WOMEN IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS ARE OFTEN MADE TO APPEAR AS BEING "CRAZY"

WOMEN IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS ARE OFTEN MADE TO APPEAR AS BEING "CRAZY":

OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM ALLOWS THIS TO PROTECT MEN WHO BEAT THEIR WIVES & TO SILENCE WOMEN.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AFFECTS WOMEN PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS WHEN A MAN CONTROLS A WOMAN'S MIND WITH HIS FISTS.

HUSBANDS WHO BEAT THEIR WIVES ARE "REWARDED" WITH LIGHT SENTENCES.

GOD IS THE ONLY REAL JUDGE WHO PUNISHES MEN WHO ABUSE WOMEN WHEN COURTS REFUSE TO.


Sources: Daily Beast


****** Here Is the Powerful Statement a Wife Read Aloud to the Court and Her Abusive Husband


For ten years, Neha Rastogi says, she was abused by her husband, Abhishek Gattani. But despite her recordings recording some of that abuse, the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office let him plead no contest to offensive touching and felony accessory after the fact and agreed to a deal in which he would serve less than two full weeks in jail. Here is Rastogi’s full statement, as written, that she read aloud while Judge Allison Marston Danner was on vacation, asking her to change the terms of the prosecutor’s deal:

"Your honor,

I appreciate this opportunity given to me to speak about my abuse at the hands of Abhishek Gattani, I thank for this time given to me to voice my concerns, and requests to you and this court in the case of People vs. Abhishek Gattani. I apologize that my statement is a bit long but I've been effectively silenced since the day I married Abhishek and now throughout these criminal court proceedings and this is my one and only chance to speak … so please bear with me.

First I’d like to bring to your attention a few facts, which I feel, have not been considered in this case while coming up with the plea deal granted to and accepted by Mr. Gattani.

I had been married to Abhishek Gattani for 10 years, and being battered by him for the entire duration. He hit me, multiple times during each incident on my face, arms, head, belly, pulled my hair and abused me and called me a bitch, whore, slut, bastard and much more in my language.

Towards the last 4 years of our marriage he brainwashed me into admitting that I was a complete disgrace to him and the family we built and that if he was in my place, he would commit suicide out of shame, in other words telling me to commit suicide. He also started to threaten to kill me and when I expressed fear or feeling unsafe with him he called it “my self inflicted depression”.

He was probably a few days away from killing me when I got out of this dangerous and abusive marriage – I had started getting my will done, my life insurance done, in other words started to prepare our child’s future once he kills me. I even mentioned to him that what if this happen to our child if this happens and he said “I will not leave you, I will kill you and then kill myself, our child (not mentioning her name here) is collateral damage”. Abhishek – she is NOT collateral damage - She is the best thing that happened between us and will remain so.

2. Finally on 1st July 2016, I reported abuse to the authorities. Abhishek Gattani was arrested once before on 30 November 2013, as he was beating me punching me in the head and grabbing me from the neck, out in the open (on the street) when our mailman reported his abuse. He was convicted for this violence against me in this very court in 2014.

His first arrest on felony battery charge was reduced to misdemeanor – disturbing the peace on account of POSSIBLE immigration consequences.

The same reason being given by his defense attorney Mr. Paez (who I hired for Abhishek during the first case), this time around to enable reduction and leniency in the plea deal offered to this serial aggressor. I helped Abhishek escape a harsher punishment, because, being from India, I did not know better, I did not understand the American criminal justice system and above all I hoped like a fool that this might bring some change in him.

3. He was also required to take a 52-week anger management class as part of his previous sentence.

4. This time around there is evidence in the form of audio and video clips which clearly show and prove that Abhishek was hitting me (repetitively hitting me on the face and body), there are videos of him threatening to stab me 45 times and many of these videos show this abuse towards and happening in the presence of our then 2.5 year old child. There is also evidence in the form of pictures of bruises obtained from these beatings. There is also evidence of his parents confirming (over a video recording) to his physical abuse against them (both father and mother) as well as Abhishek’s younger sister.

5. Abhishek and I have a now ~3.5 year old daughter together who has been exposed to and has been impacted from, his abusive – aggressive behavior.

YH, this is the second time his abuse towards me has been reported to the state, but it is not the second time he has committed these crimes. Our child (3.5 years now) and I have taken many years of abuse, of which 3 years of abuse post his conviction in the matter from 2013. I hoped that he could change his ways and that I could give a complete family to our child. That hope died on 30th June 2016 and I reported his violent abuse towards our daughter and me on July 1st of 2016.

In these past few months I have tried come to terms with the fact that the man I married … the father of my child … is a horrible human being, and didn't deserve my care or respect or love and now, he doesn’t deserve another second of my mental space given the 10 years I have already wasted on him. He was a mistake and now I need to move on... but I find it difficult to move on when I feel wronged by the DA's office and this court. Honestly I feel fooled not just by a convicted criminal, aggressor, wife beater, batterer, that I unfortunately married - the worst mistake of my life but by this court as well. With all due respect to the system... I stand FOOLED, disgraced and ridiculed as a victim.

I wanted to speak up at the last hearing as well, but I was told today is the right time to do so. Honestly I am not sure why is it so, as it seems it's all done... what's the point of me speaking up now?

I get heard to be ignored? to be told that the system understands the abuse and the impact it has had on our child and me but sorry it is what it is. I was told no jail, no classes, no penalties can change Mr Gattani.

Is this the faith the DA’s office and the court have in the justice being provided in this court? Is that the reason for leniency in such cases? Have we given up on justice? Is that the thinking behind giving him a charge which honestly doesn’t add up to his crime AT ALL?

I am no attorney but I can read and understand English. When I look up the charge: Felony – Accessory after the fact it means: Someone who assisted another 1) who has committed a felony, 2) after the person has committed the felony, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the felony, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment.

Please help me understand how is this a charge appropriate to the crimes he has himself admitted to in this very court. By taking the plea deal he has admitted to hitting me, he has admitted to threatening to kill me, he has admitted that he hit me and mentally tortured me throughout my pregnancy and his abuse resulted in me making multiple trips to the ER even as late as 8 months into my pregnancy.

Please advise me how does accessory after the fact apply to a criminal like him? Who was he assisting while torturing me … who is that criminal, because if it wasn’t him shouldn’t this court be searching for that person. Please let me assure you as a victim of his abuse, you need to look no further – HE did it. His charge should be Felony – battery with the intent to harm if not kill.

The second charge on him is a “Misdemeanor – offensive touching”? I didn’t even need to look this one up, as it made me laugh when then I realized that I was laughing at myself, I was the joke here. “Offensive touching!!!”

Please explain me is it offensive touching when a 8 month pregnant women is beaten and then forced to stand for the entire night by her husband, is it offensive touching when a mother nursing her 6 day old child is slapped on her face by her husband because he thinks she is not latching properly with the child, is it offensive touching when a women is flung to the floor and repetitively kicked in her belly, is it offensive touching when a women is slapped 9 times by her husband until she agrees to everything he is saying and then gets hit again for not agreeing with it sooner … is it offensive touching - I call it terrorism … That’s how I felt – terrorized and controlled held hostage by the fear of pain, humiliation and assault on my being and my daughter’s.

I feel disgraced by the charges – 3 years of abuse towards our child and 10 years of abuse towards me has equated to 15 days of his life in jail.

The system has shown me that concerns over Abhishek’s immigration status has completely trampled rights of my daughter and my own. How is it that this is the second time he has been convicted of Domestic Violence and this is the charge.

Between the prosecution and defense, I've been marginalized and honestly insulted. What I have suffered at Abhishek's hands has become insignificant in favor of considerations for Abhishek's job, immigration status. What about our child, what about me? We both experienced domestic violence from Abhishek, yet our voices cannot reach the authorities.

The plea deal given to him is not punishment for his doings rather an encouragement for continuing his ways, with just one lesson to be learnt by him – to keep it under the covers next time and that he should silence the next victim and not just control her. He was shown leniency by this court in his previous case, but the same shown this time around, stands no basis. Seriously, how many chances does a grown up, educated, CEO of a tech startup need to understand that he is not to hit anyone or else he will have consequences like going to jail, or even being deported.

This person preys on the mere perception of weakness and that’s what the system is exhibiting today.

Multiple times in the past, Mr Gattani would come back home from Cuberon, his startup, after having an argument with his co-founder and tell me, “you and my co-founder (who shall remain unnamed) are the same – lazy, empty promise makers, Positive fools, with no results. I can’t trust him.” Mr Gattani, had the same remarks about friends and even successful, accomplished people as the main investors in his very startup just because they would show empathy and not aggression when approaching a challenging situation, calling them free loaders and lucky by being at the right place at the right time.

Who is the free loader today if not him, and who is offering this leniency – the judicial system. This to him isn’t equality or rights but sign of weakness, which he takes advantage of. He has physically and mentally tortured his parents, his sister, his wife and now his 2.5 yr old daughter too – all because he looked at our values and morals and care for him as a sign of weakness, which he could misuse.

He named our strength as our weakness and continuously took advantage of it. He will do the same here and I stand terrified of the consequences of that as a mother, as again a future victim and for all those who he would prey on in the times to come.

I am appalled by the sentence he is getting.

I believe justice will come to him, if not through this court then by God's decree on account of his doings but I do stand disappointed here as a law abiding citizen of the most powerful country in the world, feeling unprotected and ridiculed by a CRIMINAL… who is here pleading guilty for the same crimes committed against the same victim in just 3 years of the first REPORTED incident while ON probation.

The reason I speak out now, is that, no anger management classes can help a man who doesn’t think he did anything wrong when he HIT and ABUSED others to control them, once someone escapes their guilt the only thing that stops them is serious consequences – which is a rightful conviction. I see that the defense council has requested his felony charge to be reduced to a misdemeanor in the future. This is the same criminal who has already fooled the system for 3 years after being convicted for the same crimes. I can almost confirm he will do the same again.

I believe in God and I will pray that we don't come back here in this very situation because this court was lenient with this convicted felon with a criminal history... I pray that I am proven wrong as peace is cheap at such cost... but if I am proven right this moment will stand very dark and very heavy in the minds of all of us who could have done something to stop that from happening.

I don’t understand the legal proceedings but I do seriously object to his request for getting to serve county jail post completion of the 5 month sheriff’s program. Is this a joke?.

This criminal is asking for a chance to wrap up his business???? Really are we enrolling him in a spa of giving him a punishment for abusing his wife and child for 10 years.

We are looking for the convenience of this felon who forced me multiple times to resign from my job (all recorded and provided as evidence) or else he will continue his abuse in front of our then 2.5-year-old child and not allow her to go to sleep … this leniency for a person of his morals and virtues?

I cannot articulate my despair at this treatment of his crimes. It’s as if we are giving him a slap on his wrist because he got caught … this is barely any consequence for him for ruining the childhood of our daughter and the 10 best years of my life.

I believe you as the judge in this case have the power to rethink what is being given away here in the name of equal rights. Rights come with consequences too.

I believe you have the power to stop any further leniency then already being given to him by the DA’s office. I believe you have the power to restore some faith in my heart that I wasn’t completely made a fool of, by this criminal and the judicial system.

I request you the following:

1. no jail credits are given to him and he serves full sentence of 30 days in county jail (CJ),

2. he be arrested today and made to serve his CJ sentence from right now; and

3. his Felony charge NEVER be reduced to a misdemeanor.

I request this to you knowing fully well that YOU have the power to do so. Rest, please do what you think is right and would help you sleep tonight.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity to state the facts and voice my disappointment. Thank you for listening to me everyone."

SANDERS & CLINTON WOO DISGRUNTLED BLACK VOTERS DURING MILWAUKEE DEBATE

SANDERS & CLINTON WOO DISGRUNTLED BLACK VOTERS DURING MILWAUKEE DEBATE:

SANDERS IS ACTUALLY CLINTON'S DEBATE COACH NOT HER OPPONENT.

MOST BLACK VOTERS ARE STILL ANGRY WITH OBAMA FOR ABANDONING THEM.

Sources:  Washington Post, Youtube

**** Clinton, Sanders Both Land Only Soft Blows In Democratic Debate

This truly was a PBS debate: genteel, civilized, lacking drama — and full of material that’s already aired somewhere else.

Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton spent most of Thursday night’s debate in what Clinton called “vigorous agreement” — disagreeing only about the methods they’d use to accomplish their common goals.

They both praised President Franklin D. Roosevelt. They both attacked Republican front-runner Donald Trump. They both promised to offer undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, and to overhaul a criminal-justice system they believe treats blacks and Latinos unfairly.

They both effusively praised President Obama — when Clinton tried to attack Sanders for not being supportive enough of Obama, Sanders praised him more effusively. “Have you ever disagreed with a president? I suspect you may have,” Sanders said, describing his disagreements with Obama as normal behavior between allies.

Clinton, who has struggled to regain momentum after losing badly to Sanders in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, sought to cast herself as a more sensible, pragmatic progressive. She also cited her experience as secretary of state, implying that she had a broader array of expertise than Sanders, who focuses largely on economic inequality. “I am not a single-issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country,” Clinton said in her opening statement.

But, as the debate ended, Clinton had done little to establish how her goals were substantively different from those of her opponent. And Sanders responded repeatedly by turning an argument about practical politics into an argument about morality: Asked how he would make a single-payer health-care system work, Sanders pivoted to say that it had to work, because to do otherwise would be unworthy of America.

Sanders cited Roosevelt, whose New Deal programs marked a massive expansion of government safety nets during the Great Depression, as a leader he admired.

“What he did is redefine the role of government,” Sanders said. He paraphrased Roosevelt’s message: “ ‘We are a nation which, if we come together, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish.’ And kind of, that’s what I see our campaign is about right now.”

This might have been a moment where Clinton could have stepped in to draw a contrast between her vision of the change that was needed, and Sanders’s more sweeping vision. Clinton could have said she did not believe the country needed another massive New Deal-style transformation – earlier, she had said that Sanders had been unwilling to “level with” the public about how much his broad plans would cost.

I certainly agree with FDR [being a leader to admire], for all the reasons Senator Sanders said,” Clinton said.

When they did clash, it was largely about issues that were covered in their first one-on-one debate last week.

Sanders, for instance, repeated a criticism he had made in past debates, saying that Clinton had shown her weakness on foreign policy by voting in favor of the Iraq War in 2002. Experience matters, Sanders said – repeating something he’d said in the past. But, he said, “judgment matters as well. Judgment matters as well.”

Clinton responded to that criticism by repeating something she’d said before: that a vote in 2002 was not a plan for taking on the Islamic State in 2016.

They both criticized a surge in deportations of illegal immigrants carried out by the Obama administration, saying they would block the expulsions and offer a new legal path toward citizenship.

“I am against the raids. I am against the kind of inhumane treatment that is now being visited upon families,” said Clinton, who served as Obama’s first secretary of state.

The deportations have begun in recent weeks and affect families who were part of a surge of tens of thousands of Central Americans, many of them minors traveling alone, who flooded across the U.S. border in the past few years. The administration said that all of them had been ordered deported by judges. Latino leaders have criticized the raids, but the administration has said they are necessary to deter others in Central America from making the dangerous journey themselves.

Sanders said he believed that this message was being sent to people who had no other choice. “When we saw children coming from these horrendous, horrendously violent areas,” Sanders said, “I thought it was a good idea to allow those children to stay in this country.” He also said that the country should be welcoming to Latino immigrants: “We have got to stand up to the Trumps of the world who are trying to divide us up.” Billionaire Donald Trump, who won the New Hampshire Republican primary, has called for a massive deportation of all undocumented immigrants.

Most of the night hardly seemed like a debate at all, with both Sanders and Clinton agreeing on a variety of principles. They both called for criminal-justice reform, both called for universal health coverage, and both called for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. “We are in vigorous agreement here,” Clinton said at one point. When they disagreed, it was often about how to accomplish those goals, with Clinton saying that Sanders’s proposals were not achievable and Sanders replying that anything less than his proposals was unworthy of a great country.

Earlier, Clinton was asked about a comment from another former secretary of state – Clinton ally Madeleine Albright.

Albright had told voters in New Hampshire that “there’s a special place in hell” for women who don’t help each other. Young women who support Sanders said this was campaigning by guilt trip.

“She’s been saying that for as long as I’ve known her, for about 25 years,” Clinton said, before moving on to say she hoped men and women felt empowered to choose in this campaign. She finished with a nod to the demographics of the debate stage, where there was one female candidate and two female moderators, PBS’s Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff. “This is the first time there’s been a majority of women on the stage. So, you know, we’ll take our progress wherever we can find it.’

Sanders, who is of Jewish heritage and identifies as a “democratic socialist,” said he, too, would make history as president. “Somebody with my background, somebody with my views . . . I think a Sanders victory would be of some historical accomplishment as well,” the senator from Vermont said.

Earlier in the debate, Clinton criticized Sanders for promising sweeping liberal changes that he couldn’t deliver — turning their second one-on-one debate into a circular, rather vague discussion of whose abstract policy proposals were the most achievable.

“I feel like we have to level with people [because] there is a great deal of skepticism about the federal government,” Clinton said. “So we have a special obligation, to make clear what we stand for. Which is why I think we can’t make promises we can’t keep.”

This is an argument that Clinton also directed against Sanders in the last debate, just before the New Hampshire primary. It is a difficult argument to make in a party primary – for one thing, because it essentially tells the party faithful that they can’t have all they want. The other problem is that, in the context of a televised debate, everyone is probably making a few promises they can’t keep. And neither candidate is laying out the nitty-gritty compromises and half-measures that would be essential to actually making law.

Sanders usually turned the questions from the details of his plans to their moral underpinnings, arguing in essence that the United States could do these things because other countries had — and because it would be unjust not to do them.

He finished this section to applause by saying he would make Wall Street bankers pay for major parts of his plans, including an expansion of funding for infrastructure. “We bailed them out. Now it is their time to help the middle class!” Sanders said.

In their opening statements, both candidates tried to pitch themselves to African American voters – a crucial voting bloc in upcoming primaries.

Sanders spoke about what he called a “a broken criminal-justice system,” which he said treats the rich and poor unequally. He said that young people get criminal records for using marijuana, while Wall Street executives escape prosecutions for actions that plunged the country into recession.

Clinton who earlier in the day received the backing of the political arm of the Congressional Black Caucus, also talked about criminal-justice reform and about fighting discrimination against African Americans in housing and jobs.

Clinton also adopted a refrain from Sanders’s stump speech: “The economy is rigged, in favor of those at the top.” But she returned to a common criticism of Sanders, which is that his plans for expanding government benefits — particularly health insurance — would bring an enormous, and expensive, expansion of government.

“It would probably increase the size of the federal government by about 40 percent,” Clinton said. She focused in particular on Sanders’s promise that his health-care plan could save middle-class families $4,500 per year: “The numbers don’t add up. That’s a promise that cannot be kept.”

Thursday marked the first time the candidates have met since Sanders’s runaway victory in New Hampshire.

The tests of Sanders’s success will come in the next two Democratic contests, held in Nevada on Feb. 20 and in South Carolina on Feb. 27. The most recent polls in South Carolina and Nevada showed Clinton well ahead of Sanders. But they were taken before the results came in from Iowa and New Hampshire.

“If the elections were held today in both those states, we would lose,” Sanders told The Washington Post on Wednesday. “But I think we have momentum, I think we have a shot to win, and if we don’t win, we’ll do a lot better than people think we will.”

JOHN CORNYN LEADS GOP CONGRESS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM (2nd CHANCES)

JOHN CORNYN LEADS GOP CONGRESS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM:


GOP TAKES ACTION TO GRANT EX-OFFENDERS OPPORTUNITIES FOR 2ND CHANCE.


**** Senator John Cornyn Aims To Sway Fellow Republicans On Criminal Justice

Senator John Cornyn, a former Texas judge and attorney general, is a devoted believer in the criminal justice overhaulawaiting its moment in the Senate. Now, he just has to convert doubting Republican colleagues.

Mr. Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican and a main author of the criminal justice legislation, which would cut some sentences and ease re-entry after prison, is working to address fears from fellow Republicans that passage of the bill could set loose some dangerous offenders and diminish the party’s law-and-order image.

Acknowledging the deep skepticism, Mr. Cornyn said in an interview that his job was to educate Republicans who were only beginning to focus on the legislation and to make clear that it would not throw open the gates of federal prisons.

“Nobody is getting out of jail free, which is some of the characterization that is out there,” said Mr. Cornyn, who describes himself “as conservative as they come.”

For months, momentum has been building for a comprehensive criminal justice package aimed at easing mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders. The effort has been driven by an unusual right-left alliance that includes the conservatives Charles G. and David H. Koch and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved its plan on a strong bipartisan vote in October, and companion legislation is moving in the House. But Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has not committed to bringing the legislation to the floor. Mr. McConnell has been cautious on the issue, and other Republicans have expressed increasingly vocal opposition, with the latest resistance coming from Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas.

Mr. Cornyn’s primary role in writing the legislation, combined with his spot near the top of the Republican leadership ladder, has made him a critical player in determining whether the legislation advances this year.

“He is the reason it is happening, in my opinion,” said Mark Holden, the general counsel for Koch Industries and the company’s point man on criminal justice issues. “He is the driving force.”

But it is unclear how far that drive will go. In a development first reported by Politico, opposition to the legislation boiled up at a closed party lunch last week, with Mr. Cotton taking a strong position against the bill. Mr. McConnell, one attendee said, reminded senators of the case of Willie Horton, the Massachusetts felon who committed violent crimes while on furlough and became an issue in the 1988 presidential race.

“I don’t believe we should allow thousands of violent felons to be released early from prison, nor do I believe we should reduce sentences for violent offenders in the future,” Mr. Cotton said in an interview. He said that the criminal justice legislation was being driven by a “myth” of mass incarceration of low-level, nonviolent offenders in federal prisons, and that most prisoners had already cut their sentences under plea bargains.

Some senators said Mr. Cornyn and other Republican backers of the legislation may have misread the willingness of their colleagues to embrace the criminal justice movement and had too much faith that others would be swayed by the support of conservatives such as Senators Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Mike Lee of Utah.

“John has some work to do, big-time work,” to secure enough support to persuade Mr. McConnell to go forward, said one Republican senator who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal party matters.

Mr. Cornyn, who became enthusiastic about the issue after successful changes to the criminal justice system in Texas, where he was a judge for 13 years, said discussions had begun on the staff and senator-to-senator levels to clear up misconceptions. 

He noted that sentencing provisions in the measure would apply to about 5,000 offenders — far fewer than in earlier sentencing proposals — and that those now serving time would have to reappear before the same judge and prosecutor to win a reduction in time served.

“Some people are now realizing for the first time that they may have to vote on this thing, so they need more information,” said Mr. Cornyn, who added that he would be asking colleagues what changes might be needed to win their backing.

He said that Mr. McConnell would like to lessen the party divisions before deciding to devote weeks of scarce Senate floor time to the criminal justice proposition.

“This is all part of his calculation, and we are trying to work with him and all my colleagues and figure a way to get this done,” Mr. Cornyn said. “It is not the kiss of death if you don’t do this in 2016, but I would like to. I think we have a window here.”

Another part of the calculation is the 2016 battle for the Senate and the vulnerability of some Republican incumbents in swing states.

Some analysts have suggested that it could help Republicans by broadening their appeal to independents, Democrats and minorities who believe that the criminal justice system is unfairly tilted.

Mr. Cornyn said he agreed. “It doesn’t hurt to show that you actually care,” he said. “This is a statement that is not just symbolic, but actually shows that you care about people. It doesn’t hurt to show some empathy.”

Sources:  NY Times,  Politico,  Youtube

BERNIE SANDERS WINS NEW HAMPSHIRE DEBATE: (SORRY HILLARY)

BERNIE SANDERS WINS NEW HAMPSHIRE DEBATE: (SORRY HILLARY)

HILLARY WENT AFTER DONALD TRUMP.

MARTIN O'MALLEY DID MUCH BETTER THAN I EXPECTED.

~ The Best Lines From the Democratic Debate

There may only have been three candidates, but there was no shortage of unforgettable exchanges in Saturday night's debate. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley took to the stage in the Democratic debate tonight, hosted by ABC News.

These are some of the most memorable moments from the showdown in New Hampshire:

*** "Yes, I apologize."

In response to his campaign's breach of Clinton's voter data, Sanders apologized to Clinton. "Not only do I apologize to Secretary Clinton, and I hope we can work together on an independent investigation from day one, I want to apologize to my supporters. This is not the type of campaign that we run."

"That is an egregious act," he added. "We should move on because I don't think the American people are all that interested in this."

*** "I think they're more interested in what we have to say about all the big issues facing us."

Just as Sanders believed people were "sick and tired" of hearing about Clinton's emails, Clinton herself called for an end to discussing the Sanders data breach.

*** "Guns in and of themselves in my opinion will not make Americans safer. We lose 33,000 people a year already to gun violence. Arming more people to do what I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism."

Clinton voiced her opposition to calls for broader gun rights in the wake of recent attacks, instead calling for greater coalition building.

*** “Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's calm down a little bit, Martin."

Sanders said that in response to O'Malley, who called out his two opponents on their gun control records. His comments were met by incredulous reactions from both Clinton and Sanders.

“Senator Sanders voted against the Brady bill. Senator Sanders voted to give immunity to gun dealers," O'Malley said.

"And Senator Sanders voted against even research dollars to look into this public health issue," he said.

"Secretary Clinton changes her position on this every election year, it seems, having one position in 2000 and then campaigning against President Obama and saying we don't need federal standards.

Clinton responded by saying, “Let's tell the truth, Martin.”

*** “He is becoming ISIS’s best recruiter.”

Clinton condemned Donald Trump’s inflammatory statements and policy proposals on Muslims. “They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists,” she said.

*** "I know Secretary Clinton was gleeful when Gaddafi was torn apart."

O'Malley criticized Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

*** "The United States is not the policeman of the world."

Responding to Clinton's call for American leadership, Sanders criticized America's intervention in the Middle East. He said the U.S. "must not be involved in perpetual warfare" in the region.

*** “Sorry.”

Clinton apologized for taking the stage mid-question after returning late from the commercial break.

*** "Everybody should!"

When asked if corporate America should love her, Clinton responded with this zinger.

*** "They ain't going to like me. And Wall Street is going to like me even less."

Sanders, unlike Clinton, said that corporate America would not like him at all.

*** "I have demonstrated the ability to have the backbone to take on Wall Street in ways that Secretary Clinton never, ever has."

O'Malley sharply criticized Clinton for her alleged "cozy relationship" with Wall Street. His critique was echoed by Sanders.

*** "I've got the scars to show from the effort back in the early '90s."

Clinton alluded to her past fight for health care in defense of the "glitches" in the Affordable Care Act.

*** "And in our party, unlike the Republican party, we actually believe that the more our people learn, the more they will earn."

O'Malley criticized Republicans for their education policies.

*** "Now this is getting to be fun."

Sanders seemed to enjoy the back and forth between Clinton and moderator David Muir.

*** "I think this is one of the most important challenges facing not just our next president but our country."When asked about the state of race in America, Clinton spoke of the need to address and fix "systemic racism and injustice and inequities."

*** "We need to do it now as a nation. This is our time and our opportunity to do that."

O'Malley called for an end to excessive lethal force by police officers.

*** "We need to understand that addiction is a disease, not a criminal activity."

Sanders advocated for a massive shift in the way addiction and drug use are dealt with in America.

"When somebody is addicted and seeking help, they should not have to wait three, four months in order to get that help," he said.

Sources: ABC News, USA Today, YouTube

SHARANDA JONES' LIFE SENTENCE COMMUTED BY OBAMA; WHAT ABOUT BLACK MEN??

SHARANDA JONES' LIFE SENTENCE COMMUTED BY OBAMA:

BUT WHAT ABOUT BLACK MEN??

After serving 16 years in Federal Prison as a first-time, non-violent drug offender, SHARANDA JONES 48, was finally released from Incarceration by Pres OBAMA.

Ms Jones was given a life sentence under former President BILL CLINTON'S Mandatory Drug Sentencing Guidelines which targeted Sellers of CRACK Cocaine versus sellers of Powdered Cocaine.

Since Pres OBAMA has known about SHARANDA'S sentence for 7 years, why is he just NOW releasing her?

And what about all the BLACK Men who were also thrown into Federal prisons under BILL CLINTON'S Mandatory Sentencing guidelines?

Why does it appear that prior to the 2016 election, DEMOCRATS are only trying to help BLACK Women and not BLACK Men?

~ President Obama commutes sentences of 95 federal drug offenders

President Obama commuted the sentences of 95 drug offenders Friday, more than double the number he granted this summer, in an effort to give relief to drug offenders who were harshly sentenced in the nation’s war on drugs.

It is the third time this year that the president has used his unique clemency power to release federal drug offenders, whose harsh sentences have contributed to the phenomenon of mass incarceration.

The commutations are a centerpiece of the president’s effort to make the most significant changes­ in the nation’s criminal justice system in decades. He and former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. have spoken passionately about the need to fix what they say is a broken system — one they argue has subjected too many nonviolent inmates to decades behind bars, disproportionately hurting minority communities.

“I commuted the sentences of 95 men and women who had served their debt to society, another step forward in upholding our ideals of justice and fairness,” Obama said.

One of the inmates Obama granted clemency was Sharanda Jones, a 48-year-old Texas woman who was sentenced to life in prison without parole for a single cocaine offense.

She was a first-time, nonviolent offender.

The Washington Post highlighted Jones’s story in July as an example of the tens of thousands of inmates in crowded federal prisons who received severe mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses­ during the crack-cocaine epidemic. Jones has spent 16 years behind bars, leaving an 8-year-old daughter to grow up without her mother.

Her daughter, now 24, broke down in tears when she heard that her mother will be coming home April 16.

“I’m so happy,” said Clenesha Garland, who lives in Dallas. “This is the best Christmas present for the rest of my life.”

Brittany Byrd, the Dallas attorney who first heard of Jones’s case when she wrote about Jones for a law school class, filed the clemency petition two years ago that Obama signed.

“Yesterday, Sharanda was set to die in prison as a first-time non­violent offender,” Byrd said. “The president literally saved her life. She has more than paid her debt to society and is truly deserving of the mercy she was given today.”

Byrd said she called Jones from her car with the news shortly before Obama made his announcement.

“You’re coming home!” she told Jones, who is in Carswell women’s prison in Fort Worth.

Byrd said Jones seemed in shock at first. She was quiet on the other end of the line and then started crying softly.

“Thank you, Jesus, thank you,” Jones said on the phone with her attorney. “It’s been so long.”

In spring 2014, then-Attorney General Holder — who once called the harsh mandatory-minimum drug sentences “draconian” — started an initiative to grant clemency to certain nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison.

To qualify, prisoners had to have served at least 10 years of their sentence, and have no significant criminal history and no connection to gangs, cartels or organized crime. They must have demonstrated good conduct in prison. And they also must be inmates who probably would have received a “substantially lower sentence” if convicted of the same offense today.

“This is precisely the kind of case for which our reform efforts are designed,” Holder said in an interview Friday about Jones’s commutation. “We must use our limited resources in more appropriate, more just ways. The president has acted in a significant way today. Now Congress must act and pass meaningful criminal justice reform legislation.”

Lawmakers are debating several bipartisan bills to change sentencing laws.

In his last news conference before leaving for Hawaii for the holidays, Obama said he supported the Senate bill on criminal justice reform and hoped the House would pass a similar piece of legislation.

“There have been sincere negotiations and efforts by Republicans and Democrats to create a criminal justice system that is more fair and even-handed,” Obama said. “There is a good bill in the Senate. My hope is that it gets to the floor and gets paired with a bill in the House.”

After Holder announced the new criteria last year to open up the clemency process to more federal inmates, a massive number — about 33,000 — applied for relief.

The response was overwhelming and enthusiastic and elevated the level of hope in prison that they may not actually die there,” said Julie Stewart, president and founder of Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

But it also created a logistical nightmare for a new group of private attorneys and law school students that had formed, with the encouragement of the Justice Department, to help find inmates who met the criteria set out by Holder.

The group, called Clemency Project 2014, includes Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Bar Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The extensive number of applications and the complicated review process by the outside lawyers, the Justice Department and the White House has slowed the effort, advocates say.

It took about a year for the group to get organized and train lawyers for the massive effort, included locating old legal documents, contacting prosecutors and judges who imposed the sentences, and trying to get pre-sentencing reports and sentencing transcripts, some of which had not been transcribed.

Of the 33,000 inmates who applied and asked for help from attorneys, the clemency project weeded out about 18,000 applications that did not meet the criteria, according to Cynthia W. Roseberry, the project manager.

James E. Felman, an attorney and one of the leaders of CP14 who visited prisons to help find inmates who met the criteria, said the process is much more streamlined now. 

The group of lawyers has sent 263 petitions to the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney to be considered.

Of the commutations Obama granted on Friday, 27 were prepared by pro-bono lawyers across the country and students in 24 law schools working with the clemency project.

Once the pardon attorney reviews the petitions, she sends them to Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates to be reviewed.

“While the clemency initiative is just one prong in the larger effort to reform sentencing practices, it is one to which we are strongly committed,” Yates said in a statement Friday.

Yates then sends the petitions and her recommendations to White House Counsel Neil Eggleston. More than 9,000 clemency petitions are pending, either at the Justice Department or the White House.

“It remains the case that with a year left in his term, the president has already commuted the sentences of more individuals than the past five presidents combined, and we expect that the president will grant more commutations and pardons to deserving individuals in his final year in office,” Eggleston said Friday.

But several advocates interviewed Friday said that the comparison with other presidents is not a meaningful one because no other president has launched a clemency initiative to grant an early release to drug offenders who meet criteria laid out by the Justice Department.

NYU Law Professor Rachel Barkow, an advocate for clemency reform, called the current clemency process with so many prisoner petitions backlogged “a disaster.”

“Once the president lays out the criteria for the cases­ he wants to grant clemency, the measure of success for that program is: Have you processed all the people who meet those criteria?” she said.

By the end of this year, Obama will have commuted the sentences of 184 federal inmates.

“American presidents have had the power to show mercy since the founding of our republic,” said Stewart, of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. “President Obama is the first president in decades to use it as the Founders intended. For that reason, we commend him for showing more mercy than his predecessors. But his work is not done.”

Sources:  Washington Post, Clemency Report, YouTube

EX-OFFENDERS DESERVE A 2ND CHANCE - BAN THE BOX

EX-OFFENDERS DESERVE A 2ND CHANCE - BAN THE BOX:

HOW CAN MEN PAY CHILD SUPPORT & BE FATHERS IF THEY CAN'T GET JOBS??

Granting Ex-Offenders a second chance in life by Hiring them to WORK and Expunging their Criminal Records, is good for America's economy.

Assisting Ex-Offenders to become gainfully EMPLOYED reduces Recidivism and Crime.

It will also help to rebuild Communities destroyed by Incarcerated Men who are FATHERS because those Men who are FATHERS will be given OPPORTUNITIES to Pay CHILD SUPPORT and actively engage in the lives of their Children.

~ BAN THE BOX: U.S. CITIES, COUNTIES, AND STATES ADOPT FAIR HIRING POLICIES:

Nationwide, over 100 cities and counties have adopted what is widely known as “ban the box” so that employers consider a job candidate’s qualifications first, without the stigma of a conviction record. 

These initiatives provide applicants a fair chance by removing the conviction history question on the job application and delaying the background check inquiry until later in the hiring.

Momentum for the policy has grown exponentially, particularly in recent years.

There are a total of 19 states representing nearly every region of the country that have adopted the policies —California (2013, 2010), Colorado (2012), Connecticut (2010), Delaware (2014), Georgia (2015), Hawaii (1998), Illinois (2014, 2013), Maryland (2013), Massachusetts (2010), Minnesota (2013, 2009), Nebraska (2014), New Jersey (2014), New Mexico (2010), New York (2015), Ohio (2015), Oregon (2015), Rhode Island (2013), Vermont (2015), and Virginia (2015).

Seven states—Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island—have removed the conviction history question on job applications for private employers, which advocates embrace as the next step in the evolution of these policies.

Federally, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) endorsed removing the conviction question from the job application as a best practice in its 2012 guidance making clear that federal civil rights laws regulate employment decisions based on arrests and convictions.

The Obama Administration’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force also gave the movement a boost when it endorsed hiring practices “which give applicants a fair chance and allows employers the opportunity to judge individual job candidates on their merits.”

Fair-chance policies benefit everyone because they’re good for families and the local community.

At a recent event in Oakland for employers to discuss reentry issues, one business owner spoke to the personal benefit he finds from hiring people with records. “I’ve seen how a job makes all the difference,” says Derreck B. Johnson, founder and president of Home of Chicken and Waffles in Oakland. “When I give someone a chance and he becomes my best employee, I know that I’m doing right by my community.”

This resource guide documents the states, Washington D.C., and the over 100 cities and counties—that have taken steps to remove barriers to employment for qualified workers with records. Seven states, Washington D.C., and 27 cities and counties now extend the fair-chance policy to government contractors or private employers.

Of the localities, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Columbia (MO), Montgomery County (MD), New York City, Newark, Philadelphia, Portland (OR), Prince George’s County (MD), Rochester, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington D.C. extend their fair-chance laws to private employers in the area.

A chart summarizing all the policies is at the end of this guide.

To support your state and local efforts to enact a fair-chance policy, check out NELP’s Fair Chance – Ban the Box Toolkit, which provides a step-by-step guide for advocates on how to launch a “ban the box” campaign.

Embedded in the Toolkit is a range of resources to draft a law, to build your network, to support your outreach, and even to develop your media outreach.

Post Sources: NELP, YouTube