tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post8511898198914211885..comments2023-07-04T19:10:13.362+10:00Comments on Saipan Writer: Brief Reflections on the Trial of the DaySaipan Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10030098267460841286noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-36422692577265812602009-04-28T08:43:00.000+10:002009-04-28T08:43:00.000+10:00You are right that the feds CAN play a useful, hel...You are right that the feds CAN play a useful, helpful role in the CNMI. Federal independence from local political/personal issues can truly come in handy at times, and can help set the stage for getting things accomplished that otherwise might not be. I think that is what happened in this case.<br /><br />It is precisely BECAUSE it is POSSIBLE to do these kinds of things RIGHT -- possible to have a local-federal relationship that is healthy, fair and beneficial, possible to create a new and true kind of "us" -- that it is so frustrating to see the feds constantly eschewing any such creative and salutary solutions in favor of an approach that is reactionary, visionless, top-down, and "us-vs-them" in the bluntest and crudest way possible -- i.e.: "we command, they obey."cactusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-63004436195441259622009-04-26T23:23:00.000+10:002009-04-26T23:23:00.000+10:00Cactus:
You are really reaching with your continu...Cactus:<br /><br />You are really reaching with your continual attempts to cram every issue into your Federal/Local conflict obsession. Surely you can embrace some other, more nuanced world view? <br /><br />You set up a rather feeble "straw man," claiming that Writer saw the verdict as a "celebration of all things federal," and then knocked it down. I did not interpret her comments the way you did. <br /><br />Your argument--that a federal prosecution is really local, since it depends on a jury of local peers, and that therefore, the feds didn't really do anything but trust the local mango--is really not apt, imho. If the FBI and the US Attorney were not willing to bring charges, neither the grand jury nor the petit jury would have had the opportunity to consider them. <br /><br />It also appears that you want to have it both ways: when the feds do something you don't like, they are despots and oppressors, but when they do something good, they are really just local guys and the feds had nothing to do with it. <br /><br />But the larger issue is that "us" and "them" labels aren't really helpful in discussing the complex issues we face as citizens. We are all Americans AND we are CNMI residents. E pluribus unum, remember? We all pay the same power bills, and suffer through the same blackouts. We all owe a debt to the courageous CUC employees who did the right thing by blowing the whistle on the Rydlyme scheme, to the jurors (both grand and petit), and to Eric O'Malley for a job well done. <br /><br />We are all in this together, cactus. The local government has had had problems enforcing many of our laws. I, for one, am happy the federal prosecutor's office is there as one of the "checks and balances" giving locals a helping hand in investigating and prosecuting high-ranking officials.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-54563662291173018742009-04-26T07:55:00.000+10:002009-04-26T07:55:00.000+10:00Writer, I agree with your turns of phrase, but I d...Writer, I agree with your turns of phrase, but I do not see how they line up with the facts.<br /><br />I believe, as you apparently do, that any government should be an extension of the people -- i.e., that it should be "us". But how exactly is the federal government "us"? I could see it if you called it "good" or "benevolent" or "stable," but that is not the same thing as being "us." How can its actions be "our" actions if we do not elect it? <br /><br />And I agree completely that "we must be vigilant to keep checks on the power it wields." But, in your view, what checks do we here in the CNMI have on the power it wields?cactusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-3081807332532717632009-04-25T20:53:00.000+10:002009-04-25T20:53:00.000+10:00Cactus,
I don't think the outcome is a validation...Cactus,<br /><br />I don't think the outcome is a validation of all things federal and that was not my intent in the paragraph where I criticized the closing arguments attacking the federal government.<br /><br />I agree with you that not everything about the federal government is wonderful and, as with any government, we must be vigilant to keep checks on the power it wields.<br /><br />So, I do agree with your assessment of the jury system that lauds it as power in the hands of the people. The jury system is a check on the power of the government, whether local or federal, and democratizes justice.<br /><br />I disagree with your assumption, though, that the federal government is not "us" and is somehow a foreign power at odds with our local people. The federal government is as much our government as the local government is; when it acts, it is our action.<br /><br />We need greater participation in it--the vote for President, for example. But we need to own it as ours.<br /><br />In this case, "we" did things right. "We" prosecuted government officials and others for crimes. "We" presented the evidence. "We" determined the outcome. <br /><br />We, as both federal and local, citizens, are managing our justice. <br /><br />And in this case, I feel happy about the outcome.Saipan Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10030098267460841286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-61365772727401082662009-04-25T17:01:00.000+10:002009-04-25T17:01:00.000+10:00Writer, your attempt to turn the verdict into a va...Writer, your attempt to turn the verdict into a validation, even a celebration, of all things federal rings hollow.<br /><br />Not "everything federal is bad," and, so far as I know, no one has ever claimed that it is. Many things are (probably most), but the jury trial system is not one of them. Why not? Because it is a system that trusts and empowers the local people.<br /><br />Remember: The federal government did not convict Tim. He was convicted by a local jury of his peers. If the jury had decided to let him walk, there was nothing the feds could have done about it. Indeed, he would not have been tried in the first place had he not been indicted by a local grand jury.<br /><br />All the feds did was present their case, and leave it to the locals to make the decisions, which are then binding on the feds. It is a case of total federal trust in, and deference to, local judgment.<br /><br />As such, it is the direct opposite of the federal approach to such things as the immigration issue, which is characterized by total distrust of local judgment, and no deference to it whatsoever.cactusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-47757964402123808252009-04-25T14:59:00.000+10:002009-04-25T14:59:00.000+10:00i too thought the closing arguments were racist an...i too thought the closing arguments were racist and just irritatingly assinine. the analogies they chose to highlight their arguments were so lame.lil bitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-71324619864515067002009-04-25T10:38:00.000+10:002009-04-25T10:38:00.000+10:00You are correct, Jane. The disqualification is no...You are correct, Jane. The disqualification is not self-executing. It requires resignation or impeachment.<br /><br />The OPA, OAG, IRS, FBI, USAO, and jurors have all done their jobs. Now it is time for the House to step up to the plate.Joy's Brothernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-9049945938753405292009-04-25T10:00:00.000+10:002009-04-25T10:00:00.000+10:00Constitutionally he no longer meets the basic requ...Constitutionally he no longer meets the basic requirements to to be LT. He has been convicted of a crime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-74449819520989630042009-04-25T09:30:00.000+10:002009-04-25T09:30:00.000+10:00Thanks for the comment, Ed.
I don't know the answ...Thanks for the comment, Ed.<br /><br />I don't know the answers with legal citations to your questions off the top of my head. But as I understand it, there is no automatic "firing" from the elected job. The Legislature, I think, has to impeach and vote for conviction for him to be ousted.<br /><br />So until that happens, he would enjoy all the benefits of the position, as well as remain responsible for the duties.Saipan Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10030098267460841286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-57472221392718296592009-04-25T02:30:00.000+10:002009-04-25T02:30:00.000+10:00I was also turned off by the closing arguments of ...I was also turned off by the closing arguments of the defense team, and so were a number of people I spoke to.<br /><br />Aside from the things you mentioned in closing arguments, I found it extremely arrogant for the defense to claim that "making a lot of money is not a crime." Correction. Making a lot of money illegally through a scam like the ones they concocted is a crime.<br /><br />There are several questions that remain unanswered Jane, and I hope you can shed some light since this deals with CNMI law:<br /><br />1. Is Tim fired from his job as Lt. Governor? If not, will he continue to collect a paycheck if he decides to appeal?<br /><br />2. Will he still continue to enjoy the perks of being the CNMI's Lt. Governor, such as free electricity, courtesy of us CNMI taxpayers?<br /><br />Great post Jane!Marianas Pridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16214013139672445725noreply@blogger.com