Has Nervous Nancy committed a crime?

Following Still-President Trump's stirring State of the Union address Tuesday night, Nervous Nancy Pelosi ostentatiously ripped up the copy of the speech which was handed to her at the opening of proceedings.

At least, I think it was the speech. It might have been the Articles of Impeachment which the Senate found unfounded the next day. But assuming it was indeed her copy of the President's speech, Ms Pelosi should lawyer up and get ready to defend herself against criminal charges. Check out this provision of the U.S. Code.

18 U.S. Code § 2071.Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Looks like Nervous Nancy's petty publicity stunt could have some major consequences... unless of course President Trump, magnanimous man that he is, decides to forgive her!

"Just making sure their instruments were right size" defence succeeds; ex-violin teacher acquitted of measuring girl students' bare breasts;

It's been a while since our legal beagle, Agent 3, sent us a good story, but today we have a titillating tale from the courts of Ontario, Canada. Crown prosecutors will ask the Ontario Court of Appeal tomorrow to overturn a lower court judge's finding that Claude Trachy, of Chatham ON, a former violin teacher, did not act "with a sexual purpose" when he measured more than 20 of his teen students' bare breasts while fitting them for shoulder rests. Rather, the trial judge found, M Trachy (not pictured) believed it was necessary to properly equip the students.

The Crown is now asking the appellate court to convict the ex-teacher on some of the charges, or at least order a new trial on all of them. In its appeal documents, filed today, the Crown says the complainants, who are now adults, testified they were asked to remove their shirt and bra on the left side so that Trachy could measure them from collarbone to nipple. They testified he touched their breast during this process and often would then have them play with their left breast exposed. Four complainants also alleged he took a plastic mould of their left breast.

M Trachy took the stand in his own defence, and swore he did indeed ask the girls to undo their blouses so he could measure them, but maintained he derived no sexual gratification from it. He also denied cupping or rubbing any of the complainants' breasts, as some of them alleged.

In its factum, the Crown notes that "no boys, notwithstanding their growth, size or shape, were touched in this fashion." Neither was M Trachy's daughter, who also played violin. It also says the perfesser didn't have a formula for how the measurement translated into shoulder rest adjustment, and had no rationale for how often the girls needed to be assessed.

The Crown alleges the trial judge made a number of errors, including oversimplified the allegations to focus exclusively on whether the accused acted with a sexual purpose. Prosecutors say sexual intention is only a necessary element of some of the charges, such as sexual interference, but does not need to be proven for others, such as sexual assault, which only requires that the touching be of a sexual nature. They argue as well that the trial judge failed to properly consider the evidence of an expert witness, who testified there was no justification for touching the students' breasts as part of a fitting, nor was it a known or documented practice.

As might be expected, counsel for the defence take the position that the appeal has no legal basis and the Crown is simply seeking a do-over of the trial. "Though framed in terms of legal error," their factum says, "the Crown's appeal amounts to a thinly disguised claim of 'unreasonable acquittal', a ground of appeal that does not exist in Canadian law." Their written submission continues, "Focusing primarily on the respondent's purpose for the touching was in no way improper because, in these circumstances, this was going to be the crucial issue determining proof of guilt."

Agent 3 discounts as an "inside joke" the rumour in legal circles that Donald Trump, Slick Willy Clinton and Creepy Joe Biden are seeking intervenor status in the case.

Book review: "I Can't Breathe", by Matt Taibbi

It's been difficult for me to read I Can't Breathe, by Matt Taibbi (Spiegel & Grau, 2017). Not that it is poorly written; it is quite the opposite. Nor was it because I don't see eye-to-eye with the author on the issues. Mr Taibbi is reliably liberal, as you would expect of a writer for Rolling Stone. If anyone is entitled to put the letters "SJW" after his name, it's Matt Taibbi. My discomfort stems from being reminded that those advocating "Justice for Eric Garner" and other victims of police killings are not always wrong, as some on the right say. That's what I Can't Breathe is about.

For those who don't remember, Eric Garner was a petty criminal who eked out a subsistence living for himself and his wives and children by hawking untaxed cigarettes around Tompkinsville Park, in Staten Island, a borough of New York City. On 17 July 2014, a cop named Daniel Pantaleo, already the subject of numerous complaints, put a chokehold on Mr Garner during an arrest for allegedly selling "loosies" -- single cigarettes.

The final moments of his life were captured on a video shot by Ramsey Orta, another small-time miscreant and Mr Garner's friend. What millions saw in the video was Officer Pantaleo killing Eric Garner. In spite of the video evidence, Officer Pantaleone was never indicted, let alone convicted, nor was he punished in any way for anything.

The case was presented to a grand jury by the then District Attorney (now Congressman) Dan Donovan. Mr Taibbi suggests, as have numerous lawyers, that Mr Donovan "threw" the grand jury hearing, focusing on exculpatory evidence and the unsavoury background of Eric Garner, rather than trying to get an indictment. We will never know, because the authorities have stonewalled the release of any details of the grand jury hearing.

I Can't Breathe focuses chiefly on the death of Eric Garner and the subsequent denial of justice by the so-called "justice system", but Matt Taibbi also canvases some of the many other extra-judicial killings -- police murders -- which have occurred in today's "postracial America" (as the Prez would have it), in Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Ferguson MO and Star City AR. The author makes a powerful argument for the proposition that the "criminal justice system" is (a) racist and (b) broken.

Having been caught up in the system myself, I cannot but agree with (b). The system is FUBAR. For me, (a) is the hard part. But the evidence is there, in black and white (if you'll forgive the pun). I don't believe that anyone, of any colour, no matter how much of a lowlife he may be, deserves to be killed or even physically assaulted by cops who believe their badge gives makes them judge, jury and... yes... executioner. If you think Eric Garner and the others who met death at the hands of the police "just got what was coming to them", please read I Can't Breathe.

Further reading: "Prez calls for 'soul searching' in wake of Baltimore race riot", WWW 28/4/15.

HKG woman convicted of assaulting cop with her breasts

Walt apologizes sincerely and profusely for not being able to find a video or at least a better picture to go with the following true story from the Mysterious Orient. [Actually, I'm the one who should be apologizing. But in WWW (unlike Washington DC) the boss carries the can for whatever happens... or doesn't. Ed.]

The South China Morning Post reported on Friday that Ms Ng Lai-ying, aged 30, has been convicted of assaulting a police officer with her breasts during a violent protest in Hong Kong. She was taking part in a demonstration on the streets of Yuen Long against parallel trading (sort of a black market for mainland Chinese) when the incident took place last March.

Ms Ng claimed that Chief Inspector Chan of the Hong Kong police had tried to grab her bag but instead touched her left breast. However, Inspector Chan insisted that it was Ms Ng who bumped her breasts into his arm in order to falsely accuse him of assault.

The presiding magistrate sided with the cop -- surprise, surprise! -- telling the accused, "You used your female identity to trump up the allegation that the officer had molested you." And, he added, Ms Ng's "malicious" claims were damaging to the CI’s reputation. Officers policing protests "should be protected", he said. "There were two groups of people expressing different points of view at the protest. Without police officers there to maintain order, it is not surprising that there was commotion, or even clashes."

Walt has seen a picture of Ms Ng, taken following her arrest, which show her face (only) with a bloody nose, which she said she got when the cops pushed her to the ground. We have chosen instead this photo, which appeared on the Net within minutes. Agent 78 translates the caption as "Big or small, your boobs can be a weapon!"

Ms Ng is to be sentenced later this month. However, Agent 3 recommends an appeal on the grounds that the alleged weapons were not produced and identified in court.

Walt would like to know the calibre of the "weapons". Assuming they were, say, 34A -- typical for a 30-year-old Chinese -- surely the maxim De minimis non curat lex would apply!