Here is a graphic example of how the media protects
federal judges by not reporting their outrages. On July 19, in U.S. v.
Strong, a First Circuit majority upheld the seven-day jail sentence of Ronald
Strong, a 50-year-old in prematurely poor health. 13 medications for heart and
kidney problems produced a sudden uncontrollable attack of diarrhea in a
federal courthouse, with a significant mess in a small one-person bathroom.
While the case of
Nidal Hasan, caught red-handed committing mass murder at Fort Hood, dragged on
for four years, with many more years of appeals likely, Strong was charged by
an Obama-appointed prosecutor within three days – three days! – with willfully
damaging federal property, creating a hazard and creating a nuisance. He was
found guilty within 113 days and lost his appeal within two years – before the
Hasan trial even began.
In my view, it
was prosecutorial abuse to even bring such a case and judicial abuse to uphold
The essence of
the devastating dissent
(22) by Judge Torruella, a Reagan appointee, which should be read fully, was
that the government had violated the very law it used to prosecute Strong, and
he lacked the required criminal intent in dealing with what was, after all, a
wholly unexpected accident.
By contrast, I
contend that the majority judges, appointed by Clinton and Obama,
clearly out to get Strong. To declare that he had been "willful,"
they resorted to rank speculation rather than proof. Without
demonstrating any causal connections, they (1) asserted that he had received
"implied notice" of the regulation the government itself was
required, but failed, to observe to assure actual notice; (2) cited his loss of
a Social Security case; and (3) if that were not enough, found that he "may
have" -- "may have"?! -- acted willfully because of the delay in
his being given access to the bathroom.
any honest person believe that activist liberal judges would ever accept
"may have" as proof in a murder case?
this case punctuates the critical importance of the presidents who appoint
prosecutors and judges.
Labels: Activism, death penalty, media bias, Prosecutorial Abuse, Sentencing