Court-report-and-Highwood-Generating-station from May 2013

I published this as a Blogspot post in 2013, after being called to jury duty.   I discuss my past with the two District Judges, Parker and Best, neither of whom was a judge then (Parker was County Atty).  For some reason, this post was deleted.  Do judges have the ability to do that?   I posted the link on FB, but not the text, which I will do, now..   PHS, Mayday 2019


http://paul-stephens.blogspot.com/2013/05/court-report-and-highwood-generating.html

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Court Report and the Highwood Generating Station (sic)


Court Reform

I had the opportunity to serve on a jury (or at least go through the selection process) for the past two days, and I learned a lot from it.

John Parker was prosecuting the case of an alleged "pipe bomber" from Stafford County, Virginia, Judge Sandefur presiding.  It immediately became apparent that I should go to work for the defense, rather than serving on the jury.  No one believed that I didn't somehow know or have some connection with Mr. Stewart, the defendant (since I make a point of identifying myself as a Jacobite - at least for British purposes, as well as anarchist and "enemy of the state.").  And perhaps I do.  I certainly perceived him to be a worthy bearer of that name, but of course I had no opportunity to discuss his case or his personal history with him.

Now that I am off the jury, I might have an opportunity to do that.  But I'm almost certain there are rules against it, which seem to me to be improper, although often necessary.  I could probably get a waiver or something.  I was called to the jury at random, and found to be biased or predisposed to do less (or perhaps more) than justice required.  I should be free to help the defense, now, or at least evaluate its strategy and prospects.

Although I have no known historical connections with Virginia, outside of the usual patriotic, "Founding Fathers" identification with Washington, Jefferson, and Madison (and Jefferson, of course, is most important to Montana, which was part of the Louisiana Purchase), the name "Stewart" or Stuart rings many bells.  I suspect that Mr. Parker bumped me because he knew I was a friend of Stuart Lewin, a well-known local lawyer and political/enviro activist.  But I only know him socially and through environmental causes.  I've never retained his services or otherwise identified with his law practice.  Another I know (or thought I knew) is Channing Hartelius, who was Stuart's law partner early-on (they both went to George Washington University Law School).  Channing was a year ahead of me at GFHS, and we had many mutual friends.  And I've played poker with him in bars, not privately.  I've always criticized every lawyer I know when I think they are doing something stupid.  I'm a student of the law and legal philosophy, and I seem to be just about the only one here in Great Falls.  We should start a Jurisprudence Discussion Club, or something.

We were asked if we had any connections with law enforcement or the legal community.  Perhaps I should have mentioned Stuart and Channing as "law-enforcement" people I was acquainted with.  As a cab driver, I knew dozens of cops as well as some JP's, but none appeared on the list of witnesses in this case.  (They were Highway Patrol or Cascade County deputies, mostly).  Although I worked for a former Sheriff for six years managing apartments (1990-1996), I am no longer on good terms with him, since I think he owes me money (or more accurately, his partners do, along with him).  Bob Jones was also a partner in that Lexington Group, but he was out when they hired me, they said.

Mr Parker recognized me as someone who had run against him for the Legislature (2004), and we had one personal conversation (at the Labor Day picnic) after which  I withdrew from the race.  I didn't discuss my reasons for withdrawing from that campaign - I was still on the ballot, and received 10% of the vote with no Republican in the race.  Reasons included being fired from my job as cab driver (there's one monopoly, politically connected cab company, here), and failure to be endorsed by the Montana Conservation Voters, who endorsed Mr. Parker, instead.  They could have endorsed us both - I ran as a Green and had worked with the MCV for many years.

At the time, Mr. Parker supported the Highwood Generating Station, and it was Aart Dolman and Ben Graybill who interviewed me for the endorsement.  This also resulted in my resigning from Citizens for Clean energy, although I continued to oppose the HGS in every detail and every step of the way - except the one detail which CCE pursued, which was to outlaw small, independent Green Coops with the assistance of Northwestern Energy - the local monopoly grid.

This disastrous move was carried out by Cheryl Reichert, but with no opposition from anyone but me.  Even MEIC, an environmental advocacy group, got on board due to Cheryl's influence and the money she was able to raise for them, thus discrediting real environmentalists like me who were forbidden even to use the mailing lists we had put together.

Several lawyers besides Stuart got involved and made some political capital out of it, too.  I might mention Elizabeth Best, who ran for the Supreme Court and is a personal friend from the Unitarian Fellowship as well as Facebook and other venues. (She nailed me with the information that it was her grandfather, Dr. McPhail, an obstetrician, who brought me and thousands of others into the world.  That's better than a legacy of a million dollars for her).

I remarked at the time that by opposing Green co-ops and siding with NW Energy, the group had discredited themselves for any moral case against the HGS, a judgment strenuously opposed by several other "professional class" people or professors in the group.  These guys are a "union" covering up for each other like no other.  Indeed, it was only because of strong Union and co-op minded support that the plant was ever dreamed of, but the "answer" wasn't to attack unions and co-ops, but to explain global warming and other environmental consequences (as well as the vast rip-off of Montana resources and consumers - and taxpayers - which made the HGS a total non-starter).  Now, that is all clear, but only a few of us seemed to understand it 10 years ago, when the City (under John Lawton and Randy Gray as Mayor) first got involved in the HGS.

But I found Mr. Parker to be much improved, and I was not going to hold that past history against him.  I do take issue with his understanding of the law and legal processes, though, and it was only prudent of him to make sure I couldn't bring up any of this extraneous information in my role as juror.  (Not that I would have had any opportunity to do so).

I must say, the whole case seems staged and somehow "political".  Mr. Parker's main power base and campaign supporters (his present position is appointed) were, in fact, the police and prison-guard's (also Teacher's) unions.  He was praised lavishly by the law enforcement community for his many prosecutions of victimless crime, as well as mere possession of anything "sexually arousing" involving children.  He was able to convince the Legislature that anyone having a picture of a nude child and using it for sexual arousal (masturbation) deserved a 20 years mandatory prison sentence.  No child need have been abused or tortured, frontal nudity was not required, nor any sort of sex act.  Children photographed in the bathtub have been prosecuted under such laws, as well as paintings and other works depicting naked children, which millions do.

Although the mandatory sentencing has been largely removed in Montana, there are still a large number of victimless crimes which Mr. Parker is glad to prosecute - apparently to pay off the right-wing "law and order" people who want to pack the prisons even further - even though we now lock up 5 times more people than any other country (Britain has increased its prison population, too, in recent years, and always ranked 2nd to the US.), and spend as much on prisons(both locally and nationally)  as we do on public colleges and universities.  The Economist often remarked that we have cut welfare and substituted prisons for a universal social safety net and health care system.

I fear that Mr. Stewart will not get justice.  And he has also indicated through his attorney, Mr. Scott, that he won't testify in his own defense.  Mr. Scott (apparently no relation to Bill Scott, a prominent local lawyer and Republican - former Mayor), made a big point of asking the jurors what they might think of a defendant who wouldn't testify in his own defense?  Several who expressed reservations were dismissed.

All in all, thanks to Judge Sandefur, there were a lot of good points made about the law and its application, to educate the jurors in what their rights and duties might be.  The one thing they don't tolerate in Montana is finding fault with the law, itself - so-called "jury nullification."   At a time when every legislature passes hundreds of laws (like Mr. Parker's "child pornography" campaign) due to lobbying, misrepresentation, or outright bribery and coercion, it should be the  job of jurors to make sure that no one is unjustly prosecuted or punished for such "victimless crimes".

In the present case,  the charge was Attempted Murder, part of the traditional criminal law, so there would be no issue of the law being wrong or invalid, but there could be plenty of issues involving whether this was an appropriate charge, whether the accused is sane and responsible, what his motives were, etc.  I even suggested "criminal endangerment" as a better charge, but of course we were not allowed to have even the most superficial information presented to us beyond what would be presented in court (another fault - why  shouldn't we have access to other information and sources?).

I  was most concerned about  the widespread practice of "over-charging" so that a plea-bargain (which is rarely binding, anyway) might avoid a trial, while still putting a felony conviction and some jail time (got to support that Prison Industry!) on the defendant who, in many or even most cases, might be quite innocent of the crime or anything resembling the original charges.

This is, in fact, a major issue in judicial reform.  The courts and prisons are swamped, with a complete unwillingness by legislatures (in spite of the best efforts by ALEC, which was actually started by the prison industry and suppliers, and the rest of the "criminal justice system.") to spend more money and resources on such a counterproductive fool's errand.  As the Chinese proverb has it, "Pass one new law, create 10,000 new criminals."  In fact, I have accused Mr. Parker of doing exactly that, in the Montana Green Bulletin.

It's hard for some people to fathom, but many young men like Mr. Stewart consider it an honor to be arrested and serve prison time in Montana.  He is looking for adventure, and some real connection with the criminal dynasties which largely control our country, its government, economy, etc.  And we're a military town, with most of the jurors having military and/or paramilitary connections.  So, this is the place to be.

He'll probably get a fair trial, a lenient sentence, if convicted, and might well rise through the ranks of the revolutionary underground to become a general or gangster boss.  That's basically how it's done.  Apparently, his problems in VA involved a fiancee and wrecked relationship, which can drive anyone to desperate measures.  How he ended up here remains something of a mystery.

In any case, good luck to him.  Any further involvement on my part might be hazardous to my health.

Posted by Paul Stephens at 3:35 PM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook

Labels: Citizens for Clean Energy, Courts, ECP, Highwood Generating Station, John Parker, judicial process, Montana Conservation Voters
No comments: