The Sunshine State Needs Some Sunlight: Part One

Brandeis

“Brandeis made his famous statement that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” in a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, entitled “What Publicity Can Do”  according to an article I read.

 Justice Brandeis was referring to the need that actions by government agencies be done in a transparent manner. He knew that the deals behind doors or the hiding of information which seems to be occurring by leaps and bounds as each new president comes along was destructive to democracy.

Justice Brandeis noted:” If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.”

 Anyone who read my book Don’t Embarrass The Family or who has been a frequent visitor to my blog knows I have been urging the FBI to become more transparent in its dealings. Read Judge Mark Wolf’s opinion in the matters surrounding Whitey’s case to see the difficulty that he has had in dealing with the FBI. Think of its reluctance to discuss the Mark Rossetti matter; or its refusal to explain how one of its agents killed Ibrahim Todashev; or its obstinate silence in the events surrounding the April 15, 2013, Marathon Bombing and you see what Justice Brandeis hoped we would never experience in this country.

It bad enough when a federal agency does it but what about when a state judiciary,  its lawyers and law enforcement jointly do it. That’s what we see happening in the Sunshine State.

I read a complaint that retired FBI Agent John Connolly was securing the help of students at the University of Miami Law School called the Innocence Clinic in his appeal of his conviction for 2nd degree murder in a Miami court. I was heartened to read this because if anyone is in prison who is innocent of the charges it is John Connolly.

You’ve all heard that the gangsters say they paid John Connolly lots of money when he was an FBI agent. Have you heard that he was charged with receiving a diamond ring from these gangsters and the charge was not believed by a jury? Have you heard he was never convicted of receiving any money from a gangster? Do you understand why John Connolly is doing 40 years in Florida after having wrapped up a 12 year federal sentence?

The reason is the Florida courts are too busy to care and are hiding behind being busy to avoid dispensing justice. You see John Connolly was convicted of 2nd degree murder by gun. The victim was John Callahan a Boston wise guy who was murdered in Florida by John Martorano. Callahan was murdered because he hired Martorano to murder a man named Roger Wheeler in Oklahoma. The FBI started to close in on Callahan so Martorano decided to murder him, as he had bragged about doing in the past whenever he believed a person would done be a  witnesses against him or his friends.

In the make-believe world of federal prosecutors, we are to believe that Martorano, the one man at risk, would not have done this except that John Connolly had to tell Whitey Bulger to tell Martorano that Callahan may not stand up if questioned by the FBI, something that we are supposed to believe Martorano did not know deep down in his dirty soul.

Going along with the pretense, Connolly was convicted even though to be convicted of that crime you must have the gun that causes the murder. Connolly was on Cape Cod at the time of the Miami murder so he either had a very long reach or the conviction was in error. It was the latter as the trial judge admitted but he upheld it because Connolly’s lawyer filed a motion to vacate the conviction too late. It’s sort of like being convicted of murdering Drac Cula, going off to prison, and then having Drac Cula show up alive and the judge saying you didn’t file the appeal on time therefore you have to stay in prison.

There are other legal issues that relate to Connolly’s incarceration but unfortunately in Florida the appeals courts are too busy to decide them and they just turn them down without giving a reason. Justice Brandeis would find that very troubling that a person could be confined for so many years without an appeals court telling us whether the trial court acting in such an unusual  manner was correct. It’s an unusual form of justice where a lawyer’s mistake can put a person in prison for 40 years

 

.

 

 

33 thoughts on “The Sunshine State Needs Some Sunlight: Part One

  1. Justice Brandeis noted:” If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.”

    In an ideal world, in America, these words would be the official public policy mantra, but my personal experiences have informed me that America has turned into a country that is run by the Power Elite. C Wright Mills describes this phenomenon in his book titled “The Power Elite” that was published in 1956. He describes a troika of power that rests with Big Business, Politics, and Military. And, that those at the top of those power structures ‘coincide’ with each other in order to maintain there personal branded power. The centralization of POWER has consolidated since then:TOO BIG TO FAIL AND PROSECUTE. Where do we seek justice when the injustice of power is our destruction? To quote Euripides.Assuming for argument sake, if you have an insider, such as former agent Connolly, for example, who has an insider’s story to tell, what better way to shut him up than not to hear his appeal?

    However, the one problem that I foresee with former agent Connolly is that he may not have committed the act of which he has been convicted, but if Justice Brandeis’s test of full sunlight were to become effective, then perhaps former agent Connolly himself would not want the ‘sun to shine all the time’. I know that I still have been waiting for him to tell me who John Iuele is and what was his relationship with Mr. Iuele?

    Florida is not the only state that needs disinfecting…New Hampshire is on par with Florida in trying to keep its dirty secrets in the shadows. Where is today’s Justice Brandeis? My experience is that today he would have not made it through the Senate gatekeepers that support America’s Power Elite. I hope that I am wrong in that observation.

    1. Jean:

      Yes, excellent point with which I agree. Connolly also would not want the sunlight to expose the full extent of his dealings with the gangsters. His problem that I see is his refusal to testify in his own behalf in both of his trials but to express himself in his out-of-court statements. I believe Connolly took advantage of his position in the FBI to do things that his job approved but would seem somewhat improper if exposed to public light. Whether he took money or not is really not important to understanding him. He has steadfastly denied it and the lying gangsters prompted by their desires for deals or exculpation (Whitey not accepting he was an informant) say he took money. What gives lie to most of what they say is the amount they suggest they gave Connolly; these gangsters were to cheap and covetous of money to give him more than a few thousand; probably not much more than they would have given Morris which everyone seems to agree was about 7,000.

      Perhaps you are right that Brandeis never would have made it through the Senate but I don’t think a man of his ethics and brilliance would even be nominated for the job in today’s society – but then again some of the people who have been nominated seem well suited to fill the position. So perhaps our judiciary is still a bright light but it must pick up its courage and step up its game and not get bogged down in some of the nonsense.

      1. Matt,

        For argument sake, let’s assume that John Iuele was just one of the bust out S&L bank robbers who was affiliated with Michael Milken and Drexel Burham, and for such deeds, Michael Milken went to jail, and Drexel Burham was shuttered…my facts are clear on this assumption. And, my facts are also clear that when I met the retired former FBI agent John Connolly he introduced himself as a business associate of John Iuele. What was the legal purpose of former FBI agent Connolly’s relationship with John Iuele? And, if John Iuele proves to be Whitey Bulger I would ask that same question…

        1. Dear Jean,

          I am struck by this mention of how John Connolly may have been involved in the effort to gain control of your family property and its lucrative natural springs. This is a new fact to your story, which I do not recall ever reading before. Based on your recollection of events, did John Connolly appear with “John Iuele” at the same time, or did you meet these parties on different occasion? Did John Connolly ever introduce himself as an FBI agent to you, by showing his badge? Finally, did Michael Milliken ever meet with you as well, prior to his incarceration?

          Thanks so much for sharing what are undoubtedly very painful memories, if you are able to do so; you seem like a very brave woman to face all of this, Jean…

          Sincerely,
          Jay

          1. Jay,

            I have made the John Iuele and John Connolly connection public before, but most likely in information on nhjustice,net. When John Iuele was selling me on his contacts he mentioned Winthrop Properties. This was in 1989, and then he disappeared, as I have written. Several years later, a man came to the office in Boston where I was working. His name was John Connolly. He said he worked for Winthrop Properties. He said he had been referred by John Iuele. However, one of the other women in the office instantly recognized him as John Connolly the former FBI agent who was now working at Boston Edison. Her husband also worked at Boston Edison, and she had met Mr. Connolly at a Christmas party. At that time, I had no idea of Mr. Connolly’s connection to James Bulger. I never made the facial connection until the Boston papers were carrying the Bulger story on the front pages.

            So in my personal experience, I have linked Mr. Connolly to Mr. Iuele. And, my facts link Mr. Iuele to Judge Stahl. No, I never met Micheal Milkin, but Mr. Iuele showed me a letter that connected Mr. Iuele to Drexel Burnham, and Executive Life, which has been linked to Milken. it was my complaint about mr. Iuele, Mr. Gene Phillips company First Equity, and Alan Teal that caused me to be named as a suspect in an OC investigation into insurance Ponzi scheme in PA. I was able to convince the AUSA prosecutor that I was a victim. I ended up testifying for the prosecution, but then left high and dry when I asked for help with my situation. I was led to believe that both Boston FBI and HQ refused to investigate Iuele or Phillips. This was in March 1997.

            Three weeks later the pump house to the spring water business was sabotaged. And, by September 11, the main borehole was contaminated with a cocktail of carcinogens to include heavy metals. NH named me as the primary suspect, an Eco terrorist. It protected Reginald Danboise, the real suspect, and his associates. I have laid all this out in great detail in No Witness = No Case that is posted on nhjustice,net in High Birches section.

            My problem is that I don’t know what I can’t no. And, my family and I are only civilians. We were taught to dial 911 to report crimes. We have been dialing for two decades, and no one has picked up the call. I am in the process of dialing again. We can only pray that someone is there to pick up this time.

        2. Dear Jean,

          Thanks so much for opening up a little more about your painful experience.

          Sometimes it is hard for me to believe you are still standing and as alert as you are after having encountered so many nefarious characters. I wonder if there are any other characters in the picture which I’ve not heard about; have you ever had any personal dealings with Brian Kelly or Fred Wyshak, and do you think they would have any jurisdiction to intervene on your behalf in this case?

          You mentioned that John Connolly and John Iuele both met with you in Massachusetts, so maybe you could make a case to them about this? They are aggressive prosecutors, as we have all learned. Have you tried contacting either of them about your case? Could there be any interstate commerce implications to get some federal jurisdiction applied here, Jean, as it sounds very much as if New Hampshire has few options left for you.

          I am shocked to learn that it sounds like the Granite State is attempting to prevent you from collecting Social Security benefits as well; what does the State have to gain? If Massachusetts would not be appropriate — as Matt may recommend NOT approaching Kelly or Wyshak about your case (not that it is my intention to speak for him) — perhaps you could try contacting the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York; isn’t that where Michael Milliken was based out of?

          I understand that we are talking about a long time ago here, and surely there are statute of limitations issues. I’m just trying to suggest some other options, since, based on what you’ve described, it sounds like New Hampshire has not been your ally in all of this. Hopefully, you will find some allies in state and federal government, Jean; you deserve that at least.

          Sincerely,
          Jay

          1. Jay,

            Again, thank you for your concern. The short answer to your jurisdiction question is that I did contact John Durham at the time he was appointed to investigate the FBI corruption issue, and write a REPORT. The REPORT has never been delivered to the public. I personally received no response from Durham.

            In the past I contacted my US Representatives in both NH and MA. It appears from all their ‘no response’ actions, or worse, that the Power Elites that are named in the Timeline of events over the last several decades have also the $ that speaks more loudly than my family’s constitutional rights.

            Today, we are sending yet another plea for assistance for some competent jurisdiction of legal authority to take control of our global complaints. We believe that the comprehensive jurisdiction is a Federal one, and since our situation was referred to the OIG of US Department of State, and to the US DOJ Criminal Division by the OIG of the US DOJ in August 2009, we will be sending our request there, as well as to the NH and Massachusetts State authorities.

            And, since the internet has become today’s ZOLA, we will be posting our request on nhjustice.net. In the past we have found that our documents somehow have gone missing from both State and Federal files. If that continues to happen, now all we have to do is refer to the online postings. The online postings also serve as public notice.

            We are cautiously optimistic that due to US AG Holder’s recent statements that US DOJ has been pursuing more indictment in 2014, our situation may be covered at that time. We have never believed we were the only take over hostile target, but, merely part of a larger pattern.

            Interestingly, the issue of statutes of limitations is a double edged sword in my situation. If a defendant has been legally declared ‘not competent’ the statutes of limitations stop. In my situation the financial document that was the cause of my arrest is a so called 1989 Judgment. We have solid proof that that Judgment was procured by a fraud upon the court as well as against my family. It would appear that 1989 and all acts thereafter in the pursuant of criminal acts and cover ups would be open for investigation. Additionally, there are no statutes on murder, or the cover up of a murder. A full and fair investigation would find that the disappearance and false autopsy of my mother Agnes Sovik Allan would most likely not be subjected to statutes of limitations, or at least should not be.

            The ‘hidden springs’ have been the nexus of our troubles. Long ago I was told by a mobster that if the springs were smaller, then my family could have kept them. But, since they possessed reserves of up to one million gallons per day, they were targeted for a hostile takeover. And, when you read the Timeline of events, you will see how hostile the Power Elites can get when they want something.

      2. John Connolly was right not to testify at his trials. Whatever he said, the Federal prosecutors would have used a serial killer/serial perjurer like Martorano, Salemme or Flemmi, to contradict him and the FEDs would then try him for perjury. Remember, Connolly’s lawyers were pleased with the outcomes in Boston and Florida; in Boston he was acquitted of all serious charges; in Miami he was acquitted of First Degree Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Murder, but convicted of a charge for which the Statute of Limitations had run. Connolly’s Miami lawyers were jubilant after the jury verdict. It was the judge in Florida who screwed Connolly as had Judge Tauro in Boston sentencing him to 10 years for relatively minor obstruction of justice charges. It bears repeating that one juror in Boston said he would not have voted to convict Connolly on any count if he thought Connolly would be sentenced to jail: he obviously expected probation. So. refusing to testify is generally the better course of action, especially when dealing with the zealots in the FEDS. I blame the FEDs and the judges for his prolonged and wrongful imprisonment, not Connolly nor his legal counsel. What Connolly needs is an honest jurist, few and far between in America’s system of “justice” as I’ve witnessed it.

        1. Dear Matt,

          Given the nexus between the Florida state prosecution and the less successful federal prosecution in Massachusetts, I have a question. Is it possible for a state law enforcement actor to sign off on a criminal complaint for federal court, and would it be possible for a federal law enforcement actor to sign off on a criminal complaint for federal court? I’m not sure how these jurisdictional issues play out; it’s my understanding that customarily, the FBI has jurisdiction over federal law enforcement matters in federal court, and state police (or local/ municipal law enforcement agencies) have jurisdiction over law enforcement matters in state court.

          Matt, during all of your many distinguished years as a federal prosecutor, was there ever a time where a federal law enforcement officer would sign off on a criminal complaint used in your office as the basis for an arrest warrant out of Norfolk District Court — “federal law enforcement officer” meaning an agent from the FBI, DEA, ATF, or other federal entity?

          Per contra, do you know of any instance when a state or local law enforcement officer would sign off on a criminal complaint for federal court? I may be somewhat unclear about the interplay between federal and state jurisdictions, and how these play out in the real world. As you have previously found naivete in my own attention to documentary sources such as case and statutory law, I would greatly value your insights into how this works in practice.

          Eagerly yours,
          Jay

          P.S. William, you may have some thoughts as well given your legal expertise, though it sounds like your practice area leaned more toward civil matters. If you have any thoughts about this, please do share as well! 🙂

          1. CORRECTION: “…for a federal law enforcement actor to sign off on a criminal complaint for STATE court,” NOT for FEDERAL court.

            So the question is, can state law enforcement sign a criminal complaint used as the basis for a federal court arrest warrant; and can federal law enforcement sign a criminal complaint used as the basis for a state court arrest warrant?

            Also, can you imagine any specific situations where these scenarios may occur?

          2. Jay:

            I doubt a state officer could go before a federal judge and get a warrant; I’m not sure on whether a federal officer could get one from a state judge but in practice the federals can always get a state officer to tag along.

          3. Jay:

            The Florida prosecution would have been brought by a Florida prosecutor based on the evidence that the federals (Wyshak) supplied to him. All the witnesses in the case were federal witnesses who had made deals with the feds (although both Flemmi and Martorano would have gotten deals from Florida so that they would deal with the federals.)

            The relationship between Florida and the federals had been established back at the time the plea deals were made. Martorano, Weeks and Flemmi had to get agreements from those states that they would go along with the deals made by the federals. The whole show was a federals show from the gitfo and the states had no independent investigation or witnesses.

            It is common for states to develop evidence and turn it over to the federals. The state prosecutor will usually be cross designated to try the case in the federal court along with the federal prosecutors. In those cases only one jurisdiction will usually take the case and it will be prosecuted in only one of them.

            I was a state prosecutor. Take the Salvi case, the person who shot up the abortion clinics. When that case happened the federals wanted to take the case but we said we would do it. They weren’t happy but there was nothing they could do. They still had jurisdiction over it but they deferred to us.

            Unless court permission is given, a federal cannot try a state case or vice versa. What happened in Connolly’s case may not have happened before. The usual way things happen is that the state court tries it first and if it loses the federals step in as we’ve seen in a NY City case involving the assault on some Jewish men and in the South where it seemed the juries tended to favor the defendants. I know of no other case where the federals lost and then the state prompted by the federals decided to go forward with a prosecution.

            Think of how bad this is, Martorano in his book tells how he and others in Winter Hill were killing people for Gerry Angiulo. They sent Joe McDonald and Jimmy Sims to Florida to murder one of those people. Because the federals were protecting Martorano, he was never charged with that murder. The relationship between the federals and Florida is so close and in the Connolly case the evidence was all from the federals and a federal prosecutor along with a state prosecutor tried the case which to my mind suggest Connolly was put in jeopardy twice.

          4. Thanks a lot for sharing those insights, Matt! It is so interesting to consider! Do you ever recall a time when a federal law enforcement officer signed off on a criminal complaint used as the basis for an arrest warrant in state court? I recall you mentioning that you had close working relationships during your impressive and extensive criminal justice work.

            Would such relationships ever form a basis for a federal agent, rather than a state one, to sign an affidavit and criminal complaint which would lead to an arrest warrant issued by the state court? You stated that you were not sure if the federal officer could get one from a state judge; but do you recall this ever happening during your many years in Norfolk County?

            I apologize Matt for being naive about this, or if it appears that I am belaboring the issue. It is just unclear to me whether you ever recall this actually happening in practice.

            Thanks a lot; your lived experience about these matters is unrivaled, and while I may research other matters, questions such as these I defer wholly to you. Just like your intimate knowledge of life growing up in South Boston neighborhoods, there are some things I concede are beyond my grasp. I thank you for these moments when you generously offer to bring those distant fruits of knowledge just a little bit closer.

            Respectfully,
            Jay

          5. Jay:

            I don’t think a warrant can be issued to a federal officer by a state court. I don’t recall it ever happening because as I’ve mentioned the federals usually will drag some state officer along.

            MA General Laws Ch. 276 sec 2A sets out the form of a warrant. It reads in relevant part: “To the Sheriffs of our several counties, or their deputies, any State Police Officer, or any Constable or Police Officer of any city or town, within our said Commonwealth.” That would seem to foreclose a judge issuing one to a federal officer.

  2. I hope this works out for John. He certainly made some mistakes along the way, but he certainly does not deserve more time in prison than Martorano, Weeks, Flemmi, and the rest of these animals no matter what you think of him as a person. What has been done to him is a disgrace to the justice system. Wyshak should be ashamed of himself, but, unfortunately, I think he is actually proud. Self examination does not appear to be one of his strong suits.

  3. Excellent post. A jury of his peers in Boston finds him NOT GUILTY of leaking information that led to the Callahan murder and NOT GUILTY of taking a bribe and NOT GUILTY of all the serious charges( Boston Globe) Yet he gets a ten year sentence from a dishonest and biased judge. He’s then retried in Fla. by the same prosecutor on the same charge. No one in that state ever heard of the concept of double jeopardy. The corrupt judge in Fla. admits that the Statute has expired yet still sentences him. A special counsel is needed to redress the criminal acts of the Fla. government and the Federal government. Connolly would have gotten a fairer deal from North Korea.

  4. The FEDs, in the person of FED prosecutor Fred Wyshak, retried Connolly in a sham trial in a Miami courtroom for a crime he was acquitted of by a federal jury in Boston. Connolly was convicted of a crime (second degree murder by gun) for which the statute of limitations had run and an essential element of the crime was never proven. The judge improperly instructed the jury about the law. The Appeals Court upheld the judge’s flagrantly erroneous ruling/sentence without comment. John’s legal team is patiently awaiting for the full panel of the Appeals Court to reconsider the matter. It’s been five years since trial, three years since the Appeals Court refused to act. I’m afraid John Connolly will receive no more justice in Florida than the South Boston Veterans received from Massachusetts’ judiciary in the Parade case. The Constitutional violations of Connolly’s rights are manifest and manifold. If, as the trial judge found, Connolly’s lawyers failed to raise the Statute of Limitation defense in a timely manner—there is no time bar to raising a SOL defense as I understand Constitutional Law—-the failure to raise the SOL is, according to SCOTUS, “per se ineffective assistance of counsel”, as I recall the case law. Ineffective assistance of counsel necessitates a new trial, but Connolly cannot be retried on a count for which the SOL has run and no proof of an essential element has been proffered or can be proffered. Connolly should have been released immediately in Florida. The travesty continues. Drefus/Connolly is a proper analogy.

    1. Did evidence collected by the FBI in the federal prosecution in Massachusetts become the same evidence used in the state prosecution in Florida? Was any independent investigatory action adopted by Florida authorities at the state level?

      Just curious to understand more about this interchange.

      1. Jay:

        Wyshak and his investigators drove down to Florida in a U-Haul with all the evidence. The whole case was based on the evidence of the federals.

  5. I think it all comes down to being evil. Could it be karma? Could he have done something that we are ALL not aware of? Only John and his god know. He in my opinion is dirty, But he has served his time and needs to be released.

  6. JOhn Connolly is a good man who is wrongfully imprisoned for a crime he never committed or intended. Remember, the chief witness against him in Florida, Steve Flemmi, had from 1995-2003 while in Federal custody said and testified under oath that Connolly was an honest cop. As late as 2006, Flemmi testified under oath, according to Reporter David Boeri, that John Connolly never said or did anything intending anyone be killed. Two years later Flemmi changed his mind and sang a different tune in Miami. So, I believe John Connolly was honest and never took a dime. I too hope and pray that he’s released from prison, as soon as possible.

    1. William:

      I think the argument that Flemmi changed his testimony is very weak. Flemmi was Connolly’s buddy up until the late ’90s. Connolly and Flemmi were passing messages back and forth in an attempt to help Flemmi in his case. Connolly wrote a couple of fake letters trying to help Flemmi get out of jail. Flemmi is one of the worst people in the world yet Connolly was his friend. Of course Flemmi would not say anything derogatory againt him while he thought he could help him out. Remember Flemmi said Morris gave him a tape which clearly come from Connolly. Flemmi was lying about Connolly prior to the time he turned state’s evidence in order to gain a benefit for himself.

      Was Flemmi who as I’ve pointed out is no better than the contents of a benji ditch telling the truth when he he was trying to please Connolly or was he telling the truth when he was trying to please the prosecutors? Was Flemmi telling the truth when he said Whitey murdered Debbie Davis or was he telling the truth when he told Martorano he strangled her? I suggest you do a disservice to Connolly when you write about Flemmi’s statements without putting them into the context in which statements were made.

  7. Connolly doesn’t need a lawyer, he needs Emile Zola. His case must be put before the public, and, argued in the press. Connolly needs a star/celebrity involved in his case who can focus media attention on his legal plight and keep the case in the news.

    1. Khalid,

      I looked up Emile Zola, and while I agree with you that the Connolly case in its totality should be argued in public, which I believe we are doing here, I am not certain that Zola would have hopped on board as Connolly’s savior. Concerning the FBI Top Echelon Program there were no true innocents. As part of the public outcry for “sunshine” perhaps a good start would be the publication of “The Durham Report”. That expose would be a good first step, but then look at the potential “embarrassment” , or worse. The USDOJ is truly on the horns of a dilemma. I agree with Matt. Connolly should have spoken out a long time ago, and let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps he could be a true martyr and spill the beans now. It is never too late to speak truth to power.

      1. Jean:

        There are a multitude of differences between Connolly and Dreyfus; but one similarity, the accusations against both were accepted by the public; when those against Dreyfus were put under a microscope and further examined they were shown to be greatly exaggerated, anti-Semitic and in some aspects quite false. That is what is suggested be done for Connolly.

        1. Matt,

          I totally agree that the entire Connolly matter should be put under a microscope…what I was trying to point out was that Connolly is his best witness, but that for some reason he only wants to deal with his current situation in a limited fashion, and leave the rest of US in the dark.

          I stipulated that most likely Connolly was railroaded in Fla., but as you pointed out he did not testify in his defense when he had the right to do so. Why was that? And What has changed, if anything. And, what more is to be known as to why the Durham Report has never been delivered? And, I can think of one or two more questions that beg answers from US DOJ, FBI and Connolly. And, it appears to be that you are our modern day Zola…

    2. Khalid:

      Exactly right but right now he is in a big hole since few care because few understand his plight. I hope by keeping this alive the poor man will get some sort of relief. I have reasons for not liking what he has done in the past so I’m not a big fan but I do believe there comes a time when a manifold injustice occurs and his present situation shouts out to me as one example.

  8. Its bigger than Connolly. If the “G” can get more than one bite at the apple, no one is safe. They could keep bringing people to trial until they get the outcome they want, and, I believe that would be a sorry turn of events.

    1. Khalid,

      Or perhaps what is equally effective when “G” corruption issues are at stake (as in my case) is that “G” just makes the defendants “not competent” to testify, and silences the defendants, and the facts in their ‘affirmative defenses” along with them. But, with the “Zola” neutral internet, defendants can now find a voice to the public…and plea their cases in the court of public opinion…but, this path is no substitute for the “Rule of Law” and “G” doing it’s duty to it in the first place.

    2. Khalid:

      If “G” wants to get you it will. Of course this is much bigger than Connolly but to hide that he has become the scape goat. Logic tells you the same prosecution team cannot try a case in two separate sovereigns. The double jeopardy rule has bee around since Magna Carta days. Lately like other long held precepts alike imprisoning people without charges and avoiding torture things have changed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *