The Tale of Two Show Trials: Occupy defendants Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, & Alex Chow vs Occupy Wall Street Protester Cecily McMillan. A comment by Almost Marx

Compare Judge Wally Yeung’ comments on the Wong, Law and Chow case :

Judge Wally Yeung said the case was the “best example” of an “unhealthy trend” in which some youngsters had “casually destroyed public order” in the name of their ideals.

To the comments of Judge Ronald Zweibel’s comments on the Cicely McMillian case:

“A civilized society must not allow an assault to be permitted under the guise of civil disobedience,” he said. “The jury rejected the defendant’s version of events.”

Mr. Wong’s statement:

“I still believe that time is on our side and one day Hong Kong will be a place where we can determine our future,” he told activists outside the court, as some broke into tears while others hugged each other.

“If the ones who are sent to prison don’t give up, I believe there’s no reason for anyone not in prison to give up or step backwards. Keep up the fight, we love Hong Kong.”

Ms. McMillian’s statement:

“Whether personal or political, violence is not permitted. This being a law that I live by, I can say with certainty that I am innocent of the crime I have been convicted of,” McMillan said. “I cannot confess to a crime that I did not commit. I cannot throw away my dignity in return for my freedom.”

Here is further attack on Ms.  McMillian’s credibility by Assistant District Attorney Shanda Strain as reported in The Huffington Post:

Assistant District Attorney Shanda Strain echoed that statement on Monday, telling Zweibel before his sentence that McMillan’s testimony about having her breast grabbed was “perjury” and “a fabrication clearly designed to manipulate the system and once again to assault Officer Bovell, although this time to assault his character.”

Would that this newspaper, The Financial Times, had exercised the same concern for Occupy Wall Street Protester Cecily McMillan Show Trial, as they have for Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, & Alex Chow Show Trial!

The reader need only compare Ms. McMillian’s Show Trial,  with the removal of Judge Judge Scheindlin, from the ‘Stop and Frisk’ case. Her comparison of Kelly and Bloomberg as  ‘“looking like two angry white men.” is the perfect rejoinder to Bloomberg’s lawlessness interference in that ‘Stop and Frisk’ case! Judicial corruption rules American Jurisprudence!

For weeks and months, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin had been excoriated by New York City’s highest public officials for her ruling in 2013 that the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy had violated the rights of minorities. At the time, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said, in essence, that he hoped the ruling would not take effect while he was still in office, because he did not want to be “responsible for a lot of people dying.”

The attacks on Judge Scheindlin only intensified after a federal appeals panel stayed her ruling, criticized her actions in the case and removed her from continuing to oversee it.

But last week, as Judge Scheindlin prepared to step down after nearly 22 years as a federal district judge in Manhattan, she offered her first extensive interviews about the case and her tenure, with a particularly blunt response to the criticism.

She would never forget, she said, seeing a front-page photograph in a newspaper the day after she released her ruling, showing Mr. Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, as she put it, “looking like two angry white men.”

“They seemed out of touch with the issues that the communities cared about,” Judge Scheindlin said. “They didn’t seem to understand the impact of these policies on real people and real neighborhoods and real communities and the detrimental impact it was having, even on policing. And that’s the point. They didn’t seem to get it. It was all about fear — New York would blow up.”

Almost Marx

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.