individuals for receiving government money they are not entitled to. For example, a doctor or someone in the healthcare industry might submit payment requests to Medicare for treatment that was never performed; that can lead to a federal investigation and prosecution for healthcare fraud. Or, as seen above, in the prosecution of PPP fraud, getting money they weren’t entitled to or spending it in disapproved ways. After Hurricane Harvey, many individuals in the Houston area were investigated and prosecuted for getting money from FEMA for property that was not damaged by the storm.
White-collar crimes involve all categories of life in the United States:
According to the most recent data provided by the United States Sentencing Commission, white-collar crime is broadly the third-largest category of crimes prosecuted by the United States federal government. Immigration and Drugs comprise approximately 30% of all prosecutions each, while financial crimes and firearm violations account for roughly 13% of all prosecutions each. (“Other” accounts for about 10%, while sex crimes, including child pornography, account for about 5%.)
Statutorily, the penalties for white-collar crimes are among the most severe penalties imposed by the federal government. Most have a punishment range of 0 to 20 years imprisonment, while some, such as bank fraud (making false statements to a bank to get funds), carry a maximum punishment of 30 years. By contrast, improperly disclosing classified information carries a maximum penalty of only ten years imprisonment. White-collar crimes are serious crimes.
Statistically, the average sentence in white-collar crime cases is 27 months, but it is common to see much higher sentences imposed. A person embezzling millions of dollars from a bank can easily face a sentence of ten years or more.
While Martha Stewart famously received a five-month sentence for her insider trading conviction, Bravo reality TV “star” Jenn Shah received a sentence of 78 months for her role in a telemarketing scheme targeting senior citizens. It is also not uncommon for someone billing Medicare for hundreds of thousands of dollars of unprovided services to face a sentence of 60 months or more. The average may be 27 months, but that is because there is an extensive range of sentencing possibilities in the federal criminal justice system; many sentences are lower than 27 months, but many are much higher.
Sentencing in white-collar cases, as in all federal criminal cases, depends on the application of the relevant United States Sentencing Guidelines. Federal judges must consult the sentencing guidelines before imposing a sentence in virtually every federal criminal case. Federal sentencing, however, is a topic of discussion that is far too convoluted for this post, and we’ll save that for another time.
In recent years, there has been a perception that white-collar prosecutions have decreased. That’s probably not true—in 2006, white-collar prosecutions comprised about 15% of all federal cases; in 2012, white-collar prosecutions accounted for 15% of all federal cases; and, as noted, today, they make up about 15%. Nonetheless, there is a public perception that white-collar prosecutions should become more common and that not enough is being done to punish people getting money illegally.
The public statements by Ms. Monaco seem to suggest that there may be an increase in white-collar prosecutions. If so, this would be a significant policy change. White-collar investigations are expensive to conduct. They involve many federal agents and thousands of pages of financial records, all of which must be scrutinized by investigators and defense attorneys.
Because the criminal and civil penalties faced by an individual in a white-collar criminal investigation are wide-ranging and often severe, it is best that the defendant has the services of an experienced white-collar criminal defense attorney to withstand a potential federal investigation and prosecution.
As in all criminal investigations, it is sage advice to refuse to answer any questions from federal investigators without counsel.
The post White Collar Crime Prioritized by DOJ appeared first on .
]]>The post Exonerations Continue to Reveal Flaws In Nation’s Criminal Justice System appeared first on .
]]>
Interestingly, all six Texas exonerations came out of Harris County and involved criminal misconduct by one of the Houston Police Department’s most notoriously corrupt officers, Gerald Goines. Two years ago, we posted these observations about Goines and the criminal “Squad 15” narcotics unit he was a part of:
On January 28, 2019, the Houston Police Department staged a militarized “no-knock” raid on a residence located at 7815 Harding Street. When the police gunfire ended, all the occupants in the residence lay dead: 59-year-old Dennis Tuttle, Rhogena Nicholas, and their dog. The raid became infamously known as the Harding Street Raid.
The public facts about the raid are now well-known. Former Houston Police Department (HPD) officer Gerald Goines knowingly gave a court false information to obtain the no-knock warrant used in the raid. A second HPD officer, Steven Bryant, corroborated that false information. Both officers swore that a non-existent informant supposedly controlled by Goines had made a heroin purchase at the Harding Street residence, justifying the search.
An ensuring investigation of the Harding Street Raid led to state and federal charges being lodged against Goines and Bryant, including two capital murder charges against Goines. That investigation expanded from the Harding Street Raid to cover the HPD’s infamous Narcotics Division’s Squad 15—a narcotics investigative unit that had accumulated a reputation as a “criminal organization” that terrorized city residents for years, mostly in communities of color, with perjured no-knock raid warrants and unfounded search warrants.
The following is a list of the six innocent Harris County residents framed by Goines and Squad 15—each of whom were identified in 2020 by the Conviction Integrity Unit of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office framed by Goines and his cohorts.
By the end of 2021, there had already been 160 dismissals of narcotics cases tied to Goines and Squad 15.
It is no coincidence that while the Houston Police Department’s Squad 15 was terrorizing the streets of Houston and framing its citizens, the Chicago Police Department (CPD) was doing the same thing. One of the oldest organized police forces in the world, the CPD has a long history of sordid misconduct, which includes:
This disgraceful history of corruption and unlawful violent, criminal activity prompted a January 2017 report by the U.S. Justice Department finding that the CPD has a history of excessive violence against the general public, especially in African-American communities.
One of those lawless CPD officers was Sgt. Ronald Watts, who, in 2011, was a Wentworth District tactical sergeant assigned to police a massive Southside impoverished public housing complex in a predominantly Black neighborhood. Watts and at least one other officer, Kallatt Mohammed, were involved in a long-running operation of shaking down drug dealers. An FBI sting operation ensnared the two officers taking money from a drug dealer in October 2011.
Mohammed pled guilty in the summer of 2012 and received an 18-month sentence in a federal prison.
In October 2013, Watts was sentenced to 22 months in federal prison after U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman told him: “You were a sergeant operating in a community that should hold you up as an example. You needed to protect those people, and you didn’t.”
The Watts/Mohammed cases still haunt the CPD, just as Goines and Squad 15 still haunt the Houston Police Department. It is far past time for both cities to reform their police operations to reduce bad cops going rogue and prevent wrongful arrests and convictions.
The post Exonerations Continue to Reveal Flaws In Nation’s Criminal Justice System appeared first on .
]]>The post Executed by Nitrogen Hypoxia, Tortured to Death appeared first on .
]]>
Some human rights experts believe death by nitrogen hypoxia is painful and excruciating. The Smith execution proved them right.
Nitrogen is a gas without oxygen. It is an odorless, colorless, and tasteless gas and is the most plentiful element in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Life cannot exist without it. Yet it is one of Earth’s deadliest gases. Nitrogen has long been used to extinguish fires by displacing oxygen in enclosed areas.
When given to a human being, there will be burning, swelling, and spasms in the throat and upper respiratory tract during the first 30 seconds; oxygen depletion resulting in brain cells dying after one minute; a buildup of drowning-like fluid in the lungs producing unconsciousness after one and one-half minutes; the death of most brain cells after three minutes; and finally death by suffocation after five minutes.
That is the way the State of Alabama—a state with a long, sordid history of botched executions—executed Kenneth Eugene Smith on January 25, 2024.
What do we know about the Kenneth Smith death process?
Witnesses reported that shortly after the gas was administered, Smith began to shake and writhe about on the gurney for at least two minutes. Smith’s spiritual advisor, who was in the execution chamber with Smith, told the media that prison officials could not conceal their collective shock at the “horror show” they were witnessing. Hood said everyone, including prison staff, had been led to believe that the execution would be “quick, easy and painless,” but the entire process turned out to be nothing short of “horrific,” comparable to a Hollywood horror movie.
What witnesses saw was a man struggling to breathe, fighting to live for at least ten violent minutes before all movement ceased at 8:08 p.m.
The United States ranks seventh in the world at carrying out executions. Alabama officials hailed Smith’s execution as “textbook” perfect. This new-found method, given its degree of barbarity, will undoubtedly increase its use in the Confederate states and their neighbors as the most effective way to thin out their crowded death row populations.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall spearheaded the protocols for Smith’s execution. These protocols will likely be adopted, with slight modifications, by other death penalty active states:
It was Attorney General Marshall who said Smith’s execution was “textbook” perfect and will be used in 43 more executions by Alabama death row inmates who have elected to die by nitrogen hypoxia.
These protocols and Marshall’s “textbook” assertions notwithstanding, Smith’s execution was a gruesome, horrific affair.
There is no humane way for the State to extinguish the life of a human being, regardless of their criminal transgression. The nearly 16,000 executions carried out in this nation since 1776 by an assortment of methods have demonstrated this ugly reality time and time again.
Attorney General Marshall would have us believe that Smith’s execution by the State of Alabama was humane. That is a despicable lie by a pro-death elected official desperate to find a way to kill people sitting on death row. No Orwellian talk about “protocol” will change the reality. Smith was literally smothered to death.
Kenneth Eugene Smith was terrified about death by nitrogen hypoxia. His execution proved he had every reason to be terrified. He was tortured to death.
The post Executed by Nitrogen Hypoxia, Tortured to Death appeared first on .
]]>