NATIONAL MEDIA, OBAMA, POLITICIANS HAVE SOME NERVE: PLAY VIDEO OF BEATING DEATH OF BOY ON CHICAGO'S STREETS, IGNORE UNDERLYING ISSUE -- WE ARE AT WAR HERE AT HOME

I couldn't be more disgusted with our national media and our elected leaders.

Last night, I watched CNN play it over and over again: a bystander's video of Derrion Albert being beaten to death in the streets of Chicago.

* This isn't a beating in a gangway or in the middle of the night.
* This isn't a one-on-one fight between two men of rival gangs.
* This isn't a drive-by shooting.
* This isn't a drug-deal-gone-bad.
* This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan.

Instead:

* This is beating murder in the middle of the street, in broad daylight.
* This is a public spectacle - numerous people stand and watch instead of seek help.
* This is an innocent, church-going, honor roll student athlete who is beaten to death.
* This is less than 15 miles from downtown Chicago, just 3 blocks from Fenger High School.
* This is the United States of America.

This is a war in our streets. Derrion Albert's High School Photo

OUR POLITICIANS' SILENCE & THE MEDIA'S FAILURE TO REPORT

I watched CNN's report with a friend, whose opinions I greatly respect and that I often refer to in my blogs. I commented that I was disgusted by Obama and other politicians' failure to address the inner-city and race issues. I'm not quoting my friend directly -- but the response was something like: Obama and our elected leaders cannot address the race issue because too many people will manipulate their words. Basically, don't disturb the bees' nest because you will get stung. As I heard this opinion, I bit my lip and nodded my head in agreement. Yep, it's true; my friend is right, yet again.

Instead, let the bees kill each other or learn to live together, right? Survival of the fittest.

The problem is that we aren't talking about bees -- we are talking about our children. We are talking about a  war on our American soil, not a war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Why do our politicians have public opinions about whether we should send troops into Afghanistan but not about what we can do to stop the war on the streets? Why are we so concerned with keeping al-Queda out of Afghanistan but not with keeping domestic terrorists from killing more innocent children?

Remember Obama's recent Sepetember 8th speech to the K-12 students of America? Remember how everyone was all in a tizzy about whether it's appropriate for our President to speak to our students? Remember how some parents kept their kids home from school? I wrote a blog about his speech here, stating in part:

I find it interesting that it wasn't until the end of Obama's speech where he said something like "we are doing our part to get you the resources [for an education.]" Today's speech wasn't about what Obama's going to do to provide for the opportunity for our students to have the best education...but now he's opened the door so he better follow up!

Walk into a Chicago Public School one day and you will find kids whose only meal of the day is the one served in school. Many kids don't have those books and computers. Sure, he had an example of ONE child out of Chicago Public Schools who made it against the odds. But that girl is an anomoly. Kids cannot relate to that ONE child.  What is Obama going to do to bring our schools up to par?

Why does the media refuse to address these issues? Why does the media not put pressure on our elected officials, including Obama, to start protecting our inner-city youth?

And here I am, less than three weeks later, watching a kid get beaten to death, just 10 miles south of Obama's Chicago residence. Derrion Albert didn't have a chance even though he was doing all of the things Obama said to do: go to school, work hard, stay in school, work hard.

Where is Obama now? He surely didn't have a problem making a big scene about the arrest of Professor Gates. You know, the African-American Harvard Professor who was arrested in his home and then Obama said the police acted "stupidly." Maybe they did; maybe they didn't -- that's not the issue. The issue is, Obama continues to remain silent about inner-city issues that are not isolated incidents but proof of the ongoing war in our streets. 

THE RACE STATISTICS

The other week, Obama told David Gregory on "Meet the Press":

"Well, look -- David, here's what I'm saying. -- I -- I -- I think that -- the media loves to have a conversation about race. I mean, the -- this is -- is catnip to -- to -- the media because it is a running thread in American history that's very powerful. And it invokes some very strong emotions.

I'm not saying that race -- never matters in -- in any of these -- public debates that we have. What I'm saying is this debate is not about race -- it's about people being worried about -- how our government should operate."

In March, I wrote a blog about gun violence in Chicago:  "Gun Violence Among School-Age Youth in Chicago" a report released by the University of Chicago Crime Lab says the annual cost of gun violence in the City of Chicago costs $2.5 billion dollars annually. Yes, that's BILLION. Article here.

Derrion's death doesn't fall into that statistic because he wasn't shot; he was beaten to death. Imagine the annual cost of non-gun violence in the City of Chicago.

Here's another statistic: During the 2008-09 school year, 36 Chicago Public School students were killed, making it the third year in a row the murder rate has climbed into the double-digits. Article here. Dexter Voisin, a researcher at the University of Chicago said, "Those with nonfatal injuries are almost 100 times that of our homicide rates. You think for about every one kid who is murdered, 100 kids witness the murder or are victims of nonfatal injuries, of robberies, muggings and gang-related incidents. A lot of times, this exposure goes undocumented or unreported." Black youths, he said, are two times more likely than white youths to fail or drop out of school, and at the same time they are also eight to 10 times more likely to be victims of homicide than whites.

Obama, you are wrong. Derrion's death is about race and about black-on-black crime. This isn't just a "conversation about race" -- these are statistics and facts about race.

It kills me inside that my friend is right: Obama and our other elected leaders will continue to remain silent. Derrion Albert is now just another statistic, another number. People will continue to say our community leaders like Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. are irrelevant, even though they are the people who visit the family and console crying parents who lost their innocent children to the streets.

I pray for the day when General McChrystal's domestic counterpart (right now, there's no such person) submits a report to Obama on how to win the war in our streets, not just in Afghanistan. I also pray for the day when our national media will spend just as much time discussing the war at home as they do on Acorn.

Here is the video of the beating. Warning: the footage is extremely graphic.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

MICHAEL JACKSON CASE: MANY DOCTORS LEGALIZED DOPE DEALERS

Ritalin, a controlled substance, often crushed & snorted

Powder cocaine

I'm trying to understand the difference between a coke dealer and a doctor who prescribes controlled substances to a patient who doesn't need the drug.  I don't think there is a difference. Many doctors have become legalized drug pushers.  They over-medicate and over-prescribe controlled substances to patients, especially high profile patients, because they want to be part of the Hollywood inner-circle. A starlet who gets pulled over by the cops and searched will not be charged with possession of a controlled substance if she has a bottle of valium in her Judith Leiber purse; but rest assured, she'll be hauled off to jail if she has even the smallest amount of coke tucked away in her lipstick container.  Does this make any sense whatsoever?

When are the states and Feds going to prosecute a doctor for manslaughter for his over-prescription of a patient who dies as a direct result of prescription drug abuse? We arrest the dealers of pot, coke, crack and heroine.  The writing of a prescription for a patient who does not need the drug or who is taking the drug in excess must be a crime. I have represented countless drug dealers as a criminal defense attorney. I have yet to represent a doctor for the same crime.

Gerald Posner reported that MJ's dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein, was kicked out of Penn Med School for selling unauthorized prescription meds to students back in the 70's.  Article here. Oh wait, he was asked to leave the school...they didn't want to kick him out because then he wouldn't have been able to continue a career in medicine.  So, Dr. Klein finished his study of medicine at UCLA. Geez, this guy was a dope dealer from Day 1!

Just because Pablo Escobar had access to cocaine, that did not make his sale of it legal.  Just because doctors have access to write prescription drugs, the script does not make the drug legal.  Without the script, the drug is illegal; hence, the reason it's called a controlled substance, just like cocaine.

The difference between a street-drug dealer and a doctor is that the dealer owes the buyer no duty whatsoever.  The doctor, on the other hand, owes his patient a duty 1) not to medicate if the medication is not needed, and 2) not to over-medicate the addicted patient.

The state and the Feds must use the Michael Jackson case to set a precedent and send a signal to all doctors who abuse their license: if you over-prescribe and the patient dies, you go to jail.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

ARRESTED? OPEN YOUR MOUTH! THE FEDS NEED A SWAB OF YOUR DNA.

Yesterday's NY TIMES, published an article about DNA collection by the Feds. More states are moving to take your DNA upon arrest, just like they would take your fingerprints or mugshot. Most states currently require DNA samples to be taken upon conviction of a felony offense. Looks like the trend is now shifting to anyone who gets picked up by the police for any crime. In my opinion, this is a 4th Amendment Privacy violation. Article here.

As you know, I focus my practice on expunging and sealing criminal records. These are not the records of convicted felons but of people who were arrested for misdemeanor offenses and the case was either dismissed from court or they had to do supervision or some minor sentence. This expansion of the law really scares me. Just because we can expunge the person's name and fingerprints from the database, will we be able to expunge a person's DNA?

According to arrest data of 2004 by FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting:

• The number of arrests in the U.S. for all criminal offenses (except traffic violations) was APPROXIMATELY 14 MILLION. (The U.S. population was approximately 291 million) - THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 5% OF OUR POPULATION EVERY YEAR! YES, 5% OF OUR POPULATION IS ARRESTED EVERY YEAR!! Imagine how many people in the entire country have been arrested in the past 40 years - the total number must astounding.
  

• 70.8 percent of arrestees were white, 26.8 percent were black, and 2.4 percent were of other races (American Indian or Alaskan Native and Asian or Pacific Islander).
• Whites were most commonly arrested for driving under the influence (893,212 arrests) and drug abuse violations (821,047 arrests). Blacks were most frequently arrested for drug abuse violations (406,890 arrests) and simple assaults (288,286 arrests). (See Table 43.)

This means that if you get arrested for any reason, regardless if you were wrongly accused, you may have to give your DNA to the Feds! I think the privacy interest of a person arrested for DUI outweighs the public interest in obtaining that person's DNA.

If you look at the statistics above, the majority of arrests are for NON-VIOLENT offenses like DUI and drugs. According to the Times, “I’ve watched women go from mug-book to mug-book looking for the man who raped her,” said Mitch Morrissey, the Denver district attorney and an advocate for more expansive DNA sampling. “It saves women’s lives.” The idea that arrested people must submit their DNA to the database to help solve VIOLENT crimes is preposterous.

Furthermore, we are innocent until proven guilty. It is fundamentally wrong to take DNA from a person who is charged with a crime and not yet convicted.

Released without Charging: What about the people who are arrested but not even charged? Often times, the police will arrest someone who is a "person of interest" or "suspect", hold them for three days for questioning, then release the person without charging because the police realize they have the wrong guy. If the police can get DNA upon arrest, that means the police will use the new law to circumvent the standard investigation that is required to charge someone. It's like this: the police think John Smith is the offender but they aren't sure. They arrest him, swab his cheeks to get DNA, hold him for 3 days and await the DNA results, then release him if it's not a match. Even if he's released, the DNA still remains in the database. The Times even mentions this idea, "The police say that the potential hazards of genetic surveillance are worth it because it solves crimes and because DNA is more accurate than other physical evidence."

How about the police using their investigative skills to solve a crime.  I can guarantee a person who is wrongfully convicted will not be exonerated by the DNA of a person who has no criminal record, is arrested for a bar brawl, and his case is dismissed from court.  Instead, the person who is wrongfully convicted will be exonerated when the real perpetrator is taken into custody on a subsequent crime, ends up pleading guilty and then submits his DNA to the database. 

We cannot allow the government to take our DNA upon arrest!

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

NY Times Article on DNA: 4/19/09

U.S. ATTORNEY'S DEADLINE TO INDICT BLAGOJEVICH IS QUICKLY APPROACHING - 1 WEEK AWAY - APRIL 7! WHAT DO THEY REALLY HAVE ON HIM?

ex-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich

Putting the question of ex-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's sanity aside, are we then left with a real criminal or just a guy with helmet-head hair? I say the latter. 

We are approaching the EXTENDED deadline for U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald to formally charge Blagojevich in alleged pay-to-play schemes, including the attempted sale of then President-elect Obama's Senate seat.  Judge Holderman gave Fitzgerald a 90-day extension to indict him - just one week away - April 7. 

Remember, Fitzgerald said the charges against Blagojevich were so severe they would "make Lincoln roll over in his grave." So what's the holdup?

Since that bold statement, no official charges have been filed and all this time has passed. I suspect the charges against Blagojevich are going to be trumped up.  I am not saying he should not be charged with criminal misconduct; however, I do not think he will be charged with the serious offenses that were initially alleged.   I think that the U.S. Attorney jumped the gun and arrested Blagojevich a bit too soon. The Feds should have waited for the money to exchange hands in the sale of the Obama Senate seat.

What did Blagojevich really do that was so illegal? He may have WANTED TO OR DESIRED TO sell the Obama Senate seat but conversations with multiple F-BOMBS about that desire are not enough to charge him with a crime. Remember "ATTEMPT" requires a SUBSTANTIAL STEP to be taken and it wasn't!

Agreed that Blagojevich was an outta-control Governor disliked by most BUT is he a criminal? My bet is NO - he's a wannabe criminal at best.

We shall see...

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

AMERICA'S PROBLEM WITH UNDOCUMENTED MEXICANS IN OUR CRIMINAL SYSTEM

As you know, I am a criminal defense attorney in our largest criminal system in the country: Cook County, IL. Chicago is also home to many undocumented Mexicans. Because of my great exposure to crime and the Mexican population, I have seen my fair share of problems our country faces as America begins tackle a problem we have ignored for years.

Legal Representation in Proceedings

According to the Human Rights Watch, between 1997-2005, nearly 673,000 immigrants were deported for criminal convictions. Of those deported, well over 50% of them were not represented in immigration court. I do not have the numbers, but I suspect the around the same numbers represent those who do not have private criminal defense attorneys for their underlying criminal case. The criminal courts are flooded with Spanish-speaking, undocumented residents who are accused of committing a crime. Every day, I see this situation. Furthermore, I do not recall ever seeing an undocumented nationality other than Mexican. On one hand, the undocumented person is a burden on our judicial system because he/she cannot afford private counsel and so he is entitled to the public defender. On the other hand, our Constitution allows for due process and any person on our soil is entitled to a proper defense. All too often, I witness an undocumented Mexican get pushed through the criminal system and forced to plead guilty to a crime he may very well not have committed. On one hand, the question is: should this person be afforded all the rights of an American citizen if he is undocumented? But on the other hand, the question is: shouldn't this person be entitled to proper legal representation in both a criminal and deportation proceeding; i.e., isn't that proper due process?

Many Deported Have Prior Criminal Records

Also according to Human Rights Watch, between 1997-2005, nearly 500,000 undocumented Mexicans were deported for non-violent offenses (majority drug-related.) A recent article stated that between October 2007-November 2008, over 10,000 were deported from just three states: Alaska, Oregon & Washington. Of those 10,000, 33% had criminal backgrounds.

It's no surprise that many of those deported have criminal backgrounds. That essentially means these numbers reflect immigrants who have been deported at least once before. I have represented several Mexican drug dealers who pleaded guilty knowing they were going to be deported. They all say the same thing: "I'll be back." One client called me less than one week after pleading guilty to a drug offense to tell me he had been deported and had already made it back into the U.S. to Chicago. Shocking, right?

This is in poor taste but quite humorous. My apologies!Problems at Home Too

I find it interesting that the Mexico/U.S. drug problem is now, all of a sudden, a big issue. This is nothing new. Why have we not done anything sooner? Did you know Texas is #1 point of entry for cocaine? President Bush knew this when he was Governor of Texas!

But what about the killings at home? There has been recent talk about the majority of the guns seized in Mexico are from the U.S. I agree that we need to stop the exportation of guns into Mexico, but what about stopping the guns from flowing in our own streets? Why do Americans not understand that we are surrounded by war zones in our major cities? Did you know 29 Chicago Public School children have been killed this year alone? Do you remember that when Jennifer Hudson's family members were shot and killed inside the home NOBODY called the police because neighbors were so used to hearing gun fire? (It was not until a family member walked into the home and discovered the bodies that the police were called.)

Clearly, the Mexico drug problem is one of major importance. But let's not forget the innocent people who are killed on our home turf every day because of the drug trade and flow of weapons on our streets.

More to come on other issues surrounding the Mexico drug crisis...

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

3/11/09: Tamara on CNN HLN "Showbiz Tonight" Discussing the Latest on Rihanna/Chris Brown

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

CHICAGO SUPERINTENDENT JODY WEIS FORCED TO TURN OVER LIST OF "REPEATER" OFFICERS WITH MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS

Superintendent Weis with Mayor Daley & Interim Superintendent Dana StarksLast week, Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis was found in contempt of court by a federal court judge because he refused to turn over a "repeater" list of officers who had 5 or more complaints made against them since 2002. Article here. After the ruling, Weis decided to turn the list over to opposing counsel for two minors who were beaten by an off-duty detective in 2007.

Weis will be in court tomorrow to explain why he initially refused to comply with a court order. According to the Tribune, "Weis said he still disagrees with the judge's decision because releasing the list would harm officer morale and could lead to misconceptions about officer conduct."

WEIS DOING HIS JOB: PROTECTING HIS OFFICERS

I have met with Superintendent Weis on several occasions and I must say he is an honorable man, in my opinion.  Keep in mind, Weis was just appointed Superintendent by Mayor Daley a bit over a year ago in February, 2009.  Weis is a true commander who was trained to go down for his soldiers.  On the other hand, there is one rule all must follow in court: never defy a court order.

CHICAGO POLICE MISCONDUCT SYSTEMIC

I am thrilled to know this list was forced over.  Chicago Police misconduct goes back to the days of Jon Burge torture and I'm sure well before then as well.  There is no reason officers should be protected from their misconduct.  The only way cockroaches are forced out is if they are smoked out.  Time to smoke out the bad officers.

SOME CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES CONTRIBUTE TO THE SILENCE

Often times, criminal defense attorneys seek OPS records on Chicago Police officers who made an arrest in a pending case.  For example, if my client alleges the police planted drugs on him, I may want to see if the Officer has ever received a complaint of this sort before. However, the records are not sent directly to me but to the judge's chambers.  Then, the judge gets to review all OPS complaints and make the determination if there's anything relevant to turn over.  Many judges will not turn over cases that are similar if the case was "unfounded."  That term can mean many things.  Did the police properly investigate and interview all witnesses?  I had a client who was in custody for over a year before OPS interviewed him on a complaint.  Judges don't want to go on a "fishing expedition" and look through an entire officer's file...but if the judges don't turn over the complaints, this is another form of suppressing past misconduct.

In conclusion, I am happy to know the officers accused of multiple incidents of misconduct are going to be exposed.  No more protecting the bad guys.  Not all officers are bad but taxpayers should appreciate this decision after last year $20 million dollars was paid to 4 men by the City of Chicago after they sued for Jon Burge's torture over 20 years ago.  The cost to the taxpayers and the public interest in this list far outweighs protecting these "repeater" officers. 

www.xpunged.com & www.tamaraholder.com