This is Walter's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Walter's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Walter
Recent Activity
For those that are interested, the statements that constituted perjury by Victor Rita: During his testimony, Mr. Rita was asked whether he had spoken with representatives of InterOrdnance after being contacted by the ATF concerning the recall of PPSH kits. He replied no. He was then asked whether the ATF had requested that he surrender his PPSH kit. He replied no. Id. The government contended that this information conflicted with telephone records and statements obtained by investigating ATF agents. These two brief exchanges gave rise to a five-count indictment against Mr. Rita: two counts of making false declarations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a), two counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), and one count of obstructing justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Mr. Rita argued, during a two-day jury trial, that his answers before the grand jury were sincere and responsive to the questions asked. The jury, however, returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. A presentence investigation report was prepared in advance of sentencing. It advised that Mr. Rita should be assigned no criminal history points, that his base offense level should be 14, and that no aggravating characteristics were present that might warrant an upward adjustment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 1 A “parts kit” is a collection of components that may be assembled into a replica – generally inoperable – of the subject firearm. J.A. 41. (“Guidelines”). The offenses of conviction were grouped for Guidelines purposes, and the highest offense level (14) was applied. Nevertheless, the report asserted that the offense level should be increased from 14 to 20 based on a Guidelines cross-reference directing that Mr. Rita was an “accessory after the fact” to supposed violations by InterOrdnance of 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2), which prohibits the import and export of certain firearms. This six-level enhancement– imposed even though (i) the issue was neither submitted to the jury nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and (ii) the purported import/export violation by InterOrdnance was neither mentioned in the indictment nor raised in the jury instructions, – doubled the range of imprisonment recommended under the Guidelines, from 15 to 21 months to 33 to 41 months.
Toggle Commented Jul 5, 2007 on Rita And Libby at JustOneMinute
TM, Glad to have your take on the subject--as usual, dry wit beats foaming spittle. And thanks for ridding the thread of mr. CHCH15. While dissenting points of view are often valuable, that avatar's continual use of foul language, offensive imagery, and complete failure to stay on topic was beyond annoying. Clarice, So, you're willing to put yourself through the meat grinder again?If you're for it, who can be agin' it? Clarice for the Fourth! I suspect that the Ninth would drive OT to drink, but Kozinski could probably use the company (ideological, not ethanol-ogical, of course). For kicks, let's see what happens when CboldT and Jane end up on the same panel. I think it'd be a hoot... Posner for Stevens? Only if we can't pry Ms. Rogers Brown from the DC circuit. windandsea, now what? :) Obviously, we follow the brand-new Fitzgerald obstruction investigation. What, did only the gullible believe John Dean's considered legal opinion? Happy Independence Day to Libby and Soylent Red! And the rest of y'all.
good stuff ... in an ironical sense, bien sur.
Toggle Commented Jul 2, 2007 on Libby Appeal Denied at JustOneMinute
Seems like a good time to note a recent column on the limits of the Presidential pardon power when persecuted by particular prosecutors[such alliteration!]. John Dean, someone who knows a little about investigations into White House misbehavior, has a new Findlaw column. In it, he compares Libby's likely sentence with those given his former colleagues in the Nixon administration and warns that Libby could be further prosecuted under conspiracy statutes were he or Cheney to directly request a pardon. Good stuff. Dean's ruminations
Toggle Commented Jul 2, 2007 on Libby Appeal Denied at JustOneMinute
Somehow Tatel is confused here. He seems to think that the Cheney-annotated article is evidence of Cheney's state of mind, not Libby's. Also, though Libby now claims not to remember Cheney telling him to discuss Plame’s employment, he told the FBI during a preliminary interview that it was “possible” that he received such instructions. (I-201, 391.) Perhaps indicating the issue was on Cheney’s mind, the vice president’s copy of Wilson’s op-ed, which Cheney cut out and kept on his desk, carries the following handwritten note: “[H]ad they done this sort of thing before[,] send an ambassador to answer a question? [D]o we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? [O]r did his wife send him on a junket?” (I-308-12.) Pdf p. 75, Opinion p.33
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Libby's Reply at JustOneMinute
And just who leaked this unredacted portion of the opinion to reporters when Armitage was unveiled? This quote appeared word-for-word in newspaper articles. Perhaps it was an affidavit? Prepared testimony? Awfully accurate for a paraphrase or dictation from memory.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Libby's Reply at JustOneMinute
And we see that Fitzgerald let Armitage's testimony go the grand jury, as the citations are to grand jury transcripts. (but note that Fitzgerald took about 1850 pages of testimony into the leaks before bringing Armitage in. For reference, Libby's testimony appears at vol. I, page 200.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Libby's Reply at JustOneMinute
...nothing new here... Well, I kinda buried the lead. Fitzgerald did tell the judges that Armitage leaked best (p. 76): Regarding Cooper, the special counsel has demonstrated that his testimony is essential to charging decisions regarding White House adviser Karl Rove. (See 9/27/04 Aff. at 22-23). Although uncontradicted testimony indicates that Novak first learned Wilson’s wife’s place of employment during a meeting on July 8 with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 18), Novak said in grand jury testimony that he confirmed Plame’s employment with Rove (II-153-54), a longstanding source for his columns (II-121-22). According to Novak, when he “brought up” Wilson’s wife, “Mr. Rove said, oh, you know about that too” (II-154) and promised to seek declassification of portions of a CIA report regarding the Niger trip, which Rove said “wasn’t an impressive piece of work or a very definitive piece of work” (II-158). In an October 2003 column describing his sources, Novak identified Armitage’s comment as an “offhand revelation” from “a senior administration official” who was “no partisan gunslinger.” (II- 20.) He referred to Rove simply as “another official” who said, “Oh, you know about it.” (II-20, 209-11.) Upon reading Novak’s October column, Armitage recognized himself as Novak’s source and, as he told the grand jury, “went ballistic.” (II-859-60.) He contacted Secretary of State Colin Powell to offer his resignation (II-862-64) and spoke the next day with FBI and Justice Department officials investigating the leak (II-878-79). “I was very unhappy at [opinion p. 35] myself,” Armitage testified, “because I had let the President down, I’d let the Secretary down, and frankly, I’d let Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson down. In my view inadvertently, but that’s for others to judge.” (II-860.) * * * * *[REDACTED] * * * *
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Libby's Reply at JustOneMinute
And Howard, of course! The opinion explaining why we're allowed even this little bit more is also available. (Both .pdf's are text-convertible.)
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Libby's Reply at JustOneMinute
Thanks Cboldt! The newly unredacted portions of Tatel's opinion start at page 74 of the .pdf and are shown in italics. Nothing new here, except that Fitzgerald didn't even want to disclose this much.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Libby's Reply at JustOneMinute
Pofarmer, She'll probably not get my vote either. Just saying she's not a complete loon. And I'm pretty certain it's not racist to be concerned about a roofer with a drinking problem, no matter what he looks like. (These storms have been brutal. Sorry to hear you had your shingles off in the middle of them.)
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
Boris, I like Shelby Steele's writing, and I don't disagree with that piece. I think that there are strong arguments on both sides without reference to race or white guilt. I mentioned it first here. Bad idea. I'm sorry I brought it up at all, as it obviously didn't address anyone else's concerns and distracted some from my main points: Immigration is a good thing in general. Similar debates have taken place in the past. America (I'm including Canada here) is a better place for having welcomed people who share the desire to improve their lot and live in an economically and socially mobile society. I don't believe that human nature has changed so dramatically since the last time 10% of our country was foreign-born that what has proven to be a valuable (though contraversial) strategy in the past is now a dangerous one. As Rick mentioned, finding the workforce to sustain our standard of living is important. In Europe, Japan and Russia birth rates are below replacement levels. Population levels in the US have been sustained despite a similar decline in birthrate by the influx of immigrants (both by their numbers and because they have larger families once they arrive). Personal Anecdote IV of III: Force of habit, sorry. I really only had three worth sharing.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
JM Hanes, I am sorry you are offended. As I noted prior to your comment, I well recognize that there are substantive non-bigoted reasons to oppose more open borders. To make it absolutely clear, not only did I not intend to allege that any here were making racist arguments, I am firmly convinced that virtually every commentator here opposes racism in any of its various manifestations. I fear, however, that I am not convinced that racist considerations play no role in the immigration debate. And I recall that the Irish were referred to (and treated as) "blacks" when they came in large numbers. I could substitute the example of the Chinese in 1800's California, the Vietnamese after 1973, or the Bosnians after 1993, if that would make you more comfortable. My point was to indicate that, despite the dire predictions of cultural suicide that attended their entry, quite a few ethnic groups have integrated successfully and added value to our overall culture. So, again, I'm sorry to have given offense. I will try to phrase my historical references more artfully in the future.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
Thanks Jane & Elliott!
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Leadership That's Working! at JustOneMinute
chch16, If you can't pass by Carol's commentary, could you at least try to pick up some of the less pruient portions? It's nice to be able to read JoM at work and not have to worry about its content triggering any filters. Your links are failing because the tool you use to generate code is adding an additional http:/ in front of the one you copy from your toolbar. Not knowing the tool you prefer, I'd just suggest you edit it manually. Come to think of it Carol, could you perhaps focus on the more family-friendly language? Thanks to both of you.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Libby's Reply at JustOneMinute
MeFolkes, I don't have anything against otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants. I'm kinda opposed to flagrantly violating the tax code. As I mentioned above, I've helped corporations, partnerships, citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants comply with their tax obligations. Illegal immigrants have the same duty as the rest of us to pay taxes on income earned in the US (and, in certain circumstances, their worldwide income). While it used to be easier to apply, an undocumented worker can still get an Individual Taxpayer Id Number (ITIN) to use to file their returns if they do not qualify for a Social Security Number. I've used that procedure for more than one taxpayer without documentation. I'm peeved with the employer. I make my clients comply with the laws (employment verification and tax law). Companies like your former employer should not get a competitive advantage over companies like my clients that play by the rules. Also, the practices you describe suggest that the employees are using not just false SSNs, but ones belonging to real individuals. As that kind of identity theft wreaks great havoc in general and is virtually impossible to clear up with the IRS, I am wholeheartedly opposed to it. ____________________ Personal anecdote III (of III) I had mentioned earlier that I knew Vik Amar. Although he taught at UCD while I was there, I was never one of his students. Aside from the normal social interactions, my only significant contact with him was helping out on a pro bono project he was leading in conjunction with a student-staffed legal clinic. My part? Preparing and filing three years of back tax returns for an immigrant applying for legal residency.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
Thanks Clarice. I may seem combative, but I understand that there are valid, non-bigoted, and substantive arguments against unfettered (and less-fettered) immigration. For the most part, I don't subscribe to them--or, as in the case of Other Tom's arguments, I think that they are over- and under-inclusive in their targets. I'll support without qualification the immigration and naturalization of a hard-sciences or engineering PhD and with very limited reservations those of medical, law or economics professionals. I'm just not sure that they are disadvantaged by others gaining citizenship as well. Unless, of course, there is some necessary cap on legal immigration or naturaliztion. With such cap, I'll of necessity disagree. After spending two weeks in a car and tent, I'll attest that there is plenty of space to fill before we reach the population density of Japan, Singapore, or the Netherlands.
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
MeFolkes, Turn 'em in now. If you are concerned about retribution, send me an email and I'll give you landline or snail mail contact info and report it confidentially on your behalf. "The system works..." ...if we work together.
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
Other Tom, I agree that, while the arguments (assimilation, they're taking our jobs, changing our culture, don't assimilate in the first generation, hold some allegiance (d*mn papists--now 75% of them disagree with the Pope) to a foreign power) are similar, none were actually enacted. And I agree that lack of assimilation is the biggest issue. I think that we can provide more incentives (and disincentives) to encourage the integration of assertive, motivated, and risk-taking immigrants to join the American experiment. While I won't walk the streets to promote "English-only" laws, I will (and do) protest silly "enjoy your driving/citizenship/voting responsibilities without bothering to learn the dominant tongue" nonsense. And don't get me started on Welfare. A hand up, not a hand-out, is my philosophy. And, like I mentioned with the tax work, I have and continue to put that principle into practice. You want to better youself, you have my admiration and my aid. You want to relax on my dime, not so much. My personal experience is that both problems exist more frequently (sometimes in far more dangerous forms) in those born in this country more so than those who choose to come here and brave obstacles to do so. I don't wish to denigrate the experience of those living in LA or SD, but in SF immigrants were by far a net positive. As far as violation of the law is concerned, I don't wish to minimize the severity of that offense. But, I don't wish to overvalue it as well. If someone breaks a law, let the punishment be proportional to the harm to society. If they broke a law in order to become (otherwise) law-abiding productive members of the polity, seems a fine would be sufficient. Deport the violent (& detain them pending deportation). "Murderous zealots..." Eh, you neglect the anarchists. Killed a president, started WWI, etc. But I see your point. My point is that a system that expends the vast majority of its resources to pick up those with established homes and regular jobs is extremely likely to miss those who are here (as the 9-11 hijackers were) without visible means of support and ties to the community. A personal anecdote (Part II of III): I've had the good fortune to be the point person between a 200,000+ person employer and the IRS and Social Security Administration (little known fact: The employer is required to balance books between the IRS and SSA annually. I once spent a couple weeks trying to find the reason for an $11 discrepancy in a $600,000,000 return. (I offered to just write a check, but they wanted answers D*mnit!)) Guess where I had the greatest issues--natives or immigrants? Bingo! To my recollection, the IRS and SSA rejected only one immigrant, but we had ~30 people per quarter who we had to sanction on the Service's behalf because they refused proper withholding on their W-9's. I also had the opportunity to audit our subcontractors for employment law compliance...guess what? Every form filled out, every selected individual legally eligible to work. The I-9 and other enforcement procedures are working, especially for large employers. The large raids about which you read? They are evidence that the system works--violators are caught and punished. Severely.
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
Clarice, I neglected to thank you earlier for your Posner citation. This part caught my eye:Judge Richard Posner, a supposedly liberal-leaning jurist regarded by many as a future US Supreme Court candidate... While J. Posner may be Liberal in the classical sense, I can only hope with respect to his Supreme Court prospects, that, as de Tocqueville suspected, outsiders see us better than we see ourselves.
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
Clarice, There were assimilation issues. You've seen the same thing in New York and Boston with the Irish as we did in the Midwest with the Bohemians. My great-grandfather (whom I was lucky enough to get to know) spoke German as a first language but was dropped into English-language schooling (and yes, the immigrants built, paid for, and operated their own schools). Own language publications? In 1870, the number and circulation of german-language publications in St. Louis and vicinity exceeded those written in the English language. Medical care, college tuition? What constitutes state-of-the-art medical care in the 19th century? FWIW, they also developed, built, paid for, and operated their own parallel heathcare system--which still survives to this day. Medical and character tests? Well, they made it through Ellis Island. Your call as to whether that is more or less rigorous than requiring the ability to walk, carring all you care to import, 50 miles through the desert. If they broke the law, they could stay here? They really didn't want to break the law. While US prisons were far more hospitable than those in the country they left, they paled in comparison to the opportunity afforded those who played by the rules and attempted to integrate into society. Snuck in or admitted? Well, the standards were a bit looser then. There wasn't much of a benefit to sneaking in when the US accepted the poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free. My more recent experience (Part I of III): During the 90's, I prepared tax returns for low-income folks as part of my pro bono service. Uniformly, the foreign-born taxpayers were eager to pay their fair share and participate in the great American ritual display of subservience to the IRS. A plurality of the native-born, however, solely to receive refundable tax credits. It was quite discouraging to be cursed by those I spent my time aiding without recompense because they didn't qualify for "reparations credits" or a refund exceeding 3x their taxes paid. OTOH, however, I frequently had to discourage the immigrants from paying me or plying the other volunteers with homemade gifts.
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
And the Cardinals are not providing a positive distraction!
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
OK, again I'm going against the tide. My great-grandfathers' parents were immigrants at a time when a greater proportion of the US population were foreign-born. The same arguments made now were made then. (FWIW, as recently as the 1930's the KKK was burning crosses on their co-religionists lawns in MO.) I'm ashamed of McCaskill's and Bond's votes to kill this bill. (Aside to Pofarmer: Still think that McCaskill is a Dem. loon?) As a result of this action, we will continue to have ~4% of the US population living and (sometimes) working with no records, no background checks, and no ability to focus enforcement upon those likely to do us harm rather than provide us with cheap labor.
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2007 on Rough Riders at JustOneMinute
... the only reason he was keeping them out was that Libby had decided not to testify. Yep. That impinges on the Fifth amendment right to decide to testify (no harmless error analysis), the Sixth amendment right to a fair trial (circumstantial evidence to show defendant's state of mind admissible for prosecution but not defense)(I think no harmless error analysis) and the Fed Rules of Evidence (abuse of discretion analysis to find errors; harmless error analysis to determine whether retrial is appropriate). I'm not pretending to give a definitive description of harmless error applicability or analysis--OK, maybe I did but I really should not have. I just wanted to point out that it applies wrt Mitchell's testimony, and people apply it differently.
Toggle Commented Jun 27, 2007 on Libby's Reply at JustOneMinute
Clarice, I read US v. Safavian as avoiding the whole question. It merely states that the question is "close" without evaluating whether, despite a novel question of law, there is a single clear answer [Walton] or whether the judge believes that there are good, substantial arguments on both sides but no binding authority on the precise question [Bates]. In other words, Walton's opinion seems to read as if a decision he makes is "close" only if he evaluates the arguments and determines that he has some (undetermined, but substantial) likelihood of being reversed on appeal. That is, he must think he likely (rather than possibly) made the wrong decision in order to grant bail pending appeal. Not bloody likely. Given that only white-collar defendants are unlikely to be determined threats to the community, flight risks, convicted of crimes permitting bail, or properly preserving and defining novel questions of law, his comments about the disparate treatment afforded them under the bail statue verge on the non-sensical.
Toggle Commented Jun 27, 2007 on Libby's Reply at JustOneMinute