Archive for July, 2008
List of Felons Seeking Pardon From Bush Grows
FELONS SEEKING BUSH PARDON NEAR A RECORD
Saturday 19 July 2008
by: Charlie Savage, The New York Times
President Bush attends a turkey-pardoning ceremony on Thanksgiving in 2006. In the next few months, the Bush administration will decide whether to grant pre-emptive pardons to officials involved in questionable “counterterrorism” practices, to ensure that those officials will not be vulnerable to prosecution under future administrations. (Photo: whitehouse.gov)
Washington – Felons are asking President Bush for pardons and commutations at historic levels as he nears his final months in office, a time when many other presidents have granted a flurry of clemency requests.
Among the petitioners is Michael Milken, the billionaire former junk bond king turned philanthropist, who is seeking a pardon for his 1990 conviction for securities fraud, the Justice Department said. Mr. Milken sought a pardon eight years ago from President Bill Clinton, and submitted a new petition in June.
In addition, prominent federal inmates are asking Mr. Bush to commute their sentences. Among them are Randy Cunningham, the former Republican congressman from California; Edwin W. Edwards, a former Democratic governor of Louisiana; John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban; and Marion Jones, the former Olympic sprinter.
The requests are adding to a backlog of nearly 2,300 pending petitions, most from “ordinary people who committed garden-variety crimes,” said Margaret Colgate Love, a clemency lawyer.
Ms. Love, who was the United States pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997, said the backlog was overwhelming the vetting system, meaning that many petitions might not reach Mr. Bush’s desk before he leaves office.
”I have cases that date from the Clinton administration,” Ms. Love said. “I have cases that I filed in the last two or three years and have not even gotten any word about the first step of the investigation being authorized. It’s unbelievable.”
A Justice Department office with about half a dozen officials reviews petitions and recommends whether requests should be granted, although presidents are free to disregard its views. Under the Constitution, Mr. Bush can issue a commutation, which reduces a sentence, or a pardon, which forgives an offense and erases the criminal record, to anyone.
But even if a felon’s petition reaches the Oval Office, legal specialists said that most of those seeking mercy from Mr. Bush should expect to be disappointed.
The Bush administration took office amid heavy criticism of Mr. Clinton’s last-minute pardons, most notably to Marc Rich, the fugitive financier whose ex-wife had donated to Mr. Clinton’s presidential library.
Against that backdrop, Mr. Bush has made little use of his clemency powers, granting just 157 pardons and six commutations. By comparison, over eight years in office President Ronald Reagan granted clemency 409 times and Mr. Clinton 459 times. More than half of Mr. Clinton’s grants came in his final three months.
Fred F. Fielding, the White House counsel, declined to be interviewed about clemency plans.
Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman, said the administration was committed to “giving each clemency petition received the careful review that is necessary to make an appropriate recommendation.” Mr. Ablin noted that any cases left unresolved by Mr. Bush would stay open for his successor.
As the administration wrestles with the cascade of petitions, some lawyers and law professors are raising a related question: Will Mr. Bush grant pre-emptive pardons to officials involved in controversial counterterrorism programs?
Such a pardon would reduce the risk that a future administration might undertake a criminal investigation of operatives or policy makers involved in programs that administration lawyers have said were legal but that critics say violated laws regarding torture and surveillance.
Some legal analysts said Mr. Bush might be reluctant to issue such pardons because they could be construed as an implicit admission of guilt. But several members of the conservative legal community in Washington said in interviews that they hoped Mr. Bush would issue such pardons – whether or not anyone made a specific request for one. They said people who carried out the president’s orders should not be exposed even to the risk of an investigation and expensive legal bills.
”The president should pre-empt any long-term investigations,” said Victoria Toensing, who was a Justice Department counterterrorism official in the Reagan administration. “If we don’t protect these people who are proceeding in good faith, no one will ever take chances.”
Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, would not say whether the administration was considering pre-emptive pardons, nor whether it would rule them out.
”We are going to decline to comment on that question since it is regarding internal matters,” Ms. Lawrimore wrote in an e-mail message.
The administration would also not disclose any views submitted on petitions. The first time Mr. Milken sought a pardon, for example, prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission opposed it.
New petitions for clemency are on pace to surpass 2,100 this fiscal year, which ends in September. The record is the 1,827 petitions filed in 2001, which included Mr. Clinton’s final months.
P. S. Ruckman Jr., a political science professor at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Ill., said records of annual clemency petitions dated only to 1860. However, Mr. Ruckman said, it is virtually certain this year’s mark will be the most in history because the population was smaller and there were fewer federal criminal laws in the country’s early years.
The Justice Department does not release a list of petitioners, but will say whether specific people have requested pardons or commutations. The New York Times submitted nearly two dozen names of prominent felons.
The department said it had not received petitions from several recently convicted political figures, including I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff; Jack Abramoff, the former Republican lobbyist; Bob Ney, a Republican former congressman from Ohio; and George Ryan, a former Republican governor of Illinois.
The department had also not received petitions from several people associated with major financial scandals in recent years, like at Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia, nor from Conrad M. Black, the conservative former newspaper publisher, nor Martha Stewart.
It also has no petition for Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, two former Border Patrol agents whose case has become a cause célèbre among some conservatives. They were convicted of shooting a fleeing drug smuggler along the border with Mexico and trying to cover it up. The pair are ineligible to apply for clemency through normal procedures because their cases are on appeal.
But in January 2007, Mr. Bush told a Texas television interviewer that he would review the agents’ cases; presidents are free to give pardons and commutations to people who have not submitted a petition. In July 2007, for example, Mr. Bush eliminated Mr. Libby’s prison sentence even though he had not applied for a commutation.
Far more commutation petitions are being submitted than in the past, largely because of changes to federal sentencing in the 1980s: the abolition of parole and the institution of tough sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum terms. One of the charges against the Border Patrol agents, for example, carried a mandatory 10-year sentence.
Mr. Bush has received 7,146 petitions for a reduced sentence – more than five times as many as Mr. Reagan received. But the pardon office has not grown in proportion to the workload.
Ms. Love argued that the backlog and delays were “a major flaw in the justice system” because clemency is becoming more important. Sentences are longer, and the stigma of being a felon has increased because of added background checks for many things, including gaining employment and doing volunteer work, she said.
”If we really want to give people a second chance,” Ms. Love said, “then we have to include a pardon which is reasonably available to them. It’s not, now.”
——–
Sarah Abruzzese contributed reporting
Add comment July 25, 2008
More on Pentagon Pressuring Auditors
Report Says Pentagon Pressured, Intimidated Auditors
Business News Review, Posted on July 24th Link to original site: http://business.reviewnews.org/2008/07/24/report-says-pentagon-pressured-intimidated-auditors/
Auditors at a Pentagon oversight agency were pressured by supervisors to skew their reports on major defense contractors to make them look more favorable instead of exposing wrongdoing and charges of overbilling, according to an 80-page report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office.
The Defense Contract Audit Agency, which oversees contractors for the Defense Department, “improperly influenced the audit scope, conclusions and opinions” of reviews of contractor performance, the GAO said, creating a “serious independence issue.”
The report does not name the projects or the contractors involved, but staff members on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who were briefed on the findings cited seven contractors, some of whom are among the biggest in the defense industry: Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Fluor, Parker Hannifin, Sparta, SRS Technologies and a subsidiary of L3 Communications.
Supervisors at DCAA attempted to intimidate auditors, prevented them from speaking with GAO investigators and created a “generally abusive work environment,” the report said. It cited incidents of “verbal admonishments, reassignments and threats of disciplinary action” against workers who “raised questions about management guidance.”
In a case later identified as involving Boeing, the GAO said the agency made “an upfront agreement” with the company to limit the scope of work and basis for an audit in 2002. The audit related to a cost-and-pricing system of aircraft that included the C-17, aerial refueling tanker, the B-1 and other planes, according to documentation provided to Congressional staff members. These deals were being negotiated by Darleen Druyun who was then a top Air Force acquisition official. Druyun later went to prison after admitting that she favored Boeing in selecting its tanker while she was seeking a job with the company.
When DCAA auditors found “significant deficiencies” and put out a draft report of the problems, the contractor objected. The GAO said an executive told the auditors that if there was an inadequate rating, he would “escalate the issue to the highest level possible in the government and within his own company.”
The managers at the audit agency assigned a new supervisor to the case, threatening the senior auditor with personnel action if “he did not delete findings from the report and change the draft audit opinion to adequate,” the GAO reported.
Dan Beck, a Boeing spokesman, said the company had no comment on the GAO report.
The GAO said it launched the two-year inquiry after complaints on a fraud hotline. Its investigators conducted more than 100 interviews of 50 people involved in audits between 2003 and 2007. It is working on another report following a 2006 request from the Senate homeland security committee due in November.
“Some DCAA supervisors were cutting corners and pressuring their subordinates to give more favorable audits to contractors than the auditors felt the contractors deserved,” Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate committee, said in a statement. “This shows a blatant disregard for the safeguards that are supposed to be in place to ensure that contractors charge the government no more than a fair and reasonable price.”
“This report is being taken very seriously,” said Darryn James, a Pentagon spokesman. He said officials at DCAA and the Defense Department’s comptroller’s office, which oversees that agency, are reviewing the findings and “will determine what — if any — of the next appropriate steps will be. . . . We have faith in our auditors. They are held to high standards.”
In a July 11 letter to the GAO, April G. Stephenson, DCAA director, said the agency disagreed with the “totality” of the GAO’s findings. She said the agency had “taken prompt and immediate action to correct the issues.” She said she found no evidence to support GAO’s conclusions that “DCAA managers took actions against their staff that hindered their investigations.”
Pentagon Auditors Pressured To Favor Contractors, GAO Says
By Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 24, 2008; D01
Link to original site: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072301437_pf.html
Auditors at a Pentagon oversight agency were pressured by supervisors to skew their reports on major defense contractors to make them look more favorable instead of exposing wrongdoing and charges of overbilling, according to an 80-page report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office.
The Defense Contract Audit Agency, which oversees contractors for the Defense Department, “improperly influenced the audit scope, conclusions and opinions” of reviews of contractor performance, the GAO said, creating a “serious independence issue.”
The report does not name the projects or the contractors involved, but staff members on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who were briefed on the findings cited seven contractors, some of whom are among the biggest in the defense industry: Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Fluor, Parker Hannifin, Sparta, SRS Technologies and a subsidiary of L3 Communications.
Supervisors at DCAA attempted to intimidate auditors, prevented them from speaking with GAO investigators and created a “generally abusive work environment,” the report said. It cited incidents of “verbal admonishments, reassignments and threats of disciplinary action” against workers who “raised questions about management guidance.”
In a case later identified as involving Boeing, the GAO said the agency made “an upfront agreement” with the company to limit the scope of work and basis for an audit in 2002. The audit related to a cost-and-pricing system of aircraft that included the C-17, aerial refueling tanker, the B-1 and other planes, according to documentation provided to Congressional staff members. These deals were being negotiated by Darleen Druyun who was then a top Air Force acquisition official. Druyun later went to prison after admitting that she favored Boeing in selecting its tanker while she was seeking a job with the company.
When DCAA auditors found “significant deficiencies” and put out a draft report of the problems, the contractor objected. The GAO said an executive told the auditors that if there was an inadequate rating, he would “escalate the issue to the highest level possible in the government and within his own company.”
The managers at the audit agency assigned a new supervisor to the case, threatening the senior auditor with personnel action if “he did not delete findings from the report and change the draft audit opinion to adequate,” the GAO reported.
Dan Beck, a Boeing spokesman, said the company had no comment on the GAO report.
The GAO said it launched the two-year inquiry after complaints on a fraud hotline. Its investigators conducted more than 100 interviews of 50 people involved in audits between 2003 and 2007. It is working on another report following a 2006 request from the Senate homeland security committee due in November.
“Some DCAA supervisors were cutting corners and pressuring their subordinates to give more favorable audits to contractors than the auditors felt the contractors deserved,” Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate committee, said in a statement. “This shows a blatant disregard for the safeguards that are supposed to be in place to ensure that contractors charge the government no more than a fair and reasonable price.”
“This report is being taken very seriously,” said Darryn James, a Pentagon spokesman. He said officials at DCAA and the Defense Department’s comptroller’s office, which oversees that agency, are reviewing the findings and “will determine what — if any — of the next appropriate steps will be. . . . We have faith in our auditors. They are held to high standards.”
In a July 11 letter to the GAO, April G. Stephenson, DCAA director, said the agency disagreed with the “totality” of the GAO’s findings. She said the agency had “taken prompt and immediate action to correct the issues.” She said she found no evidence to support GAO’s conclusions that “DCAA managers took actions against their staff that hindered their investigations.”
Many of the companies named by Senate staff members as being in the GAO report could not be reached last night for comment.
Like many other federal agencies, DCAA has had its contracting workforce cut. The GAO said that DCAA went from having 6,000 auditors in 1989 to about 3,500 last year and that workers are frequently told to rush their reports. The agency handles about 40,000 audits a year.
The GAO said that in a 2005 case it investigated, DCAA auditors found six “significant deficiencies” where the contractor — later identified as Interstate Electronics, a subsidiary of L3 — overbilled the government $246,000, plus another $3.5 million in potential overcharges. When agency auditors reported the problems, they were replaced. New managers dropped the findings and changed the agency’s opinion from “inadequate” to “adequate.”
In another case, involving Northrop Grumman, the GAO said that supervisors at DCAA who were responsible for audits on contracts for aircraft parts and systems worth $6.4 billion didn’t review papers and trainees were assigned to work on the case. GAO said the DCAA field office “lost control” of papers on the case because the trainees didn’t “always properly enter them” in the electronic system.
Northrop spokesman Randy Belote said his company was reviewing the GAO report. “We are reserving comment on the report until we have completed our review,” he said.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Add comment July 25, 2008
For Those of You Who Like Speculating About 911
The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11, 2001
Link, to Bleachroot – Jonathan Nolan
http://bleachroot.blogspot.com/2008/07/top-40-reasons-to-doubt-official-story.html
Add comment July 25, 2008
How to Get a Presidential Pardon, Maybe Even a Preemptive One
Someone told me there was an interesting article on Presidential Pardons and Presidential Preemptive Pardons which gave a history of how the pardon process works and how that power could be used by a President, say the current one, to pardon people before they are even arrested or tried. I went to the service, which only a short time ago had posted the article on their page. It was gone. The person who alerted me to this article, also ascertained it had been removed after only being posted a short period of time. Then both of us independently searched not only for that article, but similar articles, and found oddly that things having to do with speculating that the President might pardon various people, or might pardon some ahead of time, or even might pardon himself ahead of time “for all war crimes” appear to have been removed, at least from MSN and MSN Searches. Very odd. Nice to know we have such transparency and freedom here at home.
In case anyone out there wants to join the list of those waiting for the President’s help, I did find this handy set of directions for applying for a Presidential pardon. Maybe considering asking for a pardon preemptively would be good insurance for some of you out there. Once Justice is cleaned up and the whole fraud and corruption circus is no longer being protected and covered up, it just may hit the fan. -GFS
—————————————————–
How to Get a Presidential Pardon
by eHow Legal Editor
Introduction
Presidential pardons are open to more people than just famous politicians we often hear about in the news. The fact is that anyone can apply for a presidential pardon. And there are several steps to follow in order to submit your application for a presidential pardon.
Instructions
Difficulty: Challenging
Steps
1
Step One
Create and maintain a presidential pardon workbook. This can be a 3-ring binder that is organized with dividers. These dividers can also help you protect your privacy, because you won’t have to sort through all of your documents to show someone the necessary piece of paper.
2
Step Two
Gather all the basic information and add it to your notebook. This includes your basic information, residences, employment history and military record.
3
Step Three
Detail your criminal history. Include all your previous offenses, as well as information about the offense for which you are seeking a presidential pardon.
4
Step Four
Indicate if you’ve had any other restoration efforts. Some states offer pardons, or you might have sought a certificate of restoration of civil rights. All of this information should be properly documented in your workbook.
5
Step Five
State your reasons for seeking a presidential pardon. These reasons should be valid and easy to relate to. All evidence that supports your reasoning should be included in this section of your workbook.
6
Step Six
Provide character references. These can be filled out on a standard affidavit form, or they can be submitted in the form of a letter.
7
Step Seven
Find a reputable attorney. There is a lot of paperwork and politics involved in getting a presidential pardon. An attorney can help you navigate this process and optimize your chance for a good outcome.
Tips & Warnings
· Type all of your documents instead of writing them by hand. If you need to fax them, typed documents are easier to read and that will help avoid unnecessary confusion.
Resources
· * Presidential Pardon Oath Form.
Find this article at: http://www.ehow.com/how_2123719_get-presidential-pardon.html
Add comment July 23, 2008
Autism Numbers Increase: Vaccinations Suspected
Autism, an increasing health problem in children, has been increasing at an alarming rate, said by some Dr’s to be epidemic. Though still controversial, data seems to be siding with those who are concerned that something in the succession of vaccinations we dutifully subject our children to with the intention of keeping them healthy might be the cause.
There have been whistleblowers, parents and medical professionals, desperately trying to call attention to the problem and stop the creation of more children with this difficult condition. In spite of that, we now see statistically, 6 out every 1000 children is autistic and the percentage is said to be growing.
See the link below for a video from Brasscheck TV for an interview on the subject. -GFS
——————————————————
The White House won’t protect them,
the Congress won’t protect them, your
doctor won’t protect them.
If you have small children in your
life, you must protect them.
Start with this video:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/376.html
- Brasscheck
P.S. One of the most important videos
we’ve posted in a long time.
The interview is nine months old, but
few saw it and then the issue “disappeared.”
If you don’t tell you friends and colleagues,
no one else is likely to do it.
This is one tragedy you can stop.
- Brasscheck
P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.
That’s how we grow. Thanks.
==============================
Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94115
Add comment July 22, 2008
