Saturday, December 08, 2007

Flint Taylor Ain't Done - Until All Justice Is Obstructed

Grant Burge This - He's Staying Corked! G.Flint Taylor is not about to allow that Dream Genii out of the Bottle. Burge Bubble$ and $parkle$ New$ Print and Buckaroo$$$ for Flint and his Cadre!

Indict, Prosecute, Convict Burge - but that is never going to happen and as long as morons like Ed Smith, Toni Preckwinkle and Lawsuit Lotto Lawyer Fiorretti play stooge to Flint's crowd along with most of the Chicago Media, the Burge story will be here long after Catholic Cemetaries have become Condo Townhouse Developments.

G.Flint is an old hand at obstruction of Justice - earned his radical spurs way back in the 1960's - now a Progressive grey horse like bomb throwers Bernadine Dohrn and her old man Billy Ayers - made academics no less. Imagine asking those folks to 'keep an eye on the kids while I run up to County Fair for some 2%?' Oh, well it was all explained to us by the Medill Truth Factory - subsequent Trib 'aon't that special and endearing'pieces and Chicago Magazine - they are an active part of this enterprise as well. And so many others . . .

There are continuing criminal violations here, and if the special prosecutor won’t do anything about them, then Fitzgerald, who is the U.S. Attorney here and who, of course, has made his name in the Valerie Plame case and has already indicted Daley’s people in a wide-ranging truck scandal, he has to open his investigation into federal RICO or racketeering charges, as well as obstruction of justice and perjury.

G.Flint Taylor

There just might be a 'Criminal Enterprise' Fitz. Let's see what you have. G. Flint Taylor's League of Lawsuit Lawyers amd his very complicit Media stooges have created an atmosphere that violates the right to life of ordinary citizens -A Thug Comfort Zone.

This Thug Comfort Zone
1. Created an atmosphere of mistrust for all levels of Law Enforcement and Justice especially any and all Police officers

2. Paved the way for political payouts of taxpayers dollars to convicted felons and lawyers

3. Made criminal sociopaths indifferent to the lives of productive citizens

4. Createg racial tensions and balkanizes the City

5. Got and Gets innocent citizens murdered

The City settled with G. Flint Taylor and he and his acolytes are only getting warmed up.

Here is a blast from the past - G. Flint Taylor's contempt for the Justice system from the Hampton v Hanrahan et al from the 60's.


In separate appeals Jeffrey H. Haas and G. Flint Taylor, attorneys for plaintiffs, asked that the contempt judgments entered against them be reversed. These appeals have been consolidated with the main appeal. In order to appraise fully these contempt matters, it is necessary to present the facts in detail.


In the last days of October 1976 plaintiffs called Robert Zimmers, the FBI firearms expert, as a witness. On November 1, while Zimmers was on the stand, the following took place:

Mr. Haas (attorney for plaintiffs): I now show you what I will mark as RZ51 and ask you what type of weapon is this, sir?

Mr. Zimmers: A double-barrelled Stevens shotgun, which bears serial number 43312 . . . .

Mr. Haas: Could we have a stipulation, your Honor, that this weapon was taken on the raid by George Jones?

Mr. Witkowski (attorney for defendants): Yes.

The Court: So stipulated . . . Let the record show that counsel has so agreed.

Mr. Witkowski: Yes, your Honor.

Several days later Haas again presented the Jones shotgun to Zimmers on the witness stand.

Mr. Haas: And is that the item, RZ51, the double standard sawed-off shotgun which we have shown you earlier, sir?

Mr. Zimmers: . . . Yes, this is the one.

Mr. Haas: And it has been stipulated that this is the weapon that was carried by Officer Jones on the raid of December 4, 1969.

At that point defense counsel objected. The judge said he would hear the objection outside the presence of the jury. Attorney John P. Coghlan, defense counsel, then argued that the defendants had never entered into a stipulation using the word "raid." He accused Haas of a "deliberate, wilful and intentional attempt to prejudice the jury." Haas said that his statement about the stipulation was accurate. At that point Taylor asked for a recess so that the transcript could be inspected. The judge denied the request.

When the jury returned to the courtroom, the judge announced: "Mr. Haas has deliberately and wilfully misread a statement. I direct you (Haas) to read that statement, that stipulation, corrected." Haas said he had stated the stipulation correctly. The judge then asked Coghlan to "state the stipulation correctly." Coghlan extemporized:

Mr. Coghlan: The stipulation is that the weapon that was shown to the witness was one of the weapons carried by the officers serving a search warrant at 2337 W. Monroe.

The Court: Now that is it . . . .

During the next two days plaintiffs' counsel repeated their requests on several occasions to review the court's transcript because they had none of their own. Finally, on November 10, the judge permitted the inspection.

The next day plaintiffs' counsel presented a motion to "Correct Prejudicial Remarks Made by the Court to the Jury and For Mistrial," supported by the transcript showing Haas' statement was not a misrepresentation. The judge summarily said he was taking the motion under advisement, and gave defense counsel ten days to respond. Haas argued that the prejudice should be cured as soon as possible. The judge refused to reconsider. At that point counsel for plaintiffs returned to their table flinging down their papers. Taylor's hand struck a pitcher of water on the table. The pitcher slid along the table top and fell to the floor near the jury box. The glass lining broke and water spilled on the rug. All of this took place while the court was in recess and the jury out of the courtroom. The transcript reads as follows:

*645 The Court: I have entered my order.

Now, there is one juror who has not arrived yet. We will now recess until

All right. Let the record show the conduct of both counsel in throwing papers around and one of them what is it that is broken over there?

Mr. Coghlan: Sir, there is broken a glass water pitcher.

The Court: All right. Mr. Taylor, you did that, and you are now held in contempt of court, and the Court now orders you committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a period of 24 hours, and orders the Marshal to take you into custody forthwith.

Mr. Taylor: May I be heard, your Honor?

The Court: No, sir.

Mr. Taylor: I have the right to speak before I am summarily sentenced, and I want to say

The Marshal: This court will stand in recess.

After a brief recess, the trial resumed. The judge ordered that the pitcher and debris be left before the jury box. Haas made several requests to be heard out of the presence of the jury concerning the incident. The requests were denied. The judge, however, did grant a request of Special Corporation Counsel Camillo F. Volini that Volini's photographer take pictures of the broken pitcher. Although the judge refused to permit the press to take photographs, he told Volini that "they (the press) may have a copy of the picture that is taken." He also told defense counsel to have the press "pay you whatever it costs," if they desired a copy.

After the incident, an attorney appeared on behalf of Taylor and attempted to be heard. The judge refused the request telling the attorney to return later in the day. Near the close of the afternoon session, the judge, without hearing argument on behalf of Taylor, entered the following order:

The Court finds that a motion was made by counsel for plaintiffs herein, and the Court ordered counsel for defendants to answer the same within 10 days. Both Jeffrey Haas and G. Flint Taylor, two of the attorneys for plaintiffs, demanded an oral hearing, which the Court denied. Immediately after the Court refused to hear them orally, Attorney G. Flint Taylor, In a fit of anger, threw paper, books and other objects on the table for counsel, including a decanter with an inside glass lining, which was broken. Water and glass were sprayed over the floor in front of the jury box. Present in the Court were a number of spectators and representatives of the press.

The Court finds that such action was a contemptuous and constituted willful and deliberate contempt of this Court in its presence at 10:30 a. m., November 11, 1976. The Court does hereby find Attorney G. Flint Taylor in contempt of Court, and does hereby order and direct that he be and is hereby committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a period of 24 hours, ending at 10:35 a. m. on November 12, 1976.

The Court further orders and directs the United States Marshal to immediately execute this order and take Attorney G. Flint Taylor into custody forthwith.

The judge immediately amended the order by substituting the words "in the presence of the Court" for "in a fit of anger." He also commuted the time to be served.


On February 22, 1977 Hanrahan was recalled as a witness after a four-day interval during which Treviranus had testified regarding the federal grand jury investigation. Treviranus identified a memo he had written which outlined the arrangement between Hanrahan and Assistant Attorney General Leonard whereby the raiders would not be indicted by the grand jury and Hanrahan would terminate the prosecution in the state court against the survivors of the raid. The court had deferred a request to introduce the document while Johnson and Treviranus were under examination. With Hanrahan back on the stand the transcript reads:

Mr. Haas: Sir, were you present at a meeting with Marlin Johnson in late *646 March or early April of 1970 in which he indicated that there would be no indictments of police officers or yourself?

Mr. Hanrahan: No, sir.

Q: Well now, didn't Mr. Hanrahan, didn't you tell the Federal prosecutors on or about April 8 that you were going to drop the indictments against the occupants of the apartment?

A: My recollection is that on the second date that I appeared before the Grand Jury I indicated that they would review the indictments that are pending and probably dismiss them.

Q: You are referring to May 5th of 1970?

A: I am referring to the second occasion that I appeared before the Federal Grand Jury. It was early in the year and I believe it was in May.

Q: But prior to that you had entered an agreement with the Federal prosecutors to drop the charges, had you not?

A: No, sir.

Q: And hadn't you told them that the reason that Defense counsel Volini objected and asked for a hearing outside the presence of the jury. After the jury had left the courtroom, Volini asked that Haas be instructed to cease asking questions concerning the agreement and that the jury be "instructed to disregard it." Arnold Kanter, counsel for the defendants, asserted that Haas should be denied the opportunity to ask more questions concerning such agreements because the witness had already asserted there were none. The judge did not rule on these motions, nor did he wait to hear from plaintiffs' counsel. He called the jury back and said, "The last question is stricken. You will disregard it." Haas then resumed his questioning of Hanrahan:

Mr. Haas: Mr. Hanrahan, do you know how it was that Leonard Treviranus knew on April 8th that the Grand Jury

Mr. Kanter: Objection.

The Court: Now, Mr. Haas

Mr. Haas: Wait a minute.

The Court: we just got through out of the presence of the jury. You will not go into that subject matter any further.

Mr. Haas: I didn't even get to argue it. Well, Judge, the deal

The Court: I said you will not go into it any further.

Mr. Haas: Judge, we can't cover up the coverup.

Mr. Witkowski (attorney for defendants): Your Honor

Mr. Haas: That is part of our complaint, that they covered up, Judge.

Mr. Coghlan: If the court please

The Court: Mr. Haas, you are now held in contempt of court for the last remark directed to the Court, and I will prepare an order accordingly.

Mr. Taylor: May the jury be excused

The Court: The Court will take a recess, and we will prepare an order holding you in contempt.

Mr. Haas: All right, Judge. I think all the people who have spoken the truth have always ended up in contempt, and the coverup goes on and on and on.

Mr. Taylor: And Mr. Treviranus testified on Friday, Judge.

The Court: I will hold you in contempt and I will now turn you over to the custody

Mr. Haas: O.K., Judge.

The Court: of the U. S. Marshal for contempt, and hold you in custody until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock.

Mr. Haas: All right, Judge, I would just

Mr. Taylor: There is a document right here that says there was

The Court: Court now stands in recess.

Haas was taken into custody by the United States Marshal and ordered held until the following morning. An order was entered by the judge that day finding that Haas' "statements and actions in the presence of the Court are serious and that it resulted in the obstruction of the administration of justice . . . ." The judge referred to no specific language, but did recite "certain statements in open court in *647 the presence of the jury as set forth in the transcript of the Court proceedings certified by the court reporter and attached hereto made a part hereof." The court denied a motion for appeal bond, and Haas remained in jail until the next morning. On the following day the judge reversed his ruling and heard extensive testimony from Hanrahan about the alleged arrangement.

Unquestionably, a court has the power to punish summarily contemptuous conduct which occurs in the presence, sight, or hearing of a presiding judge. Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 302-04, 9 S.Ct. 77, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888). For example, that the contumacious refusal of a witness to testify, "may so directly obstruct a court in the performance of its duty as to justify punishment for contempt is so well settled as to need only statement." Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 382, 39 S.Ct. 337, 339, 63 L.Ed. 656 (1919).

The power of a federal court to punish immediately and summarily for "direct contempt" is codified in 18 U.S.C. s 401 which provides that:

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as

(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice . . . .

The Supreme Court, commenting on this statute in In re McConnell, 370 U.S. 230, 233-34, 82 S.Ct. 1288, 1291, 8 L.Ed.2d 434 (1962), explained that this provision was enacted by Congress "in order to correct serious abuses of the summary contempt power that had grown up . . . revealing 'a Congressional intent to safeguard Constitutional procedures by limiting courts . . . to "the least possible power adequate to the end proposed." ' " The Court in McConne ll then defined the issue:

Thus the question in this case comes down to whether it can "clearly be shown" on this record that the petitioner's statements while attempting to make his offers of proof actually obstructed the district judge in "the performance of judicial duty." Id. at 234, 82 S.Ct. at 1291.

I am off to Jason Riley's funeral in a few minutes. Jason was murdered by Thugs from the Media/Lawyer/Thug Comfort Zone at 69th & Ashland.

Be Grassroots - stop buying newspapers. More funerals to come. More money will go to Flint and convicted felons. Flint Taylor has not settled Jon Burge -he's merely aging him in the bottle - Burge gets better for Flint 'As Time Goes By!'

Just my opinion. I won't buy the papers,nor G. Flint's agenda.

No comments: