Vick gets 23 months in jail

[Shammrog]

Okay, cool. Looks like we've got a team. Who do we play Sunday? Lots of work to do.

Hmmmmmm. Must make a big, noticable change first to set the tone. I'm changing team colors. This Sunday, (or next if we can't arrange it in time), I would like to have the team dress in hot pink. This will no doubt be very distracting to the opponent. A benefit for us. On the helmet, the Falcon will have a pink bow on his crown.

What else. I'm thinking. Okay, next Sunday will be "Air Horn" day at the Georgia Dome. I want the Falcon fans to become a valuable sixth man - like at Cameron. The first 20,000 through the gate (or everyone if attendence is less than 20,000) will receive free air horns - and I expect them to be used.

Lavabe will replace Sandwich as QB. For every pass completed, I will donate $100 to the Lemur Society of America. For every touchdown pass, I will kill one of whatever animal preys on Lemurs.

Wilson will be the red flag throwing challenge guy. I will call him, "Red." Shammrog will become my offensive coordinator. Shammrog, Hooters tonight to discuss plays?

I have also placed a call to the facility operators and engineers at the Georgia Dome. When Atlanta is on offense, we will have developed a mechanism whereby at the push of a button, the goalposts will expand ten feet on each side, lessoning the odds for wide kicks. Please keep this in DBR circles. This may be illegal.

That's all I got for now. More to come. The Falcons WILL become a dynasty again. Wait. Wait. Um, the Falcons will become a dynasty under my leadership in the next fimbly fumbly years or so. I promise.

God bless you all. Thank you for this opportunity. And lets go WARBIRDS!

-EarlJam

Those who know me best find me very offensive. Offensive coordinator, I am!

[greybeard]

Here it is folks, just like on TV; the first to talk gets a walk.

"He came in and cooperated without any immunity or protection, knowing he would be charged," prosecutor Michael Gill said. His cooperation was invaluable to the case and the judge figured, what the hey, he didn't actually kill no dogs, so no jail time.

Not involved in killing dogs? That's a bunch of bull. Here's the deal: the prosecutors said that "Allen helped conduct test fights to determine which dogs were good fighters, but was not involved in the killing the six to eight that performed poorly." What I want to know is how hard did they look and how they could possibly have believed the guy when he admitted that he walked into the pit with one poor little pouch under his arm and sold her to Vick's boys.

One dog? That's it?

More to the point, this guy just happened to be invited by Vicks boys to assess which dogs were good fighters and which were not. To "test" them but not kill them, the prosecutors said. Nope, I ain't making this up. Read it right off the press, in this case an ESPN on line report. I don't want to say what this his remains me of, but I have to say that the guys at the train who separated folks into two different lines don't hang with me no different than the guys who put the gas in the chambers. You reading me here. Dog lovers of America, you feel differently.

The next time these prosecutors and Judge Hudson man up will be the first. This guy selected which dogs would live and which would die and he is not as culpable? As whom, you and me?

It's okay that they brought off one killer to get another who had more star power, shall we say, but it is another to whitewash the culpability of your star witness. He just sold one pouch, and I just ate one doughnut. Yo Mama!

The guy is 67 years old and he is selling pits to people to fight them. He just started yesterday? He was never involved in killing dogs?

Here's what the Honorable Judge Henry Hudson had to say in sentencing the guy to probation: "I see no evidence of any cruel acts toward animals in this case." All I got to say is, you freakin kiddin me judge?

The morale of this little story is that the prosecutors and judge decided to let a guy who probably spent more years than Vick has been alive in a sordid business that Vick only dabbled in because Vick was a fish worth getting and your average everyday careeer dog fighter and killer is not.

That is the lesson these keepers of the Justice system let out with this little episode, throwing out the laundry on Friday, just like they used to say on the show, The West Wing.

Meanwhile, folks who love pouches can continue to pat themselves on the back making believe to themselves that their cause has been well served, and I can get back to fretting about what happened with, gez, I think it had something to do with torture somewhere . . . .

[billybreen]

Ok, this is the last time I click 'View Post' to see what an ignored poster wrote.

[allenmurray]

Here it is folks, just like on TV; the first to talk gets a walk.

"He came in and cooperated without any immunity or protection, knowing he would be charged," prosecutor Michael Gill said. His ccoperation was invaluable to the case and the judge figured, what the hey, he didn't actually kill no dogs, so no jail time.

Fair enough, but what I don't like is the whitewash of this guy's culpability. Here's the deal: the prosecutors said that "Allen helped conduct test fights to determine which dogs were good fighters, but was not involved in the killing the six to eight that performed poorly." What I want to know is how hard did they look and how they could possibly have believed the guy when he admitted that he walked into the pit with one poor little pouch under his arm and sold her to Vick's boys.

One dog? That's it? And, they asked him to help test the mettle of the dogs to determine which were good fighters. What did he think was going to happen to those he did not chose? I don't want to say what this roll of his remains me of but I have to say that the guys at the train who separated folks into two different lines don't hang with me no different than the guys who put the gas in the Chambers.

The next time these prosecutors and Judge Hudson man up will be the first. This guy selected which dogs would live and which would die and he is not as culpable? As whom, you and me?

It's okay that they brought off one killer to get another who had more star power, shall we say, but it is another to whitewash the culpability of your star witness. He just sold one pouch, and I just ate one doughnut. Yo Mama!

The guy is 67 years old and he is selling pits to people to fight them. He just started yesterday? He was never involved in killing dogs?

Here's what the Honorable Judge Henry Hudson had to say in sentencing the guy to probation: "I see no evidence of any cruel acts toward animals in this case." All I got to say is, you freakin kiddin me judge?

The morale of this little story is that the prosecutors and judge decided to let a guy who probably spent more years than Vick has been alive in a sordid business that Vick only dabbled in because Vick was a fish worth getting and your average everyday careeer dog fighter and killer is not.

That is the lesson these keepers of the Justice system let out with this little episode, throwing out the laundry on Friday, just like they used to say on the show, The West Wing.

Meanwhile, folks who love pouches can continue to pat themselves on the back making believe to themselves that their cause has been well served, and I can get back to fretting about what happened with, gez, I think it had something to do with torture somewhere . . . .

The fact that this person a got away with his crime doesn't mean that Vick should not be punished for his crime. The error was not in punishing Vick, it was in letting the other guy off. But on the other hand, I've come to believe that if Vick were eating live puppies with a knife and a fork you'd still defend him.

[ugadevil]

Ok, this is the last time I click 'View Post' to see what an ignored poster wrote.

Agreed. Some posts are just way too confusing to understand.

[77devil]

I've come to believe that if Vick were eating live puppies with a knife and a fork you'd still defend him.

My advice is to consider the source and ignore him.

[greybeard]

Everybody here went to college, right. My post was not about Vick or about dogfighting. Dogfighting haters used Vick to get noticed for their issue and I used their issue to get my issue on the table. That issue would be the politicalization of the Justice Department and the cheapening of how US Attorneys and the prosecutors who work for them practice.

Reagan politicized the appointment of judges; before him, cronies or politicos could get appointed to the federal bench, but they usually had credentials and it was never done on the basis of ideology. Reagan began chosing based upon political perspectives. Bush the elder made it a refined art, appointing many incompetants whose sole redeeming value to the pres. was that they were tried and true ideologues.

That that politicization has now spread to the ranks of federal prosecutors is scary, at least to m. I have the utmost respect for many of the greybeards in the US attorneys office in the Eastern District of Va, who predated the appointment of now district Court Judge Henry Hudson to head that office in 1986. However, I am very, very troubled about what we have been seeing now out of many federal prosecutors, including prosecutors from that office. That issue for some reason has gotten little traction; people have more important things to worry about.

Anyway, the use of flipped witnesses as the principal evidence against someone is a very risky business, that has caused great disrespect for the processes of many local and state police forces and prosecutor offices. See an article, Bait & Snitch by Alexandra Natapoff, to get a flavor. REading the attempt to downplay the culpability of their star witness, and to sentence him to probation on Friday, so that "the news would be thrown out with the garbage" was to me audacious, even for Henry Hudson which makes it pretty freakin audacious.

Anyway, if you want to get a feel for how truly bad the kind of justice metted out by the local prosecutors in Virginia can be, and therefore why I feel so strongly about the politicalization of the US Attorneys' Office there and elsewhere, I suggest you try a little google search, "wrongful convictions VA." Read about ten or so of the sites, at least through the middle of the second page. You will see that Nifong is not alone.

That was the focus of the new thread that I tried to create.

[77devil]

Everybody here went to college, right. My post was not about Vick or about dogfighting. Dogfighting haters used Vick to get noticed for their issue and I used their issue to get my issue on the table. That issue would be the politicalization of the Justice Department and the cheapening of how US Attorneys and the prosecutors who work for them practice.

Reagan politicized the appointment of judges; before him, cronies or politicos could get appointed to the federal bench, but they usually had credentials and it was never done on the basis of ideology. Reagan began chosing based upon political perspectives. Bush the elder made it a refined art, appointing many incompetants whose sole redeeming value to the pres. was that they were tried and true ideologues.

That that politicization has now spread to the ranks of federal prosecutors is scary, at least to m. I have the utmost respect for many of the greybeards in the US attorneys office in the Eastern District of Va, who predated the appointment of now district Court Judge Henry Hudson to head that office in 1986. However, I am very, very troubled about what we have been seeing now out of many federal prosecutors, including prosecutors from that office. That issue for some reason has gotten little traction; people have more important things to worry about.

Anyway, the use of flipped witnesses as the principal evidence against someone is a very risky business, that has caused great disrespect for the processes of many local and state police forces and prosecutor offices. See an article, Bait & Snitch by Alexandra Natapoff, to get a flavor. REading the attempt to downplay the culpability of their star witness, and to sentence him to probation on Friday, so that "the news would be thrown out with the garbage" was to me audacious, even for Henry Hudson which makes it pretty freakin audacious.

Anyway, if you want to get a feel for how truly bad the kind of justice metted out by the local prosecutors in Virginia can be, and therefore why I feel so strongly about the politicalization of the US Attorneys' Office there and elsewhere, I suggest you try a little google search, "wrongful convictions VA." Read about ten or so of the sites, at least through the middle of the second page. You will see that Nifong is not alone.

That was the focus of the new thread that I tried to create. Why the editors insisted on folding this into someone else's issues about Michael Vick I do not know.

Perhaps the DBR monitor hadn't reached his quota and the month was running out; you know, he needed to keep his numbers up. At least it would show that the guy can count. Maybe next time I'll get someone who can read too.

He's back.

The federal judiciary did not become politicized beginning with Reagan by the way. Remember the Warren court. I could cite almost endless examples.

[greybeard]

He's back.

The federal judiciary did not become politicized beginning with Reagan by the way. Remember the Warren court. I could cite almost endless examples.

Actuall you are wrong about the Warren Court and you couldn't. Warren, like the majority of that court's members, were Republican appointees, Eisenhower's, and were selected for their credentials which included being real Republicans, not neocons or ideologues, but Republicans. Turned out some, like old Earl, saw the constitution as a living document, not tied to interpretation to the realities on the ground in the late 1700s.

As for the view that Reagan was the first to radically politicize the appointment process to the judiciary to a selection of idealogues, my sourse was a lengthy multi houred and very scholarly talk given by Justice John Paul Stevens that was aird on NPR, I believe. Very convincing, I found it.

Now, I would just love to hear those other examples you got. I'll bring some first-hand experience to this little debate, having spent the last 35 years litigating appellate cases for the past 35 years in every US court of appeals in America. This should be fun.

Oh, tell me first about how Justice Thomas, no never mind.

[77devil]

Actuall you are wrong about the Warren Court and you couldn't. Warren, like the majority of that court's members, were Republican appointees, Eisenhower's, and were selected for their credentials which included being real Republicans, not neocons or ideologues, but Republicans. Turned out some, like old Earl, saw the constitution as a living document, not tied to interpretation to the realities on the ground in the late 1700s.

As for the view that Reagan was the first to radically politicize the appointment process to the judiciary to a selection of idealogues, my sourse was a lengthy multi houred and very scholarly talk given by Justice John Paul Stevens that was aird on NPR, I believe. Very convincing, I found it.

Now, I would just love to hear those other examples you got. I'll bring some first-hand experience to this little debate, having spent the last 35 years litigating appellate cases for the past 35 years in every US court of appeals in America. This should be fun.

Oh, tell me first about how Justice Thomas, no never mind.

You are wrong, as ususal, about the makeup of the Warren Court. Of the associate justices that served during Warren's tenure as chief justice, 4 were appointed by Roosevelt, 1 by Truman, 5 by Eisenhower and 4 were appointed by Kennedy and Johnson. That's 9 by Democratic Presidents.

I am not going to get into a debate with you any further on this topic because I do not respect your sloppy research and general logic which tends towards unsubstantiated, inflammatory statements and other hyperbole in my opinion. Your closing statement above is a good example. I made no statement to suggest that Reagan or his successors did not politicize federal judicial appointments. I simply wrote that I disagreed with your statement that Reagan was the first. Clarence Thomas' appointment is completely superfluous to the debate between us.

As to your statement of being an experienced apellate litigator, I simply do not believe it.

[greybeard]

You are wrong, as ususal, about the makeup of the Warren Court. Of the associate justices that served during Warren's tenure as chief justice, 4 were appointed by Roosevelt, 1 by Truman, 5 by Eisenhower and 4 were appointed by Kennedy and Johnson. That's 9 by Democratic Presidents.

I am not going to get into a debate with you any further on this topic because I do not respect your sloppy research and general logic which tends towards unsubstantiated, inflammatory statements and other hyperbole in my opinion. Your closing statement above is a good example. I made no statement to suggest that Reagan or his successors did not politicize federal judicial appointments. I simply wrote that I disagreed with your statement that Reagan was the first. Clarence Thomas' appointment is completely superfluous to the debate between us.

As to your statement of being an experienced apellate litigator, I simply do not believe it.

Who did Truman and Kennedy appoint?

One of Kennedy's was Justice White, never a part of the "Warren" court; a brilliant, independent, and generlly conservative judicial thinker. When the Warren Court did most of its "damage," as you would apparently call it, the Court I'd have to believe had no Roosvelt appointees, and Republican appointees were, I believe, in the majority. There were no appointees who were chosen for their commitment to ideological views. Kennedy himself governed from the middle, pursued no meaningful progressive policies, and made very business-friendly appointments, with Clark Clifford, the scion of official Washington, running his transition team for what Kennedy said was only an agreement to put Clifford's picture on a one-dollar bill.

Nixon actually started the ball rolling with litmas-test appointments, at least talking about the need for them, Reagan implemented the practice and Bush the elder went over the top with it.

Bush the younger has brought this to the Justice Department and more importantly, to the front lines, the US Attorney's office. It was the latter that remains the target of my concern and post.

Your insults really are unnecessary.

[greybeard]

The Warren Court, circa 1962, had:

Three New Deal appointees:

1. Frankfuter, one of the giants of the Court who served until 62, was no ideologue nor even anything approaching a liberal;

2. Douglas, probably the most liberal member the court has ever known;

3. Black, a southern Baptist who surprised everyone to emerge as a leader of a progressive interpretation of the Bill of Rights;

One Truman Appointee:

1. Tom Clark, a moderate jurist;

Four Ike Appointees:

1. Warren, "the biggest misstake I ever made" Ike was later to say;

2. Harlan, a moderate jurist;

3. Stewart, a moderate jurist with a slight progressive twinge;

4. Whittaker, (?)

One Kennedy Appointee:

1. White, a moderate to conservative jurist.

The Warren Court did not have a solid "liberal" majority until Frankfuter retired in 1962, and was replaced by Kennedy appointee Arthur Goldberg, a solid jurist who had once represented a labor union, the UAW, the only member of the Court to have ever done so to my understanding although that might not be correct.

Goldberg resigned at LBJ's request in 1965; his seat was taken by LBJ confidant Abe Fortes, whom LBJ wanted to succeed Warren but who had taken money while on the bench from a former client, a very, very wealthy businessman whom Fortes had represented while serving as a senior partner in one of Washington's corporate law giants, Arnold, Fortes, and Porter, now just Arnold and Porter (the name change came when Fortes went to the bench not when he was forced off) and was forced to resign, just in time to permit Nixon to name Burger as Warren's replacement.

LBJ's other appointee was former solicitor general and court of appeals judge Thurgood Marshall.

So, there is no evidence of making appointments to the Court having been made through the "Warren" Court's days. All were judges or lawyers of great stature before coming to the court, with the possible exception of a young Douglas.

Just a reminder, the focus of my concern, about which I seem to stand alone, is with the politicization of the prosecutorial branch, not the judiciary. For the sake of accuracy, however, I have provided some flesh on the bones as it were.