I am rather perplexed by a ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman to order not just four more years of community service for filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza but continuation of psychological counseling despite the countervailing findings of two experts in the case. Judge Berman was on solid ground in much of his opinion on the conditions of the prior sentencing order. While tough, the defense was trying to curtail key aspects of the order. However, the counseling component does concern me.
D’Souza’s pleaded guilty to a single count of making illegal contributions in the name of others as part of the campaign of Wendy Long for New York Senate. He made $20,000 in illegal contributions. That is no minor infraction, but many questioned the decision of the Justice Department to seek multiple felonies and jail time. His case was denounced by various people as reflecting a selective prosecution of a conservative write and critic of the Obama Administration. Berman rejected the demand for jail time but did impose five years probation, eight months in a halfway house and a $30,000 fine as well as requiring that D’Souza perform eight hours of community service each week during his probation and must undergo therapy on a weekly basis.
This hearing was meant to clarify aspects of his sentence last year and much of the order would not be viewed as particularly controversial. D’Souza was seeking to limit the time of the community service by reference to his home confinement period. Berman balked and said that he said the two periods as distinct — a position that courts would likely take in similar cases.
Berman not surprisingly continued the community service for four more years. However, it is the counseling that most surprised me. While some sites have clearly relished the denial of relief, even referring to D’Souza as a “conservative clown.” His political views should not factor into these cases.
D’Souza’s counsel submitted evidence that the court-ordered psychiatrist found no indication of depression or reason for medication. His own retained psychologist provided a written statement concluding there was no need to continue the consultation. However, Judge Berman simply disagreed and said that he thinks more counseling will help while noting that this is not punishment: “I only insisted on psychological counseling as part of Mr. D’Souza’s sentence because I wanted to be helpful. I am requiring Mr. D’Souza to see a new psychological counselor and to continue the weekly psychological consultation not as part of his punishment or to be retributive.” I am concerned with a judge exercising such power “to be helpful” when there is not an independent recommendation for such counseling or a desire by the individual for such counseling.
Moreover, I am not comfortable with Judge Berman’s reference to his own expertise in the area. The court insisted “I’m not singling out Mr. D’Souza to pick on him. A requirement for psychological counseling often comes up in my hearings in cases where I find it hard to understand why someone did what they did.” I fail to see why this conduct is so mystifying. Stupid, yes, but the motivation was obvious. He sought to circumvent limitations on campaign financing laws. That was justifiably punished but it is not like he was found with severed heads in a duffle bag. Judge Berman noted that the court-appointed psychologist called D’Souza “arrogant” and “intolerant of others’ feelings.” However, that description would fit many successful people, including many in Washington and even a few on the bench.
Judge Berman then added: “You have to understand, I have a background in social work with a psychology major. I’m sensitive to mental health issues in the criminal cases I hear, and I do not want to end psychological counseling at this time in Mr. D’Souza’s case.” I have little question that Judge Berman has such a background. Indeed, he has a remarkable background and proven intellectual prowess. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 1964 and his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1967. He also received a Master of Social Work from Fordham University in 1996. He had a successful legal career and served as an executive assistant to United States Senator Jacob Javits in 1974. He was later named Executive Director of the New York State Alliance to Save Energy and was then appointed General Counsel and Executive Vice President of the Warner Cable Corporation. He has been a judge on various levels and is distinguished in the depth and scope of his published opinions.
However, while judges often bring their experience and knowledge to cases, it is a bit more problematic when the court effectively places his own experience as a type of third expert witness on an issue like psychological counseling. It is akin to a former police officer invoking his own forensic analysis to overrule or amplify the conclusions of an expert witness. I also simply do not see the record for continuing this element of the order. The original sentence for D’Souza was quite harsh and he has fulfilled those conditions without incident from what I can see. He has also continued as a successful writer and speaker. Even if the court believes that community service must continue, I do not see the basis for compelled psychological counseling. The court is not in the business of making “better people” in this way. The court acknowledged that this is not part of the punishment and that he was only ordering the counseling on his hunch that D’Souza could benefit from such counseling. At this point however I think that decision should rest with D’Souza. I do not know D’Souza and I have not read his work. However, I fail to see a record to support this part of the order.
What do you think?
So happy to have pleased the Grand Inquisitor so! I live to be of service. Spit….er…drool or something. At least it wasn’t as completely off topic as Karen’s 2:46 PM comment about the Iran nuclear deal.
Excellent deflection off topic, Inga.
Even better, it points to a *spit* Republican.
The Progressive Grand Inquisitor is pleased.
Speaking of nutty.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/14/texas-governor-vetos-mental-health-bill-at-urging-of-scientologists-who-dont-believe-mental-illness-exists/
“In a move that even his own party found baffling, Gov. Abbott (R) recently vetoed a popular, bipartisan bill that proponents had hoped would give doctors and medical facilities more resources to help patients with mental health issues. In a political climate where politicians oftentimes can’t even agree on what day of the week it is, the bill was broadly accepted, especially as the risks associated with mental illness, including self-harm, continue to stack up in scientific studies.
The bill would have allowed physicians to place a “four-hour hold on a mentally ill patient if they are suspected of being a danger to themselves or others.” It hoped to address the problem of people who are suffering from mental health episodes checking themselves out of hospitals or treatment centers while still posing a risk.
According to an explosive new investigation published by the Texas Tribune, a lot of Abbott’s reservations about the bill came directly from an anti-medical Scientology group which adheres to the belief that “no mental ‘diseases’ have ever been proven to medically exist.” Similarly, they believe that psychiatry is a lie and therapists are no different from “terrorists” – a claim originating with Scientology’s founder L. Ron Hubbard. They also have a strong stance against using pharmaceuticals in any capacity, again stemming from the belief that mental illness is a myth and treating it does more harm than good.”
“The American thesis is freedom and self-reliance.”
That is sooo cute.
And soooo 19th century.
The Modern American thesis is freedom from responsibility and State-reliance.
Mz Lisa (thank God for affirmative action, huh?),
What’s a “right-winger?” Would their names be Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Adams,
Mason et al.?
What’s a “liberal?” Would their names be Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.?
Justice, Tranquility, Common Defence, Promote General Welfare
(roads, water, utility of the currency, etc.). That’s the ticket. And that’s the limit of government.
The Preamble is the essential American Context.
The Constitution provides for governance within the parameters of the Preamble.
The Communist Manifesto emerged in 1848 to supplant the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The “blessings of liberty” are freedom and free enterprise without interference by government.
Americans shall adapt to and live with the consequences of freedom.
The American thesis is freedom and self-reliance.
FYI
The Story of Your Enslavement
https://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A
@ Olly
1, July 15, 2015 at 1:50 pm
“I wonder what it’s like being a political prisoner.”
Neo,
The Red Pill would have shown you that you already are.
*****************************************************************************
LOL.
Yes, that statement was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.
Speaking of stupid political decisions:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-will-teach-iran-to-thwart-nuke-threats/
“Under the terms of a deal that provides Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief, Iran and global powers will cooperate to help teach Iran how to manage its nuclear infrastructure, which will largely remain in tact under the deal.”
“The language was viewed as disturbing by analysts and experts who said such cooperation could help protect Iran against efforts by the Israelis or other countries to sabotage the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in the future.”
““The United States and its partners have just become the international protectors of the Iranian nuclear program. Instead of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, we’re now legally obligated to help the Iranians build it up and protect it,” said one Western source present in Vienna and who is apprised of the details of the deal.
In addition to teaching Iran how to protect its nuclear infrastructure, world powers pledge in the agreement to help Iran construct next-generation centrifuges—the machines that enrich uranium—at its once-secret nuclear site in Fordow, where Iran has been suspected of housing a weapons program.
Fordow is an underground and fortified military site that is largely immune from air strikes by those seeking to eradicate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
While Iran will not be permitted to enrich nuclear material with these centrifuges, the know-how gained from operating these advanced centrifuges could help it advance clandestine nuclear weapons work, experts say.”
There is just no excuse in the entire planet for such stupidity. This is a failure of global security of an unimaginable level by our leaders. We did this abominable act after Iran threatened us. Iran starts school kids off every day at school chanting “Death to America! Death to Israel!” And we help them combat sabotage attempts on their nuclear program and help them build centrifuges to enrich uranium???? This type of moronic behavior could very well directly lead to a nuclear WWIII and the end of life on Earth.
” I’d say before any right wingers here point the finger at liberals, I’d suggest they give recognition to this Michael Savage guy for inventing the idea first, or else they would appear to be hypocritical.”
Can you give me ONE legal case where a Republican appointed judge has ordered psychiatric counseling for an opposing political party, as a form of punishment ?. . . . .
Will do; Penelope is divine.
@ChiefConsort
You should contact my BFF Penelope Dreadful about becoming one of her guest bloggers! She would like your stuff.
I do, too.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Justice is deaf, dumb, blind, and on the payroll.
She’s just not on your payroll.
Ha ha ha.
That always kills me..
Chatwal just got probation, a $500,000 fine, and 1,000 hours community service for fraudulent donations of $180,000.
D’Souza was sentenced to 8 months in a work release program, 3 years of probation, $30,000 fine, and community service. And then he had his comment service extended 4 more years and was mandated to psychiatric counseling in direct contrast to the recommendations of 2 actual psychiatrists. All for fraudulent donations of $20,000.
And yet, the Left sees these undisputed facts, and argue that it’s OK, because this is a conservative .
Justice should be blind.
I am cheered by the reliable Liberal voices here, giving soft tut-tutting and oh-gee dismay at this judge’s probably inappropriate use of psychiatry to punish a detested opponent.
Done with mild -but toothless- head shaking whispering (Oh my!), but resting assured that nothing will come of it.
Except perhaps the promotion of the judge to SCOTUS.
We Liberals save our ire, our venom, our most destructive impulses for the most heinous miscreants, those unworthy to remain in polite Liberal society, whose careers and social networks must be destroyed, crushed until the rubble bounces.
Like, say, a small town baker who declines to cater a gay wedding.
How interesting to see the Left justify the use of unwarranted psychiatric care as political punishment.
One way for thee, another for me . . .
Is it really too much to ask that the law apply equally to all?
I’ve watched one of his movies about America. It was quite good. He interviewed a lot of immigrants for the piece. Rather than reading a hit piece on his works, why not just watch it and decide for yourself?
old nurse:
“He has a sense of entitlement and a belief that the law doesn’t apply to him. If, and only if, he were really interested in exploring the roots of this and subsequently changing his behavior, therapy could certainly help. But therapy mandated by a judge to cure him of his narcissism?? – doubtful.”
Clearly you have never heard him interviewed, read his books, or watched his movies. I have seen him interviewed. He admitted he used straw buyers in a lapse of judgement. There was no sense that “the law doesn’t apply to him”. I recall also in that interview that they discussed other politicians who had done the same thing and who did not receive similar sentences. In fact, several Clinton backers did the exact same thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/nyregion/clinton-backer-pleads-guilty-in-a-straw-donor-scheme.html?_r=0
“In the fall of 2010, according to court documents, Mr. Chatwal and a business owner who is now cooperating with prosecutors decided that they should raise money, using straw donors, for another candidate so the candidate might intervene with a federal regulatory agency that had issued an “adverse ruling” regarding the other person’s business. “That’s the only way to buy them, get into the system,” Mr. Chatwal was recorded as saying to the person, who by then was cooperating with prosecutors.”
Compare the sentencing of Mr Chatwal, who donated 9 times as much as D’Souza. Aside from a higher fine, his sentence was lighter. The reasoning? “In Mr. Chatwal’s case, “the amount which is involved pales in the light of the multimillion-dollar contributions being made regularly” through political action committees, Judge Glasser said.” How interesting that they were lenient with a Clinton donor who illegally contributed $180,000, but threw the book at D’Souza and mandated psychiatric care for $20,000.
They also said that Chatwal showed savvy, “Mr. Chatwal’s lawyer, Jonathan S. Sack, said the recordings showed only that Mr. Chatwal was sanguine about the political process. “In order to participate in the political system and have relationships with elected officials, one makes contributions,” he said.” That’s quite a bit different from D’Souza’s mea culpa.
And that’s just one case.
The law should apply equally to everyone, regardless of political affiliation.
Sentenced to the Ministry of Truth where two-plus-two will equal five. I don’t think anyone can say it more concisely than Jill up above. This nation IS getting creepy.
“I wonder what it’s like being a political prisoner.”
Neo,
The Red Pill would have shown you that you already are.
Article II, Section 4
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
**********
Start with this judge, then proceed, with extreme prejudice, to the Supreme Court and the ineligible imposter in the Office of the President.
I think that judge should be charged with practicing medicine (Psychiatry) without a license. Can’t corporations pay out unlimited funds for a candidate (for favors of course) with impunity? If only the defendant Incorporated himself first.
I wonder what it’s like being a political prisoner.