 |
Uncensored Justice System Discussion
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
billpavelic
Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 14
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: ANTHONY PELLICANO AND LAPD DET. MARK ARNESON |
 |
|
In 1999, in the matter of People v. Gordon Jones, I “ran” into Anthony Pellicano, once again. After completing a biopsy of the Gordon Jones criminal case, I demanded that Mr. Pellicano and two defense attorneys be terminated. In a nut shell, the client was being framed and milked as a “cash cow”. I informed the “authorities” that Private Investigator Anthony Pellicano was involved in illegal wiretapping and was being “protected” by LAPD and the LADA personnel. That was eight years ago and the government permitted many of the crimes to go unpunished by allowing the statue of limitations to run out. How many victims could have been saved if the government went after Anthony Pellicano in a timely fashion? The “investigation” into the “Hollywood Godfather” and his paid cronies resulted in the federal indictment of Anthony Pellicano, including my police academy classmate, LAPD Detective Mark Arneson.
The charges against former LAPD Detective Mark Arneson are punitive, considering that the second LAPD officer involved in the Gordon Jones case, is still being protected by the system. Mark Arneson is simply a scapegoat for the government. What the “unidentified” LAPD officer did in the Gordon Jones case pales in comparison to what Arneson is being charged with. I do not believe there is a single LAPD police officer on the force who has not used the government computer system for personal/business related reasons, including myself. While I am not condoning what Mark allegedly did, I know this was made into a federal case because of Anthony Pellicano. It is simply unfair to use the RICO statue to punish Mark Arneson for something that members of the LAPD management had done for years, to enrich themselves. Selective prosecution of police officers should not be condoned by the federal prosecutors and going only after former LAPD Detective Mark Arneson is fundamentally wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ForensicGuy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bill, thanks for posting. We are very happy to have you here.
I agree with you. While I don't like the fact that cops break the law sometimes, I don't believe in selective prosecution for anyone.
RICO is another example of over zealous prosecutors using a statute incorrectly simply because they can. RICO was never meant to be used like this.
And yet, prosecutors get away with selective, over zealous prosecution more than we will ever know.
I hope the new administration can at least curtail this a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ForensicGuy wrote: | Bill, thanks for posting. We are very happy to have you here.
I agree with you. While I don't like the fact that cops break the law sometimes, I don't believe in selective prosecution for anyone.
RICO is another example of over zealous prosecutors using a statute incorrectly simply because they can. RICO was never meant to be used like this.
And yet, prosecutors get away with selective, over zealous prosecution more than we will ever know.
I hope the new administration can at least curtail this a bit. |
While I'm still a bit muddled on the considerable details of the Pellicano case, I couldn't agree more on this point.
I hope you both don't mind hearing a thought from a "civilian" (neither a lawyer nor a law enforcement official) on this case. To me, it is cause for serious concern that prosecutors, whether at the small town, city, state and federal levels, can use their considerable power to target and even bully people they don't like, for whatever reason. Okay, I'll put it more bluntly; it scares the heck out of me. Unchecked power quickly becomes unbalanced when it's used in the wrong hands.
J 
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: ANTHONY PELLICANO AND LAPD DET. MARK ARNESON |
|
|
| billpavelic wrote: | In 1999, in the matter of People v. Gordon Jones, I “ran” into Anthony Pellicano, once again. After completing a biopsy of the Gordon Jones criminal case, I demanded that Mr. Pellicano and two defense attorneys be terminated. In a nut shell, the client was being framed and milked as a “cash cow”. I informed the “authorities” that Private Investigator Anthony Pellicano was involved in illegal wiretapping and was being “protected” by LAPD and the LADA personnel. That was eight years ago and the government permitted many of the crimes to go unpunished by allowing the statue of limitations to run out. How many victims could have been saved if the government went after Anthony Pellicano in a timely fashion? The “investigation” into the “Hollywood Godfather” and his paid cronies resulted in the federal indictment of Anthony Pellicano, including my police academy classmate, LAPD Detective Mark Arneson.
The charges against former LAPD Detective Mark Arneson are punitive, considering that the second LAPD officer involved in the Gordon Jones case, is still being protected by the system. Mark Arneson is simply a scapegoat for the government. What the “unidentified” LAPD officer did in the Gordon Jones case pales in comparison to what Arneson is being charged with. I do not believe there is a single LAPD police officer on the force who has not used the government computer system for personal/business related reasons, including myself. While I am not condoning what Mark allegedly did, I know this was made into a federal case because of Anthony Pellicano. It is simply unfair to use the RICO statue to punish Mark Arneson for something that members of the LAPD management had done for years, to enrich themselves. Selective prosecution of police officers should not be condoned by the federal prosecutors and going only after former LAPD Detective Mark Arneson is fundamentally wrong. |
I couldn't agree more, Mr. Pavelic! And thank you so much for posting...it is truly an honor to have you as a member of the WhatSayYou forum. Knowing that your time is valuable, we truly appreciate any time you spend here sharing your years of wisdom and experience with us. Thank you so much!
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Justice 1st
The fact that you are not a lwayer tells me you earn an honest living and look at things from a place were gravity counts. I'm interested in knowing what prompted you to "call" yourself Justice 1st? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hotwater
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | Justice 1st
The fact that you are not a lwayer tells me you earn an honest living and look at things from a place were gravity counts. I'm interested in knowing what prompted you to "call" yourself Justice 1st? |
Oops - not sure who posed this question but allowing a guest to post is an error on my part. I have fixed the settings....sorry folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hotwater wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | Justice 1st
The fact that you are not a lwayer tells me you earn an honest living and look at things from a place were gravity counts. I'm interested in knowing what prompted you to "call" yourself Justice 1st? |
Oops - not sure who posed this question but allowing a guest to post is an error on my part. I have fixed the settings....sorry folks! |
I'll answer this by saying I'm not sure it's fair to say that because SOME lawyers on both sides either commit misconduct or who are outright dishonest, or who don't defend their clients, that ALL who are lawyers are going to be the same.
I get very upset with the dishonest and unethical folks at all levels of law enforcement, and for good reason. That being said, I think we have to be careful about making what could be blanket and misleading statements. I've been "guilty" of making a few of those statements myself in the past, usually when I WAS upset, for which I apologize.
There are also excellent lawyers and law enforcement officials who DO play by the rules, and DON'T commit acts of police, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct just to "win" a case. And I'm very grateful for all of them. 
J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | Justice 1st
The fact that you are not a lwayer tells me you earn an honest living and look at things from a place where gravity counts. I'm interested in knowing what prompted you to "call" yourself Justice 1st? |
Well, since you asked, I'll answer, to the best of my ability. I hope it will be enough.
First of all, I don't use any part of my full name online, solely for security reasons. Second, "JUSTICE1st" serves as a reminder, to me anyway, that in too many cases (even ONE is too many, as far as I'm concerned) over the last few years, the Constitutional protections of justice, such as the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty, and due process of law have been conspicuously ABSENT.
Does this mean I have a problem with ALL of law enforcement and its officials? No, I don't believe so. At least I try to be as fair as I can. Sometimes, when I've been upset, I've been less than objective, and painted all of law enforcement with the same tainted brush. But that's not fair either, as was kindly, yet firmly, pointed out to me in the past. I try to learn from my mistakes, when I've made them.
I once had some naive beliefs about law enforcement; the "NO law enforcement official would EVER do wrong" variety. That is no longer the case. There are some who do a great deal of harm to innocent people in their zeal to "win," and never admit to making a terrible mistake, even when the evidence (DNA evidence, usually) that they DID is staring them right in the face. And many will do whatever they can to hold on to their ill-gotten "convictions." The Williamson/Fritz case originating out of Ada, Oklahoma, which was very well documented by John Grisham's THE INNOCENT MAN, is only ONE of these cases.
Sorry for rambling; that happens sometimes. Back to your original question. I use "JUSTICE1st" in the hope that one day, we will start to see a RETURN to justice, avoid more wrongful convictions in future, and overturn more of the ones that have already happened. You know, the ones that are now called "harmless error."
J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NoJustice_NoPeace
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: ANTHONY PELLICANO AND LAPD DET. MARK ARNESON |
|
|
| billpavelic wrote: | In 1999, in the matter of People v. Gordon Jones, I “ran” into Anthony Pellicano, once again. After completing a biopsy of the Gordon Jones criminal case, I demanded that Mr. Pellicano and two defense attorneys be terminated. In a nut shell, the client was being framed and milked as a “cash cow”. I informed the “authorities” that Private Investigator Anthony Pellicano was involved in illegal wiretapping and was being “protected” by LAPD and the LADA personnel. That was eight years ago and the government permitted many of the crimes to go unpunished by allowing the statue of limitations to run out. How many victims could have been saved if the government went after Anthony Pellicano in a timely fashion? The “investigation” into the “Hollywood Godfather” and his paid cronies resulted in the federal indictment of Anthony Pellicano, including my police academy classmate, LAPD Detective Mark Arneson.
The charges against former LAPD Detective Mark Arneson are punitive, considering that the second LAPD officer involved in the Gordon Jones case, is still being protected by the system. Mark Arneson is simply a scapegoat for the government. What the “unidentified” LAPD officer did in the Gordon Jones case pales in comparison to what Arneson is being charged with. I do not believe there is a single LAPD police officer on the force who has not used the government computer system for personal/business related reasons, including myself. While I am not condoning what Mark allegedly did, I know this was made into a federal case because of Anthony Pellicano. It is simply unfair to use the RICO statue to punish Mark Arneson for something that members of the LAPD management had done for years, to enrich themselves. Selective prosecution of police officers should not be condoned by the federal prosecutors and going only after former LAPD Detective Mark Arneson is fundamentally wrong. |
Excelent post Bill. And welcome to the form. So glad you are here, my man.  Looking forward to your insite.
_________________
What if the "hokey pokey" really is what it's all about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForensicGuy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JUSTICE1st wrote: | | Hotwater wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | Justice 1st
The fact that you are not a lwayer tells me you earn an honest living and look at things from a place were gravity counts. I'm interested in knowing what prompted you to "call" yourself Justice 1st? |
Oops - not sure who posed this question but allowing a guest to post is an error on my part. I have fixed the settings....sorry folks! |
I'll answer this by saying I'm not sure it's fair to say that because SOME lawyers on both sides either commit misconduct or who are outright dishonest, or who don't defend their clients, that ALL who are lawyers are going to be the same.
I get very upset with the dishonest and unethical folks at all levels of law enforcement, and for good reason. That being said, I think we have to be careful about making what could be blanket and misleading statements. I've been "guilty" of making a few of those statements myself in the past, usually when I WAS upset, for which I apologize.
There are also excellent lawyers and law enforcement officials who DO play by the rules, and DON'T commit acts of police, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct just to "win" a case. And I'm very grateful for all of them.
J |
Justice1st,
You are correct...always and never statements are usually not true. However, lawyers are taught in law school how to "make their case". To put it more bluntly....to lie.
With that in mind, every single lawyer commits some type of misconduct or professional negligence. It could be as simple as not informing a client about a letter they received that hurts the client. Then, going on to say that they got it a month later than they actually did leaving the client in a bad situation because the letter was not responded to quick enough.
Lawyers are usually covering their own ass first, then everyone else's. Sorry, but it's true. I have been knee deep in this type of behavior by lawyers for 7 years now. If you knew how many lawyers I have dealt with who conducted themselves like this, you really would move to the woods. Immediately!
The same goes for L.E. They are going to cover their ass first. Since they are human and do make mistakes on the job at one time or another, they are mostly all guilty because they never admit their mistakes.
Once it is done the first time and condoned by upper management, it is much easier to do it again. And, it IS condoned!
I wish it was different. But, you can look at the signs and see the corruption coming straight down from the top, from the FBI and DOJ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
