bookmark_borderProsecutorial Discretion is a Menace to Society

On July 8, 2013 in the Columbia Law Review, Glenn Reynolds declared: Prosecutorial discretion poses an increasing threat to justice. The threat has in fact grown more severe to the point of becoming a due process issue. He then proved his point by revealing a disgusting game played by zealots working in the Southern District of New York’s US Attorney’s Office, where they would name a famous person – Mother Teresa or John Lenon – and decide how he or she could be prosecuted.

It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder or other crimes you’d see on [TV] but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code…

Tim Wu – American Lawbreaking, Slate (October 14, 2007)

Which leads to the fact that Attorney General (and former Supreme Court Justice) Robert Jackson was correct when he envisioned that “If a prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows he can choose his defendants. This method results in the most dangerous power of the prosecutor, that [they] will pick people [they] think [they] should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.” And that mentality has lead us to this:

The result of over criminalization is that prosecutors no longer need to wait for obvious signs of a crime. Instead of finding Professor Plum dead in the conservatory and launching an investigation, authorities can instead start an investigation of Colonel Mustard as soon as someone has suggested he is a shady character. And since, as the game Wu describes illustrates, everyone is a criminal if prosecutors look hard enough, they are guaranteed to find something eventually.

Glenn Reynolds – Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process when Everything’s a Crime

And this is why surveillance is such a serious problem. As pointed out in We See It All our liberty is in serious jeopardy. And as my case proves, overzealous & unethical prosecutors (not the police) are a clear and present danger to society because ultimately police have no power, if the prosecutor drops the case that’s the end of it. So if prosecutors wants to stop police misconduct all they have to do is drop cases; however, there are currently very few checks on prosecutorial power and misconduct and we as a society need to address that fact.

bookmark_borderA Quote for Today

As mentioned before on this blog, our criminal justice system is broken. And it’s mostly the “conservatives” fault. The Warren court gave us all of our cherished “rights” and the conservative courts since have embarked on a mission to take all of those cherished rights away.

Back in 1969, our justice system had just become more just (Again, thanks to the Warren Court). In Scott v United States, 135 US App DC 377; 419 F2d 264, 276 (1969) Chief Judge Bazelon opined:

The prosecutor clearly cannot have carte blanche to apply whatever tactics he wishes to induce a guilty plea. A policy of deliberately overcharging defendants with no intention of prosecuting on all counts simply in order to have chips at the bargaining table would, for example, constitute improper harassment fo the defendant.

See People v White, 390 Mich 245, 258-259 (1973)

Overcharging is just one of the many problems with our unjust system of justice.

bookmark_borderFOIA Litigation

So, it looks like my requests will be heading to litigation in June. Complaints will be:

COUNT 1
Violation of 5 U.S.C § 552 for failure to produce 13 NIT Reports
Cottom hereby incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs in this complaint. By letter dated December 21, 2022; Cottom’s request for the NIT Reports was denied by the Defendant and in clear violation of FOIA law.
Mr. Hurd (in his role as administrative arbiter) declared that the the Defendant’s illegal response was “appropriate”. Therefore, with regards to COUNT 1, Cottom has exhausted his administrative remedies and is entitled to receive all responsive non-exempt documents from the Defendant immediately.

COUNT 2
Violation of 5 U.S.C § 552 for failure to produce Keith A. Becker’s communications. (Operation Torpedo & Operation Pacifier)
Cottom hereby incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs in this complaint. By letter dated February 1, 2023; Cottom requested documents from the FOIA/PA Unit – Department of Justice – Room 803, Keeney Building Washington, DC 20530-001.
To date, the DOJ has refused to acknowledge Cottom’s legally binding request for all correspondence (formal and informal) from DOJ Attorney Keith A. Becker (“Becker”) to FBI Special Agents, Foreign Law Enforcement Agents, Prosecution & Defense Attorneys and Prosecution & Defense Experts, regarding the Becker’s Operation Torpedo (2012 to 2015) & Operation Pacifier (2015 to 2018). In other words, it is indisputable that the DOJ is in possession of the requested correspondence and is legally required to acknowledge and answer the request.
Therefore, with regards to COUNT 2, Cottom has exhausted his administrative remedies and is entitled to receive all responsive non-exempt documents from the Defendant immediately.