Why Doesn't "Predicate Felon" Status Apply To Financial Crimes?

This is obviously off-topic for this blog, but it is something that has rattled around in my head for quite some time, as a not-quite-fully-formed series of thoughts. Let's see where this takes us.


We The People have been beset upon by unscrupulous interests (e.g. Bernard Madoff, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken, etc.), and yet, there are no firm penalties from stealing from Main Street by Wall Street. I've watched Inside Job; recently viewed Margin Call, and I am planning to see The Big Short. A number of wealth "re-appropriations" have occurred, beginning with the central banks (halted to some degree by the honorable Andrew Jackson), and coming upon us with the recent change in FDIC regulations.


At this point, it shouldn't be a stretch to say that we need resolute penalties to put a stop to future malfeasance.


We do NOT.


Why is it that we allow these crimes to re-occur?


Or, to refer to the title of this posting...why doesn't "Predicate Felon" status apply to financial crimes?


Let me offer my scenario:


You live in an apartment building. You notice that your neighbor parties day and night, with no apparent means of employment. The partying itself doesn't interfere with your livelihood, so no matter to you.


One day, you find that you can't sleep, and instead of laying restlessly in bed, you get up and get ready to go into work early.


As you exit your apartment, you notice that there is a pile of money in front of your neighbor's door.


Of course, it doesn't belong to you, so you leave it alone, and carry on through your day...but the idea nags at you.


The next day, you wake up early, on purpose, and this time, as you leave, you grab the pile of money.


You wonder what repercussions you may face...but as the day goes by, nothing happens. The neighbor never knocks at your door; he never calls; doesn't leave notes wondering what happened.


The next day, you do the same thing.


Nothing untoward happens to you.


If you never suffer a negative consequence...why would you stop taking the money?


This is the story of Inside Job. Charles Ferguson couldn't have released the film with that clear message, but that is what was left unsaid.


In convicting blue-collar crimes, this idea has been established - some criminals do not learn their lesson, and go right back to committing like crimes. They have established themselves as Predicate Felons.


Why doesn't this correlate to white-collar crimes, as well?


I'm going to repost a definition of Predicate Felon status:

Predicate Felonies (as described in NY Penal Law Chapter 70)

A conviction for a New York state felony is very serious and can involve lengthy sentences of probation or even incarceration.  However, what many people do not realize is that a felony conviction can also greatly increase the possible sentence a person can receive on a subsequent felony conviction, especially so when the prior conviction is a predicate felony conviction.
Second felony offenders – or people with predicate felony convictions being sentenced on a new felony – are most commonly classified as either second violent felony offenders, regular (non-violent) felony offenders, or second felony drug offenders.  Some other classifications for “predicate felons” include second felony child sexual assault offenders, persistent felony offenders, and persistent violent felony offenders.
The definition of predicate violent felony conviction is explained in Penal Law Section 70.04.  It explains: .

S 70.04 Sentence of imprisonment for second violent felony offender.
  1. Definition of second violent felony offender.
  (a) A second violent felony offender is a person who stands convicted
of a violent felony offense as defined in subdivision one of section
70.02 after having previously been subjected to a predicate violent
felony conviction as defined in paragraph (b) of this subdivision.
  (b) For the purpose of determining whether a prior conviction is a
predicate violent felony conviction the following criteria shall apply:
  (i) The conviction must have been in this state of a class A felony
(other than one defined in article two hundred twenty) or of a violent
felony offense as defined in subdivision one of section 70.02, or of an
offense defined by the penal law in effect prior to September first,
nineteen hundred sixty-seven, which includes all of the essential
elements of any such felony, or in any other jurisdiction of an offense
which includes all of the essential elements of any such felony for
which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year or a
sentence of death was authorized and is authorized in this state
irrespective of whether such sentence was imposed;
  (ii) Sentence upon such prior conviction must have been imposed before
commission of the present felony;
  (iii) Suspended sentence, suspended execution of sentence, a sentence
of probation, a sentence of conditional discharge or of unconditional
discharge, and a sentence of certification to the care and custody of
the division of substance abuse services, shall be deemed to be a
sentence;
  (iv) Except as provided in subparagraph (v) of this paragraph,
sentence must have been imposed not more than ten years before
commission of the felony of which the defendant presently stands
convicted;
  (v) In calculating the ten year period under subparagraph (iv), any
period of time during which the person was incarcerated for any reason
between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of
commission of the present felony shall be excluded and such ten year
period shall be extended by a period or periods equal to the time served
under such incarceration;
  (vi) An offense for which the defendant has been pardoned on the
ground of innocence shall not be deemed a predicate violent felony
conviction.
  * 2. Authorized sentence. When the court has found, pursuant to the
provisions of the criminal procedure law, that a person is a second
violent felony offender the court must impose a determinate sentence of
imprisonment which shall be in whole or half years. Except where
sentence is imposed in accordance with the provisions of section 70.10,
the term of such sentence must be in accordance with the provisions of
subdivision three of this section.
* NB Effective September 1, 2013
  * 2.  Authorized  sentence.  When the court has found, pursuant to the
provisions of the criminal procedure law, that  a  person  is  a  second
violent  felony offender the court must impose an indeterminate sentence
of imprisonment. Except where sentence is imposed in accordance with the
provisions of section 70.10, the maximum term of such sentence  must  be
in  accordance  with the provisions of subdivision three of this section
and the minimum period of imprisonment under such sentence  must  be  in
accordance with subdivision four of this section.
* NB Effective September 1, 2013
  * 3. Term of sentence. The term of a determinate sentence for a second
violent felony offender must be fixed by the court as follows:
  (a) For a class B felony, the term must be at least ten years and must
not exceed twenty-five years;
  (b)  For  a  class C felony, the term must be at least seven years and
must not exceed fifteen years; and
  (c) For a class D felony, the term must be at  least  five  years  and
must not exceed seven years.
  (d)  For  a  class E felony, the term must be at least three years and
must not exceed four years.
* NB Effective September 1, 2013
  * 3. Maximum term of sentence. The maximum term  of  an  indeterminate
sentence for a second violent felony offender must be fixed by the court
as follows:
  (a)  For  a class B felony, the term must be at least twelve years and
must not exceed twenty-five years;
  (b) For a class C felony, the term must be at least  eight  years  and
must not exceed fifteen years; and
  (c)  For  a  class  D felony, the term must be at least five years and
must not exceed seven years.
  (d) For a class E felony, the term must be at least four years.
* NB Effective September 1, 2013
  * 4.  Minimum  period  of  imprisonment.   The   minimum   period   of
imprisonment under an indeterminate sentence for a second violent felony
offender  must  be  fixed  by  the court at one-half of the maximum term
imposed and must be specified in the sentence.
* NB Effective September 1, 2013

Similarly, the definition of Second Felony Offender comes from Penal Law Section 70.06.  It explains:

S 70.06 Sentence of imprisonment for second felony offender.
  1. Definition of second felony offender.  (a) A second felony offender
is a person, other than a second violent felony offender as defined in
section 70.04, who stands convicted of a felony defined in this chapter,
other than a class A-I felony, after having previously been subjected to
one or more predicate felony convictions as defined in paragraph (b) of
this subdivision.
  (b) For the purpose of determining whether a prior conviction is a
predicate felony conviction the following criteria shall apply:
  (i) The conviction must have been in this state of a felony, or in any
other jurisdiction of an offense for which a sentence to a term of
imprisonment in excess of one year or a sentence of death was authorized
and is authorized in this state irrespective of whether such sentence
was imposed;
  (ii) Sentence upon such prior conviction must have been imposed before
commission of the present felony;
  (iii) Suspended sentence, suspended execution of sentence, a sentence
of probation, a sentence of conditional discharge or of unconditional
discharge, and a sentence of certification to the care and custody of
the division of substance abuse services, shall be deemed to be a
sentence;
  (iv) Except as provided in subparagraph (v) of this paragraph,
sentence must have been imposed not more than ten years before
commission of the felony of which the defendant presently stands
convicted;
  (v) In calculating the ten year period under subparagraph (iv), any
period of time during which the person was incarcerated for any reason
between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of
commission of the present felony shall be excluded and such ten year
period shall be extended by a period or periods equal to the time served
under such incarceration;
  (vi) An offense for which the defendant has been pardoned on the
ground of innocence shall not be deemed a predicate felony conviction.
  * 2. Authorized sentence. Except as provided in subdivision five or
six of this section, when the court has found, pursuant to the
provisions of the criminal procedure law, that a person is a second
felony offender the court must impose an indeterminate sentence of
imprisonment.  The maximum term of such sentence must be in accordance
with the provisions of subdivision three of this section and the minimum
period of imprisonment under such sentence must be in accordance with
subdivision four of this section.
* NB Effective September 1, 2013
  * 2. Authorized sentence. Except as provided in  subdivision  five  of
this  section,  or  as  provided in subdivision five of section 70.80 of
this article, when the court has found, pursuant to  the  provisions  of
the  criminal  procedure  law, that a person is a second felony offender
the court must impose an indeterminate  sentence  of  imprisonment.  The
maximum  term of such sentence must be in accordance with the provisions
of  subdivision  three  of  this  section  and  the  minimum  period  of
imprisonment  under such sentence must be in accordance with subdivision
four of this section.
  * NB Effective September 1, 2013
  * 3. Maximum term of sentence. Except as provided in subdivision  five
or  six  of  this section, or as provided in subdivision five of section
70.80 of this article, the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence for
a second felony offender must be fixed by the court as follows:
  (a) For a class A-II felony, the term must be life imprisonment;
  (b) For a class B felony, the term must be at  least  nine  years  and
must not exceed twenty-five years;
  (c) For a class C felony, the term must be at least six years and must
not exceed fifteen years;
  (d)  For  a  class  D felony, the term must be at least four years and
must not exceed seven years; and
  (e) For a class E felony, the term must be at least  three  years  and
must  not  exceed four years; provided, however, that where the sentence
is for the class E felony offense specified in section  240.32  of  this
chapter,  the  maximum  term  must  be at least three years and must not
exceed five years.
  * NB Effective until September 1, 2013
  * 3. Maximum term of sentence. Except as provided in subdivision  five
of  this section, or as provided in subdivision five of section 70.80 of
this article, the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence for a second
felony offender must be fixed by the court as follows:
  (a) For a class A-II felony, the term must be life imprisonment;
  (b) For a class B felony, the term must be at  least  nine  years  and
must not exceed twenty-five years;
  (c) For a class C felony, the term must be at least six years and must
not exceed fifteen years;
  (d)  For  a  class  D felony, the term must be at least four years and
must not exceed seven years; and
  (e) For a class E felony, the term must be at least  three  years  and
must not exceed four years.
  * NB Effective September 1, 2013
  4.   Minimum  period  of  imprisonment.  (a)  The  minimum  period  of
imprisonment for a second felony offender  convicted  of  a  class  A-II
felony  must  be fixed by the court at no less than six years and not to
exceed twelve and one-half years and must be specified in the  sentence,
except  that  for  the  class A-II felony of predatory sexual assault as
defined in section 130.95 of this chapter or the class  A-II  felony  of
predatory sexual assault against a child as defined in section 130.96 of
this  chapter,  such minimum period shall be not less than ten years nor
more than twenty-five years.
  (b) Except as  provided  in  paragraph  (a),  the  minimum  period  of
imprisonment  under  an  indeterminate  sentence  for  a  second  felony
offender must be fixed by the court at  one-half  of  the  maximum  term
imposed and must be specified in the sentence.
  * 6.  Determinate  sentence. When the court has found, pursuant to the
provisions of the criminal procedure law, that  a  person  is  a  second
felony  offender  and the sentence to be imposed on such person is for a
violent felony offense, as defined in subdivision one of section  70.02,
the court must impose a determinate sentence of imprisonment the term of
which must be fixed by the court as follows:
  (a)  For  a  class B violent felony offense, the term must be at least
eight years and must not exceed twenty-five years;
  (b) For a class C violent felony offense, the term must  be  at  least
five years and must not exceed fifteen years;
  (c)  For  a  class D violent felony offense, the term must be at least
three years and must not exceed seven years; and
  (d) For a class E violent felony offense, the term must  be  at  least
two years and must not exceed four years.
  * NB Repealed September 1, 2013
  * 7.  Notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of law, in the case of a
person sentenced for a specified  offense  or  offenses  as  defined  in
subdivision  five  of  section 410.91 of the criminal procedure law, who
stands convicted of no other felony offense, who has not previously been
convicted of either a violent felony offense as defined in section 70.02
of this article, a class A felony offense or a class B  felony  offense,
and  is  not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  or  awaiting delivery to the
department  of  corrections  and  community  supervision,  the court may
direct that such sentence be executed as a parole  supervision  sentence
as  defined  in  and  pursuant  to  the procedures prescribed in section
410.91 of the criminal procedure law.
  * NB Repealed September 1, 2013

In short, a person becomes a Second Felony Offender when he is convicted of a felony and has been previously convicted of a felony in the prior ten years (and one becomes a Second Violent Felony Offender by being convicted of a violent felony offense after having been convicted of a previous violent felony offense in the last ten years).  In calculating that “ten year period,” one must exclude any time that the person was incarcerated between the time of his arrest on the new felony conviction and the time of his sentencing on the prior felony.  Thus, if a person were say convicted of a felony in 1997 and subsequently spent ten years in jail, he would be a second felony offender (and the 1997 conviction would be a predicate felony conviction) if convicted of another felony in 2012, because those ten years of incarceration between 1997 and 2012 would be excluded from the calculation of time, leaving that period as five years for purposes of this adjudication.
Once one becomes eligible for sentencing for a second felony offense (or second violent felony offense or second drug felony offense), the potential sentences for that person increase significantly.  Though not a perfect or exact summary, a sentencing chart is available here.
In short, if you or a loved one are facing a possible conviction for a second felony offense, you should strongly consider retaining an experienced criminal defense attorney, as the stakes – and possible sentences – are especially high.


"We won't do it again!"


That is what we hear from those individuals and corporations caught with their hands in the cookie jar...but, invariably, it happens again and again.


If there are no penalties from wrong behavior...why would one voluntarily cease said wrong behavior?


That is my question to you all.


My next post is going to concern a slander upon the person of Professor Stephanie Seneff by a former schoolmate, who will go unidentified, but in my opinion, requires redress. See you soon, dear readers.

Monsanto sues California, says its ‘undemocratic’ for listing glyphosate as a carcinogen (Re-Post from NewsTarget)

Monsanto sues California, says its ‘undemocratic’ for listing glyphosate as a carcinogen

By: Julie Wilson

Date: January 25, 2016

in: Corporations

One of the world’s most hated companies, Monsanto, is like a bull in a china shop, angrily destroying everything in its path, including people and the resources we need so desperately to survive. Monsanto’s Roundup, for which the primary ingredient is glyphosate, is one of the most widely used herbicides. Over the last two decades, 2.6 billion pounds of glyphosate was sprayed on U.S. crops.
However, last year was a major milestone for public health when the World Health Organization boldly announced that glyphosate was “probably” carcinogenic. Since then, government regulatory agencies all over the world have taken steps to limit and/or properly label the ingredient’s toxic effects on people.
Under Calif. law, the state is required to maintain a list of cancer-causing chemicals to serve as a safety guideline for residents. Proposition 65 – the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act – requires listed chemicals not be dumped into sources of drinking water. Proper warnings must also be labeled on products containing cancer-causing chemicals.⁽¹⁾

Monsanto may be prevented from dumping toxic herbicide into Californians’ water supply

Following the WHO’s declaration, the Golden State naturally moved to add Monsanto’s glyphosate to its list of cancer-causing toxins.
But Monsanto is having none of it.
The seed giant filed a lawsuit against the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the agency’s acting director Lauren Zeise on Thursday, seeking to prevent Calif. from listing Roundup’s main ingredient as a carcinogen.
Refusing to back down from their product, Monsanto insists glyphosate is safe, pointing to decades of studies. However, the biotech giant’s so-called “studies” are no longer credible after it was exposed for faking safety tests glyphosate nearly four decades ago.
The revelations emerged after two independent scientists gained access to Monsanto’s secret toxicology studies on glyphosate, after which they discovered the company purposely withheld evidence of tumors caused by the chemical.

Monsanto faked safety tests on glyphosate 40 years ago

They concealed the health impacts of glyphosate by diluting their data with irrelevant information from unrelated studies.
“Monsanto included irrelevant historical control data from other experiments ‘to create doubt and obscure the statistical significance of inconvenient findings, which may have prevented product registration,’” reports GMO.news.⁽²⁾
The independent scientists concluded that had Monsanto not faked their safety trials, glyphosate may never have been approved for use in the first place.
Despite evidence of fraud and the WHO’s conclusion, Monsanto’s Vice President Phil Miller insists that glyphosate is safe and that there is “not a sound basis for any regulatory action.”
According to Reuters, Monsanto’s lawsuit alleges that listing glyphosate under Prop 65 “cedes regulatory authority to an ‘unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, and foreign body’ that is not subject to oversight by any state or federal entity.”⁽³⁾
Monsanto says the Prop 65 mandate to provide consumers with a “clear and reasonable warning” about cancer-causing chemicals is a violation of its First Amendment rights and subsequently damages its reputation.
Monsanto’s “reputation” however, has been damaged for quite some time. It earned the ominous title of being the world’s “most evil corporation” in 2013 and since then has remained high on the list. Last year, it was voted the fourth most hated corporation, beat by Goldman Sachs, AIG and Dish Network.^(4,5)

International Tribunal to hold Monsanto accountable for its crimes against humanity

Using a set of guidelines implemented by the UN to protect individuals from human rights abuses committed by states and corporations, a group of individuals will hold an international tribunal that “is set to hold the world’s most evil corporation, Monsanto, accountable for its crimes against nature and humanity,” Natural News reported.⁽⁶⁾
Scheduled for Oct. 12–16 in the Hague, Netherlands, the Monsanto Tribunal will evaluate the health and environmental damage caused by a list of products made by the seed giant.⁽⁷⁾
Roundup is included on the list, along with PCBs, Lasso (a weed killer now banned in Europe) and 2,4,5,T, “a dioxin-containing component of the defoliant, Agent Orange, which was used by the US Army during the Vietnam War and continues to cause birth defects and cancer.”
Click here to learn more about the Monsanto Tribunal.
Sources:
(1) Scorecard.GoodGuide.com
(2) GMO.news
(3) Reuters.com
(4) IBTimes.com
(5) Bloomberg.com
(6) NaturalNews.com
(7) Monsanto-Tribunal.org
(8) DailyFinance.com
(9) Independent.co.uk
(10) EcoWatch.com
_____________________


I did some bolding of text to enhance a number of points in the article.


Isn't it against the First Amendment to engage in stifling of information intended to inform the public of a compelling and/or impending danger? Is Monsanto kidding us?


They don't even ingest their own FrankenFoods!


What's Served In Monsanto's Cafeterias?


It's time to put these asshats out of their misery.

Justice for John Giuca

Before I became a crusader for the cause of eradicating GMOs from our lives, I remarked on a number of topics; chief among them, the events of September 11, 2001. I was actually a favorite of Arianna Huffington until these pieces began to crop up in my writings. Another subject was what I perceived to be flawed justice, and among my many personages were John Kennedy O'Hara, Judge John "The Kung-Fu Judge" Phillips, and John Giuca.


I am a personal friend of Doreen Giuliano. That being said, it doesn't change the facts of the story. I met her not long before Christopher Ketcham penned his Vanity Fair piece, Mother Justice. I have stayed in contact with her, and I still cannot make sense of as to why John Giuca still languishes behind prison walls. Here's a PDF of the piece.


What will follow this is a piece I penned a couple of years ago. I had intended to write an entirely new piece, but there have been a number of new pieces, notably a very recent article on the Gothamist by Hella Winston which really gets into most of what I would have added. Here's a piece from MyLifeOfCrime. What I'm going to do is to follow my piece with a breakdown of John Avitto's offerings to Anna Sigga-Nicolazzi, and see if there is any possibility that she did NOT suborn perjury. Let's see how I do...


The Grid Kid Meets Wilson-Pakula

What would you do if you were unjustly jailed for a crime obviously committed by another? What would your family do to see justice served? How would you counter the lies and falsehoods intended to paint your family member in the worst light possible? Is there anything you would not do?

John Giuca is currently languishing in jail for a crime committed by another party. John was arrested on December 21, 2004 for the murder of Mark Steven Fisher, a student at Fairfield University, out for a night of fun with some college buddies. At the time, he was not of drinking age, but he and his buddies managed to access some bars on the upper west side – there, at a sports bar, he met a college acquaintance, Angel DiPietro and made his acquaintance with one of her friends a pretty young blond named Merri. His buddies would leave Mark to his new company. Eventually, he ended up in a bar on Second Avenue, where he ran into John Giuca and Albert Cleary. Albert was a friend of Angels. The group was not allowed into the tavern, and so, it looked as if they wanted the party to continue, someone would have to come up with a new plan. John then offered Mark and the young ladies to join him to come to Brooklyn. Angel is the only person who protested taking Mark with them. John offered his home, and the group went by yellow cab to Prospect Park South. John’s mother and stepfather were away on vacation.

At some point, Mark visited an ATM at a convenience store, at approximately 5:30 in the morning. Not long after his cash withdrawal, he returned to John’s house, then Mark crashed on one of John’s couches. At 6:41 AM, a 911 call reported gunshots, leading to the body of Mark Fisher being found on Argyle Road, not more than fifty feet from Albert Cleary’s home.

Here is where reality divorces itself from the facts of the matter.

Albert and Angel DiPietro were present at Albert's home, yet they stated that they hadn’t heard any gunshots. Neighbors farther away from the crime scene reported hearing the gunshots. Exhibit 1

Albert’s initial statements did not implicate John Giuca initially, but that would soon change. It turns out that Albert Cleary’s mother, Susan Cleary, was the vice-chair of the Kings County Republican Party Committee, and she was able to use the circumstances of the upcoming District Attorney election to help her son.

The Brooklyn D.A., Charles “Joe” Hynes, had just narrowly defeated an upcoming challenger, John Sampson, in the Democratic primary by less than 3,000 votes, and would need some way to bolster his candidacy. The Fishers were demanding that their son’s killer be brought to justice. It was then that Hynes was issued a Wilson-Pakula. Hynes would then go on to take the race handily.

A Wilson-Pakula is an endorsement given by a political party to a candidate, and in this case it was given to Charles "Joe" Hynes, for public office in the State of New York which allows a candidate not registered with that party to run as its candidate and "fuse" the votes.

Not long after receiving said endorsement , the focus went from Albert Cleary to John Giuca and Antonio Russo, who were then arrested in the following months. However, the facts of the case would tend to point the guilt squarely at Albert Cleary:

Mark left John’s home sometime after 6:00 AM to pick up Angel and return to Fairfield University – at this time, Angel was at Albert Cleary’s home.

The coroner had stated that trauma to the right side Mark’s face had been located – this would indicate that a left-handed assailant had committed the attack. Albert Cleary is left-handed, and according to testimony, the only left-handed individual at the party.

A 911 call not heard by the jury indicated that a male and a female voice was in the background arguing - right before she heard the guns shots and it was established that Albert and Angel were the only couple who left the party and was on Argyle road.

 During John's  trial a Jail House Informant , John Avitto claims to have not received any special favors for his testimony, but was out of jail, instead of facing a 3.5 to 7 on a felony burglary charge. Avitto testified that he overheard John Giuca and his father talk about a gun. If this had happened it would have been a miracle because John's father had a stroke earlier that year, and was thus unable to speak; unfortunately, John's lawyer never took advantage of that information to discredit Avitto's testimony.

During the trial, it was offered by Albert that John became angry by Mark's sitting on a table that belonged to John's mother - it was later revealed that this testimony was false.

Angel's father, James DiPietro, represented a number of reputed associates of the Colombo crime family back in 1991 under a Grand Jury subpoena. After the body of Mark was removed from Argyle Road, Albert and Angel fled to James DiPietro home in Garden City Long Island.

It was intimated that John was the leader of a gang called "Ghetto Mafia", but it has been proven that this gang affiliation was an utter fabrication. The prosecutor's 4th theory was that John was attempting to "up the street cred" of his fictional gang by "getting a body", something a legitimate gang member would indeed brag about - but John continues to maintain his innocence, never bragged about it, and during trial, John's lawyer asked Albert Cleary:

Q.         Albert, did John tell you what happened to Mark, or did you tell John? 

A.         I told John.

Can it be posited that in exchange for the Wilson-Pakula, the life of John Giuca was sacrificed?

Consider the benefits:

Susan Cleary was able to keep her son out of prison.

The same year John was dragged to trial Charles Hynes was granted the Wilson Pakula and he never received it before.

Everyone who testified at trial, their lawyers secured immunity for them. Albert's lawyer was unsuccessful in securing immunity for Albert, so as long as his mother, the Vice- Chair person forks over the Wilson Pakula every election year, Albert will not get indicted for the murder.

Charles Hynes directly benefitted from the prime suspect, who turned star witness, Albert Cleary's mother, Republican executive vice-chair committee member Mrs. Susan Cleary.

John Giuca continues to languish in a jail cell for a crime he did not commit.

Let's see justice done - let's send John home to his family.

Okay...before I even get into the myriad of utter bollocks that is Avitto's "testimony", were you aware that John Giuca was a double-major in economics and accounting?


I mention this because I had also decided at one point to become an accountant...only I had "failed" the English portion of my college entrance exam.


The guy who earned a 12.9 reading average in the 6th grade couldn't ace an essay test.


Want a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge? I'm your man.


Ever read The King Must Die? It's based loosely on Greek mythology. I was transferred into an adjacent English class one day before the essay test was issued on the book. The teacher told me that I could take the test, but that I wasn't going to be penalized if I didn't do well on the exam. I read the book the next morning on the train on the way to school.


I got the third highest grade on the test.


Suffice it to say...I can write a coherent enough essay in order to qualify to be an accountant.


Now, idiots...don't you think you should have left well enough alone? I would be crunching numbers for a living, and maybe too inured to bother delving into whether it makes sense for two planes to have "collapsed three buildings...but I digress.


First version of Avitto's "testimony":


Avitto’s version of the alleged confession had Fisher visiting an ATM with Giuca and two unnamed accomplices, who beat and then shot Fisher after he angered them by withdrawing only $20.


Next instance:


But she also conceded that Giuca’s alleged confession to Avitto could not have been true because, while Avitto said that Giuca described the robbery and murder as happening immediately after an ATM trip, “basically at the same time, at the same transaction…all one and the same,” she never in fact believed that Fisher made a second trip to an ATM—a striking admission considering that in her summation at trial she made several references to a “first” ATM visit, implying there had been a second.


Soon to be followed by:


In a rambling response to Giuca's attorney Mark Bederow’s questioning she testified that she believed what Avitto had told her because “it was more like a conversation [he and Giuca] had had some time before, which in this case was months, and not being as focused because they weren’t kind of putting it in his brain for any particular purpose at the time that he’s hearing about it, and the when and the what, where.”


Of course, there is the matter of his very recent recantation of said testimony:


At the hearing, he testified that he “made up” his account of Giuca’s confession—which he claims to have constructed from newspaper reports he read at the time—so the DA would help him get his warrant “squashed” and keep him out of prison and in a drug program.
Addressing Giuca from the stand, Avitto said, “I did it because—I'm sorry, again. I did it to help myself. I was scared to go to prison for three-and-a-half to seven, okay. I mean, if you look at my rap sheet and all the prison time I did, three-and-a-half to seven, you would probably think I could do that anytime. But I was scared. So what I did was, we were friends in there and I said to myself when I got out and I violated, I said I could come up with a story about you and put pieces together from what I read in the newspaper and everything and get the D.A.s to help me get out of my warrant."
Avitto went on: "I knew I couldn't do a drug program at that time. I knew it for a fact. So, I kept warranting, walking out of programs, walking out of programs, walking out of programs, and I just fabricated the story more and more so the D.A. would believe me about you. And I'm truly, truly sorry. Please forgive me.”


So...let's see. We have, in this case:

• Violation of voir dire (In the United States, it now generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."^[5] It also refers to the process by which expert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications before being allowed to present their opinion testimony in court. As noted above, in the United States (especially in practice under the Federal Rules of Evidence), voir dire can also refer to examination of the background of a witness to assess their qualification or fitness to give testimony on a given subject.^[6])
• Perjury by a false witness (forgive me if these aren't strictly legal terms)
• Failure to fully vet possible alternate perpetrators (see the screen maps above)
• Violation of Brady vs. Maryland (Brady evidence also includes evidence material to credibility of a civilian witness, such as evidence of false statements by the witness or evidence that a witness was paid to act as an informant.^[5])

There's plenty more where that came from...but my point remains that any one of the above is grounds for an appeal, if not for throwing out the verdict entirely. Hopefully, Justice Danny Chun comes to realize this, as well.


I will end with some pictures taken on John's day in court (August) - I believe there will be a face or two that you may recognize.

I hope that you will pass this story onto someone, and if you have someone who you know has been falsely accused of a crime, and is currently languishing in prison, contact Jeffrey Deskovic at the Innocence Project.

Monsanto's whored-out journalists exposed (Re-Post from NN)

Monsanto's whored-out journalists exposed: Amy Harmon, Keith Kloor, Tamar Haspel and more

by Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Connecting the dots between the writers of pro-agrichemical pseudo-journalistic pieces and the funding that fuels their endless propaganda isn't always easy work. But thanks to the efforts of the U.S. Right to Know group, which advocates for mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we now have the inside scoop about a few prominent journalists who have apparently sold their souls to the chemical industry in exchange for a cash payout.

A new report focuses on three individuals in particular – Amy Harmon, Keith Kloor and Tamar Haspel – all of whom seem to support the unmitigated use of unlabeled GMOs in the food supply, and who also can't understand why people oppose hidden biotechnology in their food. The reason for these positions, of course, is that all of these individuals are bankrolled by the biotech industry, and now we have solid proof.

1) Amy Harmon is a reporter for The New York Times (NYT), and has won several awards for her work in "explanatory reporting." She's also connected to the infamous Jon Entine of Forbes.com, who we earlier reported is a domestic abuser and a discredited apologist for GMOs and crop chemicals. Entine actually mentioned Harmon's name in an email exchange, noting that:

"I think I've talked Amy Harmon into doing a Hawaii Hawaii story... and I gave her your and Kirby's email information, so she may call at some point if she indeed pursues this."

The email was sent to a woman by the name of Renee Kester, and refers to Kirby Kester, the president of an agrichemical industry front group by the name of "Hawaii Crop Improvement Association." Not long after this exchange, Harmon published a story in the NYT supposedly setting the record straight on GMO safety – all it really was, though, was a shill piece promoting GMOs.

Harmon was also asked to speak at a conference funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which was also intends to promote the use of GMOs.

2) Keith Kloor is a freelance journalist who has written for a number of popular news outlets including Slate, Nature and Science Insider. His many pro-GMO articles have also appeared on Jon Entine's website Genetic Literacy Project, which is a pro-Monsanto front resource espouses corporate talking points to support GMOs.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know reveal that Kloor is a "very good friend" of Entine's, as well as other pro-GMO shills who work on behalf of corporations like Monsanto to defend the reputation of GMOs and crop chemicals. Based on an email sent to Kloor and a number of other pro-GMO advocates back in 2014, it is clear that he is very closely aligned with the industry.

The email, which was sent by pro-GMO advocate Dr. Channapatna Prakash, included Kloor as the only journalist in the chain. Other recipients of the email included names like Henry Miller, Kevin Folta, and others we've recently exposed for pro-GMO corruption.

3) Tamar Haspel is a columnist with The Washington Post who has repeatedly published articles praising GMOs. Her work has also appeared in Entine's Genetic Literacy Project database.

Haspel participated in a conference coordinated by John Entine and his colleague Cami Ryan, and was led by the Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review, another agrichemical front group. When asked about her financial relationship with the industry which she has repeatedly endorsed through her work, Haspel said, "I speak and moderate panels and debates often, and it's work I'm paid for."

When asked precisely how much money she's received, she replied, "Since any group believing biotech has something to offer is a 'front group,' plenty!"

Sources for this article include:

GMWatch.org

NaturalNews.com

GMO.news


_________


In other news, Monsanto is dropping profits like fat cells off of Oprah after joining WeightWatchers.

Monsanto Co (NYSE:MON)

92.50 BATS BZX Real-Time Price As of 11:17am ET

-0.02 / -0.02% Today’s Change

81.22 Today|||52-Week Range 126.00

-6.11% Year-to-Date

1 day3 days5 days1 month3 month6 monthYTD1 year3 year5 year

 vs. Process Industries

 News

Chart

Eat that, purveyors of FrankenFoods!

Why Only Now Is There Anything Wrong With Chipotle's Foods? (Re-Post from Natural News)

The title was unwieldy, but I'm certain you get the gist...read on:

Originally published December 23 2015

ANALYSIS: Chipotle is a victim of corporate sabotage... biotech industry food terrorists are planting e.coli in retaliation for restaurant's anti-GMO menu

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) After observing recent events involving Chipotle and e.coli, here's my analysis of the situation: Chipotle's e.coli outbreaks are not random chance. They are the result of the biotech industry unleashing bioterrorism attacks against the only fast food company that has publicly denounced GMOs.

How do we know? The CDC has already admitted that some of these e.coli outbreaks involve a "rare genetic strain" of e.coli not normally seen in foods. Furthermore, we also know the track record of the biotech industry engaging in the most criminal, dirty, sleazebag tactics imaginable against any person or company that speaks out against GMOs.

Doctor Oz, for example, was maliciously targeted in a defamation campaign funded by the biotech industry earlier this year. The onslaught against Oz was initiated because he publicly expressed his support for honest GMO labeling on foods.

As the attacks escalated, Doctor Oz had his own team investigate the source of the attacks and found they were all biotech industry shills, some with felony criminal records and long histories of dubious propaganda activities targeting anti-GMO activists.

GMO industry routinely resorts to tactics that resemble terrorism or criminal mafias

As a clean food advocate myself, I know firsthand of the malicious tactics used by these biotech mafia operations, including tactics of intimidation and terrorism, such as calling in bomb threats to locations where clean food activists are about to speak.

There is absolutely no question that the biotech industry will resort to ANY activity necessary to destroy food companies that oppose GMOs. And yes, this includes acts of bioterrorism against Chipotle -- something that's ridiculously easy for biotech industry operatives to carry out with simple, low-cost laboratory supplies sold online at places like Amazon.com.

In my HealthRangerReport.com podcast, shown below, I am now openly encouraging Chipotle's management to initiate a criminal investigation with the FBI to attempt to identify the sources of this corporate sabotage campaign.

To be clear, what's really happening at Chipotle is that biotech industry shills are deliberately contaminating Chipotle's food with strains of e.coli in a malicious attempt to destroy both the reputation and finances of the Chipotle food chain. This act of bioterrorism is entirely consistent with the known behavior patterns of the biotech industry which, for example, engaged in illegal money laundering in Washington state in order to destroy the GMO labeling bill there.

The biotech industry not only sells deadly glyphosate herbicide poison that destroys human health (and contaminates ecosystems), it also uses its dirty money to financially influence academics, journalists and lawmakers. Those individuals who don't fall into line with the biotech agenda are then treated to intense campaigns of defamation, slander, intimidation and threats to try to silence or discredit them.

And when that doesn't work, biotech industry operatives will literally engage in acts of terrorism like we're seeing right now with Chipotle. To understand the biotech industry, you have to first understand that these are truly EVIL people who have no ethical boundaries whatsoever. They will target and destroy any person, any institution or any public company that they see as standing in their way of total world domination over the seed supply (and hence the food supply). The idea that exposing the public to e.coli might be harmful to some people doesn't cause them to hesitate for even a moment. The more people get sick or die from their Chipotle operation, the better for biotech!

Chipotle a victim of corporate SABOTAGE from the biotech industry - podcast URL


Sources for this story include:
http://www.naturalnews.com/049510_Chipotle_n...
http://www.naturalnews.com/049464_Doctor_Oz_...
http://healthrangerreport.com/chipotle-a-vic...
http://www.naturalnews.com/046303_gmo_labeli...
http://www.naturalnews.com/051184_Monsanto_m...
GMO.news
Truthwiki.org
______________________


In case the link above to the podcast doesn't work, click here to go to the NN webpage.


I want to be sure to highlight a sentence, just in case it didn't catch your attention: "The CDC has already admitted that some of these e.coli outbreaks involve a "rare genetic strain" of e.coli not normally seen in foods."


"Not normally seen in foods"?!?


Should we assume that's it's a coincidence that this seems to be occurring just after Chipotle made the announcement to remove GMOs from its menu?


I don't believe in coincidences.

High Fructose Corn Syrup Now Hidden Under a New Name (Re-Post from Waking Times)

The asshattery never ceases:



Anna Hunt, Staff
Waking Times


Food producers have many tactics for hiding food ingredients which have become unpopular with consumers, and such has happened to high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) following numerous scientific studies that have linked it to obesity, Type 2 diabetes and autism. In order to stop using the HFCS name in the ingredients list, food makers have taken to calling a sub-category of HFCS as “fructose syrup” or, plainly, “fructose”.


HFCS is a highly-processed chemical sweetener used in many processed foods, including breads, cookies, candy, condiments, and soft drinks. HFCS extends the shelf life of products, and it is often cheaper than sugar, which are the main reasons why manufacturers like it. But HFCS has gotten a bad rep, considering the circumstantial evidence that links it to various metabolic diseases, so Big Food and the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) decided to get creative.


HFCS is sub-categorized based on its fructose content. The “standard” HFCS – HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 – contains either 42 or 55 percent fructose. The new term “fructose” is now being used when foods contain the ingredient previously called HFCS-90, which has 90 percent fructose. Identifying HFCS-90 as “fructose” in the ingredients list gives food makers a green light to use statements such as “Contains No High Fructose Corn Syrup” or “No HFCS” on the product label, thus misleading buyers.


Here is CRA’s take:

“A third product, HFCS-90, is sometimes used in natural and ‘light’ foods, where very little is needed to provide sweetness. Syrups with 90% fructose will not state high fructose corn syrup on the label [anymore], they will state ‘fructose’ or ‘fructose syrup’.”

Scientific Discoveries about High Fructose Corn Syrup and Health

There’s a growing body of scientific evidence linking HFCS to metabolic disorders. Here is what scientists have discovered about the potential impact of HFCS on human health:

“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests.” “When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese — every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.” – Bart Hoebel, psychology professor at Princeton University (source: Princeton.edu)
“The study adds to a growing body of scientific literature that indicates HFCS consumption may result in negative health consequences distinct from and more deleterious than natural sugar.” – Dr. Michael I. Goran (source: Huffington Post)
“Consumption of HFCS may lead to mineral imbalances, including Zn [Zinc], Ca [Calcium] and P [Phosphorus] loss and Cu [Copper] gain and is a potential source of inorganic mercury exposure.” – Dufault et al. Clinical Epigenetics, 2012
“Data show that consumption of added sugars, particularly HFCS-55, negatively impacts hippocampal function, metabolic outcomes, and neuroinflammation when consumed in excess during the adolescent period of development.” – Hsu et al. Hippocampus, 2014

Although there has been no direct link established between HFCS and diabetes, obesity and autism, the circumstantial evidence that HFCS is a partial culprit in these widespread diseases cannot be overlooked.

It’s All About Marketing

Food producers aren’t new to deceiving the public to make their foods appear healthier than they really are. They will continue to do what they can to sell more products, even if that means re-categorizing and renaming synthetic ingredients. It’s called marketing, and the food industry spends billions on it each year to ensure that you hear and see the right message to make you comfortable with all the chemicals that end up in your food. Food marketers hide the reality under attractive labels with pretty pictures and tag lines such as “100% Pure” or “All natural”, making the ingredients list and nutritional information difficult to read and hidden in the far corners or back sides of packages.

“In the United States, food ingredient information is written for regulators and scientists, not for the average consumer.” – Anne Munoz-Furlong, founder of the nonprofit advocacy group Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network

It is up to you to stop being willfully ignorant to the marketing tricks of Big Food companies. Always read the ingredients list and familiarize yourself with food brands which demonstrate that they care about offering real, living foods, versus supporting companies that make food-like products full of synthetic additives such as HFCS-90.


About the Author
Anna Hunt is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and an entrepreneur with over a decade of experience in research and editorial writing. She and her husband run a preparedness e-store outlet at www.offgridoutpost.com, offering GMO-free storable food and emergency kits. Anna is also a certified Hatha yoga instructor. She enjoys raising her children and being a voice for optimal human health and wellness. Read more of her excellent articles here. Visit her essential oils store here.


Sources:
http://naturalsociety.com/watch-corporations-renamed-high-fructose-corn-syrup/
This article (High Fructose Corn Syrup Now Hidden Under a New Name) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Anna Hunt and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Would You Like Some Glyphosate With Your Guacamole?

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit to one of my guilty pleasures - Frito-Lay snacks.

That was until I heard about this (This article originally appeared at Natural Society.):


“The glyphosate residue test was conducted by an accredited lab using the Specific LC/MS/MS testing method with a minimum detectable level of 0.02 ppm. The test documented the presence of glyphosate in SunChips at a level of 0.14 ppm, or 0.14 mg/kg. As we reported in the findings of our Froot Loops testing, this gives significant reason for concern.”


If this can be found in SunChips, there's no bloody way it isn't present in everything else. The article provided a contact form, and I began filling it out...but it wouldn't accept what I had typed in. Of course, there was another way offered to me - a chat:


Contact No:  062271516A


Vincent 12/01/15 12:47:51 PM - It has been discovered that your SunChips product contain amounts of glyphosate that are troubling. Glyphosate is definitely a carcinogen and a danger to any who ingest it, and if it is present in your SunChips product, it is present in all of your products.


I have been a fan of your products, but as I have had a life-threatening injury, I can no longer ingest or recommend your products to anyone.


It would be great to know that you have changed from GMO to organic/conventional crops that do not require the use of glyphosate, as there are non-toxic alternatives available.

12/01/15 12:47:51 PM - ** Thank you for contacting us.  We'll be with you shortly.

12/01/15 12:48:26 PM - ** Thank you for waiting.  We're still assisting other consumers. You are number 1 in line.

12/01/15 12:49:23 PM - ** Thank you for waiting.  We're still assisting other consumers. You are number 1 in line.

12/01/15 12:50:25 PM - ** Thank you for waiting.  We're still assisting other consumers. You are number 1 in line.

12/01/15 12:51:22 PM - ** Thank you for waiting.  We're still assisting other consumers. You are number 1 in line.

12/01/15 12:52:23 PM - ** Thank you for waiting.  We're still assisting other consumers. You are number 1 in line.

12/01/15 12:52:54 PM - ** We're sorry for the delay.  It appears that our Representatives are still busy.  Please try chat again later.  We look forward to hearing from you!


Apparently, all of their representatives were extremely busy...taking collective number 2's, would be my guess.


That was fun.


What other trouble can I get myself into, I wonder?


Here's a fun bunch of reports:

NOTICE OF INTENT TO LIST CHEMICALS BY THE LABOR CODE MECHANISM: TETRACHLORVINPHOS, PARATHION, MALATHION, GLYPHOSATE - SEPTEMBER 2015

Main findings and recommendations of the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticides -

Expert task force on Diazinon, Glyphosate and Malathion

Renewal Assessment Report, 2013