Utah gives up on trying to force parents to put there kid in chemo therapy. All they had to do is hide him in another State. The father remained skeptical of the government's motives. Without speaking to whether the State is correct in trying to force medical care against what the parents believe to be in the best interest of their child, if the parents are smart they will not bring their son back into the State.
Over at In Re, Kyle begins by quoting from a professor who has written an article stating that Alford and Nolo Contendere pleas should be eliminated and then goes on to discuss the role of defense attorneys.
. . .
I became a fan of pleading no contest shortly after I started practicing for a reason not mentioned. My client had pled guilty to a number of misdemeanors as part of a plea agreement. After the prosecutor had introduced all his evidence one of the charges had not been proven1. The judge said the fact that my client had pled guilty tied his hands so he had to find my client guilty despite the lack of evidence. Ever since if there is any doubt in my mind I try to plead my clients nolo contendere. No Evidence + No Admittal = No Conviction.
. . .
Kyle quotes the following from the article:
"[Defense l]awyers can recognize that substance abuse, mental illness, psychological blind spots and denial, or simple shortsightedness impedes their clients' rationality. More importantly, they can persuade clients to face up to patterns of behavior that, if left unchecked, will lead to more crimes and punishment. As suggested by the psychological literature cited earlier, lawyers can confront their clients with the overwhelming evidence of guilt and break down their denials. Furthermore, lawyers can provide moral as well as legal counsel, advising clients that it is right to admit their crime, apologize to victims, and move forward. By penetrating clients' denials to others and themselves, defense counsel can begin the process of honesty, education, and reform."
I don't know the gentleman who wrote the article but I would bet good money he has never done criminal defense work2.
First of all, it is not a defense attorney's job to "break down their denials." The defense attorney's job is to advocate the Defendant's position not substitute his judgement as to what constitutes his client's best interest. Usually, this will mean that you will be trying to get the client as minimal sentence as possible3. Sometimes it actually means you will have the privilege of defending him at trial.
Of course, you do explain your client's position to him (sometimes quite emphatically - I have been in more than one yelling match). If there is videotape of him robbing the bank, two nuns saw him running out the doors, and the police found him with dye matching that of a dye pack on his pants you make very sure that he knows the situation and that he knows the odds of winning at trial. Clients aren't stupid; they will usually decide to have you attempt to get them the best deal possible. Basically, whether you are trying to get a good deal or a verdict of not guilty (as few and far between as those are), as a defense attorney you almost invariably represent a client's liberty interest against society's long term interest in making him conform and the government's use of power to either force conformity or seek vengeance.
As Kyle alludes to, in some cases you may go to trial just because the prosecution refuses to offer anything worthwhile. This is particularly true in cases such as Virgnia's Exile statute which gives the mandatory maximum sentence to certain Defendants. If your advocacy of the client's liberty interest cannot do him any good before the trial you have an obligation to go down swinging; maybe a key prosecution witness will remember something favorable to your client while on the stand or a flaw in the prosecution theory will make an unexpected - and glaring - appearance in mid-trial.
. . .
I'd like to think that the professor's stance is based upon naivete arising from not having dealt with many clients as a defense attorney because the other option is that it comes from a fairly standard prosecutorial bias (the belief that we should all just pile on the Defendant - he may be entitled to counsel but his counsel should just ease him down the path not advocate his position). The idea that a defense attorney substitute his for the client's judgement and try to reform the client is unrealistic in the vast majority of cases (and quite possibly unethical). It ignores the fact that there is a significant subset of society for which crimes, drugs, the daily scam and time spent in jail/prison is just part of life. Whether he gets out next week or two years from now the client returns to this society - the players may change but game remains the same. And no one is reformed by prison. It's full of players in exactly the same game. A great deal of pressure is on that client to remain as he is and that pressure will increase when he returns to his buddies on the street. The defense attorney who sees this client perhaps for 50-60 hours (assuming a massive case) at the outside is not going to change this man's life.
. . .
I just did a quick reread and I find my thoughts herein to be half-formed. As usual, I've shot from the hip informed by my experiences (not necessarily a bad tendency for a trial lawyer). I suspect that to complete my thoughts and support them well would take much, much more time then I have. Unfortunately, I will not be able to revisit this matter as posting will have to be bullets for the rest of the week since I will be preparing for a jury trial on Monday. If anyone else is interested in this subject drop me an e-mail and - assuming I'm not overwhelmed - I will try to publish the better thoughts.
1 I can't remember the reason for this anymore. I think it was that the prosecutor just forgot to introduce the evidence on that charge. It might also have been one of those cases where my client just wanted to plead guilty so he could get out of jail as part of a plea agreement offering time served. Many (if not most) clients want to get out of jail as quickly as possible and could care less about whether they actually did what they are charged with.
2 Not too much though. If I am to be judged by my poker record I should probably never bet too much money.
3 However, this is not always true. I've had at least one case where a client told me to go back to the prosecutor and get more time because he wanted to be sent from the jail to a prison. It's a convoluted story but it was fun to watch the prosecutor stand there in shock when I told him that my client had rejected the deal because it was too lenient.
I've put this defense on before in a case involving Halcion and must say that it is extremely hard to convince a judge that your client's gruesome act should be excused by the fact that he took pills prescribed by his doctor. Still, I'll never use Halcion or Xanax. BTW the case is Johnson v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 524, 115 S.E. 673, Va. (1923).
(3) Nebraska refuses a DNA test to see if a man convicted of murder might be innocent.
(4) Arizona is trying to get the federal supreme court to overturn the 9th Circuit's decision that a large number of death penalty convictions are unconstitutional.
(15) Prosecutors charge a minor with felony homicide for the sale of methadone to a man who died. I saw one of these cases being tried in good ole' conservative Chesterfield County and the jury rejected it. It seems to me that to show the taking of the drug as part of the res gestae of the selling of the drug is a difficult endeavor. It's also difficult to draw a straight line between the drug use and death because the drug use is usually combined with other intoxicants (primarily alcohol) which amplify the effects and a honest expert will not be able to point to the drug as the sole cause.
(16) Homicide by Negligence? In Chicago prosecutors are charging club owners with manslaughter for not keeping their building up to code. More specifically, they seem to be charged with manslaughter because a staircase is too narrow and a mob of people "stampeded" down it crushing each other. I don't know how wide the staircase was or how wide it was supposed to be but you have to wonder if it really would have made all that much difference as a rioting mob tried to roll over itself in a panic to get to the doors.
I'm thinking about making this into a group blawg (I think 6 people max). Anyone who might be interested look here to see what I'm looking for and drop me a line at lammersk@yahoo.com (or, if your web browser is set up that way, click the button on the left).
(1) Trying to murder a guard may not be terrorism but that doesn't make it any more comforting. Especially when you realize that the guy wasn't trying to kill only one person:
The problem with no-knocks. Why not just pick the guy up when he goes out to pick up some groceries and then execute a search warrant on the house afterward?
You've got to be kidding me. Have none of these people ever practiced in domestic court? Of course it's relevant that the woman invited the man over. Protective orders, especially in busy courts where the judges don't really have the time to seperate the chaff from the wheat, are abused. They are taken out as leverage in child custody disputes, weapons in the divorce, and a way to keep the man in line. I limit my practice in Domestic court and even I've had a number of cases where the woman never even left the guy. She just took out the order because she was mad at him after she lost the latest round in the weekly family fight (which, like as not, she started) and uses it as a weapon against him the next time she's drunk and pissed at him. There has to be a way to rein in such abuse.
When you file a complaint against a 66 year old woman who uses a Mac for downloading Trick Daddy's "I'm a Thug" with a program that only works on PC's you should rethink your investigative methods.
If someone wants me to comment they should either do what Eugene Volokh suggests (most do) or send me a link to the news article. Even then there is no guarantee. I have to limit the time I spend on the blawg every day because I do have to spend a fairly large amount of time taking care of my clients' business.
Also, e-mails commenting on my posts are always welcome but I think I only reply to about 25%. This is not meant to be disrespectful; it is because I can only spend so much time doing things related to the blawg.
Sorry if that's a little on the rude side but for a while there the blog was just taking too much time so I've had to rein it in.
Another possible espionage agent serving in the military at Guantánamo. What the heck is going on? Did they stop doing background security checks since I left?
If you're going to sanction the assumption of judicial powers by congressional legislation you really don't have much call to complain when they do it again. Or do you? Maybe this will be like the old pre-exclusion of evidence days when abuses built and built until the courts felt they had no choice but to stop sanctioning violations of the federal constitution.
Has Ashcroft ever worked in criminal law? This directive is a recipe for grinding the entire system to a standstill as Defendant after Defendant takes his shot with a jury. Or at least it would be if the courts stop the sophistry used to defend the guidelines and acknowledge that they are unconstitutional when they punish Defendants for exercising their right to plead not guilty, punish Defendants for exercising their right to testify on their own behalf, etc.
Well, hiding illegal aliens in a community where English isn't spoken seemed like a goof idea at the time. Of course the fact that the aliens spoke Spanish probably made them stick out in a community where Pennsylvania Dutch is the primary language.
When you hear that 50 people were in a gunfight in a South American country you're not too surprised. Rebels, drug lords, etc., life's a little more interesting down there.
Well the legal answer is pretty easy here: no, the schoolbaord may not pass regulations which are tougher than the laws of the Commonwealth. Anyone who has ever heard of Dillon's rule knows this.
Of course, the political question is another matter.
Common sense in a courtroom - from a judge, no less. ;-) You know, if life and the courts were like this more often the world would be a much better place.
(2) On the other hand, trying to scam in the $25,000,000,000,000.00 range shows a lot of brass. These guys weren't too smart but, man, did they have ambition.
If you are fluent in 6 languages - including Japanes, Arabic, and Greek - and you've gone to one of France's top business schools you must make one hell of a madame.
New York is trying to set up post-incarceration programs to keep prisoners from going back. It's not being done out of the goodness of the collected hearts of the citizens. Rather, "a guiding force is the expected savings."
On the left side of the page are numerous stories about the drug itself. On the right are stories about the prosecution of a doctor for dispensing the drug.
Indicting 11 men for international heroin distribution. As always, my comment is: despite all these arrests my clients never seem to have any problems getting their fix.
An article which urges the ACLU and local governments to cave in to the PATRIOT Act. The main argument is that it's all obstruction of justice. Of course, any opposition to an unjust law (or administrative regulation) is obstruction of "justice." So we should just allow the feds to do anything they want, right? Don't oppose anything - just accept what big brother tells you is good for you.
Prosecutors are now using those laws which were only passed so they could get to terrorists against citizens!!!Shocked! I'm sure we're all just shocked by this development!
(2) Adrian Lamo's prosecution appears to be going forward for the same sort of activity. I am curious as to what the $25,000 damages are. Could it, perchance, be the amount of money NYTimes had to pay to fix a problem it was at fault for having to begin with? Seems probable. I've also put some thought into the $300,000 claim for LexisNexis use. My Westlaw account costs me a set fee each month; the package which LexisNexis offered me also had a set monthly cost. As long as I stay within my package I - and two others - can spend every minute of the month online getting information. Bigger firms and companies have even more expansive packages which are paid for at a monthly rate. I find it hard to believe that NYTimes does not have one of these packages. If it does pay a monthly rate no matter the amount of usage the claim that Lamo used $300,000 in services fails.
Of course, even if you get a trial and look as though you might succeed, the Justice Department might not play fair. It might refuse to give you necessary evidence or (if it starts losing really badly) remove your case to a military tribunal.
You know, if you are going to run this scam you shouldn't send three seperate copies to me via bulk e-mail:
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify Chief Egobike Madu . This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual or the coperate entity named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Dear Sir,
I am Chief Egobike Madu,Executive Director with Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation(NNPC).Please accept my apology for using this medium to convey a transaction of this magnitude, but this is due to the confidentiality and prompt access reposed on this medium.Be informed that a member of the Nigeria Export Promotion Council who was a member of government delegation to your country gave your enviable credentials/particulars to me.I have decided to seek your co-operation in the execution this deal described hereunder, for the benefit of all parties and hoping you will keep it as TOP SECRET because of the nature of the business.
Within the NNPC (where I work as a director),and with the cooperation of four other top officials, we have in our possession as overdue payment bills of Eighteen million five hundred thousnad United states Dollars which we want to transfer abroad with the assistance and cooperation of a company/ or an individual to receive the said funds, via a reliable bank account.Quite frankly,we are handicapped as the Nigeria civil service laws strongly prohibits us from owning/or operating a foreign account hence your importance in this whole transaction.
This amount Eighteen million five hundred thousnad United states Dollars represents the the balance of the total value of a contract on behalf of my corporation by a foreign contracting firm which we the officials involved deliberately over-invoiced. Though the actual cost have been paid to the original contractor leaving the balace in the tune of the said amount which we have in principle got approval to remit by Key Tested Telegraphic transfer to any foreign account you will provide by filing an application through the justice minstry here in Nigeria for the transfer of rights and privelages of the former contractor to you.
I have the authority of my partners to propose that should you be willing to assist us in this transaction by way of providing the required account to receive this fund, your share or the entire sum will be Thirty percent amounting to Five million five hundred and fifty thousnad United states Dollars, Sixty precent amounting to Eleven million United States Dollars for us and Ten percent amounting to One million Eight Hundred and Fifty thousand United State Dollars will be used to settle taxation and other miscellaneous expences in the course of transfering the money to your account. The business itself is One Hundred percent foolproof and safe, as long as you mantain utmost secrecy and confidentiality.Furthermore your area of specialisation will not be a hindrance to the successful completion of this transaction. I have reposed my confidence in you and hope that you will not disappoint me. Should you be willing to assist positively with a common goal, endeavour to contact me immediately .If you are not interested, please also indicate so that it will enable me to contact other foreign partner with recommendation to carry out this deal.
I want to assure you that my colleagues and I are in a position to make the payment of this claim possible provided that you can give us a very concrete assurace of the safety of our share. Please, always treat this matter with utmost confidentiality, because we will not comprehend any form of exposure as we are still in active service. Time is of essence in this business, so kindly act fast.
Note: I advise that your contact with me should always be via this medium for secuirity purposes and successful achievement of our our primary motive(i.e. successful realisation of our aim of this transaction without hitches). I await in anticipation of your fullest cooperation.
You tell the military it has a problem and it will take steps to fix it. You may not like the solution because there will be no subtelty involved but it will take steps to stop it. Confidentiality was causing problems in investigating possible rapes at the Air Force Academy. Solution: no more confidentiality.
After 57 notes to the judge and 47 days of deliberations, you tell the judge you are deadlocked on some of the charges. What's the judge do? He sends you back into the jury room for more.
(1) You'll remember that a while back I noted a death penalty imposed for rape (because I didn't think you could do that anymore). The Curmudgeonly Clerk picked it up and offered a more thorough analysis. Now Sherry Colb, at FindLaw, offers her take on the matter.
(5) While I think the sentence in this case is just (probably even light), I think that the judge let the SEVEN HOUR sentencing hearing get way out of hand. In particular I am disturbed that the judge would allow the decedent's mother to walk over to the Defense table and stick a picture of the victim in the Defendant's face. It may feel good emotionally to allow such breaches of proper courtroom behavior but it makes the judge seem either predisposed (and thus willing to allow the Defendant to be maltreated in the courtroom for further punishment) or unable to control his courtroom. I'm not sure which is worse.
(a) Muhammad - The judge refused to close in limine motion hearings (in order to keep from poisoning the jury pool) but said "he will take as many precautions as possible to prevent unnecessary disclosure of sensitive information." I'm not sure what steps those might be. After this hearing the news reported that "[o]ne item that he specifically objects to is a statement purportedly made by Muhammad that 'America got what it deserved' after the Sept. 11 attacks."
(c) Muhammad - The Defense is trying to keep eyewitness testimony out of the trial because it would be strongly influenced by all the news showing picture after picture of Muhammad making an untainted identification impossible. It is also seems worried that officers walked up to witnesses with a single picture (making it real obvious) and asking "is this the guy?"
Actually, I'm more disturbed that the Virginia Supreme Court doesn't think that withholding the fact that a medical examiner - paid by the same Commonwealth who pays the prosecutor and possibly under pressure to conform to the prosecution's case - changed her opinion from one favorable to the Defense to one favorable to the prosecutor prior to trial is important and something which just might have affected the trial. Personally, that strikes me as pretty damning impeachment evidence if she was the one who testified and strong evidence for the Defense if she wasn't called by the prosecution.
(3) Parents who have hidden their child so that he cannot get court ordered chemotherapy treatments have returned to face their punishment (without the child).
The NYTimes puts forth its claim as to what occurred to cause it and the Manhattan US Attorney to persecute/prosecute Adrian Lamo.
First, the NYTimes should be ashamed for putting out information on its own criminal complaint which is self-serving. Second, note that the NYTimes would have never known about anything Lamo did if he had not told it.
The only result which can come from this prosecution is to cause those who are inclined to do this sort of thing to not tell anyone. Hmmm . . . that's a good thing? Heck, if the US Attorney in Manhattan has any brains this is all a sham to get Lamo out to New York so that the office can hire him. Just think, access to computers used by organized crime, by companies breaking the law, by government employees who are selling secrets, and by those using e-mail to organize international terrorism. And does anyone doubt Lamo could do it (all with warrants of course)?
It's almost impossible to feel sorry for this guy but getting convicted by both the State and the feds for the same event just grates on my nerves. Yes, I know the courts have said that it's not double jeopardy. It's prosecution by two government entities who are both subject to the rights reserved in the federal constitution but it's not double jeopardy.
Did any actual rapes occur at the Academy? A female officer says: "No.". I haven't been following this story but I remember some of the things which were being put forth as "rape" by various organizations when I was in school so I am skeptical about what is claimed to be rape at a school. Still, you must wonder how the Academy let these permissive standards come into being so that the situations could develop.
Apparently he is facing two felony charges, each with a maximum of 5 years and he has hidden all his gear (of course, as part of whatever plea made he will be forced to turn those over - hopefully he did at least a DoD wipe so there is no evidence for new charges).
While the good people at the screen savers were quick to point out that they don't approve of what Lamo did they seem puzzled over the prosecution. And I gotta say I'm right there with them. Unless there is more evidence than is apparent, this hacker did no harm and in fact helped a number of companies by pointing out what was wrong with the security on their systems. It just seems that the NYTimes was petulant and somehow was able to exert enough influence to drag the feds into its tantrum.
Will this prosecution hinder illegal, malicious hacking? No. All this prosecution does is suppress whatever good instincts are out there among those hackers who might actually have done something beneficial.
The N.C. Supreme Court has ordered a criminal defense attorney to violate his attorney-client privilige "just a little bit."
Perhaps the NC Justices need to go back and reread Swidler & Berlin v. United States. The absolute privilege (except in testamentary matters) extends to the period of time even after the death of the client. There is no "as long as the judge thinks it should be subject to attorney client privilige" exception. In fact:
The contention that the attorney is being required to disclose only what the client could have been required to disclose is at odds with the basis for the privilege even during the client's lifetime. In related cases, we have said that the loss of evidence admittedly caused by the privilege is justified in part by the fact that without the privilege, the client may not have made such communications in the first place. See Jaffe , 518 U.S., at 12 ; Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976). This is true of disclosure before and after the client's death. Without assurance of the privilege's posthumous application, the client may very well not have made disclosures to his attorney at all, so the loss of evidence is more apparent than real. Swidler
Reasons that I am glad to be an American with our constitutional protections:
(1) In England they might not be able to convict you but apparently if they suspect you they can issue orders limiting how you can dress, where you can go, and who you can associate with.
(2) In the UAE if the prosecution doesn't think your sentence was stiff enough they can appeal it (yes, I know this can happen in our federal systen - no, I will never concede that this is constitutional).
If you say that tapes of the Defendants prove their guilt, perhaps you should make sure that the tapes are not "unintelligible." Otherwise, there might be consequences.
That's a statement you should really think about before you make - just think about the implications it has for what you've previously been willing to put up with.
Adrian Lamo was on the screen savers again last night. They even said they were going to be present when he turned himself into federal authorities today.
It's an interesting turn of events for a techtv show to be breaking serious news about criminal matters.
You know, if we all stick our heads in the sand teenagers will stop drinking. Of course, teenagers have always been really convinced by adults saying "do as I say, not as I did."
Anyway, as I watched some recent shows, I began to notice how criminal matters are becoming wrapped up in the show. First, I hear them talking about Jeffrey Parson, the kid who was arrested for modifying the latest round of viruses. They referred to him as a "script-kiddy" who was not all that bright and was being targeted because the feds realize there is no way to capture the author of the virus itself. Shortly thereafter these quotes came forth from the kid and his family:
"[Jeffrey Parson] expressed concern the government was going to make an example of him.
"I understand that the government needs to catch someone for these crimes. I'm not the one they need to get," he said." . . . "My son is not brilliant; he's not genius," Rita Parson said. "Anyone that has any computer knowledge could have done what Jeff did." found here
And then, on Friday Adrian Lamo, who is currently on the lam from federal charges out of New York called in to explain his situation. Mr. Lamo is famous in certain circles for hacking into businesses' computers and then letting the business know about the vulnerability so that it can be fixed (you can also find a video of the event there). It appears that when he hacked into that bastion of liberty the NYTimes, the NYTimes decided that rather than be grateful that it was being given an opportunity to fix its system before someone who wanted to do something malicious could do so, it would be spiteful and vindictive. Thereafter, it brought in the feds who now refuse to disclose the charges brought by the government (probably because the government has massively overcharged).
BTW, bravo to Mrs. Lamo for facing down the threats of the federal officer when he tried to do a search for which he had no constitutional right. Always enjoy seeing an average citizen standing up to intimidation and asserting her rights.
techtv's lawyers must be going absolutely nuts over all this.
1 It's a TV show featuring a couple of loveable, goofy geeks (bring back the sledge hammer and the kilts!) who explain new computer hardware/programs (although I'm still waiting for a review of the Electrovaya Scribbler Tablet PC) and take calls to solve people's problems. The support staff includes a couple of supergeeks who could build a computer from twine and bubblegum and still make it a better computer than any I have ever bought and at least one (often two) cute young lady who is technically proficient.
The number of homicides and police officers in Richmond for the past decade: Year Homicides Officers 1992 117 N/A 1993 112 N/A 1994 160 655 1995 120 684 1996 112 664 1997 139 730 1998 94 N/A 1999 74 690 2000 72 670 2001 70 652 2002 84 633
DNA has proven to be an amazing weapon in the hand of prosecutors. However, when this powerful tool is in the hands of the Defendants some prosecutors suddenly lose confidence in it. Here's an article from the NYTimes. And Findlaw. And Richmond, Virginia's newspaper.
If you try to trick kids into going to porn sites by spoofing disney's or the teletubbies' web sites you have to expect that you will be arrested eventually.
In Iowa it is considered torture to make someone watch a video tape of you making threats against her. Thus the test is mental anguish rather than physical pain.
Apparently this is important because Iowa requires torture for a 1st degree abduction conviction. In Virginia we don't mess around with degrees (outside capital cases). On the one hand, that makes the law much simpler and it is easier to determine whether or not your client falls under a certain statute. On the other hand it means that your client who grabbed his ex-girlfriend's arm and dragged her two feet before he dropped his grip and walked away will receive the same sentence recommendation as the guy who tied someone up and held that person for ransom for a month. Of course, the judge doesn't have to follow the recommendation . . .
In the NC Peterson case the prosecution has two deaths which are eerily similar and which do not seem to fit into the area of accidental death (although the older one was so ruled to be). This is the strength of its case.
The weakness? Neither of the motives offered seems to fit and there is no direct evidence that Michael Peterson was influenced by either. The Defense pretty much ruptured the money motive and there is no proof that the wife knew anything about the homosexual stuff.
I'll be real interested to see if the Defense allows Peterson to testify. It's a closer call than I'd like to have to make. I'm convinced - as I think that anyone who works in a court is - that no matter how many times you tell a jury that they cannot take a failure to testify into account they always do; he might have to testify in order to be found not guilty. He probably doesn't have any prior record so the normal reason for not testifying isn't present in this case. On the other hand, if you put him on the stand he'd better be able to answer every little question about the prior, non-prosecuted event (e.g. How do did you know it was an aneurism, Mr. Peterson?). He also is probably the only way that the prosecutor can make one of its motives stick; getting him to talk a lot about the money situation and the homosexual matters - whether he admits to anything damning or not - is likely to more closely associate these matters to him in the minds of the jurors.
Of course, mine's an old nickname1 while his appears to be a name chosen for him by an advertising firm. I'm told that his advertisements are a lot more interesting than the staid stuff we get in the Richmond area from the Multiple Allens (we're in a book no one has ever seen), Marks & Harrison (tell Allstate you hired a firm because it uses a semi-famous actor), or Jay Tronfield (we're in some million dollar club no one's heard of).
1 It has always been an easy way to get people to pronounce my name correctly because it rhymes. I've suffered thru a litany of nick-names in my life but this one's been around since at least some time in the 80's because I remember a long period of time of hearing "STOP, Lammer time!"
WE WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH YOU BY ESTABLISHING A TRUST AGREEMENT WHEREBY YOU SHALL HOLD, MANAGE INVEST AND DISTRIBUTE ALL ASSESTS RECEIVED FROM US IN TRUST AND THE PROCEEDS THEREFROM, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT.
I AM AN ATTORNEY & CONSULTANT TO AN INFLUENTIAL POLITICIAN,HE WAS ALSO THE FORMAL MINNISTRY OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA,BUT CURRENTLY UNDER DETENTION AT THE IKOYI MAXIMUM PRISON LAGOS, DUE TO THE ACCUSATION LABELLED AGAINST HIM DURING HIS TUNOR AS THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES, MY CLIENT WAS ACCUSSED OF EMBAZZLING GOVERNMENT FUND AMOUNTING TO USS$152.MILLION THAT WAS BUDGETTED FOR THE RENOVATION OF OUR LOCAL REFINERIES, I MUST ADMIT THAT HE WAS FALSELY ACCUSED BY HIS COLLEAGUES IN THE MINISTRY IN OTHER TO HAVE HIM SACKED,ALL THIS ACCOUNT BOTH FOREIGN AND LOCAL HAS SINCE BEEN FROZEN BY THE PANEL SETUP TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER LAST TWO MONTHS BY THE PRESIDENCY. BEFORE THIS UNFORTUNATE OCCURANCE HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO USE HIS DIPLOMATIC STATUS TO MOVE THE SUM OF US$23MILLION OVERSEAS (NAME OF COUNTRY WITH HELD FOR SECURITY REASONS) AND PRESENTLY DEPOSITED IN A PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY FOR SAFE KEEPING. THESE BOXES OF MONEY WERE AIRFEIGHTED AS ARTIFACTS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIALS.
MY CLIENT, BECAUSE OF HIS PRESENT STATUS IN GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE PHYSICALLY INVOLVE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE MONEY,DUE TO THE ONGOING CRISES IN THE PRESIDENCY HENCE HE DO THIS BY WAY OF PROXY AND FIDUCIARY AGENT IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY PROBE BY THE PRESENT DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA.
I AM REQUESTING YOUR ASSISTANCE AS MY COLLEAGUE AND LEARNED FRIEND TO HELP SECURE INVESTMENT OUTLETS WHEREBY THIS FUNDS ARE INVESTED IN GOVERNMENT TREASURY BILLS AND BONDS AND IN SECURE FIRST MORTGAGES SUPPORTED BY YOUR COUNTRIES REAL ESTATE AND OTHER ATTRACTIVE INVESTMENT PROGRAMS AVAILABLE. MANAGE THE COMPLETE PROCESS & ESCORT OUR FIDUCIARY AGENT THROUGH THE VARIOUS PROCEDURES.
IF THE ABOVE IS WORKABLE FOR YOU & YOUR ASSOCIATE, I WOULD BE GLAD TO FORWARD OUR STANDARD DISCRETIONARY ASSET MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR YOU TO LOOK AND MAKE ANY NECESSARY AMENDMENT. IF ANY, THIS AGREEMENT WE HOPE WILL HELP TO ASSURE THE SAFETY OF THE FUNDS AND CONSOLIDATE THE RELATIONSHIP.PRIOR TO HANDING OVER THE FUNDS TO YOU & YOUR ASSOCIATES, WE HOPE TO ARRANGE FOR A PRELIMINARY MEETING WITH YOU ON A NEUTRAL GROUND WHERE THE ORIGINAL OF THE AGREEMENT WILL BE SIGNED BY YOU & OUR FIDUCIARY AGENT/ MYSELF.
TO ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF THIS TRANSACTION AND GUARANTEE THIS UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP, KINDLY TREAT AS CONFIDENTIALITY. SEND YOUR PRIVATE TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS TO ENABLE US TALK ON ONE ON ONE BASIS.I AWAIT YOUR URGENT RESPONSE, THANKS AND STAY BLESSED.
BEST REGARDS.
BARR. JOHN YARADUA.
While I don't have the time to help this poor fellow maybe one of you rubes, er . . . I mean fine people, might.
You would think they'd at least change the continent if they're going to keep trying to run this scam. Every single time it's Africa. It'd be refreshing if just once in a while they'd claim they need access to my bank accounts to get money out of Columbia or Hong Kong.
The scary thing is that you don't keep doing this unless people are falling for it enough for it to be profitable.
Another built in appeal for the Malvo case. After he is convicted (is there any doubt?) there will be so many issues on appeal that the smart money is that at least one of them will stick. This case will never end.
I can't decide exactly what to think about this one. At a gut level I feel as though I should rail at the officers for letting this man die. On the other hand, I'm not really sure what else they could have done. If the man didn't take it off himself I think you have to assume he was told it was booby trapped and I doubt anyone on the scene had bomb disposal experience.
All-in-all a sad event about which the police and FBI seem to have no clue (at least at the moment).
Just remember, if you are in Lebanon as a missionary you may not be guilty of spying for the Israelis but that doesn't mean you aren't guilty of "stirring religious strife."
In case anyone out there needs this warning: This ain't legal advice. Everything in the blog is off the cuff and no one goes back and reads all the cases and statutes before blogging. The law may have changed; cases misread and misunderstood two years ago can still lead to a clinging misperception. Courts probably don't even operate as described herein. In fact - just in case someone is stoned enough to start quoting this blawg as authority to a judge - It is hereby stated that everything in this blog is pure fiction.
Be advised that all e-mails received are subject to inclusion in the Blawg. If you do not wish your name published with that e-mail make certain that you notify me in it.
