Tax Court Pleading Template: Fill & Download for Free

A lot of laws are old and outdated. What’s one law you think needs to be changed or added?There is one law I can think of.I was pulled over for a traffic ticket.When you get pulled over, they always ask for three things.Drivers licenseRegistrationProof of Financial Responsibilities (aka Car insurance card)The CA Highway patrol asked me for all three things but on the Registration, I had a copied one and not the original. He demanded the “original” not the copy. I said you don’t need the original. We went back and forth like this 3 times. Then, His “smart-ass” response was, “I’ll just write you a ticket for that also”. I said, “fine do it.”He pulled me over for crossing the double yellow lines, into the carpool HOV lane. I had another passenger so we met the criteria for 2 or more people plus my car was a brand new 2018 Nissan LEAF EV which was allowed in the carpool lane even with 1 person because it’s an EV.Anyway, Well he walked back to his CHP motorcycle and was there for the longest time searching for the code in his CVC (California Vehicle Code) book to write me up. He couldn’t find it so when he came back I only received the ticket for crossing the two double lines.Well, I have a J.D. law degree and one of my skills is to help people fight traffic tickets.So I wrote up my complaint. My argument was as follows.See LA is in Cal-Trans District 7. San Francisco is in Cal-trans District 11. Orange County (OC) is in Cal-trans District 12.In San Fran and OC Cal-Trans permits you to go in and out of the carpool HOV lane anywhere. In LA you can only enter / exit at the broken lines, not the solid double lines.My argument was I had just left OC and entered LA and there was no marker to show where each county line ended and was delineated. Thus I was free to enter the carpool lane since I believed I was still in OC territory. I also said I had a 2nd passenger, my 15-year-old son, AND my car was an approved EV that could travel in the carpool HOV lane even if I was by myself.The traffic court bought my argument and the ticket was dismissed.==============================================Okay here’s the tricky part on where the law is “outdated” and should be removed.It was the part where he insisted I had to have the original registration in the car, in my car instead of a copy.I researched and showed the court that that law was invented in the days “BEFORE” or “PRIOR” to computers in police units and “BEFORE” or “PRIOR” to they had CB radios in police units and before they had copiers or XEROX copy machines.So, back then the police had to see an ORIGINAL registration.My argument to the court was this COP / CA HIGHWAY PATROL was corrupt and wanted to write me a BOGUS ticket on top of the carpool lane violation for not having ORIGINAL registration in my car.I stated to the court that my car had not one, not two, but THREE car video cameras that caught everything he did and everything he said. I had TWO video cameras facing forward, and ONE facing the rear.So my video cameras caught him walk back, get his VC Vehicle codebook and look through it for a good 10–12 minutes before he gave up and never wrote me for the 2nd ticket infraction.My video camera’s audio also caught him lying and saying the ORIGINAL registration was required and not a copy.Years back I had taken a Traffic school class, and it was being taught by a who else? A California Highway Patrol officer. He taught classes to make extra side money.And he taught us, NEVER, NEVER EVER put the original registration in your car. Just make a copy.The reason is “if your car gets towed”. You need the ORIGINAL Registration to get your car out of the Tow Yard or Storage yard. THEY or THAT TOW Facility will “not” take a copy of the Registration only the Original.So now whenever I renew my tags and my wife’s, I always put the tag on the car license plates, then make a photocopy of the registration and put the copy in our 3 cars.I told the court all this.Then I further told the court that back in the day they didn’t have copiers, CB radios, and car or motorcycle computers.PLUS, PLUS, PLUS, he could CLEARLY SEE, that my car was BRAND SPANKING NEW, NEW, NEW. I just just bought the car on March 10th of 2018. It was a 2018 NISSAN LEAF EV. I got the ticket in April of 2018. The very next month.So he (the CHP) COULD clearly see my tags were brand new, then why would he even need to see my registration? Except to harass me and give me a hard time.Furthermore, he could have any time called it in to dispatch to verify it.Note: Also in California, we have had something called TBWD; that’s Trial-By-Written-Declaration; that means you write up your arguments (aka type it up on a computer) as a Trial Pleading or a Brief; albiet they call it your “Declaration” and submit your “verbal arguments on paper”.That’s what I did; that’s what I do for the people I help with traffic tickets. Here’s another Quora answer I gave on how-to-do-that on Trial type Pleading template or format paper available in Microsoft Word or Word Perfect.Stanley Hutchinson's answer to I got a ticket for going 45 mph in a 35 mph when the speed limit was just about to change to 45 mph. Should I just pay the fine or take it to court?Also here is an actual excerpt from my TBWD on this case that I submitted to the court; with all pertinent identifiers removed. Enjoy! I copied and pasted it so all the Indentations are messed up. But read it for the Content. I put a lot of time into these TBWD.“SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF LOS ANGELESEL MONTE COURTHOUSE11234 VALLEY BLVD.EL MONTE, CA 91731RE: Citation # HQxxxxDefendant: John Doe | Case: Citation #HQxxxx1vs. California Highway Patrol (CRANE #20988) (name illegible on citation) || Motion for Subpoena: CR-125/JV-525| Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum (order to attend court or| provide documents (Facts not in evidence)| Motion for Pitchess SB1421| Motion to Compel an answer| Motion to Dismiss| Motion to Impeach for Perjury (CA PC141)DECLARATION OF JOHN DOEI, John Doe, declare as follows:1. I am the Defendant in this above-entitled matter. I makeThis declaration in support of my contention that I was wrongfully cited for VC21655. I have personal knowledge of the facts of the matters stated herein.On said day and date of the said citation, 1:05 pm Wednesday 04-14-18. I was wrongfully ticketed by CA Highway Patrol, where this corrupt California Highway patrol officer CRANE (name illegible on citation) cited the driver of the vehicle under VC21655.MOTION FOR SUBPOENA of FACTS to be Entered into Evidence (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)Under the 5th Amendment, I am not under any duty to testify nor provide any neither culpable nor exculpable evidence for the prosecution for this “Strict Liability” citation.I am “Presumed Not Guilty”. Motion to dismiss the ticket is entered.The prosecution has the burden of proof and the prosecution must meet this burden beyond a “reasonable doubt”, not me. I have the right to confront my accuser (Crane) and examined under Direct examination or cross-examined. (Exhibit A. Attachment form CR-125/JV-525.)CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE LAWCA EVIDENCE CODE 115. Except where otherwise provided by law the burden of proof shall be by the preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Here the accuser is the CA State Government witness California Highway Patrol officer Crane (Crane). Motion for Production and subpoena are entered (supra.)(infra.). (EXHIBIT A. Attachment form CR-125/JV-525.)CALIFORNIA CAL TRABS DISTRICTS 12 Orange County and DISTRICTS 4 Alameda Counties HOV rulesCalifornia Highway Patrol’s ARE aware or should be aware that Caltrans Tran Districts 4 and 12 permit ingress and egress from the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) aka Carpool lanes at any point. EXHIBIT B (copy of citation)2003 California Vehicle Code (CVC) Visit the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website, see Appendix A-7 and A-8: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm. Most of the HOV related vehicle code sections are located in Division 11 of the CVC.♦ Section 21460 Double Lines♦ Section 21654 Slow-Moving Vehicles♦ Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles♦ Section 21655.3 Permanent High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes♦ Section 21655.5 Exclusive- or Preferential- Use Lane for High-OccupancyVehicles♦ Section 21655.5(b) Mass Transit and Para Transit Vehicles may use HOV lanes regardless of occupancy♦ Section 21655.6 Approval of Joint Transportation Planning Agency or CTC♦ Section 21655.7 Use of Highway: Public Mass Transit Guideway♦ Section 21655.8(a) Entering or Exiting Preferential- Use Lanes♦ Section 21655.9 HOV Lanes: Use by Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles♦ Section 21714 Three-Wheeled Vehicles: Operation in HOV Lanes♦ Section 22364 Lane Speed Limits♦ Section 22406 Maximum Speed for Designated VehiclesUNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – 14th AMENDMENTUnder the 14th Amendment Right to Due Process and Right of Confrontation. A defendant has no duty to testify, nor any duty to provide Exculpatory evidence where there is a presumption of a negative. That negative is a presumption of ‘not guilty’.Also, under the 14th amendment, I have a right to confront any accuser herein Government witness(s) and demand proof and evidence to meet the burden of proof of what evidence the Government witness has against the defendant.Where there is a failure to provide such evidence to corroborate the allegations by the Government witness a motion to dismiss must be granted by the court for lack of evidence to prosecute. That Motion to dismiss is hereby entered in the interest of justice where the California Highway Patrol office fails to provide the requested motion for production underCR-125/JV-525 Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum (order to attend court or provide documents (Facts not in evidence) as ordered by the Subpoena.)In the interest of justice Motion to Dismiss is hereby entered.QUESTIONS FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERVC 21655The definition of law enforcement includes VC21655–Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation or local authorities to designate specific lanes for vehicles required to drive at reduced speeds. Requires vehicles driving at reduced speeds to use the farthest right lanes.My vehicle is a 2018 Nissan LEAF Electric Vehicle (EV) not a hybrid, But rather a FULL EV. Thus I am permitted to travel in the HOV lane. Furthermore, on that date, I had a passenger in the front seat of my vehicle making my car “ELIGIBLE” to be in the HOV lane. This evidence is self-evident on the citation itself as it lists the Year, Make, and Model of my Nissan LEAF EV.A complaint was also filed with CA Highway Patrol HQ in Sacramento vs. CRANE. (EXHIBIT D) for this violation.MOTION TO IMPEACH FOR PERJURY (CA PC141)Motion for CRANE to be Impeached and charged with Perjury under PC141.AB 1909, Lopez. Falsifying evidence. Approved by Governor on September 30, 2016. Filed with Secretary of state on September 30, 2016.SECTION 1. Section 141 of the Penal Code is amended to read:141 (b) A peace officer who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, or video recording will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or five years in the state prison.Submitting a traffic citation for prosecution without evidence and without corroborating evidence satisfies this statute signed into law by Governor Brown on September 30th, 2016, and filed with the Secretary of State effective immediately on the same said date September 30th, 2016.On the said date of this citation Defendant, Doe was traveling from Orange County via SR57 freeway HOV lane northbound and Transitioned to SR60 freeway HOV lane Westbound. The defendant was traveling in an Eligible EV vehicle and had a passenger THUS was qualified to enter the SR60 HOV westbound.Orange county district 12 permits entry of HOV lanes “anywhere”. And there is no marker to show where the Orange county line and Los Angeles County line separate.Defendant Doe was wrongfully cited.While stopped Defendant produced:1. A current and valid CA DL# Cxxxxxxx2. A current and valid Registration on a brand new 2018 Nissan LEAF EV. (only 1 month old from the date of purchase)3. A current and valid “proof of financial responsibility” aka “proof of insurance” via 21st Century insurances.4. These are ‘not’ disputed facts.However, corrupt CHP patrolman CRANE, refused to accept the Current and valid registration saying it was a copy, and not an original and he was going to issue me a citation for not having the original IN ADDITION to the VC21655.I verbally disputed that CRANE WAS INCORRECT. The law only requires valid registration. It does not specify the original or a copy.FACTS:FACTS: Defendant was informed by another CHP that the Original Registration should never be kept with the car.FACTS: There is no law that requires the Original Registration should be kept with the car.REASON: If and where the vehicle ever gets “towed” the tow yard will require the “original registration” to get the vehicle out of impound.Vehicle License FeesAn annual license fee is "imposed for the privilege of operating [a vehicle] upon the public highways in this state...." (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 10751.)[6] The amount of this fee "shall be a sum equal to 2 percent of the market value of the vehicle as determined by the [DMV]." (§ 10752.)As originally enacted in the year 1941, section 10753 directed the DMV annually to "compile and publish a list showing the market values... of each class 768*768 of the vehicle subject to the license fee...." (Stats. 1941, ch. 40, § 1, pp. 605-606.) Upon registration, the DMV would use the information in this "rate book" to assign to the vehicle a classification code from which its market value would be determined for the year of the sale and all subsequent years, regardless of any change in ownership. The DMV did not differentiate between vehicles originally sold within California and those originally sold outside the state.In year 1948, section 10753 was amended to require the DMV to determine the market value of vehicles "upon the basis of California delivered prices as established by the manufacturers or distributors in their selling agreements with authorized dealers as of the time the particular make and year model is first offered for sale in California...." (Stats. 1948, ch. 26, § 2, p. 129.) Manufacturers informed the DMV of the "delivered price" on each model, and the DMV entered this information in its rate book. Using a method described in section 10753.2 (enacted in 1948), the market value of each vehicle was determined from this "delivered price" according to a depreciation schedule set forth in the statute.[7] As before, the same classification code was assigned to the vehicle and the same tax was imposed, whether the vehicle was purchased in California or elsewhere.The DMV, however, urged the Legislature to alter the method for determining the vehicle license fee, because manufacturers objected to supplying information regarding prices, thereby causing delays at the beginning of each model year in updating the rate book. In the year 1967, the Legislature amended section 10753 to require the DMV to determine the market value of vehicles by reference to "California suggested base price" (§ 10753, subd. (a)), which was defined as "the retail price of the vehicle suggested by the manufacturer ... as reflected on the price listing affixed to the vehicle pursuant to the Federal Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958...." (§ 10753, subd. (g), as amended by Stats. 1967, ch. 435, § 1, pp. 1647-1648.) The "price listing" is commonly referred to as the "sticker price" of the vehicle.[8] Section 10753 defined California suggested base price to include "destination charge[s]" and the cost of statutorily required 769*769 "emission control devices," but not the cost of factory-installed "accessor[ies]" or "optional equipment."[9] (§ 10753, subd. (g).) The statute further provided: "In the event the [DMV] is unable to ascertain California suggested base price as herein defined ..., the [DMV] shall determine the market value upon the basis of the cost price to the purchaser of the vehicle as evidenced by a certificate of cost...." (§ 10753, subd. (c).)The years stated in the citation supra. Are respectively:1941, 1948, 1958, 1967.These were years “before” the invention of police vehicle radios and computers.Thus on April 14th, 2018, CRANE could clearly see defendants' tags and license plates were brand new and barely 1 month old and CRANE could have also used his radio and motorcycle mobile computer to ascertain the valid and current registration of the defendants brand new NISSAN LEAF EV Vehicle. My vehicle was brand new, purchased on March 10th, 2018, about 1 month and 4 days prior to April 14th, 2018.Yet, on the pretense of ‘not’ having the “original” registration in my car CRANE THREATENED AND INTIMIDATED defendant with an additional citation for not having that original registration.Defendant and passenger observed CRANE walk back to his vehicle and look through the CA VC book for 15 minutes. But he failed to find that code to cite the defendant. When CRANE returned there was no mention of the “failure to have registration” on the citation.Further corroborating evidence the defendant has. Defendants 2018 NISSAN LEAF has not 1, not 2 but 3 audio/video cameras installed for his safety.Two of these cameras face forward and one camera faces to the rear.All three cameras recorded audio and video interaction between Defendant and CRANE. These audio/videos can be produced at trial-de-novo to Impeach CRANE on the Motions stated herein and below.MOTIONS:Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “obstruction of justice” the defendant also has a right to justice.Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “conspiracy” to falsify charges.Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “perjury” PC 118.1 for misquoting the law and threats to falsely issue a citation under color of authority.Motion for Pitchess rule to disclose any other dishonesty or corruption by CRANE to be presented to the court for adjudication. Under SB1421 permitting discovery of Law Enforcement personnel files.Motion to Impeach under Penal Code Section 141 as amended by AB 1909 on 9-30-2016. Signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown and recorded immediately by CA State Secretary. (see Citation below)California Penal Code Section 141CA Penal Code § 141 (2017)(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), a person who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter will be wrongfully produced as genuine or true upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a misdemeanor.(b) A peace officer who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, or video recording will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or five years in the state prison.(c) A prosecuting attorney who intentionally and in bad faith alters, modifies, or withholds any physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information, knowing that it is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years.(d) This section does not preclude prosecution under both this section and any other law.(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 879, Sec. 1. (AB 1909) Effective January 1, 2017.)MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERWhere the Commissioner fails to honor these arguments and finds the defendant guilty of this illegal traffic infraction, Objection is hereby entered for purposes of Appeal. Motion to show cause is hereby entered. Defendant Doe request written explanation for cause for purposes of Appeal.MOTION TO SHOW BASIS or PRECEDENT FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERWhere the Commissioner fails to honor these arguments and finds the defendant guilty of this illegal traffic infraction, Motion to show Basis or Precedent that supersedes the citations quoted in arguments herein - is hereby entered. Otherwise, Objection is hereby entered for purposes of Appeal. Defendant Doe requests a written explanation for Basis for purposes of Appeal.CONCLUSIONNotwithstanding and for all the arguments and reasons stated above and incorporated by reference; I, therefore contend there is more than reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and veracity of the citation and the government record as argued and cited here in.. There reasonable doubt for the reasons, and case law and statutes as cited for dismissing the ticket. In the interest of Justice, I respectfully request that the said citation herein against DEFENDANT DOE be dismissed and the Motion to Dismiss be granted.I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing statements are true and correct.Sincerely,JOHN DOEExecuted at:9545 Main StAll American City, CA 90001Dated: January 24th, 2019_________________JOHN DOEAPPENDIX A:http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tm/docs/HOV_Guidelines-English-Edition-Jan2018.pdf♦ HOV Guidelines, 2016 English Edition Appendix A♦ 7 ADDITIONAL HOV INFORMATIONCalifornia Vehicle Code sections relating to HOV lanes: To view the 2003 California Vehicle Code (CVC), visit the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm .Most of the HOV related vehicle code sections summarized below are located in Division 11 of the CVC. Section titles in BOLD indicate official title names as shown in the CVC. The section title in the regular font was included for clarity in describing the HOV related issue.Section 21460 Double Lines The purpose of the solid-white single line on the inside of the double yellow lines on buffered HOV lanes is to permit vehicles to legally drive to the left of the double yellow lines as defined in the provisions of this section. Section 21654 Slow-Moving Vehicles This section requires vehicles, such as those with 3-or-more-axles or vehicles with trailers as defined in Section 22406, to use the farthest right freeway lanes. Therefore, these vehicles cannot use the HOV lanes. Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation or local authorities to designate specific lanes for vehicles required to drive at reduced speeds. Requires vehicles driving at reduced speeds to use the farthest right lanes.Section 21655.3 Permanent High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes After 1/1/87, but before 12/31/87 all permanently designated HOV lanes operating 24 hours a day shall be separated from general use highway lanes by a minimum 4 feet wide buffer.Section 21655.5 Exclusive- or Preferential- Use lanes for High-Occupancy Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation and local authorities to designate specific lanes for HOV preferential use upon completion of competent engineering estimates made of the effects of the lanes on safety, congestion, and highway capacity.Section 21655.5(b) Mass transit and Para Transit Vehicles Enactment of SB 236 on January 1, 1998, permits mass Transit vehicles to use the HOV lanes without meeting the occupancy requirement. Enactment of AB 2582 on January 1, 2003, permits clearly marked para Transit vehicles to use the HOV lanes without meeting the occupancy requirement. This section also requires that HOV lane-use comply with posted signs designating the minimum occupancy requirement.Section 21655.6 Approval of Transportation Planning Agency or County Transportation Commission Requires the Department of Transportation to have the approval of the county Transportation commission prior to establishing new HOV lanes.Section 21655.7 Use of Highway: Public Mass Transit Guideway Allows for any portion of a highway to be designated for exclusive public mass Transit use.Section 21655.8(a) Entering or Exiting Preferential-Use Lanes A citation for violation of the provisions of this section, commonly called a buffer violation, carry a minimum fine of $271. APPENDIX A♦ HOV Guidelines, 2016 English Edition Appendix A♦ 8Section 21655.9 HOV Lanes: Use by Ultra – Low Emission Vehicles Website for list of vehicles that meet federal requirements and qualify as ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEV) and super ultra-low-emission vehicles (SULEV) in Assembly Bill 71, enacted July 1, 2000: California Air Resources BoardSection 21714 Three-Wheeled Vehicles: Operation in HOV Lanes Prohibits three-wheeled vehicles from using the HOV lanes.Section 22364 Lane Speed Limits Allows the Department of Transportation to post the appropriate speed for designated lanes.Section 22406 Maximum Speed for Designated Vehicles By definition in this section, trucks with three or more axles, or vehicles with trailers, are not allowed to use the HOV lanes because they cannot drive the maximum legal speed limit posted on HOV lanes in California. Provisions ofSection 21654 (above) then apply.If you like this answer, feel free to look at some of my other interesting answers.

Yes the fuck they SHOULD!! Why? Because there’s a huge problem with the death penalty in China! They don’t publish the numbers or reasons or ANYTHING!! Which means that ANYBODY could be sentenced to death for any reason they deem appropriate!! That’s just crazy to me! They can kill political adversaries or political activists and people who protest or disagree with the government on any level, and they ain’t got to tell nobody shit!! Anybody says they are for that shit on any level better get the fuck off that “christian train.” And re-think your position!! To give a government that kind of power. The power to “disappear” people? You gotta be some kind of informant or government controlled rat to think that such a thing would be alright for these militaristic, theocratic thugs. To think that they are using that power equitably or responsibly is fantasy. The problem with the death penalty is that it has a serious flaw which I’ll just call HUMAN ERROR!! Humans are flawed and fallible and in our society our flawed fallible and subjective memories are often used to have people placed on death row. If indeed there were DNA evidence in every case and in every case we could be CERTAIN that a person were 100% guilty, I might not have much of an objection to people like the student eater guy being killed by the state. Having said that, such is NOT the case in over 60% of cases. In 60% of cases there IS NO DNA!! That’s the problem with our system. Aside and apart from the fact that black and brown men who have had mostly less than adequate representation comprise a disproportionate number of cases. And let’s not even talk about corruption. Check this link out. A republican governor who did away with the death penalty and commuted everyone’s sentence to life because of the unbelievable depths of the corruption of their homicide detectives.George RyanFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to searchFor other people named George Ryan, see George Ryan (disambiguation).This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "George Ryan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR(February 2021)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)George Ryan39th Governor of IllinoisIn officeJanuary 11, 1999 – January 13, 2003LieutenantCorinne WoodPreceded byJim EdgarSucceeded byRod Blagojevich36th Secretary of State of IllinoisIn officeJanuary 14, 1991 – January 11, 1999GovernorJim EdgarPreceded byJim EdgarSucceeded byJesse White42nd Lieutenant Governor of IllinoisIn officeJanuary 10, 1983 – January 14, 1991GovernorJames R. ThompsonPreceded byDave O'NealSucceeded byBob Kustra65th Speaker of the Illinois House of RepresentativesIn officeJanuary 14, 1981 – January 10, 1983GovernorJames R. ThompsonPreceded byWilliam A. RedmondSucceeded byArthur A. TelcserPersonal detailsBornGeorge Homer RyanFebruary 24, 1934 (age 86)Maquoketa, Iowa, U.S.Political partyRepublicanSpouse(s)Lura Lynn Lowe​​(m.1956; died 2011)​Children6EducationFerris State CollegeProfessionPharmarcistbusinessmanMilitary serviceAllegianceUnited StatesBranch/serviceUnited States ArmyYears of service1954–1956[1][2][3][4]George Homer Ryan (born February 24, 1934) is an American former politician who was the Republican 39th Governor of Illinois from 1999 until 2003. Ryan received national attention for his 1999 moratorium on executions in Illinois and for commuting more than 160 death sentences to life sentences in 2003. He was later convicted of federal corruption charges and spent more than five years in federal prison and seven months of home confinement. He was released from federal prison on July 3, 2013.Contents1Early life2Political career3Term as governor3.1Capital punishment4Scandals, trial, and conviction4.1Indictment4.2Defense and appeal4.3Sentencing5Electoral history6References7External linksEarly life[edit]George Homer Ryan was born in Maquoketa, Iowa to Jeannette (née Bowman) and Thomas Ryan, a pharmacist.[5][6] Ryan grew up in Kankakee County, Illinois. After serving in the U.S. Army in Korea, he worked for his father's two drugstores.[7] He attended Ferris State College of Pharmacy (now Ferris State University) in Big Rapids, Michigan. Eventually, he built his father's pair of pharmacies into a successful family-run chain (profiting from lucrative government-contract business selling prescription drugs to nursing homes) which he sold in 1990.[7][8] Ryan was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1954. He served a 13-month tour in Korea, working in a base pharmacy.[9]On June 10, 1956, Ryan married his high school sweetheart, Lura Lynn Lowe (July 5, 1934 – June 27, 2011), whom he had met in a high school English class. She grew up in Aroma Park, where her family (originally from Germany) had lived since 1834. Her father owned one of the first hybrid seed companies in the United States.[10] The couple had five daughters (including a set of triplets);[8] Julie, Joanne, Jeanette, Lynda and Nancy;[11][12] and one son, George Homer Ryan, Jr.[13][14][15][16]Lura Lowe died of lung cancer at Riverside Hospital in Kankakee on June 27, 2011. Ryan's brother, Tom, was a prominent political figure in Kankakee County.[7] In addition, Ryan's sister Kathleen Dean's former son-in-law, Bruce Clark, is the Kankakee County, Illinois Clerk.[17]Political career[edit]Ryan began his political career by serving on the Kankakee County Board from 1968 to 1973 (his brother Tom J. Ryan was Mayor of Kankakee for 20 years from 1965 to 1985). He was then elected to the Illinois House of Representatives, where he served from 1973 to 1983, including two terms as Minority Leader and one term as Speaker. He then spent 20 years in statewide office, as Lieutenant Governor under Governor James R. Thompson (1983–91), Secretary of State from 1991 to 1999, and as governor from 1999 to 2003. During his first term as Secretary of State, then–State Treasurer Pat Quinn was publicly critical of Ryan. Specifically, he drew attention to special vanity license plates that Ryan's office provided for clout-heavy motorists. This rivalry led Quinn in a failed bid to challenge Ryan in the 1994 general election for Secretary of State.[18][19]Term as governor[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "George Ryan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR(February 2021)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)Ryan was elected Governor in 1998, defeating his opponent, Glenn Poshard, by a 51–47% margin. Ryan's running mate was first-term state representative Corinne Wood. Ryan outspent Poshard by a 4-to-1 margin. Poshard, a firm believer in campaign finance reform, placed limits on individual donations and refused to accept donations from corporate or special interests.One of Ryan's pet projects as governor was an extensive repair of the Illinois Highway System called "Illinois FIRST". FIRST was an acronym for "Fund for Infrastructure, Roads, Schools, and Transit". Signed into law in May 1999, the law created a $6.3 billion package for use in school and transportation projects. With various matching funds programs, Illinois FIRST provided $2.2 billion for schools, $4.1 billion for public transportation, another $4.1 billion for roads, and $1.6 billion for other projects. He also improved Illinois's technology infrastructure, creating one of the first cabinet-level Offices of Technology in the country and bringing up Illinois's technology ranking in a national magazine from 48th out of the 50 states when he took office to 1st just two years later. Ryan committed record funding to education, including 51% of all new state revenues during his time in office, in addition to the billions spent through Illinois FIRST that built and improved schools and education infrastructure. In 1999, Ryan sparked controversy by becoming the first sitting U.S. Governor to meet with Cuban President Fidel Castro. Ryan's visit led to a $1 million donation of humanitarian aid, but drew criticism from anti-Castro groups.[20] In 2000, Ryan served as a chair of the Midwestern Governors Association.Capital punishment[edit]Ryan helped to renew the national debate on capital punishment when, as governor, he declared a moratorium on his state's death penalty in 2000.[21]This decision was heavily influenced by lawsuits filed by exonerated prisoners who made false confessions as a result of police torture under the direction of a police commander named Jon Burge.[22] "We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system," he said. "There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied."[23] At the time, Illinois had executed 12 people since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977, with one execution, that of Ripper Crew member Andrew Kokoraleis, occurring early during Ryan's term. Ryan refused to meet with religious leaders and others regarding "a stay of execution" in light of the impending 'moratorium' and other facts relative to the 'flawed' capital punishment system in Illinois; in fact, under Ryan's governorship, 13 people were released from jail after appealing their convictions based on new evidence. Ryan called for a commission to study the issue, while noting, "I still believe the death penalty is a proper response to heinous crimes ... But I believe that it has to be where we don't put innocent people to death."[24]The issue had garnered the attention of the public when a death row inmate, Anthony Porter, who had spent 15 years on death row, was within two days of being executed when his lawyers won a stay on the grounds that he may have been mentally disabled. He was ultimately exonerated with the help of a group of student journalists at Northwestern University who had uncovered evidence that was used to prove his innocence. In 1999, Porter was released, charges were subsequently dropped, and another person, Alstory Simon, confessed and pleaded guilty to the crime of which Porter had been erroneously convicted. Simon himself was later released after serving fifteen years for the crime, after it was proven that he, too, was wrongfully accused.[25]On January 11, 2003, just two days before leaving office, Ryan commuted (to "life" terms) the sentences of everyone on or waiting to be sent to Illinois' death row — a total of 167 convicts — due to his belief that the death penalty could not be administered fairly. He also pardoned four inmates, Aaron Patterson, Madison Hobley and Leroy Orange (all of whom were interrogated by Burge and released), and Stanley Howard. However, Patterson is currently serving 30 years in prison after being arrested for drug trafficking he committed after his release from death row. Howard remains in prison for armed robbery.[26] Ryan declared in his pardon speech that he would have freed Howard if only his attorney had filed a clemency petition; Ryan then strongly urged investigators to examine Howard's alleged robbery case, because it appeared to be as tainted as his murder conviction.[27]These were four of ten death row inmates known as the "Death Row 10," due to widely reported claims that the confessions that they had given in their respective cases had been coerced through torture. Ryan is not the first state governor to have granted blanket commutations to death row inmates during his final days in office. Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller also commuted the sentence of every death row inmate in that state as he left office after losing his 1970 bid for a third two-year term, as did New Mexico Governor Toney Anaya before he left office in 1986 and Ohio Governor Dick Celeste before he left office in 1990.[citation needed]Ryan won praise from death penalty opponents: as early as 2001, he received the Mario Cuomo Act of Courage Award from Death Penalty Focus, in 2003 the Rose Elizabeth Bird Commitment to Justice Award from the same organization, and in 2005 he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. On the other side of the Atlantic, Robert Badinter, who had successfully introduced the bill abolishing the death penalty in France in 1981 praised Ryan's decision.[28] Many conservatives, though, were opposed to the commutations, some questioning his motives, which came as a federal corruption investigation closed in on the governor and his closest political allies (see below). Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan called Ryan "pathetic", and suggested the governor was attempting to save his public image in hopes of avoiding prison himself. Buchanan noted "Ryan announced his decision to a wildly cheering crowd at the Northwestern University Law School. Families of the victims of the soon-to-be-reprieved killers were not invited."[29]Scandals, trial, and conviction[edit]Ryan's political career was marred by a scandal called "Operation Safe Road", which involved the illegal sale of government licenses, contracts and leases by state employees during his prior service as Secretary of State. In the wake of numerous convictions of his former aides, he chose not to run for reelection in 2002. Seventy-nine former state officials, lobbyists, and others were charged in the investigation, and at least 76 were convicted.[citation needed]The corruption scandal leading to Ryan's downfall began more than a decade earlier during a federal investigation into a deadly crash in Wisconsin. Six children from the Willis family of Chicago, Illinois, were killed; their parents, Rev. Duane and Janet Willis, were severely burned.[30] The investigation revealed a scheme inside Ryan's Secretary of State's office in which unqualified truck drivers obtained licenses through bribes.In March 2003, Scott Fawell, Ryan's former chief of staff and campaign manager, was convicted on federal charges of racketeering and fraud. He was sentenced to six years and six months.[31] Former deputy campaign manager Richard Juliano pleaded guilty to related charges and testified against Fawell at trial. Roger Stanley, a former Republican state representative who was hired by Ryan and testified against Fawell, pleaded guilty to wide-ranging corruption, admitting he paid kickbacks to win state contracts and campaign business, secretly mailed out vicious false attacks on political opponents and helped obtain ghost-payrolling jobs.[32]Indictment[edit]The investigation finally reached the former governor, and in December 2003, Ryan and lobbyist Lawrence Warner were named in a 22-count federal indictment. The charges included racketeering, bribery, extortion, money laundering and tax fraud. The indictment alleged that Ryan steered several state contracts to Warner and other friends; disbursed campaign funds to relatives and to pay personal expenses; and obstructed justice by attempting to end the state investigation of the license-for-bribes scandal. He was charged with lying to investigators and accepting cash, gifts and loans in return for his official actions as governor. On September 19, 2005, the case went to trial.[33]Fawell, under pressure from prosecutors, became a key witness against Ryan and Warner. He agreed to a plea deal that cut the prison time for himself and his fiancée, Andrea Coutretsis. Fawell was a controversial witness, not hiding his disdain for prosecutors from the witness stand. According to CBS Chicago political editor Mike Flannery, insiders claimed that Fawell had been "much like a son" to Ryan throughout their careers. At Ryan's trial, Fawell acknowledged that the prosecution had his "head in a vise", and that he found his cooperation with the government against Ryan "the most distasteful thing I've ever done".[31] Nonetheless, he spent several days on the witness stand testifying against Ryan and Warner. Once a tough-talking political strategist, Fawell wept on the witness stand as he acknowledged that his motivation for testifying was to spare Coutretsis a long prison sentence for her role in the conspiracy. The jury was twice sent out of the courtroom so that he could wipe tears from his eyes and regain his composure.Ryan's daughters and a son-in-law, Michael Fairman, were implicated by testimony during the trial. Stipulations agreed upon by the defense and prosecution and submitted to the court included admissions that all five of Ryan's daughters received illegal payments from the Ryan campaign. In addition to Lynda Fairman, who received funds beyond those her husband Michael testified he had received, the stipulations included admissions from the rest of Ryan's daughters that they did little or no work in return for the payments.[34][35] In addition, Fawell testified that Ryan's mother's housekeeper was illegally paid from campaign funds, and that Ryan's adopted sister, Nancy Ferguson, received campaign funds without performing campaign work.[11][34] The prosecution took nearly four months to present their case, as a parade of other witnesses (including Juliano) followed Fawell.On April 17, 2006, the jury found Ryan and Warner guilty on all counts.[36] However, when ruling on post-trial motions, the judge dismissed two counts against Ryan for lack of proof.[37] Ryan said that he would appeal the verdict, largely due to the issues with the jury.Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, noted, "Mr. Ryan steered contracts worth millions of dollars to friends and took payments and vacations in return. When he was a sitting governor, he lied to the FBI about this conduct and then he went out and did it again." He charged that one of the most egregious aspects of the corruption was Ryan's action after learning that bribes were being paid for licenses. Instead of ending the practice he tried to end the investigation that had uncovered it, Fitzgerald said, calling the moment "a low-water mark for public service".[38]On September 6, 2006, Ryan was sentenced to six and a half years in prison.[39] He was ordered to go to prison on January 4, 2007, but the appellate court granted an appeal bond, allowing him to remain free pending the outcome of the appeal.[40] His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit on August 21, 2007,[41] and review by the entire Seventh Circuit was denied on October 25, 2007.[42] The Seventh Circuit then rejected Ryan's bid to remain free while he asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case; the opinion called the evidence of Ryan's guilt "overwhelming".[43] The Supreme Court rejected an extension of his bail, and Ryan reported to the Federal Prison Camp in Oxford, Wisconsin, on November 7, 2007.[44][45] He was transferred on February 29, 2008, to a medium security facility in Terre Haute, Indiana, after Oxford changed its level of medical care and stopped housing inmates over 70 years old.[46] He was listed as Federal Inmate Number 16627-424 and was released on July 3, 2013.[47]Defense and appeal[edit]Ryan's defense was provided pro bono by Winston & Strawn, a law firm managed by former governor Jim Thompson. The defense cost the firm $10 million through mid-November 2005.[48] Estimates of the cost to the firm as of September 2006 ranged as high as $20 million. Ryan served as Thompson's lieutenant governor from 1983 to 1991. After the United States Supreme Court declined to hear Ryan's appeal, Thompson indicated that he would ask then President George W. Bush to commute Ryan's sentence to time served.[49] United States Senator Dick Durbin wrote a letter to Bush dated December 1, 2008, asking him to commute Ryan's sentence, citing Ryan's age and his wife's frail health, saying, "This action would not pardon him of his crimes or remove the record of his conviction, but it would allow him to return to his wife and family for their remaining years."[50] Bush did not commute Ryan's sentence.After his conviction Ryan's annual $197,037 state pension was suspended under state law. Ryan's attorneys litigated the pension matter all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled on February 19, 2010, that state law "plainly mandates that none of the benefits provided for under the system shall be paid to Ryan".[51] Ryan was paid $635,000 in pension benefits during the three years between his retirement and his political corruption conviction, plus a refund of the $235,500 in personal contributions he made during his 30 years in public office.[52][53]Sentencing[edit]In 2010, Ryan requested early release, partly because his wife had terminal cancer and was given only six months to live, and partly on the grounds that some of his convictions should be vacated in light of a Supreme Court ruling that was alleged to have affected their legitimacy. On December 21, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer denied Ryan's request.[citation needed]On January 5, 2011, Ryan was taken from his prison cell in Terre Haute, Indiana, to a hospital in Kankakee to visit his dying wife. He was present when she died five months after that visit.[4][54] Ryan entered a Salvation Army halfway house in Chicago on January 30, 2013. Less than three hours later, he was released back to his home in Kankakee where he remained on home confinement until July 3, 2013.[55]Electoral history[edit]1998 – Illinois Governor[56]George Ryan (R) 51%Glenn Poshard (D) 47.5%Lawrence Redmond (Reform) 1.5%1994 – Illinois Secretary of State[57]George Ryan (R) 61.5%Patrick Quinn (D) 38.5%1990 – Illinois Secretary of State[58]George Ryan (R) 53.5%Jerome Cosentino (D) 46.5%References[edit]^ "George Ryan". Biography in Context (fee, Fairfax County Public Library). Detroit, MI: Gale. 1999. Gale Document Number: GALE|K1650000189. Retrieved June 27, 2011. Gale Biography in Context.^ "George Homer Ryan". The Complete Marquis Who's Who (fee, Fairfax County Public Library). Marquis Who's Who. 2010. Gale Document Number: GALE|K2013022832. Retrieved June 27, 2011. Gale Biography in Context^ Roberts, Roxanne; Argetsinger, Amy (June 29, 2011). "The Reliable Source: From the mansion to the Big House". Washington Post. p. C2. Retrieved June 29, 2011. Ryan was recently released temporarily to be with his terminally ill wife, who died of lung cancer Monday^ Jump up to:a b Schlikerman, Becky; Annie Sweeney; Rick Pearson; Ray Long (June 28, 2011). "George Ryan, released from prison, at wife's side when she died". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved June 29, 2011.^ Library, CNN. "George Ryan Fast Facts".^ Merriner, James L. (September 8, 2008). The Man Who Emptied Death Row: Governor George Ryan and the Politics of Crime. SIU Press. ISBN 9780809328659 – via Google Books.^ Jump up to:a b c Arden, Patrick (January 16, 2003). "The redemption of Gov. Ryan". Salon magazine online. Archived from the original on June 6, 2011. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ Jump up to:a b "The Nobel Peace Prize For Governor George H. Ryan of Illinois". Stop Capital Punishment Now!. Archived from the original on July 28, 2011. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ Goudie, Chuck (November 12, 2007). "On Veterans Day, George Ryan again is taking orders". Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, IL: Paddock Publications, Inc. Archived from the original on March 25, 2012. Retrieved June 29, 2011.^ "Lura Lynn Lowe Ryan". Legacy.com | Where Life Stories Live On.^ Jump up to:a b "Fawell: Ryan's family, friends got cash". Chicago Sun-Times. October 7, 2005. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ "Family Members on Payroll". Chicago Tribune. January 19, 2006. Archived from the original on November 15, 2007. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ Warren, Ellen (September 29, 2005). "Cast of characters stars in drama made in Illinois". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ "Ryan Guilty". Chicago Sun-Times. April 17, 2006. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ "Michael Sneed's lunch with George Ryan". Chicago Sun-Times. April 18, 2006. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ Korecki, Natasha; McKinney, Dave; Janssen, Kim (June 29, 2011). "Lura Lynn dies with husband, ex-Gov. George Ryan, at her side". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved June 29,2011.^ "Lobbyist's Ex-Girlfriend Tells of Ryan Junkets". Chicago Sun-Times. January 10, 2006. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ Hawthorne, Michael (December 10, 2008). "Pat Quinn waiting in the wings". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved January 30, 2009.^ "Biographical information on Quinn". WTOP. Associated Press. January 29, 2009. Retrieved January 30, 2009.[permanent dead link]^ "US governor on Cuba mission". BBC News. October 24, 1999.^ Johnson, Dirk (May 21, 2000). "No Executions in Illinois Until System Is Repaired". The New York Times. Retrieved December 22, 2009.^ Sobol, Rosemary; Gorner, Jeremy; Heinzmann, David (19 September 2018). "Disgraced ex-Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge, accused of presiding over decades of brutality and torture, has died". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 11 January 2019.^ "A Chilling Look at the Death Penalty". Washington Post. July 26, 2004.^ "Campaign 2000: Insurgents Bradley, McCain Target Independents as N.H. Primary Approaches; Bush Expressing High Hopes; Gore Emphasizing High Road". Inside Politics. CNN. January 31, 2000.^ "Alstory Simon, freed from prison after wrongful conviction, spends his time in Greater Cleveland working to free others". Cleveland OH Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather. Retrieved January 11, 2019.^ Warden, Rob. "Stanley Howard – The Supreme Court found the evidence "overwhelming", but Governor Ryan found otherwise". Chicago, IL: Northwestern School of Law Bluhm Legal Clinic, Center on Wrongful Convictions. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ "Free Stanley Howard". Archived from the original on July 11, 2011. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ "La conscience du gouverneur Ryan", Le Nouvel Observateur, January 16, 2003, p. 39.^ Buchanan, Pat (January 25, 2003). "Moral Corruption in Illinois". The American Cause. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan Heading to Prison NPR, November 6, 2007.^ Jump up to:a b 'Most distasteful thing I've ever done' nears for Fawell, Chicago Tribune, September 28, 2005.^ http://www.chicagotribune Archived July 19, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, May 9, 2003, Stanley guilty in kickback, payroll scam Former legislator admits mail fraud, money laundering by Matt O'Connor and Ray Gibson, [1]^ Reports, From Times Wire (September 19, 2005). "Corruption Trial of Ex-Governor to Begin". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved May 9, 2016.^ Jump up to:a b Election Funds Went to Relatives Chicago Tribune, October 7, 2005, accessed September 6, 2006.^ Korecki, Natasha (January 19, 2006). "Ryan daughter tells of no-work job". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on December 17, 2008. Retrieved September 6,2006.^ Guilty on all charges.[dead link] Chicago Sun-Times, April 18, 2006.^ "Ryan judge explains why she dismissed 2 charges". Chicago Tribune. September 8, 2006. Archived from the original on November 15, 2007.^ Ex-Governor of Illinois Is Convicted on All Charges New York Times, April 17, 2006, accessed September 6, 2006.^ Ryan gets 6½ years in prison Chicago Sun-Times, September 6, 2006, accessed same date.^ Federal appeals court says Ryan can stay free on bail Archived November 30, 2006, at the Wayback Machine Chicago Sun-Times, November 29, 2006, accessed same date.^ "Ex-Gov. Ryan's guilty verdict stands despite jury controversy". Chicago Tribune. August 21, 2007. Archived from the original on January 19, 2013. Retrieved August 21,2007.^ Higgins, Michael; Coen, Jeff (October 25, 2007). "Ryan loses appeal". Chicago Tribune.^ Higgins, Michael (November 1, 2007). "Ryan down to last appeal". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on November 12, 2007.^ "U.S. Supreme Court turns down Ryan request to remain free". Chicago Tribune. November 6, 2007.^ Conlon, Michael (November 7, 2007). "Former Illinois Governor Ryan enters prison". Reuters.^ Jason Meisner, Ex-Gov. Ryan switches prisons, Chicago Tribune, February 29, 2008.^ "Inmate locator: George Ryan". Federal Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ A Christmas card defense Archived November 15, 2007, at the Wayback MachineChicago Tribune, February 3, 2006, accessed June 24, 2018.^ Ex-Gov. to Bush: Let Ryan go Archived May 31, 2008, at the Wayback MachineChicago Sun-Times, May 28, 2008.^ Durbin, Richard J. (December 1, 2008). "Durbin Releases Letter on Commutation for Governor Ryan". Retrieved December 23, 2008.^ Anonymous. "Ryan-must forfeit State Pension". USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com. Archived from the original on September 8, 2012. Retrieved February 12, 2012.^ "State Supreme Court denies pension for George Ryan – Chicago Breaking News". http://Archive.chicagobreakingnews.com. February 19, 2010. Archived from the original on January 18, 2012. Retrieved February 12, 2012.^ "Illinois Supreme Court Opinion". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on June 29, 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2012.^ Schlikerman, Becky; Sweeney, Annie; Pearson, Rick; Long, Ray (June 28, 2011). "George Ryan, released from prison, at wife's side when she died". Chicago Tribune.^ Leventis, Angie; Sweeney, Annie (January 30, 2013). "George Ryan home after spending just hours at halfway house". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved January 30, 2013.^ "Ballots Cast". http://Elections.illinois.gov. November 3, 1998. Archived from the originalon March 4, 2016. Retrieved April 4, 2015.^ "1994 Secretary of State General Election Results – Illinois". http://Uselectionatlas.org. Retrieved April 4, 2015.^ "1990 Secretary of State General Election Results – Illinois". http://Uselectionatlas.org. Retrieved April 4, 2015.NBC NewsExternal links[edit]CNN.com: "'Blanket commutation' empties Illinois death row", January 11, 2003.Biography from site supporting his nomination for a Nobel Peace PrizeChicago Sun-Times archive on The George Ryan TriangleAnd if that’s not enough for you I have statistics from the Innocence Project for you that have (through new ways of testing evidence…DNA evidence and otherwise) worked to have over 200 people freed from death row.DNA Exonerations in the United StatesFast facts:1989: The first DNA exoneration took place375 DNA exonerees to date37: States where exonerations have been won14: Average number of years served5,284: Total number of years served26.6: Average age at the time of wrongful conviction43: Average age at exoneration21 of 375 people served time on death row44 of 375 pled guilty to crimes they did not commit69%: Involved eyewitness misidentification and of these:34% of these misidentification cases involved an in-person lineup52% involved a misidentification from a photo array7% involved a misidentification from a mugshot book16% involved a misidentification from a show-up procedure5% involved a misidentification from a one-on-one photo procedure27% involved a misidentification through the use of a composite sketch11% involved a voice misidentification2% involved a misidentification through hypnosis54% involved an in-court misidentification29% involved a misidentification through some other procedure (e.g., mistakenly “recognizing” someone on the street and reporting them to law enforcement)77% of the misidentification cases involved multiple procedures84% of the misidentification cases involved a misidentification by a surviving victim42% involved a cross-racial misidentification32% involved multiple misidentifications of the same person by different witnesses18% involved a failure to identify the exoneree in at least one procedure43%: Involved misapplication of forensic science29%: Involved false confessions49% of the false confessors were 21 years old or younger at the time of arrest31% of the false confessors were 18 years old or younger at the time of arrest9% of the false confessors had mental health or mental capacity issues, known at trial17%: Involved informants268: DNA exonerees compensated190: DNA exonerations worked on by the Innocence Project165: Actual assailants identified. Those actual perpetrators went on to be convicted of 154 additional violent crimes, including 83 sexual assaults, 36 murders, and 35 other violent crimes while the innocent sat behind bars for their earlier offenses.Demographics of the 375:225 (60%) African American117 (31%) Caucasian29 (8%) Latinx2 (1%) Asian American1 (<1%) Native American1 (<1%) Self-identified “Other”Other facts:130 DNA exonerees were wrongfully convicted for murders; 40 (31%) of these cases involved eyewitness misidentifications and 81 (62%) involved false confessions [as of July 9, 2018]102 DNA exonerations involved false confessions; the real perp was identified in 76 (75%) of these cases. These 38 real perps went on to commit 48 additional crimes for which they were convicted, including 25 murders, 14 rapes, and 9 other violent crimes [as of July 24, 2018]180 of the DNA exonerees (50%) had the real perpetrator(s) identified in their cases [as of August 22, 2018]137 of the DNA exonerees had the real perpetrator(s) identified through a cold database hit [as of October 19, 2018]At least 43 (52%) of the 83 DNA exonerees who falsely confessed included non-public facts in their confessions [as of July 29, 2020]23 (22%) of the 104 people whose cases involved false confessions had exculpatory DNA evidence available at the time of trial but were still wrongfully convicted [as of July 29, 2020]83 (61%) of the 137 DNA exonerees who were wrongfully convicted for murder had false confessions involved in their cases (33 confessed themselves, 20 had co-defendants who confessed, and another 30 confessed themselves and had co-defendants who confessed) [as of July 29, 2020]How DNA makes a difference in the criminal justice systemSince 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.In more than 25% of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 – June 2015 revealed that 29% of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.ContactAboutDonateWays to GiveCareersFinancialsPrivacy PolicyLegalThe Innocence Project is affiliated with Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University.You really think that they’re doing things any differently in New York than they were in Chicago? Only if you’re so privileged you cannot see the forest for the trees.Lastly, I would add that the death penalty is akin to “gang-banging” on a societal level. This is not what we should teach our children. Correct me if I’m wrong but teaching our children that it’s okay to kill killers…to show that killing is wrong…is like the most asinine, backwards shit you could ever do. Come on man. Bottom line is we can’t be for killing based on the flawed, subjective views of 12 people who you can be sure will not be my “peers,” and who are prone to making these horrible mistakes REGULARLY!! If you’re FOR such a flawed system it not only shows how privileged you are, it shows what raw killers we can all become. Crazy!

Recent years have brought a cascade of scandals at the United Nations, of which the wholesale corruption of the Oil-for-Food relief program in Iraq has been only the most visible. We still do not know the full extent of these debacles—the more sensational ones include the disappearance of UN funds earmarked for tsunami relief in Indonesia and the exposure of a transnational network of pedophiliac rape by UN peacekeepers in Africa—and we may never know. What we do know is that an assortment of noble-sounding efforts has devolved into enterprises marked chiefly by abuse, self-dealing, and worse.Seen by many, including many Americans, as the chief arbiter of legitimacy in global politics, the UN is understood by others to be the only institution standing between us and global anarchy. If that is so, the portents are not promising. The free world is grappling with threats from the spread of radical Islam to North Korea's nuclear blackmail and Iran's pursuit of nuclear bombs. The UN, despite its trophy case of Nobel prizes, has failed so far to curb any of these, just as it failed abysmally to run an honest or effective sanctions program in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Currently it is gridlocked over matters as seemingly straightforward as cleaning up its own management department.In the effort to address the UN's manifold problems, there have been audits, investigations, committees, reports, congressional hearings, action plans, and even a handful of arrests by U.S. federal prosecutors. There have been calls for Secretary-General Kofi Annan to step down before his second term expires at the end of this year. Solutions have been sought by way of better monitoring, whistleblower protection, the accretion of new oversight bodies, and another round of conditions attached to the payment of U.S. dues. On top of the broad reforms of the early 1990's, the sweeping reforms of 1997, the further reforms of 2002, and the world summit for reform in 2005, still more plans for reform are in the works.1To its external auditors, internal auditors, joint inspections unit, eminent-persons panels, executive boards, and many special consultants, the UN has recently added an Office of Ethics—now expected to introduce in May what will presumably become an annual event: “UN Ethics Day.”Is any of this likely to help? Behind the specific scandals lies what one of the UN's own internal auditors has termed a “culture of impunity.” A grand committee that reports to itself alone, the UN operates with great secrecy and is shielded by diplomatic immunity. One of its prime defenses, indeed, is the sheer impenetrability of its operations: after more than 60 years as a global collective, it has become a welter of so many overlapping programs, far-flung projects, quietly vested interests, nepotistic shenanigans, and interlocking directorates as to defy accurate or easy comprehension, let alone responsible supervision.But let us try._____________One clear sign of how badly things have gone with the UN is the difficulty of tallying even so basic a sum as the system's real budget. Nowhere does the UN present a full and clear set of accounts, and statistics vary even within individual agencies and programs.The UN's current “core” annual budget is $1.9 billion—but the “core” is itself but a fraction of the actual budget. Around it are wrapped billions more in funding provided by “voluntary contributions” from private and corporate donors, foundations, and member states, including, to a large extent, the United States. These sums are shuffled around in various ways, with UN agencies in some instances paying or donating to each other. For instance, the UN Development Program (UNDP) operates with its own “core” budget of about $900 million a year but handles about $3 billion per year—or, depending on whom you ask and what you count, $4.5 billion per year.According to Mark Malloch Brown, the UN chief of staff who has just been promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary-General, the total budget for all operations under direct control of the Secretariat comes to roughly $8-9 billion per year. Adding in just a few of the larger agencies like UNDP (at, let us say, $4 billion), UNICEF ($2 billion or so), and the World Food Program ($2-3 billion) already brings the grand total to somewhere between $16 and $18 billion, again depending on whom you listen to and what you count. On UN websites devoted to procurement, where the idea is not to minimize the official amount of UN spending but on the contrary to attract suppliers to a large and thriving operation, the estimate of money spent yearly on goods and services by the entire UN system comes to $30 billion, or more than 15 times the core budget of $1.9 billion on which reformers have focused.Staff numbers are likewise a matter of mystery. The new ethics office proposes to offer its services to 29,000 UN employees worldwide. That number is well short of the total staff of the Secretariat plus the specialized agencies alone, which, according to Malloch Brown, consists of some 40,000 people. And that figure itself does not include local staffs—such as the 20,000 Palestinians who work for the UN Works and Relief Agency (UNWRA) or the many employees, some long-term, others transient, at hundreds of assorted UN offices, projects, and operations worldwide, or the more than 85,000 peacekeepers sent by member states but carrying out UN orders and eating UN-supplied rations bought via UN purchasing departments. Whereas the number of UN member states has almost quadrupled since 1945 (from 51 to 191), the number of personnel has swollen many times over, from a few thousand into somewhere in the six figures._____________Little of this system is open to any real scrutiny even within the UN, and no single authority outside the UN has proved able to compel any genuine accounting. Moreover, even though there can no longer be any doubt that the scale of the rot is large, the UN's top management continues to insist to the contrary. Take the central scandal of recent UN history—namely, Oil-for-Food. Last October, Paul Volcker's UN-authorized probe into Oil-for-Food submitted its fifth and final report on that relief program, which in its seven years of operation had become a vehicle for billions in kickbacks, payoffs, and sanctions-busting arms traffic. By January of this year, after first having declared that he was taking responsibility for the debacle, Kofi Annan was spinning a different story, telling a London audience that “only one staff member was found to maybe have taken some $150,000 out of a $64-billion program.”This was an artful lie. The staff member in question was Benon Sevan, whom Annan had appointed to run Oil-for-Food for six of its seven years. If indeed Sevan took no more than this relative pittance, then Saddam Hussein scored the biggest bargain in the history of kickbacks. According to Senator Norm Coleman's independent investigation into Oil-for-Food, the real figure for Sevan's take was $1.2 million. Clearing up this discrepancy is difficult, however, because Sevan, who was allowed by Annan to retire to his native Cyprus on full UN pension, is outside the reach of U.S. law and has denied taking anything.In any case, the corruption hardly ended with Sevan. Instances that appear to have slipped the Secretary-General's mind include another member of his inner circle, the French diplomat Jean-Bernard Merimée, who by his own admission took a payoff from Saddam while serving as Annan's handpicked envoy to the European Union. Within the UN agencies working with Annan's Secretariat on Oil-for-Food, Volcker confirmed “numerous [further] allegations of corrupt behavior and practices,” embracing “bid-rigging, conflicts of interest, bribery, theft, nepotism, and sexual harassment.” He also noted that the UN lacked controls on graft, failed to investigate many cases, and failed to act upon some of those it did explore. Finally, Volcker calculated that UN agencies had kept for themselves at least $50 million earmarked to buy relief for the people of Iraq.2Nor do the sheer monetary amounts even begin to convey the extent of the damage done by UN labors in Iraq. Annan's office had the mandate of the Security Council, plus a $1.4-billion budget, to check oil and relief contracts for price fiddles, to monitor oil exports in order to prevent smuggling, and to audit UN operations. In the event, Oil-for-Food spent far more money renovating its offices in New York than checking the terms of Saddam's contracts, and ignored the smuggling even when Saddam in 2000 opened a pipeline to Syria. The result of what Annan now placidly describes as “instances of mismanagement”—as if someone forgot to reload the office printer—was that Saddam skimmed and smuggled anywhere from $12 billion (according to the incomplete numbers supplied by Volcker) to $17 billion or more (according to the more comprehensive totals provided by Senator Coleman's staff ).And what did Saddam do with those profits? What Annan describes as “instances of mismanagement” did not simply entail theft, corruption, and waste. They enriched and supported a tyrant and a mass murderer. Saddam used his UN-blessed loot not only to build palaces and buy luxury cars but also to provide patronage to loyal Baathists, reward Palestinian suicide bombers, and restock his arsenal, conventional or otherwise. When CIA chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer went to Iraq in 2004 looking for weapons, the money trail took him straight to the UN relief operation, which, as he would report, had become a shill for an arms and illicit-money network that reached through Syria to Belarus and Russia. The network was buying “milk” from a Chinese weapons manufacturer, contracting for “vehicles” and “detergent” with Sudan, and negotiating for missiles with North Korea.And that is only Oil-for-Food. Since last summer, the UN has been bedeviled by a bribery scandal centered in its procurement department, which handles the Secretariat's buying of everything from paperclips to peacekeeper rations. In August, a UN staffer named Alexander Yakovlev pleaded guilty in federal court to taking hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of bribes, involving possibly hundreds of millions' worth of tainted contracts—many of them in force to this day. In September, Vladimir Kuznetsov, the head of the UN budget oversight committee, had to step aside under federal indictment as Yakovlev's co-conspirator in wire fraud and money laundering. With the scandal still spreading, a number of other UN employees are now under investigation in cases involving something on the order of $1 billion in UN contracts.There have also been cases in which, although no corruption has been alleged, clear conflicts of interest have been disclosed. Thus, Volcker found that in 1997, Maurice Strong, a longtime UN Under-Secretary General, accepted a check bankrolled by Saddam in the amount of $988,885. Strong (who has denied knowing where the money came from) was then serving as chief coordinator of UN reform, no less. Another top adviser to Annan, Giandomenico Picco, was discovered to have served in late 1999 and early 2000 as both a UN Under-Secretary General and chairman of the board of a company called IHC Services.3The company had close ties to the bribe-taking Yakovlev and signed millions of dollars in contracts with the UN while Picco was running one of Annan's pet projects, the Dialogue of Civilizations.Then there is the saga of Annan's son, Kojo, who turned out to have received more than $195,000 from a major UN Oil-for-Food contractor, Cotecna Inspection, after he had formally stopped working for it. In investigating Kojo's UN-related ventures, Volcker came across the paper trail of a by-now famous green Mercedes: in 1998, Kojo had saved some $20,000 by buying this car at a diplomatic discount in Germany and shipping it duty-free into Ghana, all under the false use of his father's name and diplomatic privileges and of the UN seal._____________Oil-for-Food has been described by Annan and his aides as a mistake in a good cause; such, they suggest, is the occasional if regrettable cost of doing the world's humanitarian business. Structurally, however, Oil-for-Food was not an exception. It was a template of what the UN has become.A hallmark of Oil-for-Food was that it was funded not by an assembly of UN member states but directly by Saddam as a function of his oil sales. This effectively bypassed the UN's version of the appropriations process, and was hardly the kind of setup envisioned when the organization was founded. As U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has noted, “It is the member states who are supposed to control the money.”Nevertheless, the UN negotiated terms with Saddam under which the Secretariat would collect 2.2 percent of his oil revenues to cover its costs in running and monitoring the relief program. With oil sales topping $64 billion, that meant $1.4 billion for the Secretary-General's administrative spending over the seven-year life of the program. In other words, the UN Secretariat was being paid big money by Saddam to supervise Saddam—an intrinsic conflict of interest that surely played a part in the expansion and easy corruption of the program. On top of whatever bribery he managed to deploy, Saddam became for a time one of the largest direct contributors to the Secretariat's budget. Publicizing itself as Saddam's probation officer, the UN in effect became his business partner.But Saddam was only one, if the most virulent, of the many questionable business partners the UN has acquired over the past decade or so. These days, “partnering” at the UN goes far beyond enlisting the help of Angelina Jolie to visit refugees or of Bono to lecture Americans on development policy. Under Annan's management, the UN has been avidly seeking liaisons with foundations, non-governmental organizations, and private business—especially big corporate donors endowed with ready cash. This has been hailed in many quarters, including in Washington, as an innovative way of funding good works. It is rather more alarming than that._____________The star example of today's UN partnerships is the Secretariat's cozy arrangement with the media magnate Ted Turner, who in 1997 made a landmark offer to donate $1 billion to the world organization. The pledge reportedly caused Jane Fonda, Turner's wife at the time, to weep with joy; as for Annan, he welcomed the deal as “a model to demonstrate my commitment to engage the private sector in a concrete manner.” Turner said he hoped his example would inspire others—and it has.Whatever Turner's ultimate aims may have been in undertaking this deed of seemingly astounding generosity, one of its chief beneficiaries has arguably been Ted Turner himself. For the past eight years, in exchange for the rather less than $1 billion disbursed so far, he has enjoyed a seat at the head table of what is supposed to be an impartial public institution, wielding access and influence beyond that of many actual UN member states. Like the UN's 2.2-percent commission under Oil-for-Food, moreover, Turner's funds flow through the administrative channels of the Secretariat without even the minimal checks that might be provided by the budgeting process of the General Assembly.To dispense his largesse in tax-deductible form, Turner set up a Washington-based non-profit organization, the UN Foundation, stipulating that he would turn over his gift through this foundation at the rate of $100 million per year. (Since then he has halved his annual disbursements, thus stretching out the arrangement even longer than the projected decade or more.) At the same time, and as part of the same gift, he set up a sister organization, the Better World Fund, which describes itself as “a key advocate for the UN on Capitol Hill.” A portion of Turner's gift to the UN thus goes not to the world's poor but to lobbying efforts in Washington to extract more dollars for the UN from U.S. taxpayers. Over the past eight years, according to the UN Foundation, the Better World Fund has devoted more than $110 million to this effort.Of course, Washington is home to many lobbying groups. But Turner's setup is so intimately linked with the UN Secretariat as to make it hard to distinguish where the one ends and the other begins. Thus, to handle Turner's gift, the UN created a special in-house division dedicated exclusively to interacting with Turner's foundation and reporting directly to the Secretary-General. This division is called the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships, or UNFIP. According to the head of UNFIP, Amir Dossal, the relationship between UN and UN Foundation officials is “pretty much a seamless exercise,” with Turner's Foundation often involved from the inception in shaping UN projects that it then pays for. UNFIP staff, who evaluate these projects as UN insiders for the approval of the Secretary-General, have their salaries and expenses paid not by the UN but by Turner's foundation.Since the arrangement began, some $600 million of Turner's own money has flowed into UN causes in this way, plus another $350 million from other donors contributing via his UN Foundation. (The total of $950 million includes the $110 million spent by the Better World Fund in lobbying Congress.) This has allowed the Secretary-General to control, through UNFIP alone—and in concert with the wishes of Turner's foundation—what in many ways qualifies as an annual slush fund of more than $100 million.Many of the projects involve worthy causes like sending malaria medicine and measles vaccines to children in poor countries. But others approved by the Secretary-General have directed millions in Turner money to departments within his own Secretariat, including in some cases his own executive office. Featuring as opaque one-line items in UNFIP's sometimes tardy public reports, these endeavors have included $1 million for “Strengthening the UN Secretariat”; $1.9 million for “UN Dialogue with the Global South”; $994,875 for “Supporting UN Management Reform”; $1.9 million for the Secretariat's department of public information (on which more below); $117,600 for a “Multi-Stakeholder Meeting on Best Practices in Partnerships”; and $319,988 for “Strengthening Public-Private Partnerships”—a somewhat reflexive exercise, one might think, for what is already a highly muscular public-private liaison.