Category Archives: courts

1,078

Posted on by
Reply

Heather Cox Richardson is a history professor at Boston College whose “Letters from an American” daily Substack newsletter place contemporary events within a historical context. USA Today named her one of its Women of the Year honorees last  year.

Joyce Vance is a former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and now a Distinguished Visiting Lecturer in Law (criminal justice reform, criminal procedure, and civil rights are her specialties) at the University of Alabama School of Law.

We are borrowing from a couple of things they wrote when our immediately former president was arraigned on criminal charges on August 3.

Donald Trump is charged with crimes linked to the January 6, 2021 events at the United States Capitol.  Richardson cites the federal prosecutor for Washington D. C. is observing that Trump is the 1,078th person charged with federal crimes connected to those events. And he was arraigned in the same courtroom where many of those 1,077 others have appeared, or will appear.

She also cites Yale history professor Timothy Snyder, responding to defense claims that the charges infringe on Trump’s constitutionally-protected right to free speech even if his remarks were repeated lies.  The charges, however, appear not to attack his free speech remarks but instead focus on the greater issue of his illegal efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election.

Snyder thinks we should not be distracted from the real point of the charges: “That Trump will be tried for his coup attempt is not a violation of his rights. It is the fulfillment of his rights.  It is the grace of the American republic. In other systems, when your coup attempt fails, what follows is not a trial.”

We would add that in most failed coup attempts we have read about in our long life, what follows is a quick assumption of guilt and often a quick dispatching of what is called justice.

Richardson also notes in that day’s “letter,” that the arraignment took place on the same days that Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released a transcript of their interview with a Hunter Biden business associate that GOP committee members claim proves then Vice-President Biden was personally involved in some shady business deals involving Hunter.  She says the interview transcript undermines the Republicans’ claims although they’re overlooking that issue.

(If you want to read Richardsons full “letter,” you can find it at:

August 3, 2023 – by Heather Cox Richardson (substack.com)

Joyce Vance’s column, “Civil Discourse” says that, “Many people…have become inured to Trump’s behavior…A real problem with Trump is that there is just so much of it that he is exhausting. For some people it is easier to tune it out than it is to try to keep all of it in focus.”  But she says the people need to re-connect and follow the process by which these charges are dealt with “so they can assess the evidence and the proceedings for themselves…It is every American’s obligation to follow this process.”

One subtle thing she mentions is that in court, the former president is just “Mr. Trump,” a designation that applies generally to (male) trial participants.  No matter what your station is life is, or has been, you are equal in the eyes of the law to every other person who has gone through this process…Donald Trump was treated like anyone else in his position would be. Investigation having found that there is sufficient evidence of significant crimes, he has been charged by a grand jury. He now has the same opportunity to defend himself that anyone would have.”

She explains that, “Arraignment is usually a perfunctory matter, as it was for Trump… It is governed by Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that a defendant be advised of the charges against him and enter a plea to them. The traditional plea at the time of arraignment is one of not guilty. The defendant has not yet seen the government’s evidence against him—there is no informed basis for knowing whether the government can prove what it has charged. So it is no surprise that the plea Donald Trump entered…was one of not guilty.”

But this arraignment has an unusual twist, she says. While judges normally tell the defendants not to commit any new crimes while they are free on the streets, this instruction was different. The judge warned Trump not to try to influence a juror or witnesses.  If he violates that admonition, he could find himself sleeping on government-issues sheets at night and wearing government-issued clothes.

Was Trump listening to the Judge’s admonition?  Vance thinks he wasn’t. A day after he was released on pre-trial bond, Trump went on Truth Social and said, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

Vance says  on X (the former Twitter) that Trump crossed the line. “Free speech is one thing, but this is over the line. As a prosecutor, I’d be sorely tempted tomake a motion to removke Trump’s pre-trial bond and put him in custody. Let him explain it to the judge.”

Newsweek reports that Trump spokesperson has belittled Vance as “a moron (who) loses sleep because she has Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

So, apparently, does former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, the former lead prosecutor against former Trump aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, who says—in what until recently would be called a tweet—“Not addressing this will only cause it to metastasize with undue deadly risks.”

A Trump spokesman, not surprisingly, defended the threat as “the definition of political speech,” and then went into full Trump irrational rant, saying it “was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for Growth.”

Forget getting out the hip boots, folks. It’s so deep that you’ll need a full body suit.

Friday night, assistants to federal prosecutor Jack Smith filed a notice with U. S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan expressing concerns Trump might improperly share evidence in the case on Truth Social. They urged the judge to order Trump to keep any evidence given to his lawyers by the prosecutors away from public view.

The judge ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond by 5 p.m. today.  When they asked for a three-day extension, she refused to let them have it—which set off another Trump tantrum aimed directly at the judge—not a wise thing even from a self-proclaimed stable genius:  “There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge ‘assigned’ to the ridiculous Freedom of Speech/Fair Elections case. Everybody knows this, and so does she!”  It was all in capital letters, followed by more capitals announcing plans to seek a new judge and a new location for the trial.

We will be watching to see if the old saying manifests itself—Don’t poke a tiger with a twig.

The prosecution says it wants a speedy trial. Normally it’s the defendant that wants a speedy trial. But in this case, it’s to Mr. Trump’s political advantage to stretch the process as far as possible.

Both Richardson and Vance believe the most important charge against Trump is the final one—the one Vance says “tears at my heart….the conspiracy by an American president to take awy our right to vote…and to have one’s vote counted.”

Vance concludes that a dozen people in the courtroom will decide Trump’s fate but all of us are a “jury in the court of public opinion.”

“The outcome of the 2024 election really is every inch the most important election of our lives. The indictment itself is not evidence, but it lays out the narrative of the facts we saw unfold before our eyes and helps us make sense of the crimes that Trump is charged with committing. It is an important document for every American to read. Not everyone will, but that’s where we can come in, sharing details, and helping people around us, understand the procedures that begin today. It’s the real work of saving the republic.”

You can read her full Civil Discourse insights at Arraignment – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance (substack.com)

Federal court rules do not allow live broadcast coverage of trials. But the standard is a rule, not a law and the exigent circumstances of this case, which will be a transcendant event in American history and will involve questions basic to the survival of our republic, should create an exception to the rule so that all of us canbe witnesses to these evens. It is of such overwhelming importance that our grandchildren’s grandchildren should be able to see and hear how our generation responded to this crisis.

We agree that the 2024 election will be “the most important election of our lives.”  It is far more important to all of us and to our nation as a whole that all of us pay close attention to the truth that emerges in the trial of 1708 than it is to give heed to anything the interpreters of that testimony on the left and the right want us to think.

 

 

 

Difficult choices 

Posted on by
3

Lawmakers, state and federal, sometimes find themselves in the position of voting for something they don’t like to get something they want. The reverse also is true—they vote against something they like to keep something they dislike from becoming law.

At campaign time, opponents usually don’t discuss these subtleties in our political system when they criticize the incumbent for voting against an issue popular or unpopular with the public.

These dual-personality bills sometimes are passed anyway.  Then it becomes a problem for governors and for presidents.

The problem could be avoided if the legislative body did not try to combine two or more (somewhat) disparate issues into one bill.

Governor Parson had one of those bills that he vetoed in the last flurry of bill signings from the 2023 session. In this case, however, he disagreed with both sections of the bill. For whatever good it does, we—as appeals court judges sometimes write—“agree in part and disagree in part.”

Had we been present in the discussion (and it is easy to be a second-guesser from our lofty perch), we would have wondered if at least some of his reasons for the veto would be different if he were still the Polk County Sheriff.

One of the sections in the bill to which Governor Parson objected expanded the number of people eligible for state restitution if their convictions of crimes were overturned by a court proceeding and the prosecutor decided not to refile the charge.

Present law allows the state to pay someone $36,500 for each year that person was wrongly imprisoned if DNA evidence proves they are innocent.  The bill that the governor vetoed upped that figure to $65,000 and includes people set free by a “conviction review process” that was established by law two years ago.

It is the new, second, category of prisoner releases that troubles Governor Parson—and the 75% increase in restitution. The original figure, an amount based on $100 a day for each day of wrongful confinement, was enacted in 2006.  The new amount would be about $178 a day.

But here’s the meat of his objection, from his veto message to the legislature:

“With very few exceptions, criminal cases are tried by local governments (counties or municipalities).  The underlying offense, elected prosecutor, elected or retained judge, and community-drawn jury all come from the local jurisdiction and not the state as a whole. However, the burden of paying restitution under these provisions falls on all Missouri taxpayers…Missourians from every part of the state should not have to foot the bill for a local decision. Local governments should bear the financial cost of their own actions.”

Had I been in the discussion, I might have piped up with something such as:

“I agree that our justice system is administered by local people in local courtrooms.  But the offender was charged with violating a STATE law.  As I recall from years of reading court records at the local courthouse, the charges often—always?—end by saying the offense occurred “against the peace and dignity of the STATE.”

“The trial was held in a circuit court, which is a division of the STATE court system. The prosecutor, although locally-elected, is prosecuting the STATE law.  The jury, although made up of local citizens, is part of the STATE judicial process that determines guilty or not-guilty verdicts.

“The accused probably was held in a local jail but the STATE compensates the local jurisdiction for the costs of incarceration—-although local officials have complained the compensation isn’t close to adequate.”

“Clearly this is a state issue because everybody but the accused is acting on behalf of the STATE.”

“If the compensation, as you argue, should be made at the local level, who should be sued to gain restitution?  If such a reversal had happened when you were Polk County Sheriff, should YOU pay it—especially if you made the original arrest? Should the twelve members of the jury be held responsible for one-twelfth of the annual amount because they acted responsibly although incorrectly?   How much responsibility should fall on the shoulders of the judge who sent this ultimately-innocent person to jail for so many years?  Should Polk County have had some liability because its county prosecutor and its county sheriff were key figures in this process?

“And suppose this trial had been moved to another county on a change of venue. How much does that county have to pitch in?

“Polk County has about 33,000 residents.  Could a court order each resident to contribute two dollars per capita times the number of years this person was improperly imprisoned? Would that be a problem in a county with a per capita income of less than $25,000 a year?”

“Do you think you would get elected to another term as sheriff if you were the one who arrested this person to begin with?”

Well—I wasn’t part of the discussion and as I said, it’s easy to second-guess a decision such as this from a distance and without hearing the other voices. And it’s always a shame when so many good things combined into a bill are knocked down because the bill contains one problematic section that a governor thinks is poorly-written.

The legislature will have a chance to override the veto when it meets in about 50 days or so.  Or it can come back about six months from now and try again, fine-tuning the language and making a better argument for financial justice for someone from whom the STATE took away the most precious gift all of us are given—time.

 

“1776” in 2023

Posted on by
1

We still don’t have sports wagering in Missouri.  But we do have video lottery terminals—and that really aggravates the casino folks and the pro sports teams that have seen another year of huffing and puffing on their parts gone to waste.

Watching the annual efforts of the gaming industry to bully the legislature into giving it as sweet a sweetheart deal as possible on sports wagering while VLT advocates argue that they have a right to the gambling dollar, too, has become tiresome.  Casinos see VLTs as competition.  VLT people don’t disagree but say the idea that casinos should have a monopoly on emptying the pockets of gullible Missourians is, well, unfair.

There is, of course, nothing fair about commercial gambling regardless of whether it is conducted in noisy, gaudily decorated casinos or whether it’s conducted next to the pork rinds rack or the beer cooler at the convenience store.

Neither side is interested in compromise.  And the result has been for several years the same: a deadlock at the end of a legislative session that runs the session off the rails and kills a lot of legislation that has the possibility of a greater positive impact on the lives of Missourians.  Or maybe negative impact.  But those points haven’t gotten argued.

We are reminded of John Adams’ rant early in the musical “1776,” as he rails against Congress’s inability to decide whether to declare independence from Britain:

You see, we piddle, twiddle, and resolve
Not one damn thing do we solve
Piddle, twiddle, and resolve
Nothing’s ever solved in
Foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy
Philadephia!

Now, to be honest, Jefferson City is none of those things. Well, mostly. It’s not foul or fetid or fuming and filthy, although at times in the spring and the fall when the water temperature of the Missouri River is several degrees different from the air temperature, there’s plenty of fog. One almost has to get out and lead their car across the bridge, the fog is so thick.

Casino gambling is legal. Sports wagering is not.  VLTs are legal as far as their advocates are concerned but there is no law allowing them or regulating them. One county has a court ruling that says VLTs are illegal in that county.

The future?  The people who can step in and solve the problem won’t do it.  There are no grownups in the room on this one.

One person is position to provide some leadership is Attorney General Andrew Bailey.  But the Post-Dispatch reported the other day that the issue is too “complex” for him to say whether VLTs are or are not legal or to take action to find out.

He apparently is not interested in determining what machines are legal and which ones are not—or to offer suggestions to legislators who might want to put the definition in the statute books.  The article quotes Bailey saying on St. Louis radio station KTRS, “It’s impossible to make a blanket determination that everything that looks like an illegal gaming machine must therefore by definition be an illegal gambling machine.”

Others, however, say a duck is a duck.

It’s a local issue, he says, not something for the state to determine.

So, does that mean that the legislature should just butt out of the VLT discussion?

Should the state butt out of the discussion of sports wagering, too?  Should that be a local issue?

Just imagine how much fun it would be to be able to place a sports bet while standing next to a gas hose attached to your car in Callaway County but not be able to try your luck at a VLT when you go inside to get some fake bacon to snack on while you drive to Boone County, where you can spend a few minutes risking the family fortune on a VLT but not be able to bet on a sporting event when you get a beer to wash down the fake bacon.

Then you go to Cooper County to empty your pockets at the blackjack table in a legal casino.

It wouldn’t hurt if the state’s top legal officer, instead of just brushing off the issue, offered to be a mediator.  It’s not one of his constitutional duties but our attorneys general of late have set a precedent, regrettable though it might be, of straying far beyond their constitutional duties—all the way to the southern border or into the elections held in selected states.

But that’s not going to happen.  The Post-Dispatch also reported that money is fueling the Piddling and the Twiddling.

It seems that two VLT companies have taken the state to court charging it is harassing them by trying to remove their machines from convenience stores although there’s no proven law making them illegal.  Normally the Attorney General is the defense attorney for the state when it is sued. Not Bailey.  The newspaper reports he took a $25,000 campaign donation from a political action committee with ties to former House Speaker Steve Tilley, now a lobbyist for a gambling company. The story also says Bailey had taken “tens of thousands of dollars” from the two VLT companies involved in the lawsuit.

Boy oh boy.  These folks certainly know how to cultivate the public’s confidence in government, don’t they?

Will the issue of sports wagering versus video lottery terminals be resolved by the 2024 legislature?

We consulted the most reliable predictor of future events, the Magic 8 Ball.  “Don’t count on it,” the ball said.   “My sources say no,” was another response. But there were three versions of “yes” when I kept asking.

Will there be more piddling and twiddling? “Sources point to yes,” said the ball.

So—there’s your definitive answer to this matter where the issues are so clear-cut and the participants are so vitally interested in what’s in the best public interest.

 

Disintegration

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve heard it several times in recent days and heard it again this past weekend when a talking head on one of the talking head shows said we are watching “the disintegration of the Republican Party” with the indictment of ex-president Trump and the early support he’s getting from his ardent supporters including two former Missouri Attorneys General.

Senator Josh Hawley calls the charge “an assault on our democracy, pure and simple,” interesting words coming from a man who encouraged that huge crowd of “tourists” to “tour” the U. S. Capitol in a memorable way two years ago.

His successor, Eric Schmitt, calls it “a purely partisan case.”  Schmitt is remembered because he decided to meddle in the 2020 election in four states in what surely was a non-partisan defense of popular democracy. Schmitt, as we recall, was 0-for-4.

And newly-minted Congressman Mark Alford from Raymore, who thinks prosecutor Alvin Bragg  “will clearly dig up old parking tickets if that means Donald Trump cannot run for President,” and says the charges are “nothing short of political persecution.”  Alford was one of Trump’s endorsement successes in the elections last year.

Politico reports, by the way, that Trump went 10-11 in his congressional endorsements last year, eight of those victories coming in districts that already leaned Republican, including Alford’s district.

It is important to remember that Trump is by far not the first federal public official to be indicted. Kentucky Congressman Matthew Lyon was found guilty of violating the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. He was re-elected while he spent four months in jail.

Until now, the highest federal official indicted was Vice-President Spiro agenew, who pleaded no contest to income tax evasion in 1973.

Much is made of Donald Trump being the first PRESIDENT indicted.  It’s worth noting historically but it has no meaning otherwise.  Lyon was the first member of the House to be indicted. Joseph R. Burton, in 1904, was the first sitting senator to be indicted—by a federal grand jury in St. Louis. He was convicted of taking a bribe, fined $2,500 and ordered to serve six months in jail in Ironton, Missouri. He resigned after losing two appeals to the Supreme Court.

The point is: Somebody has to be first.  Trump is the first ex-president to be indicted.

Point noted. He joins a firsts list of  Lyon, Burton, and Agnew.

Now, get on with it.

The headlines have gone to those who have thundered their support of Trump.  Slight notice has been paid to those who have been more judicious in their comments, if they have commented at all.

The silent ones will be the ones who count when it comes to a post-Trump GOP.

It seems obvious that inter-party support for Trump is declining and the ratcheting-up of the noise on his behalf is a strident indication that the remaining Trumpists know their grasp on the short hairs is weakening.

The Republican Party is not “disintegrating” as those who speak more broadly than discretion should suggest are suggesting.  Indictment by indictment, more and more Republicans will be willing to do unto Trump what he has done unto so many others—throw him under the bus (The phrase, by the way, is believed to have started in British politics in the late 1970s).

Here’s the difference between the Trump era of the Republican Party and the post-Trump era—it is the difference between a fish and a tree.

An old political saying, from an unknown origin is, “A fish rots from the head down.”  It generally means that when the leader of a movement dies, the movement will, through time, die too.

But a political party is not a fish.  A political party is more like a tree, which grows from its roots.  Its tip might die but when the dead part if lopped off, the lower part regrows.

So it will be for the Republican Party.  The focus today is on a diseased top branch.  When removed, whether by a windstorm of justice or by intentional cutting and pruning by those who are tired of dealing with it, the roots and the trunk will remain and they will sprout new branches and new, clean leaves.

The focus today is on an element of the national party.  But the roots and the trunk of the party are at the state level and they will remain, and not just in Missouri. The windstorm or the cutting and pruning might make the tree less attractive for a while or reduce its output of political fruit, but it will survive.

Many years ago, our last family vacation before children left for college and ultimately for the real world, we went to Yellowstone National Park.  It was the year after the great fires had blackened so much of the land.  But already we were seeing small green leaves emerge amidst the charred stumps and scorched grass.

The Republican Party will not disintegrate despite gloomy forecasts from talking heads, although the rotten top branch might be transformed in the political fireplace into an “ash heap of history” a phrase attributed to Ronald Reagan, whose party Trump usurped.

INNOCENT

Posted on by
Reply

Your correspondent is not sure whether it is harder to acknowledge that Donald Trump is innocent or harder to admit he’s guilty. The answer lies on which side of Trump you see.

He claims he will be arrested tomorrow on an indictment stemming from the Stormy Daniels hush money case. If it happens, it’s likely to be the first of a series of indictments.

For now, he is innocent of everything that dominates the speculation that flows from the mouths of the talking heads on left and right alike. The reported imminence of indictments has both sides showing signs of froth at the corners of their mouths.

But until a prosecutor makes the case without a shadow of doubt, Donald Trump is innocent and free to go wherever he wants to go.

If he is indicted, however, there is one way for him to be fitted for a one-piece, orange suit. Immediately.

It can happen if Trump continues to be Trump.

If he takes to Truth Social or at his tasteless planned rally in Waco, Texas on the thirtieth anniversary of the David Koresh compound tragedy, and goes full Trump against any judge that might by then be involved in any case that might by then be filed, said judge should waste no time finding him in contempt and sending him to jail.

It would not be surprising if he expands his attacks on prosecutors and former associates to include a judge.  He is a man with no respect for authority who quickly could get a change of address if his lawyers can’t make him behave.

And if his arrest should materialize and his calls for protests trigger violence, again, it might be a good while before he sees his golf course again.

But regardless of the bombast and the disrespect we might get from this man, let us remember this simple fact:

He is innocent until he is proven guilty of whatever charge or charges he will face.

Even if he does not respect our system of government, the governed should respect it.  Even those who cannot describe the depths of their disrespect for him must respect the system that will determine if he has exceeded the bounds of the law as much as he often seems to exceed the bounds of decency.

-0-

 

The Quote Behind the Quote

Posted on by
Reply

A few days ago, Kansas City District Federal Judge Brian Rimes threw out the so-called Second Amendment Preservation Act, passed by the General Assembly in 2021. The act allowed gun owners to sue local police and sheriff’s officers for as much as $50,000 if those officers enforced federal gun laws perceived as conflicting with Second Amendment Rights.

The Justice Department had filed suit a year ago saying the law violates the supremacy clause of the U. S. Constitution. That’s the one that says states cannot override federal statutes. The SAPA is only the latest incident in which the Missouri legislature has said it can pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are valid in this state.

A special agent in the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives field office in Kansas City reported soon after the law went into effect that 12 of 53 local officers that had worked jointly with ATF had withdrawn their cooperation. He also reported that restrictions on federal access to state investigative resources had been put in place.

Judge Wimes agreed with some critics in 2021 who argued the law was an open effort to circumvent the federal government’s right to enforce federal laws. His 24-page ruling has ordered local and state law enforcement officers to “lawfully participate in joint federal task forces” and to share information with federal agents without being afraid of being sued.

Our new Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, says the state expects better luck on appeal.

And then he trotted out the old bromide, “The Second Amendment is what makes the rest of the amendments possible.”

One would think that someone who is an Attorney General would have a greater appreciation of the law and the courts and a better understanding of the fallacy of the bumper-sticker shorthand that he has cited.  He might think it sounds good to the Right Wing, but it actually sounds horribly Leftist.

Making a bumper stick out of this issue and ignoring its origin is misleading and potentially dangerous even if it is effective in cultivating a needed political base in the year before an election campaign.

Let’s look at the origin of the philosophy that guns, not courts, are the greatest defenses of all of our rights. A popular military leader many years ago put it clearly and then added important contextual details:

“All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the “omnipotence of war”. Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic… Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the laboring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

Chairman Mao, in his Selected Works, V2, pp 224-225, suggesting that all other rights are achieved by those who have the unchallenged right to have guns.

An Army is needed to protect the nation’s rights from external attack.  But the courts are the preferred process for maintaining civil order internally.  The day that a domestic Army is in charge of protecting our rights is not something we should ever wish for.

Whether in the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, or hundreds of documents before, during, and since those times, it has been repeated that government in this country derives from the people not from the barrel of the gun.

It is long past time to leave the simplistic bumper sticker politics on the back bumper where they belong and instead to have an intelligent discussion on the law rather than a brief and erroneous reiteration of a despot’s musing on a democracy that he never delivered to his nation.

-0-

The VLT Problem

Posted on by
Reply

One of the biggest hurdles that casino gambling has not been able to clear in Missouri as it tries to legitimize sports wagering is the VLT.

That’s not a sandwich. It’s one of those gambling machines that are proliferating throughout the convenience stores of Missouri.  Video Lottery Terminals. Are they slot machines or something else. Are they legal or illegal? Is there an age limit for using them?  Should they be hidden from general public view or should they be right next to the door, on the aisles next to the snacks.

Is Missouri starting to look like Las Vegas, at least in our convenience stores?

Your correspondent likes to say that he has been to Las Vegas about twenty times, which is about 19½ times more than he ever wanted to go.  If the gambling industry could figure out how to put slot machines on those accordion-like jetways between the terminal and the front hatch of the plane, they would.  But you can hear the slot machines in the gate areas almost as soon as ou get off the plane.

Several people have opined they will not buy gas at a convenience store that has these infernal machines.

The casino industry trying to get sports wagering approved by the legislature has found itself in the clutches of the video lottery terminal people. And vice-versa. A sports wagering bill hits the floor for debate and somebody tries to amend a VLT-licensing bill onto it.  It’s especially frustrating to the sports wagering folks in the Senate where an attempt to attach a VLT bill to a sports wagering bill can generate a filibuster at the drop of a chip—by a VLT Senator who wants it to be added or a sports wagering Senator who doesn’t want it be adopted.

Now there’s another question fogging the discussion.  Should the legislature be discussing legalizing VLTs while a class action lawsuit accuses the company that supplies many of those machines with violations of state consumer protection and federal racketeering laws (the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act).

Our former colleague in the press corps, Rudi Keller of Missouri Independent, reports the federal court lawsuit accuses Torch Electronics of putting hundreds of machines—the lawsuit says they’re illegal gambling devices—in locations all over the state. Critics of VLTs also say there are no protections that will keep children from using the machines, and to rid Missouri of machines that the suit says entice people who already have gambling problems to play them.

Torch, in previous criminal and civil cases has claimed the machines don’t violate state gambling laws.  And it claims they’re not gambling machines because players are offered a chance to know the outcome before they put in their money.

If you want to know the difference between slot machines and VLTs (the casino people say they’re the same animal but dressed differently. The VLT people say they’re  more like lottery machines), you might to go to VLTs vs Slots (The Different between VLT and Slot Machine 2023) (slotsguy.com)

The casino industry sees them as competition for their slot machines, particularly because these machines are anywhere in the state and the casinos are restricted to just 13 locations on our two great rivers.

The casinos are under the Missouri Gaming Commission. The VLTs would be regulated by these state lottery.

We’ve already seen an early dustup on this issue in the Senate where Senator Denny Hoskins of Warrensburg, a longtime supporter of VLTs, saw his bill combining both issues killed in committee while a stand-alone sports wagering bill was voted out for debate. He locked down the senate for a couple of hours a week before spring break and he had friends helping him.

While that fight will continue at the capitol, another fight is shaping up in the courts.

Rudi recalls that Torch put its first machines in Missouri five years ago. Complaints led the Highway Patrol to investigate them and recommend to prosecutors about 200 cases complaining the VLTs violate state gaming laws.

But only one prosecutor has gone after VLTs.  Machines in a convenience store in Platte County were destroyed after a judge found they violated the law. Other prosecutors seem to think they have bigger fish to fry than prosecuting people who run convenience stores with these machines in them.

One interesting issue in the class action lawsuit claims that Torch and a co-defendant, Warrenton Oil have combined to make more than $955 thousand in political donations in the last five years.  We haven’t checked to see how much the casinos have made in political donations but they do stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars in sports wagering and they have invested a lot of time and manpower in the effort for about six years.

But so far all of the various pressure campaigns and campaign finance issues, neither sports wagering nor legal VLTs has passed the legislature.

The legislature returns from its spring break in a few days. The sports wagering legislation is waiting for debate in both the House and the Senate.  The discussions are likely to be lengthy, even in the House where there are rules against interminable talking by members.  But in the Senate there are no debate limits.

Another factor enters in.  Last year, the six major sports teams in Missouri started making noises about a petition campaign to put sports wagering on a 2024 ballot if the legislature did not enact it.  That has raised the stakes on the issue in the legislature this year.

Officials with the sports teams have testified this year that they are “agnostic” about VLTs, an indication the devices won’t be part of a ballot issue as far as they’re concerned.

The last time we ran some traps at the capitol, the sentiment was that sports wagering might not make it to the governor for his signature this year, again. But nothing is dead until the gavel drops at 6 p.m. May 12.

Wanna bet how this mess turns out?

 

Thirty years ago—–

Posted on by
1

I remember a young Attorney General who could envision an almost limitless political future for himself.  The governorship was within his grasp. And after that, there would be Washington, the U.S. Senate.  And from there?   I don’t know how much he dreamed of things beyond the Senate but he had followers who did.

He had won a bruising primary election for governor, outrunning the Secretary of State and the State Treasurer.

But then he lost the general election for governor.  And a few months after that, he lost a lot more.

Bill Webster, son of a state senator once considered one of the most powerful men—some thought he was THE most powerful man—in state government had withstood months of intense news coverage and weeks of campaign commercials linking him to major political scandal.

In June, 1993, Bill Webster, facing two federal felony charges of conspiracy and embezzlement pleaded guilty to one charge of using his office staff, equipment and supplies for his campaign.   He was sentenced to two years in prison.

Webster lost his political future and his law license. The last we heard, however, he has done well as a Vice-President of Bartlett and Company, a major agri-marketing firm in Kansas City.

We started thinking about Bill Webster when we learned of a court ruling involving another now-former attorney general who has visions of greatness.   Last week, Jefferson City Circuit Judge Tom Beetem ruled that Josh Hawley’s taxpayer-financed office staff used private email accounts and equipment to “knowingly and purposefully” conceal public records of communications with political consultants involved in Hawley’s campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Josh Hancock, writing last week for Missouri Independent, reported, “The emails, text messages and other documents at the center of the lawsuit show that early in his tenure as attorney general, Hawley’s campaign consultants gave direct guidance and tasks to his taxpayer-funded staff and led meetings during work hours in the state Supreme Court building, where the attorney general’s official office is located.”

A spokesman for Hawley’s campaign, Kyle Plotkin, has maintained that investigations have found no wrongdoing. One such investigation, he claimed, was done by “a Democratic state auditor.”

He apparently has not read a state auditor’s report suggesting that Hawley and his staff might have misused state resources but their use of private email and text messaging made a definite determination impossible.

Webster went to prison for misuse of state resources.  Hawley has gone to Washington

Unprecedented

Posted on by
Reply

“Unprecedented” is a word frequently heard these days in our national political discussions.  We thought it might be interesting to see what other times “unprecedented” has been applied to our Presidents.   “Unpresidented,” if you will, although it isn’t a real word.

It was unprecedented when the nation selected its first President who was not a member of an organized political party.  He also was the first President unanimously elected, a truly unprecedented feat: George Washington.

The idea that a President would never veto a bill while in office was unprecedented when John Adams did, or didn’t, do it. Adams had a lot of “not” precedents: the first President who did not own slaves; the first President who was a lawyer; the first President to lose a re-election bid and the first President who did not attend the inauguration of his successor.

Thomas Jefferson’s defeat of an incumbent President (Adams) was unprecedented. (So was the method of his election.  In those days the President and Vice-President each accumulated electoral votes.  Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr, each got 73 electoral votes. Incumbent John Adams had 65 but his running mate, Charles Pinkney, only had 64.  The House of Representatives cast 36 ballots before Jefferson won 10 of the 16 state ballots. Burr had four and Maryland and Vermont delegations tied within the delegation.  All of this was unprecedented, too, of course.)

James Madison took the unprecedented step of asking Congress for a declaration of war.

The election of Senator James Monroe to the presidency was unprecedented.

John Quincy Adams’ election was unprecedented because he was the first President who lost the popular vote.  (None of the candidates got a majority of the electoral vote, throwing the election into the House of Representatives under the 12th Amendment. Thirteen state delegations favored Adams, seven favored Andrew Jackson and four favored William H. Crawford.)

Andrew Jackson’s administration was the first administration to pay off the entire national debt.

Martin Van Buren’s presidency was unprecedented because he was the first President who was born an American citizen (all of his predecessors had been born as British subjects).

The death of William Henry Harrisons while in office was unprecedented.

The House of Representatives took an unprecedented vote to impeach President John Tyler.  It failed.

James K. Polk took the unprecedented step of refusing to seek a second term.

Zachary Taylor had never held a public office before becoming President, an unprecedented event.

Millard Fillmore took the unprecedented step of installing a kitchen stove in the White House.

His successor, Franklin Pierce, took the unprecedented step of installing central heating in the White House.

James Buchanan was our first bachelor president. Historians debate whether he was gay.

No president had been murdered until John Wilkes Booth took the unprecedented step with Abraham Lincoln, who is the only president to hold a United States patent.

The House of Representatives held a successful unprecedented impeachment vote against Andrew Johnson.  The Senate held an unprecedented trial and failed to convict him.

U. S.  Grant vetoed more than fifty bills, an unprecedented number.

It was unprecedented in modern election history when Rutherford B. Hayes won the electoral vote but not the popular vote.

James Garfield was an unprecedented President because he was left-handed or ambidextrous.

Chester Arthur took the unprecedented step of having an elevator installed in the White House.

Grover Cleveland set several precedents—the first President married in the White House; the first to have a child while President, and the first President to veto more than 100 bills.

Benjamin Harrison set a precedent by being the first President to have his voice recorded.

William McKinley was the first president to ride in an automobile.

Teddy Roosevelt set a precedent by becoming the first president to ride an airplane. (He got aboard a Wright Brothers airplane piloted by Arch Hoxsey and flew for about four minutes at Kinloch Field in St. Louis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaFulqGGkwk). He also took an unprecedented trip on a submarine.

The first president to throw out the first ceremonial pitch of the baseball season: William Howard Taft.

The first president to hold regular news briefings was Woodrow Wilson. He also took the unprecedented stop of appointing a Jew to the U.S. Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis.

Warren G. Harding learned of his election in an unprecedented way—he heard about it on the radio.

In 1927 the Lakota Sioux tribe took the unprecedented step of adopting a U.S. President as a member of the Lakota nation. Calvin Coolidge.

Herbert Hoover took the unprecedented step of having a telephone installed on his desk.

Franklin D. Roosevelt set a precedent by serving more than two terms. Among his other precedents—the first to fly across the Atlantic and the first to establish 100 days as the first benchmark for accomplishments in office.

The Secret Service set a precedent when it made Harry Truman the first President to have a code name (General). Television set a precedent by televising his 1949 inauguration.

Television set a precedent when it gave one of its Emmy Awards to President Eisenhower who was the first President to appear on color television.

First President who was a Catholic: John F. Kennedy. He also set a precedent by being the first former Boy Scout elected to the office.

The first President to be inaugurated on an airplane was Lyndon Johnson. He also set precedents by appointing the first African-American to the U.S. Supreme Court and appointing the first African-American to serve in a cabinet position

Richard Nixon set a precedent when he attended a National Football League game. Also: First President o resign.

First President never elected to the office or to the office of Vice-President: Gerald Ford.

Jimmy Carter broke precedent when he went by a nickname instead of the formal James E. Carter Jr.  As we write this, he moves into unprecedented territory by living longer than 97 years and being married for more than 75 of them.

Ronald Reagan set a precedent when he was re-elected, the first President re-elected older than 70 (73 at the time). He also set a precedent by nominating a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court.

George H. W. Bush set a precedent when he became the first President to pardon a Thanksgiving turkey.

First President who was a Rhodes Scholar, to have an official White House website, and to perform at a jazz festival (saxophone): Bill Clinton

First President to achieve a 90% approval rating in modern polling: George W. Bush.

America set a precedent by electing African-American Barack Obama, who was the first president born outside the 48 continental United States (Hawaii) and who was the first to endorse same-sex marriage.

First President with no prior public service experience, first to be impeached twice, first president to never see an approval rating above 50%, first president to refuse to publicly acknowledge re-election defeat: Donald Trump.

Joe Biden has set a precedent by being in office past his 77th birthday. He’s the first President to get more than 80-million votes.

First President to be indicted by a grand jury?  The first President to be brought to trial on criminal charges?  The first President to wear a prison uniform?  These are unprecedented possibilities that many hope never come to pass while many others hope come true.

That’s because we are living in unprecedented times.

 

The Fifth Amendment Debt 

Posted on by
Reply

It is possible  Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, John Eastman, Alex Jones, Allen Weisselberg and two Trumps have no idea who John Lilburne was.  But they owe a large debt to this Englishman who died in 1657.

Trump aides, advisers, and defenders Stone, Flynn, Eastman, Jones and Weisselberg have “taken the Fifth” when summoned to testify on this or that issue involving our most recent former President.

Indeed, DJ Jr., the son of the aforesaid former president, reportedly has done it more than 500 times, as did Weisselberg, the former Trump organization chief financial officer, when summoned to talk about the elder Trump’s reputed manipulation of property values to get loans.

And so, for that matter, has the Big Guy himself. More than thirty years ago when he was carrying on with Marla Maples and his then-wife, Ivana, was divorcing him, DJT was asked about 100 questions about faithful marriage and reportedly pleaded the Fifth Amendment 97 times.  The questions came from his soon to be ex-wife’s lawyer who wanted him to explain his reported dalliances with other women.

But he must have had an epiphany sometime in the next twenty-or so years when he he told a crowd of followers during his campaign, “You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

How does John Lilburne enter this unsavory set of circumstances?

Isaac Amon’s article for The Journal of the Missouri Bar a while ago tell us that John Lilburne was an English pamphleteer who was arrested in 1637 for writing things the king and his Star Chamber Court did not like and he was badly punished for it.

The Star Chamber?

It was the court of inquisition in England that was above the common law and answered only to the King.  Those brought before it were ordered to take “the ex officio oath” that promised they would admit charges against them—-before knowing what the charges were.

John Lilburne was arrested in 1637 for printing and circulating unlicensed books. When he was taken before the Court of the Star Chamber and asked how he pleaded, Lilburne refused to respond until he knew the charges against him and argued that he was not bound to incriminate himself. He maintained the oath was “against the law of God and the law of the land.”  He also demanded the right to confront his accusers.

That defiance earned him a sentence in February of 1638 of a £500 fine, imprisonment at the Fleet Street Prison, and to be whipped and pilloried until he obeyed the court. In April he was taken from his cell, his hands were tied to the rear of an oxcart that pulled him through the streets, as he was flogged with a three-tailed whip before he was locked in a stooped position in the pillory.  Even then he spoke loudly against those who sought to silence him—until he was gagged. He was taken back to prison where, despite his situation, he was able to write a pamphlet describing the cruelty of his punishment and another encouraging a separation of the English government fronm the Church of England.

Eventually he was released but he continued to stand for his contention

Lilburne was called “Freeborn John” by his supporters for his contention that citizens have “freeborn rights” that include the right to hear charges against them, to face their accusers, and to refuse to say something that might incriminate themselves.

He was a soldier in the first English Civil War as a “Roundhead,” the Parliamentarians who fought against the Royalists to determine the type of government England would have and to seek religious feedom.  He left the army after rejecting the Presbyterian Solemn League and Covenant, an agreement in which the Scots agreed to help the Parliamentarians if England, Scotland, and Ireland would unite afterwards under a parliamentary-presbyterian system.

Lilburne maintained the covenant was, in effect, an agreement to preserve the religion of Scotland and was therefore a restriction on general freedom of religion. He had no problem with the Scots being Presbyterians but he wanted no part of an agreement that bound others to that faith.

In the end, the Civil Wars of England united England, Scotland and Ireland into the United Kingdom, ended the monopoly on worship and government control held by the Church of England, protected the reform movement in Scotland, and cleared the way for the Protestantism to become established in Ireland, leading to political control under the Anglican Church of Ireland, a situation that led to “The Troubles” or the Northern Ireland conflict, a thirty-year sectarian conflict between Protestant loyalists and Catholic nationalists from 1968-1998. That’s a discussion for another day, perhaps.

John Lilburne was imprisoned again in 1645 for criticizing members of Parliament for living well at a time when English soldiers were poorly treated. While in prison he penned An Agreement of the People for a Firm and Present Peace Upon Grounds of Common Right.

Lilburne’s political activism saw him in and out of prison and even banished from England for a time. In 1657, while visiting his wife (who was expecting their tenth child) on temporary release from prison, he died.

More than three centuries after his death, James Madison, who was influenced by Lilburne’s story, wrote as part of the Bill of Rights, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The Fifth Amendment and the other nine statements of OUR “freeborn rights” were adopted in 1791.

In 1966, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren specifically mentioned Lilburne in writing the majority opinion for Miranda v. Arizona that police must tell suspects that they have the freeborn right to remain silent in the face of accusations against them.

A few days ago we watched Michael Flynn refuse to answer questions from a Republican member of the January 6 Committee, saying only, “Take the Fifth, “Fifth,” and “The Fifth” in responding to three questions.

A man almost four centuries ago endured imprisonment, whipping, the pillory, and even banishment from his country to give him that right.

But here’s the deal: While it is easy to think those who “plead the Fifth” are therefore hiding their guilt, there is far more to the plea than that. This amendment stands between us and Lilburne’s Star Chamber Court. All of us—you, me, them—are not forced to say something that others might consider an admission of guilt before any charges are filed. This amendment keeps the government from considering you guilty unless you can prove yourself NOT guilty.  This amendment protects our sacred concept that a citizen, no matter how reprehensible we might consider their behavior, is innocent until proven guilty.

We doubt that Mr. Flynn or any of the others we mentioned at the beginning of this piece know about or care about what John Lilburne went through to protect them.

But all of us should care—-because we Americans all have freeborn rights.

(image credit: Library of Congress)