Comments on: Fieger Judge: Prosecution “Unusual;” Government Must Explain Recusal

By: noncooperator

noncooperator — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:02:30 +0000

I think it was Scott Horton who speculates that had Fieger given to Bush, he would been left alone. Roland Arnall, of Ameriquest Mortgage, whose employees and company cheated consumers and investors, had numerous employees make suspicious donations (first time/only donations, by both employees and spouses, of maximum allowable amount). He was not only not investigated, he was appointed ambassador to the Netherlands.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:35:44 +0000

Heh heh, saw that this morning and was wondering if there was any connection to be made the the Great Michigan Fieger Follies.

By: noncooperator

noncooperator — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:29:17 +0000

So Mike Cox was involved. Let’s see, he investigates Kwame Kilpatrick by stripping his investigators of subpoena power, clears him, holds tearful press conference where he admits to marital infidelity, accuses Fieger of blackmail, no charges pressed by comrade Gorcyca. Now states that he did not investigate marital infidelity, only whether an investigation was obstructed. However, recently released text messages reveal that the Mayor did fire the investigator. Hmmm.

By: hayduke

hayduke — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:56:41 +0000

ew, when you posted on this a month ago, I linked an article about California Republicans accused of much the same things as Fieger. The FEC got involved in that case and fined the perpetrators a big amount of money. I asked if that was related to Geoffrey’s case. I guess the judge now has posed the same question. Cox is corrupt obviously, and a stooge for the RNC. It will be interesting to see how many US Attorneys are required to dive on the sword to keep this case going.

Right on bmaz…. your points are enlightening. Same with you EW…..

Gerry Spence rules, I wish he could just stop the aging process!

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:30:41 +0000

Alright, I was nice to you on the last thread; done with that now, you are clearly either a dupe or a troll. Get lost.

By: fgator

fgator — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:59:32 +0000

It seems like the case where one person is picked out of a bunch of 10 speeders. Yet all of them can’t be arrested at the same time, if there is only 1 or 2 patrol cars.

In either case you mention, the person would have to have done something wrong, so why not prosecute and try to catch the others later.

So I see no problem.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:27:16 +0000

Heh heh, yeah, that is nice….

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:12:00 +0000

If you want to read Spence, go to the hearing (the later link, just before the description of the incentuous mass that is the anti-Fieger MI Republican Party). You can see, through this whole thing, Borman saying, “I will not be subject to the Jedi powers.” But there are moments where he can’t help himself. It might make a nice liveblog. Certainly better than Ted Wells’ theatrics.

The opinion is all Borman, and I agree with your take. My point was just that Fieger has been unclear what they were going for over time (not knowing what evidence supported their claim). But this opinion, aside from saying, “I think you’ve got a pretty substantive case on the recusal and initiation of prosecution misconduct,” pretty much clarifies for the defense what they’re arguing. Must make it easier, as a lawyer, huh?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:06:05 +0000

Borman is pretty much right. The nutshell, simplistic distinction is this: selective prosecution is where you have been singled out for charges where no others have been; and vindictive prosecution is where you are subjected to more and/or more serious (higher level) charges because you have exercised a legal and proper due process right or rights. In Fieger’s case, he is really arguing that they came after with the Fed charges because he successfully fought off the state allegations etc. and that they so came after him in a heavy handed oppressive manner. there is an element of selective prosecution, however, because although others have been prosecuted on these charges before, in this instance, he appears to be being singled out for specific reasons. The standards of proof and minutiae are different and selective is harder to make out. That is why I said Spence will weave it in, but it is not the root argument.

I will go read the opinion; sounds fun. I have seen Gerry in action before; he is a golden throated master. Could literally sell refrigerators to Eskimos. And he does it in such an unpretentious, down home, everyman, easy to understand, full of great analogies and stories manner. He is not as good as his reputation; he is better. He may not be as good as he used to be; but if he is not still the best, he isn’t far off of it. Go watch him work the room in Detroit; it will be worth the admission. He is Obe Wan Kenobee in a courtroom.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:34:31 +0000

Yes, I understand that. Though FTR, the Fieger team has been a little wishy washy about what they’re arguing and Borman has said, pretty clearly, “You’re arguing that it was vindictive prosecution.” I guess I should take his hint, huh.

Did you read that opinion? Is it as loaded as I think? and if you want some Gerry Spence fun, make sure you read the exchange from which I have taken just the substantive bits–it’s pure fun, around it. The man is old. But he’s still workin’ it.