Brendan DeMelle: A Silver Lining In The Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision For Political Prisoner Paul Minor

Last Updated on Sunday, 31 January 2010 11:45 Written by Daisy Harley Sunday, 31 January 2010 11:45

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – duly criticized for clearing the way for runaway corporate money to further undermine the democratic election process – did contain one silver lining for political prisoner Paul Minor, a former Mississippi plaintiffs’ attorney and prominent Democratic funder who was targeted for prosecution by overzealous U.S. Attorneys in the Bush Administration.

In fact, the SCOTUS ruling provides all the more reason to free Paul Minor, who remains wrongfully convicted of “honest services fraud” despite the total lack of proof of a “quid pro quo” agreement between Minor and the state judges to whom he gave campaign contributions.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court emphasized that the glue that holds the integrity of America’s campaign financing process together is a fundamental understanding – embedded in every American’s First Amendment right to free speech – that a campaign contributor necessarily hopes to influence the election of one’s favored candidate and ideas, and is not acting corruptly simply by participating in the process. Unless there is explicit proof of a corrupt “quid pro quo” agreement (a “this for that” exchange) between donor and candidate, the Supreme Court correctly ruled that every American has the right to donate money to political candidates without fear of prosecution.

The quid pro quo corruption requirement recognized in Citizens United, and many other Supreme Court and Circuit Court decisions, in effect has dual purposes. It serves to protect the integrity of America’s democratic process. But, just as importantly, it safeguards contributors and public officials, such as Paul Minor and the state court judges whose campaigns he supported, from being accused of bribery without explicit proof that their actions involved “quid pro quo” corruption.

Just imagine if the courts were clogged with bribery allegations every time someone contributes to a political campaign. Everyone who donates to a friend running for political office could be thrown in jail for bribery by an overzealous prosecutor with political or other motivations. That’s why our legal system requires proof of a quid pro quo corrupt agreement in order to convict someone for campaign-related bribery or fraud.

Indeed, politicians of all stripes – and the big corporate political players who bankroll their campaigns – better hope that the courts continue to make that distinction. Otherwise, considering the floodgate of corporate money that the Citizens United decision has now unleashed into America’s political system, they could all be prosecuted and jailed at the whim of a federal prosecutor just for taking part in the campaign finance system.

The irony of that point is worth noting – it is players like the Chamber of Commerce, Big Oil and Wall Street who would be well advised to get in Paul Minor’s corner on this quid pro quo issue. As former ABC News producer Rebecca Abrahams detailed recently, the Chamber has aggressively targeted Democratic judicial candidates and their major funders, including Paul Minor and other plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Many have questioned the Chamber’s political activity and its extensive connections and influence within the courts, suggesting that it has clearly gotten much in exchange for its massive cash outlays during state and federal elections on behalf of Big Business interests. It’s not a stretch to suggest that the Chamber could be successfully prosecuted for quid pro quo corruption, especially if the jury were not clearly instructed that it must have proof of such corruption in order to convict.

So the Supreme Court’s clear reinforcement of the necessity to prove “quid pro quo corruption” is great news for political prisoners like Paul Minor, and the justice system as a whole.

And that’s not the only promising development in Minor’s long struggle for justice. On December 11, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Minor’s conviction under the federal bribery statute, which will reduce his 11-year sentence considerably.

But, as Minor’s attorneys Hiram Eastland and Abbe Lowell argue in a new appeal for a rehearing, the Appeals Court should have also reversed Minor’s “honest services fraud” conviction. They argue that the panel failed to recognize the impact of the improper jury instructions that led to the convictions of Minor and former judges John Whitfield and Wes Teel on honest services fraud charges in 2007.

While the appeals panel correctly identified the legal requirement of providing proof of a “quid pro quo” agreement, it failed to recognize that the jury instructions in Minor’s second trial didn’t meet that critical legal requirement.

That error has huge implications, as the Sun-Herald newspaper notes: “The honest services fraud charges…are the basis for the remaining charges on which Minor was convicted: racketeering and conspiracy. If the fraud charges were reversed, his 11-year sentence would be vacated, as would those of Whitfield and Teel.”

As discussed in detail in Minor’s rehearing brief in front of the Fifth Circuit, there was nothing in the jury instructions that in any way conveyed the necessity for the jury to find a quid pro quo in order to convict Minor.

A little background – in his first trial, with proper jury instructions regarding quid pro quo, Minor was acquitted on most counts and the jury hung on others due to lack of evidence. But when a partisan prosecutor from the Bush Justice Department immediately re-indicted Minor, the jury was incorrectly instructed that it didn’t need proof of a corrupt quid pro quo agreement in order to convict him and the judges he supported.

As Minor’s rehearing petition states:
“This Court properly held that the quid pro quo element for bribery required ‘an exchange of things of value for favorable rulings in the judges’ courts,’ but the actual jury instructions in this case failed to require such a finding.” (Pg 9)

“Unfortunately, this court appears to have misread the actual jury instructions given in this case because that concept was never conveyed to the jury.” (Pg 1)

Quid pro quo is a crystal clear legal concept. In order to convict Minor, the jury must have been properly instructed that the government must furnish clear evidence that Minor’s campaign contributions were made as part of an explicit quid pro quo agreement in exchange for favorable decisions by the judges.

The Bush DOJ prosecutors didn’t even try to convince the second jury that a quid pro quo existed, they simply pursued a conviction for federal bribery without the goods to show for it. The partisan prosecutors had no business whatsoever trying to convict Minor of bribery without proper jury instructions and evidence of a quid pro quo “bribe.”

Like the federal bribery convictions, the district court should have never even entertained the remaining “honest services” charges without clearly requiring quid pro quo proof for the jury to find Minor guilty.

The lack of quid pro quo jury instruction in Paul Minor’s case is not just some technicality. Paul Minor’s case involves profound issues that go to the heart of whether we make political prisoners out of American citizens when the Supreme Court itself recognizes they are entitled to First Amendment protections when participating in our democratic process–especially here, where there was no requirement of proof of “quid pro quo corruption.” (See SCOTUS discussion on pages 40-45)

The Fifth Circuit clearly must reconsider its decision now that this glaring error has been pointed out, and it must reverse all of the honest services fraud-related convictions as a result.

The critical questions remain: How did Minor end up in prison in the first place? And why is he still in prison when he is entitled to bail pending the appeals courts’ resolution of these profound issues?

Those are questions the Obama Justice Department should strongly consider, continue to investigate and take swift and deliberate action on.

Regardless, with the Supreme Court likely to toss the honest services statute entirely, Paul Minor should soon be set free. And not a moment too soon.

More on Gas & Oil

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/a-silver-lining-in-the-su_b_443887.html

Goldman Sachs May Give Record Bonuses — Up To $100 Million To CEO Lloyd Blankfein

Last Updated on Sunday, 31 January 2010 11:45 Written by Daisy Harley Sunday, 31 January 2010 11:45

Goldman Sachs, the world’s richest investment bank, could be about to pay its chief executive a bumper bonus of up to $100 million in defiance of moves by President Obama to take action against such payouts.

More on Banks

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/31/goldman-sachs-may-give-re_n_443889.html

Isabel Cowles: When Yoga and Civilization Collide

Last Updated on Sunday, 31 January 2010 11:30 Written by Daisy Harley Sunday, 31 January 2010 11:30

Last week’s New York Times article, When Chocolate and Chakras Collide threw the debate between yogis and civilization into relief. Essentially, the piece can be read to pose the following question: If we practice yoga, are we obliged to withdraw from society?

The article highlights the tension many yogis face: whether or not to walk away from animal products and eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables. According to Eva Grubler of the Dharma Yoga in New York (one of America’s most revered yoga studios), the ideal yogi diet should consist of, “steamed vegetables, salads and fresh juices.” The article also quotes Steve Ross, author of Happy Yoga: Seven Reasons Why There’s Nothing to Worry About, who explains in his book, “I get a toxic, icky feeling from eating something that’s basically inedible.” By that, he means cooked food.

And yet, as the Times reports, some yoga studios are providing meals–complete with meat, wine and chocolate–at the end of practice. And they are causing quite a stir in the hardcore vegan / rawfoodist yogi camp. While a sweaty studio would not be my eating-place of choice, not a day goes by when I don’t eat cooked food or animal products. And not a day goes by when I don’t practice yoga. Both feel better with company.

Until recently, I felt that my innate appetites and love of cooking were directly at odds with my yoga practice. And yet, when I have tried to eat a primarily raw or vegan diet, I feel profoundly unsatisfied, both physically and socially. After having read Richard Wrangham’s book, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made us Human, I understand why I want and need to eat warm, rich food, which sometimes includes flesh. Moreover, I am hardwired to enjoy it with others.

This is how Wrangham’s argument boils down: the human discovery of fire essentially catapulted some of our ancestors out of the realm of Neanderthal and into the realm of Homo–Erectus and eventually Sapien. I am not one to distrust a person simply because he or she is not a scholar, but in this case, the distinction is striking. For example, Ross (whose nutritional background appears to be purely anecdotal) claims,”Approximately 85 percent of all vitamins and 100 percent of the enzymes are lost in the cooking process. If you cook anything above 118 degrees F, the enzymes naturally found in that food are destroyed.” Unfortunately, Ross does not cite his source. Wrangham, on the other hand, is the Ruth Moore Professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard; Curator of Primate Behavioral Biology at the Peabody Museum and Director of the Kibale Chimpanzee Project in Uganda. The scholar devotes the final third of his book to footnotes. Both my gut, and my brain are inclined towards his argument.

Indeed, it is both our guts and our brains that distinguish us from our chimp cousins, Wrangham argues. Physical evidence that human beings evolved to cook food–and evolved because of cooked food–appears in both our stomachs and brains. The relatively small size of our digestive systems indicates that we evolved to eat food that is easy to digest, including cooked meat. Furthermore, the ease of digestion (cooking makes food easier for the body to process) essentially lends calories to whatever we cook, which in turn allowed our ancestors’ brains to develop at a pace unparalleled by any other species. Because their bodies weren’t working all day long to digest raw, fibrous foods, our ancestors’ brains suddenly had the nutrients necessary to grow exponentially in size. We owe our intelligence to cooked food.

In addition to physical benefits, cooking helped foster society. For example, heating food can be preserved longer, therefore guaranteeing more nutrition for longer periods. Cooking also caused early humans to lose their hair, one of our most distinguishing characteristics. Because of an availability of warmth and warm food, early man no longer needed his furry insulation: I’m sure most raw foodists, if given a choice, would opt to eat cooked food rather than grow a coat. Indeed, as many anthropologists have noted, including Jared Diamond in his book, Guns Germs and Steel, it’s the cultivation of agriculture and fire that made it possible for entire civilizations to develop. Without the need to wander in search of food–be it foraged vegetables of wild animals–human beings suddenly had the time and energy to sit together and think. It is because of cooked and cultivated food that man eventually built towns, appointed leaders and had the luxury to create art, literature, music, even yoga.

I know many vegetarians and many vegetarian yogis, whom I respect very much. I even know a few who eat primarily raw food–these are choices that I happily accept. However, when a person tells me that human beings were not designed to eat meat or cooked food, or that my yoga practice is inferior as a result of my diet, I must respectfully disagree. (The common theory that people were not meant to eat meat because of their blunt teeth and small jaws has also been defunct by Wrangham’s work: we are meat eaters, we just eat soft meat–of the cooked variety.)

I used to wonder why I felt so drawn to the stove and to a table full of friends. I long for the very thing provided by yoga studios that offer a communal meal after a communal practice. And yet I felt guilty about it–as though some primal impulse were keeping me from a truly enlightened practice. Now I realize that the opposite is true: the very thing that makes us human is our desire to cook, cultivate, kill and share our food. There is indeed a beast within each of us, calling us to do the same–the Homo Sapien.

More on Yoga

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isabel-cowles/when-yoga-and-civilizatio_b_443880.html