Big congrats to my wife, and her amazing organization!
Today the New York Law Journal awarded The Bronx Defenders and Robin Steinberg the 2013 impact award for the work they do, joining other impressive winners like the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit, and The Skadden Fellowship Program...
It's rare and wonderful to see the results of actually just saying "no" to the crazies.
But it's also gotten me thinking about the messaging opportunities for progressives. That's because more than almost anything else, the recent government shut-down makes abundantly clear that the Tea Party is really more like a Frat Party--a bunch of idiotic juveniles who exhibit an infantile delight in breaking things. It seems to me to set up a terrific opportunity to send a clear message: Time to return grown-ups to congress. If I were the DCCC I'd target every single Tea Party seat RIGHT NOW, regardless of how "safe" it seems, and I'd blast them with that essential message: Your congressman just tried to blow our country up. Time to put adults back at the controls. Howard Dean was right with his 50 state strategy, and right now is a perfect time for us to begin the process of peeling off moderates.
They have been unmasked. Time to make a point of it.
I'm simply at a loss as to how to explain the thinking behind this move politically. And I think my confusion says a lot about the fundamental differences in the way Republicans and Democrats think. I'm not talking about a policy difference here. Obviously they're for this, I'm against it. But it's the political calculus that befuddles me. How can making more kids hungry play for them, unless at the core of their ideology is a kind of furious vindictiveness. It's literally like saying: "Fine. If you don't want to do your chores (work) you'll go to bed hungry." And while this kind of punishment might work once with a kid, and it might appeal deeply to the moralistic core of you-reap-what-you-sow republicanism, it is such a simplistic and myopic way to see the world I have to think that they are vulnerable on this politically.
You don't send your kid to bed hungry when they don't do their chores because they have the flu. You don't send your kids to bed hungry, when you actually PREVENT them from doing their chores, and you certainly don't refuse to feed the kid's pet rabbit because you prevented them from doing their chores and thus sent them to bed hungry...
This seems the perfect example of who republicans are and what they truly stand for. Why aren't we talking about it?
I know it's silly, but even after having spent a fair bit of time in the entertainment world I still get a thrill when I see the name of a friend come across the screen on a show I actually love. Similarly it's particularly cool when a show I actually listen to calls me for an interview. Which is what happened with a show that airs here on the west coast called "The Story" with Dick Gordon. They saw the sex offender Op-Doc and called to ask if I'd chat with them (Um...Yeah!).
While Lisa did the show from New York, I got to go down to the NPR West studios which itself was exciting. Well, here's the result.
"When we all finished filing our tax returns last week, there was a little something missing: two trillion dollars. That’s how much money Americans may have made in the past year that didn’t get reported to the I.R.S., according to a recent study by the economist Edgar Feige, who’s been investigating the so-called underground, or gray, economy for thirty-five years..."
After four long years, the Chief Judge of NY State smacked down Judge Ralph Fabrizio and his decision on the Bronx Freedom Fund.
This should stand forever as his moment of shame and should (hopefully) forever preclude his advancement. It is sad that it took us so long to overturn his vindictive decision. Worse that so many poor people languished in jail, and took so many bad pleas because of his vindictiveness....
Here's the article. There is particular satisfaction in the overt rebuke of Fabrizio's nasty and poorly reasoned attacks on us and our ethics. Turns out the unethical ones are those more concerned with power than justice...
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman (See Profile) last week praised as a way "to take the profit motive out of bond making" the program of a Bronx legal assistance organization that used charitable contributions to keep its indigent clients out of jail as they awaited trial.
Lippman's endorsement came as The Bronx Defenders prepared to resume operations of its Freedom Fund Project, which were halted more than three years ago by a Bronx judge but was resuscitated by legislation passed last year.
Lippman made bail reform a centerpiece of his state of his judiciary speech (NYLJ, Feb. 6). In a message that offered several proposals for reforming the system, he criticized bail bond businesses that he said saw little profit in providing small amounts of bail.
But he said the non-profit Freedom Fund had helped about 160 defendants win their release from 2007 to 2009 by posting $1,500 or less in bail, small amounts that were beyond the capacity of many indigent defendants to raise.
"The fund reports a 93 percent appearance rate for participating defendants," Lippmann said. "In the days ahead, we should be considering approaches like this in other parts of the state and with larger bail amounts."
Human Rights Watch reported in 2010 that 87 percent of the defendants with bail of $1,000 or less were incarcerated in New York City because they could not afford bail. The defendants spent an average of almost 16 days in jail awaiting trial.
According to the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, which reviews the suitability of bail in most criminal cases, only 44 percent of defendants can meet bail at the amount it is set.
The Freedom Fund was established because lawyers of The Bronx Defenders were frustrated by that situation.
"The central mission is to try to post bail for those least able to afford it and most likely to return to court," said Robin Steinberg, executive director of the Bronx Defenders. "I was both surprised and delighted and I really appreciate the fact that the chief judge recognizes that there are certain kinds of reforms in bail and one is a freedom fund."
The fund was launched in 2007 by Steinberg and her husband David Feige, a founding member of the Bronx Defenders, as a pilot project funded mainly by the Joseph and Claire Flom Foundation and the Charles Lawrence Keith and Clara Miller Foundation...
It posted bail of up to $1,500 for defendants charged with misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies who were considered to have a low risk of fleeing while their cases were pending. The project worked as a revolving fund where bail posted by the project was returned to cover other defendants' bail as people reappeared in court to have their cases decided.
Steinberg said the high percentage of people who returned to court to face adjudication of their cases showed what she said was an "enormous amount of adherence to authority" of the court.
However, in 2009, acting Bronx Supreme Court Justice Ralph Fabrizio (See Profile)effectively halted the activities of the fund. He decided in People v. Miranda, 24 Misc. 3d 1223(A), that it had not registered in a timely fashion with the state attorney general as a charitable group nor obtained a state license to operate as a "bail bond business" as required under state Insurance Law.
He ruled that the Freedom Fund Project had essentially been operating as an uninsured bail bond business.
Governor Andrew Cuomo breathed new life into the freedom fund concept when he signed A10640/S7752 into law last year, permitting the creation of not-for-profit bail organizations under state Insurance Law §6805 that are authorized to post up to $2,000 for the bail of poor defendants charged with misdemeanors (NYLJ, July 19, 2012).
The measure added oversight responsibilities of the charitable bail groups to the state Department of Financial Services after Cuomo vetoed a similar bill in 2011, complaining that it had failed to provide proper state regulatory monitoring of the organizations.
The new law restricts a charitable bail fund's activities to one county, or up to five contiguous counties if the groups are to operate in New York City.
Steinberg said the Bronx fund is gearing up to begin providing bail money again for indigent defendants once the state completes promulgating rules under the 2012 law. She said the group will probably raise its ceiling for bail to the $2,000 permitted by the statute.
Steinberg said she hopes the resuscitation of the project, plus its mention in Lippman's State of the Judiciary address, will prompt renewed interest in the concept.
"I think the city of New York could set up a bail fund," Steinberg said. "Anybody could do it: public defenders, law schools, law school clinics. There are all sorts of possibilities."
So far, Steinberg said she knew of no other charitable organization that plans to offer bail.
Marvin Ray Raskin, the cochairman of the criminal section of the Bronx Bar Association, said, "To an indigent person, $500 bail might be the equivalent of $5 million bail to an affluent person. In either case, it's a difficult if not impossible sum to meet."
David Jakab, operator of the Manhattan-based David Jakab Bail Bonds, said it is "definitely not true" that bail bondsmen will not write bail for less than $1,000.
"I service bonds starting at $500 and will do $500, $750, $1,000, whatever," Jakab said. "I have no problem doing that because it builds my client base. I do them all the time."
Fabrizio's decision in Miranda also alluded to ethical concerns raised by prosecutors about the The Bronx Defenders' participation in the Freedom Fund.
The judge noted that the American Bar Association, in ABA Formal Opinion 04-432 from 2004, discourages defense lawyers from posting bond for clients except in "rare circumstances" and where there is no possibility that attorneys would profit by their actions.
Fabrizio also said that the New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics advised in NY Eth Op 647, 1993 WL 560287, that an attorney cannot act as a paid bail bond agent for his own clients. But, Fabrizio added, the same opinion said an attorney can be a paid bail bondsman for a non-client. The Freedom Fund only offered bail to clients.
Lippman said in an interview after his speech that he was not troubled by ethical concerns.
"I don't see any inherent conflict," Lippman told reporters. "They are using grant money. Do I think it's more or less ethical than having them go pay money to a bail bondsman to get out, money that [defendants] don't have and that if they can scrape up the money, that's how they get out? If I look at the ethics or what's right and just, this [charitable bond] scenario makes a lot more sense."
So it's nice to see that every once and again a DA is asked to face the terrible consequences of withholding Brady material--in this case 25 years in prison for an innocent guy. But something really struck me about what happened down in texas...
Here's the account from the Times:
"GEOGRETOWN, Texas (AP) — A former Texas district attorney is choking back tears as he recalls a prosecution that wrongfully sent a Texas man to prison for 25 years. Ken Anderson calls the case of Michael Morton his "worst nightmare." Morton was convicted in the slaying of his wife Christine in 1987 but exonerated in 2011 following new DNA tests. Anderson is now a judge in Georgetown near Austin. He is accused of withholding evidence indicating Morton's innocence during the original trial. A special court of inquiry on the matter is in its fifth day Friday.
Anderson says he did nothing wrong. He says the office he "ran was professional, it was competent." Then, his voice cracking, Anderson added, "We got it right as much as we humanly could."
So his position is: I did nothing wrong because I tried? This despite the evidence that he deliberately withheld evidence. And this guy is a judge. Presumably one of those judges, whom, like all the other's I've appeared before, nails guys at sentencing for "failing to show remorse or "accept responsibility." You know those guys right? The judges who, no matter how much your client cries, or apologizes, is never satisfied, and smugly dismisses it as either insincere or insufficient?
Seems like if this guy had half a ball, he'd stand up, say "I screwed up. I deserve to be punished, and I'd like do anything I can to make it right." Instead, and undoubtably with no sense of the irony involved, this guy is doing precisely what I imagine he's been decrying from the bench all this time.
I wonder if it'll give him some sense of humility or compassion for the frailty of the human condition.
"At the same time, we should also be testing whether we can take the profit motive out of bond making. State legislation passed last year allows not-for-profit organizations to act as bail bond agents, provided they are licensed by the State Insurance Department. This legislation was prompted by the work of The Bronx Defenders, an institutional defender office, that created a special fund to help low-income offenders post minor bail amounts. The fund reports a 93 percent appearance rate for participating defen- dants. In the days ahead, we should be considering approaches like this in other parts of the state and with larger bail amounts." It took me three long years to get the law changed, and this is the first inkling I've gotten that the ripple effects we've been hoping for may actually appear... Sweet.
Election will be called for Obama at 10:17 PM EST. Eventual Electoral Vote Total: Obama 332, Romney 206 Post your guesses in the comments below: Prizes for closest to time announced + closest to electoral vote totals.
"Advocates of lower tax rates argue that reduced rates would increase economic growth, increase saving and investment, and boost productivity (increase the economic pie). Proponents of higher tax rates argue that higher tax revenues are necessary for debt reduction, that tax rates on the rich are too low (i.e., they violate the Buffett rule), and that higher tax rates on the rich would moderate increasing income inequality (change how the economic pie is distributed). This report attempts to clarify whether or not there is an association between the tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and economic growth."
And here's the conclusion:
"There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution." Clear enough? Lower taxes for the rich, do nothing for anyone except the rich. It makes them richer. Here's the full report: