....the armed officers knocked down the door and shouted profanity- laced racial insults before leaving, according to the suit.

Family Claims Police Hate Crime After Obama Celebration

By Associated Press November 14, 2008 11:21 am

A lawsuit filed Thursday alleges that while a huge Chicago crowd celebrated the election of the first black U.S. president, some white city police officers committed hate crimes against a black family cheering Barack Obama’s victory from home.

The federal lawsuit claims several officers discharged pepper spray on members of a family celebrating Obama’s win outside their home on the city’s West Side last week.

After some of the family members fled into the home, the armed officers knocked down the door and shouted profanity- laced racial insults before leaving, according to the suit.

The eight plaintiffs include Niger Arnold, 31, of Chicago, and her four children, who had been visiting relatives at the home.

“Chicago looked very good on national TV that night. For many people, it was the beginning of a new era in America,” attorney Gregory Kulis said. “Obviously, some Chicago police thought otherwise.”

The lawsuit, which seeks at least $50,000 in damages, claims use of excessive force, unlawful search and seizure, battery, and a hate crime. It cites only the unnamed officers and does not name the Chicago Police Department.

A separate lawsuit filed last week by Kulis claims Christina Ballard and Cornelius Voss, who are black, were driving home in Chicago with family members on election night when white officers in unmarked cars drove alongside the vehicle.

That lawsuit alleges that after some of the children cheered for Obama through the open car windows, the officers discharged pepper spray and yelled “white power” and the N-word.

Kulis said the family was able to get a partial license plate number from the unmarked cars, which were traced back to the city.

Independent Police Review Authority spokeswoman Ilana Rosenzweig said Thursday that the agency is investigating both allegations. She said the agency has received “multiple allegations” of election night misconduct by Chicago police officers but declined to give further details.

Chicago police spokeswoman Monique Bond also said that the allegations will be investigated and that the department

“does not condone or tolerate hate crimes on any level.”

“Police officers did an outstanding job protecting the city and maintaining order and peace during the Election Day and evening activities,” she said Thursday.

More than 100,000 people celebrated in downtown Chicago’s Grant Park on Nov. 4. All Chicago police were required to work. No major incidents were immediately reported, and officers cleared the park of rally-goers less than an hour after it ended.

TAGS: barack obama, celebration, Chicago, grant park, hate crime, police

It is all about then & now lying too the get out 4 free was failed

etty dab bad when you claim to be a "Patriot yet utilize the "act" to spy on fellow "americans" because they aopposite " your censor initiation application"

Now that is paranoia.

Why worry about what is? Closing at loss is good ......sell,sell, sell. perhaps you will get out before the market "crash" and "burns". Every little 1/16 of a penny is the difference between what is a wrung or right minute penny of millions of outstanding assets.

Like warren Buffet days.......


Well I ain't going to tell you his or mine secrets that is cuz......Pay for delay since more is worth poor work but then it a write off so you c,pay

"I've done everything for you"....."you've done nothing for me"

The Mega(meta) Message ..........................As if........"isn't that special".......How ArD..Dean up on the stage

Cornyn must be stupid, I am sorry, Lo siento, he is just clueless.

Why should taxpayers pay his AND for his entourage AND his family "taxpayer funded health care"?

They're SPESHHHal.....like "the church lady" says it on SNL.

What a freeloading carpetbagger! He and his Patriot group familia should move to Iraq along with their "OPM" funded JOB.

Healthcare we pay for.........but he is special?

Yeah , so slow to show his patriotism when it is not BENEFICIAL to his so called "Patriot group".

Since he does not care anymore.... and, it is obvious,"I don't feel so bad".......What a dud, maybe if the GOP was serious about backing him he would have more money than Mikal Watts.

But according to Stopcornyn.com's interview "Rick Perry Noriega" said he looks forward to "helping Cornyn enjoy"........that Noriega has informed and acted like he was one of those desperados, claiming dire straits, and in financial need..... they are no doubt stupid,since it was BS in his own words Noreiga states: "As it turns out, I have the necessary resources as well."

What was that warning Eisenhower warned us about?

the court shall inquire as to the existence of any plea bargaining agreements between the state and the defendant and, in the event that such an agree

Send this document to a colleague Close This Window














NUMBER 13-00-444-CR


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI


JOSE DE LA FUENTE, Appellant,

v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.


On appeal from the 138th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.


O P I N I O N


Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Dorsey


This is an appeal from a plea of guilty for delivery of a controlled substance for which appellant, Jose De La Fuente, was sentenced to ten years in prison. Appellant's plea of guilty was not made subject to a plea bargain agreement. After the trial court found him guilty, the case was set for sentencing at a later time so a pre-sentence investigation could be made and a report prepared. Defense counsel indicated that a side agreement had been reached with the prosecutor's office, and the judge announced that it would be discussed at sentencing.

At the sentencing hearing an investigator for the district attorney's office testified that an agreement had been reached between his office and the appellant that if the appellant cooperated and aided them in seizing narcotics and making cases against perpetrators, they would recommend probation. The investigator testified that appellant had not cooperated with their office to any meaningful extent, and had breached his duties under the contract. Appellant testified somewhat to the contrary. The trial judge found that appellant had breached his contract with the district attorney's office, and that even if he had not, the district attorney could only recommend probation as a punishment, and such would not be binding on the court. The trial judge then sentenced appellant to ten years in prison.

Appellant brings three points of error, arguing in essence that a plea bargain had been reached, he performed his part of the bargain, and he was entitled to either performance by the State or a withdrawal of his plea of guilty, citing a number of cases that hold that a trial court must either enforce the bargain or allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty. See McWherter v. State, 571 S.W.2d 312, 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Papillion v. State, 908 S.W.2d 621, 624 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1995, no pet); Escobedo v. State, 643 S.W.2d 243, 246 (Tex. App.-Austin, 1982, no pet).

The applicable statute is Article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in that it sets forth the method to handle plea bargain agreements. That article deals with pleas of guilty and expressly states what the court should admonish the defendant prior to accepting a plea of guilty. Section (a)(2) of that article provides:

Provided that the court shall inquire as to the existence of any plea bargaining agreements between the state and the defendant and, in the event that such an agreement exists, the court shall inform the defendant whether it will follow or reject such agreement in open court and before any finding on the plea. Should the court reject any such agreement, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo contendere.


Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 26.13 (a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2002).


That procedure was followed explicitly in this case. The court inquired whether there were any plea bargains, to which the defendant answered "none." The written admonitions concerning the plea indicated there was no plea bargain and that no sentence would be recommended in exchange for the plea of guilty. The reason the court is required to inquire whether there is a plea bargain is to put everything on the record and above board before the court accepts the plea along with the conditions and recommendations agreed to. The procedure has been established to protect the defendant in his bargain with the State to plea guilty. There is no evidence here indicating that the appellant's plea of guilty was predicated on any recommendation of punishment by the district attorney. This was not a plea of guilty covered by article 26.13(a)(2) allowing the defendant to withdraw his plea if he is dissatisfied with the sentence imposed.

The conviction is affirmed.



______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice


Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).


Opinion delivered and filed

this 25th day of July, 2002.

Michigan Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Poor People's Right to an Attorney (1/11/2006)

Home : Rights of the Poor : Indigent Defense

Michigan Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Poor People's Right to an Attorney (1/11/2006) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: media@aclu.org ACLU of Michigan Seeks Order Compelling District Judge to Comply DETROIT - In a move reserved for extraordinary cases, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today filed a class action lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Appeals to force a state judge to comply with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting poor people the right to attorneys on appeal. "Thumbing your nose at the U.S. Supreme Court is almost unheard of in the judicial system," said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan Executive Director. "And, in this case, the judge seems to believe he is above the law, or at least above the Supreme Court." Last June in a landmark decision, Halbert v. Michigan, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1999 Michigan law that barred judges from appointing attorneys to help poor people who have pled guilty to appeal their sentences. The Court specifically ruled that forcing poor people to navigate the appeals process without a lawyer violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. Despite the Halbert ruling, Kent County Circuit Court Judge Dennis C. Kolenda has denied appellate counsel to several poor people and stated that he has no obligation or intention of following the Supreme Court's ruling in the future and characterized the ruling as "incorrect" and "illogical." In the lawsuit filed in the Court of Appeals today - called a "Complaint for Superintending Control" - the ACLU asserted that the Supreme Court took pains to address, and reject, the argument that a poor criminal defendant could waive the right to appointed counsel on appeal. The lawsuit also points out that both the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals have repeatedly held over the last half-century that statements by the highest court, meant to be a guide to future proceedings, is binding precedent. In addition, the Michigan Supreme Court has issued a series of orders for implementing and following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halbert, but Judge Kolenda has also chosen to defy the Michigan Supreme Court. "The tragedy of this case is that while Judge Kolenda is defying the Supreme Court, dozens of individuals are being denied their constitutional right to counsel simply because they are poor," said ACLU Cooperating Attorney David Moran, who argued Halbert for the ACLU. "As a result, sentencing errors are left uncorrected and the Michigan taxpayers are picking up the bill for inmates wrongfully serving time." It is unclear exactly how many people are affected by Judge Kolenda's refusal to appoint counsel. The ACLU believes that the only mechanism to protect both its clients and other individuals in the same situation is to ask the Court of Appeals to exercise superintending control over Judge Kolenda and order him to follow the Supreme Court. In addition to Moran, ACLU cooperating attorneys Terence Flanagan, Mark Granzotto and James Czarnecki are litigating the case, along with Michigan ACLU Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg and Executive Director Kary Moss. To read the Complaint for Superintending Control filed today in Brown v. Kolenda, go to: www.aclumich.org/pdf/briefs/kolendacomplaint.pdf To read the Brief in Support of the Complaint, go to: www.aclumich.org/pdf/briefs/kolendabrief.pdf