« Off to Law, Culture and the Humanities conference... in Vegas, baby | Main | "Survivor" winner and tax cheat loser ordered back to federal prison »

March 11, 2011

"Ex-judge Camp sentenced to 30 days in prison"

The title of this post is the headline of this Atlanta Journal-Constitution article providing the outcome of a high-profile federal sentencing today.  Here are the details:

Jack Camp, the former federal judge ensnared in a scandal involving drugs and a stripper, was sentenced Friday to 30 days in prison and 400 hours of community service.

Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said he could not give a sentence of only probation because Camp had breached his oath of office. "He has disgraced his office," Hogan said. "He has denigrated the federal judiciary. He has encouraged disrespect for the rule of law."

Before being sentenced, Camp apologized for what he had done and thanked his family and friends, many of whom filled the courtroom. "I have embarrassed and humiliated my family as well as myself," Camp said. "I have embarrassed the court I have served on and I am deeply sorry for that. When I look back at the circumstances which brought me here and look at what I did, it makes me sick." Camp said that at the end of the day, "the only thing I can say is that I'm so very sorry."

As a judge, Camp often meted out harsh sentences and rarely gave breaks to defendants who presented mitigating circumstances to explain their conduct. On Friday, Hogan was asked by Camp's lawyers to grant leniency because of the ex-judge's decades-long battle with a bipolar disorder and brain damage caused by a 2000 biking accident....

Camp, 67, resigned from the U.S. District Court bench shortly before he pleaded guilty in November to federal charges -- giving the stripper, who he knew was a convicted felon, $160 to buy drugs. Camp was a senior judge at the time of his arrest. He will continue to receive a $174,000-a-year salary, as do all federal judges who retire and have the requisite years of service.

Related prior posts (which generated lots of notable comments):

March 11, 2011 at 03:29 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Ex-judge Camp sentenced to 30 days in prison":


"Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said he could not give a sentence of only probation because Camp had breached his oath of office. "He has disgraced his office," Hogan said. "He has denigrated the federal judiciary. He has encouraged disrespect for the rule of law.""

Does anyone else find this speech ironic in light of a 30-day sentence to "Judge" Camp that would never have been given to anyone else?

I've said before, the criminal justice system will never reform as long as the rich, famous, and connected continue to get sentencing breaks that the hoi poloi do not. You can add this farce to my running list from previous posts.

Posted by: Res ipsa | Mar 11, 2011 3:44:02 PM

Res ipsa, I'm with 100% on this.. What about the defendants he sentenced while under a stuper from the drugs....Don't they deserve a 2nd look at their cases....Meanwhile the king of dragons, gets a 30 day sobering up vaca.....

Terrible discrace to the profession and the USA...
Is this really what Congress intended...If it were 99% of americans, they would be up the creek...

Posted by: Josh | Mar 11, 2011 3:54:50 PM

What a joke.

Posted by: justice denied | Mar 11, 2011 3:56:17 PM

I have declined to say precisely what sentence ought to have been given here, since I do not have first hand access to all the information needed.

One does not need first hand info, however, to understand that a sentence this low is a scandal. As Res ipsa notes, no reasonable person would think the average defendant would get treatment like this.

This case is by itself a blockbuster argument for the return of mandatory sentencing guidelines, where this kind of idiosyncracy and (one has to think) discriminatory treatment cannot occur -- or, if it does, the court of appeals would have a much stronger hand than it does under Booker in dealing with it.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 11, 2011 4:52:42 PM

I'm still unclear on what charges Camp actually pled to. The problem is not a lack of mandatory sentences, which, as a number of posts on this topic have noted, plainly do exist for users of firearms in connection with drug trafficking offenses. The issue here is the sweetheart deal DOJ gave camp. No amount of mandatory sentences can overcome prosecutorial discretion exercised to let important people off light.

Posted by: Jay | Mar 11, 2011 5:02:42 PM

I am appalled. The disparity between this preferential treatment and that meted out to common defendants (including the many he surely sentenced over the years) calls the entire system into disrepute.

I do not agree that mandatory guidelines and mandatory minimums are the answer. The job of sentencing judges is to judge, not to do algebra.

However, if Judge Camp was a guidelines judge all along, I have no trouble at all with holding him to the guidelines, including all uncharged relevant conduct.

At a minimum, as AFPD said on the other thread, he should get the 5 years that any other D would have received under 924(c). And if he gets it for only one count, that's generous. Any other D who took the gun to multiple transactions would likely have received multiple counts (with 924's progressive minima).

Posted by: Def. Atty | Mar 11, 2011 5:03:02 PM

Although I think factors such as (1) his possible bipolar disorder; (2) the extent to which the conduct for which he was convicted was a bizarre aberration in the context of his life; (3) his age; and (4) the heights from which he's fallen (i.e., the fact that he also destroyed his professional career and reputation), were proper to take into consideration, the sentence does seem scandalously low. It would seem to a reasonable observer that his status as a former federal judge (up until the time of his arrest) got him the functional equivalent of a get-out-of-jail free card that most other defendants who pleaded guilty to similar conduct wouldn't have had. It doesn't inspire confidence that the system metes out evenhanded treatment.

Posted by: guest | Mar 11, 2011 5:10:41 PM

Hear hear, Jay. It was an abuse of prosecutorial discretion to offer this defendant this deal on this record of conduct. A 30-day sentence on these facts is just indefensible.

I'd feel a little better, although I am not persuaded that justice would be served, if the 400 hours of community service involved some sort of shaming punishment, as Doug initially proposed. I know this man has lost his job, esteem in the community, etc., but that happens to everyone who is convicted, and such "collateral consequences" have long been dismissed by (most) courts as outside the appropriate considerations when fashioning a criminal sentence.

Would the sentence have more teeth if it required him to, say, participate in BOP Anger Management group sessions with some of the violent defendants he has sentenced, or lead seminars on judicial ethics before an audience of his (former) peers in the judiciary, or spend the time doing something useful/helpful for the families of defendants he sentenced to long 924(c) sentences? Or perhaps, to make better use of Judge Camp's legal expertise, he should be required to write a brief (for a hypothetical appeal) defending his sentence and explaining why it was sufficient to meet the purposes of sentencing under 3553(a)? Maybe, given what I understand to be his reputation as a tough sentencing judge, the most effective punishment would be to require him to serve as a federal public defender for a period of time!

Posted by: Anon def atty | Mar 11, 2011 5:27:29 PM

Def. Atty --

"However, if Judge Camp was a guidelines judge all along, I have no trouble at all with holding him to the guidelines, including all uncharged relevant conduct."

The idea that a defendant's attitude toward the relevant conduct rule should determine whether that rule should be part of the law of sentencing is bizarre even by defense lawyer standards.

Is this a grudge match or a courtroom?

Tell me, Def. Atty, if you're defending a person who believes in torture, should torture be included in his sentence? Or should his sentence be determined by NEUTRAL rules of GENERAL application -- sometimes referred to as "law"?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 11, 2011 6:07:03 PM

Anon def atty --

"Maybe, given what I understand to be his reputation as a tough sentencing judge, the most effective punishment would be to require him to serve as a federal public defender for a period of time!"

But then there's the Eighth Amendment.......

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 11, 2011 6:10:33 PM

From knowing some people who are bi-polar, I find it strange that his condition did not exhibit itself much sooner.

Regardless, his sentence reflects very poorly on those who administer justice.

Posted by: Robert | Mar 11, 2011 7:33:42 PM

This prosecutor's office should be ashamed of itself. The adversary process was simply not present.

Posted by: Matt | Mar 11, 2011 8:00:35 PM


There is no Eighth Amendment for anybody, anywhere, except Judge Camp.

Posted by: albeed | Mar 11, 2011 8:37:40 PM

Somethings wrong...If he was so impaired from whatever, why didn't his team take action....You needn't be a rocket scientist to tell he got preferential treatment on this deal...Either he works with total zeros (which I doubt), or he wasn't that bad and they're letting walk....agree he was a federal judge.. But he sentenced defendents while he had a drug problem.....

What happened with the mandatory minimum of 5 yrs....His guideline range of 97-121 months.

I would like to read the judges statement of reason on how he varied down, what
95% reduction in his sentence...Also wait and see if the Circuit court rejects
this as too far from the heartland.....

Bill I don't think the comments were having a grudge match with the result...You have to admit, who else would get the MM and range basically dropped and a token of a sentence... He knew the consequences.... All of those people that he gave guidelines sentences too, and he ends up with enough time to get him somewhat sober, basically...This is what honks people off...3 yrs would be a stiff sentence for him, and would be justified..

Posted by: Josh | Mar 11, 2011 8:48:03 PM

The problem is Judge Camp's real crime, that of being a hypocrite, can not be properly punished by the judicial system.
That said, I was at least hoping for some community service where he would have to spend time with those he sentenced.

Posted by: a | Mar 11, 2011 9:14:13 PM

"He has denigrated the federal judiciary. He has encouraged disrespect for the rule of law."

Wow. I bet there are a lot of judges this might apply to, and they haven't even committed crimes.

Posted by: C.E. | Mar 11, 2011 11:28:28 PM

I have had enough!

Followers of this Blog:

This sentencing ABSOLUTELY demonstrates that Justice does NOT exist in the federal sentencing system (no matter what Defense Lawyers or Apologists say).

Do you get it? Bill and Kent, (with Doug's assistance), don't give a d__n about justice. They could not spell Mercy if you spotted them the ME_CY. I am extremely glad that Doug is in LV, if you commit a crime in Vegas and vote for Harry Reid, (aka, union pimp) you get extra chips, and LE looks the other way. They are the new high order of cardinals debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin. As SC would say, they have fallen prey to the vile feminist lawyer and their male running dogs!

Hawaii in winters? I hope that is inherited wealth and not because of wealth stolen by the DOJ, sucked out of real hard working Americans?

And these people are teaching future pencil sellers and newspaper window washers on street corners?

Yes Bill, I want a solvent country. SS and Medicare are the largest Parts of the Budget. But..., People willingly paid into this because they thought of it as old age insurance for themselves.

If you repay what I contributed over 35 years at 2% interest, I would absolve the governemnt from all future SS Benefits and Healthcare Obligations.

Posted by: albeed | Mar 11, 2011 11:30:48 PM

I hope Judge Camp is placed in solitary confinement for his 30 day sentence. The BOP has to protect him from other prisoners that might take pleasure in tormenting a former hard-sentencing Federal Judge. Plus it would serve his ass right.

Posted by: mike | Mar 12, 2011 9:04:43 AM

a --

"The problem is Judge Camp's real crime, that of being a hypocrite, can not be properly punished by the judicial system."

I'm glad you brought up hypocrisy, because it suffuses this thread.

Where's all the talk about compassion? I see boatloads of it when the discussion is about sentencing killers, child molesters, rapists, meth dealers, stick-up artists and on and on, but not a word about it in sentencing this liar and hoodlum in a black robe.

Oh, he's plenty bad, you bet. But worse than a killer? A child molester?

Do tell.

Of course even if he were, it would make no difference. To the contrary, it would call for a REDOUBLING of compassion, since compassion is most needed for those whose crimes are most despicable. No?

But instead of the ususal defense bar braying about compassion, what's showing up on this thread is a lusty appetite for the opposite -- vengeance.

My, my. The defense bar is all for forgiveness and enlightenment -- except when dealing with a judge who ruled mostly in favor of the government. Then it's no holds barred.

So now we get the real story. It's not about compassion as a human virtue unto itself. It's about compassion as code for "let my client off easy." It has nothing to do with principle, though that's how it's advertised (and indignantly advertised, at that).

Because it's just a code of convenience, it can be cancelled without notice, as it has been on this thread, where the usually pious liberal crowd can't contain its hate.

My goodness.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 12, 2011 10:10:41 AM

be nice bill. LOL i've stayed out of this one up to now since he's one of the in people. Figured i'd wait till it was over to see what happned. Well seems the govt has upheld my lowest espectations.!

Here we have someone who has there to uphold the law and to know it from top to bottom who betrayed that trust and oath of office who using a weak medical excuse and a so-called perfect life.

pity nobody who ever faced him got the same consideration.

all this does is prove what everyone has been saying about the state of the american INJUSTICE system for years.

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 12, 2011 12:07:36 PM

Once again, like clockwork, Mr. Bill builds a straw man and ruthlessly beats him down. This time he claims the fundamental issue is compassion.

Talkleft says the judge found no felony.

Further, this sentence is probably no different that what a pro-government snitch would get in similar circumstances, so it is not that outlandish.

Posted by: Anonnie | Mar 12, 2011 12:08:43 PM

This is a Democratic Party, partisan political witch hunt, using lawyer gotcha mala prohibita without Daubert grade validation. Hypocrite? Yes. Sensation seeking old fool, with horrible taste in women? Yes. Criminal? No, only to the Democrat Party witch hunters.

I believe it should become standard of due care for defense attorneys to demand total discovery on the computers and papers of the prosecutor, to seek an improper motive, and on those of the awful, buffoon on the bench to seek bias. Why even a judge did not demand this measure is a measure of the rent seeking of the lawyer. If you deter the vile feminist lawyer prosecution and the buffoon on the bench from these witch hunts against the productive male, the defense bar loses its jobs. Not even a sophisticated lawyer-judge-defendant will demand that. The criminal cult indoctrination is that good.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 12, 2011 12:43:20 PM

Anonnie --

After liberals and defense-oriented types have spent a day lambasting the sentence as an outrage (e.g., "calls the entire system into disrepute," (Def. Atty); "Terrible disgrace to the profession and the USA..." (Josh); a "sweetheart deal," (Jay); "just indefensible" (anon def atty); a "joke," (justice denied)), I noted that the usual demand for compassion has disappeared and has been replaced by an attitude of vengeance if not outright hate.

When I observed what could not helped being observed, to wit, that this is laughably hypocritical behavior, you now attempt to bail out the Left by reversing field and discovering that the sentence "is not that outlandish."

Translation: For the Left, when caught with your hypocrisy pants down, the best solution is to start lying about the pants.

Anonnie, I thank you for your post.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 12, 2011 1:05:08 PM

There is good intellectual, moral, and policy support for a male direct action group taking the fight directly to the oppressor. Nothing happened after Martin Luther King marched peacefully for years. All actions followed Stokely Carmichael's getting out of his car after being driven off the road, and pointing a shot gun at the KKK members getting out of theirs, cocking it. These registered Democrats got back in their cars, and Stokely Carmichael was not found dead in a ditch. The biggest results followed the ghetto riots. That is the only language that moves the lawyer.

The KKK was a lawyer founded, directed, and immunized terror branch of the Democrat Party, the Al Aqsa Brigade of the Democratic Party. They are up to their standard methods of oppression again. Time for a Stokely Carmichael, not a Martin Luther King. It is an absolute mystery to me why Jews and Blacks continue to vote for this sponsor of white trash terrorist organizations.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 12, 2011 3:09:54 PM

Mr. Otis' earlier post "Tell me, Def. Atty, if you're defending a person who believes in torture, should torture be included in his sentence? Or should his sentence be determined by NEUTRAL rules of GENERAL application -- sometimes referred to as "law"? "

Neutral? General? His sentence falls into that category? Really? Who's law? The law for the royalty or the law for the common man?

Posted by: anon | Mar 12, 2011 6:25:35 PM

anon --

Def Atty didn't answer the question and you don't either, so I'll ask it again:

If you're defending a person who believes in torture, should torture be included in his sentence?

The background for asking this question was Def Atty's view that, because Camp was a "guidelines judge all along," he should be held to the guidelines' relevant conduct and uncharged conduct rules, whether or not those rules are just or legally correct.

The suggestion seems to be that if a defendant holds a perverse belief, that belief should guide his sentencing whether or not it is correct under the law.

So, again, the question is, if you're defending a person who believes in torture, should torture be included in his sentence?

What's your answer?

P.S. The more general background for the question is that it's a comedy to see those who work day in and day out to secure extra leniency for their client -- whether or not exactly deserved -- are overcome with outrage now that extra, undeserved leniency has been given to someone else's client.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 12, 2011 6:54:23 PM

Your question has nothing to do with this case.
Common ordinary people get no breaks. Perhaps you see it as a comedy to see their lives ruined and their families devasted by a corrupt system.
It isn't that undeserved leniency has been given to someone else's client, but that undeserved leniency has been given to a wealthy, well connected, JUDGE.
Poor people get the shaft and the royalty get the breaks in Amerika.

Posted by: anon | Mar 12, 2011 10:53:58 PM

anon --

"Your question has nothing to do with this case."

It has plenty to do with this case and the complaining that's going on about this case, as I fully explain in the passages you pretend not to see.

The reason you refuse to answer the question is that you don't have an answer. Instead of admitting this, you petulantly re-hash the same talking points you listed before.

As I said, and you don't refute, the defense bar fights every single day for undeserved leniency for their clients, offering "reasons" from extreme wealth ("he's been a real contributor to the community") to extreme poverty ("he's never had a chance") -- and everything in between.

Now that one of these Hail Mary pitches for undeserved leniency worked, you'd think they'd be happy. But nooooooooooooo. They're furious.

In a way I should have expected this. Being furious is part of the whole schtik, the better to be motivated to continue the "America Stinks" campaign. Being perpetually indignant really helps out with that. So here it is again -- including, quite obviously, in your post.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 13, 2011 10:29:46 AM

Speaking of pretending not to see..........
I guess if you have no worries about retirement and one home in a warm climate and another close to the capital.....why worry about the plebians. Protect the Praetorian Guard at all costs, even if it means perverting the justice system.
I know you only see what you want but the facts support the premise that the American Justice System serves only the white wealthy upper class.
One in every 8 black males are in prison.
It is fun and a good exercise to debate issues on posts like this, but something you need to remember, an old saying "To thine own self be true." Don't believe your own half truths.

Posted by: anon | Mar 13, 2011 11:54:10 AM

anon --

"I guess if you have no worries about retirement and one home in a warm climate and another close to the capital....."

And I guess if you have no answer to the issue at hand, that being the utter disappearance of the previously ubiquitous "compassion" from the defense bar's discussion of sentencing, the best strategy is............to talk about where the opposing commenter lives!

Wow! That's really STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE, anon! But I'll give you credit. Even though it's just ad hominem hash, it's more of an answer than your allies have attempted.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 13, 2011 3:52:13 PM

Hey, thanks for the compliment.
Your question? I think you answered it yourself.
" If you're defending a person who believes in torture, should torture be included in his sentence?"
You want Neutral Rules of General Application as long as it is a wealthy, white JUDGE. The rest of us would like those Neutral Rules of General Application spread around a little bit.
Or are you ignoring my facts???????
Come on now, step up to the plate.

Posted by: anon | Mar 13, 2011 4:47:24 PM

You gave away the game with your reference (Mar 12, 2011 10:53:58 PM) to "Amerika." It's disheartening that the only lefty who's even slightly willing to engage on this issue is an overtly anti-American headcase -- and one who calls on others to "step up to the plate" while cowering behind the veil of anonimity.

Have fun at your next Amerika Stinks rally, anon.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 13, 2011 7:22:17 PM

To those waiting for Circuit Court review, I think you will be waiting quite a while -- I believe the prosecutors' requested sentence *was* 30 days, so I doubt the United States is going to appeal.

Bill, plenty of defense types are outraged/upset when violent criminals (especially rapists) are sentenced too leniently. In fact, although I don't have the numbers in front of me, I am continually upset when I see the average sentence for rape (which hovered at like 7 years for a while, although it may be higher now, for a crime that often destroys the victim's life). I am even more upset when I see people going to jail for much longer than that for what I view as relatively minor crimes of drug possession, or even dealing (not that all these crimes are minor, but the circumstances vary, while the sentences often do not).

It is true, I assume, that most defense types think that the typical violent crime sentences are too long. But that does not mean that they think sentences for violent crime should not be long/serious. For example, when a juvenile who commits an armed burglary is sentenced to life without parole (despite the State's rec of like 4 years), I don't think it requires a damnable excess of compassion to say that the kid should at least have another chance to show that he can reform and grow up in prison (as hard as that can be). In other words, there is an intermediate position between saying Terrance Graham should have been given a pat on the head and a hug and saying he should rot in prison until he is dead.

Similarly, just because people think that 10, 20, and 30 year mandatory sentences for some drug or gun crimes, or a 50 years/life sentence for robbery or burglary, are in many circumstances way too harsh, doesn't mean those same people think the defendants should be given 30 days, or a year, or probation, in those cases. Often I look at something like a 20-year federal sentence and think, "wouldn't 7 or 8 years accomplish the same thing?" Seven or eight years away from your family and society is a terribly serious thing, but our frame of reference is so skewed at this point that we are encouraged to view it as a minor inconvenience to the defendant and a sell-out to the bleeding hearts.

In short, most sensible defense types, if ask to provide general reform proposals, would obviously at this point reduce the average sentence, but not, I think, to the degree you are suggesting. It is more about bringing the pendulum back from the edge a bit. Of course, I understand that the phrase "sensible defense type" may not compute in your worldview. We do exist though :)

Posted by: Observer | Mar 14, 2011 10:42:46 AM

oops, meant to strike that "(especially rapists)", since I addressed rape sentencing in the next sentence...

Posted by: Observer | Mar 14, 2011 10:43:36 AM

Observer --

"I understand that the phrase 'sensible defense type' may not compute in your worldview. We do exist though."

Any number of attorneys (and friends) I mentored early in their careers at the USAO are sensible defense types. I just wish more such types would show up on this board. If they did, I would find myself remanded less frequently to converstations with people referring to "Amerika."

On this particular thread, I was blown away by the fury directed at Camp's sentencing outcome by defense lawyers who, in virtually every other context in which I have seen them write, implore the court for compassion, including compassion for people vastly worse than the execrable Judge Camp. The hypocrisy of routinely demanding outsized leniency -- and then blowing your stack when it actually shows up -- was astounding.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 14, 2011 3:05:21 PM

Observer: Curious about the conduct of defense lawyers in Cali. They offer the location of the body of the little girl killed by a stranger for his sexual pleasure. They want the death penalty off the table. Offer declined. They put on a full court press at trial for the alternative explanation that the parents killed the girl and grill them on cross examination. Exemplars of zealous advocacy?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 15, 2011 2:36:34 AM

This looks like a good time to point out something that would otherwise not be believed. Camp's episode is proof of something. The Dixie Mafia is not run from strip clubs and cheap casinos. It is not even run from New Orlenas or Hot Springs. It is run from courthouses, small ones, from Raliegh to Dallas, by lawyers and powerful business men who back "manageable" judges, and oher corrupt politicians, cops, and public officials. This is the same pool of judges from which Federal judges are selected. Georgia is corruption central. Atlanta is sewer, and has been for generations. The biggest mobsters in Georgia are lawyers who sit on the front pews of some of the biggest main stream churches. Camp is guilty, but he was set up by some very slick sob's. Their favorite tool is women, and their favorite leverage for fixing cases is extortion. But, the FBI set up the judge; the good guys won. Not true. The original intent here was to get leverage on the judge and put him in someone's pocket. But, another game the up and coming lawyers and some political cops and FBI play is making room for someone who is on their team. There are no good guys in this game. Watch who is appointed to replace the judge. Trace his (or her) history and connections. You will find the rot of corruption and old political ties. Georgia's judiciary, State and Federal, at both the trial and appellate levels, could use some good old fashioned espionage along the same lines as the "Wrinked Robes" investigations in Lousiana and up in Chicago. The matter is far, far worse than is easily believeable. There are appontements and elections of judges that put the very worst amongst us on the bench, not in spite of their rot and corruption, but because of it. That is how the game is played. God help us, look at many of the memebers of our State appellate courts. Why and how were they put there. The truth would make your skin crawl. The one thing Judge Camp could do to get his self respect back is start ratting out the behind the scenes mobsters who have a death grip on members of Georgia's judiciary. We should fire them all, and create a bench of Judges who are apponted by the House and Senate and then finally approved or not by the Governor. No more elections. None. Whatsmore, all judges should ride a state wide circuit, and never spend more than 12 months in any one judicial cirucuit before transfer, at least not until a State grand jury has investigated the depth and breadth of judicial corruption in Georgia. It is that bad. Camp is just the tip of a huge iceberg, and like him, most of the people that belong in Federal prison are the most prominent people in your town. Every other person sitting on the front pew at Easter, doing whatever is necessary to get what they want, and to keep what they have.

Posted by: RebelWithaCause | Apr 28, 2011 12:58:54 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB