Attorney Convicted of Voting Seeks Pardon

There are links throughout the article - I recommend that you go to the site to see them all. This is another site that will be added to the blogroll.

As you may have heard, things have not been going so well for New York Governor David Paterson, who has announced he will not run for another term. Another scandal has since come to light (although considering what the previous governor was up to, calling this a "scandal" may be a stretch), leading to speculation that Paterson may resign. Here's something decent he could do between now and then: pardon John O'Hara.

John O'Hara is a New York attorney and political activist who was disbarred in 1997 after he was convicted of voting in an election district in which he did not "reside." Apparently, civil challenges to residency under the state's Election Law are common, but criminal prosecutions are rare. Very rare. As in, there have only been three, ever, and one of those was Susan B. Anthony, prosecuted in 1873 for the heinous crime of Voting While Female. You might have thought there were enough serious crimes in any given borough every year to keep each district attorney fully employed, but the Brooklyn DA found time to put O'Hara on trial three separate times for voting from the wrong address.

If that seems a little odd to you, you are not alone. People who have investigated this prosecution -- including the author of this Harper's Magazine article, and the bar committee that recently recommended reinstating O'Hara's license, have concluded that it was politically motivated. One of the many fun facts about this is that the DA who prosecuted O'Hara, Charles Hynes, turned out to be violating the same law at the time. Somehow, he neglected to prosecute himself for that.

The law involved defines "residency" as "that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he, wherever temporarily located, always intends to return." N.Y. Election Law § 1-104(22). But that hasn't been construed literally by courts, which have held that if someone has more than one "residence," he or she can pick one for voting purposes so long as they have "legitimate, significant and continuing attachments" to that location. Ferguson v. McNab, 60 N.Y.2d 598, 600 (1983). Even that has been pretty damn flexible. One civil case was dismissed although the voter in question could remember having visited his voting address maybe once in seven years.

By contrast, O'Hara had lived in the same neighborhood his whole life, had managed successful political campaigns there and had run for public office several times. And he didn't leave the district, the district left him, as a result of redistricting in 1992. He re-registered to vote using an address on 47th Street, which he said was a basement apartment in a building owned by his ex-girlfriend. He has never tried to conceal the fact that he did this so he could continue to work and run in campaigns in the district. And under the law, at least as interpreted by courts, he should have been entitled to do that.

I realize that if this were the opening scene of an episode of "Law and Order," you might click over to the History Channel and watch something about Nostradamus. There is no dead body at the end of this scene, but only because it's hard to draw chalk outlines around due process. So keep reading.

In 1996, O'Hara was suddenly indicted. Coincidentally, at the time he was challenging an incumbent politician linked to the DA. Although, again, there had been only two other prosecutions under this law, ever, O'Hara was charged with seven felonies and was tried three separate times (short history: trial, conviction, reversal, retrial, hung jury, retrial) for the heinous address violations described. Ultimately, he was convicted, and that was later upheld in a decision that prompted a strong dissent. People v. O'Hara, 96 N.Y.2d 378 (2001). Without getting into all the details, the third jury was given a confusing instruction on residency that included both legal standards, and it seems very likely that this was a prejudicial error. But the majority did not agree, or at least it found some arguments had been waived.

Even assuming that final decision was right for technical reasons, the question remains why O’Hara was prosecuted at all. In his article for Harper's, Christopher Ketcham wrote that he had little doubt it was politically motivated retaliation, and the bar committee that looked into the case in 2009 decided that was probably accurate. It voted 25-0 to recommend his license be reinstated, and a court agreed. So, after 12 years, O'Hara can now practice law again, but is still, technically, a felon.

Slick Rick in 2005_ Getty Images This is where Governor Paterson comes in, or ought to. O'Hara has filed a petition asking for a pardon, which is something that outgoing executives are known for granting, because they can. And now that Paterson may be outgoing sooner than expected, this seems like a good time to bring it up again. O'Hara has pointed out that Paterson has granted a full pardon to Ricky Walters (right), a.k.a "Slick Rick," a.k.a., Guy Who Shot Two People and spent six years in prison for attempted murder. If Slick Rick deserves a pardon, doesn't convicted voter John O'Hara? (Who, by the way, should get some extra credit for not going around wearing an eye patch.)

If you want to help out, you can go here to sign an e-petition supporting the pardon request. Go here to read a personal message of support from Chris Noth, who you all know from "Law and Order" and who 51% of you know from "Sex and the City." If you sign up, ladies, Chris will personally come over and rub your feet. No, he won’t, but you should sign anyway.

Link: Free John O'Hara
Link: NY Daily News (2009)
Link: NY Times (list of articles mentioning the case)

Jesse "Mind & Body" Ventura Talks Sense; Voter Intimidation Once Again Rears Its Ugly-Ass Head; Google Follies

Since it was so perfectly stated by the blogger, I'll let him speak (my comment to follow):

"This is just one of several segments on "the Tube" but all worth checkin' out - I have to say that Ventura is one helluva' spokesman for the truth movement because he speaks in common sense terms and really gets to the heart of the matter. I no longer wonder why he isn't covered more by the mainstream media - they can't have him on because the questions he is asking are so obvious. I can go on and on but will simply repeat myself - please watch the following video and keep yourself informed. I hope by posting this I am keeping some readers apprised of the growing truth movement - that it is a grass roots movement - from the bottom up - getting bigger every day...anyway please watch the following and the rest on YouTube."

Posted by jack rabbit at 9:44 PM
1 comments:

Anonymous said...

It would seem to me that the only way to get an honest report on 911 is to redact the Government. Start fresh and examine all the obviously illogical components eg. BBC reporting WTC7 falling before it did, and the engineering reports showing temperatures insufficient to produce structural failure from jet fuel. A quote I vagely remember goes 'if everything is impossible then whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, is the truth'

hANOVER fIST says:

I don't wish to bore you by repeating ad nauseum what has occurred in the past...but clearly, when abuses of power and outright failure and/or incompetence are rewarded, and whistle-blowing or forthright behaviour is met with hostility, harassment and loss of employment, we have a case of the foxes running the henhouse...and contrary to former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, the only interest the financial industry has is MONEY.

They are beholden ONLY to MONEY.

Long-term investment, nor the well-being of the stock market, or of the United States of America, for that matter, means BUPKIS to them...and so, there was never any incentive whatsoever to rein in ill-advised transactions.




In other news...some tools don't seem to understand the idea of voting, and that it should NOT be discouraged:

Published on HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com (http://hamptonroads.com)
Phony flier says Virginians vote on different days

RICHMOND

A phony State Board of Elections flier advising Republicans to vote on Nov. 4 and Democrats on Nov. 5 is being circulated in several Hampton Roads localities, according to state elections officials.

In fact, Election Day, for voters of all political stripes, remains Nov. 4.

The somewhat official-looking flier - it features the state board logo and the state seal - is dated Oct. 24 and indicates that "an emergency session of the General Assembly has adopted the follwing (sic) emergency regulations to ease the load on local electorial (sic) precincts and ensure a fair electorial process."

The four-paragraph flier concludes with: "We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause but felt this was the only way to ensure fairness to the complete electorial process."

No emergency action has been taken by the General Assembly. It is not in session and lacks the authority to change the date of a federal election.

State Board of Election officials today said they are aware of the flier but disavowed any connection to it.

"It's not even on our letterhead; they just copied the logo from our Web site," said agency staffer Ryan Enright, noting the flier has been forwarded to State Police for investigation as a possible incident of voter intimidation.

Election officials did not specify in which Hampton Roads localities the flier had been spotted.

State Police are aware of the complaint and are looking into it, said spokeswoman Corinne Geller.

In 2007, the General Assembly passed a law making it a Class 1 misdemeanor to knowingly communicate false information to registered voters about the date, time and place of the election or voters' precincts, polling places or voter registration statuses in order to impede their voting. The measure is one of the few such deceptive voting practice laws in the country, according to the watchdog group Common Cause.

Julian Walker, (804) 697-1564, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com

Let's see some prosecutions for this disenfranchisement of the voting public.

Check out this information on privacy information and Google:

The Scumbags Know That Their Days Are Numbered...

I highly recommend BradBlog - Brad Friedman is a true patriot, along the lines of a Bev Harris. He is in touch on a number of issues; foremost in my readings is the issue of vote fraud. I've read VoteScam by the Collier brothers, and I've lived the vote scam of the last eight years by the Bush Administration (not to mention the chicanery of the Clinton Administration eight years beforehand...but I'll admit to being a political neophyte for that period).

I ran across a posting at BradBlog in regards to voter's rights, and encountered in the comments to that article a despicable individual who goes by the label of Terminator..."Termy" is an individual of ill breeding who stated that "Crackheads are more prone to vote for Obama."

Imagine that.

"Termy" is working for an MBA.

An MBA, in my personal opinion, is the MOST USELESS DEGREE IN EXISTENCE.

I'll tell you why (reposting from the original rant):

No two businesses are the same, and it takes someone who knows how certain industries are run to make a business flourish.

I've seen too many instances (many in PERSON) where some douchebag with an MBA comes in, changes a bunch of rules (the 1st rule in every idiot manager's handbook is to CHANGE SOME RULES), and then good employees get disgruntled, they quit, and the business GOES TO HELL.

All because some douchebag with an MBA thinks that ANY BUSINESS CAN BE RUN LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS.

So...just look in the mirror, pal...and say to yourself,"I'm barely one step on the evolutionary ladder above a crackhead, so maybe I should keep my stupid mouth shut."

I'm going to perform some due diligence on this, but I'm willing to surmise that the creation of the MBA degree coincided with off-shoring of manufacturing jobs in the United States - thus proving my conjecture that the MBA is indeed not only the most useless of degrees, but that it also begat the end of prosperity of WE THE PEOPLE.

Update: I started ranting on this very subject (MBAs) with some YOUNG people, and they began finishing my sentences for me...the very ones you see above.

Term Limits: It's OUR Decision; Jane Daniel's Suit Against Misha Defonseca Is Thrown Out!

In 1993, New Yorkers overwhelmingly voted for terms limits - two four-year terms for elected officials in New York City. In 1996, New Yorkers voted again to keep term limits, and keep them at just two terms.

No matter how you feel about term limits, one thing is clear: it's OUR decision, not the politicians. If they want to change term limits, it should be done the fair way, by asking the voters’ permission.

But a new bill introduced in the City Council would do just the opposite. The bill would ignore the voters and give politicians a third term (the same politicians who will vote on it).

City Hall needs to hear from you. Sign the petition and make your voice heard:
http://itsourdecision.org/

You can also see where your Council member stands, see a term limits time line, tell a friend, and see who we are.

Thanks for all you do!

--

In other news...Jane Daniel's lawsuit against Misha Defonseca is thrown out...because she exceeded the statute of limitations in filing said suit.

What a load of crap.

Amazingly, there most likely is NO statute of limitation in regards to perpetrating a FALSEHOOD.