SIXTH AMENDMENT - "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Washington D.C.--In an extremely belated administrative move, Judge Gladys Kessler has been removed from hearing the case of the accused Deborah Jeane Palfrey. This is likely due to a recent order by the jurist that was not only improper, but out-of-character based on the previous arc of the case. Also contingent is the fact that Judge Kessler was contributing greatly to an overlong pretrial process, while placing the blame almost solely on the defendant.
This would be a peculiar denial of due process (as guaranteed under section 1 of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution) if it weren't for the obstructionism and shenanigans of the prosecution and Palfrey's previous court appointed criminal counsel that has been damaging to the defendant. What's interesting is that many of the rulings of Kessler and the behaviors of her former criminal counsel played-into-the-hands of the prosecution. Presumably, the removal and replacement ('transferred') of Kessler with fellow District of Columbia Federal Judge James Robertson is from a motion by the defendant and her counsel regarding both the criminal and civil cases.
A new trial date will be set at a scheduled December 14th hearing by Judge Robertson, and will also cover other aspects of the proceedings. These could include motions for removing injunctions by Kessler and the prosecution regarding public release of information on former clients of Pamela Martin & Associates. The action begins at 10:00 am EST in federal courtroom 23A in the District of Columbia. Unlike Judge Kessler, Judge Robertson ruled that the Guantanamo Bay tribunals were illegal as constituted back in November 8th of 2004 in 'Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld.'
What's been implicitly clear in the previous pretrial proceedings is an unwillingness to address the defendant's Fourteenth (and by inclusion) Sixth amendment rights to due process and the basic American right to confront one's accusers. Poorly-intentioned federal trial procedures-be-damned. It should be noted that Judge Roberston was also a FISA court judge, resigning from it in late-2005 once the New York Times ended its year-long suppression of the warrantless surveillance story. Some commenters believe that Judge Robertson is one of the primary leakers in the story of the Bush administration bypassing the FISA courts through a secret NSA program. [Ed., 08.28.2008--I now believe Judge Robertson to be a Trojan Horse who was brought in to crush the defense, and that he's just another "star chamber" freak. Sorry Jeane, he was a fascist clown.]
The leak concerning the illegal surveillance of the American public under the umbrella of the NSA by the White House is interesting as nobody knows who unmasked it, though the Justice Department began an investigation that appears to have gone nowhere. All of this is interesting since Palfrey's case could have begun under such illegal surveillance programs, possibly in-conjunction with SWIFT in Europe.
December could be that month where a number of gifts to the American public are exchanged: a return of several of our embattled liberties. Kessler had scheduled the criminal trial of Palfrey for February 19th. It's unclear until the scheduled hearing this month when that date will be, and even then we may not know.
On Judge Robertson's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/politics/08cnd-gitm.html?ex=1257656400&en=c00930119f53c9ab&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
Now that Federal Judge Gladys Kessler has been removed from Ms. Palfrey's case, and another judge has been appointed who must now get up to speed on past and future rulings, may I ask an important question? How much taxpayer's monies are being spent on this one case? Does anyone have a current up to date figure? This case has been going on too long. More importantly, does anyone oversee the ridiculous spending of our courts and who are they accountable to? This is undoubtedly a political case but taxpayers are the one who have to foot the bill. This is beyond mindboggling!
ReplyDeleteOne would have to assume that it's in -the-millions, and is far from over.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder our country has a trillion dollar deficit! We spend entirely too much money on frivilous cases and pursuing non-violent individuals. It is incredulous that millions of taxpayers dollars are being spent for frivilous cases such as Jean Palfrey's case. It is obvious that someone high up on the food chain wants to punish this woman; but at what cost to all of us US citizens? And for what purpose does this serve? Is anyone in power ever held accountable for screw ups like pouring more millions of our dollars in chasing Jean Palfrey? Give me a break!
ReplyDeleteHow about pursuing and channeling monies into Drew Peterson, the officer whose fourth wife disappeared and his third one drowned under suspicious circumstances. Now that would be money well spent. Sign me disgusted.
Denise Martin
Building the Department of Homeland Security, having an illegal war in Afghanistan and Iraq, runaway war profiteering and pork spending on unnecessary defense and anti-terrorist programs that don't work wasn't enough to make the debt? The purpose it serves is to remove corrupt 'bad actors' in the Congress and the White House.
ReplyDeleteMost of them are Republicans, but many of them--like Barbara Boxer or Murtha--are connected at-the-hip to defense interests. Murtha was caught in Abscam during the 1980s, remember? Me either. ;0)Start demanding independent investigations now, that's all I can really advise. Get active, get louder.
The Peterson case appears to tend towards the defendant being guilt, but under our system of law, we have to be logical and assume that he's innocent until proven guilty. The alternative is lynch mobs again, the people who birthed the morons who consistently vote mainstream Republican. I'm disgusted too, so you keep on them, you have to hold everyone accountable for their actions, or there's no point in pretending we have a system of law and order anymore. Accountability is key.