I recently heard that there were about three billion websites now operating around the world, but instead of saying like a sensible person "That'­s enough" I've decided that means thereĆ­s always room for one more, and here it is. I took its title from a sports column we used to have in New York which lives in the memory of all its old readers. It featured characters like Al Weill, the fight manager with the wonderful built (sic), Professor Ilitch of the Prosperity Institute with his Secret Play for beating the horses, available to the public for a reasonable price, Phainting Phil Scott, the English heavyweight, and other such individuals often found in the vicinity of Madison Square Garden or Belmont Racetrack.

Not to mislead, I don'­t intend to write sports or introduce unusual characters found on my travels, but instead to deal in a general way with issues that bother me, and now and then to retail a joke or a story or a verse that will be a appreciated by a cultivated audience such as I hope to attract. How will I know they'­re cultivated? Because I attracted them.

The benchmarks that will find me on a search engine are Catholic, ex-cop, law and order guy, tackles issues with originality and humor too. That'­s me. The judges are you.
My last time blogging here before I got interrupted by medical nuisance problems I dwelt on one of my favorite subjects, the "presumption of innocence" , which allegedly is the guiding light of our national law , requring us for instance to believe that Hillary Clinton didn't hide those hot Whitewater documents in the White House for an unsuspecting employee to actually find them since no one else there could be persuaded to stage a finding with perjury charges looming ahead.

A staged finding would have been more effective because instead of the papers being found "carelessly" discarded in Hillary's living room , they would have turned up in some more plausible place, siuch as the basement. But no one had the acting talent to put thisone over , so the "finder" did actually find them, with the circumstances of their disposal remaining as the only incredible part of the scenario.

And so it has remained, completely wiped from people's memories by the latest Arabian Nights fantasy from Benghazi. Hillary brazened eveything out as usual and even the girl who went to jail for months for refusing to testify against her to a grand jury has dropped out of sight. Following Hillary's trail mkes the search for Bigfoot look like a game of hide-and-seek for children. The Scarlet Pimpernel "here" "there" "everywhere" was a pushover next to her.

While holding forth on the innocence question here I mentioned that I'd lost track of an article by a law professor who not only thought the "presumption"was the cornerstone of the Constitution, but also thought it was time "to level the playing field" for criminal suspects awaiting trialo. He didn't explain what these fellows were doing there since they were entitled to the presumption and under its provisions couldn't be held for anything until proven guilty. Somehow society just refuses to recognize the probity of these characters and is unwilling to let them go until they've actually been cleared of their charges.

The professor's views on the subject are old stuff, Im a fraid. It hurts him deeply that rich defendants like M. Strauss-Kuhn of France are allowed to post a few million francs of their assets and remain relatively free shile awaiting trial instead of being walled up in jail. This has been going on for a long time, though, without bothering me.

The logic behind it is simple. If your assets are cashable to the extent that posting them will discourage you from forfeiting them by bail-jumping, all well and good. Also, since a high-level defendant is going to need lots of chances to shmooze with his lawyers, this is better done at home instead of by misuse of the limited facilities available in jail. And the plutocrat won't be bothered by fellow prisoners hitting him up for cash.

The bail system is fair to all. The rich man puts up his assets as a pledge. The poor man puts up his assets. In many cases these may just be his body and blood since that's all he has , or at least all he's willing to declare. People do conceal assets, as we know. They may not want the government to know about them and tax them or inquire about their origins.

I began this paper by denouncing the law professor who invented the mythical "presumjption of innocence", but must confess I've been unable to to get his identity from my files. I will eventually produce it, to satisfy my curiosity, if not that of my readers. The same stricture applies to the story I'm about to produce here, where I have a name but would like to have some more details to fill out things. It shall be done -- I hope.

Anyway, just in case you should think law professors are the only ones who harbor silly notions about the innocence of accused criminals, another of our Long Island stories now surfacing shows that the delusion has spread to other amateur criminologists as well. This is about a town employee on Shelter Island who's been arrested for molesting a female monor, but instead of being suspended pending trial, the normal civil sevice practice, has een allowed to continue on his job as if nothing had happened.

A own superintendent named Doherty explained in all very simply. "Under our syustem of justice he's innocent until proven guilty". Yeah, sure, and all those cops who went out and arrested him and the judge who set his bail and the prosecutor who's moving the case and the complainant and the witnesses, i any, well, they're all Fascists who don't understand the law like Doctor Doherty. He does? Sorry, no dice . The Constitution doesn't say anything about presumptions anywhere, just that when reaonable grounds for suspicion exist the forces of the law have the right to hold the suspect for investigation and, possibly, trial, until satisfied by the results of these methods that there is no conclusinve case against him or hewr.
Designed and Hosted by Online Ontime Ltd.