BILL COSBY'S LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM DEMEANED WOMEN (CHARACTER ASSASSINATION)

BILL COSBY'S LEGAL TEAM DEMEANED WOMEN (CHARACTER ASSASSINATION):

COSBY'S LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM ATTACKED HIS FEMALE VICTIMS AND TRIED TO DISCREDIT THEM.

ATTEMPTING TO PAINT FEMALE VICTIMS AS "CRAZY" OR "UNSTABLE" IS AN OLD DIRTY TRICK.

THANK GOD IT FAILED.

SEXUAL PREDATORS & ABUSERS OF WOMEN NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

TIME'S UP.


Post Sources: ABC News, Washington Post, Youtube


****** How Bill Cosby's defense team's vicious strategy backfired: ANALYSIS


Even in defeat, disgrace and public humiliation, they kept on coming after the women.

In an extraordinary post-trial interview on Friday with “Good Morning America” chief anchor George Stephanopoulos, Cosby representatives Andrew Wyatt and Ebonee Benson called one juror a racist and suggested that one Cosby accuser and a friend who say they were drugged and assaulted had initially gone to visit the comedian because “they like big, black men.”

Stephanopoulos seemed to wince, and asked her, “Do you really want to go there?”

She did.

Benson went on to compare Cosby’s conviction on three counts of felony sexual assault on Thursday to the fate of Emmett Till, the 14-year old Mississippi child brutalized and murdered in 1955 for whistling at a white woman.

“This became a public lynching,” Wyatt said of the trial. “The South came to the East.”

A number of Cosby’s dozens of accusers are African-Americans, as are Benson and Wyatt.

Employing a vicious defense strategy that sought to exploit race, gender, age and social activism, Cosby’s defense team went low early and kept on going -- launching stunning, mostly unfounded broadsides against the judge, the prosecutor, the witnesses and the jurors -– and openly mocked the widely accepted scholarship of a renowned expert on sexual assault.

Mocking Science

In a powerful, tactical move, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, prosecutors Kevin Steele, Kristen Feden and Stewart Ryan chose as their first witness in the retrial Dr. Barbara Ziv -- a sexual assault expert who testified that significant statistical evidence has shown that most sexual assault victims respond differently to attacks than victims of other crimes.

Anticipating withering defense cross-examinations from celebrity defense attorney Tom Mesereau and co-counsel Kathleen Bliss, the move aimed to give some measure of protection to the succession of six women who would follow, each testifying that Cosby drugged and sexually violated them.

District Attorney Steele knew jurors needed to first understand the degree of lasting trauma sexual violence can inflict before listening to the graphic stories they were about to hear, a colleague told ABC News.

Ziv testified that “the vast majority of victims of sexual assault do not report to authorities,” and that sexual assault reporting can be delayed “from days to weeks to months to years.”

She explained how common counter-intuitive behavior is in victims of sexual violence, and how they rarely act the way you would think they would.

“Most people don’t fight back, don’t say anything, and don’t, you know, immediately, when it’s over, don’t jump up and leave,” Ziv said. “They are in a state of shock, that’s how they describe it.

“The most common scenario is that when someone is being sexually assaulted, they’re sort of frozen, they don’t know what’s happening ... but they can take their time before they end the situation," she added. "That’s usually the pattern in the majority of sexual assaults.”

During closing arguments, Bliss characterized Ziv’s testimony as nonsense.

“We are not snowflakes,” the former federal prosecutor told jurors in her deep Oklahoma drawl. “We are not delicate flowers, and so this rape myth that someone like Dr. Ziv would ask you to buy into –- where if she says X, it’s rape; if she says Y, it’s rape; if she says Z, it’s rape.

"Whatever she says, don’t worry about the details,” Bliss continued sarcastically. “Don’t corroborate her. Don’t check her out.”

Shaming women

In some ways, the defense strategy was as simple as it was anachronistic: destroy the accuser’s credibility, shame her supporting witnesses and ridicule emerging science on the truly caustic effects of sexual assault on both the bodies and the psyches of victims.

Mesereau called Andrea Constand -- whose sexual assault case led to Cosby's conviction -- a “con artist” and a “pathological liar” so wily and deceptive that “you would need pliers to pull the truth from this woman.”

He accused her of “destroying the physical evidence” that could have proved Cosby innocent -- by not coming forward for a year after the alleged attack.

An email she cut, pasted and forwarded in college to one person became a “pyramid scheme.” Allegations of decades-old use of hallucinogens became an “addict[ion] to magic mushrooms.”

Constand acknowledged under cross-examination that she had been in Cosby’s hotel room at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut late one night after he invited her to the resort to see him perform.

“Did you think it appropriate that you be in a married man’s room in a hotel in Connecticut at that time of night?” Mesereau pressed.

Constand calmly replied that she was summoned to the room by the comedian to get some “baked goods that Mr. Cosby wanted to give me.”

She said she left the room within 10 minutes.

At another point, Mesereau suggested that Constand had violated the terms of her $3.38 million dollar settlement with Cosby by testifying, when a close reading of the language in subsequent questioning by Feden revealed that the attorney had left out a key element of the agreement -- and that Constand hadn’t violated the terms at all.

The five additional accusers came under equally lethal scrutiny.

In one of the most remarkable moments in the trial, Bliss told jurors that former supermodel and witness Janice Dickinson was a “failed starlet” and an “aged-out model” who sounded “like she had slept with every single man on the planet.”

“Is Ms. Dickinson really the moral beacon that the women’s movement wants?” she wondered aloud.

A sweet-voiced Midwestern grandmother named Heidi Thomas was painted as desperate for attention after a bid in her early-20s to become an entertainer.

Thomas finally got her wish, Bliss told jurors sarcastically, after getting to testify before the national press in a high-profile trial.

“She’s now living the dream, ladies and gentlemen," Bliss mocked.

Thomas had earlier testified to being summoned at the age of 24 to an empty home in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, for acting coaching, only to be drugged by Cosby and wake up in groggy horror and confusion. He forced himself onto her, she testified.

When accuser Janice Baker-Kinney denied repeatedly under cross-examination to conspiring with Constand against the star during a chance meeting at a women’s march last year, Mesereau openly mocked her.

“Are you rolling your eyes at me?” she demanded of the attorney, who without a moment’s hesitation shot back “yes,” drawing gasps from the gallery.

Under cross-examination, Chelan Lasha sobbed as she was called a liar who was convicted a decade earlier of making a false statement to police in an unrelated case.

Bliss portrayed all of them as having made up stories and come forward for “money, press conferences, TV show, salacious coverage, ratings.”

She paused for effect and concluded dismissively, “Sex sells.”

Taking on the judge

The circle-the-wagons defense strategy sought to impugn the motivations of all comers.

Judge Steven T. O’Neill denied a pre-trial motion by the prosecution to recuse himself from the case because his wife counsels college sexual assault victims and once may have made a $100 donation to a campus group. The group later made a donation to another campus group that had recently announced plans to protest Cosby outside of court.

The protest never materialized, and neither did the recusal.

In issuing his ruling, O’Neill accused the defense of trying to “trivialize” his wife’s work, and -- in a voice cracking with emotion -- he ultimately declared that “I am my own individual in making decisions here, and my wife’s personal beliefs and professional pursuits and what she does for a living are just of no consequence.”

After appearing to choke up, O’Neill apologized to the court “if emotions become a part of [this]."

“But it’s a difficult thing if the parties choose to bring the families into it," he added.

Playing the race card

During jury selection, Bliss claimed a peremptory strike of an African American woman demonstrated racial discrimination, even though two of the eight jurors by then impaneled were also black.

After a break, Bliss returned to court to claim to the judge that a member of her team had just overheard a Cosby prosecutor making a “repulsive” racially discriminatory remark.

An exasperated Steele called the claim “ludicrous” as one of his assistant district attorneys stormed out of court. The issue was never raised in open court again, and representatives for the prosecution, the defense and court administrators all declined to comment at the time.

On Friday morning, Wyatt was still litigating a failed pre-trial bid to have a different juror thrown out for, again, being overheard making a racist comment.

The actual remarks, if any, were never made public by the court, and Judge O’Neill rejected the defense motion bid to strike that juror from the pool.

But by then it was too late, Benson told Stephanopoulos on Friday.

“The bias was already there,” she said.

Asked whether the scores of women who have accused Cosby in recent years of sexual violence could really all be lying, Benson was ready with her own questions.

“Since when are all people honest?" she asked. "Since when are all women honest?”

Brooke Astor's Son Convicted In Estate Defrauding Scheme

Brooke Astor’s Son Guilty in Scheme to Defraud Her


The son of Brooke Astor, the philanthropist and long-reigning matriarch of New York society, was convicted in Manhattan on Thursday on charges that he defrauded his mother and stole tens of millions of dollars from her as she suffered from Alzheimer’s disease in the twilight of her life.

The jury’s verdict means that Mrs. Astor’s son, Anthony D. Marshall, 85, faces a sentence of at least a year and as many as 25 years. A co-defendant, Francis X. Morrissey Jr., a lawyer who did estate planning for Mrs. Astor, was also convicted of a series of fraud and conspiracy charges, as well as one count of forging Mrs. Astor’s signature on an amendment to her will.

The verdict drew the curtain on a long trial that cast an unflattering spotlight on one of New York’s first families of high society. Henry Kissinger, Barbara Walters and Annette de la Renta, among others, testified that Mr. Marshall mistreated his mother in her later years and conspired to inflate his inheritance from her estate — largely to appease his wife, Charlene Marshall. Mrs. Astor died in 2007 at age 105.

As the verdict was read, Ms. Marshall sat stone-faced; moments later, while her husband went to meet with a probation officer, she left the courtroom, saying, “I love my husband.” She and Mr. Marshall then held hands and ignored requests for comment before being whisked away in a black Town Car.

Although prosecutors were still determining how stiff a sentence to recommend, they gave a hint after the verdict was read, when Elizabeth Loewy, an assistant district attorney, asked Justice A. Kirke Bartley Jr. to increase the defendants’ bail to $5 million from $100,000. Justice Bartley denied the request, and asked the defendants to return Dec. 8 for sentencing. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Morrissey, 66, staggered ashen-faced out of the courtroom without comment.

The defense is expected to ask the judge to allow Mr. Marshall to stay out of prison pending an appeal, which could take more than a year because of a long trial — more than 19 weeks — that produced about 18,000 pages of transcript and thousands more pages of exhibits.

“I’m stunned by the verdict, greatly disappointed with what the jury did,” Frederick P. Hafetz, one of Mr. Marshall’s lawyers, said outside the courthouse. “I think we have a strong appeal.”

Mr. Hafetz did not elaborate on what the grounds might be, but motions by the defense lawyers throughout the trial offered some insight into what their next moves might be.

They are likely to keep a close eye on what jurors say in the coming days, particularly in relation to one woman who had asked to be removed from the panel this week because she said she felt threatened by another juror’s comments. The defense may also challenge the judge’s decision to allow an independent expert on trusts and estates law to testify for the prosecution, as well as the strength of the evidence in the most serious charge Mr. Marshall was convicted of — first-degree grand larceny, for giving himself a retroactive lump-sum raise of about $1 million for managing his mother’s finances.

Mr. Marshall was found guilty of 14 of the 16 counts against him. One of the acquittals was on the other first-degree grand larceny charge, for selling a Childe Hassam painting that his mother owned for $10 million and keeping a $2 million commission on the sale. The other was on a lesser charge of falsifying business records.

The jury of eight women and four men sat through months of testimony and arguments in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, hearing detailed accounts of Mrs. Astor’s luxurious life of summers on an estate in Maine and dinners with diplomats. Deliberations went on for 12 days, and appeared strained.

Thursday’s developments drew reactions from throughout the social stratosphere in which Mrs. Astor traveled.

“The only reason we got involved in Mrs. Astor’s treatment was to ensure she lived the last months of her life in comfort and peace,” Mrs. de la Renta and David Rockefeller said in a joint statement released by their spokesman, Fraser P. Seitel. Three years ago, Mrs. de la Renta and Mr. Rockefeller helped put together the guardianship petition that first accused Mr. Marshall of mistreating his mother.

“Thankfully that was accomplished,” the statement said.

Betsy Gotbaum, the city’s public advocate and a friend of Mrs. Astor, testified for the prosecution and said that Mrs. Astor deserved better treatment from her son.

“Clearly, the jury thought he did something wrong,” Ms. Gotbaum said. “I don’t think he should go to jail, frankly. He’s 85 years old. I think he’s probably suffered enough.”

At its core, this case was a story of familial dysfunction, provoked in part by Mr. Marshall’s son Philip, who filed the guardianship petition three years ago. Philip Marshall was not in court on Thursday, but reacted with disbelief when told by a reporter of the verdict. “Oh my God,” he said. “Wow. Wow.”

In a statement released later, he only indirectly mentioned his feelings toward his father.

“I hope this brings some consolation and closure for the many people, including my grandmother’s loyal staff, caregivers and friends, who helped when she was so vulnerable and so manipulated,” he said.

The prosecution portrayed Mr. Marshall as driven to squeeze his mother for money at the urging of his wife.

Because many of the convictions were related to changes to Mrs. Astor’s will that prosecutors said the defendants procured through fraud, Mr. Marshall would seem to be compromised when the battle over Mrs. Astor’s estate — worth more than $180 million when she died two years ago — shifts to Surrogate’s Court in Westchester County.

Of the changes to the will, prosecutors vigorously objected to one executed in January 2004 that gave Mr. Marshall outright control of $60 million of his mother’s estate upon her death.

Paul Saunders, a lawyer for Mrs. de la Renta, said the main defense argument — that Mrs. Astor understood and consented to what her son was doing — had been undermined by the criminal verdict. “The jury clearly found that she did not,” he said. “That’s important because her mental capacity is the central issue in the will contest.”

Much of the contention centered on when Mrs. Astor lost her competency. Some jurors concluded that did not occur until 2005, while others, like Yvonne Fernandez, believed it happened as early as 2002.

One of the major points of discussion was the issue of the $1 million retroactive raise, with jurors eventually deciding that Mr. Marshall misused his power of attorney to take that raise.

“How can he give himself a raise when he’s been abusing his power?” Ms. Fernandez said. “He was wearing two hats at that point.”

The defense may argue on appeal that, by the letter of the law, the power of attorney gave Mr. Marshall the right to give himself that raise.

When asked about the likelihood of Mr. Marshall’s serving time in prison, Ms. Fernandez said: “It is what it is. You make mistakes in life and you’ve got to take responsibility for them.”



View Larger Map

Sources: NY Times, MSNBC, Google Maps

Roman Polanski Held Tight By Swiss Gov't...Cokie Roberts: "Shoot Him"

(ABC's Cokie Roberts On Roman Polanski: "Take Him Out And Shoot Him" - 10/04/09.)



(Although Polanski's crime is no laughing matter, Saturday Night Live makes fun of Whoopi Goldberg's response regarding his illegal actions.)



(A slew of Hollywood hotshots have signed a petition demanding the release of film director Roman Polanski, arrested for fleeing from the U.S. after a child-sex conviction. Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and attorney Gloria Allred discuss the case. Some of these celebrity kooks must be into having sex with children too.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Swiss officials deny Polanski’s release bid


Roman Polanski lost the first round Tuesday in his battle to avoid extradition to the United States for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

Already locked in a Zurich cell for the last dozen days, Polanski learned he will remain incarcerated for an extended period as the Swiss Justice Ministry rejected his plea to be released from custody.

Swiss authorities expressed fear he might flee the country if freed from prison. The director of such film classics as “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown” has been wanted by U.S. authorities since fleeing sentencing 31 years ago.

“We continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight,” said ministry spokesman Folco Galli, explaining the decision.

Galli said that the threat was too great for the government to accept bail or other security measures in exchange for the release of the filmmaker.

Polanski was apprehended Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive an award from a film festival. Authorities in Los Angeles consider him a convicted felon and a fugitive, and Switzerland says there has been an international warrant out on him since 2005.

Polanski’s legal representatives are also appealing to Switzerland’s federal criminal court to free the director. Galli said the Justice Ministry has submitted a letter to the tribunal explaining why it opposes release even on bail.

Legal experts say Polanski stands a minimal chance of a speedy release, even if his lawyers have suggested he be held under house arrest in his chalet in the luxury resort of Gstaad.

“In practice, I don’t remember any case where a fugitive has been released on bail while awaiting extradition to a foreign country,” said former Zurich prosecutor Peter Cosandey, adding that Polanski’s ownership of an Alpine chalet doesn’t aid his case greatly.

“He could easily disappear,” Cosandey said, referring to Switzerland’s lax border controls. “He could just hop on a train to Germany. Coming by plane, you’re often just waived on. By car, it’s even easier.”

Dieter Jann, another Zurich ex-prosecutor, has said extradition would be hard to fight, and he thought Switzerland had followed procedures correctly.

In Paris, Polanski’s lawyers took note of the decision and said they would focus on convincing the court to free Polanski.

“In particular, Mr. Polanski undertakes to remain in Switzerland for the duration of the extradition procedure, and to respect all obligations that could be imposed on him to guarantee this commitment,” said a statement.

One of the lawyers, Herve Temime, added that Polanski did not pose a flight risk.

“We sincerely hope that the Swiss judges are able to remain detached,” he told reporters.

Polanski was accused of plying the underage girl with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill during a modeling shoot in 1977, and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy.

He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation.

However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.

The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a “voluntary deportation.” Polanski then fled the country, on Feb. 1, 1978, the day he was scheduled to be sentenced to the additional time.

Galli confirmed that Washington has yet to file a formal request seeking extradition. But he said the U.S. probably wouldn’t need its entire 60-day period to submit all documents.

“I assume this is a priority case in the United States,” Galli said.

Polanski looks set to remain in prison for months as his case in the Swiss courts progresses. The criminal court has said it will rule on the filmmaker’s request in the “next weeks,” and a verdict in either direction can be appealed to the country’s highest judicial body, the Federal Tribunal.

Galli said Polanski would remain in prison for the duration of this process.

Cosandey, an expert in international criminal cases, said Polanski’s lawyers may seek to sway the court with promises such as a bail pledge as high as 1 million francs ($1 million).

“But it’s hard to say if this will be successful,” Cosandey said. “If the court just follows the formal treaty, he has to stay in prison. The fact that he’s a prominent guy won’t help him in Switzerland.”

Polanski has received backing from directors and film stars in Hollywood and Europe, and from government officials in France and Poland, where he holds citizenship. But some of that support has waned since the original shock of his arrest, with leading French and Polish officials urging a more restrained reaction considering the crime.

In Switzerland, debate has raged among parliamentarians and cultural figures over the neutral country’s role in arresting Polanski as he came to attend a government-backed festival. Few, however, have challenged the legality of his imprisonment and likely extradition.

Former Justice Minister Christoph Blocher said last week the director should have been warned — an assertion rejected by legal experts — but added that the case against Polanski now was quite simple and that he “must be extradited.”

Polanski and the victim, Samantha Geimer, reached a $500,000 settlement in October 1993, according to documents recently released in Los Angeles.

Geimer, who long ago identified herself, sued Polanski in December 1988 when she was 25 years old, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. She has since joined in Polanski’s bid for dismissal and has forgiven him.



View Larger Map


Sources: Huffington Post, ABC News, LaLate News, Smoking Gun, MSNBC, NY Daily News, Youtube, News Virginian.com, Saturday Night Live, La Late, Google Maps

NFL Grants Michael Vick A Second Chance...Will Society Follow Suit?

Fox Sports, NBC Sports----



(NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell states that esteemed Football Coach Tony Dungy will be Michael Vick's Mentor.)

Breaking sports news video. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL highlights and more.

Michael Vick is back in the NFL. Now all he needs is a team to play for.

Vick, free after serving 18 months in prison for running a dogfighting ring, was reinstated with conditions by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Monday. He could participate in regular-season games as early as October.

Vick can immediately take part in preseason practices, workouts and meetings and can play in the final two preseason games — if he can find a team that will sign him. A number of teams have already said they would not.

Once the season begins, Vick may participate in all team activities except games, and Goodell said he would consider Vick for full reinstatement by Week 6 (Oct. 18-19) at the latest.

Goodell suspended Vick indefinitely in August 2007 after the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback admitted bankrolling a dogfighting operation on his property in Virginia. At the time, Goodell said Vick must show remorse before he would consider reinstating him.

"I accept that you are sincere when you say that you want to, and will, turn your life around, and that you intend to be a positive role model for others," Goodell said in his letter to Vick. "I am prepared to offer you that opportunity. Whether you succeed is entirely in your hands."

"Needless to say, your margin for error is extremely limited," the letter said. "I urge you to take full advantage of the resources available to support you and to dedicate yourself to rebuilding your life and your career. If you do this, the NFL will support you."

Goodell said he spoke to numerous current and former players and coaches as he weighed his decision and that the responses were "very mixed."

"I do recognize that some will never forgive him for what he did," Goodell said. "I hope that the public will have a chance to understand his position as I have."

Vick, once the highest-paid player in the league, said he was grateful for a second chance.

"I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to commissioner Goodell for allowing me to be readmitted to the National Football League," Vick said in a statement released by his agent, Joel Segal. "I fully understand that playing football in the NFL is a privilege, not a right, and I am truly thankful for the opportunity I have been given.

"As you can imagine, the last two years have given me time to re-evaluate my life, mature as an individual and fully understand the terrible mistakes I have made in the past and what type of life I must lead moving forward," he said.

The announcement came after a busy first week of freedom for Vick, who met with union leaders and Goodell on consecutive days last week. His 23-month federal sentence ended when an electronic monitor was removed from his ankle on July 20 at his home in Hampton, Va.

He met with DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, last Tuesday and, on Wednesday, with Goodell at a security firm in Allendale, N.J.

Goodell said Vick agreed to undergo psychiatric testing, which determined that he was capable of returning to the NFL but needed continuing counseling.

He said keeping Vick from playing at the start of the regular season wasn't a form of punishment, but a chance for the quarterback to gradually transition back into the league.

"I have thought about every alternative, but I think this gives him the best chance for success," Goodell said. "We are not looking for failure here. We are looking to see a young man succeed."

But Vick's issues are far from over and he needs a team to call his own. So far, the owners of the New York Giants, Jets and Dallas Cowboys have said they had no interest in the 29-year-old quarterback. Neither do the Falcons, who officially released Vick in June.

Vick filed for bankruptcy protection last July, listing assets of about $16 million and debts of more than $20 million, and has a hearing about his plan to repay his creditors on Friday in Newport News, Va. That plan is built around his ability to make NFL-type money again.

He's unlikely to command anything close to the 10-year, $130 million contract he once had with the Falcons, or to get endorsement deals after the grisly details of the dogfighting ring were publicized.

Vick pleaded guilty after his three co-defendants had already done so. They told of how Vick participated in the killing of dogs that didn't perform well in test fights by shooting, hanging, drowning or slamming them to the ground.

Vick's appearances at federal court in Richmond, Va., prompted large groups of protesters to gather outside. Many were with PETA and held signs depicting photographs of pit bulls ravaged in dogfights.

Still, there were supporters who wore his No. 7 jersey.

Vick has already taken steps to rebuild his image.

He met with the president of the Humane Society of the United States while serving his federal sentence at Leavenworth, Kan. He plans to work with HSUS in a program designed to steer inner city youth away from dogfighting. He was not permitted to work with the program while in custody.

Ed Sayres, president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said the organization hopes Vick "rises to the occasion and proves worthy of the rare second chance Commissioner Goodell has granted him."

"Opportunities for redemption are rare — but that is exactly the opportunity that awaits Mr. Vick," he said.



View Larger Map

Sources: NBC Sports, Fox Sports, Zimbio, PETA, Google Maps

287(g) Is Being Replaced By ICE's "Secure Communities" Program...287(g) In High Heels??

If you recall I published two posts last week entitled "Ruthless Gangs are taking over North Carolina" and "Forbes Ranks Charlotte 14Th Most Dangerous U.S. City".

Those stories explain how Gang activity often related to the Illegal Immigrant population (not always but frequently enough), has negatively impacted American communities.

Previously the only Federal resource available to assist local Law Enforcement agencies with Illegal Immigration regulation was the controversial 287(g) program.

287(g) established in 1996, is a component of the Federal ICE (United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement) department. ICE falls under the umbrella of Homeland Security currently managed by Janet Napolitano.

The mission of ICE is to protect National Security by enforcing our nation's Customs and Immigration laws.

287(g)'s initial purpose 287(g) was to equip and authorize state and local law enforcement agencies with the legal tools necessary to perform similar duties of Federal Immigration Law Enforcement. In other words assist the "Immigration Feds" with doing their jobs.

Well now due to abuse of the program's mission, 287(g) has come under fire from the ACLU and many Latino/ Hispanic organizations who claim that 287(g) was in fact being used by Racist Sheriff and Police Departments nationwide to deport Latinos/Hispanics who only committed Minor Offenses.

The ACLU and Latino/Hispanic organizations had good reason to be concerned. Why?

The Bush Administration while pre-occupied with the "War on Terror", failed to properly regulate the Dept of Homeland Security. That failure then created a myriad of other problems, which resulted in more complaints of abuse.

Several years ago there was a best-selling Children's book authored by Laura Joffe Numeroff. It was titled "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie". The moral of that story was if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to eat it, which can then set off a snowball effect for other related problems. What else can you expect from a mouse right?

This same concept can also be applied to a bunch of Hick, Trigger Happy Law Enforcement officials just itching to practice Racial Profiling in the name of "Illegal Immigration Enforcement".

Of course you had Hispanics and Latinos being deported for Minor Criminal Offenses or DWL (Driving while Latino)!

For example: Getting a Speeding Ticket. What did you think those kind of Officers and Deputies were going to do?

This situation is no different than how the Black Community has been treated for decades in this country.

Whenever the Feds authorize State and Local Law Enforcement agencies without proper regulation to practice Enforcement, you will always have a few nuts (Police Officers, Sheriffs, Deputies, etc.,) with the propensity to demonstrate how much they hate Blacks or Hispanics, to show their true colors.

On the other hand, when investigating such claims one still has to do their homework.

While its true there were some Latino/Hispanic residents arrested in the U.S. and deported due to having only committed Minor Criminal Offenses, upon completion of an International Criminal background check conducted by ICE personnel, it was later discovered that many of them were also wanted by Law Enforcement officials in their native countries for having committed more serious crimes. For example: Murder, Manslaughter, Human and Drug Trafficking, Robbery, etc.,

In defense of the U.S. Deportation Policies, if those same people were in the United States LEGALLY or in possession of VISAs, they would not have been deported right?

So you have to consider both sides of the scale when listening to such claims.

Nevertheless, obviously the Federal Government received enough negative reports about 287(g) because now another program is being rolled out called "Secure Communities".

(Sidebar: Imagine that! The Black Community has been speaking out about Racial Profiling for years but neither the Federal Government nor state/local Law Enforcement agencies have ever listened to us.)

Secure Communities is supposed to be provide more comprehensive Illegal Immigration with a broader range of Federal Regulation, to ensure that state and local enforcement agencies are not abusing the purpose of the program's mission while identifying the most Violent Illegal Immigrant criminals.

However the Latino/Hispanic community isn't buying it. They basically see Secure Communities as a dressed up version of 287(g) wearing high heels.

The Latino/Hispanic population is fearful that Secure Communities will just give state and local Law Enforcement officers more motive to target their ethnic group.

To that I say welcome to the club hombre!

By the same token this extra Illegal Immigration Regulation should encourage those residents living here unlawfully to step up and begin the process of becoming LEGAL citizens.

People living here ILLEGALLY can't expect to have their cake and eat it too!

If your tired of being Tasered often for NO apparent reason other than just because of your physical appearance, STOP complaining and go down to your nearest Immigration office to find out how to begin the U.S. Citizenship process. (You can also call them @1-800-375-5283)

And....STOP committing Violent Crimes or participating in Gang activity!

In the mean time AFTER you've taken that FIRST step, if you strongly believe the Cops or Sheriff Deputies in your region are using you as their latest poster child for Racial Profiling seminars, THEN and only then do you contact the ACLU regarding filing a Violation of Human Rights Lawsuit.

As it relates to the "Secure Communities" program, I won't judge a book by its cover unless the content inside doesn't match up with the title and proves itself to be a fraud.



View Larger Map

Sources: Charlotte Observer, White House.gov, ICE.gov, DHS.gov, US Immigration Support, NAACP, Field Negro, Hispanic News, ACLU, Amazon.com, Wikipedia, Forbes, Flickr, Google Maps