Injustice on Cape Cod

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

In intellectuele kringen prominente Engelsman krijgt voorkeursbehandeling
door arrogante Federale aanklager tegen de wens van een Federale rechter
in!

Groet / Cees

Judge angered by special treatment for Andrew Sullivan
http://www.masslawyersweekly.com/index.cfm/archive/view/id/450953
By Noah Schaffer

Published: September 14, 2009

Political commentator, author and writer for The Atlantic magazine Andrew
M. Sullivan won't have to face charges stemming from a recent pot bust at
the Cape Cod National Seashore - but a federal judge isn't happy about it.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings says in his decision that the
case is an example of how sometimes "small cases raise issues of
fundamental importance in our system of justice."

While marijuana possession may have been decriminalized, Sullivan, who
owns a home in Provincetown, made the mistake of being caught by a park
ranger with a controlled substance on National Park Service lands, a
federal misdemeanor.

The ranger issued Sullivan a citation, which required him either to appear
in U.S. District Court or, in essence, pay a $125 fine.

But the U.S. Attorney's Office sought to dismiss the case. Both the
federal prosecutor and Sullivan's attorney said it would have resulted in
an "adverse effect" on an unspecified "immigration status" that Sullivan,
a British citizen, is applying for.

In the decision, Collings observed that Sullivan would still have to state
on his application that he had been charged with a crime. Collings said
that he asked both the prosecutor and Sullivan's attorney, Robert Delahunt
Jr. (cousin of U.S. Rep. William D. Delahunt), for more information about
why paying the $125 would have "any additional adverse effect."

When no attorney could fully answer the question beyond citing advice from
immigration lawyers, Collings requested that Delahunt submit a brief on
the issue. But before Delahunt could reply, Assistant U.S. Attorney James
F. Lang jumped in and said that Collings had no power to inquire why the
U.S. attorney had decided to have the charge dismissed, the ruling stated.

Collings expressed concern in his ruling that "a dismissal would result in
persons in similar situations being treated unequally before the law. ...
persons charged with the same offense on the Cape Cod National Seashore
were routinely given violation notices, and if they did not agree to [pay
the fine] were prosecuted by the United States Attorney ... there was no
apparent reason for treating Mr. Sullivan differently from other persons
charged with the same offense."

In fact, noted Collings, there were several other defendants appearing in
court the same day who were charged with the same offense.

In his opinion, Collings wrote that the U.S. attorney is "is not being
faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all
persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a
court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is quite apparent
that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been
charged with the same crime in similar circumstances."

Ultimately, Collings acknowledged that he had no choice other than to
allow the case to be dismissed, but "that the Court must so act does not
require the Court to believe that the end result is a just one."

Calls to The Atlantic and Delahunt have not yet been returned.

Further info:
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=collings/pdf/09-0476rbcsullivan.pdf

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********