DeepThroat.
04-11-2005, 07:49 PM
Dillon Conspiracy Update
The nature and membership of the Dillon Conspiracy (Denis Dillon, Harvey Levinson, Bob McDonald and Gerard Terry, joined by Jay Jacobs and Ryan Cronin) has been previously discussed in a posting to this Board entitled, “The Dillon Conspiracy.” Recent changes demand an update.
Death of a Deal? (Option A)
Option A for our co-conspirators concerned an elaborate deal involving the Democrats cross-endorsing Dillon for District Attorney and Dillon promoting Harvey Levinson as the Democratic nominee for Town of Hempstead Supervisor. Although at the moment it appears that rebellions within the Democratic, Republican and Conservative parties respectively have eliminated the possibility of a Democratic cross-endorsement of Dillon, it remains a chilling possibility. The prospective candidacy of a carpetbagger Democrat for DA, as detailed in Option B, could simply be a “red herring” who could be dramatically shoved out of the way by Democratic Party Leadership at the June 1, 2005 county convention.
Carpetbagger (Option B)
The Conspirators fall back to an option utilized by Nassau Democratic Leaders in previous elections for District Attorney. A sacrificial lamb or “fall guy” would be found to take a political dive in the race against Republican Dillon. To reward the Democrats for losing the election, the GOP would give over a few New York State Supreme Court judgeships as scraps.
The latest lamb is an attorney by the name of Kathleen Rice. Kathy Rice is a “friend” of Bob McDonald. Bob asked her to feign an interest in running for the DA position in exchange for a judgeship nomination. Kathy works in the United States Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia where, of course, she also lives. She previously worked in the DA’s office in Kings County, NY (Brooklyn). She has previously lived in Nassau County. Critical examination of Kathy’s job performance has begun by the media and by attorneys throughout Long Island. Unfortunately for Mr. McDonald, the vetting process has only begun after her name has been placed by him into consideration.
As more items of information on Kathy comes in, they will be reported here for the people (and media) of Long Island to consider. Today, we will limit our remarks to Kathy’s remarkable place in American jurisprudence, her 2001 and 2002 involvement in United States v. Coward. This matter was originally litigated in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit with a remand back to the District Court. For our legal friends, this case involved a major issue of whether the US Government presented sufficient evidence at a suppression hearing to permit introduction of crucial evidence.
The Appeals Court found that Ms. Rice had both failed to introduce required proof during the suppression hearing and had mislead the trial court about her burden of proof. After the blistering appeals court decision the Government frantically tried to re-open the suppression hearing to introduce the evidence which had been sitting in Ms. Rice’s file all along. The Government claimed that Ms. Rice’s failure to submit sufficient evidence in the first place was due to “a mistake due to the ‘relative inexperience’ of the prosecutor [Kathy Rice].” The Government stated in the Court of Appeals:
As the government has stated, the trial prosecutor, Kathleen Rice, was inexperienced in this type of suppression matter. Although she served eight years in the Kings County (N.Y.) District Attorney’s Office, and therefore, as the Third Circuit suggested, was appropriately chosen to try this case, she had more limited experience as a federal prosecutor. She had joined this office just over a year before the Coward suppression hearing, and this was her first such hearing in this office.
The Court of Appeals said the following in response:
We note that the prosecutor’s “inexperience” did not prevent the government from selecting her to handle the obligations of a criminal trial and, indeed, she secured Coward’s conviction. Moreover, there is testimony at the suppression hearing suggesting that the prosecutor was familiar with the controlling precedent on this issue.
The District Court, on remand from the Court of Appeals, noted that the Government was basically saying that Kathleen Rice, although working for years in a state DA’s office, did not have to understand basic Constitutional law regarding the admission of evidence. The Court pointed out that the Fourth Amendment is as valid in Brooklyn as it is in Philadelphia and that Ms. Rice should therefore have been expected to be familiar with the law. To the Court, the “Government’s explanation thus distills to the admission of a naked mistake.”
You can read the US District Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals 2002 opinions for full information. In short, Kathy Rice made a great impression on two Federal courts in this case and not a favorable one at that. This is Option B for Bob McDonald and Jay Jacobs?
By the way, can you imagine the Nassau County Bar Association giving Ms. Rice a highly favorable rating as a judicial candidate in the future? Since Nassau Democrats only select highly favorable candidates for judgeships, if Ms. Rice thinks she has a political future here, she is living in a fantasy world!
Option C
Now we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Let us see what transpires with Option B first!
Until next time…
The nature and membership of the Dillon Conspiracy (Denis Dillon, Harvey Levinson, Bob McDonald and Gerard Terry, joined by Jay Jacobs and Ryan Cronin) has been previously discussed in a posting to this Board entitled, “The Dillon Conspiracy.” Recent changes demand an update.
Death of a Deal? (Option A)
Option A for our co-conspirators concerned an elaborate deal involving the Democrats cross-endorsing Dillon for District Attorney and Dillon promoting Harvey Levinson as the Democratic nominee for Town of Hempstead Supervisor. Although at the moment it appears that rebellions within the Democratic, Republican and Conservative parties respectively have eliminated the possibility of a Democratic cross-endorsement of Dillon, it remains a chilling possibility. The prospective candidacy of a carpetbagger Democrat for DA, as detailed in Option B, could simply be a “red herring” who could be dramatically shoved out of the way by Democratic Party Leadership at the June 1, 2005 county convention.
Carpetbagger (Option B)
The Conspirators fall back to an option utilized by Nassau Democratic Leaders in previous elections for District Attorney. A sacrificial lamb or “fall guy” would be found to take a political dive in the race against Republican Dillon. To reward the Democrats for losing the election, the GOP would give over a few New York State Supreme Court judgeships as scraps.
The latest lamb is an attorney by the name of Kathleen Rice. Kathy Rice is a “friend” of Bob McDonald. Bob asked her to feign an interest in running for the DA position in exchange for a judgeship nomination. Kathy works in the United States Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia where, of course, she also lives. She previously worked in the DA’s office in Kings County, NY (Brooklyn). She has previously lived in Nassau County. Critical examination of Kathy’s job performance has begun by the media and by attorneys throughout Long Island. Unfortunately for Mr. McDonald, the vetting process has only begun after her name has been placed by him into consideration.
As more items of information on Kathy comes in, they will be reported here for the people (and media) of Long Island to consider. Today, we will limit our remarks to Kathy’s remarkable place in American jurisprudence, her 2001 and 2002 involvement in United States v. Coward. This matter was originally litigated in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit with a remand back to the District Court. For our legal friends, this case involved a major issue of whether the US Government presented sufficient evidence at a suppression hearing to permit introduction of crucial evidence.
The Appeals Court found that Ms. Rice had both failed to introduce required proof during the suppression hearing and had mislead the trial court about her burden of proof. After the blistering appeals court decision the Government frantically tried to re-open the suppression hearing to introduce the evidence which had been sitting in Ms. Rice’s file all along. The Government claimed that Ms. Rice’s failure to submit sufficient evidence in the first place was due to “a mistake due to the ‘relative inexperience’ of the prosecutor [Kathy Rice].” The Government stated in the Court of Appeals:
As the government has stated, the trial prosecutor, Kathleen Rice, was inexperienced in this type of suppression matter. Although she served eight years in the Kings County (N.Y.) District Attorney’s Office, and therefore, as the Third Circuit suggested, was appropriately chosen to try this case, she had more limited experience as a federal prosecutor. She had joined this office just over a year before the Coward suppression hearing, and this was her first such hearing in this office.
The Court of Appeals said the following in response:
We note that the prosecutor’s “inexperience” did not prevent the government from selecting her to handle the obligations of a criminal trial and, indeed, she secured Coward’s conviction. Moreover, there is testimony at the suppression hearing suggesting that the prosecutor was familiar with the controlling precedent on this issue.
The District Court, on remand from the Court of Appeals, noted that the Government was basically saying that Kathleen Rice, although working for years in a state DA’s office, did not have to understand basic Constitutional law regarding the admission of evidence. The Court pointed out that the Fourth Amendment is as valid in Brooklyn as it is in Philadelphia and that Ms. Rice should therefore have been expected to be familiar with the law. To the Court, the “Government’s explanation thus distills to the admission of a naked mistake.”
You can read the US District Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals 2002 opinions for full information. In short, Kathy Rice made a great impression on two Federal courts in this case and not a favorable one at that. This is Option B for Bob McDonald and Jay Jacobs?
By the way, can you imagine the Nassau County Bar Association giving Ms. Rice a highly favorable rating as a judicial candidate in the future? Since Nassau Democrats only select highly favorable candidates for judgeships, if Ms. Rice thinks she has a political future here, she is living in a fantasy world!
Option C
Now we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Let us see what transpires with Option B first!
Until next time…