Author: Judge John Wilson (ret.)

Parents who do not seem concerned by their child’s deteriorating  mental health status, and buy that same child a gun, which that child then proceeds to use on his fellow students, should probably expect to face either civil charges or criminal charges of neglect in one form or another.  This is particularly true when those parents had been warned by the school that their child had expressed a desire to use a gun to harm his classmates.  But did either Jennifer or James “cause death” by their neglect of Ethan?  Did the Crumbley’s breach their duty as parents to control their child and prevent him from harming others?

Both juries believed so.  “[A] juror told NBC News that the fact that Jennifer Crumbley had been the last known person to handle the 9 mm handgun after she took her son to the gun range helped solidify that she had a responsibility to prevent the shooting, even if she didn’t know specifically that he was planning the rampage…in James Crumbley’s case, the evidence was more glaring… [he] told investigators that he was the last person to handle the weapon by hiding it in an armoire and placing the ammunition underneath jeans in another drawer…[t]he evidence showed that James Crumbley understood how to safely secure a firearm because he owned two others, and investigators found in the home a gun safe for his weapons, a cable lock for the 9 mm handgun and a pamphlet about gun safety around juveniles.” 

Thus, we have the epitome of a “hard case”; a case that cries out, “somebody’s gotta pay!”  And pay the Crumbley’s did.

“Ethan Crumbley’s parents were sentenced to between 10 and 15 years behind bars…for their son’s 2021 massacre that left four students dead — the first time parents have been sentenced in a US mass school shooting. James and Jennifer Crumbley were handed down the prison time by Judge Cheryl Matthews in a Pontiac, Michigan courtroom after they were found guilty on involuntary manslaughter charges at separate trials…’These convictions are not about poor parenting, these convictions confirm repeated acts or lack of acts that could have halted an oncoming runaway train, about repeatedly ignoring things that would make a reasonable person feel the hair on the back of their neck stand up,’ Matthews said before announcing the sentences.” 

10 to 15 years incarceration – for involuntary manslaughter?

Certainly, the parents of the murdered schoolmates of Ethan Crumbley agreed with the verdict and sentence.  “Jill Soave, the mother of…slain student, Justin Shilling, 17, said the parents’ inaction on the day of the shooting ‘failed their son and failed us all.’ Justin’s father, Craig Shilling, said he was troubled by Jennifer Crumbley’s testimony during her trial in which she said she would not have done anything differently, even today. ‘The blood of our children is on your hands, too,’ Craig Shilling said.” 

But, if we remove ourselves from the obviously justifiable strong emotions of the case, we might see the problems presented by the “bad law” resulting from this “hard case.”

Recall that the Michigan prosecutor who brought the case “openly expressed her frustration with Michigan’s firearms laws.”  What is to stop her from bringing charges against any parent who legally buys their teenager a gun, anytime that young person uses that gun in a situation the prosecutor believes to be criminal?  Suppose the teenager shoots a duck or buck out of season – will the parents of that child be charged, especially if the youngster told his parents he was going hunting that afternoon with his friends?

Let us extrapolate further; what about parents who do not agree to “gender-affirming care” for their child?  Suppose that child acts out, and hurts themselves or others.  Could the parents be held criminally responsible for the actions of a child when those parents would not consent to their transition? Could they also be held responsible if the child does transition with their consent, but continues to exhibit suicidal or homicidal ideations, eventually acting upon those obsessions?

Consider that in March of 2023, Michigan expanded its civil rights law to include rights for gay and transgender peoples.  “The signing was heralded as a historic advancement in civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Michiganders by activists and policymakers. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer thanked the Democratic legislative majorities even as she worked to maintain her composure in a venue that was filled with emotion. ‘Their tears of happiness are coming down, I’m trying to hold it together — can’t look at them too much,’ she joked.”

“’Instead of being a hateful state, we are a state that shows love, and not only acceptance, but support of a beautiful and diverse community of folks who now know Michigan is a great place for not wanting to live, but thrive as who they are,’ S’Niayh Tate, a Black trans activist, said. Whitmer has coined the slogan, ‘bigotry is bad for business’ and is striving to brand Michigan as a state with an expansive view of civil rights.” 

In fact, “[u]nder Whitmer’s administration, the state has made significant updates to better serve trans and genderfluid people. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson changed the department’s policy in November 2021 to allow for the ‘X’ gender indicator on state IDs and driver’s licenses. That same year, Attorney General Dana Nessel said a state law that required trans residents to undergo sex-reassignment surgery before changing their gender on legal documents is likely unconstitutional.” 

“Gender-affirming healthcare has come a long way in Michigan,”  according to PrideSource. “Kalamazoo County is taking the lead when it comes to gender-affirming healthcare. YWCA Kalamazoo recently asked the county commission to allocate $100,000 for its Reproductive Health Fund. This fund covers things like childcare services and travel expenses for clients needing HRT, abortion care, PEP, doula services and the like…[t]he reproductive health fund does not use public county dollars to pay for direct abortion care. However, the fund does pay for abortion and gender-affirming care —both direct and practical support care — from alternative funding sources… of all the reproductive health services YWCA Kalamazoo provides, they’ve seen the greatest increase in demand for gender-affirming care.” 

Thus, with the support and encouragement of their Governor, Michigan is becoming more accepting of the “right” to gender-affirming care for its citizens.  Organizations like the YMCA can expect to receive funding from the government to support their efforts to provide that care.  And the civil rights law in Michigan will prevent someone from failing to provide or denying that same care – including, potentially, a parent who does not consent to the transitioning of their child.

Maybe it seems like a long way from a conviction for involuntary manslaughter for the parents of a school shooter, who did not seek mental health services for their child, by a prosecutor who does not favor the Second Amendment rights of the parents, to a conviction for that same crime for a parent who doesn’t consent to the gender-transitioning of their child who then commits an act of violence, for a charge brought by a prosecutor who favors expanded civil rights for t.

But is it? 

Judge John Wilson (ret) served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Pixabay

There is an old adage among lawyers that goes, “hard cases make bad law.”  As explained by former Law School Professor Alice Baker, “a ‘hard’ case is a case that involves extreme unfairness. It’s a case that seems to cry out for a remedy so strongly that judges may be motivated by sympathy for the plaintiff’s plight, check their brains at the door, and fail to think through the logical implications of the legal rule they are creating. Whenever you find yourself saying, ‘Somebody’s gotta pay!’ that’s an indication that you’ve fallen into the world of ‘hard cases make bad law.’ It’s a warning signal that you need to be extra careful to think through the logical implications of every legal rule you adopt, so you don’t inadvertently create legal rules that do not work well when they’re generalized to other cases.” 

Recently, a very hard case in Michigan has made some extremely bad law – law that could easily become a major problem for parents across the country.

“On Tuesday, Nov. 30, [2021] police say [15 year old] student Ethan Crumbley opened fire at Oxford High School, fatally striking four teenage students and wounding six students and one teacher. The shooting only lasted minutes, according to law enforcement, who arrived on the scene quickly after receiving more than 100 calls to 911 due to the active shooter. Deputies with the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office apprehended the shooter, who reportedly surrendered to them without incident.”

Tragic as these events are, this would appear to be just one mass school shooting out of the hundred or so which have occurred across the world in the past few years.  Another disaffected young person who gained access to a weapon, and took out his frustrations on his fellow students.

Despite his young age, two years after the shooting, Crumbley was sentenced to life without parole. “Dismissing last-minute defense pleas that Crumbley’s life is salvageable, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Kwamé Rowe noted that the ‘defendant in his own words’ told the court ‘this is nobody’s fault but his own.’ Rowe said victim Justin Shilling, 17, was shot at point-blank range after being told by the defendant to get on his knees. Hana St. Juliana, 14, was shot a second time after she was down…[Judge Rowe stated] ‘That is an execution. That is torture. He shot most people multiple times. And, as he wrote, he did this for notoriety. And he wanted to go down … as the biggest school shooter in Michigan history.’” 

We can debate whether someone as young as 17 years old at the time of his sentencing should receive incarceration for life without the possibility of parole.  But there can be no reasonable doubt that a crime of this magnitude richly deserves a very severe punishment.

No, the issue here does not involve the arrest, prosecution and conviction of Ethan Crumbley.  Instead, we are concerned with the fate of his parents, James and Jennifer Crumbley.

In December of 2021, “Oakland County, Michigan prosecutor Karen McDonald filed four counts of involuntary manslaughter against James and Jennifer Crumbley… [a]t the press conference announcing the charges, McDonald openly expressed her frustration with Michigan’s firearms laws. Like many midwestern states, Michigan has a strong hunting tradition, and fully anticipates its minor children will handle firearms…[t]hat’s likely why McDonald kept stressing the importance of ‘responsible’ gun ownership. She’s acknowledging to her constituents — and voters — that teens can have access to firearms in Michigan if done responsibly. This is in contrast to what the state alleges the Crumbleys did: allow their son access to a gun despite repeated warnings that he might use the weapon to hurt others.” 

According to attorney Samuel Strom, “Involuntary manslaughter (also called criminally negligent manslaughter) occurs when one person kills another resulting from an accident or gross negligence. It also occurs when someone intends to cause bodily harm to another person but without the intent to kill them. Unlike a murder charge, involuntary manslaughter means that a person had no intention of killing another but, due to their careless or reckless actions, caused the death of a human being.”  

Before trial, the Crumbley’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that “the charges have no legal justification and that they should not be held responsible for their son’s killings.”  However, the Michigan appellate court disagreed; “We share defendants’ concern about the potential for this decision to be applied in the future to parents whose situation viz-a-viz their child’s intentional conduct is not as closely tied together, and/or the warning signs and evidence were not as substantial as they are here,” the Court wrote. In justifying these charges in this case, “the judges cited text messages from the months before the massacre in which Crumbley told his parents about experiencing paranoia and hallucinations, including his belief that a demon was throwing objects around the house. When his mother didn’t reply, he sent her another message asking, ‘can you at least text back.’ His mother did not text back that day and was riding horses with James at the time, according to the opinion. Crumbley also told a friend that he believed he was having a mental breakdown and asked his parents for medical help but that his father told him to ‘suck it up’ and his mother laughed, according to the opinion.” 

At the trial of Ethan’s mother Jennifer, the “[t]he prosecution had to prove one of two theories beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.       That Jennifer ’caused death’ due to her grossly negligent actions, or

2.       That Jennifer breached her duty as a parent to ‘exercise reasonable care to control their minor child so as to prevent the minor child from intentionally harming others or prevent the minor child from conducting themselves in a way that creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others.’”

As described by attorney Strom, “the prosecution argued that Ethan asked his parents for mental health help from a professional, which they ignored…[Ethan’s father James] bought Ethan a gun on November 26, 2021. On November 30, 2021, a teacher found a drawing Ethan left on his desk. The drawing depicted a handgun, a person appearing to have been shot, and a message saying, ‘The thoughts won’t stop,’ and ‘Help me.’ A concerned school staff member reported the note to the administration. The school called Ethan’s parents, who met with school staff about the drawing and notes that day. The prosecution asserted that the parents decided to leave Ethan in school that day rather than take him home. Neither parent told the school about Ethan’s mental health issues or that they had bought him a gun recently. Shortly after the meeting, Ethan committed the mass shooting with the gun his parents bought just days earlier.”

Judge Wilson’s analysis concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Pixabay

NATO  Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently released the organization’s annual status report

We present his summary:

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine rages on, there is a new war in the Middle East, and Allies face greater competition from authoritarian states, including China. In addition, we still face a range of other threats to our security, including terrorism, cyber attacks and climate change. The world has become more dangerous, but NATO is stronger.

In 2023, NATO grew bigger and more capable. Finland became a NATO Ally, and we have just welcomed Sweden as well. We continued to strengthen our defences. At our Summit in Vilnius, we agreed robust new plans to defend every inch of Alliance territory. These plans are backed by hundreds of thousands of troops and highly capable air and naval forces at a high state of readiness – and with eight battlegroups on our eastern flank, stretching from the Baltic to the Mediterranean Sea, scalable to brigade size.

In 2023, defence spending increased by an unprecedented 11% across Europe and Canada. Since we agreed the Defence Investment Pledge in 2014, European Allies and Canada will have spent more than USD 600 billion extra on defence. In 2024, we expect two-thirds of Allies to meet or exceed the target of investing 2% of Gross Domestic Product in defence. At the Vilnius Summit, we agreed the Defence Production Action Plan, to ramp up production and replenish our stocks of weapons and ammunition. Billions of dollars of contracts have already been signed with defence industry. This will mean more security for Allies, more supplies for Ukraine, and more highly skilled jobs across Europe and North America.

In addition to strengthening our own collective defence, NATO continues to support Ukraine. Ukraine must prevail as an independent, sovereign nation. If Putin wins, this would send a dangerous message to authoritarian leaders around the world that they can achieve their objectives through war and violence. Supporting Ukraine is not charity, it is in our own security interest.

At the Vilnius Summit, we brought Ukraine closer to NATO than ever before. We established the NATOUkraine Council where we meet to discuss and take decisions on our common security interests, as equals. We are helping to transition Ukraine from Soviet-era to NATO equipment and standards. We have also removed the requirement for a Membership Action Plan, significantly shortening Ukraine’s path to membership. All Allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of NATO.

China is watching our actions closely. China does not share our values, it challenges our interests, and Beijing is increasingly aligned with Moscow. We will continue to trade and engage with China, but we must manage the risks and prepare for enduring competition.

NATO is a regional alliance that faces global challenges, so our partnerships around the world are essential for our security. We continue to work closely with the European Union on a wide range of security issues. We are also deepening our cooperation with our partners in the Indo-Pacific – Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea – and I have appointed a group of experts to review NATO’s approach to our southern neighbourhood.

2024 marks the 75th anniversary of the NATO Alliance. In all those years, the bond between Europe and North America has kept our nations secure and our people safe. At the Washington Summit in July, we will send a powerful message of unity, solidarity and resolve – to prevent war and preserve peace.

Shattered Peace: Responding to Russia’s Aggression

NATO tried to build a partnership with Russia for decades. Over the past decade, however, Russia has continuously violated the norms and principles that have contributed to a stable and predictable European security order. Russia’s brutal and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, launched in February 2022, has shattered the hard-earned peace in Europe.

As NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept makes clear, the Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security, and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. Russia seeks to establish spheres of influence and direct control through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation. It uses conventional, cyber and hybrid means against NATO and its partners. Its coercive military posture, rhetoric and proven willingness to use force to pursue its political goals undermine the rules-based international order. The Russian Federation is modernising its nuclear forces and expanding its novel and disruptive dual-capable delivery systems, while employing coercive nuclear signalling. It aims to destabilise countries to our East and South. In the High North, its capability to disrupt Allied reinforcements and freedom of navigation across the North Atlantic is a strategic challenge to the Alliance. Moscow’s military build-up, including in the Baltic, Black and Mediterranean Sea regions, along with its military integration with Belarus, challenge the Alliance’s security and interests.

 In light of its hostile policies and actions, NATO cannot consider Russia to be a partner. Any change in the relationship depends on Russia halting its aggressive behaviour and fully complying with international law. NATO remains willing to keep open channels of communication with Moscow to manage and mitigate risks, prevent escalation and increase transparency. NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia.

At the Vilnius Summit in July, Allies agreed to continue to consult on and assess the implications of Russia’s policies and actions for Allied security, and respond to Russian threats and hostile actions in a united and responsible way.

Photo: Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Foreign Ministers’ Session (NATO)

Chinese ships, planes, and military personnel are congregating around Taiwan this week as Beijing launches one of its most aggressive military drills in recent years. Its goal is to increase pressure on the island’s newly inaugurated president, Lai Ching-Te. Each year China holds military drills from June to November. This year Beijing is ratcheting up pressure on Taiwan as well as effectively normalizing increased military activity in and around the island. “Hide and bide” is long dead and buried — it’s now “shout and flout.”

Chinese Coast Guard ships sailed within four nautical miles of Taiwanese waters near Kinmen Island four times this month and for the first time were joined by other Chinese government agencies. Kinmen is considered Taiwan’s strategic frontline island. China maintains three well-situated and supplied PLA Air bases as well along its coast opposite Taiwan with its maritime resources located nearby. According to Ian Ellis, a military analyst studying Chinese military strategy, “Throughout February, March, and April, Chinese Coast Guard vessels frequently entered Kinmen’s restricted waters and contiguous zone. On 29 April, Beijing announced it had ‘normalized’ regular patrols.”

Ray Powell, a maritime security analyst at the Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation at Stanford University, adds that China’s “open and heavily publicized characterization of its military exercises as ‘punishment’ and a ‘warning’ feels like a calculated rhetorical escalation. It wants the whole world to take note.” Since Lai assumed power this week, China “has launched two days of large-scale military drills surrounding Taiwan … days after the self-ruling island swore in a new democratically elected leader who called on Beijing to cease its intimidation tactics,” according to Shannon Brandao, an attorney who follows Chinese legal and military affairs. PLA Naval Colonel Li Xi, spokesperson for the command, called the exercises “a strong punishment for the separatist acts of Taiwan independence forces and a serious warning against interference and provocation by external forces.”

A CCN report on Thursday said a senior official responsible for Taiwan’s security affairs pointed out that the military detected about 30 Chinese aircraft, most of which crossed the Median Line into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ).  China also deployed about a dozen Chinese warships and another dozen Coast Guard vessels near Taiwan’s outlying islands, according to the official. President Lai, who is labeled a “dangerous separatist” by Beijing, responded to the provocation by deploying Taiwan’s warships to monitor the situation. “While other countries treat maritime incidents as crises to be deescalated, Beijing seizes upon them as pretext for calculated escalations, by which it means to reset the board in its favor,” writes Ray Powell.

China’s state broadcaster CCTV is reporting that dozens of Chinese fighter jets carrying live ammunition conducted mock strikes against “high-value military targets” of the “enemy” alongside destroyers, frigates, and missile speedboats. To the north, two massive civil-military ferries that are part of the PLA-associated Bohai Ferry Group diverted from normal operating routes in the Yellow Sea and are heading south. The exercises, which started on Thursday, will encircle all of Taiwan and pose President Lai’s first challenge as he attempts to balance its relationship with Beijing. Chinese aggression is not limited to the waters around Taiwan. Last week China positioned five coast guard ships and six maritime militia vessels near the shoal belonging to the Philippines and had another 25 or so maritime militia vessels sitting roughly 60 miles further out, according to Powell. 

As the number and intensity of incidents increases, so does the likelihood of an accident or deliberate act. The US operates about 200 ships and 150,000 sailors and civilians in its Pacific fleet. They make up 60 percent of the entire US Navy. Despite America’s advanced military technologies, Beijing has an advantage in a cross-Strait war with Taiwan. Its geographic location ensures short supply lines. The US Navy also is constraints by requirements that it patrol and protect wide swaths of the Pacific. This week the full Armed Services Committee in Congress is marking up the National Defense Authorization Act 2025 budget request. Even if Congress allots funding for additional ships and planes, it will be many years before they are operational in the Pacific. Beijing knows they have a window of opportunity that may not last long if President Biden is not re-elected. This year’s drills are more important than ever for Beijing.

Photo: Missile boats attached to a missile boat group with the navy under the PLA Southern Theater Command sail in formation. Photo by Wan Songtao)

Are Russia’s trade relationships composed of grains of chaff or are they golden grains that Putin is using to undermine the West’s influence in the developing world?

It is more than two years since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In response to international condemnation of his war and to avoid the impact of economic sanctions, Putin has increased grain sales to China, the Global South, and other non-Western states with the goal of undermining Western influence there.

Russia’s grain exports to Algeria grew six-fold since February 2022. Exports to Saudi Arabia grew by 3.2 times. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, a significant share of Russia’s grain exports have gone to Egypt (22.5 percent of overall sales) and Türkiye (19.3 percent). Although Putin faces challenges when selling grain supplies abroad, his strategy is to isolate Ukraine, by strengthening Russia’s economic ties and exploiting food insecurity in these areas. Many of the targeted African nations are suffering from famine now, according to United Nations data on food security. 

The UN Committee on World Food Security defines it as meaning that all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their food preferences and dietary needs for an active and healthy life. “Moscow is pushing for BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa] to collaborate more actively in the grain trade to undermine the West’s ability to influence critical decisions” in the more fragile states, according to Sergey Sukhankin, of the Jamestown Foundation. Working with the BRIC’s enables Russia to more easily circumvent global economic sanctions. In March 2024, Putin publicly supported creating a BRICS grain exchange. He justified it by labeling it a response to a request last fall by Eduard Zernin, chair of the Russian Union of Grain Exporters. The union is involved in almost 80 percent of Russian grain exports, according to Sukhankin. Zernin stated in a late December letter reprinted in Kommersant.ru that the BRICS are “forced to act as price takers, but Western firms get to make all the important decisions.” 

“Moscow’s use of grain as a tacit weapon is an aim to place itself in a dominant position on the global stage to prevent further degradation of its economy due to its war in Ukraine,” says Sukhankin. Russian agricultural experts lament that after World War II, when America was the leader in agricultural trade, it effectively was in charge of international operations. Today, they say, the aggregate output of the BRIC countries represents up to 40 per center of world grain trade and that warrants a move away from US dominance.

Intelligence officials in Washington suggest that Russia is in effect running a geopolitical disinformation campaign that supports conspiracy theorists who argue that the top one billion wealthiest people in the world are hoarding global resources and letting the developing world suffer. Russia is pushing to dismantle the influence of the so-called “golden billion” of the West. The Kremlin’s goal in this non-Western campaign is to push back against the capitalist states and help fund Russia’s war by bolstering domestic grain production.

To curb Ukrainian grain and related commodity exports, Sukhankin says that Russia is employing two main strategies: occupying regions of Ukrainian territory and spreading disinformation. The occupied areas are among the most fertile in the country. If Russia can continue their hold over this land, it could impact up to 30 percent of the world’s grain flow. Last fall the East Asian Daily Monitor reported that Russia’s disinformation propagandists are openly calling for the deepening of a rift between Ukraine on one side and the Hungarian, Polish, and Slovak agricultural industries on the other. In 2023 Russian grain sold to the European Union (EU) increased ten times, to 180,000 tons, making it the EU’s fourth-largest grain exporter to the 27 Member states. While small in contrast to Ukraine’s 1.2 million tons, it is influencing states in the region.

Grain exports to China are emerging as a primary pillar of the Sino-Russian partnership and an area where Russia has the upper hand. In the Global South, adverse climate condition and low grain yields have pushed states toward imports from Russia, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Conditions on the ground have helped Putin’s narrative that if it doesn’t export grain to avoid a famine, EU Member states

Will experience a migration crisis that could destabilize all of Europe. Putin’s attempt to realign the  international rules-based order and global financial system is unlikely to make Russia the dominant global player, but it is yet another emerging dimension in Putin’s toolkit aimed at taking down the West.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Pixabay

America’s armed forces are in a state of “managed decline.” It is an irresponsible policy decision on the part of the Biden Administration as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and international terrorist build up their power and become far more belligerent. Under the current White House, the Army, Navy and Air Force have become smaller, and shrink even more.  As Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang have increased and/or modernized their nuclear forces, the U.S. deterrent will have atrophied to an increasingly dangerous level.

The Biden Administration submitted to Congress a proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget request of $849.8 billion for the Department of Defense (DoD.) Inflation will further reduce the Pentagon’s spending ability. That figure, in light of the dire and dramatically increasing threats the nation faces, is grossly inadequate.

U.S. defense spending, as part of the country’s GDP, has declined. In 1994, it was 4.22%. Today, it stands at about 3.4% of GDP.   It accounts for 1/6 of the federal budget.

The Department of Defense notes the cuts: “… our budget request reflects targeted reductions to programs.”

Key analysts state that a minimum of $867.3 billion is required. America now will have fewer fighter planes, helicopters, and drones. The plan would cut the purchase of an attack submarine, and it would slash missile defense.

Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) sounded a warning upon learning of the figure: “Our enemies are growing more hostile in every corner of the globe. The Chinese Communist Party is once again increasing its military spending by over seven percent. Russia shows no sign of stopping if it succeeds in Ukraine, and North Korea is going on the offense after years of playing defense. Iran is financing hundreds of attacks on our troops in the Middle East. This moment begs for a thunderous declaration of American resolve. Instead, it seems the leader of the free world would rather preside over a quiet decline in strength. For the fourth year in a row, the president has asked Congress to cut national security funding… The president’s budget fails to recognize that China wants to take control of the Pacific. It represents a commander-in-chief who refuses to expedite the delivery of tools commanders need to secure the region.”

Wicker is not alone in his concern.

According to an American Enterprise Institute study,  “…it is not enough to carry out the defense strategy, which itself is also now out of date; it trades modernization for readiness; and it leverages innovation investments with proposed process improvements. … We are ceding ground in the fight to maintain a force that is big enough and has enough of the right equipment, training, and agility to deter or fight and win the nation’s wars…The requests for procurement and research, development, test and evaluation are both cut from last year’s request. These are actual reductions, before accounting for inflation. If this sounds familiar, it should. With the increasing costs of must-pay bills for personnel and operations in the defense budget and an emphasis on non-core functions over lethality, it is really the only way to balance the books in a declining budget.”

Similarly, the Heritage Foundation notes that “In this document, his Administration’s misguided priorities are on full display. While paying lip service to the concept of China as the primary challenge for the United States, the official request fails to align spending with strategy. Most egregiously, the request fails to procure the ships, aircraft, and munitions the military needs to deter China in the Indo-Pacific. It is, in a word, insufficient to keep the American people safe.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that this is the fourth year that this is the fourth year in a row the defense budget represents a cut when inflation is taken into effect. It will result in a net loss of six ships. The Navy, under Biden, will have been reduced. One of the most urgently required vessels to deter China is the Virginia class submarine. Under the Biden budget, acquisition will be cut in half.

The cuts extend even beyond the Earth. The Space Force, required to counter the hiked threats from Russia and China above the atmosphere, will lose $600 million, representing 2% of its total budget.

Illustration: A Space Force launch. (DoD)

The New York Court of Appeals has upheld the ruling by the trial judge we closed yesterday’s article with.

“Defendant argues that CPL 30.10 (4) (a) has only been applied to cases involving nonresidents,” the Court of Appeals stated. However, “[n]owhere does this provision distinguish between residents and nonresidents and we cannot read into the statute a limitation not adopted by the legislature…If the legislature intended this tolling provision to apply only to nonresidents or that courts should factor residency into a tolling analysis, it would have said so expressly.” (Citation omitted.)

Further, “the statute [does not] contain any requirement that the tolling period apply once authorities know that a crime has been committed and, as with defendant’s proposed exclusion for New York residents, we reject defendant’s invitation to rewrite the statute to provide such limitation.”

Thus, it is irrelevant whether Donald Trump was a resident of New York or not, nor does it matter whether or not the New York County District Attorney had any intention to charge the former President with a crime at the time the offense allegedly occurred.  The time he spent outside New York stops the Statute of Limitations from running out.

But what if Donald Trump (like Weinstein) had been in and out of New York during the time period in question?  According to the Court of Appeals, “‘all periods of a day or more’ during a defendant’s absence from the state ‘should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations’…Logically, then, even a day’s absence counts.” (Citation omitted.)

Thus, as we warned in May of last year, the prosecution of Donald Trump is not time-barred, based upon the extended time periods he spent outside of New York, serving his country as President of the United States. 

This issue, while significant, is only one ruling which could impact the Trump case.

During the trial, we have witnessed several rulings which affect the former President’s ability to defend himself. For instance, in their opening statement to the jury, Prosecutors stated “This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up…[t]he defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election, then covered it up.”  In fact, according to The Hill, “[a]lthough Trump faces charges of falsifying business records, prosecutors will tell jurors a story that ranges from sex to politics to accounting, attempting to convince them that Trump criminally covered up a hush money deal to influence the 2016 presidential election. The district attorney’s first oration to the jury echoed two of Trump’s other criminal cases, which revolve around his alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results after losing to President Biden. “It was election fraud – pure and simple,” [the prosecutor] said in his opening remarks.”   

Donald Trump is charged with falsifying his business records to disguise a “hush money” payment made to a woman who alleged he had an affair with her.  That charge has been elevated to a felony based upon an intent to hide an underlying crime.  The crime has never been adequately specified, but it appears to involve the violation of federal elections laws that enumerate the appropriate expenditure of campaign contributions.  Now the Manhattan DA’s office is changing their theory by claiming the underlying crime is outright federal election fraud – an uncharged crime.

Further,  “[i]f Donald Trump takes the stand, prosecutors will be allowed to grill him under oath about several adverse rulings in his past civil cases, Justice Juan Merchan ruled…Prosecutors will be allowed to elicit testimony about Trump being found liable for fraudulently inflating his business assets in a suit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. They will also be allowed to question him about defamatory statements he made about writer E. Jean Carroll. In a civil case last year, a federal jury determined that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a department store in the 1990s, and in two civil cases, Trump was found liable for defaming Carroll. Merchan also ruled that, if Trump testifies, prosecutors can ask him about fines he received for violating a gag order in the business fraud case when he verbally attacked the law clerk of the judge overseeing that case.”

Even Politico had to concede that this was “a significant loss for the former president that will complicate his self-declared plan to testify in his own defense.” 

This ruling is much more than a “loss” that complicates Trump’s ability to testify in his own defense.  In fact, if Judge Merchan maintains this position, and also lets stand the prosecutor’s attempts to use proof that Trump allegedly “subverted” the 2020 Presidential election, under the Court of Appeals’ ruling in the Weinstein case, permitting these prejudicial matters into evidence is most certainly reversible error.

“Every person accused of a crime is constitutionally presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial and the opportunity to present a defense, the Court of Appeals states in People v. Weinstein.  “Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality… It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict.”

In Harvey Weinstein’s case, “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless. The only evidence against defendant was the complainants’ testimony, and the result of the court’s rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant’s character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant’s right to testify. The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

In other words, several witnesses were allowed to testify against Weinstein as to sexual assaults with which Weinstein was not charged.  These witnesses could portray Weinstein as a serial sexual predator, and make it more likely that the jury would believe the victims, even if there were weaknesses and inconsistencies in their own testimony.  Moreover, the prosecution could question Weinstein about these uncharged assaults, were he to testify in his own defense.

Certainly, it is understandable for some to believe that Weinstein was, in fact, a loathsome person who deserved his conviction and sentence.  Well that may be – but remember the words of the Court of Appeals;  “the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality.”

There are those who think Donald Trump is a loathsome person, and that the former President also deserves a conviction and prison sentence.  These people justify the use of evidence of prior “bad acts,” such as allegations of trying to influence the 2020 Presidential election, or the existence of civil verdicts and contempt citations, in an effort to establish Trump’s  “propensity for criminality.”  Like the #MeToo advocates, the Trump Haters don’t care about a fair trial for the accused – they just want to see the “bad guy” punished.

If we learn one thing from the reversal of the Weinstein conviction, it’s that every defendant, no matter who they are, deserves to have a fair trial.  That rule applies to rich Hollywood Producers, former Presidents of the United States – and most importantly, to you and I.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

In 2020, the New York County District Attorney’s Office scored a major conviction against a powerful Hollywood Producer – Harvey Weinstein.  As described by Forbes, “Weinstein has faced scores of sexual harassment and assault accusations since 2017…[d]uring his New York trial, Weinstein was cleared of predatory sexual assault and rape in the first degree.”    He was, however, convicted of Sexual Assault in the First Degree, and Rape in the Third Degree, and was sentenced to 23 years in prison.

Recently, the New York State Court of Appeals has reversed Weinstein’s conviction, and sent the case back to the lower court for a retrial.

While “Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala called the Court of Appeals ruling ‘a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York,’” the usual groups made the usual complaints. “Attorney Douglas H. Wigdor, who has represented eight Harvey Weinstein accusers including two witnesses at the New York criminal trial, called it ‘a major step back’…Debra Katz, a prominent civil rights and #MeToo attorney who represented several Weinstein accusers, said her clients are ‘feeling gutted’ by the ruling…

“Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as ‘Pulp Fiction’ and ‘Shakespeare in Love,’ ushered in the #MeToo movement. Dozens of women came forward to accuse Weinstein, including stars such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial drew intense publicity, with protesters chanting ‘rapist’ outside the courthouse. ‘This is what it’s like to be a woman in America, living with male entitlement to our bodies,’ Judd said…” 

The New York Court of Appeals is known for being a left-of-center, activist court.  Why would it reverse a conviction for rape entered against a character as reportedly heinous as Harvey Weinstein?

Because despite its overall Progressive stance, even a notoriously leftist court knows an injustice when they see one.

The decision to reverse Weinstein’s conviction is an important one.  It underlines the necessity for fairness to all defendants, even unpopular ones accused of egregious crimes.  The decision also has application to the ongoing case proceeding in New York County Supreme Court against former President Donald Trump.

In May of 2023, we discussed the issue of whether or not Donald Trump’s indictment in New York County for actions that occurred in 2017 was beyond New York’s Statute of Limitations for prosecution of the criminal offenses with which he is charged.  At that time, we noted the language of CPL Section 30.10(4)(A)(i), which excluded the time during which a defendant “was continuously outside this state.”  

This issue is also discussed in Chapter 6 of our book, The Making of a Marty – An Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump. 

We also stated that “it is entirely possible that the time Donald Trump spent in the White House, serving his country as the President of the United States, could be used against him in New York State Supreme Court.” 

Like Trump, Weinstein also spent many years outside the State of New York. “Prosecutors charged Weinstein with multiple crimes, including rape in the third degree for an alleged assault that occurred in March 2013. Weinstein was charged in May 2018, two months after the five-year statute of limitations on that offense would have expired. Weinstein challenged the charge, arguing it fell outside the statute of limitations and as a resident of New York state the extension wouldn’t apply to him. Prosecutors used records from ‘United States Customs and Border Control’ to show that Weinstein had been out of New York for 193 days during that five-year period– more than the 68 days needed to capture the earlier conduct. The judge rejected Weinstein’s argument and allowed the charge to stand.”  

Judge Wilson’s article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

President Putin is using more than one pathway to enter Europe and undermine the West. While most of the world watches the conflict he initiated in Ukraine, the Russian government is actively pursuing a second front in a little noticed campaign in Cyprus. Although the corrupt Cypriot government ended its issuance of “golden passports” in 2020, Russian intelligence is functioning quietly there to transform this EU country into a Russian beachhead of illicit economic activity aimed at penetrating the capitalist West, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation.

Cyprus is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nor does it receive as much attention as those countries who are member states. That adds to its allure as a prime location for Russia to attempt to gain a European foothold. Last week a NATO report, cited in the European Daily Monitor, noted that Russian intelligence agents have been plotting to destroy European infrastructure across the continent to disrupt states supporting Ukraine. It further suggests that Putin’s immediate goal is to lay the framework for a future move against the security organization’s members. Hungary, in particular, is another country garnering Moscow’s attention as it opposes the Western response to Russian aggression.  

Russia is focusing its intelligence efforts on other European, non-NATO member countries in addition to Cyprus, including Austria, Malta, and Ireland. The NATO report suggests that Moscow has had success in disseminating the Russian political narrative in these states to advance its campaign against the West. The island of Cyprus is proving to be a good target for Moscow as it is an ethnically divided island that is part of the EU since 2004. Northern Cyprus, officially called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), is a de facto state that is only recognized by Turkey. The division precludes it from joining NATO. As Goble suggests, “it offers Russia troubled waters in which to fish.” Over the last 20 years, he points out, Cyprus’ challenges have opened it to a massive influx of Russian citizens, who now comprise approximately 10 percent of the island state’s population. Over 2,900 residents are Russians who entered until the “golden passport” program that allowed wealthy or well-connected Russians to move to Cyprus. It also provided them with documentation to travel freely throughout Europe!

Although less visible on the world’s radar than the war in Ukraine, Moscow is also being helped by Cyprus’ banks opposition to seizing Russian assets and its support in evading Western sanctions. Russia has placed tens of billions of US Dollars there for money laundering. It has been more than two years since a single Russian “diplomat” has been deported and, in fact, the Embassy has grown to over 300 staffers on this tiny island state of only 1.2 million people. The Russian embassy in Nicosia has advanced communications antennae on its roof and opened a consulate on the northern end of the island. Moscow’s Ambassador, Mura Zyazikov, is a lieutenant general in the FSB with no diplomatic experience.  The FSB, SVR (Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service), and GRU are actively using the island as a base of operations against NATO Member states, Israel, and other Western allies.

Moscow backs pro-Russian political parties who in turn influence Cypriot decisions on education, language, and other issues.  “Dmitry Khmelnitsky of the Dossier Center says that its findings should be of concern not only to Cyprus but to the West as a whole. Those who ignore what Moscow is doing because Cyprus does not follow the EU sanctions regime are missing something critical,” says Goble. “Cyprus does not seek to get rid of Russian agents and does not interfere with their work,”  Khmelnitsky concludes, “despite the fact that what the Kremlin is doing is so clearly visible.” This has an impact not only on the small island but on the EU, NATO, and the West in general.   

Earlier this year the Moscow Times reported that when the FBI became more interested in Russian business and oligarchs in Cyprus, at least 10 of the major Russian businesses operating there left. Despite the government of Cyprus’ vow to implement plans for new sanctions against Russia, it continues to ignore Putin’s atrocities in Ukraine and to shield the wealth of the 50,000 wealthy Russian citizens and oligarchs residing there. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay