Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Viktor Bout Asks The Judge Not To Sentence

Viktor Bout Asks The Judge Not To Sentence

Ratings: (0)|Views: 128 |Likes:
Published by George Mapp

More info:

Published by: George Mapp on Mar 28, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





80-02 Kew Gardens Rd., # 902, Kew Gardens, N.Y. 11415
Attorney at Law 
The Honorable Shira A. ScheindlinUnited States District JudgeSouthern District of New York United States Courthouse500 Pearl Street New York. New York 10007
 Tel: (718) 268-9400:Fax: (718) 268-94
March 27, 2012Re:United States v. Victor Bout08-Cr-365 (SAS)Dear Judge Scheindlin:This letter is submitted in connection with the upcoming sentencing of Mr. Bout nowscheduled for March 28, 2012.
Relief Sought
We ask this Court to decline to sentence Viktor Bout and thereby become an unwilling party in hiswrongful prosecution for the reason, expressed by the Supreme Court in Sorrells v. United States ,287 U.S. 435 (1932) that:We are unable to conclude that it was the intention of theCongress in enacting [these] statute[s] that its processes of detectionand enforcement should be abused by the instigation bygovernment officials of an act on the part of persons otherwiseinnocent in order to lure them to its commission and to punish them.And, that the application of the statutes upon which Bout was prosecuted:“in the circumstances under consideration is foreign to [their] purpose;that such an application is so shocking to the sense of justice that ...it is the duty of the court to stop the prosecution in the interest of the government itself, to protect it from the illegal conduct of itsofficers and to preserve the purity of its courts.”
In this country, we regard the use of official power to oppress or intimidate private individuals as a despicable abuse of authority entirely alien to our system of agovernment of laws. The architects of our Constitution meticulously erected a system of separated powers, and checks and balances, precisely in order to inhibit the exercise of tyrannical power by government officials. Prosecutorial power is rigidly constrainedand judicially supervised so that government may not accuse private persons of crimesor investigate them without good cause. And, good cause certainly does not includevindictiveness, spite, vengeance fomented by the pique of a governmental executivewho feels personally or politically embarrassed no matter the loftiness of his position.The very notion that officials of the State Department or the Department of Defense or even the White House can prevail upon the Justice Department to pursue and prosecute an individual for that individual’s having embarrassed them or exposed them tonegative political fallout or for the purpose of deflecting attention from their unseemlyrelationship with that individual is anathema to our justice system. This type of vindictive conduct is corrosive not only of individual rights but casts doubt on thefundamental premise that we are a nation of laws rather than of men and cannot becountenanced. As it has been stated:[T]he most dangerous power of the prosecutor [is] that hewill pick people that he thinks he should get,rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. Withthe law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least atechnical violation of some acton the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not aquestion of discovering the commission of a crime andthen looking for the man who has committed it, it is aquestion of picking the man and then searching thelaw books, or putting investigators to work, to pinsome offense on him. It is in this realm -- in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group ounpopular persons and then looks for an offense, thatthe greatestdanger of abuse of prosecuting power lies.It is herethat law enforcement becomes personal, andthe real crime becomes that of being unpopular withthe predominant or governing group, being attachedto the wrong political views or being personallyobnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
Morrison v. Olsen, et al., 487 U.S. 654, 728 (1988)(Scalia, J., Dissenting) (quotingthen-Attorney General Robert Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, Address Delivered at theSecond Annual Conference of United States Attorneys (April 1, 1940)).The concept of fairness embodied in the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee isviolated by government action that is fundamentally unfair or shocking to our traditionalsense of justice, See Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 246(1960), or conduct that is ‘so outrageous’ that common notions of fairness and decencywould be offended were judicial process invoked to obtain a conviction against theaccused. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973).” Schmidt v. UnitedStates, 105F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997). The Second Circuit, as have other Circuits, hasrepeatedly acknowledged that a claim seeking dismissal for outrageous governmentalconduct not only exists but could, in principle, prevail. See, e.g., United States v.Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir.1997); United States v. Ascenscio, 873 F.2d 639,640 (2D Cir. 1989); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F. 2d 1093, 1098 (2d Cir. 1980)As far as we have been able to determine, the particularly odious governmentalconduct here is
sui generis
, never have been addressed by our courts. But, by anymeasuring standard the targeting of an individual by the Executive without any lawenforcement or security justification, the relentless pursuit of that individual by agovernmental law enforcement agency intent, before any investigation or accusation,upon bringing that person down is, in itself, outrageous governmental conduct. And, theconviction of that person by means of crucial perjured testimony from a governmentcooperator and paid for bounty hunters, the falsity of which must have been apparent tothe DEA agents and the prosecutors, only adds to the egregiousness. The matter of United States v. Viktor Bout is, in my respectful opinion before This Court and theUnited States Federal Bar, is so corrosive precisely because it took place in the UnitedStates, the uncontested symbol of democracy, freedom and justice. We exemplify the promise of the future for the world. Politically and physically we struggle against‘backward’ countries dominated by authoritarian regimes that prosecute based uponcolor, creed, religion, politics and/or vindictiveness.The targeting of Viktor Bout putting him “in the cross-hairs,” of a plandesigned to deprive him of his liberty and, without justification, prosecute him in aUnited States courtroom, for a non-crime concocted by agents of the United Statesgovernment for that very purpose; was initiated by the National Security Agency or theWhite House and carried out by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, for  purely political reasons. I respectfully suggest, it is in the best interest of our nationand the developing world to reexamine the matter of United Sates v. Viktor Bout. So pitiful was our country’s case against him that based upon the evidence he shouldhave been acquitted. But, as this letter will attempt demonstrate, Bout, an innocentman, was destined to be crushed by lies, not made known conspiracies and prejudice before an American Jury. (We do not intend to suggest that Viktor Bout is an angel.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->