People who have committed serious crimes shouldn't be kept in jails the way that the NYS Conservative Party and some other dishonest politicians --- mostly elected as Republicans in and around NYC --- have been saying for far too long.....
People who have committed serious crimes need to be detected and properly identified, and then arrested; arraigned on proper charges and prosecuted in a timely fashion; tried in a timely fashion; be convicted by properly drawn juries based upon properly obtained relevent evidence; and after a proper conviction at trial or a suitable guilty plea after a properly obtained confession, sentenced to prison to a term of incarceration that fits the crime in a NYS penetentiary.....
None of that is possible in the City and State of New York --- because each and every aspect of what is called the "criminal justice system" is not prepared in the least to investigate, detect, properly identify, and arrest those that are legitimately suspected of having committed seriously crimes based upon real probable cause; and then to arraign and prosecute on proper charges in a timely fashion those few that might have been properly arrested upon probable cause; or to try those properly arrested in a timely fashion in front of properly drawn juries based upon properly obtained relevent evidence; or to obtain a proper conviction at trial or a suitable guilty plea after a properly obtained confession; or to properly sentence to prison in a NYS penetentiary for a term that fits any serious crime by any convicted person.....
As a result, very few serious crimes are ever properly "solved"; fewer still are ever properly prosecuted; and only a tiny fraction of the serious crimes that have been committed result in any real "hard time" in a New York State penetentiary to properly penalize those guilty of those serious crimes
Sending people to NYC jails has nothing to do with any of that --- however, it has been used as an ersatz substitute for all that the police investigators, prosecutors and judges cannot do to properly detect, prosecute, convict and sentence those that have committed serious crimes
When the Mayor of New York City and an overwhelming super-majoriity of the NYC Council passes legislation allowing community representatives to reduce the numbers of those held in NYC jails, they are not interfering in any way with the proper functioning of a legitimate "criminal justice system" --- they are trying to remedy the overcrowding of NYC jails caused by the absolutely broken "criminal justice system" that is now in place in the City and State of New York.
When the Conservative Party gets so wee-wee-ed up about what the mayor and city council did >>> that they just kept repeating and re-linking the NY Post article about the mayor's and the city council's recent action to reduce the NYC jail population --- over --- and over --- and over again; they are either very ignorant about the real purpose of the NYC jail system; or they are trying to pull a scam.
Knowing the likes of the current Conservative Party leadership in NYC, and the composition of those few, those very, very few Republican and other council members elected with the Conservative Party's endorsements and support >>> it's a good bet that they are all trying to pull a scam.
32 comments:
Yes you are right about the criminal justice system. It works for no one except criminals.
1105, the 'criminal justice system' has become completely deconstructed and no longer has any context or meaning within the City and State of New York.
There is no 'justice' in it and there hasn't been for several decades, perhaps even for multiple generations; the word 'criminal' has no longer has any particular meaning since nobody is being found guilty of any 'crimes' and being properly punished for what we think are 'crimes'; and there never has been anything systemmatic in the 'criminal justice system.' The enforcers and investigators, prosecutors, and judges have always been biased, arbitrary, capricious and corrupt. The enforcers and investigators, prosecutors, and judges have always exercised their own binding and loosening authority by their own individual standards. Sometimes they bound over more, sometimes less, usually arbitrarily based on notions of what was convenient and expedient, and never with any notion of 'systematic justice' or any consistent application of the 'law' part of 'law and order'.
Typically, the unlawfully elected and seated because he is not from Brooklyn, Assemblyman Lester Chang is a cognative mess. His views on crime and punishment, especially law enforcement, are no exception, and they are routinely on display.
This is clearly demonstrated by his recent social media postings that showed-off his giving awards and certificates to a few local cops for their great service; this even while what everybody considers serious crime is spiralling out of control all around the community he unlawfully represents.
A LITTLE BACKFILL FROM A LONG TIME AGO IN A KINGDOM BY THE SEA: THE "MAHONEY-O'DOHERTY RUSE THAT HELPED ROCKEFELLAR" EDITION
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED WHEN THE CONSERVATIVES CAME ON THE SCENE AT THE VERY BEGINNING AND/OR SOON AFTER
The wheels started to come off rational governance in New York City and State when the Conservative Party was formed in 1962. At that time, the Conservative Party of New York State was founded by a rump group including J. Daniel Mahoney, Kieran O'Doherty, Charles E. Rice, Raymond R. Walker and Charles Edison, purportedly out of their collective frustration with the liberalism of the state's Republican Party, then headed by the likes of Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits and Louis Lefkowitz. However, the formation of the Conservative Party was a crafty deep false flag operation by pro-Rockefeller Republicans and/or easily bought local Conservative Party activists in Brooklyn and Queens to keep Barry Goldwater and other independent conservatives from embarrassing Rockefeller in his home state.
Shortly after the formation of the Conservative Party, Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater and incumbent Republican Senator Kenneth Keating, a right-leaning moderate, were easily defeated by wide margins in New York in the 1964 election by President Lyndon Johnson and Robert F. Kennedy, who was elected to the US. Senate from New York after recently moving into the state solely to run for the senate. In 1965, the very liberal Republican John V. Lindsey was elected Mayor of the City of New York instead of the very routine Democrat Abe Beame, and in 1966 the liberal Republican Rockefeller was re-elected in a race over a conservative Queens Democrat Frank O'Connor. In all those races, the presence of a "Conservative Party" helped to advance the liberal progressive agenda at the time by splitting or syphoning-off the conservative Republican vote. That gave way in the late 1960s to the rise of what has since been called "the new left" revolution >>> whose direct political descendants are now completely in charge in New York City and State.
This blog has great information but the left wing denials of facts that the comments have taken on don't follow the GOP line of truth. Lester Chang is a duly elected member of the legislature. Chang defeated Peter Abbate. He is not illegal nor was his election otherwise Chang would not be in the State Assembly.
746, when it comes to Lester Chang, your 'GOP line of truth' is a complete line of crap.
In 2023, a properly constituted investigative committee reported to the Speaker of the Assembly that Lester Chang could not lawfully hold a seat in the NYS Assembly based upon his nomination and election in 2022 in the 49th AD in Brooklyn, because Chang did not establish his principal and permanent residence in Brooklyn until after the time necessary to run in the 2022 election for the NYS Assembly. Speaker Heastie chose not to act upon that report, because he didn't like the optics, and Lester Chang os the least significant member of the lest significant caucuses in Albany, at least as far as the current Democrat super-majority in the Assembly is concerned.
If Peter Abbate were still in Albany, Speaker Heastie would have to deal with him; with Chang in Abbate's place, Heastie can completely ignore him, because Chang is a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
that 5:00 history lesson was well done. But the 1970 Senate Buckley win was history. Buckley was as true a libertarian one could find in a Senator.
I wasnt clear about the Frank O'Connor run against rocky. Did Dem O'Connor have the Conservative line?
RESPONSE: THE "FIX WAS IN FOR 'ROCKY' LONG BEFORE STALLONE WAS A TWINKLE ON THE SCREEN" EDITION
TO: "ANONYMOUS SAID... AT 11:24 PM"
THE ANTI-ROCKEFELLER VOTE WAS SPLIT THREE WAYS
No! Paul Adams, a college president, had the Conservative Line, and Franklin Roosevelt, Jr. had the Liberal line, with "Row C" the prize for the winner's party.
Kassar controlled & gor rid of Eaton & can do same to Ghorra at anytime
Rockefella was a Goodfella with the C line. Rocky may not have been conservative but he was a greenie.
RESPONSE & MORE BACKFILL: THE "CONSERVATIVE SENATORS THAT PROVED THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY WAS ANTI-REPUBLICAN" EDITION
TO: "ANONYMOUS SAID... AT 11:24 PM"
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY REFUSED TO ENDORSE TWO INCUMBENT REPUBLICAN U.S. SENATORS CHARLES GOODELL IN 1970 AND JACOB JAVITS IN 1980 --- BOTH LOST
James Buckley proved that the Conservatives were >>> anti-Republican <<< in 1970. He ran AGAINST Republican incumbent Senator Charles Goodell, a former four-time Republican Congressman who had been appointed by Governor Rockefeller after Senator Robert Kennedy was assassinated. After his defeat by Buckley, Goodell remained active and was appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford to the commission to draft the amnesty rules following the Vietnam War for all those penalized by the government for opposing that war. Charles Goodell's son Roger later went on to becomeo NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.
The Conservatives again proved that they were anti-Republican in 1980 by endorsing Al D'Amato as their candidate before the 1980 GOP Primary against long-time Republican Senator Jacob Javits. With the NYS Conservative Party unlawfully interfering in the GOP primary by assisting D'Amato, and together with Senator Javits' fatal diagnosis for Lou Gehrig's Disease and limited ability to properly campaign, Javits was defeated in the 1980 GOP primary by D'Amato. Javits remained in the race through the November election, and as a result of his garnering 11% of the vote on the Liberal line, D'Amato was barely able to squeak by against Democrat Liz Holtzman --- Javits severely split both the Jewish vote and the liberal vote --- and as a result the Republicans were able to hold the seat and take over control of the U.S. Senate in 1981.
Gail, a more interesting case of Conservative Party interference in the NY Republican Party happened during the Republican primary of 1982, when the Consevative Party did a mailing for Florence Sullivan, the candidate endorsed by then-Chairman of the Brooklyn Conservative Party Mike Long. During the early fall of 1982, Florence Sullivan was waging a hotly contested primary campaign for the Republican nomination for United States Senator from New York. The day before the primary election, the New York State Conservative Party, mailed a half million pieces of campaign literature, supporting Sullivan and attacking her opponents Whitney Seymour and Muriel Siebert to a specially selected list of Republican voters in New York State. This literature was mailed at the reduced third-class postage rate to the New York State Conservative Party; and it specifically stated that it had been paid for by the New York Conservative Party State Committee. In fact, it was jointly paid for by the Florence Sullivan campaign and the Conervative Party. Thus, the primary eve mailing by the Conservative Party of the State of New York was ineligible for the special bulk rate in violation of the federal law. As a result, the Conservative Party was sued in federal court by the candidates of the NYS Republican Party for damages and an order to cease and desist interfering in various NYS Republican internal matters.
After many years of tortured litigation, in 1990 NY Republicans Whitney North Seymour Jr. and Muriel Siebert, who both ran in the Republican primary eight years before, were finally told that their complaint against the Conservative Party, Mike Long, Serph Maltese and the FEC had been settled resulting in a $15,000 fine, and a consent order for the Conservatives not to repeat the prohibited activities involving the Republican candidates.
Although the process was slow, in November of 1990, the Republican plaintiffs urged other Republican candidates who have been victims of dishonest campaign tactics by the Conservative Party to stand up and fight back.
The Con did not endorse Javits in 1980 and replaced him with D'Amato a con rep.
Same with Goodel the con elected Jim Buckley
Whats wrong with thay?
Nicole Malliotakis national stature has put her in consideration for VP.
Did Lester establish a residence in the district yet or are we still pretending that he doesn't live in the lower East Side
RESPONSE: THE "IT SHOWS A LONG-TIME PATTERN OF INTERFERENCE BY A THIRD PARTY IN INTRA-PARTY REPUBLICAN PARTY FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES" EDITION
TO: "ANONYMOUS SAID... AT 5:46 PM"
THE TWO INSTANCES THAT YOU MENTIONED --- GOODELL & JAVITS --- WERE TWO INSTANCES WHERE THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY GOT IN BETWEEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP AND THE RANK-AND-FILE OF THE GOP: IT WAS THE VERY SAME THING THAT THE CONSERVATIVES PULLED ON KEATING AND ROCKEFELLER WITHOUT ELECTING ANYBODY DURING 1964 AND 1966.
In 1980, D'Amato only won because Javits stayed in the race; one-on-one, D'AMato certainly would have lost to Elizabeth Holtzman.
10:04, "has put her in consideration ..."
lol
RESPONSE: THE "KEEPING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ABOUT THE 1984 COMPLAINTS --- AND THE RESULT BY/IN 1990" EDITION
TO: "ANONYMOUS SAID... AT 3:49 PM"
THE SIEBERT AND SEYMOUR CASE AGAINST MIKE LONG AND THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY/1984 VICTORY FUND AND THE FLORENCE SULLIVAN CAMPAIGN FOR U.S. SENATE EVENTUALLY RESULTED IN FINES AGAINST THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY AND A CONSENT AGREEMENT BY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IN FEDERAL COURT; AND A CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST THE SULLIVAN CAMPAIGN
AND IN 1990/1991 THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION MARKED THE MATTER AS FOLLOWS:
"... (A) U.S. DISTRICT COURT FINAL CONSENT ORDER AND JUDGMENT..." AND "... (B) CONCILIATION AGREEMENT... CIVIL PENALTY"
(See: MUR 1866 [https://www.fec.gov/resources/news_releases/1990/19901120_MURs.pdf]; [https://www.fec.gov/resources/record/1991/january1991.pdf]).
Assemblyman for life Lester Chang lives wherever he pleases and nobody is ever going to do anything about it so 10:20 can play hall monitor someplace else.
Does famed political consultant nick chambers even have Avery campaigning?? This will be nicks biggest loss yet
Chairperson Ghorra beats incumbents even when he outspent 30 to 1. That is the sign of a party leader and master strategist. Lester Chang spent $11,000 to defeat and incumbent who spent $300,000
Nobody in the history of the GOP can beat that
409, get real. Ghorra had nothing to do with the relatove effectiveness of the shoestring campaign of Lester Chang, and the relative ineffectiveness of the well-financed Abbate campaign. It was because Abbate was looking past Lester Chang as a lightweight and trying to elect Iwen Chu to the state senate. Quite simply, in the 49th AD and 17th SD the two It-lows lost and the two Chinese Asians won. All that Ted Ghorra did was illegaly select the unlawful Manhattan candidate Lester Chang, and then fraudulently let him run on the Republican line in Brooklyn.
What Ted did worked. thats all that matters
910, that's a very interesting moral compass that you have there, sonny!
You must give a lot of inspirational speeches, communion breakfasts and the like.
Do you sometimes compare Ted to Hitler and Mussolini, as well?
No I compare Ted to the defunding police dems that he defeats
1137. just more Brian Fox-type lies. Ted has not defeated a single defund the police Dem, period, full-stop, end of sentence. In fact, he has never run against a single Democrat for any office, but he has lost to every Democrat that he has ever worked against.
Where Republicans have won, Ted is not popular or strongly supported by anybody, and he had no hand in the Republican successes. As for the 'defunding police dems', Ted is strongly supporting one of them Ari Kagan and pretending to be neutral.
moral compass hahaha
leaving dems in office is good moral charachetr
whoever wins the primary beats justin the defunder
348 & 407, sounds like Brian Fox again kying about Justin Brannan being a 'defunder'; but instead, Brian Fox's paying boss Councilman Ari Kagan absolutely is.
Ghorra has more GOP electeds in brooklyn than eaton ever had..period. full stop. Fact.
Lets look at the facts 3:02
When Eaton was Chair he had the following:
a) Sen Golden (who Ghorra lost);
b) Cong Grimm;
c) Cong Fossella;
d) Cong Donovan (who Ghorra Lost);
e) Cong Turner;
f) Assemblywoman Malliotakis; and,
g) Sen Storobin
All who won through the Brooklyn GOP.....
PERIOD.FULL STOP. UNDISPUTED FACTS......
Ghorra has some Asians and Russians who he didnt help and who despise him. I know. I work with these new electeds every day.
804, I hope that you dropped the mike when you finished off 302.
Post a Comment