Monthly Archives: May 2011

Commentary: Freedom of speech and the Internet – Twitter & the UK

Posted by Martín Paredes on May 27, 2011 Comments Off

Freedom of speech, more specifically the ability that denies the government the right to keep certain things secret, is sacrosanct to a free democracy. The Internet has given the people new tools by which to limit the government’s ability to keep secrets meant for public consumption. And this power has many governments looking for ways to limit the Internet’s ability to allow people freedom to challenge their authority.

There is a place and a time that governments should be allowed to keep certain secrets for the collective good of the society that they represent. The Osama Bin Laden operation to bring him to American justice is an example of where government properly limits information to allow for the operation’s successful completion. Had the US government shared the, then upcoming operation, with the people it would have resulted in the operation’s failure to bring Osama to justice. This is an example of a properly applied instance of the limiting of information by the government. But for each power allowed to the government, the people should consistently challenge the status quo in order to rein in the power wielded by government.

Recently, in the United Kingdom, the power for government to determine what is for public consumption and what is not has been taken to the Internet resulting in a battle being waged online creating jurisdictional battle lines for anyone interested and supportive of government limitations.

Under United Kingdom law, an individual may petition the UK courts to issue a super injunction. A super injunction, under UK law, is a form of court injunction that prohibits anyone from reporting, or talking about certain facts or individuals in public or through the media. Even the existence of the super-injunction is not allowed to be discussed publically. Although designed to protect victims of crimes such as offenses against children, the super injunctions started to be used by celebrities or other entities to protect their privacy from the public’s prying eyes.

The use of super-injunctions to protect the privacy of an entity first became known in October 2009, when The Guardian newspaper revealed that it was prohibited from discussing the Trafigura affair for a limited time because of a gag order. Trafigura was involved in an embarrassing debacle involving waste dumping in Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast).

The latest controversy started on May 8, when a Twitter user posted the name of soccer player Ryan Giggs as someone who had obtained a super-injunction to protect him from publicity in an affair he is alleged to have had with Imogen Thomas. Giggs sought prosecution of Twitter but eventually dropped the case when his actions actually increased the publicity surrounding him as other Twitter users rose to the defense of the original poster by posting his name over and over again.

On May 23, using “parliamentary privilege”, basically a protection against prosecution for politicians, John Hemming named the soccer player once again. Using this tactic, Fred Goodwin, a banker was also named as holding a super-injunction. Although the issue of privacy and super injunctions is raging within England and should eventually be settled there, another issue that should be discussed is how this impacts the Internet and judicial interests.

Super-injunctions are a UK injunction enforced by British courts over those it has authority over. Twitter is a United States corporate entity. Putting aside the question, for a moment, of the appropriateness of a super-injunction to protect celebrities from public scrutiny the issue that must be addressed is whether Twitter is subject to the super-injunction, more importantly, are they required to divulge the name of the user who broke the name of Giggs? Laws are created for a specific jurisdiction to maintain some semblance of social stability. Some laws, such as murder are normally universal. But as jurisdictional instruments, laws have two sides to them, the implementer, in this case the UK government and the subjects to whom it applies to, in this case British subjects. Although this is a rather simplistic explanation it applies to most instances.

As Twitter is neither a British subject nor, to my knowledge, it has accepted British jurisdiction by establishing a presence in England, the question then becomes are they compelled to release the user’s identity to a British court?

Although, at first look, the answer seems no, the issue is a little more complicated than that. Should a British court decide to make an example of Twitter it could conceivably issue orders detrimental to Twitter. For one, it could issue injunctions, after appropriate British oversight, blocking Twitter access in Britain. Notwithstanding the technical implications of this, it could affect Twitter’s access in Britain and any British territory.

But even more importantly, any Twitter executive, or employee transiting or vacationing in the UK could come under British jurisdiction and be subject to detention and punitive sanctions against them. So far, Britain seems to have shown restraint when dealing with Twitter, and in fact, British subjects themselves seems to be rebelling against this limitation to free speech.

On the other hand, this latest example of social activism via the Internet opens up interesting legal jurisdictional dilemma that empowered people may have to eventually face head on. The vehicles, Twitter and Facebook and the servers on where blogs reside, are ultimately owned and controlled by public corporate entities not interested in limiting market share by antagonizing governments. That, is where the Achilles’ heal to this new found activism outlet resides.

As with anything, it can be abused, but the power of the state should always be challenged in order to keep the state from overreaching its authority over the populace. Activism should be encouraged but the sad reality is that money ultimately controls even the Internet. Hopefully, on this, I turn out to be wrong but experience has shown me that governments love the façade of free speech, up until people actually avail themselves of it.


Commentary: Judge Montalvo rules city expanded intent of voters

Posted by Martín Paredes on May 25, 2011 Comments Off

On May 20, 2011, Judge Montalvo ruled that the citizen mounted petition denying taxpayer funded health benefits to domestic partners must be honored. In his ruling, Montalvo wrote that the city took it upon itself to expand the intent of the voter. Montalvo wrote, “[o]nce the Ordinance passed, the City, however interpreted the statue to remove health benefit coverage to retirees, elected officials, affiliated service contractors, domestic partners of employees, and certain dependent children, all of whom were previously covered”.

Montalvo goes on to write that it is impossible to state exactly what each voter intended when casting their vote therefore the intent must be derived from the local law that most closely addresses the issue, in this case the Texas Local Government Code. Therefore when applied to this standard, the Ordinance thus excludes retirees and elected officials. In his written opinion, Montalvo quotes The Federalists Papers (No. 10); “direct democracy can have unexpected consequences”, when noting the exclusion of the retirees and elected officials.

Our current city council needs to understand that El Paso expects a “representative form of government” as opposed to a “trustee form of government” that some in council have advocated. In their “representative” function, city council would not have voted to add domestic partners to the city’s health plan after the community told them not to. Instead, the majority of city council took it upon themselves to proclaim themselves “trustees” of the city and ignored the constituency.

The constituency rebelled and demanded representation by forcing a public vote on the issue. And won.

Had city council listened to what their constituency was demanding, not once, not twice but multiple times the “unexpected” consequences would never had happened. The community’s demand was simple; we don’t want to pay for “domestic partners”. Instead city council cost retirees and elected officials their taxpayer funded health plan because they ignored their mandate. Retirees have only one group to blame for their loss of benefits – city council who ignored their mandate.


Commentary: Abysmal voter numbers is a reflection of government indifference

Posted by Martín Paredes on May 23, 2011 Comments Off

The recent municipal elections once again displayed a complete lack of community involvement in the electoral process. Government and political pundits decry the low voter turnout and pontificate new and improved plans to engage the voter. But, I think they secretly congratulate themselves in the manipulation of low voter participation to further their goals. Of course, this  I cannot prove but the actions of the political elite in the city tend to demonstrate an active role in discouraging voter turnout in the city, regardless of their public posturing and fake shock at the abysmal numbers.

Let’s indulge in a little recent history with city council. On January 2011, city council took a citizen initiative and put it into legal oblivion, not in the spirit of “protecting” a group of individuals against “majority oppression” as they pontificate to the media, but rather to continue an initiative they themselves shoved down the collective taxpayer’s throats.

Let’s put aside the issue of gay rights revolving around the domestic partner issue as this is not about gay rights but rather about what taxpayer’s in the community are demanding. Representation is about what the community wants, not about what is right. Activists will look for catch phrases too wrap around their positions in order to gain the most public attention they can to motivate public discussion.

These catch phrases are “red herrings” designed to empower the minority over the majority. Personally, I’m for most tools at the disposal of activists as they mount battles against well-oiled and moneyed machines intent on keeping their power. For every activist cause that I feel compelled to support there are many I completely dislike. Regardless of the activist’s cause they are not at fault for employing the tools at their disposal because ultimately it is our own personal responsibility to protect our own interests.

The domestic partner issue was not about “gay rights” but rather it was about the wish of a community to live as they choose. Whether right or wrong, a community elects representatives, the keyword being representatives to “represent” their views within the governmental process. In the case of the domestic partners issue, the citizenry made their position known to the government by passing a citizen driven initiative 55 to 45%.

Their intent was clear, a resounding “NO” to extending benefits to unmarried couples. Although, the organizers of the initiative petition had to overcome, not one but two petition drives, two city council votes and the engagement of the very voters who were absent in this last election to get to this point, city council, in its complete rejection of citizenry participation decided that, they were the ultimate keepers of “what is right and what is wrong in our community”. Citizen wants, be damned!

City Council rejected the voter’s demand and remanded the whole thing to the judiciary in order to avoid their responsibility. They basically told the citizenry, “We don’t care what you want”. And, thus we find ourselves with a voter turnout of less than eight percent. I still believe that regardless of the mountain we, as the citizenry, must climb to wrest control back from the government, I nonetheless, appreciate why many in the community woke up on Election Day and said to themselves, “what for”?


Commentary: Juarez, subdued but active

Posted by Martín Paredes on May 20, 2011 1 comment

A few days ago I had the opportunity to spend the day in Cd. Juárez conducting some business and people watching. Although I frequent Juárez, for security reasons, my time there is spent on necessary business meetings. Until a few days ago, I had not had the opportunity to really take the time to see how the city has changed do to the ongoing violence.

In 2009 I had the pleasure of escorting a reporter and her crew to interview and report on the violence. At that time I had written a paper on my observations of Juárez. Two years later I see some changes and some hope for the city.

My first impression is of a city in stress. The economic downturn is visible in the boarded up shops and light traffic on the streets. But it would be a mistake to think that the city streets are empty and the people have left. There is activity, people going about their daily routines. But the routines appear to have changed. People are more subdued but still friendly. Eyes dart around looking for things out of the ordinary but still a friendly “hello” is to be had everywhere.

One of my favorite restaurants is still there but the food is mediocre at best. I don’t think this has to do with the quality of the restaurant but rather with the lack of clientele which means the food stays longer in storage. At the same time, there are people eating there. There are young adults going to and from school and workers going to and from work. The supermarket is full of people buying their daily needs.

And security is everywhere. Unlike the news reports of ongoing street battles there were none. The military soldiers, who I approached, even when obviously on active patrol, were friendly and talkative. No menacing threats or guns pointed my way. The federal officers I approached via road blocks, there were many, were actually lying in their vehicles taking a nap or reading a publication, while one officer stood on guard. Their posture was one of presence but passive indifference to a dangerous situation.

In other words, although the security personnel appear to be targets, their demeanor was one of a city, calm after a major storm. Not one gun was pointed in my direction or an abusive attitude exhibited towards me. Every security personnel I encountered were courteous and professional.

It is obvious that the city is subdued but with plenty of life left in it. It is as if the city is now waiting for the worst to be over with so that it can come back to life. Cd. Juárez may not be as active as it once was but it is definitely not dead nor overtaken by the criminal organizations.


Commentary: Mediocrity is the way to go according to the El Paso Times

Posted by Martín Paredes on May 19, 2011 1 comment

On May 17, 2011 the El Paso Times editorial board stated through their newspaper that Arditti’s defense team was an embarrassment to El Paso. According to their reasoning, the actions of the Caballero-Leeds team in zealously defending their client before a tribunal that can deprive Arditti of her freedom is somehow an aberration and an embarrassment to our community. In those few words, the El Paso Times editorial board just represented everything that is wrong with the city; a city where mediocrity rules.

If we are to accept the Times’ notion that it is more important to maintain a façade of everything is fine for the rest of the nation then we, as a community, are doomed to continue living in a community where we keep our secrets and our heads buried in the sand oblivious to all that is wrong. It really should be no surprise that the El Paso Times has chosen this road as this is reflected in the community’s leadership on a daily basis. Of course, there is no cross border violence and El Paso has no fault in the deaths happening in our sister city, proclaim the talking heads of our community. It’s a façade, of who, us, but we are the third, fifth or whatever most secure city in the country! A collective let’s pretend all is fine. Let’s not embarrass our community by doing our jobs to the best of our abilities, because after all we are just El Paso and our way of doing things is to pretend all is fine.

The Caballero-Leeds team did their job, not only did they do their job but they chose to give their client the best of themselves, even to their detriment. Shouldn’t that be the case all around? A simple notion of I’ve got a job to do and I’m going to it to the best of my ability. Wow, what a notion!

Of course, the El Paso Times states that Arditti could have won her case even if her lawyers had acted in a different manner; after all it was a weak case they state. Even the editorial board acknowledges this when they write “showed the evidence was flimsy”. Instead of asking why prosecute someone, if the evidence is flimsy, and ruin one to two years of their lives, the El Paso Times editorial board feels compelled to castigate the Caballero-Leeds defense team for doing their job. What about Arditti, does her life not merit more than “flimsy” evidence?

Interestingly that the El Paso Times doesn’t bother to note that had Arditti lost her case she would not only loose her ability to make a living for herself and her family but she also faced the possible loss of her liberty. She could have been sentenced to jail. Faced with that possible outcome would Arditti want mediocrity in her defense or someone giving it their all?

I wonder if any member of the El Paso Times editorial board, faced with the potential of going to jail would have asked for a lawyer more interested in maintaining the façade of “all is well” and “I won’t be an embarrassment to my community”? I think not!

Maybe that’s why the established businesses in El Paso contract out of town experts to do the jobs they need because in El Paso, at least according to the city’s paper, It’s about not embarrassing the city rather than to do the job they are paid to do. What a concept, do what you are paid to do, but not according to the Times.


Commentary: Bill Clinton’s internet agency is a real bad idea

Posted by Martín Paredes on May 18, 2011 Comments Off

Fox News reported on May 14, 2011 that former president Bill Clinton would like to see an Internet agency under the hospices of the United States or the United Nations to control “malicious rumors”. According to the news report, Clinton foresees an agency, with “transparent” funding, and if under the umbrella of the United States government, it would have to be “an independent federal agency that no president could countermand”.

The former president added that the agency he suggests would have to have “citations so it could be checked” for mistakes. Clinton adds that “it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money”.

This is a mistake on so many levels it’s very difficult to know where to begin. Information control and censorship is the nexus to all that has caused problems to our existence from the beginning of time. Controlling information gives those in power the ability to remain in power while those without access to information remain shackled to those in power.

Clinton’s proposal is nothing more than a power grab, a way to control information regardless of his actual reasons for proposing it.

History has shown that when a man or a group of individuals is given the power to determine what is proper for others to read, this activity leads to imposing a thought pattern over the others.  Even those who are supposed to benefit mankind has at one time or another harmed us when power is wielded unchecked.

On the other hand, the unbridled ability to speak or distort the truth is harmful as well. This must be acknowledged. The Internet is replete with examples of those who decide to wield power by extorting the target with malicious online manipulation. This, also, must be addressed. But, why is an agency dedicated to getting the truth from the gossip a bad idea?

Trust

It simply comes down to trust. As soon as any individual or an organization is entrusted to determine what is truth and what is a lie the power to control information is exponentially increased. Information is the cornerstone of democracy and one that must be cherished, warts and all. It is true that malicious information is harmful but as with any paradox between a good thing and a bad thing we must always default to that which empowers us rather than weakens us. Creating an agency, or an overseer, to determine what is proper is not the solution. Rather, the solution lies within ourselves, our ability to make informed decisions about the information that surrounds us.

Not all of us take the time to separate gossip from truth but that is to our own detriment and personal responsibility to ourselves dictates that we must accept the responsibility rather than abdicate our freedom to others.


El Paso News Organization to offer $50 stipends for published work

Posted by El Paso News on May 16, 2011 1 comment

The El Paso News Organization is dedicated to becoming the alternative news vehicle for El Paso and the surrounding area. As we strive to reach that goal we are looking for writers interested in writing news items, investigative reports or analysis and commentary on the issues facing our community.

For anyone interested in getting published here is your opportunity to write and get spending money at the same time. Any news or commentary article we select for publication will earn you a $50 dollar stipend. In order to be considered for publication your article needs to be topical and related to El Paso and its surrounding areas including Cd. Juárez.

All articles will be published in your name with the exception of those articles submitted about the Cd. Juárez violence or other sensitive topics for which you ask that a “pen name” be used. Each of those pieces will be considered on a case by case basis.

All articles must be original and must not have been published anywhere else before. All news pieces must include verifiable background information with opposing viewpoints given equal treatment. Position papers or news analysis will be accepted but those must have a thesis articulated through well thought-out analysis without resorting to attacking an individual or an organization. All topics will be considered.

There is no limit to the amount of articles you can submit for consideration.

To get started, simply register online. After you have activated your account; go to the Contact Us page and submit your request to the Publisher. Make sure you select “publisher” in the department drop down menu. Be sure to include your user name. When we have evaluated your request, an email will be sent you, asking you to submit an IRS W-9 form to us.

After you receive your welcome email, start writing and submit your article via the control panel. When we select your article for publication we will send you your check on the Friday after your article is published.

That’s it, write as many times as you want and earn some spending money while you do it.


Commentary: The Arditti trial, was justice served?

Posted by Martín Paredes on May 13, 2011 4 comments

Growing up in Mexico, one of the first things I always heard about America was how the American judicial system was fair, especially in relation to the Mexican one. In America, I was told, the notion of innocent until proven guilty is sacrosanct to the Americans. The right to have your say in front of a jury of your peers is the driving force behind the system. In America, I was led to believe, was that the judicial process was about finding the truth and getting justice for all.
 
Unfortunately what I read about the Regina Arditti trial on Dena Richardson’s KFOX TV blog and Sonny Lopez’ reporting in this publication and speaking to the attorneys involved in the case has proven to me that in El Paso, the process is not about justice – but about political vendettas.
 
I first become aware of the Arditti prosecution when the El Paso district attorney filed misdemeanor charges against her for nepotism. Although the charges were misdemeanor, they nonetheless would have resulted in the loss of Judge Arditti’s bench and her livelihood, had she been found guilty. Expecting a trial to go forward to determine the veracity of the district attorney’s case, the next thing I hear is that Arditti is scheduled to plead guilty on June 4, 2010. This was announced by District Attorney Jaime Esparza through the media.
 
On May 28, 2010, the media reports that Arditti has fired her attorney, Joe Spenser and hired Theresa Caballero and Stuart Leeds as her counsel. And she states to the media that she never agreed to plead guilty.
 
On one hand, Jaime Esparza is stating, via the media, that Arditti is pleading guilty and on the other hand, she has fired her attorney and hired new ones. If the notion is about getting to the truth then why would the district attorney announce that Arditti was pleading guilty while she is denying it?
 
After this public exchange, the district attorney drops misdemeanor charges and files felony charges against Arditti. Now, instead of possibly losing her bench, the judge is now facing some serious jail time. Are these actions, by the district attorney, about getting to the truth or is it a personal vendetta? Is it a case of you are not doing what I’m demanding of you and now I’m going to make your life miserable by not only threatening your livelihood but also threatening to put you in jail as well? Or is it about justice?
 
Fast forward almost a year later and the long anticipated trial begins. From the KFOX reporting and Richardson’s blog and Sonny’s articles in this publication I piece together the events of the trial. The prosecution produces witness after witness, and except for one witness whom the defense attorneys prove is testifying under the threat of going to jail himself, testify that they are not aware of any agreement between Arditti and Barraza, which is the nexus to the prosecution’s case.
 
Each prosecution witness seems to me to be a witness for the defense yet they are being called by the prosecutors. Where’s the “smoking gun” I keep asking myself? Surely, there has to be much more than this? It’s about the truth, I keep telling myself.
 
Oh, and the one witness the prosecutors were able to muster turns out to be a lawyer who sees nothing wrong with meeting a stripper in a hotel room for a “business” meeting. The whole Arditti case rested on this one individual.
 
Finally, the state rests and it’s the defense’s turn to call their witnesses. But, they do not call any witnesses; instead they rest their case without putting up a single defense!
 
The Caballero-Leeds defense team calls no witnesses and other than closing statements reminding the jury that the prosecution did not prove their case, they offer no defense. In less than three hours the jury agrees and finds Arditti not guilty on all counts.
 
Regina Arditti is not guilty, something she proclaimed from day one. But was justice served?
 
Arditti was judged by 12 members of her peers. They heard the prosecution present the case and heard the defense say there is no case. And they rendered their not guilty verdict.
 
Some would argue that justice was served; I on the other hand, question that assertion. Regina Arditti and her family’s lives were tested to the limits for over a year as she lived under the indictment proffered by Jaime Esparza.
 
Not to mention the thousands of dollars she spent on her defense. And, let’s not forget the amount the community, you and I, spent on her prosecution through the judge, the prosecutors, the jury and all that is required to keep the court house running. On top of that we had to pay for another judge to keep Arditti’s court running. But was justice served?
 
Regina Arditti proclaimed her innocence and yet she and all of us paid to have a jury proclaim her innocent. But was justice served?
 
Arditti was accused of nepotism at the County of El Paso, something we all hear rumors of as being common place at the County building. So, as the rumors proclaim, is nepotism rampant at the county? And if so, why is Arditti the only one to be charged? And if not, again, why was Arditti the only one charged?
 
Could it be that the Arditti trial was not about justice but rather about political vendettas as the defense team has asserted?
 
It has to be, because the trial was definitely not about justice. Prosecutors presented their case and the defense said there was no case and presented no witnesses. The jury agreed with the defense.
 
Although, I’m not willing to agree that the American system is better, there is one thing I have to acknowledge, were it not for a capable defense team and a jury of 12 citizens then the travesty that was the Arditti indictment would have ended in yet another travesty, the incarceration of Judge Arditti.
 
But, the fact that one person has the power to ruin someone’s life by filling charges that can’t even produce one reliable witness for the prosecution only reinforces my feeling that the American legal system is just as bad, if not worse than the others, especially in El Paso county.


Jury Finds Judge Arditti Not Guilty

Posted by Sonny Lopez on May 11, 2011 2 comments

The jury took about four hours Wednesday to find Judge Regina Arditti not guilty on all counts of an indictment alleging she entered into an agreement involving an exchange of courthouse jobs, official abuse and bribery.

The trial, which was in its eighth day, involved convicted former Judge Manny Barraza, protected federal witness David Beagas, the FBI and a slew of courthouse employees. Defense attorneys described the state’s case as a political prosecution aimed at harming the career of Judge Arditti.

The not guilty verdict confirmed the defense team’s decision to rest their case without calling any witnesses. They say the prosecution’s case proved that Judge Arditti had not committed the alleged bribery or abuse of official capacity.

“The community has spoken on many different levels. This is a damning verdict for District Attorney Jaime Esparza, and this verdict proves this trial was nothing more than a political prosecution of Judge Arditt,” said defense attorney Theresa Caballero .

The state’s case, which included mainly courthouse employees, focused entirely on circumstantial evidence and the word of Beagas, who during testimony admitted he lied to law enforcement officials.

“Justice has prevailed,” said Judy Adams, a long-time friend of Judge Arditti who sat through the entire length of the trial.

The jury, which was forged during a heated selection process, was composed of 11 women and one man. Throughout the trial the jurors listened intently to testimony and questioned several pieces of evidence, including an exhibit the prosecution presented that revealed the Social Security numbers of witnesses.

The defense team of Caballero and Stuart Leeds were found in contempt of court by visiting Judge Steve Smith, who the defense alleged is racist and biased. The two attorneys are expected to fight the contempt allegations.

Earlier in the day, Caballero filed a motion seeking sanctions against Kyle Lasley assistant district attorney, alleging a Brady violation. The Brady notice, part of the code of ethics for lawyers, requires attorneys who have information about a fellow counselor participating in wrongdoing to report it to the bar association.

According to a copy of the motion, Lasley allegedly withheld information from the defense described as “exculpatory,” meaning it should have been made available to Judge Arditti’s defense team.

The information was an interview of another person who was at a meeting where the alleged agreement was discussed. That person denied the alleged agreement was mentioned. The motion involving the Brady violation was denied by Judge Smith without explanation.

“It’s amazing that we are found in contempt,” Caballero said, “but the judge denies a motion that a prosecutor was hiding evidence. That shows you how bias the judge was.”

The trial was filled with heated exchanges between the state and the defense. At one point, prosecutors filed a motion to have attorneys Leeds and Caballero removed from the case, alleging their behavior would make it impossible for a fair trial to be held.

Judge Smith also admonished the defense team, saying he had never seen such bad behavior by attorneys in a courtroom.

　

　

　


Arditti not guilty on all counts

Posted by El Paso News on May 11, 2011 2 comments

The jury in the Arditti case has reached a not guitly verdict on all counts. Stay tuned for more details later today.