Given the recent reports on our latest filings in the World Bank case (Chang v. United States), below are the two most recent filings asking for a resumption of hearings on the alleged destruction of evidence by the government.
Because I am co-lead counsel in the case with Dan Schwartz of Bryan Cave, I must remain circumspect in what I can say about the case. To ease the burden on the staff, we will sometimes post some filings in the case.
Here are the two filings this week:
15 thoughts on “Federal Court Asked To Resume Hearings On Alleged Government Destruction Of Evidence In World Bank Case”
Doesn’t this suggest serious crimes such as withholding evidence, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, perjury?
For evidence, isn’t custody usually documented?
For electronic documents that might become evidence aren’t there usually well documented procedures that specify backup and retention?
So how could there possibly be confusion regarding the existence of things like the radio or video logs of a particular incident?
This seems to go beyond the action of a few individual officers and call into the question the integrity of the culture and systems of MPD.
At this point it would seem that evidence held by MPD necessarily raises the question of reasonable doubt.
If DC does not investigate the statements and actions of officials thoroughly and prosecute vigorously, how can any prosecutor expect to get a future conviction based on evidence held by MPD?
It seems to me at this time if MPD holds the evidence there is only one possible conclusion: ‘maybe it is, then again maybe it ain’t’
one hundred years of male rape might be hard on them too. No white collar prison for them……guantanamo maybe. they are terrorists you know, and definitely combatants, and now obama declares it all a warzone now.
I think you are correct on both accounts……
Referring to the banksters and their henchmen.
Who me? Hope not. It was just after my post, thus question.
More on the MPD today:
D.C. Judge Says Credibility of Police Sworn Statements “Smashed to Smithereens”
March 14, 2012
A Superior Court Judge in the District of Columbia slammed the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for submitting “transparently false” affidavits in an unsuccessful effort to defeat a lawsuit brought by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) that demands that the MPD disclose its orders and policies.
Judge Judith N. Macaluso ruled in favor of the PCJF lawsuit forcing the MPD to release documents that it has spent years concealing and refusing to disclose. The PCJF’s litigation has resulted in the largest and most comprehensive release of D.C. police documents in the history of D.C.’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The PCJF filed the lawsuit on February 5, 2009 when MPD officials refused to release documents in response to the PCJF’s FOIA request seeking orders and policies that dictate how officers are to exercise their authority. The D.C. MPD had been refusing to abide by the 2001 D.C. Council legal mandate that required public disclosure of the information. The MPD had long refused requests from civil rights and civil liberties and community-based organizations for this disclosure, but the PCJF went to court to get the documents.
Judge Macaluso, speaking from the bench said the credibility of the statements sworn under penalty of perjury by MPD officials had “been smashed to smithereens.” The Judge repeatedly referred to the police’s sworn statements as to why documents could not be seen by the public as “false,” as well as “ridiculous,” “practically hysterical,” and “hyperbolic.”
Speaking in the bluntest possible language to the District’s lawyer who represented the police department and the officials’ sworn affidavits, Judge Macaluso, said, “you are responsible for the accuracy of every document that you file in court, and those affidavits are transparently false. A fact you have to know. The District’s willingness to rely upon false documents undermines every argument the District of Columbia puts forward.” The transcript of the hearing is available today.
“This is an important victory for every person in Washington D.C. The MPD wanted to continue to operate in the shadows but that is dangerous, a negation of basic democracy, and a violation of the law. We insisted, and the court agreed, that MPD’s arguments and sworn statements for refusing to comply with its obligations were based on falsifications,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the PCJF.
The conscious decision by the police to swear out false statements in the lawsuit raises the troubling question of whether this is a routine practice in the nation’s capital.
“The fact that the police persisted in providing statements that were ‘transparently false’ was revealed in this hard fought litigation. But it raises the question as to what extent equally false sworn police statements may be used in some or many of the thousands of prosecutions that take place each year in the District, but do so outside of the glare of publicity or the scrutiny of extensive litigation,” stated Carl Messineo, Legal Director of the PCJF. A large number of individuals are convicted, fined and incarcerated based on the sworn statements and testimony of the police.
Mr. Messineo added, “the ease with which police officials submitted completely false affidavits to the Court under penalty of perjury raises the question as to how many people have been sent to jail on false police statements. The public has a right to accountability and an end to this practice and culture emanating from the top ranks of the MPD.”
Ironically, the Judge’s harsh condemnation of the conduct of the MPD and the District, in a case that goes to the heart of government transparency, came at the start of the annually-recognized “Sunshine Week” when grassroots organizations and individuals from around the country are holding events and activities highlighting the need for open government and for disclosure of information to the public.
The massive disclosure of General Orders, Special Orders and other police directives are being made accessible to the public by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund on http://www.DCMPD.org. As this next set of documents are released, the PCJF will also post them. To be alerted to new document disclosures, please sign up here. A transcript of the hearing is available here.
Second try to get this comment to go where I intended.
I am beginning to rethink my position on drawing and quartering, as well as boiling in oil, as appropriate punishment for some sociopaths.
Just a little cross post not posted:
Obama on Torture by Americans:
“We must lay old war crimes behind us, and concentrate on future ones.”
Where is his concentration now? Can we guess?
As for favorite prophets.
He said he hated the IMF and loved the World Bank——or was it vice versa?
All I gotta say is: EFF the FED.
And that does not mean “examination friend or foe”.
Sometimes when they destroy evidence they know you are going to discover it soon or later, and that evidence is better for you than for them.
Psychopaths in the DOJ … who knew (Bybee, Yoo, Gonzales, Ashcroft, MuKasey, J. Edgar Hoover)?
That they deliberately lied and misrepresented the facts is contemptuous of the court and of justice:
(Dkt. 876, at 6). I mean the plaintiffs gave them ample time to recant from the willful, deliberate, and contemptuous cover up of the truth.
Furthermore, the IMF and its counsel deliberately went beyond that into a concerted effort to twist the truth into a lie:
(Dkt. 877, at 5). I have no sympathy for the IMF nor its counsel in these premises. They must be hung from the friggin’ masthead forthwith!
Old military adage is stuff* rolls downhill. Those that order it get paid more than those that do it. Same as the Mafia boss gets more than the hitman. The banksters and other crime bosses are birds of a feather.
AY and OS,
That depends on whether you’re talking about the doer or the orderer.
Or are they both potential scapegoats?
This is the sort of discovery violation that may well warrant the striking of pleadings and entry of default.
AY, you have that backwards. That rates a promotion and raise in their world.
The World Bank/IMF is a corrupt entity established to benefit the 1%. Give them hell Professor!
Intentionally destroyed or withheld information should be carer enders……
Comments are closed.