GIULIANI vs TRUMP’s LEGAL CHALLENGES – "WE WILL BE OK” (MUELLER, RUSSIA, DANIELS)

GIULIANI vs TRUMP’s LEGAL CHALLENGES – "WE WILL BE OK” (MUELLER, RUSSIA, DANIELS):

CAN GIULIANI STOP THE BLEEDING SO TRUMP CAN EFFECTIVELY LEAD?

STAY TUNED.


Post Sources: Fox News, USA Today, Youtube


**** Donald Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani says 'we're going to be OK' on legal challenges


President Trump's new lawyer has been busy,but is optimistic that legal challenges ranging from Stormy Daniels to the Russia investigation will be resolved in the president's favor.

"I have sort of a special relationship with the president," Giuliani told USA TODAY in a brief interview. "It's going to take some time, but I think we're going to be OK."

Giuliani disputed claims that a $130,000 payment to Daniels, an adult film star who claims to have had a sexual encounter with Trump, amounts to a campaign finance violation.

A day after disclosing that Trump had repaid Cohen for a $130,000 non-disclosure agreement with Daniels — and hours after Trump confirmed it via Twitter — Giuliani said the money had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign, even though the original payment came just days before the election.

"No one ever thought of it as a campaign contribution," Giuliani said. "It was a personnel settlement."

Trump's admission changes the story he gave reporters in April, when he said he knew nothing about the payment to Daniels and suggested they ask Cohen about it.

During a media blitz of recent days, Giuliani said Cohen paid the original amount in October 2016, and Trump did not know about it;
Trump gradually repaid Cohen in installments as part of his lawyer's retainer, but did not what the money was for; only recently did Trump learn that those payments were for Daniels' settlement, said Giuliani and other administration officials.

The former New York City mayor is also negotiating possible Trump testimony before Mueller, though he has said he is not sure that will happen.

The Trump legal team is demanding testimony of no more than two to three hours, with limited topics.

They are concerned that some Mueller prosecutors may want to entrap the president as part of investigations into obstruction of justice and Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Giuliani said he's been thrown "a couple of curve balls, but we've been hitting them."

George Zimmerman's Bail Set For $150,000! Cold-Blooded MURDER & Racial Profiling! Rally The Troops!

RALLY THE TROOPS!

George Zimmerman Apologizes in Court for Committing Cold-Blooded MURDER on an Unarmed BLACK Teenager & he receives a Low Bail of just $150, 000.

Secret Service Agents Assigned to Protect Pres. Obama’s Life Compromises his Safety by Convorting with $800 a night Colombian Prostitutes.

Its Time For The American BLACK Community To Rally Again!

Its Time For Another Civil Rights March On Washington Before The November Election!

Mission Purpose: Equal Justice, Income Equality & Pres. Obama’s Safety.

BLACK Congressional Caucus Members Get Off Your Scared, “Uncle Tom” Butts!

Do Something To Help Protect President Barack Obama & Ensure George Zimmerman Is NOT Acquitted Like Casey Anthony!

This recent Secret Service Prostitution Scandal is NO Accident.

Why is it that this type of Scandal has NEVER been Exposed while any other Elected U.S. President was in Office?

NO the Behavior is NOT New but this type of Scandal is NEW!

I now Question whether the Complete Safety of Pres. Obama & His Family has been Compromised?

Remember the Female Spy Mata Hari?

Mata Hari was a famous Spy who used SEX with Influential Men to gain Access.

How do we know if some of the Currently Employed Secret Service Agents wouldn't Sell Out Pres. Obama’s Schedule & Itinerary for MONEY or SEX?

This is why I believe Secret Service Agency Director Mark Sullivan also needs to be Replaced!

Remember JFK!

JFK's Assassination was NO Accident!

It was a Well-Planned Murder For Hire!

Many Gov’t Officials were Angry at JFK for wanting to help BLACK people so they Killed him!

And…...

Congress, the CIA, the FBI & Secret Service were ALL in on it!

Of Course Pres. Obama & his Staff will continue to Public State that they “Have Complete Confidence In The Secret Service”.

But I Don’t!

Call me a “Conspiracy Theorist” if you want to but…...

I’m Concerned for Pres. Obama’s Safety!

Was Ted Nugent’s Comments “If Barack Obama Wins Again I’ll Be Dead Or In Jail”, a Public Warning & a Code to Incite Anger Among Racist Gun Rights Advocates?

So Yes! I’m Concerned!

Its Time To Pray For REAL!Its Time For The American BLACK Community To Rally Again To Demand That Congress & The Federal Gov’t Do More To Protect The Obama Family!

This Includes Holding The Secret Service, CIA & FBI Agencies More Accountable.

Its Time For The American BLACK Community To Rally Again!

Its Time For Another Civil Rights March On Washington Before The November Election!





Zimmerman apologizes as judge sets $150,000 bond

George Zimmerman apologized Friday to the family of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed African-American teen that he shot in a confrontation that riveted a nation and sparked intense discussions about race, racial profiling and gun laws.

Zimmerman spoke moments before a Florida judge set a $150,000 bond that will let him get out of jail while he awaits trial.

"I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son," Zimmerman said in an unusual appeal directly to Martin's family before he testified. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I was, and I did not know if he was armed or not."

Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said after the hearing that his client was responding to an interview in which Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, said she wanted to hear from the man who shot her son.

"He didn't want to defend himself, he didn't want to discuss the facts of the case. He heard the request of the family, and he wanted to respond to it," O'Mara said.

Attorneys for Martin's family, however, called the apology self-serving by a man facing a life prison sentence if convicted of the second-degree murder charge against him.

"This was the most disingenuous, insulting thing I've ever seen," said Martin family attorney Natalie Jackson.

Martin's parents were "completely devastated" over the decision to allow Zimmerman to go free, attorney Benjamin Crump said.

Prosecutors had asked that Zimmerman remain in jail without bond or that Judge Kenneth R. Lester Jr. set bond at $1 million -- an amount O'Mara said the family would be unable to handle.

Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda said Zimmerman's prior run-ins with a police officer and a woman who named him in a domestic violence injunction show that he is violent and a threat to the community.

Lester, however, described the incidents as "run of the mill" and "somewhat mild" in approving O'Mara's request for bond.

With the 10% cash payment customarily made to secure bond, Zimmerman could be freed with $15,000 from his family, attorneys said.

He will likely remain in jail for at least a couple of days while his attorneys and authorities work out terms of his release, which also include electronic monitoring and other restrictions, O'Mara said.

The judge told O'Mara to talk to authorities about his request to allow Zimmerman to leave Florida while awaiting trial. O'Mara said he is concerned about threats to Zimmerman's safety as well as that of his family.

De la Rionda said no decision has been made on whether to allow Zimmerman to leave the state.

The decision to grant Zimmerman bond followed a hearing in which his wife and parents testified that he was a caring, nonviolent man who organized a campaign on behalf of a homeless man who had been beaten and mentored an African-American boy for two years.

"I know that he is very protective of people, very protective of homeless people and also of children," Gladys Zimmerman testified by telephone.

She said he helped organize a campaign to "get justice" for a homeless man who had been beaten in Sanford, Florida, where he lived and where the shooting of Martin took place.

He also ventured into a dangerous Orlando neighborhood twice a week to mentor a 14-year-old African-American boy, his mother said. She testified that she begged him not to go because of the danger.

"He said, 'Mom, if I don't go, they don't have nobody,' " she said.

Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman Sr., testified that his son is not a violent man despite previous incidents discussed by de la Rionda during the hearing, including a scuffle with a police officer and a dispute with a woman.

"I've never known him to be violent at all unless he was provoked, and then he would turn the other cheek," Robert Zimmerman testified.
According to authorities, Zimmerman has said he killed Martin in self-defense after the teenager accosted him, knocking him to the ground and bashing his head against the concrete.

Zimmerman's father testified Friday that when he saw his son the day after Martin's shooting, he was wearing a protective cover over his nose, his face was swollen and he had two vertical gashes on his head. He also reportedly suffered a broken nose.

Martin's family and the special prosecutor appointed to investigate the case have rejected that argument, saying they believe Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of a police dispatcher to stop following Martin, racially profiled him and unjustly killed him.

Although details of the shooting remain murky, what is known is that Martin ventured out from the home of his father's fiancee in Sanford and went to a nearby convenience store, where he bought a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea.

On his way back, he had a confrontation with Zimmerman, who shot him.

Zimmerman had called 911 to complain about a suspicious person in the neighborhood, according to authorities.

In the call, Zimmerman said he was following Martin after the teen started to run, prompting the dispatcher to tell him, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman pursued Martin anyway but then said he lost sight of him.

According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman told authorities that after he briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him.

After the two exchanged words, Zimmerman said, he reached for his cell phone, and then Martin punched him in the nose.

Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head onto the sidewalk, leading to the shooting
Police have said Zimmerman was not immediately charged because there was no evidence to disprove his account that he had acted in self-defense.

A police report indicated he was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head.

In Friday's hearing, an investigator for special prosecutor Angela Corey's office said authorities have no evidence showing who started the altercation that led to Martin's death.

"Do I know? No," investigator Dale Gilbreath said when asked if he knew who started the fight.

He said wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with his skull being struck with something harder than his skull, and said under questioning from O'Mara that the object could have been a concrete sidewalk.

But he said evidence in the case is not consistent with Zimmerman's account that he was able to move away from the sidewalk just before being shot.

Martin was shot once in the chest at close range, Gilbreath said.

De la Rionda declined to comment on most of Friday's proceedings, including Zimmerman's testimony. But he said there's more to come when the case comes to trial.

"We obviously have evidence we feel we can go forward with," he said. "We did not put our entire case on today."

He declined to address Zimmerman's apology, which O'Mara said after the hearing that his client had tried to make in private but was rebuffed.

Natalie Jackson told CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin on Thursday that O'Mara called to set up a private meeting between Zimmerman and the Martin family.

The family declined, Jackson said, indicating they want Zimmerman instead to give a deposition on what happened the night Martin was shot.

Crump said Martin's father, Tracy Martin, weeped through much of the hearing, and the family was distraught at the prospect of Zimmerman being able to reunite with his family.

"They pray that his freedom is only temporary because the pain he has caused this family is going to be permanent," Crump said.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Washington Post, Google Maps

Robert Bales Charged With 17 Counts Of Murder: PTSD & The U.C.M.J. ("War On Trial")

Staff Sgt. Robert Bales is being Charged with 17 Counts of Murder on Friday.
Before everyone gets all riled up please remember Bales is Still a Soldier under UCMJ Law (Uniform Military Code Of Justice).
The Legal System is completely different under the UCMJ.
First there is a Court Martial, then he still has the right to Legal Counsel & an Investigation.
Next where is the Evidence?
There were NO Autopsies because the Alleged Victims were Buried Immediately according to Muslim Law.
on top of all that, Bales had PTSD, Serious Mental Health Issues yet the Army continued to Deploy him to a Combat Zone, thus Bales can't even be Discharged right now.
Higher Standard My Foot!
The Man had a Brain Injury, was Mentally & Physically Stressed Out!
The Army knew this Man had Serious Mental & Health Issues yet they continued to Deploy him to a War that America should have been out of long ago.
So Even if its Fast-Tracked it may take Years to Prosecute because this is NOT a Civilian Case!
So everyone needs to Calm Down.
The U.S. Military does NOT treat its Soldiers like Trash when they get into Legal Trouble.
Especially when they have Served for Several Years as a Good Soldier when On-Duty.
His Military Record is Outstanding even if his Personal life was a little messed up.
So everyone needs to just calm down.
Let's focus on getting Out of Afghanistan NOW to prevent other Tragedies like this from occurring.



Bales to be charged with murder in Afghan killings


Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales will be charged with 17 counts of murder in connection with a shooting spree in an Afghan village that left women and children dead and severely tested U.S.-Afghan relations, a U.S. official said.

The official declined to be identified because the charges have not been publicly released yet.

Bales will also face six counts of attempted murder and six counts of aggravated assault, as well as dereliction of duty and other violations of military law, the Associated Press reported, citing an unidentified U.S official.

Bales is being held in a solitary cell in the military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. The charges are to be read to him today.

Bales, who was on his fourth combat tour, allegedly sneaked from his military outpost in Kandahar province at 3 a.m. March 11 and walked to two villages where he shot, stabbed and burned villagers, including nine children.

The military originally said Bales was suspected in the killing of 16 Afghan villagers, but changed that Thursday to 17, raising the number of adults by one but without explaining why.

The massacre followed the accidental burnings of Qurans at a U.S. base in Afghanistan, which touched off waves of deadly rioting. No one has suggested a motive for the shootings, but the massacre has highlighted the issues of combat stress and frequent deployments.

Bales, 38, joined the Army on Nov. 8, 2001, two months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Friends say he was driven by patriotism, but Bales' financial businesses had gone bust, and regulators were investigating him for allegedly bilking an Ohio couple of their retirement savings.

He deployed three times to Iraq before Afghanistan. During his second deployment, he fought in Najaf to recover a downed helicopter. His platoon leader praised him, and in a newspaper article, Bales recalled it as one of his proudest moments. He arrived in Afghanistan in December. His unit provided security at a small outpost.

Two days before the killings, one of Bales' fellow soldiers lost a leg after stepping on a mine, said John Henry Browne, Bales' civilian attorney. Bales also suffered a minor head injury in 2010 as a passenger in a Humvee that flipped, Browne said. "I'm not putting the war on trial, but the war is on trial," Browne said.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CNN, USA Today, Google Maps

SCOTUS Rules Defendants & Indigents Have Constitutional Right To Good, Effective Legal Counsel (Plea Bargains)

Justices’ Ruling Expands Rights of Accused in Plea Bargains


Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to effective lawyers during plea negotiations, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a pair of 5-to-4 decisions.

Because about 95 percent of criminal convictions arise from guilty pleas, the decisions represent a vast expansion of judicial supervision of the criminal justice system.

“Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. “The right to adequate assistance of counsel cannot be defined or enforced without taking account of the central role plea bargaining takes in securing convictions and determining sentences.”

Justice Antonin Scalia took the unusual step of summarizing his dissents from the bench. “Today’s opinions open a whole new field of constitutionalized criminal procedure: federal plea-bargaining law,” he said.

Scholars who welcomed that development agreed about its significance.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in these two cases constitute the single greatest revolution in the criminal justice process since Gideon v. Wainwright provided indigents the right to counsel,” said Wesley M. Oliver, a law professor at Widener University.

It has long been established that defendants are entitled to new trials if they can show that incompetent work by their lawyers probably affected the verdicts in their cases. The Supreme Court has also required lawyers to offer competent advice in urging defendants to give up their right to a trial by accepting a guilty plea.

The cases decided Wednesday answered a harder question: What is to be done in cases in which a lawyer’s incompetence caused the client to reject a favorable plea bargain?

Justice Kennedy, who wrote both majority opinions and was joined both times by the court’s four more liberal members, acknowledged that allowing the possibility of reopening cases involving rejected pleas that were followed by convictions presented all sorts of knotty problems. But he said the realities of American criminal justice required the court to take action.

One of the cases, Missouri v. Frye, No 10-444, involved Galin E. Frye, who was charged with driving without a license in 2007. A prosecutor offered to let him plead guilty in exchange for a 90-day sentence.

But Mr. Frye’s lawyer at the time, Michael Coles, failed to tell his client about the offer. After it expired, Mr. Frye pleaded guilty without a deal in place, and a judge sentenced him to three years.

The second case, Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209, concerned Anthony Cooper, who shot a woman in Detroit in 2003 and then received bad legal advice. Because all four of his bullets struck the victim below her waist, his lawyer said, Mr. Cooper could not be convicted of assault with intent to murder.

Based on that advice, Mr. Cooper rejected a plea bargain that called for a sentence of four to seven years. He was convicted, and is serving 15 to 30 years.


View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Trayvon Martin's Attorney Benjamin Crump: "Skittles Candy vs A Gun & Florida's Stand Your Ground Law = MURDER" (Video)

A Bag of Skittles Candy vs a Hand Gun + Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law = Cold-Blooded MURDER! Arrest George Zimmerman NOW!

There is Nothing "Curious" about Trayvon Martin's Death, nor the Death of Troy Davis. America's BLACK Leaders just lack the Political Will to Protect BLACK U.S. Citizens, especially Young BLACK Males & Fully Enforce Civil Rights Laws.


The Curious Case of Trayvon Martin


“He said that Tray was gone.”

That’s how Sybrina Fulton, her voice full of ache, told me she found out that her 17-year-old son, Trayvon Martin, had died. In a wrenching telephone call, the boy’s father, who had taken him to visit a friend, told her that Trayvon had been gunned down in a gated townhouse community in Sanford, Fla., outside Orlando.

“He said, ‘Somebody shot Trayvon and killed him.’ And I was like, ‘Are you sure?’ ” Fulton continued in disbelief. “I said ‘How do you know that’s Trayvon?’ And he said because they showed him a picture.”

That was Feb. 27, one day after Trayvon was shot. The father thought that he was missing, according to the family’s lawyer, Benjamin Crump, but the boy’s body had actually been taken to the medical examiner’s office and listed as a John Doe.

The father called the Missing Persons Unit. No luck. Then he called 911. The police asked the father to describe the boy, after which they sent officers to the house where the father was staying. There they showed him a picture of the boy with blood coming out of his mouth.

This is a nightmare scenario for any parent, and the events leading to Trayvon’s death offer little comfort — and pose many questions.

Trayvon had left the house he and his father were visiting to walk to the local 7-Eleven. On his way back, he caught the attention of George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain, who was in a sport-utility vehicle. Zimmerman called the police because the boy looked “real suspicious,” according to a 911 call released late Friday. The operator told Zimmerman that officers were being dispatched and not to pursue the boy.

Zimmerman apparently pursued him anyway, at some point getting out of his car and confronting the boy. Trayvon had a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. Zimmerman had a 9 millimeter handgun.

The two allegedly engaged in a physical altercation. There was yelling, and then a gunshot.

When police arrived, Trayvon was face down in the grass with a fatal bullet wound to the chest. Zimmerman was standing with blood on his face and the back of his head and grass stains on his back, according to The Orlando Sentinel.

Trayvon’s lifeless body was taken away, tagged and held. Zimmerman was taken into custody, questioned and released. Zimmerman said he was the one yelling for help. He said that he acted in self-defense. The police say that they have found no evidence to dispute Zimmerman’s claim.

One other point: Trayvon is black. Zimmerman is not.

Trayvon was buried on March 3. Zimmerman is still free and has not been arrested or charged with a crime.

Yet the questions remain: Why did Zimmerman find Trayvon suspicious? Why did he pursue the boy when the 911 operator instructed him not to? Why did he get out of the car, and why did he take his gun when he did? How is it self-defense when you are the one in pursuit? Who initiated the altercation? Who cried for help? Did Trayvon’s body show evidence of a struggle? What moved Zimmerman to use lethal force?

This case has reignited a furor about vigilante justice, racial-profiling and equitable treatment under the law, and it has stirred the pot of racial strife.

As the father of two black teenage boys, this case hits close to home. This is the fear that seizes me whenever my boys are out in the world: that a man with a gun and an itchy finger will find them “suspicious.” That passions may run hot and blood run cold. That it might all end with a hole in their chest and hole in my heart. That the law might prove insufficient to salve my loss.

That is the burden of black boys in America and the people that love them: running the risk of being descended upon in the dark and caught in the cross-hairs of someone who crosses the line.

The racial sensitivity of this case is heavy. Trayvon’s parents have said their son was murdered. Crump, the family’s lawyer, told me, “You know, if Trayvon would have been the triggerman, it’s nothing Trayvon Martin could have said to keep police from arresting him Day 1, Hour 1.” Even the police chief recognizes this reality, even while disputing claims of racial bias in the investigation: “Our investigation is color blind and based on the facts and circumstances, not color. I know I can say that until I am blue in the face, but, as a white man in a uniform, I know it doesn’t mean anything to anybody.”

Zimmerman has not released a statement, but his father delivered a one-page letter to The Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. According to the newspaper, the statement said that Zimmerman is “Hispanic and grew up in a multiracial family.” The paper quotes the letter as reading, “He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever” and continues, “The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be further from the truth.” And disclosures made since the shooting complicate people’s perception of fairness in the case.

According to Crump, the father was told that one of the reasons Zimmerman wasn’t arrested was because he had a “squeaky clean” record. It wasn’t. According to the local news station WFTV, Zimmerman was arrested in 2005 for “battery on a law enforcement officer.”

Furthermore, ABC News reported on Tuesday that one of the responding officers “corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.” And The Miami Herald published an article on Thursday that said three witnesses had heard the “desperate wail of a child, a gunshot, and then silence.”

WFTV also reported this week that the officer in charge of the scene when Trayvon was shot was also in charge of another controversial case. In 2010, a lieutenant’s son was videotaped attacking a black homeless man. The officer’s son also was not initially arrested in that case. He was later arrested when the television station broke the news.

Although we must wait to get the results from all the investigations into Trayvon’s killing, it is clear that it is a tragedy. If no wrongdoing of any sort is ascribed to the incident, it will be an even greater tragedy.

One of the witnesses was a 13-year-old black boy who recorded a video for The Orlando Sentinel recounting what he saw. The boy is wearing a striped polo shirt, holding a microphone, speaking low and deliberately and has the heavy look of worry and sadness in his eyes. He describes hearing screaming, seeing someone on the ground and hearing gunshots. The video ends with the boy saying, “I just think that sometimes people get stereotyped, and I fit into the stereotype as the person who got shot.”

And that is the burden of black boys, and this case can either ease or exacerbate it.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Guardian.co.uk, NY Times, Wrigley Jr Co., Google Maps

Trayvon Martin's Cell Phone Records Reveal Last Call With Female Friend Before Tragic Encounter

Trayvon Martin's Last Phone Call Triggers Demand for Arrest 'Right Now'

A phone call from slain black teenager Trayvon Martin to his girlfriend seconds before he was shot dead by a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain "blows ... out of the water" the shooter's self-defense claim and he should be arrested "right now," a lawyer for Martin's family said today.

Attorney Benjamin Crump spoke after ABC News reported exclusively the existence of a phone call between Martin and his girlfriend, which detailed the last terrifying moments of Martin's life as he was pursued, accosted and shot dead by George Zimmerman.

Police accepted Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and have charged him with no crime.

"This young lady connects the dots," said Crump. "Arrest George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin in cold blood, today.

"We don't understand how he's not arrested. The family worries that the more time passes it will be swept under the rug," the lawyer said.

Martin's death Feb. 26 has stirred national outrage and protests, partly prompting the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and the FBI to open an investigation into the case.

Florida State Attorney Norm Wolfinger announced today that he had ordered an "expeditious review" of the investigation conducted by the Sanford Police Department, and that he would be "utilizing the investigative resources of the Seminole County Grand Jury, which will be called to session" next month.

ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life. Martin had been talking to his girlfriend all the way to the store where he bought Skittles and a tea. The phone was in his pocket and the earphone in his ear, Crump said.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."

The line went dead. Besides screams heard on 911 calls that night as Martin and Zimmerman scuffled, those were the last words he said.

Trayvon's phone logs, also obtained exclusively by ABC News, show the conversation occurred five minutes before police first arrived on the scene. Crump said the girl's identity was being withheld because "her parents are gravely concerned about her health and her safety." Her parents asked that only an attorney be allowed to ask her questions.

Martin's father, Tracey Martin, and mother, Sybrina Fulton, listened to the call, along with ABC News, ashen-faced.

"He knew he was being followed and tried to get away from the guy, and the guy still caught up with him," Tracey Martin said. "And that's the most disturbing part. He thought he had got away from the guy, and the guy backtracked for him."

The girl was so distraught after the killing that she spent a night in the hospital, the lawyer said.

"She was really traumatized over this. They were dating. ... It's a situation where to know you were the last person to talk to the young man who was one of the most special persons in the world to you," Crump said.

The lawyer said he would give the details of the phone call to the federal investigation.

"We're going to turn this over to the Justice Department because the family does not trust the Sanford Police Department to have anything to do with the investigation," said Crump.

Zimmerman killed Martin as Martin walked back to his father's fiance's home after stepping out to buy snacks during the NBA All-Star Game. After weeks of relentless pressure, the Sanford Police Department at last released emergency and nonemergency calls placed during the attack.

"These a**holes always get away," Zimmerman said in a call to a nonemergency number.

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yeah."

Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that."

An altercation soon ensued. A few moments later a torrent of 911 calls flooded in and Martin was killed by a single bullet. Zimmerman claimed self-defense and has yet to be arrested, stoking outrage and claims of prejudice against the police department.

"When George Zimmerman is arrested, tried and convicted I will get a little rest," Tracey Martin said.

Nearly half a million people have signed an online petition on change.org urging law enforcement officials to step in and arrest Zimmerman, who violated major parts of the Neighborhood Watch Manual, which states "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers. And they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles."

There are about 22,000 registered watch groups nationwide, and Zimmerman was not part of a registered group, which police were not aware of at the time of Martin's killing, said Chris Tutko, the director of the National Neighborhood Watch program.

Protests have played out in the Florida town all week with a large gathering expected Thursday.


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, CNN, Youtube, Google Maps

Robert Bales Does Not Remember Afghan Shootings; Still Deeply Concerned About His Unit

Under the UCMJ, Prosecuting Bales could take Years. Its NO easy process! Especially when a Soldier is Mentally & Physically Diminished.


Lawyer: Bales wasn't drunk and can't remember


The defense of accused murderer Sgt. Robert Bales began Monday when he spent more than seven hours with three of his lawyers, including defense attorney John Henry Browne.

At their meeting, Bales did not confess to the crime.

"He has no memory of ... he has an early memory of that evening and he has a later memory of that, but he doesn't have memory of the evening in between.," Browne said.

Witnesses describe Bales as going deliberately from room to room in several houses while killing people, not in some kind of berserk attack. Browne said that despite the descriptions of his apparently deliberate actions, Bales remembers none of what happened.

Browne also said reports of his being drunk that night were not really true.

"He said he had a couple sips of something but he didn't have a full drink," and therefore he wasn't drunk, Browne said.

Bales told Browne he was in shock.

"He's fixated on the troops left on the ground and what they're accusing him of and how that might have negative ramifications on his friends and compatriots. And he's concerned that there would be retaliation that would be caused by what people think he's done," Browne said.

Bales apparently is eager to get his wife and children on the phone.

"He loves them dearly and he is very interested in talking to them," Browne said.

Browne said he will not seek an insanity defense, rather one of "diminished capacity," like some sort of an emotional breakdown.

Bales is expected to be charged with 16 counts of murder by the end of the week.


The Military Path to Justice Could Be Lengthy


Staff Sgt. Robert Bales has yet to be formally accused of the act that the Army suspects him of committing: the nighttime massacre of 16 Afghan civilians in a village a mile from his post.

But once preliminary charges are announced, as early as this week, the military justice system will proceed deliberately, regardless of the enormity of the charges and the international repercussions of the acts involved.

It is a system devised to be flexible enough to be convened on a battlefield, and broad enough to deal with anything from theft and insubordination to atrocity. Experts agree there will be no quick resolution in this case, especially if the charges carry the death penalty, which Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said last week “could be a consideration” in the case.

That, said John Galligan, a military lawyer in private practice in Texas, would mean “it’s going to take several years.”

Many of the early details provided by military sources about the rampage have not been confirmed, and the case could founder in the courtroom on questions of evidence collected under difficult conditions thousands of miles away, potentially with few of the safeguards that courts in both the military and civilian worlds rely on when it comes to building a trustworthy account.

To Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, there is still too much to learn for easy conclusions to be drawn. “The narrative has not yet emerged,” he said.

One thing, however, is now certain: Sergeant Bales’s court-martial will be held in the United States. The military on Monday released the transcript of a briefing Sunday with Afghan journalists in which an American official said the case will be heard “somewhere in the United States.” The location, the official said, has not been determined, and witnesses may be flown over from Afghanistan. American service members are not subject to the Afghan criminal justice system, under a longstanding “status of forces agreement” between the United States and the Afghan government.

Sergeant Bales, who is being held at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., met with his defense team for the first time on Monday, in a session lasting several hours. His lawyer, John Henry Browne, told The Associated Press that his client’s recall of that night was patchy.

“He has some memory of some things that happened that night,” Mr. Browne said. “He has some memories of before the incident and he has some memories of after the incident. In between, very little.”

Mr. Browne told CBS News his client said that he had not been drunk, and that he had only had “a couple of sips of something.”

Unless a plea deal is struck, the outcome is anything but certain. The Army prosecuted 44 soldiers for murder or manslaughter of civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan from 2001 to 2011; 30 were convicted of some form of homicide, 6 were convicted of other offenses and 8 were acquitted. No one has been executed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice since 1961.

Gathering evidence and securing the cooperation of witnesses can be bedeviling in far-flung places, and contributed to the collapse of the prosecutions against Marines linked to the killings of 24 men, women and children in the Iraqi city of Haditha. Charges were dropped against most of the Marines who were tried in that case. In another case — the murders of three Afghan civilians in the Maiwand District in Kandahar Province in 2010 by a rogue “kill team” from Sergeant Bales’s base, Lewis-McChord —11 of the 12 soldiers tried were convicted.

The procedures to come are well defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial. The rules require a preliminary charging statement to be issued within days of a soldier being put behind bars. That is followed in coming months by a proceeding known as an Article 32 pretrial hearing, where prosecutors will present their evidence for convening a formal court-martial, leading to a recommendation from the presiding officer to higher command authority as to whether to hold a court-martial.

Only after the Article 32 hearing will the determination as to whether to seek the death penalty be announced. The court-martial would then go forward in two stages, one to establish guilt or innocence, and a second to determine sentencing.

Some of the elements of courts-martial differ from trials in the civilian realm. The military justice system does not allow a guilty plea in a death penalty case, but it does allow pleas that will lead to a lesser punishment. A determination of guilt or innocence, and the decision to sentence the defendant to death, must be unanimous.

If the supporting facts that underlie the accusations against Sergeant Bales are borne out and the military seeks the death penalty, much of the work of his legal team will shift to keeping him off death row. In speaking with reporters since the March 11 killings, Mr. Browne has discussed his client’s four combat deployments and suggested that Sergeant Bales could have been suffering from post-traumatic stress and the effects of concussive brain injury.

The military justice system does have the equivalent of the insanity defense, known as lack of mental responsibility, for which the standard of proof is very high. Mr. Fidell said such a defense is rarely successful, though “it could help soften the blow in terms of avoiding the death penalty.”

In the interview with CBS, Mr. Browne said he would not pursue the insanity defense, but would argue that his client had diminished capacity — apparently in an effort to seek mitigation of any punishment.

One issue that could loom large in the case is the risk that statements by those higher in the chain of command can have a prejudicial effect on members of the court-martial, a problem known as unlawful command influence. Among other statements, President Obama has called the killings “tragic and shocking,” and called President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan last week to pledge that the United States would “get the facts as quickly as possible and to hold accountable anyone responsible.”

Mr. Panetta has called the killings a “criminal act.” When asked whether there was a confession, said, “I suspect that that was the case.”

Jack B. Zimmermann, the co-chairman of the Military Law Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said that in high-profile cases, military and civilian leaders were under tremendous pressure to issue statements. “Unfortunately, people in the secretary of defense’s position are caught between the political requirement to make some kind of statement and the danger of what we call unlawful command influence,” said Mr. Zimmermann, a retired Marine colonel. “Somebody should tell him to shut up.”

To James D. Culp, a military lawyer in Austin, Tex., the only question is one of degree. “Is there command influence in the case?” he said. “Undoubtedly. Does it rise to the level of unlawful command influence? We’ll see.” Mr. Fidell, however, noted that while unlawful command influence is often referred to as “the mortal enemy of military justice,” it is “very rare for a case to be set aside” on those grounds.

This court-martial will be closely watched around the world, and that will undoubtedly complicate the prosecution, said Douglas Berman, an expert on sentencing at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.

“Every high-profile case, civilian or military,” he said, “takes on dimensions and dynamics that are less familiar and less predictable because there are often interests, both expressed and implied, that transcend resolving this individual case justly. Everything that happens in this case is going to have direct international echoes in terms of the ongoing war effort.”

“Let me put it this way,” he said, “I’m real glad I’m not involved — on either side.”


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, CBS News, Daily Mail, NY Times, Google Maps

Diallo Loses Her Case Against DSK: Her Lawyer's Fault

Strauss-Kahn dismissal about proof, not truth

The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is now over. The judge has granted the prosecutors' motion to dismiss the case against the former head of the International Monetary Fund. But for all the complex legal machinations, one simple question remains unanswered: What happened between Strauss-Kahn and Nafissatou Diallo, the housekeeper at the Sofitel in New York, on May 14?

The answer -- or nonanswer -- explains something about our legal system. Cyrus Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, moved to dismiss the case against Stauss-Kahn because his staff came to believe that Diallo could not be trusted as a witness.

"The nature and number of the complainant's falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant," the prosecutors wrote in a 25-page brief filed Monday. "If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so."

Notice the key phrase, "whatever the truth may be." Like any prosecutor, Vance is concerned above all with what he can prove, not "the truth." As the prosecutors detailed in their brief, Diallo's credibility problems were extraordinary. In their account, she lied about the chronology of events with Strauss-Kahn, about her background, about her finances, about her associates and much else besides.

The prosecutors do not say that she lied about what happened in the hotel room with Strauss-Kahn. Their judgment is narrower; because of her lies about other subjects, a jury would never believe her account of the events in question.

If Diallo had taken the stand at a trial, she would have been subject to ferocious cross-examination by Benjamin Brafman, who is one of the best lawyers in the business. But what would Brafman have been trying to do? He would have tried to persuade the jury that Diallo was not worthy of belief, and based on the prosecutors' submission, he would have had a great deal of ammunition to make that case.

But Brafman's task, by design, would have been destructive, not constructive. His only duty would have been to tear down the story that Diallo told, not to build a credible one of his own. That's what the burden of proof means. Prosecutors have to prove their case; the defense need only poke holes, not present an alternative.

The prosecutors' account of the actions of Strauss-Kahn are similarly narrow. The picture they paint of him is an ugly one. Within minutes of Diallo's arrival in his hotel room, she was spitting out his semen in the hotel hallway. But the prosecutors say that, at this point, they cannot prove that Strauss-Kahn assaulted Diallo. At a minimum, it seems, Strauss-Kahn behaved like a cad and a creep, but that is a moral, not legal, judgment.

In sum, then, none of the parties in the case are principally concerned with determining the "truth" of what went on in that room. (Journalism, in its imperfect way, is concerned with determining truth.) The prosecution and defense are concerned only with what they can prove, or disprove, in a courtroom. That's not a criticism, just a reflection of how our system works. So what happened in that hotel room? Chances are, we'll never know.





Judge Orders Dismissal of Charges Against Strauss-Kahn

A judge formally ordered the dismissal of all criminal charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn on Tuesday, but he said his order would be stayed until an appellate court decides whether a special prosecutor should be appointed.

Prosecutors in the office of Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, told Justice Michael J. Obus of State Supreme Court in Manhattan that they could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt because of serious credibility issues with the hotel housekeeper who had accused Mr. Strauss-Kahn of sexually assaulting her as she entered his suite to clean it.

The dismissal brought some semblance of vindication to Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund, after his stunning arrest more than three months ago. He was taken into custody aboard an Air France jet at Kennedy International Airport and then paraded before news cameras, looking disheveled and in handcuffs.

For his accuser, Nafissatou Diallo, a 33-year-old Guinean immigrant, the result caps a precipitous fall. Prosecutors initially portrayed her as a credible and powerful witness, only to say that her myriad lies about her past — which included a convincing, emotional but ultimately fraudulent account of being gang raped by soldiers in Guinea — ended up undermining the case.

Ms. Diallo, who has made her identity public, still has a civil lawsuit pending against Mr. Strauss-Kahn for unspecified monetary damages, and her lawyer, Kenneth P. Thompson, has been relentless in his assertion that Mr. Strauss-Kahn sexually assaulted his client and that Mr. Vance’s office abandoned the case too soon.

Mr. Thompson made one last desperate attempt to keep the criminal case going, filing a motion on Monday asking that Mr. Vance’s office be disqualified. But about an hour before Tuesday’s hearing started, a court clerk handed out a one-page decision in which Justice Obus denied Mr. Thompson’s motion. However, Mr. Thompson has appealed the decision, which led to Justice Obus’s staying the dismissal.

After the hearing, Mr. Strauss-Kahn issued a statement, characterizing the past two and a half months as “a nightmare for me and my family,” and thanking the judge, his wife and family and other supporters.

He added that he was “obviously gratified that the district attorney agreed with my lawyers that this case had to be dismissed.”

“We appreciate his professionalism and that of the people who were involved in that decision,” he continued. Mr. Strauss-Kahn added that he looked forward to “returning to our home and resuming something of a more normal life.”

The case has attracted international attention ever since the arrest of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a leading figure in the Socialist Party who was considered a top candidate for the French presidency; each appearance in court has drawn a carnival-like atmosphere outside, with journalists and camera crews mixing with protesters. The scene on Tuesday was no exception: Well before Mr. Strauss-Kahn arrived at 11:03 a.m., about three dozen protesters gathered. The bulk of the sentiments were decidedly against Mr. Strauss-Kahn.

There were chants (“D.S.K., shame on you,” and “Whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes, no means no”). There were placards (“All rape victims deserve a fair trial,” “Stop victim blaming of rape victims” and one with an illustration of a police officer admonishing a top-hatted plutocrat and the slogan “Go to jail”).

And there were a few speeches in which people condemned Mr. Strauss-Kahn as a serial sexual abuser and criticized Mr. Vance for ending the case against him.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, CNN, Daily Beast, Youtube, Google Maps

Jose Baez Overcame Many Obstacles To Practice Law & Defend Casey

 



 



A Sordid Cast Around Casey Anthony

AS a reflection of the criminal justice system, the not guilty verdict for Casey Anthony — who in all likelihood bore responsibility for her 2-year-old daughter’s death, but will never pay for that particular crime — was reassuring. Juries are supposed to presume the innocence of even the vilest defendants. Evidence must outweigh emotion. And in the end there simply wasn’t enough lucid, specific proof that Anthony had murdered her little girl.

But as a mirror of people’s opportunism, avarice, hypocrisy and hysterics, the case was galling. In the Anthony trial a system that worked almost too well met a cast of characters almost too bad to be believed, and that’s true not merely, or even mainly, of the Anthonys. It applies just as much to the rogues’ gallery around them.

Take Cheney Mason, the avuncular defense lawyer with the Southern drawl and Santa beard. After the verdict, he decided to express his displeasure with reporters and spectators by giving them the finger.

He also berated reporters for their character assassination of Anthony, a harangue that disregarded her conclusively proved absence of character and ignored a distinction that he, as a lawyer, surely recognizes: not guilty doesn’t equal innocent. The verdict spoke to the quality of the forensics, not the culpability of the defendant, and certainly didn’t transform her into a blameless, persecuted saint. She was not randomly singled out by the news media — not even by Nancy Grace, HLN’s virago of vengeance.

To top it all off, Mason lashed out at lawyers who go on TV to prattle authoritatively about cases they are merely observing from afar. This was especially rich, because as ABC News illustrated in a delicious little montage, he had done precisely that, in regard to the Anthony trial, before he joined her defense team.

That team was led by Jose Baez, an even less savory character. Although he may have a lucrative legal future, he does not have a lucrative legal past.

After graduating from law school in 1997, he couldn’t practice law for eight years because, as The Orlando Sentinel detailed in several articles about him, the Florida bar deemed him unfit. He was a deadbeat dad who, by 2004, owed $12,000 in child support. He also defaulted on a student loan and declared bankruptcy at one point.

Justices of the Florida Supreme Court, in a ruling backing the bar’s refusal to admit him, noted that he had exhibited “a total lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system.” Expensive dating services using elaborate algorithms haven’t produced pairings as apt as his with Anthony.

But he was enterprising. Give him that. In an effort to make ends meet while barred from the bar, he turned to swimsuit sales, starting two businesses, Bon Bon Bikinis and Brazilian Bikinis. Both failed.

He was admitted to the bar in 2005, but continued to run afoul of it, The Sentinel reported. The bar received a complaint about a claim on his Web site that, at the Miami-Dade public defender’s office, he had won 32 of 34 jury trials. This boast failed to mention that when those cases were tried, he was not yet a practicing lawyer, but a helper instead. It has since been expunged from the site.

Rather than answer any of The Sentinel’s questions about that, Baez played the race card, issuing a statement that accused the newspaper of “discrimination against a young, hard-working Hispanic lawyer.” Diversion is his métier. In his opening remarks at Anthony’s trial, he said she had been sexually abused by her father and brother. In his closing remarks, he had to leave that out, because he never did get around to substantiating it.

No wonder he so thoroughly riled Nancy Grace, who doesn’t need any riling. While other commentators, responding fairly enough to what they were seeing and hearing, put their chips on Anthony’s guilt, Grace bet the whole house on it. Crusaded for it. Brooked no alternate outcome. Ever certain, ever merciless, she’d give 25-to-life to an alleged jaywalker based on the testimony of a 99-year-old with cataracts.

After the Anthony verdict, her wrath was biblical: “The devil is dancing.”

She doesn’t serve the cause of victims with such histrionics. She serves the cause of Nancy Grace. And she succeeds only in trivializing everything — and getting ratings. A record 5.2 million viewers turned to HLN on the judgment day. Apparently many of us share her appetite for gross caricatures of good and evil, and come out of this as graceless as she.

And the jurors? How do they come out of it? On the one hand, they commendably wrestled with the distinction between a miserable person and a solid case, according to an interview one of them gave to ABC News. On the other, that juror accepted, as a thanks from the network, a trip to Disney World. Another juror hired an agent of sorts to canvass the networks for the most lucrative dish-for-dough arrangement.

Enough has been said about the sordid dynamics of the Anthonys. They’re pathetic. No verdict changes that or alters the probability that Casey Anthony will have a wretched future.

Beyond July 17 she may not be stuck in jail, but she’ll be stuck with herself, and will serve a kind of life sentence, just as O. J. Simpson has. Although he beat the one big rap, a host of other reckonings — civil litigation, social censure — were still to come. He was as deranged coming out of his trial as he was going in, and that caught up with him. He is currently in a Nevada prison, doing time for armed robbery and kidnapping.

Will it be much different for Anthony, who partied while her daughter was missing, didn’t report the disappearance for a month and then concocted a crazy fiction about an imagined nanny’s abduction of the little girl?

Anthony is already being sued by a woman who happens to share that invented nanny’s name. Already being drawn and quartered on Facebook and Twitter. Already contemplating bodyguards. And already back to vamping. For a court appearance after the verdict, her long hair was once again undone, and she petted it.

I suspect she’ll be tripped up anew by her narcissism, dishonesty and icy heart. They’ll doom her. They just don’t happen to be grounds for a murder conviction.


View Larger Map

Sources: ABC News, CNN, HLN, NY Times, Orlando Sentinel, Youtube, Google Maps

Johnny Cochran Defends O.J. Simpson: "You Must Acquit!" (Video)

Sources: Black Voice, Youtube

Andrew Murray Endorsed By Chris Swecker Former FBI Assistant Director

Chris Swecker Endorses Andrew Murray For Charlotte's 2010 D.A. Race


On Feb. 26th of this year Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker (Washington, DC) threw his excellent reputation behind Charlotte D.A. candidate and prominent Criminal Attorney Andrew Murray, by endorsing Murray's campaign.

Since Charlotte's local media organizations intentionally ignored this important news, I have taken it upon myself to alert Charlotte citizens of this crucial information.

Initially Mr. Swecker pondered running for this office but after careful consideration decided it was in the best of Charlotte citizens and Voters to fully support Mr. Murray.

Mr. Swecker is now employed as a Corporate Attorney specializing in Financial Crimes.

Mr. Murray a Republican, states he is humbled by Mr. Swecker's endorsement.

Andrew Murray has also received endorsements from former Charlotte Mayor & Attorney Richard Vinroot, former Charlotte City Council member & Mayoral Candidate, Attorney John Lassiter and Black Political Buzz Blog.

Mr. Murray's Democrat opponent in the Charlotte D.A.'s race is current Charlotte City Council member and Attorney Michael Barnes.

I urge Charlotte Voters to please cast their ballots intelligently and responsibly in this Fall's general elections.

Please don't let the Charlotte Observer (community nickname: "Charlotte Disturber") sway you or tell you whom to support in political races.

Remember last year when the Observer endorsed Anthony Foxx?

Well now look at Charlotte's high Crime rate!

Instead of voting for someone based upon Racism or Racial "guilt trips", look at each candidate's unique Qualifications and EXPERIENCE.

Upon doing so assess what each candidate will bring to the table to help improve Charlotte's Public Safety overall.

Its time to stop playing Partisan Political games and do what's best for ALL Charlotte-Mecklenburg residents regardless of their age, ethnicity or socio-economic status.

I will continue to pray for God Almighty to put the right people in public office all over this nation.


View Larger Map


Sources: Andrew Murray for d.a., Charmeck.org, Creative Loafing, LinkedIn, McClatchy Newspapers, WBTV, WCNC, Google Maps