Update on the Frog Gravy Legal Case

February 21, 2012

The Kentucky Supreme Court denied our Motion For Discretionary Review of the Frog Gravy legal case without opinion or comment. Here is a copy of the order:

11 02/15/2012 FINALITY: FL


This means we have reached the end of the road on the direct appeal in Kentucky and the published opinion by the Court of Appeals is the law of the case. The briefs filed by the parties will be available online at the Chase Law School in Kentucky at some point.

Documents in this case, including the briefs and the published opinion (pdf), are also available here:


The preliminary hearing is here:


The Grand Jury hearing is here:


The exculpatory labs are here:


The suppression hearing is here:


The first order denying suppression:


And the second, and the third:


Other documents:


What is the next step in this case?

There are three options right now:

1. Do nothing. The case no longer specifically impacts our day-to-day lives one way or the other. Fortunately, my wife is not on death row. The case will impact others in the future, because it is published and it sets precedent. One option is to do nothing.

2. Petition the United States Supreme Court for Certiorari, or review, of the decision. The issues are very specific in such a petition. Here is more information about Certiorari:


3. File a state habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In Kentucky, this is called an 11.42 petition. Here is more information about that:


It will be interesting to see how this case will impact future cases.

This latest result is entirely consistent with the patterns and practices of the case so far, as evidenced by these documents.

Has Obama Decided To Start A War With Iran To Assure That He Wins The 2012 Election?

February 18, 2012

I write to warn everyone that President Obama likely intends to start a war with Iran before the November election even though two days ago,

(a) Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, admitted that Iran is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes and not attempting to develop a nuclear weapon; and

(b) Chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, admitted that Iran is unlikely to start a war on its own.

Jason Ditz at antiwar.com reports today,

Officials say Obama has been telling Israel he wants to “give sufficient time” to the current round of sanctions before starting the war, though they say that in the end the result will start be a war because Iran is “behaving like sanctions don’t matter.”

Ditz further reports that,

Obama advisers are now calling September or October the “sweet spot.”

For additional information on what I believe to be Obama’s complete capitulation to corporate America’s lust for unfettered access to Iranian oil and his decision to act in “lockstep” with Israel, allowing Netanyahu to drag us into an aggressive, unnecessary and illegal war with Iran in order to assure that he defangs the eventual Republican nominee for president and wins the November election, please listen to this 24-minute interview of David Bromwich by Scott Horton at antiwar.com.

Also, please take a few minutes to read Bromwich’s article at the Huffington Post titled, Obama’s Drift Toward War In Iran.

The Real Estate Forfeiture Settlement Is A Mirage

February 11, 2012

In one of his articles yesterday at Firedoglake, David Dayen mentioned that the settlement agreement has not been reduced to writing.

That is astonishing.

Let me repeat. That. Is. Astonishing.

The biggest problem with settlement agreements in particular, and all agreements in general, is reaching a so-called ‘meeting of the minds’ regarding the details and ‘chiseling them into stone’ by reducing them to writing. As I used to warn my clients when I was practicing law, we do not have an agreement until it has been reduced to writing, thoroughly reviewed, and signed by each of the parties. That has obviously not happened in this case.

Experience has taught us that humans dealing in good faith make mistakes, no matter how careful they are, and the potential for mistakes, misunderstandings and subsequent disagreements about the terms of an agreement cannot be overestimated. That potential becomes a certainty when one or more parties to an agreement is dealing in bad faith.

That, my friends, is why we have a law called the Statute of Frauds, which requires that certain types of agreements be in writing or they are invalid and unenforceable.

For example, contracts regarding the sale of real estate must be in writing or they are invalid and unenforceable.

Given the absence of a written agreement and the vagueness regarding its terms, which is virtually incomprehensible to me, I cannot help but wonder if everyone involved in the settlement talks is being less than candid when they say an agreement was reached.

Obama would not be the first person to declare publicly that an agreement had been reached when, in fact, that was a false statement.

Why would he do that?

To pressure reluctant parties to settle. It is a variation on the old ploy, “I have scheduled a press conference in two hours at which I intend to announce that we have reached a global agreement that settles all claims in this case and provides desperately needed relief to homeowners. These discussions have gone on long enough. Agree to these terms now because they are not going to get better and if you do not, I will announce publicly that we would have had a deal except for you. Then you can explain to your constituents why there is no deal.”

Recall that he wanted to announce a global settlement during his SOTU address.

Why would the attorneys general agree?

A better question to ask would be how could they could not agree, given the severe financial limitations of state budgets these days and the practical impossibility of assembling and compensating a team of hundreds of dedicated professionals to work for many years investigating and prosecuting the numerous interstate and international crimes that have been committed. We are talking about millions of people who were defrauded during a period of close to twenty years and probably documents numbering in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. Imagine the resources that would be required to investigate and, figuratively speaking, get your arms around this vast coast-to-coast conspiracy that eventually went international in the form of exotic financial instruments of mass destruction that may yet still blow-up the world economy.

Practically speaking, only the Department of Justice has the capacity to investigate and prosecute the heinous crimes committed by the criminal banksters, and that has not and will not happen because Obama, Holder, and Breuer have decided not to do it.

This is why we have not seen a realistic and credible effort by any organization to thoroughly investigate this case. The little investigation we have seen by dedicated professionals working alone or in small groups has produced a few snapshots of wrongdoing in individual cases and resulted in a few lawsuits and indictments of low-hanging-fruit underlings, but that is all.

Having been involved in defending people in many complicated paper-intensive white collar racketeering and fraud cases, I do not believe the state attorneys general had the ponies they needed to ride in the race.Obama called their bluff and they caved.

I respect those who tried to do something, but I am not happy about their decision to not only acquiesce in approving of this apparent settlement agreement, but to try and sell it publicly. We are not stupid and we deserve to know the truth.

The truth is that Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer, and Barack Obama are corrupt and the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The Department of Justice has refused to investigate and they casually brush aside all questions by saying no provable crimes were committed.

Come on, now. How in the hell could they know that, if they have not investigated the case? It is long past time to, figuratively speaking, slam them up against the wall, call bullshit, and hold them politically accountable for their lies. They insult our intelligence when they tell us that no provable crimes were committed.

I am an experienced trial lawyer with knowledge and experience defending people charged with white collar crimes and I know what it takes to prove a case. I am calling them on their bullshit.

I suspect Obama desperately needed two things: Money and a favorable settlement for the banks.

If you have been paying attention, you would know that Wall Street donations to Obama’s campaign for reelection have slowed to a trickle and he cannot win reelection without substantial financial support from the criminal banksters.

He needed to do something dramatic to open the spigot and restore the flow of their cash into his coffers.

He also needed to find a way to conceal their identities and how much they were giving so that we the people would not know that the money was a payoff for effectively cutting off bank liability for Forfeiture Gate.

What else has happened recently, aside from this ridiculous unwritten settlement agreement with a few numbers waved around that kind of sound impressive until one considers the vast scope of this criminal conspiracy?

Obama announced that he ‘regrettably’ must accept Super PAC money in order to compete with Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Super PACs are instruments of mass electoral corruption because there are no limits on the amount of money they can contribute and their donors can remain anonymous. That means the criminal banksters can anonymously pay him off with millions.

When I step back and look at this deal, I do not see an enforceable deal. I see the mirage of a deal. I do not believe anything has changed. The forfeitures relying on forged documents will continue. The states will get some bankster cost-of-doing-business bribe money to shut-up and few, if any, homeowners will ever see the ridiculous and insulting $1800 bribe.

And that, my friends, is yet another monstrous con.

Classic Obama extend and pretend.

And to the state attorneys general, I say: Tell us the truth and save your self-respect and professional reputations. Do not go down with this con.

To The State Attorneys General: Reject The Obama Administration’s Settlement Proposal

February 7, 2012

Our system of government will not survive unless we the people believe that it will respect, abide by, and enforce the Rule of Law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against all violators, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or class.

We rely on the Department of Justice and our various state attorneys general to protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They and the police departments they supervise and rely upon to investigate and prosecute crimes, are the law enforcement arms of our federal and state governments.

At the expense of we the people who are victims of the biggest financial fraud committed in history, the Obama Administration’s proposed settlement of the real estate forfeiture crisis protects the banks that willfully and intentionally committed the crime. Moreover, the crime continues and there is no assurance that it will stop if the state attorneys general agree to the proposed settlement.

This situation is upside down and all wrong because the proposed settlement protects and rewards the criminals who committed the biggest financial fraud in history. If this case settles, how can anyone who is not a member of the 1% have any faith that our government will enforce the Rule of Law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against all violators, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or class?

The answer is self-evident.

We have reached a critical turning point in our history. If the state attorneys general adopt this outrageous and obscene settlement proposal, what little faith people still have in our federal and state governments will evaporate like the morning dew as the Sun rises bringing massive civil unrest and increasingly violent revolution.

Millions of people have been irreparably harmed, including people who were fraudulently induced to purchase intentionally overpriced homes with little or no money down financed by adjustable rate mortgages that would later skyrocket beyond their ability to pay the monthly payments and institutional investors, particularly pension funds, suckered into buying worthless mortgage backed securities. In search of ever higher profits for shareholders and mult-imillion dollar bonuses for CEOs and upper management, the TBTF banks have severely compromised and probably destroyed a working legal system governing real estate transactions to prevent frauds that was developed over hundreds of years reducing risk by protecting the integrity of sales so that buyers and sellers knew what they were purchasing and whether there were any restrictions on their use of the property or clouds on title. The system was relatively simple. Transactions were recorded in the counties where the properties were located and any member of the public could review who owned what, where it was located, the exact dimensions of property, and whether there were any encroachments, easements, other restrictions, or liens attached to it. There were legal and equitable remedies and insurance, if something went wrong, so that disputes could be resolved reasonably and equitably without violence. In service to their greed to avoid billions of dollars in recording fees and to facilitate the bundling of mortgages into mortgage backed securities to be sliced and diced into ever more exotic financial instruments of mass destruction for sale, the TBTF banks replaced this working legal system with MERS, which is little more than than a legal spreadsheet indicating who owns what. Meanwhile, most of the notes, mortgages, and other documentation no longer exist such that it is virtually impossible to verify the terms of any sales, including limitations on the use of property, the terms of the financial transactions, and who owns the note.

We use the criminal law to punish and deter others from committing similar acts of serious wrongdoing. There is no reasonable question any longer that the TBTF banks committed serious financial wrongdoing by willfully and intentionally engaging in a widespread conspiracy for profit by which they have destroyed the legal real estate recording system and caused trillions of dollars in losses.

The bankers who perpetrated this horrific financial crime must be held accountable by the criminal laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in 18 USC 1961 is the perfect vehicle with which to prosecute them. If ever there were criminal enterprises worthy of being put out of business, the TBTF banks are such enterprises.

There is no mystery to the process because the Department of Justice has written the book on how to successfully prosecute criminal organizations using the RICO statute. I know what I am talking about because I have defended people they have prosecuted.

Under threat of long prison sentences if they do not cooperate and testify against higher-ups, flip the less culpable defendants with easy cases to prove (i.e., the robo-signers and their bosses for forgeries and false statements under oath) and move up the tree of rot branch by branch building your case against the big boys.

Then you take them down. Hard.

The distressed homeowners also need principal write-downs to current fair-market value with credit for all payments made.

As I said at the beginning. We the people rely on the government to protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If our federal and state governments through the Department of Justice and the state attorneys general sign-off on this settlement proposal, they will have joined the criminal predation leaving us with no recourse except to defend ourselves by fighting back with all means at our disposal.

It’s your move.

Table Of Contents Court Briefs And Documents [Frog Gravy Legal Case]

February 6, 2012

For those of you following the legal case, here are the following documents and briefs that have been filed in the case so far. The case currently sits with the Kentucky Supreme Court, as a Motion For Discretionary Review. All of these documents are in the public domain. For law students following this case, here are all of the documents, full-text from original sources, in one convenient place:

1. Appellant opening brief:


2. Commonwealth Brief In Response:


3. Appellant Reply Brief:


4. The Court of Appeals Opinion Affirming and To Be Published:


5. Appellant Petition For Rehearing:


6. Commonwealth Response to Petition For Rehearing:

The Commonwealth did not file a response. They were not required to file such a response.

7. Court of Appeals denies rehearing without comment, opinion or analysis:


The source.

8. The Motion For Discretionary Review:


9. Commonwealth Response to Motion For Discretionary Review:


10. Will add this document on edit.

11. The docket, Court of Appeals:

The Court of Appeals docket in this case is at this site.

The status of the case today:

Case # 2011-SC-000272
Case Type Discretionary Review (CRIMINAL): (1R )
Document Type Discretionary Review: (D)
Case Status Active: (A)
Last Main Event SENT OUT FOR ASSIGNMENT (07/18/2011)


Commonwealth Full-Text Response To MDR pdf [Frog Gravy legal case]

February 6, 2012

The full-text Motion For Discretionary Review is here:


Commonwealth Full-Text Response To MDR [Frog Gravy legal case]

20111010084852102 (1)

Full Text Commonwealth Brief pdf [Frog Gravy Legal Case]

February 6, 2012

AG’s brief (1)

The Full-Text Preliminary Hearing [Frog Gravy Legal Case]

February 5, 2012

Note: Written by Crane-Station and reblogged here with permission.

Compare Lying Deputy Eddie McGuire’s under-oath testimony to the Paducah McCracken County Kentucky grand jury
to his under-oath testimony in this hearing.

This document is in the public domain, and it is transcribed from the official court-reporter transcript. I left out the discussion at the end, which was about the bond. McGuire’s lies and inconsistencies are so numerous that I have supplied emphasis at some of the points, to direct your attention to some of them. These added emphases are in italics and parentheses.

Don’t worry. It gets better. As his memory improves drastically with time, McGuire tells a fresh set of lies, stories and made-up facts under oath at the suppression hearing…and the again at trial!

For another look at the grand jury lies, and other lies at suppression including the hidden exculpatory blood test (photos included) that he lied about go here. You may also want to visit this site, and look up the excellent series of seven ‘Killer Cross That Never Happened’ articles, to get a feel for the extent of McGuire’s perjury in the various hearings, all in court under oath.

In these various hearings about the same case, all after swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him God, the only fact that McGuire is consistent with, is his name. In this hearing, for example, he contradicts himself several times within the same hearing. He makes up some asinine scenario about me being unhandcuffed but nonetheless under arrest, and running around the parking lot at night, at the hospital.

Lying under oath is a felony that carries a one-to-five year maximum sentence, unless you are a lying deputy lying under oath in Paducah, Kentucky.

Perjury involves materially false statements with the intent to deceive.

Wiki Perjury:


Suppression transcript to follow at some point.

Also of note: He lies through his teeth about what the 911 caller said in the 911 call, and he lies about what dispatch told him, and we have the full-text transcripts to proove that he lied and we will be sharing these, as usual, for everybody on the planet to enjoy.

#KentuckyJustUs and #BlowItOutYourAssDickheadMcGuire

The Full-Text Preliminary Hearing [Frog Gravy legal case]

The witness, DEPUTY EDDIE MCGUIRE, after first having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Olsen?


Q: Sir, would you state your name?

A: Eddie McGuire

Q: Mr. McGuire, how are you employed?

A. I’m a deputy with the McCracken County Sheriff’s Department.

Q. What information do you have for this Court regarding the charges that have been lodged against Rachel Leatherman, specifically the tampering with physical evidence and the first degree possession of a controlled substance?

A. On 6/28 of ’06 at approximately 8:19 p.m., we received a complaint of a Buick LeSabre with Washington plates possibly trying to obtain tar heroin in the area of Queensway Drive. I responded to the complaint. I stopped a vehicle at Cairo Road and U.S. Highway 60 upon locating it. The officer—the subject was arrested for DUI. She was transported to Lourdes Hospital for a blood sample.

(note: If you are not already aware, the blood sample was negative for both alcohol and drugs, and the photos of these exculpatory blood tests are posted in my flickr stream, as well as in several posts relating to the legal case. I knew the blood was negative. I wanted the blood test. Not only did I have nothing in my possession, but even if, hypothetically, I had, I had no motive whatsoever to try and hide anything. My blood was clean.)

Sometime between the time I put her in my seat and the time we got to Lourdes, she placed a small baggy of a suspected controlled substance in my back seat and also dropped her watch down the same crack of the back seat. I immediately obtained the controlled substance, along with the watch, and she was charged with possession of a controlled substance and tampering with physical evidence.

Q. Did she make any statements regarding the drugs that had been dropped in the back seat and the watch?

A. She said it wasn’t her drugs and that hundreds of people come through my back seat.

Q. What did she say about the watch?

A. She said it accidentally fell off her wrist.

Q. And the drugs and the watch were located in the same area?

A. Same crack.

Q. In the same crack. Prior to that, how do you know that she was the one that placed that there?

A. On the day prior, or the two days prior, I go and–it was my days off, and I actually vacuumed my seat out at this time. And she was the first one that had been in my back seat since that day.

Q. So this is something that routinely happens, so you guys are aware of that?

A. All the time.

Q. You check these cars?

A. Right.

Q. Have the–the substance that was found in the car, do you have any idea what it is?

A. It’s suspected to be crack cocaine.

(Note: Nothing had been sent to the lab for testing at this time, except for my blood. Why did he not immediately send the substance for testing, at the same time he sent my blood for testing? Why did he wait for more than a month, after the grand jury returned an indictment on the “gonna be crack” before weighing, field testing for crack, or sending the sample to the lab for testing? We believe that he did not yet have the “suspected” crack cocaine. We believe that he later diverted a small quantity of the drug from the evidence unit.)

Q. And has it been sent to the lab for analysis, or has it been placed in evidence?

A. It’s in evidence.

Q. Okay. So it will be available to be tested?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any idea approximately how much it was? Was it just a little bit?

A. Just a very small baggy.

Q. And was it not field tested?

A. It was tested for heroin since that was the suspected–

Q. Okay.

A. –complaint at the beginning. It tested negative for heroin.

Q. That occurred here in McCracken County?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Deputy.

THE COURT: Mr. Kautz?


Q. The initial call about a person in this vehicle trying to purchase heroin, is that from a known caller?

(Note: In the full-text statement from the caller, there is no mention of heroin or any other drug. The statement appears word-for-word in the Court of Appeals opinion affirming.)

A. Yes. I have a statement from the caller.

MR. OLSEN: Objection. Before we go any further, it would be easier for me if you’d just limit him to specifically asking about the drugs that were located in the car. I mean, it’s clear that that would be a suppression issue; who called, where they called from, whether they were known.

So I object to that or any question related to anything like that.

THE COURT: Mr. Kautz?

MR. KAUTZ: Judge, on direct, this officer testified as to—

THE COURT: Well, I’m not making any determinations based on any of that evidence. All I’m making my determination on probable cause is based solely upon the charges– the felony charges that are pending before me. So the other information is really not relevant.

MR. KAUTZ: So you’re—

THE COURT: I’m granting–I’m sustaining the motion.

MR. KAUTZ: His motion. All right.


Q. You pulled my client over based upon a call?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the caller make any reference to anything other than heroin?

A. No. He said that she was obtaining to buy tar heroin–was trying to buy heroin, find someone to buy tar heroin.

Q. Okay. Now, you–I take it the caller gave a description of the vehicle and the license plate number?

A. Yes. Said it was a dark blue Buick LeSabre with Washington plates.

(Note: Driving While Not From Here, only worse: Driving While From The West Coast, God Forbid.)

Q. All right. And that’s the vehicle you found somewhere down around Cairo Road?

A. Down on 60. On Cairo and 60 is where I initiated the stop, yes.

Q. And when you activated your–did you have to activate your emergency–

A. She pulled over before I activated my lights.

(His nose just grew another foot. His previous sentence was “I iniated the stop, yes.”)

THE COURT: Mr. Kautz, I’m not sure what this has to do with probable cause on the possession or tampering charges.

Q. And so–and so when you approached my client, did you arrest her on a DUI? Is that what happened?

A. Yes.

Q. Suspicion of DUI?

A. Right.

Q. Relating to alcohol or drugs?

A. Drugs. She had a beer in the car but we performed a PBT, and she had–she had very little alcohol.

Q. And what, is any, grounds did you have to believe she was using drugs?

A. Using drugs?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that it?

A. And just very fidgety, very nervous acting. But I actually stopped her with the suspicion that she possibly had some on her. When I stopped her, I asked her to step out of the vehicle, and her pants and her zipper was unbutonned. So I suspected that she possibly tried to hide some on her.

So I called for a female officer to search her because I knew I wouldn’t be able to do a thorough job of actually searching her, but the officer did not find anything at that time at the side of the road.

Q. And that’s when you made a decision to go ahead and arrest her on a DUI?

A. On DUI, yes.

Q. Based upon her fidgetyness and nystagmus?

THE COURT: Mr. Kautz, we’re not going to get into the DUI.

Q. When you arrested my client, did you search her vehicle?

A. Yes, sir. She gave me and Deputy Walters consent to search before I ever arrested her for DUI.

Q. And nothing was found?

A. Nothing was found in the vehicle other than a beer.

Q. And nothing was found when the female deputy searched her at your request?

A. Correct.

Q. Who was the female?

A. Officer Dawes with the police department.

Q. Gretchen Dawes?

A. Gretchen Dawes, yes.

Q. Conduct a thorough search as far as you could tell?

A. As far as I could tell, yes.

Q. I take it my client was never back in her vehicle after Gretchen Dawes searched her?

[break in tape recording]

Q. …to your…

A. Yes.

Q. –back seat?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, you had searched–cleaned out, vacuumed your car–

A. Yes, sir.

Q. –two days earlier?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when did you next come back on duty?

A. This was my second day back on duty.

Q. And basically–

AA. Nobody was in it the day before. I hadn’t arrested anybody the day before or that night. She was the first person I arrested that week.

Q. All right. How can you be sure that the–am I correct that the drugs were, like tucked between–

A. There’s a crack where the seat belt comes up in it.

Q. Sure.

A. And the seat belt wasn’t pulled through it, but it was–I moved the seat, and you could see it where she had–she actually picked up her watch whenevr we got back in the seat when we came back out of the hospital, and the crack was sitting right beside where her watch was. Right there–

(Lie alert! He said, earlier in this very hearing that he “immediately” retrieved the so-called baggy. Also, I asked him to retrieve my watch. He has a lot of trouble with that dilemma, and he has quite a bit of difficulty keeping his lies and stories straight, even in this hearing, as you will see.)

Q. Are you saying–

A. –by the seat belt buckle.

Q. Was it crammed down in the little gap?

A. Right, right next to her watch.

Q. So, I mean–

A. [Unintelligible]…down there, as well.

Q. In the crack?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. So you couldn’t just–the seat comes in and out, obviously, easily because it’s detached for the purposes of searching. And I just moved the seat back, and it was sitting right there.

Q. You couldn’t see it if you were standing outside the car looking in?

A. Right. I don’t believe you could.

Q. So, basically, are you telling me that the watch and the substance that you believe to be cocaine were found, what, right next to each other?

A. The watch was, I believe, sitting on top of it.

Q. Okay. And how can you be sure it wasn’t there before, the crack cocaine?

A. Because no one had been in there before her.

Q. Well, did you take the seat out when you vacuumed the car?

A. Yes.

Q. Took the whole seat out?

A. The whole seat comes out, yes. The back seat is not attached to anything. You can just pull it directly out. I can pull it out and sit it next to my cruiser and vacuum underneath the seat.

Q. And this is the way you usually do it?

A. That’s the way I always do it.

Q. Physically, I mean, take it all the way out?

A. Yes, yes at the car wash.

Q. The–so you transport to the hospital?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. The videotape was running?

A. Yes Yes.

Q. No audio–you didn’t turn the camera around to–

(Note: On the audio, later in the tape, I demand twice that McGuire field test and lab test the substance immediately. This is audible.)

A. No.

Q. –look at her?

A. No.

Q. The videotape was running out there at the scene, too?

A. Yes, yes, sir.

Q. Audio?

A. The audio was working inside the vehicle. Between the time I arrested her, I left the video running from the time I got to Lourdes and the jail just to tape any statements that she was going to make. So that’s available.

(The Commonwealth buried them. They did not want my clear, concise statements to see the light of day. That’s the beauty of YouTube. I can make the tape available myself. It is so long that it exceeds YouTube limits, so I will have to figure out how to do this.)

Q. So you didn’t see her as you were going to Lourdes making any moves that would be consistent–

A. She was cuffed behind the back, so…

Q. So you–but you didn’t see her–

A. I didn’t–

Q. She didn’t make any movements that caused you to believe at that point that she might be trying to hide something?

A. No.

(Check the grand jury transcript. He lied about this too.)

Q. Okay.

A. It was a suspicion all along that she had something in her possession based on the original complaint.

Q. Did you find the watch and the item believed to be crack before or after you went in the hospital?

A. She made the statement that she had dropped something when we were getting out of the car. She said either “Something’s in the back seat,” or, “I dropped something.”

Q. Her watch?

A. And so I suspected that she had at that time, but I didn’t retrieve it at that time. I secured the vehicle, locked it, and we went into Lourdes because I was getting ready to get a blood sample.

Q. Okay. And she submitted to the blood test?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when you went back outside, that’s when you looked for what she said she had dropped?

A. Right.

(Not what he said earlier under oath in this hearing.)

She went around to the opposite side of the vehicle that she was at the first time. When she was transported to Lourdes, she was directly behind me in the seat. And when we were walking out of Lourdes after she gave me the blood sample, she went to the other side of the car, and then she immediately reached in.

When I unlocked the door, she reached in and picked up the watch. And that’s when I looked and the cocaine was down there. The crack cocaine.

Q. But she had told you even before she went in that she had dropped her watch–

A. Right.

Q. –and wanted your help to get it?

A. She said that she had dropped something or something had–“Something’s in my seat,” or something like that. I don’t remember her exact words.

But that–whatever she did say is going to be on the video–audiotape?

A. If it picked up, because she was standing outside the car.

Q. Okay. Now, once you found what–you say she basically retrieved the watch?

A. Yes. Because I had to uncuff her because of the blood test, and I never cuffed her back.

Q. Because she was being cooperative?

A. Right.

Q. –she basically said “That’s not mine. I got nothing to do with that”?

A. Right.

Q. Did she also mention that it wouldn’t make any sense for her to ask–for her to tell you–for her to ask for your help in finding something if she had hidden some coke?

A. I believe that’s on the tape.

Q. Okay. And that doesn;t make a whole lot of sense, does it?

A. That’s what I would say if I was–had just dropped cocaine. She was trying to talk me out of charging her with–

Q. All right. If you had dropped cocaine and your watch, you wouldn’t have asked the officer to help you find your watch though, right?

A. No. She got my (sic) watch. She grabbed the watch in hopes that I wouldn’t check the back seat. She picked up the watch as soon as she got in the car.

(Oh, okay. Now I’m not outside the car like he just said two minutes ago. Now I’m in the car.)

Q. All right. So no statements, admissions, confessions, anything like that?

A. No.

Q. She basically–

A. She denied it.

Q. Okay. Based upon the fact that she denied possessing the substance–the baggy, is it just a little corner?

A. It’s just a small–very small, maybe a gram.

(He was off by a factor of ten. It was 0.144 grams, about one-tenth of what he claims, but nice try for someone who most likely didn’t have a so-called ‘baggy’ yet.)

Q. Have you preserved it in such a way that it could be dusted for prints?

A. It’s possible that it could. It’s a very small baggy.

Q. Do you intend to cause it to be dusted for prints?

A. I can attempt it.

Q. Would you mind doing that?

A. Sure.

Q. Okay. Do you have somebody at the sheriff’s office that knows how to do that?

A. I could probably ask around.

Q. Okay. And if somebody at the sheriff’s office–

A. We can always send it to the lab and request fingerprints be obtained.

Q. And you’ll be willing to do that?

A. Yes, sir.

(McGuire never dusted for prints. He never asked around. He never requested that a lab dust for prints. No prints were ever obtained. Because my prints were not present on any sort of baggy. He lied when he said that he would attempt to get any prints.)

Q. Okay. The evidence that you’ve given today is all of the evidence that you know about that would connect–that would connect my client to either of these crimes?

A. Yes, sir, I believe so.

MR. KAUTZ: That’s all I have.


(I actually really like Kevin Olsen. I’m not faulting him at all, but check out this recovery here that he pulls right out of his ass. It’s brilliant: ‘The old Oops I Dropped Something. Thing.’ Yes, Mr Olsen! That thing! Everybody in the world does the old oops-I-dropped-some-drugs-officer-can-you-help-me-find-them-please.)

Q. Just let me break it down very simply.

Prior to her getting into that car, nobody had been in the back seat since you had cleaned it?

A. No, sir.

Q. And then she tried to the, “oh, my goodness, I dropped something” and blame whatever you found, the drug stuff, on somebody else. Did she make the comment that it could have been anybody–

A. Yes.

Q. –that there had been other people in your car?

A. She said there have been hundreds of people come though my back seat, I believe.

Q. She did not know that you had just cleaned that car?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. And that occurred in McCracken County.

A. Yes, sir.

In the beginning (and BTW, he flashed a tiny crumb-like substance in front of me in the dark. I do not remember seeing a “baggy” that night. He ignored my demands that he field and lab test it immediately.) I initially thought that another person may have stashed or dropped something. Now, unless someone can evidence-based convinced me otherwise, I believe it was McGuire. Also, after this happened, I spoke with a person who used to work in the same department many years ago who I will not name, and he/she told me that they find all sort of stuff in the backs of cop cars- guns, even…and they have no idea how some of the stuff gets there.

Also, here is an article about cops planting stuff, where the cops themselves admit to it.

A Capella Music For Your Listening Pleasure: The Bobs

February 2, 2012

The Bobs perform Psycho Killer (Talking Heads)

In a White Room (Cream) performed by The Bobs

The Bobs are an a cappella group originally from San Francisco, where the group formed in the early 80s, and now located in Seattle. As you can tell from the two videos, the members of the group have changed over the years. For more information, go here.

They also have their own website.

Yes, as difficult as it is to believe, they do perform without musical instruments perfectly mimicking their sounds. My favorite is In a White Room.

Hope you enjoy The Bobs.

Your Right To Due Process Of Law Is Endangered

February 2, 2012

Drone State?

by Truthout on Creative Commons at Flickr

Judges use a legal expression when they decide to prevent the potential evisceration of a fundamental rule of law by exception. In denying an argument to recognize such a proposed exception, they point out that, if they were to accept it, the exception would “swallow the rule.”

Our fundamental constitutional right to due process of law is in danger of being swallowed up by the Obama Administration’s policies of assassinating and indefinitely detaining United States citizens, no matter where they may be located, without due process of law, if the president decides that the citizen is a terrorist, supports terrorism, or is a member of al-Qaeda, an affiliate of al-Qaeda, or an associated force.

For example, in a recent federal case in which Anwar al-Awlaki’s father sued President Obama, Secretary of Defense Gates, and CIA Director Leon Panetta seeking to prevent them from assassinating his son without due process of law, the Department of Justice persuaded the judge to dismiss the case because, nothwithstanding the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that explicitly prohibit the government from depriving a person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” the judicial branch of government has no constitutional authority to question or review decisions by the president as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to assassinate U.S. citizens on his say so anywhere in the world at any time pursuant to the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress in response to 9/11, and the president’s authority under Article 2 of the United States Constitution.

Go here to read the government’s arguments in its motion to dismiss the father’s complaint.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both U.S. citizens, were subsequently assassinated in Yemen last September by Hellfire missiles fired from a U.S. drone. Mr. al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, was assassinated by drone two weeks later.

As Glenn Greenwald points out today, the Obama Administration hypocritically uses the CIA drone assassination program to publicly congratulate itself on removing targeted individuals like al-Awlaki “from the field” without due process of law while at the same it refuses to admit or deny that it has a list of targeted individuals and a drone assassination program. With the exception of Mr. al-Awlaki, whose name was confidentially disclosed to journalist Dana Priest as a person targeted for assassination, we do not know whether the president has targeted anyone else and, assuming that he has, we do not know if such person or persons have been assassinated. We also do not know what criteria the president uses to decide whether to put someone on the list. For all we know, any one of us already could be on the list or at risk to be added to it. Since we do not know whether we are on the list and we cannot find out if we are, we cannot challenge the president’s decision to add us to the list, assuming for the sake of argument that he did. We, by which I include every U.S. citizen no matter where situated in the world, are left with no choice except to trust the president to never make a mistake and never succumb to the temptation to use the assassination program for political purposes.

In the mistake department, one need only consider the relatively frequent stories that pop up about innocent people, including young children, whose names inexplicably are added to the No-Fly List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. I will not go into the category of assassinations for political purposes as it remains a raw and bleeding wound of grief and endless suspicion and speculation by many people. Think, for example of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Bruce Ivins and others too numerous to mention. The point is that many unscrupulous people of wealth and privilege covet the power of the presidency. We already know that this president is for sale and we cannot trust him. The question is whether, assuming you openly oppose him, you are willing to trust him not to target you for assassination. And if you trust him not to do so, would you also trust a Newt Gingrich, a Sarah Palin, or someone like them not to do so, if they should be elected president?

The answer to that question should be self-evident.

Consider these words written by Justice Black of the United States Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 10 (1956):

Trial by jury in a court of law and in accordance with traditional modes of procedure after an indictment by grand jury has served and remains one of our most vital barriers to governmental arbitrariness. These elemental procedural safeguards were embedded in our Constitution to secure their inviolateness and sanctity against the passing demands of expediency or convenience.

This is not the first president and certainly will not be the last to seek to detain people indefinitely and/or target them for assassination without due process of law in the name of keeping us safe. Whether in good faith or in bad faith for political purposes in the pursuit of power, I feel much safer if his decisions and actions are constrained by the Due Process Clause and the right to habeas corpus.

%d bloggers like this: