I know, I know, a lot of y’all think Paul Minor is lower than dirt. But seeing that DoJ opposes his request to visit his dying wife . . . I dunno, that really bothers me. Whether what he did was criminal or not, it wasn’t her crime.
Boy, this is cold
July 30th, 2008 @ 12:59 pm - by lotus · 68 Comments
Tags: Paul Minor
Filed Under: Herald & Examiner
I know, lotus, I go back and forth on thinking that it is the criminals who should have been thinking of their families and loved ones so that the DOJ or a Judge will not be forced to be the final arbiter on something like this.
From The Raw Story article: ” ‘Government prosecutors have chosen to continue the political prosecution of Paul Minor,’ Justice Diaz wrote RAW STORY by email Tuesday.”
Why is Diaz continuing to insert himself into this story? I do not find that appropriate at all for a sitting Supreme Court Justice, nor do I find that smart for a candidate who is on the November ballot.
Diaz and Minor have been friends for years. Sometimes, friendship causes you to override your better judgment. In any event, keeping a non-violent, minimum security, first-offender from seeing his dying wife does not seem designed to instill any respect for the law or the government. It’s petty and vindictive.
Paul Minor is incarcerated right now because, prior to his conviction by a jury, he violated the terms of the bond that Judge Henry Wingate provided after his initial indictment and the hung jury in his first trial. Judge Wingate did what federal judges do in such situations; he revoked the bond. His lawyers have now asked that he be released from prison, pending appeal, but the DOJ lawyers have written in their brief that Paul Minor violated the terms of his bond the first time around and he is a risk to do so again. The DOJ lawyers take this position not because they are cruel, heartless people, but because that is their job as prosecutors.
somslawyer// You would make a Good Judge. From what I know Minor is and was an Alcoholic, why keep punishing the family over and over. Cold Heart, Indeed.
He was an out of control drunk when he was out on bond and constantly flouted its conditions.
The argument “don’t punish the innocent wife and kids” has applied to every criminal case against a married man since the beginning of time. This case is no different.
Is there some reason why Minor (and his family) should get different treatment than a dope dealer or car thief?
Following up on Don @ 4, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe that Minor violated the terms of the bond more than once. I seem to recall that Judge Wingate revoked his bond after giving Minor multiple chances.
Is Minor asking the Court to release him from prison during the entire pendency of his appeal, or just for a specific, short amount of time to visit with his sick wife? If the former, the Prosecutors, based upon Minor’s past actions, may view this as Minor attempting to use his wife’s condition to his advantage. If the latter, and all Minor is asking for is a few days out of prison to visit with his sick wife, then it would seem that such would be reasonable under these circumstances and it would indeed be pretty “cold” to deny him this limited request.
What’s really ironic, is they’ll probably give him a day pass for her funeral.
The Fifth Circuit docket entry for Paul Minor’s appeal states that he has moved for release on bail pending the appeal. So without having read the entire motion/memorandum, my guess is that they are using the unfortunate situation with Mr. Minor’s wife as an argument for release pending appeal, as opposed to letting him out of jail for a brief time in order to visit with his wife at home. RAW STORY, however, wishes to spin this as an indication of the “vindictiveness” of DOJ so the spouse’s cancer is RAW STORY’s lede.
Good ole’ government prosecutorial power…they have the power and are going to use every bit of it…whether or not it is needed/right/makes sense.
Convicting someone is not enough. They will use the power they have (as well as our tax dollars) to crush them…and to crush them while they are down.
Hard not to believe that even Paul Minor probably deserves a little break here. Hard not to believe that some folks in the DOJ should be concerned about that old saying ‘what goes around, comes around…’.
Minor has filed a motion to be released pending appeal, which is in the 5th Circuit right now. DOJ opposed that motion, but noted in its brief that Minor may qualify for some temporary relief through BOP, like a furlough, that would allow him to visit his sick wife. So, DOJ is not saying he shouldn’t be able to visit her at all, but is saying that her illness is not a reason he should be released pending the whole appeals process.
Based on DOJ’s brief, it appears that Minor had not requested temporary relief from BOP to be allowed to visit his wife. I don’t know whether such a request has been made since DOJ’s brief was written. If it has been requested, I would imagine that some relief would be granted to Minor unless he has been a problematic prisoner. I haven’t heard anything that suggests he has been problematic at Pensacola.
“So, DOJ is not saying he shouldn’t be able to visit her at all, but is saying that her illness is not a reason he should be released pending the whole appeals process.
Based on DOJ’s brief, it appears that Minor had not requested temporary relief from BOP to be allowed to visit his wife.
————————
Thanks cg @ 12 and Don @ 10. Now, we are getting to the real truth. And, as usual, it is not what is being reported in the newspaper.
Sounds like Minor may be more interested in his release than visiting his sick wife. Now who sounds “cold”?
The govt. will not concede that Minor has “substantial issues for review” with the appeal pending; and that is what he has to show to be considered for bond on appeal, if bond is allowed its allowed by the Court.
A temporary release, or furlough, is administrative through BOP; they frequently grant them in cases of family illness; in some cases on a regular basis if a family member is indeed dying.
If he gets drunk on a furlough, though, he not only gets no more furlough, he probably gets sent to a more restrictive prison.
Neither party is acting in a “cold manner” IMHO.
Is this conversation an object lesson in why a good blog with motivated people can exceed a hurried reporter in rounding out the facts and the opines surrounding a story???
NL
AFOTL at 8, when that motion was filed on behalf of Minor, there were more than a handful of folks on the Coast who found it ironic given Minor’s treatment of his marital vows ‘lo these many years, including a drunken incident in a Jackson bar during his trial.
Diaz is such a dumbass. IMO. It’s almost as if he is oblivious to the circumstances surrounding Minor and is blind to what the common people think about the legal community at present. Kinda like Chancellor Khayat writing on Ole Miss letterhead, Diaz probably used his MSSC computer to send the email. These type people have no idea of what common sense is about and feel that the rules and restraints of common decency are just for the unwashed masses and don’t apply to them. While no one is discounting their right to privately remain a friend to these felons, use of taxpayer funded resources to publically maintain those friendships appears awfully arrogant and ill-advised. Once again, not much common sense being displayed,
Minor should be allowed to use the BOP’s current system of being allowed out to visit his wife. With the caveat that when they let him out, he be electronically monitored both for his whereabouts and his ETOH intake. The excuse he’ll use for when he fails one or the other will of course be, “The stress and grief of her dying condition coupled with my pending appeal made me start drinking again.”
And we cannot forget how much Diaz and his wife gained financially from their friendship with Minor, regardless of whether the government was able to prove it.
NL @ 15, I would agree with your statement, except the DOJ brief, with all that info in it, was linked on the Raw Story page where the original article noted by Lotus appeared. So the info was right there if the reporter had looked at the brief. Thus, I think this is a case of wanting to create a spin, despite the facts.
Shaves, I think the comparison of Diaz to Khayat is dead on.
afotl 13: bingo!
curious georgette 19: It is my opinion that Raw Story has an agenda and that it sometimes gets in the way of the facts.
All:
I find this entire exchange remarkable for the speculation and absurdity as well as the unsupported claims of an agenda on the part of the reporter — me.
What, then, is my agenda? I do not know if Minor is guilty or innocent of anything. I don’t know if Siegelman is innocent or guilty of anything. What I do know, however — and take it from someone who has been investigating this for a year — is that the Department of Justice has been co-opted and used as a political tool. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am not friends with any of the subjects, and have not met Minor at all. I have no relationship to him, nor am I hoping for favors. In other words, what possible agenda could I have and why would someone make such allegations I wonder?
Now, in particular I want to address Mslawyer — who is conveniently anonymous. Whatever your opinion of Minor is or of what he may or may not have done, you surely cannot believe that justice was served in this case, can you? Because if you actually believe this, then you are completely ignorant of the facts, which you seem to suggest are second to my unnamed agenda. You provide nothing to substantiate your assertions. But I will help you by substantiation my assertion that you are completely ignorant of the facts in this case. The material point is not Minor or Diaz or Whitfield, etc. The material point here is the investigation and the indictments and trials conducted by Dunnica Lampton, and the decisions made by judge Wingate.
I have done 7 installments regarding these prosecutions, they are all linked at the bottom of the article you are now discussing. I suggest you take the time to read the series. Because of the amount of information, the complexities of the cases, I cannot give you an overall summary here in the comments. I can, however, point you to some key pieces of information to get you started:
Let us consider some of these facts then, shall we?
1. Lampton was bringing charges against Minor at the same time Minor had begun to file a case against Ergon, owned by the Lampton family. He did not recuse himself. What are your thoughts on this issue MSLawyer?
2. Lampton was installed as US attorney despite the fact that during the time of his appointment he was under FEC investigation for violation of campaign finance law. In other words, he was in violation — really — of the very laws that he would later claim were violated by the defendants. What do you make of this issue MSLawyer?
3. Lampton organized the indictments around two election cycles, and released information to the press about the investigation which was then used by Barbour’s campaign against Musgrove. Now the problem here is that Lampton’s family business, Ergon, happens to be the client of one of Barbour’s lobbying groups. What are your thoughts on this MSLawyer?
4. Lampton indicted Diaz, despite his best friend — Keith Starrett — having run against Diaz shortly before the indictments during the 2000 election. Starrett employs a a relative of Lampton’s now as well. What do you make of this MSLawyer?
Those are just four small issues of the many concerning the “agenda” of the US Attorney. There is plenty however, and it is documented (see parts IV, V, VI, and VII of the series)
Now, let us consider Diaz:
1. There is now law barring judges from receiving donations in MS. This is why Noel Hillman moved to use the all-time favorite mail fraud statute, to federalize the case. MSLawyer, what is the actual law that was violated by the defendants? And what was the proof of these crimes?
2. Diaz did not once preside over a case involving Minor or any of Minor’s clients. Why was he targeted? What crime did he commit and what is the proof of this crime?
Now, let us look at Judge Wingate’s instructions to the jury and blocking of evidence beneficial to the defense:
1. Wingate instructed the jury that no quid pro quo had to be proven. Considering that we are discussing an alleged bribery case, I find that remarkable. What do you, MSLawyer make of the this jury instruction?
2. Wingate would not allow evidence about the many donations Minor has made over the years to all sorts of judges, most were not indicted, some did not recuse themselves from cases. Why would this evidence not be allowed MSLawyer?
Yes, Whitfield and Teel did not recuse themselves from several cases. And yes, this would appear to be unethical. But no, it was not criminal and no quid pro quo was proven because Wingate ruled that none needed to be. Now, if you had solid evidence of bribery, why would you — as the prosecutor — watch the judge trash your slam-dunk case?
On those two points alone I find it alarming that anyone is having a discussion about this appeal, rather than asking questions about the judge and the prosecutor.
Finally, the issues surrounding Minor’s drinking have nothing to do with his pre-trial bond conditions. He was not using an illegal substance and he was not driving while under the influence. And, consider that this was his second indictment around and his wife developed breast cancer as well as a hurricane that destroyed his home, I can see why someone would start drinking. I likely would have started drinking.
That said, since when does the federal government get involved in alcohol treatment when no alcohol related crime has been committed? I find this remarkable as well.
The point is this, you folks seem to read the government’s case as though it were gospel. As I have said, I have no opinion as to what Minor may or may not have done. I have no agenda. I don’t know nor have I ever met Mr. Minor. So putting aside idiocy and ad hominem attacks against me, let us consider everything I have just mentioned and actually have an intelligent discussion about these particular facts.
I would also urge you, again, to read the series and to read Scott Horton’s reporting on this, Adam Lynch’s excellent reporting and Roger Shuler’s excellent blogging on this as well. Surely you do not suppose we all have the same agenda and are on some mission to create chaos in the orderly and ethical world of politics?
So, continue by all means, but it would be nice if you folks could discuss the facts and not attack me or at the very least support your attacks with something tangible.
I apologize for the length of my response to the rest of you all. Regards, Larisa
PS (ON edit): Whomever it was that suggested that this man is using his dying wife’s illness for his case is simply soulless. How do you know this and what evidence do you have to make such an ugly assessment?
Minor does what his lawyer tells him to do, rightly or wrongly. Stop with the nonsense and this type of ugly rhetoric. You do realize that there are two children who have a father in jail and a mother near death. Consider that they might read what you have written and consider the pain that will likely cause them. Just be ethical if you can manage it. Such claims are absolutely ugly and serve no purpose.
Welcome to folo, Larisa! Now that you know the way to the place, please rejoin us around the table whenever you like. This blog hosts an unusually broad ideological range of readers and commenters, as you see, and our discussions are correspondingly robust. As proprietor, I’m very glad to have your contributions and those of our mutual friend, Lindsay Beyerstein.
OWIL, please don’t make claims like that w/out support @ 18.
MSLawyer, your response to Larisa? Why so quiet?
The support is right there in the sworn transcripts, Sailor, the paper bags of cash delivered after a phone call, the “Tell Jennifer to call if she needs more,” directives from Minor, not to mention the contributions that were actually on the election records.
Larisa Alexandrovna seems to be pushing a certain point of view in her “column” that is laced with opinion and not actual (at least not proven or anything close to it) facts. I guess we should just take her word for it and let Minor out so he can violate the terms of his release “again” and we can all stand there with out mouths open thinking “he must have a lot of nerve”.
On top of being found guilty he has screwed up at every turn so let him stay in jail.
Larisa, I think the primary point most of us where making is that the headline to your story and its conclusion were misleading in light of the underlying facts. If Minor has insisted on being released during the entire pendency of his appeal without even asking for a shorter visit, and the prosecution objects to his being released for that long, but would not object to his being released for a short period of time to visit with his sick wife, then it is misleading to say or suggest that the prosecutors are preventing Minor from seeing and visiting with his dying wife. Period. Instead of a rehash of the entire case ( that suggests selective prosecution more so than actual innocence on the part of the defendants) and attacking commenters here, perhaps you could enlighten us on why you chose to spin the story the way you did under these circumstances — particularly since, as you say, you don’t have any “agenda”.
This “all or nothing” type of approach by Minor/his attys (who act on his behalf) with respect to visiting with his sick wife, in light of the existence of a more normal and easier way for such a visit to occur and the prosecution’s apparent willingness to agree to it, are reason for much skepticism toward a claim that the mean ol’ prosecutors won’t let Minor visit his dying wife. It DOES appear that the Minor camp is using this as a way to put public pressure upon the Court to get what it wants — a release during the entire pendency of the appeal. And Larisa, you may have unwittingly become a pawn in this PR game by these attys. Many of these coast attys are masters at manipulating the press for their benefit — after all, many were taught or shown the way by the biggest manipulator of them all — Dickie Scruggs.
BTW, if you begin every story involving the DOJ with this premise: “What I do know, however — and take it from someone who has been investigating this for a year — is that the Department of Justice has been co-opted and used as a political tool” , then any conclusion you reach that supports the premise is pretty much a self-fulfilling prophesy. While there is nothing wrong with expressing one’s opinion and backing it up with supporting facts, I only point this out due to your claim of having no “agenda”. There is nothing wrong with having an “agenda” and admitting it. But, as a reporter, who is supposed to be somewhat objective, your agenda should not drive you to be misleading.
Your statement, OWIL @ 18 reads like you meant they gained PERSONALLY…the mentioned funds were CAMPAIGN contributions and spent on that.
I don’t know, Sailor, if I take out a loan in my name and a person who did not co-sign for the loan with me actually pays it back or pays even a portion of it back for me, then I have benefitted PERSONALLY as I am no longer on the hook for the debt, regardless of what I actually spent the money on.
OWIL, it sounds as though you should be pushing for campaign financing reform rather than leaving the distinct impression that Diaz got rich personally as a result of his relationship with Minor . (Any reasonable person can read 18 and draw that conclusion as to your intent.) I don’t like it, but such loans are legal and are used by politicians of each party and all points of view in Mississippi.
“Now, in particular I want to address Mslawyer — who is conveniently anonymous.”
I don’t have a dog in the Minor hunt, but I will say this, Larisa. If you want to argue with MsLawyer, do it on the facts, don’t attack him/her personally for remaining “conveniently anonymous”. Anonymous commentary seems to be pretty common across the internet, including on your website, Raw Story. I would submit that you should criticise the people who comment anonymously on your website before you turn up and do it here.
MS Expat, I have already expressed my views on campaign finance reform to the powers that be, but doubt that it will do any good. To your point basically that all of them do it, I would say that all of them also benefit personally from it–regardless of party affiliation–and particularly when it comes in the form of bags of untraceable cash. I don’t believe I ever said that Diaz was rich.
I don’t have time at present to research for verification, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that Diaz told Minor his wife was having some financial difficulties involving her B&B, and that’s why Minor freely offered her money.IF that’s the case, then there was personal benefit to Diaz.
Larisa, you do make some valid points. Yet you state that you have never met Minor, but in your last paragraph you also state with certainty that “Minor does what his lawyer tells him to do, rightly or wrongly.” Is that your opinion, or is that fact received from Minor or his attorney?
The government argues that Minor shouldn’t be released pending appeal because he’s a danger to the community. Does that strike anyone as far-fetched?
Sure, he violated the terms of his bond a couple of times. Once he went to a restaurant that served alcohol and didn’t drink. Another time he wandered briefly outside his yard.
If everyone with a substance abuse problem was deemed a threat to the community, probation would have to be abolished.
It’s not like Minor led authorities on a high speed chase or disappeared on a four-day bender or got arrested for brawling.
He’s not violent. His wife is dying. He has a deep roots in the community. He’s got a promising appeal coming up.
Why would he take off now? If he’s not a threat, why keep him locked up?
(I’m at Raw Story, too, btw–although I didn’t work on this particular story.)
Doesn’t say much for the COURT selected and ordered rehab program he completed, does it?
Hey All,
The “claims” I am making are from investigative work that I have done, which then formed the basis for my belief.
The allegations I made in my comment are supported by the 7 installments I have asked that people go read (which apparently they did not).
There are a number of cases that have been brought to my attention which I have not taken or which I looked into and did not find my “prophesy.” You don’t, for example see me running around defending Dickie Scruggs do you? I did initially look into that case by the way.
So, it is not that I had a notion and fixed the facts around it. It is that by virtue of being close to the facts I have drawn conclusions. Now, it is not appropriate for a journalist to have an opinion inside the boundaries of an article and I don’t. It is, however, entirely appropriate for a journalist to express their opinion on something they have been covering. That is what I am doing here. I am expressing my opinion and also citing facts that support it or, in some cases, simply my opinion based on all of the information, but not yet determined to be fact (like Minor doing what his lawyer tells him to do would be an example of my suspicions on this).
Nomiss: no, that is my opinion and that opinion is not based on any supporting evidence, but appears to be the logical conclusion one can draw. Where i say “fact” is where I distinguish my opinion from that of the facts we have uncovered. I have not met with Minor nor do I know Minor. That is a fact:)
Friend of law:
Just fyi, reporters having nothing to do with headlines for their own stories. That is put on by editors. This is generally the case at all publications.
Larisa
Well, Larisa and Lindsay, we LIKE having reporters hang out with us, so welcome back. Thanks much for your explanations of how you arrive at your conclusions (with today’s batch of which, I agree).
Just FYI, Larisa, lotus has posted links to most, if not all parts of your very intensive series, so foloers have commented frequently about it.
Thanks for having us, lotus.
I’ve been checking folo daily for the last several months and I always learn something new.
Hope you’ve acquired a taste for Mississippi food, Lindsay! (Pretty hard not to.)
Glad to see a lively discussion on the Minor case, which I think is every bit as important as the Siegelman case when it comes to political prosecutions by the Bush DOJ.
Wanted to include my two cents with Larisa and Lindsay, two folks I admire greatly.
I would encourage readers to study the underlying cases in which Minor was alleged to have received an advantage. These are the Archie Marks and Peoples Bank cases.
According to court documents, the Minor firm filed 728 cases in the time period (1998-2003) the government investigated. From all of those cases, the government found two that were questionable. Not a very good percentage.
And my research indicates those cases were not questionable at all. Judge Whitfield and Judge Teel ruled correctly in Marks and Peoples Bank, respectively, under Mississippi law at the time.
Here is a post from Legal Schnauzer that provides details about the government search of Minor’s office. It also includes links to posts with more info about both the Marks and Peoples Bank cases.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2007/11/mississippi-churning-part-xxi.html#links
If the cases were decided correctly, then Minor received no unlawful benefit and there could be no bribery or honest-services mail fraud.
Seems to me a perverse form of entrapment almost was present in this situation. Mississippi allowed lawyers to provide gifts/favors to judges–I don’t like that law, but that’s the way it was, in Mississippi and many other states–but the Minor prosecution seemed to be saying, “You can give lawful assistance to judges, but you can’t win any cases if you do that. Win a case, and we will prosecute you, even if it was lawfully decided.” Pretty absurd stuff.
Welcome to you too, Roger — we’ve been following your travails and wish you smashmouth success! What’s the latest?
Lotus:
Thanks for your kind comment and for hosting a very interesting blog. I’m still out of a job. UAB, so far, has decided to uphold my termination, even though their own grievance committee found I should be reinstated.
I’m researching some interesting angles to a qui tam/whistleblower case involving UAB 2-3 years ago. U.S. Attorney Alice Martin oversaw that case, and I think the university owes her a big favor. Did they repay her by getting rid of me? I will be doing a series of posts on that question in next few days. Also finding some interesting stuff regarding U of Alabama Board of Trustees. I’m pretty sure UAB didn’t do this without pressure, or approval, from the board.
Some of your readers might be familiar with qui tam cases and might wish to comment on this kind of legal action. Lindsay did an interesting post at her personal blog recently, stating that some 900 qui tam cases are just sitting right now in the Bush DOJ. Sounds like nothing is being done on them.
Makes you wonder if corporate and institutional crime really does pay.
Lindsay, his alcohol related transgressions were a little bit more than what you claimed. He was consistently violating his bond and his drinking was out of control.
“If the cases were decided correctly, then Minor received no unlawful benefit and there could be no bribery or honest-services mail fraud.”
I am having a problem with this statement. Scruggs’ “MO” , for instance, in the cases involving him, seems to be distributing sweet potatoes to judges through back door channels to insure a favorable decision, even if one had been forthcoming anyway under the law and facts. In other words, the elimination of all doubt —hedging his bets. Thus, “intent” would rightfully be the focus of the issue of whether a crime had been committed. Some civil cases can fall either way, and still be, to some extent, supportable under the law and facts —especially those cases where the Judge is the fact finder and the one imposing damages.
This type of scheme appears to have been the “MO” of Minor as well.
We will likely hear this type of defense again in the DeLaughter related cases.
This is exactly why, IMO, our state criminal laws need to be changed to prohibit any sitting Judge from accepting gifts (in the form of money, loans, loan payments, etc, etc. ) from a lawyer involved in a case that the Judge is hearing. And further, any failure to properly disclose such a relationship by the Judge and/or Attorney and failure of the Judge to recuse, all as required by our ethics rules, should be a crime tantamount to judicial bribery, with a quid pro quo being a rebuttable presumption and not an element upon which the prosecution bears the burden of proof. Our ethics laws, alone, are apparently not enough to deter this type of very bad conduct.
Kingfish:
Please provide evidence to support your assertions.
Lotus, thank you very kindly for keeping things from boiling over. You do indeed have an excellent blog here and I too have begun to frequent it.
Sailor, ah, I did not know this as I have only recently begun to make my way here. Thanks for the heads up.:)
Larisa, without debating the whole Minor trial with you, the premise of your story linked by Lotus is wrong. DOJ has opposed Minor’s motion for bond pending the entire appeals process. DOJ has not opposed any request by Minor to be allowed to visit his ill wife; indeed, DOJ points out in its brief (which I assume you read while doing your story and which was linked on the page with your story) that there are BOP procedures that could afford Minor relief to visit his wife. Maybe you should investigate whether Minor has attempted to use those BOP procedures so he can see his wife, and, if so, what DOJ’s response to those attempts has been. If he has asked for BOP relief and DOJ has opposed it, then that might be evidence to some that DOJ is being heartless in this situation. But the brief filed by DOJ in the 5th Circuit does not support the premise of your story, or the headline it was given.
Roger 44, ah well, with Scott Bloch still hanging on, no wonder the qui tams are stacked like Hartsfield on a 4th of July weekend, hey? Will be watching for your next posts.
Larisa, I’m very proud of our crowd and how we (generally) manage to disagree without flaming each other. This place has texture I never dreamed I was in for, and I’m very grateful to everybody who stops in to make it that way.
Having read the BOP furlough policies, it does not appear that the prosecutors have any say in the matter, so their “not opposing” that application is like saying I won’t oppose the sun rising tomorrow. It’s out of my control. Their intent seems to be to avoid any decision from the Court of Appeals by deflecting the question to another jurisdiction. Granting the release on appeal would be a pretty good indication that the judges on the Fifth Circuit bench see merit to Minor’s position.
The BOP furlough policy appears completely internal. There is no right to hearing or appeal if denied. It’s a matter for the local warden. By going to the Fifth Circuit, Minor at least has further appeal rights if denied.
Finally, one of the conditions to BOP furlough is avoidance of use of any drugs or intoxicants. According to BOP policy: “An inmate who … fails to meet any of the conditions of the furlough is deemed to be an escapee under 18 U.S.C. 4082, 751.” Pretty good incentive not to relapse.
FYI. As to the underlying merits of the Minor case and the prospects of the appeal, there was a pretty good discussion and debate here on this very topic a while back, which included some excellent commentary by NMC (as well as others). While I don’t have the time to dig it up in the archives right now —got to get back to work — it might be worth linking here —especially since we have news reporters with good info on the topic and other learned guests with us today.
That’s interesting info on BOP, somslawyer. I really would be interested to know if Minor has requested relief from BOP. Perhaps Larisa can find out and do a story on that as part of her look at this case.
Larisa and afotl, here’s what NMC did on Minor’s brief on appeal and also the same treatment on Siegelman (where he meant to do a 4-parter, but only got through two — they’re pretty meaty, though).
Curious: furloughs are generally very short is my understanding, in some cases a choice of either a single visit prior to the death of a loved one or permission to attend the funeral. The furlough=visit, not “care for.”
My understanding from speaking with people close to him (not his attorney, so not the same thing) is that he wants to be with his wife for the amount of time the process of her illness takes and to be there for his children.
Again, this is not based on anything his lawyer has said or not said, written or not written. The lawyer in the case is not alleging that is the government’s intention or painting this picture. Those close to Minor are saying that the end result is the same and the question of “caring for” is ultimately what is being argued against, unintentionally or otherwise.
Obviously, the appeal stands on its in and on the issues involving the case. But I am just explaining the effect of the government’s position. In the article I go to great lengths to explain the whole argument of “danger to community,” etc. So I am not arguing in terms of what the appeal is or is not, as the actual appeal deals with the matters involving the case. I am reporting what the government’s argument is and the end result of that argument.
The facts of the article, however, are that no matter what the intention of the prosecutors, the result is that the DOJ is arguing against letting him out to care for his wife throughout the process of her death. She is now on only pain management medication, which makes clear just how near death she is.
I did include the furlough information in the article just so that people understood Minor has that option as well. Perhaps I should have been more clear on the limitations of a furlough when the questions of “visit” vs. “care for” are being explored. But that is an oversight (if I did in fact not make that an important enough point) due to issues of deadline, not an issue of agenda.
That is interesting information to know Larisa and gives a fuller picture of the issues here. In the absence of relief from the 5th Circuit at this point in time and given the description of the immediacy of Mrs. Minor’s condition, has Minor asked for a furlough of any sort from BOP? The request for a furlough would not diminish the issues raised by his motion for appeal bond, so surely a request has been made to BOP?
I think the Stones have this “sitiation” covered:
The Minor camp says: I can’t get no satisfaction. (the Rolling Stones, 1965 –Mick Jagger and Keith Richards)
But,
The Prosecution says: You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need. (the Rolling Stones, 1968 — Mick Jagger and Keith Richards).
As frightened as I am of expressing a minority opinion (hold your laughter til the end, folks), I find my own irony in this story, the same humorless irony I found in the death of Dale Bishop galloping on the heels of the Guv’s ill-timed and ill-conceived release of a stone-cold, stalking, premeditative murderer.
Forgive me my bleeding, do-gooder heart, but I’m having a hard time seeing the big problem with granting Minor bail to be with his dying wife. I don’t know Minor, but whoever thinks he’s lower than dirt in here (come out, wherever you are), might consider that his wife may have a different take on that. No big deal, it’s just cancer.
I don’t know enough about the case to know who’s got the “real” scoop on his guilt or possible governmental railroading, so I can’t comment on that. On the bail issue . . . well, that’s a different story. Some of y’all are damn cold, indeed.
Oh well, MSP, at least you find the proprietor joining your minority opinion (and a mighty-well-expressed one, at that).
Sailor 24: I’m sorry I wasn’t able to respond earlier. I work for a living and today was a 13-hour-plus day. I don’t blog at work.
Larisa Alexandrovna 22: Wow! I’m a little surprised at your response to my two brief entries on this thread, at 20 & 21, but I want to respond. First, I offer my sincere apologies if I offended you. That was not my intention.
I post anonymously for what I consider to be very good reasons. Lotus knows who I am and she knows where I live. If I thought she would disclose my identity, I wouldn’t visit her blog.
The point of my brief comment at 20 was to note my agreement with a friend of the law’s reading of DOJ’s brief — that is, DOJ doesn’t appear to oppose Mr. Minor’s visiting his wife, but argues that he should request that relief from the BOP.
You seem to have taken great offense at my post at 21, when I expressed my opinion that Raw Story has an agenda and that it sometimes gets in the way of the facts.
My opinion is based on a blog entry that you or someone using your name posted on alternet on July 22, urging people to write letters of support for Mr. Minor to be released on bail pending appeal. You (or someone using your name) go on to state that Mr. Minor is in prison because of his politics and that his life has been destroyed simply because Karl Rove targeted him. You say that Mrs. Minor should not have to die alone and he should not have to know his wife is dying alone, while he sits in prison for being a Democrat.
I don’t think you should be so defensive about having an agenda. There’s nothing wrong with that, and you, unlike some reporters, haven’t attempted to hide yours. I admire and appreciate that. If I were in Mr. Minor’s shoes, I would be grateful to have such an articulate and passionate advocate as you fighting for me.
With respect to Mr. Minor’s case, I do not know whether justice was served. I haven’t read the trial transcript and didn’t sit in on the trial. I cannot and will not discuss the merits of his case. I’m not being stubborn about that, but there are certain subjects that I can’t blog about and that’s one of them. I acknowledge, however, having a great deal of skepticism about some of the conspiracy theories that surround his prosecution.
In your list of questions to me, you seem to be claiming that Lampton prosecuted Minor because Minor had sued Ergon. (I will ignore your statement that Lampton indicted Minor, because I’m sure you just misspoke, and you know that federal indictments have to be handed down by grand juries.)
I’m sorry, but I just find it hard to believe that Mr. Minor is the victim of two separate conspiracies, one led by Karl Rove, targeting him because he’s a Democrat, and another led by Dunn Lampton, who targeted him because of Ergon or Keith Starrett. Furthermore, to accept these conspiracy theories, one would have to believe that the career prosecutors in the Southern District of Mississippi, the members of the grand jury, the members of the jury that convicted Mr. Minor, and Judge Henry Wingate, who has a long and distinguished career, are also part of the conspiracy to get Mr. Minor. It’s really hard for such a large conspiracy to remain a secret.
If Mr. Lampton has done all of the things you claim that he has, then he should be punished accordingly.
Finally, this may surprise you, but I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Minor’s family. I lost both of my parents and my only aunt to cancer. If it would comfort Mrs. Minor to have Mr. Minor by her side, I hope something can be worked out. I wish similar compassionate arrangements could be made for many prisoners whose loved ones suffer illness and death alone.
I could go on, but I believe I’ve used up enough of Lotus’s blog for now. Best regards.
The concept that RAW STORY and its reporting on the Minor conviction is “objective and unbiased reporting” should be laughed off this blog. If anything, the 50+ comments so far on this thread show that the issue of whether Minor should be free on bail pending his appeal is not an issue of sound bites or headlines. My expectation is that well-lawyered briefs on both sides of the issue, dependent on citation to the record and not simply ipse dixit comments, will allow the Fifth Circuit to make a reasonable determination of this issue as well as the merits of the appeal of the conviction by a Mississippi jury in a trial presided over by Judge Henry Wingate.
I don’t think the term “reporter” applies nearly so well as political commentator or political activist when reading some of the most recent posts online by the writer of the subject matter of the thread. No personal disrespect meant or implied but objective reporting it ain’t. Yep, I read all of the posts available online to discern the perspective being advocated. And no matter how much written material “supports” the viewpoint, I submit that the better definition is for it to be defined as political commentary and not as news reporting: no matter how heralded.
Summary: Impassioned plea, yes. Excellent writing skills, yes. Good conspiracy-themed story telling, yes. Fact based reporting, no.
Shaves, I agree with you at 60 above.
Shave: Thanks for the kind and sort of confused words. Do I write political commentary? Absolutely. Do I write fact-based reporting? Absolutely. My work, for example, at RS is all reporting and no commentary. My work at Huffington Post, for example, is all commentary, not reporting. You can look at all of my writing and simply lump it any way you choose to. I also write poetry and essays, which apparently should now erase my existence as even a political commentator based on your broad and misleading description of my work. Oh wait, I have also done translation work, which I think puts me now officially as a foreign writer as well.
Within the context of an article that is news, no agenda or opinion should be expressed by the reporter. I do not express an opinion or follow an agenda in my news reporting. As for my political commentary, I make no apologies for it. I am fortunate enough to be able to write across genres and I am honored to be in the good company of some of my heroes who happened to write cross-genre, including investigative reporting. Don’t confuse Fox’s fair and balanced with actual ethics.
I would also add that conspiracy theory is not a genre I contribute to, so unless you have something tangible with which to demonstrate my chasing aliens and other such nifty hallucinations, please think before you type such nonsense.
Is your entry entertaining? Yes. Are you articulate? Yes. Are you accurate? No. Are you making assumptions? Yes. Do you support your claims? No.
—
MSlawyer,
The Alternet piece was not written by me per se. It was a private email I sent out to a few journalist and blogger friends of mine asking them to please get involved not only for Minor, but for Siegelman and others as well.
Alternet published it with my name, which is fine. I believe strongly – because I have covered so much of this story – that Siegelman, Diaz, and Minor (Teel and Whitfield as well) were targeted by a political mechanism instead of a legal process. That is my opinion and frankly, my opinion is supported by the IG’s report, the whistle-blower testimony, the multiple sources in various states with whom I have met, the facts of the cases, the lack of credible evidence against the defendants, the mounting evidence against the prosecutors and judges (for example, in Siegelman’s case, there are serious and credible allegations of jury tampering). So, outside of news article format, I will absolutely express my opinion, because who better than the person on the actual story?
Finally, I know that Lampton did not “indict” these individuals, but he may as well have. You see, when you present faulty or possibly cooked evidence to a grand jury or you present witnesses who are less than honest, you tend to create the type environment in which you are likely to get an indictment.
Consider just one example. An FBI agent who was getting ready to blow the whistle on Lampton’s investigation was suddenly reassigned to Gitmo. Now, I wonder what an expert in money laundering is doing at Gitmo? The agent who replaced him is alleged to have very close ties to both Lampton and Starrett. It is this agent who later testified in front of the grand jury and they knew nothing of the other FBI agent or his issues with Lampton’s investigation.
Mkay?
Okay folks, this has been interesting, but we appear to be going in circles of kick the reporter and such, which is fun I suppose, but gets kind of old after a while. So off I go. Thanks for the great conversation Lotus. Keep up the great blog, it is very interesting and informative.
LA
“You cannot hit me “free”
Bully, because my eyes can see
The past and all the other eyes that came
Before mine enough to know that you
Can’t have your lies for long before the
Rot stinks up the place.”
Sarcasm becomes you. You say, “tomatoe” I say “tomato” or rather, “‘mater.” And no matter how you attempt to portray yourself as objective when reporting versus commenting, the distinction would be in the eye of the beholder. Would it not? And you are correct, cross-genre writing is your style. IMO.
The whole Minor storyline does fits right in with the whole genre of magical realism (aka the reader can’t figure out the facts from the perception without some sort of writer supplied magic decoder ring) present in some alternative journalistic pursuits online. More especially those alleging vast right-wing conspiracies involving the prosecutor(s), the judge, members of BOTH the grand jury and the trial jury. Simply put, the whole political conspiracy theory reminds me of one of my grand-daddy’s ole sayings, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brillance, baffle or confuse them with your bullshirt.”
Everything ain’t a political conspiracy, but it does make good headlines, by-lines and story-lines. Heck, even conviction for a bank robbery could be termed a "political prosecution" if played right. "They were against my personal political belief that anarchy is the basis for formation of good government and besides, I needed the money for my sick wife."
I won’t belabor the point-by-point analysis of your comments on the thread since they would not only bore others, but most especially me. Additionally, it wouldn’t serve any purpose but to possibly confuse someone into believing that either of us knew what the hell we were talking about.
You @ 22, I’ll simply implore you to heed your own words, "….So putting aside idiocy and ad hominem attacks against me," and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Agreeably.
The point, Larisa, that all of us have to keep in mind, is that Lotus provides a forum and the rest of us do the rest. Infuriating at times? Sure. Frustrating at others? Absolutely. It’s frankly amazing to me that so many points of view are accommodated here, civilly, and how many are reading these posts without commenting upon them. It’s no wonder newspapers are folding all over the country and those who host this medium are thriving.
And by folo thriving, I hope that means that all of those reading, commenting and enjoying the blog donate to keep it going.
Hear hear, OWIL 67! Thanks for that always-welcome-and-necessary reminder.