paulhunterjones

The news is breaking though it doesn’t come as a surprise. The legendary pop icon, world-renown Black comedian, and actor, Bill Cosby has been criminally charged with abusing, albeit years ago, a woman. Moments ago, I received an email alert from the New York Time reporting the filing of

people.com

of charges against Mr. Cosby. He was arraigned on the complaint this afternoon. At today’s court appearance the actor did not enter a plea. The Judge set bail at a million dollars. A preliminary hearing was set for January 14, 2016. And the battle begins.

According to Kevin Steel, the Montgomery County District Attorney-elect, his office charged Mr. Cosby with aggravated indecent assault as a felony. Andrea Constand, a longtime nemesis of Cosby’s, accused him of having drugged her and sexually abusing her in 2004. The alleged attack took place while she was visiting with Mr. Cosby in his home. Mr. Steele said that the investigations warranted a filing of charges and that the case against Mr. Cosby was strong. Though Mr. Steele made a point of saying that the victim and Mr. Cosby had been involved in a relationship, he neglected to say that she had sued Cosby in a civil action immediately after the alleged incident had occurred. Her civil action was settled upon confidential terms. Ms. Constand had to have received a substantial monetary settlement. The agreement settling the case contained a clause that prohibited the parties from discussing any aspect of the case. Ms. Constand’s prior civil case and the circumstances surrounding its settlement will play a huge part in Cosby’s defense of the charges.

Usually, prosecutors are reluctant to make out their case in the press, especially before the defendant is officially arraigned. Besides intending to embarrassment Mr. Cosby or, perhaps, attempting to bring him to the plea bargaining table, it made no sense for the Prosecutor’s office to have publicized so much of its case against Mr. Cosby. The release of the affidavit of probable cause, which reads like a stream of consciousness of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Cosby, only served as voluntary discovery for Cosby’s defense attorneys. In general, the release of so much evidentiary information stimulates the imagination of a defense team.

It should not be overlooked either that a reasonable person cannot help but ask themselves why Ms. Constand, who was 30 years old when the incident occurred, waited almost 12 years to officially (criminally) accuse him of sexually abusing her. Was she previously prevented from filing a criminal case by the police or district attorney? If so, the State of Pennslyvania will have to explain why it now thinks that it can prove a case against Mr. Cosby when it didn’t think so in the past.The Prosecution has a bigger problem; the credibility of the star witness. A reasonable person cannot help but ask themselves why Ms. Constand, who was 30 years old when the incident occurred, waited 12 years to file charges against Cosby. Was she prevented from doing so by the police or district attorney? More importantly, did the fact that the relevant statute of limitation would have run in January 2016 have a bearing on the pre-arraignment tactics of the Prosecutor’s office?

The Cosby prosecutors have a bigger problem; the credibility of the star witness. A reasonable person cannot help but ask themselves why Ms. Constand, who was 30 years old when the incident occurred, waited 12 years to file charges against Cosby. This questions will beg other questions that eventually lead to the unraveling of the Prosecutors’ case. Was she prevented from doing so by the police or district attorney? I grew up with Bill Cosby being a large part of my family’s conversation. We religiously watched his movies and the Cosby Show. He served as a role model for me, a Black male.

I grew up with Bill Cosby being a large part of my family’s conversation. We religiously watched his movies and the Cosby Show. He served as a role model for me, a Black male.

inticeonline.com

In my opinion, Mr. Cosby was as a role model for many people, regardless of their race. It is fair to say that we were all disappointed to learn that he had been sexually abusing women during the prime of his career. The press has relentlessly followed the story of Mr. Cosby’s sexually escapades. I doubt that there is a person in America who has not heard or read something about the women’s accusations against Mr. Cosby for sexually abusing them. One of the best pieces that I have read on Mr. Cosby’s

One of the more informative pieces that I read on Mr. Cosby’s alleged sexual abuse of women appeared in The Cut on July 26, 2015. In the article, the authors, Noreen Malone and Amanda Demme presented an exposé of the stories of the 35 of Mr. Cosby’s victims. After reading the article, I had to conclude that my idol saw himself as an urban Mandingo. The article’s first narration of abuse was Ms. Constand’s.

It is likely that the women’s allegations, most at least, against the famed actor are true. Still, he is entitled to due process of law. He should demand nothing less. The notion that he should stand up and “do the right thing” and let himself be criminally prosecuted or civilly sued is absurd. None of the alleged women would take such a self-defeating position. And yes; I find it troublesome that the women claim to have been horribly abused come forth only now, years (and more years) after the abuse allegedly occurred. Why the delay if they were so aggrieved?

In my opinion, Mr. Steele and his staff will have a difficult time proving the charges against Mr. Cosby. The tremendous lapse of time will undoubtedly result in lost memories. Crucial facts will be blurred. Relevant intervening events that have occurred during the last 12 years will make the prosecution of the famous Mr. Cosby more challenging. The fact that the case was not first presented to the Grand Jury will severely limit the Prosecutor’s trial options and tactics. Lastly, the charges cannot be sustained without Ms. Constand testifying in support of the allegations. Impeaching her testimony will not present itself as a problem for Cosby’s defense team. In this respect, they must be careful not to over impeach her.

Back in July 2013, a jury rightfully acquitted George Zimmerman of killing an unarmed Trayvon Martin. At the time the charges were filed against Mr. Zimmerman, I took the unpopular position of arguing that the prosecution could not prove its case. From a technical point, the prosecution’s case was built on theories that inherently challenged the charges themselves. Like in the Zimmerman case, the Cosby prosecutors have brought charges that are based on investigations, events, and tactics that lend themselves to proving reasonable doubt. Cosby defense teams will have a relatively easing time in securing an acquittal for their client After he is acquitted of the charges, Mr. Cosby should sue Ms. Constand for the return of the money in paid her in settlement of her civil suit. That would be real justice!

The standard of proof for convicting Mr. Cosby under Pennsylvania law is beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not believe that he prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allegations contained in the complaint. Mr. Steele’s failure to obtain a conviction against Mr. Cosby will ensure that he will not be reelected as District Attorney.

960-why-puerto-rico-power-wants-to-restructure-its-debt-payments

Updated December 30, 2015-4:00 pm

Gov. Garcia Padilla just informed the press that Puerto Rico would default on a 37.3 million debt payment due January 4, 2016. Not surprising anyone, Gov. Padilla went on to say that Puerto Rico would not make any further payments to the fund devoted for future payments. In his USA Today post, Nathan Bomey reports on this development and specifically quotes part of an email of Matt Fabian of Municipal Analytics:

“The governor appears not to know, week to week, how much cash flow the commonwealth will have and which debts will and won’t be paid…Puerto Rico does not have any kind of plan for fixing the mess it has gotten itself into. That, after complaining to Congress about imminent defaults, the commonwealth could find the money to pay almost a billion dollars in debt service while also paying Christmas bonuses will not advance Puerto Rico’s demands for bankruptcy protection.”

On November 30 the Governor issued an executive to “clawback” funds pledged to the payment of specific bonds. These “clawback” funds will be used by Puerto Rico to pay part of the debt coming due on January 4, 2015. Not only was the executive order unconstitutional, it exacerbated the debt problem.

—————————————————————————————————–

Christmas arrived early for President Barack Obama. The U.S. Congress passed the Omnibus Spending Bill of 2016. The 1.8 trillion dollars spending bill averts a shutdown and funds the government for the next year. Most observers credit newly elected House Speaker, Paul Ryan, with convincing restive Republican colleagues to go along with the legislation. The bill met smooth sailing in the Senate. In a surprising procedural move, Senators relaxed certain rules which permitted them to quickly consider and adopt the legislation. Both houses passed the legislation by wide bipartisan margins. President Obama, upon the signing the bill into law, praised Congress for coming together and passing an important piece of legislation.

Both Democrats and Republicans claimed a political victory in the passage of the spending bill. Republicans finally lifted the ban on oil experts that the oil industry desperately wanted. Democrats received funding for refugees and other programs dear to them. The bill has something for every legislators’ Christmas Stocking. Yet, some House and Senate democrats were upset that the legislation failed to offer financial help to Puerto Rico. The Caribbean island is unable to pay its sovereign debt and is in dire need of an injection of cash. The Hispanic and Black Congressional Caucasus threatened to derail passage of the legislation if it did contain some relief for Puerto Rico.

New York State’s representatives cheered the bill’s extension of the Zadroga law for 9/11 responders. At the same time, they are unhappy that the legislation’s failed to address Puerto Rico’s debt problems. Many of the state’s politicians (D) are supported by large Puerto Rican constituencies. Almost all of New York City’s elected politicians lobbied Congress to come to Puerto Rico’s aid. Unfortunately, advocates for Puerto Rican debt relief failed to make out their case on an intellectual level.

None-the-less House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, on December 18, introduced H.R. 4290, the Puerto Rico Emergency Financial Stability Act. The bill, if signed into law, would stay legal actions filed by Puerto Rico’s creditors who have not been paid on their debt holdings. The proposed stay would remain in effect until March 31, 2016. Rep. Pelosi believed that by that time Congress would have passed comprehensive legislation dealing the Puerto Rico’s debt crisis. By submitting the bill, Rep. Pelosi indirectly acknowledged that Puerto Rico was likely to default on making the Jan.1 2016 debt payment. Regardless of Puerto Rico’s imminent default, House members reacted with little enthusiasm towards the Pelosi bill. I believe that she knew this but had introduced the bill to further her own ambitions. Soon after introducing her bill, Rep. Pelosi was in Puerto Rico receiving political donations from local Democrats.

On November 6, 2012, Puerto Rico’s residents elected Alejandro Garcia-Padilla as governor of the island. Consequently, he has served in that capacity as the Island’s public debt grew into a crisis. In the first days of August 2015, the Governor began publicly acknowledging that Puerto Rico could not and would not pay its outstanding sovereign debt of more than 70 billion dollars. Gov. Garcia-Padilla made it clear that Puerto Rico’s only course of action was to default. What he avoiding saying was that Puerto Rico’s economy was in dire straits for years. While its economy was shrinking, Puerto Rico continued to borrow billions for ill-advised projects and ventures. Most recently, government officials borrowed billions just to meet expenses.

In fairness to the Governor, there has always been a nationalistic segment of the local electorate that believed the government should use public debt financing to support a socialist agenda. Though the crisis in Puerto Rico is real and its ramifications could have serious consequences for the average resident of the island, I do not believe that Puerto Rico deserves to be bailed out with U.S. taxpayers’ money.

What has not been sufficiently reported by the press is Congress’ efforts to address the Island’s financial problems. Under pressure from the Obama Administration, Governor Gracia Padilla and Puerto Rico’s non-voting representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, Garcia Padilla, both legislative bodies proposed differing bills to deal with the crisis. For many legitimate reasons, the Democrats’ proposals for sweeping help failed to gain meaningful support from either party. The lawmakers wrestled with the benefits and drawbacks of two forms of assistance, a financial bailout package and granting the Island the right to declare bankruptcy.

The House considered a bill that would have allowed the Island to declare bankruptcy without imposing an oversight authority to put Puerto Rico’s finances in order. The Senate bill contained no provision for granting Puerto Rico bankruptcy protection. However, the bill did offer 3 billion in immediate bailout funds and required the establishment an oversight authority. Had both bills been passed by their respective bodies, a Senate-House Conference Committee would have met to resolve the bills’ differences. U.S. law makers seem to agree that Puerto Rico’s financial crisis had been brought about by risky financial policies, an unwillingness to enact correcting austerity measures and a failure to respond appropriately to the shrinking economy.

Pages: 1 2