Not a line from a movie there, its part of the process for a Visa application… didn’t you know?

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia  —  A U.S. Foreign Service officer stationed in Brazil and Congo used his status to pressure female visa applicants for sex, according to federal charges.

Gons G. Nachman, 42, is charged in U.S. District Court with misuse of his diplomatic passport, making false statements and possessing child pornography. The charges were unsealed Friday.

Nachman was ordered jailed pending a detention hearing scheduled for Tuesday. Court records reflect that a defense lawyer has not yet been appointed.

According to the affidavit, Nachman made a habit of pressuring and pursuing sexual relationships with attractive female visa applicants while stationed in Rio de Janeiro.

Two applicants interviewed by federal agents said Nachman “persistently pursued these female applicants despite his position as U.S. Vice Consul who was personally handling these still pending immigration visa cases.”

One of the women told agents that Nachman “took advantage of her and he instructed her that, if questioned, she should deny knowing him personally.”

Nachman admitted to having sexual relationships with two women, according to the affidavit.

The affidavit also says that Nachman helped a woman from the Congo file a false refugee application with the Brazilian government so she could work for Nachman while he was stationed in Rio de Janeiro.

While she was employed by him, the woman said Nachman made her film and photograph his sexual encounters with women, some as young as 15, in late 2006 and early 2007.

Also, agents filed a search warrant for items Nachman had shipped to the Port of Baltimore and found videotapes of Nachman with sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old Congolese girl in 2004, when he was assigned to the Congo. Agents tracked down the girl and interviewed her; she confirmed she was 17 at the time the tape was made.

One of the tapes depicting the sex acts was labeled “Congo 2004 Sexual Adventures,” according to the affidavit.

Court records indicate that Nachman was ordered to stop performing his duties as a Foreign Service officer in September. The State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service, which investigated the case, did not return calls seeking comment Friday afternoon.

fox News

This is a documentary from some years back about Saddam and the misuse of power and corruption behind his government. Its a bit long, about 50 minutes.

Saddam Hussein and the Saddam Family album

Police polygraph test… cops teaching how to lie and pass.

This type of stuff really, really annoys me. Police are the people we look for to uphold the laws, not the people who should be teaching other people to circumvent the laws and not get caught… for a price of course. So, let me get this straight… If I am a corrupt wanna be cop, I can pay to have other cops coach me on how to pass the polygraph and entrance tests into the police department?

This is the polygraph test I found that many police officers must pass to get hired. The funny… or maybe not so funny part of it was that the person who wrote this was promoting his product to “pass the police polygraph test” and not get caught.

The man behind this article is promoting his site on how to lie effectively and pass the police polygraph test as well as other tests. This is supposed to be a picture of him, in uniform on the left.
Now, I may be wrong here, but isn’t the point of the testing is to weed out the corrupt cops? With this type of coaching available from other cops, no wonder, some police department somewhere, is in hot water over corruption issues almost weekly.

Most of the questions involved are about criminal conduct… I may be nuts here, but how does any PD allow officers to coach others or reveal what will be on the test as a side job? Unlike other fields where stuff like this probably does not matter, here, it does.

Police polygraph examinations fall under the guidelines for employment interviewing of title VII of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, so examiners are obliged to conduct the examinations in a way that would not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, etc. One central principle of ethical standards is that relevant questions be related to the job applied for.

Here are typical questions asked on the police polygraph exam:

Did you tell the complete truth on your job application?

Have you deliberately withheld information from your job application?

Have you ever been fired from a job?

Since the age of ( ) have you committed an undetected crime?

Since the age of ( ) have you been convicted of a crime?

During the past year, have you used marijuana more than ( ) per ( )?

Have you used any other narcotic illegally in the past ( ) years?

Have you sold marijuana or other narcotics illegally in the past ( ) years?

Have you ever stolen more than ($ ) worth of merchandise in any one year from any of your employers?

Have you even stolen more than ($ ) in moneys in any one year from any of your employers?

Have you ever used a system to cheat one of your employers?

Have you ever had your drivers license suspended or revoked?

Have you ever had any traffic citations in the past five ( ) years?

Have you deliberately lied to any of these questions?

Values, such as age and number of years is determined by the specific department.

The method used by John E. Reid & Associates employs four standard relevant questions: In the last five years did you steal any merchandise from previous employers? In the last five years did you steal any money from previous employers? In the last ten years did you take part in or commit any serious crime? Did you falsify any information on your application? These standard questions may be modified depending on admissions made during the pretest (e.g., a revision may be, In the last five years did you steal any merchandise other than minor office supplies?).

In addition to the standard questions a fifth relevant question (e.g., concerning the illegal purchase or sale of merchandise; use of narcotics) may be added. The Reid firm also uses what it regards as control questions in pre-employment interviews. Control questions include, Did you ever steal anything in your life? and Did you lie to any of the questions you answered during the application process for this job? It is not clear, however, how the Reid pre-employment control questions differ from the relevant questions. It seems reasonable to suppose that both truthful and non-truthful subjects (in terms of the relevant questions) may be just as concerned with the subject matter of the control questions as they are with the relevant questions. It is also not clear why employers would be less concerned with the control than with the relevant questions.

Remember, the police polygraph is only a tool used by law enforcement agencies to gather background information on the candidate. Though it is seen as a form of intimidation, there are proven techniques and strategies that should be employed to ensure you pass the polygraph.
Did you know that 50% of all police applicants will fail the polygraphy? Can you afford to be one of them? To learn important strategies to pass the police polygraph and also learn why 70% of all police applicants fail the written test

Just sick coaching on how to be better at corruption

We pay for so much, why not fancy cars and plastic surgery for corrupt government employees also?

Wed, 02/06/2008 - 11:48 — Judicial Watch Blog

A high-ranking Delaware state employee who is also the son of a prominent Republican state legislator has pleaded guilty to three felonies for his role in a major corruption sting that cheated taxpayers out of more than $1 million.

Anthony Lofink used his position as an official with Delaware’s Department of Revenue to steel $1.2 million from the state by filing fake claims with the agency’s Bureau of Unclaimed Property. Because he supervised the state’s unclaimed property claims, Lofink easily created false claims for friends who later split the money with him.

Lofink, whose state salary was $31,000, used the public funds to pay for his extravagant lifestyle of luxury cars, lavish clothing, fancy jewelry and even cosmetic surgery. He also applied some of the money to a tanning and spa business.

In federal court this week, the disgraced public employee told a judge how easy it was to take the money because he had complete authority over his department. He confidently told the judge that he gave friends checks and they would later split the money with him.

Now Lofink faces two decades in prison and a hefty fine for pleading guilty to conspiracy, wire fraud and money laundering. His father, state Representative Vince Lofink, did not appear with him in court this week but said that his son needs to pay for the “shameful” things he’s done.

The end of year (2007) 10 most corrupt politicians in Washington list as from Judicial Watch. 

You gotta love how almost half the list is running for President this year.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.”  The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1.  Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY):  In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records.  Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals.  Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again).  And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007.  Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

2.  Rep. John Conyers (D-MI):  Conyers reportedly repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll.  While the House Ethics Committee investigated these allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training.  Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful.  Judicial Watch called on the Attorney General in 2007 to investigate the matter.

3.  Senator Larry Craig (R-ID):  In one of the most shocking scandals of 2007, Senator Craig was caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport men’s bathroom during the summer.  Senator Craig reportedly “sent signals” to a police officer in an adjacent stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity.  When the police officer showed Craig his police identification under the bathroom stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed ‘No!’”  When asked to produce identification, Craig presented police his U.S. Senate business card and said, “What do you think of that?”  The power play didn’t work.  Craig was arrested, charged and entered a guilty plea.  Despite enormous pressure from his Republican colleagues to resign from the Senate, Craig refused.

4.  Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA):  As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate’s subcommittee on Military Construction’s approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process.  Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty.  Judicial Watch’s investigation into this matter is ongoing.

5.  Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY):  Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…”  ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense.  All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

6.  Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR):  Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record.  According to The Associated Press:  “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.”  And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations?  Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

7.  I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby:  Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation.  Libby was found guilty of four felonies — two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements to the FBI and one count of obstructing justice – all serious crimes.  Unfortunately, Libby was largely let off the hook.  In an appalling lack of judgment, President Bush issued “Executive Clemency” to Libby and commuted the sentence.

8.  Senator Barack Obama (D-IL):  A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007.  In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko.  In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections  It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors.  One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares.  Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

9.  Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress.  The pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi’s home base of San Francisco.  Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi’s earmark.  Earlier in the year, Pelosi found herself in hot water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, in unprecedented request which was wisely rejected by the Pentagon.  And under Pelosi’s leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down – which protects members in both parties from accountability.

10.  Senator Harry Reid (D-NV):  Over the last few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no different.  According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal.  As the project advanced, the Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.”  Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials.  Leif Reid even called his father’s office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest.

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.  Judicial Watch neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office.  For more information, visit www.judicialwatch.org.

Reading a watchdog site called Citizens for Ethics, I found a story that should have shocked me, but, unfortunately it didn’t. You see over the course of the war in Iraq, the militry overspending issues, greedy contractor scandals, corruption and plain lies, It’s something I came to expect…. The government overpaying for shit to support contractors.

What should have shocked me here is that in this case, the crap they paid $74 million of our tax dollars for, does not even work correctly and is a military safety item.  Sadly, it’s something I guess I came to expect, government putting the interests of its contractors before human safety and the lives of soldiers.

Here is the story… To no one’s surprise anymore, when the government finds out a product is substandard… what do they do? well, they buy more quickly before anyone finds out.

From citizens for ethics

At a time when a new acronym, TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), has entered the American lexicon because of injuries sustained to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the New York Times reports that not only are many combat helmets being given to our troops substandard, and not only was there a lawsuit about it, but the government actually placed an order with the same company for more helmets just days before the suit was settled.

Reports the Times:

A North Dakota manufacturer has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a suit saying it had repeatedly shortchanged the armor in up to 2.2 million helmets for the military, including those for the first troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Twelve days before the settlement with the Justice Department was announced, the company, Sioux Manufacturing of Fort Totten, was given a new contract of up to $74 million to make more armor for helmets to replace the old ones, which were made from the late 1980s to last year.

The issue at the heart of the suit were two former employees of the company who maintained (and never were disproved) that Sioux was not weaving their Kevlar at the mandated 35 by 35 thread per square inch count, but 34 by 34, and making up the weight difference by just applying more hardened resin. I think in anyone’s book, that would be considered reason enough to never place a contract with the same company again. But, what’s worse, that extra resin makes the helmets more brittle, which doesn’t give the necessary head protection to the troops.

In the suit, it seems like everyone at the company knew what they were doing:

In the evidence in the suit were hundreds of daily inspection records showing repeated violations of the weaving standards, as well as tape recordings of six managers and employees’ admitting covering up violations.

In a conversation Mr. Kenner secretly taped, Rhea Crane, quality assurance officer, worried “if we ever had someone get killed, and they decided to investigate because they thought maybe the helmet wasn’t any good.”

“If we ever got audited,” she said, “you know what they would do to us. Shut us down and fine us big time. Probably never see another government contract.”

Oh, you think so, Mrs. “Quality Assurance Officer?” Well, lucky for you all at Sioux Manufacturing, the Bush administration is on the scene, where substandard products for the troops are awarded with MORE contracts! We’ve truly entered the Bizarro World.

Thankfully, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has taken up the case and written to Congress to investigate this matter. We at VoteVets.org fully support their call for an investigation, and we’ll be doing more in the coming days to support their efforts.

There have been many, many things wrong with how the wars have been waged. I don’t think I need to go through a litany of them. But, to me, there is no issue more tragic than how Donald “The Army You Have” Rumsfeld, and this administration have been absolutely and totally irresponsible - indeed wreckless - in how they go about protecting our troops at the most basic levels, from body armor, to Humvee armor, and now, to helmets.

I have always believed there is a huge amount of injustice and corruption in our court system. Too much attention and weight is given to media coverage with people being tried by the papers before the jury is even chosen, the so called “expert” witnesses that are paid well for the service. Those two things together steal life from the innocent and keep killers on the loose.

Experts in any field, should not be compensated for their testimony. Media should be more responsible for the imagery they portray of the accused. But we know things do not work that way. “Monster on trial” sells more papers than a “man on trial” and experts get paid well to make the weakest of evidence look scientific and indisputable… It’s all a great show.

Last night, watching the Discovery channel they showed the case of the “snaggletooth” killer. The reason he is called that is because he has crooked teeth. His teeth and the grotesque and ugly images associated with his nickname ultimately got him convicted and sentenced to death. The snaggletooth killer, Mr. Ray Krone had a front tooth that was pushed out as did a bite mark on the victim. Do you hear the toot toot of the train coming yet?

Early one morning over a decade ago, a bartender was closing up the bar for the night . Everyone left and she was alone. The following morning, the bar’s owner found the dead body of Kim Ancona, on the men’s bathroom floor.

There were no witnesses and very little evidence to go on. The only evidence was a bite mark on the victim, a size 10.5 converse shoe print on the floor and 2 black hairs.

In looking for suspects, the police found out that Kim may have been attracted to a patron at the bar by the name of Ray Krone. His name was found in her phone book and the investigation quickly centered on him. Ray Krone had no criminal record, no relationship with Kim other than he knew her from the bar, was not pursuing her romantically nor had any motive to kill her. Ray also had an alibi, his roommate confirmed that Ray was home that night.

After confirming that Ray, just like the killer had a pushed out front tooth, the police arrested him for the murder of Kim. The papers dubbed him the “snaggletooth” killer, that bought Ray a one way Amtrak ticket through the American justice system. Poor Ray was pigeon holed into a stereotype for having crooked teeth. I wonder had he not been called the “snaggletooth” killer, would he ever been convicted. That animalistic name and imagery of a mangled, ugly person already may have convicted Ray before trial ever began. Ray Krone is just a man, but “snaggletooth killer” is a demon. In fact, so many things went wrong here that it’s hard to even know where to start.

So lets start with the facts. The shoe print found at the scene was the wrong size, Ray wore 9.5 shoes not 10.5 and Ray had long light hair not short black hair like the 2 hairs found. The 2 hairs found came from a man of non-white descent.

With all this evidence that did not match, an alibi, and no motive, how was he convicted? For one, what jury would ever want to set free the monster known as the “snaggletooth killer” and the prosecution got the states expert in dentistry, Dr. Raymond Rawson to testify. Dr. Rawson convinced the Jury that bite marks are like fingerprints and can identify the killer just like a good print can. Dr. Rawson put on a great show with slides, overlays, bells and whistles to show how Ray Crone was unquestionably the person that bit Kim.

The jury believed the Doctor and dismissed the other evidence completely. Ray Krone was sentenced to die for being the “snaggletooth” killer, convicted by a name and a bite mark.

On appeal, The defence brought in 3 dental experts, all of whom disagreed with Dr. Rawson’s opinion. In fact all three agreed that the killer seemed to have a gap between his front teeth and Ray Krone did not. But, the prosecution and the dental expert Dr. Rawson again convinced the jury that Ray did in fact bite Kim. Ray, again was found guilty.

One of the dentists that disagreed with Dr. Rawson claims he later talked to Rawson about the case, urging him to take another look at the bite and check out the missing gap. The dentist claims that Rawson actually admitted to him that he may be wrong, but was in to deep to go back on it now. In too deep? A man’s life is at stake here. How is a pro expert’s career more important than a life? well, for Dr. Rawson it was. Dr. Rawson did not want to admit he made a mistake nor turn down the jobs that came with being a well known expert and a man that could get a conviction.

Here is were Ray Krone got lucky. In the decade Krone spent in Prison, laws changed and DNA techniques were improved. His family got the state to allow them to re-examine the old evidence, the blood and saliva found at the scene. The saliva was inconclusive, but in the re-examination a small drop of blood was found on Kim’s pants. The drop that may have been disregarded as being hers since there was so much of Kim’s blood at the murder. The DNA excluded Ray.

In another lucky break, the DNA was run through the state’s computer and came up with a match. A sex offender that was currently in prison that lived directly behind the bar at that time. The man wore size 9.5 shoes and had short black hair. So it’s looking up for Ray now.

When they went down to question the new suspect, he, by another stroke of sheer luck, admitted that he had an alcoholic blackout that night and remembers nothing except that he was covered with blood the following morning.

After 10 years Mr. Krone was set free. Ray Krone lost a decade of his life to bad publicity and a corrupt expert witness who was willing to lie to promote his career on a famous case. Of course, what made the case famous was the media invention of a monster called “snaggletooth”.

Stories such as this are found too frequently. Last week I saw anther one about an expert that literally planted evidence at the scene to make her look like more of an expert.

Ray Krone got very lucky, how many others were not? The “real” snaggletooth killer also got lucky here. He was never investigated and got many extra years to do what he liked best, raping and brutalizing woman. The prosecution in their fervor to get a conviction at any cost helped a sex offender stay free, or at least free ’till some “good” investigation work got him busted for his crimes.

So whats the point here? Expert Witness should not be an occupation. The state should not be using professional witnesses that they know will try to get a conviction for them regardless of evidence. Just like jurors, experts should be called into court to do a civic duty so they do not care about reputation, conviction rate and how much they can charge next time if they get the conviction. The jury needs honest expert opinions, not “paid for” ones.

Can you imagine if the jury system worked like the expert system? hmm.