(Former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein appears in a legal proceeding yesterday that overturned his conviction for sexual assault. He will receive a new trial with fewer accusations. Photo NewsFinal.com)

We were attempting to wade through some of the legal issues that were paraded through the messaging yesterday. Our Legal folks say we can talk about one and not directly the other. The one we not supposed to talk about are the actions of a District Attorney in New York City who is trying to convict and imprison a former Chief Executive for an expired misdemeanor offense of incorrect book-keeping.

The Legal Section recommended we stay away from the matter altogether, since the “disclaimer” on this one should be run in dark black type in a slightly different font than the rest of The Daily to demonstrate our commitment to truth and objective honesty. In this case, we are supposed to announce (in darker and different characters) that we think former Hollywood mega-producer Harvey Weinstein is a despicable jerk who probably deserved the effective life sentence he earned for sexual assault.

There is another trial in progress now about something similar, and one that has much deeper implications for the citizens of this nation and the world. We are supposed to point out that we are not licensed lawyers and make no claims as to the veracity of the opinions of other independent contractors on matters that appear to show a legal system that has abandoned “justice,” a term that has become obsolete in the punishment of opponents to those in power.

We mentioned that we do not think much of Mr. Weinstein, and have a visceral dislike for anyone who uses power and influence to commit violent acts. So, we can report back through the Legal Intern that we said it twice and offer to cross to the other side of the street should we see Mr. Weinstein walking towards us. He apparently is under the impression that he will be released from the 16-year sentence for rape due to some prosecutorial misapprehensions during the trial.

Those were significant enough that an appeals court determined that testimony about other alleged and unproven crimes were introduced to bolster the contention that Mr. Weinstein is a violent man who deserved incarceration for his remaining time on this planet. It is similar to the other one.

People with actual legal credentials point out there are differences in the two legal matters elevated to national attention. Most point out that the similarities outweigh the differences. The point of the proceedings is to assault the integrity of what we used to call “justice.” In the case of Weinstein Law, Accusations of Something Else were permitted to be introduced to the proceedings of something different, contributing to the verdict of guilt.

In the other case, the argument is about jurisdiction, authority, and a variety of novel legal theories that could alter the course of an analogous but unrelated proceeding. Here is the deal (as reported) and for which we have (no responsibility):

“A New York appeals court panel voted 4-3 to overturn the 2020 Rape conviction of Hollywood Executive Harvey Weinstein yesterday and ordered a new trial, The 72-year-old Weinstein will be moved to a prison in California where he was separately convicted of sex crimes in 2022 and sentenced to 16 years.”

Consider Harvey’s age. At 72, he might be alive in 16 years. We doubt it. You can see why we are a little confused by the situation. Mr. Weinstein will continue to be held without bond based on a conviction for something else. You may recall that back In 2017, he became the centerpiece of the global #MeToo Movement. That effort sought to expose the prevalence of sexual harassment in social behavior.

Dozens of accusations were made against him personally and provoked similar allegations against a thousand others.That is the hazard of going to trial in the midst of a social conniption like “Me Too!” even if it is quite correct.

The other trial in progress has some of the same elements but are starker in contrast to what we used to know as the Public Good. Those were decided by “elections,” held periodically. We understand that the defendant in New York is a threat to Democracy and should be imprisoned for offending the sensibilities of those who tell us they are in charge. Do we like the New York defendant?

Not particularly. We did not care for his approach to social interaction, but the idea that specific performance in a national office for the conduct of official acts could be criminalized by a local DA is quite a novelty. It is not a stand-alone legal event, since it relies on other criminal activities to demonstrate a threat to the social order, and they tell us it must be expunged by any means necessary to prevent the sort of threat to democracy that it actually represents.

That is where we get really confused, and thankfully we have no credentialed status on which to rely or be held liable. We do think that an orchestrated and integrated legal campaign across four separate cases carefully segmented by time and personality to impact an election might actually represent an attempt to impact an election.

Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin knows a little about becoming a centerpiece in a social movement. He was involved with a counterfeiter who had taken a lethal dose of prohibited drugs to prevent arrest for possession. He is still doing 30-years in the slammer. As stated at least three and possibly four times above, we are left with the idea that we are seeing some of the original arguments on the founding of our nation in dramatic replay.

We learned about some of them in the old Patriarchal and Phobic nation in which we were raised. Like, if you are going to be charged with criminal activity, you have a right to be confronted with the evidence of a crime that was committed. The matter of the New York criminal proceeding will be worked out in the highest Court in the Land presently on appeal, which we undrstand is still legal. The Weinstein matter is going to held someplace else on slightly different but equally complex legal grounds.

But we are left with the hope that Mr. Weinstein will see some sort of justice for crimes he may hve committed. We hope the guy in New York gets a similar shot at beating an expired misdemeanor offense.

Of course, we are not legal experts, so take it for what it is worth. There are all sorts of credentialed professionals who can provide a billable hourly rate for it, you know?

Copyright 2024 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com