News Articles and Other Publications

Clip-NY_Law_Journal_-_ECHOES-1

Clip-NY_Law_Journal_-_ECHOES-2

Infamy

We are a nation in peril. Our feckless president conjures political illusions to manipulate public opinion by misrepresenting the facts. A brief glimpse of Obama, the fabulist, regarding matters of extreme public interest:

1. ACA (Affordable Care Act):

“If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” and “If you like your health plan you can keep your plan.”

2. Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack on the US Consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans including the U.S. Ambassador:

The terrorist assault occurred on Tuesday, September 11, 2012. On the following Friday, September 14, 2012, at Andrews Air Force Base, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the families of the four slain Americans who were repose in four flag draped coffins. Mr. Obama misinformed the families about the true nature of the attack. Instead of informing them that their loved ones were targeted during a terrorist attack which he and Hillary Clinton knew was the truth, he assured them that a videographer was responsible. Mr. Obama was running for re-election with a foreign policy mantra of “al Qaeda’s on the run.”

3. Syrian chemical weapons issue:

Mr. Obama, who threatened the Assad Syrian regime with the use of military force if it didn’t destroy all of its chemical weapons, assured us all that, in fact, Syria had complied as a direct result of his expert diplomacy. Even John Kerry, current Secretary of State, joyously sang with the chorus triumphantly whistling in a speech on March 25, 2015: “We cut a deal and were able to get all the chemical weapons out of Syria…” Yet the CIA, now completely contradicts President Obama and Secretary of State of Kerry, claiming that Syria has retained its chemical weapons arsenal which it hid from inspectors.

The Iran Nuclear Deal

At the outset of the alleged negotiations with the Iranian Islamo-facist regime, President Obama promised the American people that the objectives of any deal would be to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and put in place a reliable program assuring “anywhere, anytime” inspections. As recent as April 6, 2015, Mr. Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, re-affirmed that the “anywhere, anytime” inspections were very much part of the deal.

Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act which President Obama signed into law in May 2015, before the Iran nuclear deal had concluded, the Administration, henceforth in negotiations with Iran, would be required to disclose and supply all nuclear agreement documents related to the deal including those “entered into or made between Iran and any other parties.”

Yet, not until Senator Tom Cotton’s recent trip to Vienna to meet with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) did we learn that there were so-called separate side, secret deals entered into between the IAEA and Iran. Sen. Cotton disclosed this vital information to the American people not the Administration! As of this writing, neither the Congress nor the American people have copies of these agreements.

Two significant issues are addressed in these secret side deals: inspections and existing weaponization.

Iran has now made clear its intention not to permit any Americans or Canadians to be part of the inspection process. Iran has further shut out the IAEA for a decade already from having access to inspect the Parchin military site where Iran is suspected of carrying out experiments and tests on weaponizing a nuclear device.

On July 31, 2015, Mr. Velayat, a top advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, appeared on Al-Jazeera T.V. and stated: “Regardless of how the P5+1 countries interpret the nuclear agreement, their entry into our military sites is absolutely forbidden. The entry of any foreigner, including the IAEA inspectors or any other inspectors to sensitive military sites of the Islamic Republic is forbidden, no matter what.”

Also, Iran refuses to submit a declaration of its existing weaponization capability. Without that information, we will be unable to know the extent of its cheating and its capacity to break-out in time to fulfill its national commitment to become a nuclear power.

Finally, with respect to the secret separate side deals, the Administration accepts the reality that the Iranians and the IAEA will know the content of the deals but not the U.S. Congress or the American people. In fact, when the Administration informs the Congress what it knows of the secret deals, it does so only in closed session. By way of analogy, would it offend your common sense if I suggested to you that if you were purchasing a home that you would demand having in your possession a copy of the exact separate agreement entered into between your banker (mortgagor) and the title company on which you are relying to grant you full unencumbered title?

Similarly, shouldn’t the American people and the Congress have copies of these secret separate side deals?

You don’t have to be a radical rationalist to disclaim Obama and Kerry’s delusional, mindless sponsorship of the mortally dangerous Iran nuclear deal. By lifting sanctions, Iran will receive one-hundred plus billion dollars that it will use to sponsor terrorism against the United States and Israel as it has uninterruptedly through today and help increase its nuclear program. This deal will assure that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon. When it gets it, Iran has already stated that it will annihilate Israel and be able to weaponize and deliver ICBMs into U.S. cities.

Recently, Khamenei authored a book entitled Palestine – a 416 page screed of hate that wreaks with his message of destruction to America and Israel and addresses his view that the Holocaust never happened!

In 1938, at Munich, Germany, the western Allies negotiated with Hitler and his Nazi sychophants. Hitler demanded the Sudetenland, a north western portion of then Czechoslovakia, and the Allies gave it to him without a Czech at the conference table. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to England and pronounced peace in our time. Winston Churchill responded in substance that at Munich the Allies had a choice between dishonor and war. They chose dishonor and got war.

Nuclear weapons, guided missiles, and armored tanks trump the “good intentions” of those unable or unwilling to face evil which must be confronted and destroyed if civilization as we know it will prevail.

 

Robert K. Tanenbaum

August 7, 2015

 

 

 

 

Five Best: Robert Tanenbaum – The former assistant district attorney for New York County and author of the novel, “Tragic” recommends books on the pursuit of justice.

-Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2014

Click here to view the article on the Wall Street Journal’s website

PhotoContempt of Court

By Mark Curriden and Leroy Phillips Jr. (1999)

1. This compelling history lays out the facts of the case that led to the establishment of a defendant’s right to seek federal-court redress if his constitutional rights had been violated during state-court criminal-trial proceedings. It is a richly detailed history—the story of Ed Johnson, a black man falsely convicted of rape and sentenced to death in 1906 in Chattanooga, Tenn. So fevered was the trial atmosphere that, according to the official transcript, during the proceedings a juror rushed toward Johnson screaming: “If I could get at him, I’d tear his heart out right now.” Johnson’s defense counsel, having exhausted all other relief after his conviction, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene directly in a state criminal trial—something it had never before done. The court agreed and, concluding that Johnson had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, ordered his execution stayed. States-rights activists reacted with rage—and an infuriated mob snatched Johnson from his jail cell, beating him and hanging him from a bridge. Neither the local sheriff nor his deputies had attempted to prevent the break-in or the lynching. The Supreme Court charged them all with contempt of court. They were convicted after a trial conducted before the justices—a first in the history of the court.

It’s Not About the Truth

By: Don Yaeger, with Mike Pressler (2007)

2. Here’s a hard-eyed account of Duke University’s infamous rush to judgment over a sexual accusation involving its lacrosse team. It’s a case whose facts still have the power to enrage and disturb and one with which the authors are intimately acquainted, especially Mike Pressler, Duke’s lacrosse coach at the time. In March 2006, a stripper who had been invited to a team party alleged that she had been raped by team members. The book’s strength is its vivid documentary like recounting of events. We see the Duke campus roiling with instant demonstrations. Faculty and students alike vilify the team before anything remotely resembling an investigation has taken place. A large segment of the Duke faculty, self-described as the Group of 88, publishes a scathing statement castigating not only the lacrosse players but capitalism and various institutions they hold to be responsible for the oppression of women and minorities. Eventually, the accuser recants, and the prosecutor is removed from office. In short, justice prevails. But not before the nation gets a searing look at a world governed by the politically correct.

Act of Vengeance

By Trevor Armbrister (1975)

3. On Dec. 31, 1969, three contract killers entered the Clarksville, Pa., home of Jock Yablonski, an aspiring reformist leader within the United Mine Workers union, and executed him along with his wife and daughter. Trevor Armbrister’s “Act of Vengeance” is spellbinding in its evocation of the search for justice that followed, headed by Richard Sprague of the Philadelphia district attorney’s office. A brilliant prosecutor, Sprague would ensnare not only the three killers but also the intermediaries who carried out the “open-hit contract” to kill Yablonski; it had been issued by Tony Boyle, the United Mine Workers president. Boyle had feared that Yablonski would expose his corrupt practices and overturn the tainted recent election in which he had defeated Yablonski for the union presidency. The book provides vibrant re-creations of the prosecutor’s quest, which ended with Boyle’s conviction.

Mr. District Attorney

By Barry Cunningham, with Mike Pearl (1977)

4. As reporters for the New York Post, Barry Cunningham and Mike Pearl covered the city’s criminal courts for years, giving them real-life expertise in the daily functioning of the criminal-justice system. That expertise is on display in this portrait of the legendary New York district attorney Frank Hogan. Elected to nine terms (1941 to 1974), Hogan prosecuted mobsters, labor racketeers, corrupt public officials and rogue cops. Cunningham and Pearl deliver a detailed account of Hogan’s ministry of justice, but it isn’t the cases alone that provide the drama. This is the story of a D.A. determined to ensure the exoneration of the unjustly accused, one who made it clear that prosecutors were to provide the defense with exculpatory evidence as soon as they had any. He made it clear, too, that crime required appropriate punishment. There would be no “lesser pleas” for heinous acts of criminality.

State Trials of Mary Queen of Scots, Sir Walter Raleigh, and Captain William Kidd

Edited by Charles Edward Lloyd (1899)

5. To know of the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, held in 1603, is to grasp the point of Charles Kingsley’s famous if hyperbolic quote: “To this one man, under the Providence of Almighty God, the whole United States of America owe their existence.” The procedural unfairness of that trial so haunted the Founders that it helped lead to the creation of a pillar of the Bill of Rights—the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an accused’s right to confront adverse witnesses. Drawing on a vast archival compilation, Charles Edward Lloyd presents a record of the Raleigh trial (with two others), allowing us to experience firsthand the moment when jurors sat in judgment of the famous explorer, aristocrat and public official, charged with conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy. Framed like a Shakespearean drama, the account details the Crown’s prosecution and Raleigh’s eloquent defense protesting the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of an incriminating letter by one Lord Cobham. Since he could not cross-examine the letter, Raleigh demanded that Cobham be produced: “I beseech you my lords, let Cobham be sent for . . . let Cobham be here, let him speak it. Call my accuser before my face.” Cobham was never called. Raleigh was convicted and sentenced to death.