Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Prosecuting A Non-Crime

Much has been said about the recent incident with James O'Keefe and the atempt by him and his confederates to video in the office of Senator Mary Landrieu. Having read the affidavit by the assigned Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Steven Rayes, there is insufficient evidence of any of the crimes described.

First, 18 USC 1035, Entry By False Pretenses on Federal Property. http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/1036.html There was no attempt to enter on false pretenses, as in the affidavit there is no evidence or interview of a witness that either O'Keefe or his confederates made any false or misleading statement when entering the Hale Boggs Federal Building. Visitors to federal buildings are screened before they enter and are not asked their purpose when entering. Visitors just show identification and go through a magnatometer (metal detector). While Joseph Basil and Robert Flanagan did enter an office in the building and say they were here to repair the allegedly non-working telephones, they were already in the Hale Boggs Federal Building and already in Landrieu's office. Therefore, there can also be no conspiracy to commit that crime. 18 USC 2 Aiding and Abetting http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000002----000-.html

Nothing in the affidavit described any action realted to 18 USC 1362 Destruction of Telecommunications Systems. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1362NEW.htm Basil and Flanagan did ask for the telephone room, but the affidavit did not describe any intent and capacity to commit any destructive act.

Clearly, this was a political indictment by the U.S. Attorney's Office. James Letten, the United States Attorney (USA), was a Republican appointee, but he was clearly angling to retain his position by indicting a public figure, James O'Keefe, who was a thorn in the Obamessiah's side. http://www.justice.gov/usao/lae/usattorney/index.html http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/okeefe_prosecutor_recuses_himself.php and http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/27/2187074.aspx

While the MSLSD story suggests some intent to do some sort of sabatoge, the affidavit in support of a probable cause arrest does not show probable cause of any crime, other than a well known journalist and investigative reporter's team members dressing up. There is no information here that suggests evidence that a crime was committed, which is why the United States Attorney decided not to go to a grand jury. While most Assitant United States Attorneys, of which Letten was one for many years, including being a First Assistant United States Attorney, say they could indict a ham sandwich, it is unlikely that grand jurors would have voted for a true bill in this case. Basically this case was not even a ham sandwich. It did however blow up in Letten and Obamessiah's faces.

Which leads us to the obvious. Why was an FBI agent from the Violent Crime Squad assigned to this case? It is obviously a white collar crime and should have been assigned to that unit. Is Special Agent Rayes a Demoncrat and politically reliable? Was no one from the White Collar Squad going to touch it because it was obviously not a crime?

United States Attorney's Offices (USAO) generally refuse to prosecute most federal crimes. They have the authority to pick and chose the crimes that are taken to court. Why was this at best victimless crime accepted by the USAO? Don't they have more important things to do? How many illegal aliens escape prosecution for crimes? All USAOs have what is called a mandatory minimum for loss in a fraud, theft, and drug crimes by which they limit the number of cases involving drugs, fraud and theft that each office prosecutes. What is the mandatory minimum of the Eastern District of Louisiana (EDLA)? How many drug, fraud, and theft crimes are refused because they are under the mandatory minimum? How many other crimes were not prosecuted they the USAOEDLA? Many I would suspect. They obviously took alot of time out of their busy day to prosecute this political crime. A crime of exposing the lies of Senator Mary Landrieu.

Every reader should understand that the USAOEDLA took specific steps to prosecute this case, and not prosecute other cases because of that decision. It must be asked of Letten why? And other than being reappointed as USA, I can see no other reason.

No comments: