Look at the first memo written by Chris Sanchez based on his interview of Rene Sanchez, who was recounting the drug dealer’s story. The memo is here. Notice this:

Osbaldo told Rene Sanchez that he heard five or six gunshots before he eventually was hit in the groin.

What? The prosecution is contending that Compean fired up to 16 shots. How did that happen? There is suggestion that 15 spent shells were found, but that five were old casings. So, is the 14, 15 or 16 shots fired based on a change in the dealer’s story?

After all, he also initially claimed that he was shot while trying to cross over the border from Mexico to the United States. That changed after the facts about the pursuit were revealed. That’s one change. Now his initial statement appears to be that only 5 or 6 shots were fired by Compean before he was hit. When did that change?

Also, the statement claimed that the dealer was hit in the groin as opposed to the buttock. Of course, that would bolster the dealer’s story that he was hit while crossing the border from Mexico to the United States rather than while escaping to Mexico from BP Agents trying to apprehend him.

I wonder about the cross-examination of the doctor who removed the bullet. Is it possible that he was wrong about the entry point of the bullet? I don’t see how since the bullet was supposedly recovered.

It is interesting that, if you go look at the docket sheet for the case, you will find an entry for a Motion for Protective Order filed by the Texas Medical Board.:

docket.htm

Was a party trying to get a TMB file concerning a complaint filed against a doctor who was testifying in the case? If so, who? A prosecution witness or defense witness?

So was the dealer really hit in the buttock by the bullet—or the groin? Is the bullet that was identified really from the gun carried by Ramos? The transcript and statement of facts would be helpful—if the court reporter can get them done.

Here is the story.

At 2:30 p.m., CBP Border Patrol agents observed a Ford F-250 and Chevrolet Silverado illegally enter the U.S. near the Imperial Sand Dunes. Agents began to follow both trucks as they entered Interstate 8 westbound. The F-250 failed to yield to agents’ emergency equipment, but was safely stopped using a controlled tire deflation device. The driver of the Silverado made attempts to evade Border Patrol agents before driving the vehicle into an agricultural irrigation ditch just east of Calexico.

I thought that BP Agents weren’t supposed to chase a fleeing drug dealer. After all, Debra Kanof, the prosecutor of Ramos and Compean says that’s so:

Even more broadly, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said, Ramos and Compean had no business chasing someone in the first place.

“It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing,” she said. “The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the pursuit of someone.”

Are the agents in California going to be disciplined for pursuing the drug dealer? If not, why not?

(HT News From the Border)

Update: See additions for March 15 & 18 in bold italics

I have additions to the timeline I did in the last post. Caveat: I have not seen the actual documents as they are not linked to this story.
My additions are in bold:

February 17, 2005—The incident between the dealer and the BP agents

March 4, 2005—The memos say the investigation was initiated. I don’t have dates from these documents as to when Rene Sanchez had his conversations with the dealer and his family members.

March 6 or 7th 2005—Rene Sanchez called the BP office in Fabens (it appears) to ask if that office was aware of a shooting. Note that the officer that was called was not usually assigned to Fabens and there is no indication of when the officer arrived at that office.

March 10 2005—Rene Sanchez calls DHS investigator, Chris Sanchez and relates what the Dealer told Rene Sanchez—that the dealer was shot while trying to cross the border from Mexico to the U.S.

March 14—2005—Chris Sanchez finalizes the memo by signing it—there is no indication in this memo that any other person was questioned by Chris Sanchez.

March 15, 2005—An affidavit is filed in District Court signed by Chris Sanchez alleging that ballistics testing confirmed that the bullet was fired from Agent Ramos’s gun.

March 15, 2005—Johnny Sutton signs a letter offering the dealer immunity. (Corrected)

Correction: The document is dated March 16—which means that the dealer signed it the same day it was written—where was the dealer when he signed it?

March 16, 2005—The Dealer signs the letter accepting the offer of immunity. Note, that although Sutton has alleged that the dealer was represented by an attorney—there is no signature by the dealer’s attorney on this offer of immunity. Is that usual? When I do letter agreements, I always get the attorney’s signature as well as the party’s so that there is no later allegation that document was misunderstood or coerced. Also, how did the dealer get the letter so fast? Was it faxed to a Mexican attorney’s office—or a Consulate. I can’t see an indication of this on the letter.

March 18, 2005—Two days after the Dealer accepts immunity, Compean is interviewed and states that he shot because he feared for his life and thought that the dealer pointed a weapon at him.

April 4, 2005—Christopher Sanchez signs the memo which memorializes the March 18 interview with Compean and also confirms that two BP supervisors were present at the scene during the shooting. Wouldn’t contemporaneously witnessing (at least auditorily) be a sufficient report?

July 11, 2005 The OIG calls Rene Sanchez about his conversation with the BP Agent, purportedly located in Fabens who was called by Rene Sanchez on March 6 or 7th. The memo still characterizes this as a shooting which occurred when the dealer was attempting to cross the border into the United States from Mexico.

So, why does the July 11, 2005 memo still characterize this as a shooting while attempting to cross the border to the United States? Too bad the dealer already had immunity when Compean was interviewed. Sutton may have had a few more options. Note that the immunity agreement does not say that immunity will be revoked if the dealer lied to the investigators about how he was shot. So, being caught in a lie to Rene Sanchez about being shot as he attempted to cross the border into the US doesn’t seem to negate the immunity agreement—only lying to the Grand Jury or at trial would cause a revocation of the agreement, if I am interpreting it correctly.

Why doesn’t the agreement say that lying to the investigators would cause the agreement to be revoked? Once the prosecutor realized that the dealer lied about the circumstances of the shots fired at him, he could have revoked the immunity agreement and then pursued the dealer for the load of marijuana (that he admitted to driving in his statements to Rene Sanchez), for crossing illegally, assaulting a Border Patrol Agent and whatever other charges that are appropriate. Couldn’t he?

Jerome Corsi at WND has some of them and discusses the “hunting party” that the drug dealer’s cohorts wanted to launch against the Border Patrol Agents in retaliation for the loss of their marijuana.

A review of these documents and the timeline, including when the dealer was given immunity, is very interesting. Consider the first memo signed by DHS investigator Christopher Sanchez who interviewed Border Patrol Agent, Rene Sanchez. Review it and ask yourself the following questions:

1. Where is the contention that Compean tried to hit the dealer with the butt of his gun?


2. Where is the contention that the dealer tried to surrender?


3. Where is the contention that the dealer was unarmed?

Here is the link.

Was the defense given this memo to use in cross-examining the witnesses? This memo is silent on the three contentions used by this prosecutor to charge the BP agents with assault and attempted murder and could have been used by the defense to cast doubt on the credibility of the dealer’s “story” at trial.

This is similar to the issues in the Duke Rape Hoax involving multiple stories told by the accuser. Not only is there no indication that the dealer told Rene Sanchez the above three contentions, the dealer also states that he was wounded when he attempted to cross into the United States. A story that is totally at odds with his trial testimony about attempting to surrender, almost being hit with the butt of a rifle and being shot as he ran away.

Perhaps Sutton gave the dealer immunity because he was alarmed about the allegation that the dealer was shot while trying to cross into the United States. I, too, would be alarmed at the idea of shooting someone as they tried to cross the river. But, if that is the case, Sutton granted immunity based on a lie—and then allowed his Assistant United State Attorney, Debra Kanof to put a witness on the stand who lied to the investigators and received immunity based on that lie. Why is this any different than the prospect of the Duke Rape Hoax prosecutors putting a demonstrable lier, who has given multiple stories, on the stand there in Durham? In my opinion, this is skating too close to possibly suborning perjury.

It is distressing to me that Sutton gave the dealer immunity not two days after this memo was complete. Note below that the immunity letter was dated March 15 and signed on March 16, 2005.

Front page
Second page

Four months later, the DHS story is still that the dealer was shot while trying to cross into the United States. There is still no allegation that the agents tried to hit him with the butt of a gun, that the dealer was unarmed, or that the dealer tried to surrender.

Here is the link to that document.

I wonder when the agents were first questioned. After the facts of the pursuit came out, why did this not discredit the dealer’s credibility in the eyes of the prosecutor? It is evident to me that the dealer was trying to spin a story of a man who was shot at while trying to cross the border, not while trying to escape the Border Patrol during a heated pursuit that resulted in a scuffle with one of the agents.

According to this, the agents have always maintained that they thought the dealer had a gun and was turning and pointing it at them as he ran back to Mexico. The dealer, on the other hand, lied right out of the box by stating he was shot while trying to cross the border.

So, again, did the prosecutor offer immunity on the basis of a lie? When the dealer’s story changed, I assume after the information about a pursuit came to light, did Sutton still believe that the dealer was credible? If so, why?

Think about the position Sutton was in. He gave immunity to a known drug dealer, possibly on the basis of a lie. Had the investigation concluded that the Agents only committed an administrative violation, and the true criminal could not be prosecuted due to immunity, how would that have impacted Sutton’s career?

I hope that the reports of the interrogation of the agents becomes public. I would like to know the timing and contents of their statements. I, particularly, would like to know if they were questioned before the dealer was given immunity. So far, the documentary timeline is this:

February 17, 2005—The incident between the dealer and the BP agents

March 4, 2005—The memos say the investigation was initiated. I don’t have dates from these documents as to when Rene Sanchez had his conversations with the dealer and his family members.

March 6 or 7th 2005—Rene Sanchez called the BP office in Fabens (it appears) to ask if that office was aware of a shooting. Note that the officer that was called was not usually assigned to Fabens and there is no indication of when the officer arrived at that office.

March 10 2005—Rene Sanchez calls DHS investigator, Chris Sanchez and relates what the Dealer told Rene Sanchez—that the dealer was shot while trying to cross the border from Mexico to the U.S.

March 14—2005—Chris Sanchez finalizes the memo by signing it—there is no indication in this memo that any other person was questioned by Chris Sanchez.

March 15, 2005—Johnny Sutton signs a letter offering the dealer immunity.

Correction: The document is dated March 16—which means that the dealer signed it the same day it was written—where was the dealer when he signed it?

March 16, 2005—The Dealer signs the letter accepting the offer of immunity. Note, that although Sutton has alleged that the dealer was represented by an attorney—there is no signature by the dealer’s attorney on this offer of immunity. Is that usual? When I do letter agreements, I always get the attorney’s signature as well as the party’s so that there is no later allegation that document was misunderstood or coerced. Also, how did the dealer get the letter so fast? Was it faxed to a Mexican attorney’s office—or a Consulate. I can’t see an indication of this on the letter.

July 11, 2005 The OIG calls Rene Sanchez about his conversation with the BP Agent, purportedly located in Fabens who was called by Rene Sanchez on March 6 or 7th. The memo still characterizes this as a shooting which occurred when the dealer was attempting to cross the border into the United States from Mexico.

Again, we have no information as to when the BP agents were questioned. So, when did the dealer’s story change? Before or after the agents were questioned?

Update:

I found this article concerning Sutton’s response to the questions surrounding the ballistic tests which WND addressedt.

But Sutton said a later ballistics report confirmed that the bullet came from Ramos’ gun.

Sutton said that despite Compean and Ramos’ more recent claims that they didn’t know they even hit Aldrete because he kept running away from them toward Mexico, a handwritten statement by Compean acknowledges that Aldrete began limping after Ramos shot at him.

“It’s important to understand that not only was there a really consistent match of the bullet taken from the smuggler’s butt to Ramos’ gun, but Ramos said, ‘I did shoot him,’” Sutton told FOXNews.com.

I hope that the later ballistics report is released. It would be interesting to see if there was a second test—or if the report was “updated” based on the initial tests. Also, did the defense have access to both reports?

Secondly, the way the above is written is confusing. In one sentence, Sutton claims that Compean stated in a handwritten statement that the dealer started limping after Ramos shot at him. Then, Sutton says that Ramos admitted “I shot him”. So, did Ramos write a statement about the suspect limping as well? I’m confused. I would like to see the statements of the agents to see the complete context. Of course, if there were admissions from the agents that they knew they hit the dealer—that would not look good for them.

See updated timeline here.

And a question, are illegal aliens given more rights when running from law enforcement than U.S. Citizens?

I’ve been reading extensively about the conviction of the Border Patrol Agents Ramos & Compean, and I am disturbed. I think that the Federal Prosecutorial system has been broken for quite a while. The prosecutions of Michael Milken, Martha Stewart and Jack Abramoff come to mind. As I quoted Jack Wheeler here:

The prosecutors’ game is to threaten you with an innumerable number of counts, any one of which could put you in the slammer for years if found guilty, so you’ll “plea bargain” – plead guilty on a selected set of counts. In exchange, you’re in prison for far fewer years. The alternative is to fight all their charges, bankrupting you with legal fees, and risking most of the rest of your life behind bars.

This is apparently, what happened to Agents Ramos & Compean when they refused plea deals.

During the thirteen months awaiting their trial, Ramos and Compean were offered plea bargains approximately six times. The last offer came five weeks before trial. That offer was for one year in prison and reimbursement to the government for the $35,000 in medical bills for the free treatment of the drug smuggler was given by the U. S. Attorneys in exchange for his lies.

Kanof continued to pile up counts against them until the agents were facing 40 years to life because of the count stacking. They rejected the plea bargain because they knew they were innocent and they had faith in our country’s legal system. Had they been guilty, they would have taken those plea bargain offers in a heart beat.

Another thing that bothers me is the technicality of the laws used to convict the Agents. They, apparently failed to file a report that they discharged their weapons, because they did not think that they hit the drug dealer as he kept running until he reached a van on the Mexican side of the river. They picked up their shells—which they may have done because they had no reason to think that this was a “crime scene” or that further investigation was needed. The administrative violation of failing to file a written report was used by the prosecutors to argue that there was a coverup of the incident.

The agents have claimed that they fired at the drug dealer because he turned his body as he ran and appeared to have what looked like a gun in his hand—pointed at the agents. At one point, the dealer was in a ditch and came up with his hands up—but ended up skuffling with Agent Compean, who ended up on the ground. Ramos heard shots as he arrived on the scene, also thought that the dealer was turning with a gun in his hand and fired one shot. It has been alleged that the one shot hit the dealer in the side of the buttock consistent with the Agents’ position that the dealer was turning his body toward the Agents to fire a weapon. Here is a link with information regarding the above.

However, some reports now cast doubt on whether the bullet taken from the dealer was actually found by ballistics to have come from the gun of Ramos.

I listened to Johnny Sutton on Fox News and found him wholly unpersuasive—as did Phyllis Schlafly when Sutton telephoned her.

Paul Craig Roberts, in his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, quoted former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who said:

What every prosecutor is practically required to do it to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.

Debra Kanof

The Assistant U.S. Attorney, Debra Kanof, became quite angry when the BPA’s refused her plea bargains, hence the piling on of offenses. Apparently, she has a habit of picking out potential defendants and then “searching the law books” to pin some technical offense on them. Hence, the following:

Columbia Prosecutor Probes a City’s Elite
By Lucette Lagnado. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb 24, 1998. pg. B.1
People: Kanof, Debra
When federal agents raided Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. offices last week, defense lawyers here shook their heads and uttered a one-word lament: “Debra.”

“Debra” is Debra Kanof, the federal prosecutor leading the local investigation of Columbia/HCA. ... The broad fraud investigation …got its start in El Paso. ... A year ago, Ms. Kanof staged the first dramatic raid on the company’s facilities, dispatching more than 100 agents…

Ms. Kanof has since become known to her critics as the Kenneth Starr of El Paso. ...she is depicted by her adversaries as a relentless pursuer who goads potential targets into submission. Her blunt threats of indictment have roiled the ranks of local doctors. Her focus on the tiniest details—agents are even examining what Columbia spent on party refreshments—frustrates defense attorneys. [she even interviewed party-goers as to what hors d’oeuvres people ate, trying to string together trivial matters to build a case that Columbia gave doctors illegal favors.]

In the eyes of some in Texas’s tight-knit community of defense attorneys, Debra Kanof is, in a word, mean.

...She is investigating more than 20 local physicians. ... In recent weeks, she has warned some physicians’ attorneys that she plans to indict their clients… Many of these doctors had counted themselves among El Paso’s most respected citizens. Now they live in fear of imminent indictment, jail time and perhaps the loss of their medical licenses and careers. Unless, that is, the doctors help Ms. Kanof in her probe. Defense lawyers involved in the investigation say the prosecutor is offering to intercede on behalf of the doctors who cooperate, keeping them out of jail and in good standing with the local medical board. ...

...”Debra really hates to lose,” says Mary Stillinger, an El Paso defense lawyer who has crossed swords with Ms. Kanof more times than she cares to recall.

Ms. Kanof’s aggressiveness became the stuff of legend. ...

Says Ms. Stillinger, “She goes for the dramatic, and if that involves what was in the hors d’oeuvres, and if it was pate, she will want to go into it before a jury, because the jury does not get to eat pate.”

Except Kanof wasn’t being dramatic about the pate, she was blackmailing the doctors with fraud or anti-kickback laws which are used against one who knowingly and willfully solicits, receives, offers or pays remuneration, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for:

A. referring an individual to a person for the furnishing or arranging for the furnishing of any item or service payable under the Medicare or Medicaid programs, or

B. purchasing, leasing or ordering or arranging for or recommending purchasing, leasing, or ordering any good, facility, service or item payable under the Medicare or Medicaid programs.

In other words, in Kanof’s mind, the more expensive the hors d’oeuvres served at the “company Christmas party”, the more effectively she could extort the physicians into testimony against the hospital chain with a hyper-technical, unfair and unintended reading of the law.

I don’t think that she would pass Justice Jackson’s admonitions:

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.

Especially when she makes comments to the jury like this as reported at The Corner.

A reporter who covered the trial confirms to me that not only did the prosecutor say something to the effect that the two agents “turned on one of your own people,” i.e. Mexicans (even though, of course, they’re not Mexicans but Americans of Mexican descent), but she said the same thing to the reporter during a phone interview. The reporter tells me that US Attorney’s office has been delaying the release of the transcripts, but that they’re supposed to be ready next week

I’m sitting in a hotel room in Washington D.C. having room service and watching RAW—and actually enjoying it. Why?

I particularly like this guy…

I’m on the second volume of this magnificent work by R.J. Rushdoony. It’s called Law & Society. I’ve been meaning to blog about it, but have been too engrossed in reading it. Here is an interesting part about feminism and family out of the chapter entitled The Royal Virtue and the Family:

Feminists hold that sexual differences are a product of social conditioning; feminism is a form of radical environmentalism. The fact is that the differences are basic and have nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. In fact, on the average, “women equal or surpass men in all test areas not related to aggression and abstract reasoning.” As Christians, we would term what anthropologists classify as aggression as dominion.

He means dominion in the Biblical sense. He goes on…

On the other hand, in the providence of God, women have been given excellence in areas other than dominion and abstract thought so that they might be able associates or help-meets to man. A man’s thinking is abstract and wooden: he needs a woman’s broader scope of intelligence and abilities to flesh out his perspective, which tends to be too abstract and too much geared to dominion to be always realistic. As a result, only a very stupid husband exercises dominion without the counsel of his wife.

I’ve been reading some things on the internet about some of the churches that seem to be going overboard with regard to teachings about patriarchy. I read a description about a church where the men decided to resolve an issue that had arisen in the women’s fellowship. The women had to sit with their mouths shut while only the men spoke about the issue. In this same church, it has been alleged that the wife of the pastor carries a cell phone around her house so that her husband can call her to get him coffee. If true, this seems to violate what Rushdoony wrote about the family and marriage relationship in the next paragraph from the quotes above:

It is this unity of action as one flesh, as a life in common, which gives power to the family as the centeral public institution. The man who acts as thought his wife were only created to obey him denies the “one flesh” aspect of marriage and assumes the role of a bachelor exercising sexual and self-serving demands over a resident woman. Instead of a marriage, there is simply cohabitation. It is the man’s will, not God’s public purpose concerning the family, which is then put into force.

Interesting.

According to Crystal Mess, the North Carolina AG has appointed two prosecutors to the case who have problems of their own regarding turning over exculpatory evidence to Defendants. Jim Coman testified during a Bar hearing of a complaint against prosecutors who withheld evidence to wit:

Jim Coman testified on behalf of his office mates at the Bar “trial.” Under oath, he said, in direct contravention of precedent settled since 1972, that his pals weren’t obligated to turn over impeachment evidence to the defense. (See, Hoke and Graves decided to deem the taped phone call of Crystal Morris, wherein she implicated herself and spoke of the need to frame Gell, merely “impeachment” material, as opposed to “exculpatory”material, because, while it might have “embarrassed” poor Ms. Morris, it did not directly prove Gell’s innocence.

—snip—

In September, the state’s senior prosecutor was in an unusual place: the witness stand. And what he said has caused quite a stir among lawyers around the state.
Jim Coman said under oath that the state Attorney General’s Office had a policy of withholding a certain type of evidence helpful to defendants. As he described it, the policy would violate 30 years of U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Coman now says, however, that his testimony was incorrect. Even so, one prominent law professor said that the prosecutor’s September statements may open the door to challenges of numerous convictions in cases tried by the attorney general’s staff.

The other prosecutor, Mary Winstead, “accidentally” TAPED over parts of TWO audiotapes containing what has been said to be telephone conversations favorable to the defense. I could understand one tape but TWO?!

Why would the AG appoint two people with troubled pasts on the issue of exculpatory evidence to prosecute a case where a key bone of contention is the FAILURE TO TURN OVER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE?!

I just finished reading John Gatto’s book The Underground History of American Education online. I highly recommend it to you.

After completing it, I surfed around trying to find out what John Gatto is up to now. Instead, I found an eighth grade final exam from 1895. Look at it and see if you agree that it is a piece of compelling evidence that education in the U.S. has become severly degraded. Here are the questions:

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS, 1895

Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of “lie,” “play,” and “run.”
5. Define case; Illustrate each case.
6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 – 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1:25 hours)

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4 District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.

Orthography (Time, one hour)

1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals.
4. Give four substitutes for caret ‘u.’ (HUH?)
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final ! ‘e.’ Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)

1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3 Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

No way I could pass this. Now this is a test I might support teaching to.

Lately, I have had four obsessions. The Duke Hoax case, the Kathryn Johnson shooting, John Gatto’s book, the Underground History of American Education and the Yale choir debacle. I haven’t been posting much, just reading.

I have been so caught up in the Duke Hoax issue, that I found myself commenting over at Durham-in-Wonderland, the spectacular blog by K.C. Johnson. I practically wrote a post over there, so I am going to copy it here. It is in response to a post by K.C. concerning bipartisan support in Congress for a DOJ investigation into the case.

I fear that Mike Nifong is going to get away with this with a mere slap on the hand. It seems probable, as the well-respected prosecutor and blogger, Patterico, notes, that the case against the Duke students will be dismissed.

I believe that Mike Nifong should suffer the full consequences—but will he? Here is my comment from Durham-in-Wonderland:

I truly hope that the future handling of Nifong doesn’t become Kibuki Theatre designed to pacify the masses without accomplishing anything. Given that KC reported in an earlier post that only the DA, himself, can recuse himself, I fear that the “fix” is in.

Is it possible that Nifong went to the NC AG and agreed to recuse himself in return for no state prosecution? Is it possible that the AG has, as another commenter on this site suggested, given marching orders to the special prosecutor to do a cursory examination of the case—just enough to look objective—and then to dismiss it asap? That would bring some satisfaction and would, perhaps, give some cover for a subsequent failure to pursue Nifong for his transgressions.

Is it possible that behind the scenes, the Bar committee has worked out a deal for a reprimand of Nifong for only the publicity complaint, and in return for his acceptance of that reprimand, will agree not to act on the other complaints?

I wonder this because I have been reading John Gatto’s Underground History of American Education recently. What struck me about the book is his conclusion that big institutions began to exist—not primarily to achieve the goals for which they were created—but solely to protect themselves and their “systems”. They begin to act, not on the basis of a moral code, but solely on pragmatism designed for self-protection.

Thus, to use one of Gatto’s examples, the school tolerates the bullying of children by other students in order “to oil some greater wheels”, as he puts it.

Another commenter (anon 3:57am) noted on KC’s post, The Path From Here, that the District Attorney Association, in its pronouncement that Nifong should step down from the case, may have been motivated by the legislature’s dicussions regarding placing greater restraints on prosecutors. The commenter said:

“Unbelieable! The other DAs could care less about ethics, civil rights abuses, evidence tampering, etc. They just want to continue to operate without being constrained by “inconvenient” legal restraint.”

That would certainly fit the pattern described by John Gatto.

So, the question remains, how will the NC system protect itself? By doing the right thing and holding Nifong FULLY accountable? Wouldn’t that depend on how badly the system, itelf, will be hurt by going through such an “accountability process”?

Am I being too cynical here?

After I wrote the comment, I read the NYT’s article regarding Nifong’s recusal. I noted a quote previously made by one of the members of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys:

Not only did Mr. Nifong misjudge the bar, he misjudged the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys. Back in September, the conference had sent Mr. Nifong a letter offering help with the case, including support staff, a shadow jury and advice on responding to defense leaks.

“We try to take care of our own,” Thomas J. Keith, one of four district attorneys who signed the letter, said in an interview this month.

(emphasis added)

It is notable that Mr. Keith did NOT say, “We try to ensure that justice is done”, instead its “we try to take care of our own”. This, to me is evidence of Gatto’s conclusions about institutions acting pragmatically, rather than morally.

Further, the article goes on:

As the public criticism of Mr. Nifong escalated, his fellow district attorneys began to hear rumblings that some state legislators were threatening to seek new oversight laws for all district attorneys. The DNA revelations on Dec. 15 only heightened their alarm.

On Dec. 19, several district attorneys met with Mr. Nifong and advised him to hand the case to a special prosecutor.

And then….

The state bar filed its complaint on Dec. 28. Better than anyone, the district attorneys understood its rarity and potential political significance.

“That is what pushed us into action,” Mr. Keith said.

Two weeks later, Mr. Nifong asked the state attorney general to take over the case.

Again, no concern for justice. Only concern for the system.

Thus, I repeat, will the NC system of justice hold Nifong FULLY accountable? That remains to be seen and I am very cynical about it.

That’s how Radley Balko begins his latest post on the Kathryn Johnston case, the elderly woman who was killed by police officers busting down her door on a no-knock warrant. I blogged about her in my last few posts.

It appears that there is now direct evidence that the warrant was obtained under false circumstances. One of the officers is spilling the beans—the story about the confidential informant was made up, according to him.

If so, I was right when I said here that a homicide was committed. In fact, if the officer is telling the truth, it’s an unjustifiable homicide:

Buddy Parker, a former federal prosecutor, said that officers who lied to the magistrate could face serious charges in addition to making false statements to a judge.

“If that was the case, you have a conspiracy,” said Parker. “If you have a warrantless entry, you have no legal investigation. It can be either conscious disregard for the law and all conduct flowing from that is criminal — the entry, the homicide. It’s no different from people going in to rob a bank and kill someone in a shooting.”

What thuggery!

Update:

The Fulton County D.A. is planning to pursue criminal charges against the cops. Good move.