A story last week in the Niagara Gazette
broke the news that charges against me concerning alleged defrauding of Clare Bronfman and Sara Bronfman-Igtet
, were dropped by the US Attorney for the Western District of NY. This news came as the US DOJ WDNY issued a superseding indictment against me listing no new charges – but dropping the Bronfmans as victims. It lists a series of new actions allegedly committed by me – all of which strangely are perfectly legal actions when taken in isolation – but were conflated together to allege a scheme to obstruct the IRS and defraud a deceased partner of mine who never once complained in his lifetime about me defrauding him.
I understand the problem the DOJ faces and why they had to issue a far-fetched superseding indictment. I believe the case was fomented initially by Keith Raniere and the Bronfman sisters and was handled at the WDNY by now retired and I suspect corrupt Assistant US Attorney Anthony M. Bruce. He retired shortly after my indictment. It was a bad case from the beginning and was possibly prosecuted mostly as a favor to the Bronfmans and their attorneys.
So what should the DOJ WDNY do now? They should drop the case, if justice was the primary consideration. But they don’t do such things. It is well known that the DOJ must keep up appearances and never admit being wrong. To admit you are wrong is to contradict your assertion that you are always right. That you never bring a bad case. That you are infallible. That your defendant is always guilty. They need this to uphold their high conviction rates and juries must never suspect they can be wrong. That creates reasonable doubt.
This isn’t justice but it is why we have more people in prison than any other nation. It’s not that Americans are inherently more criminal than any other nation.
This prosecutor-is-never-wrong mentality leads prosecutors to focus on convictions, not justice. It is a cult worse than Raniere and results in putting poor, often innocent people, disproportionately in prison. Because the prosecution cannot be wrong and because poor people take plea deals since they know juries believe the prosecutor is never wrong, it is a vicious circle. But a very good one for the people who profit from the prison industrial system.
Since prosecutors cannot be wrong, juries believe the defendant is the only one who has a motive to lie. Yet, the prosecution also has a motive to lie and ignore evidence of innocence [lying by omission]. Once they have chosen their target, their motive to lie is that they must never appear be wrong.
Their whole shtick, their swagger is dependent on one premise: They are competent and virtuous. If once you show them incompetent, fallible or having charged the wrong man – knowingly or unknowingly – their house-of-cards falls. It is better to preserve the honor of the Department for the greater good [and put a few hundred thousand innocents in prison] than let the public know that wrong people are often charged – and sometimes because of convenience and sometimes because of politics. The truth is prosecutors often charge the wrong man and that is partly because there is no punishment for the prosecution for making mistakes.
At best, the innocent person is acquitted – or a conviction is overturned on appeal. But many innocent defendants take plea deals because the system allows the prosecution to over-charge them and because a defendant is facing decades in prison if convicted at trial – versus a few years with a plea deal. Poor defendants cannot afford top lawyers and, as many studies show, unequivocally accept plea deals rather than chance it with a jury whose every member believes the prosecution has no motive to lie, and is never wrong.
In any event, a reader, calling him/herself, “Truther”, made a comment in the Niagara Gazette story about my superseding indictment and the dropping of the Bronfman charges. I do not know who Truther is. Some of the remarks refer to my efforts to expose corruption in Niagara Falls, NY via my newspaper, The Niagara Falls Reporter. I believe that Raniere’s desire to see me indicted was welcomed by local politicians who I criticized and who were very close to the US Attorney who made the final decision to indict me. Whether they had a corrupt hand in my indictment is something I am currently investigating. My explanatory notes are in [brackets and bold].