Comments (50)

PrgrsvArchitect wrote on March 14, 2007 12:27 PM:

"This was, of course, a full three months before the Duke Cunningham scandal came to light. The San Diego Union-Tribune broke the story on June 12, 2005. So does that mean that Lam really was removed for other reasons?"

But, wouldn't Lam have already begun the Cunningham investigation (and therefore someone above Lam must have been aware of the investigation) or did the SD Union-Trib story lead to the investigation?

Matt wrote on March 14, 2007 12:30 PM:

I bet the story led to the investigation, otherwise they'd mention this. Joshua Marshall and Paul Kiel have really been on top of the Cunningham stuff, so I'm sure they wouldn't overlook this.

Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 12:34 PM:

Breaking on CNN... "President Bush says the firings of several federal prosecutors was mishandled and that he's not happy about it, The Associated Press reports"

Firings was mishandled? Nice.

PrgrsvArchitect wrote on March 14, 2007 12:35 PM:

Here every day... so I know they've been all over it. And I link to them whenever I'm on another site and discussing it. But the Duke was very deep into it. So far there has been no way to know if they all ready had him in their sights and the article pushed them into action. If Lam was on the list before the "Republicans started raising complaints about Lam's handling of border cases" maybe looking into Duke (& don't forget the CIA connection) was the cause of her name being on the list.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 14, 2007 12:39 PM:

By 2005, Lam could not have been too popular with defense contractors. She succesfully prosecuted Titan Corp. which pleaded guilty in Marhc 2005 to felony charges under the Foreign Corruupt Practices Act. Titan shelled out $28.5 million in fines and a merger with Lockheed was cancelled.

PrgrsvArchitect wrote on March 14, 2007 12:42 PM:

Paul,
Thanks for the update
Keep up the great work - I think we've gone from knee deep in muck to neck deep in the last week and a half. (Or neck deep to a roaring river) Must be keeping you busy. Amazing what a little oversight will do for the country.

P J Evans wrote on March 14, 2007 12:46 PM:

I wonder what Issa has in his files that can't stand daylight. (Also remember that he pushed the recall of Gray Davis very hard, running for the position himself, then suddenly dropped out of the recall after hearing from or visiting the WH. It was odd.)

Jeff B. wrote on March 14, 2007 12:51 PM:

I can name at least one person who would have known ahead of time that would Lam would be investigating Duke Cunningham.

Duke Cunningham.

Simple wrote on March 14, 2007 12:54 PM:

My question has been what about the U.S. Attorneys who did the White House bidding and consequently have not received any public notice? I would suggest that our intrepid crime fighting Federal Prosecutor, Chris Christie of NJ, has not been rooting out and prosecuting crime wherever it may be found. He’s been going after the Democrats that Karl Rove directed him to smear. He started an investigation into Senator Menendez before the election and leaked it to the press then dropped it on November 8th. This was in one of the ‘battleground’ contests that the Republicans thought they had a chance in. Coincidence?

daCascadian wrote on March 14, 2007 1:03 PM:

Thank you Mrs Panstreppon for that clue

There is still much to be revealed in these matters.

“History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.” - Edward Gibbon

dmh wrote on March 14, 2007 1:03 PM:

"To answer a reader comment below about whether Lam's office was investigating Cunningham before the Union-Tribune broke the story -- the answer is no. Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip Halpern, one of the lead prosecutors on the case, told The American Journalism Review that without the Union Tribune's story, "there might not have been a Cunningham case." The Union Tribune's Marcus Stern, he said, "was responsible for the criminal prosecution."

I think you may be reading too much into this. It does not say there was no investigation, rather that the "prosecution" was effected by the new reports. It may be that important new, undiscovered information critical or even essential to the prosecution was brought to light by the story but doesn't preclude an active investigation.

USAgate wrote on March 14, 2007 1:05 PM:

Wasn't Carol Lam also investigating CA Rep. Duncan Hunter? Hunter, I believe, is/may be running for president.

oppositionradio wrote on March 14, 2007 1:07 PM:

how about Duncan Hunter - might she have been looking into some of his greasy dealings in the San Diego area?

connski wrote on March 14, 2007 1:08 PM:

regarding the cummins replacement in arkansas. from the nyt.
"“I think we should gum this to death,” Mr. Sampson wrote. “Ask the senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say ‘no never’ (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All this should be done in ‘good faith’ of course.”

bad faith in good faith by,
of course, men of faith.

Daniel wrote on March 14, 2007 1:15 PM:

Anyone else notice that the list of "strong U.S. Attorneys" includes those who exhibited "loyalty to the President and Attorney General"? And that the hit list of "weak U.S. Attorneys" are those who have "chafed against Administration initiatives"?

I mean, come on! Has there been clearer evidence yet that the purge was political?

mlaw230 wrote on March 14, 2007 1:17 PM:

"The Union Tribune's Marcus Stern, he said, "was responsible for the criminal prosecution.""

This is not the same thing as saying that they weren't investigating him, or weren't are of his wrongdoing. One would not have expected the USA to say that "yes, we knew about Duke but we couldn't touch him politically until the paper made his crimes public"

If true this story will get even deeper and more troubling. There MUST be more emails that have not come to light and have probbly been classified.

cmc wrote on March 14, 2007 1:19 PM:

I think Carol Lam's big sin was that she was independent.
She was always committed to fight white collar crime but Rove probably figured that he would point her in a direction and she would follow. Didn't work with her.

I'm guessing that Karl Rove's big push for the 2006 election was going to be anti-immigrant. It was the "new gay". It rolled out early in San Diego- way before the San Diego Union Tribune rolled out Duke's story. All of hate radio was on message. But Carol Lam wasn't doing her part. She actually prosecuted the owners of a fence company that prosecuted illegal immigrants. How was that going to make people freightened about immigrants "taking over our country"? Plus she may have riled the GOP base.
I think the wider story may have been that Karl Rove used the Justice Dept for political purposes- not only to target Dems and give a pass to Republicans but also to choreograph issues that he wanted to be part of an election campaign.

Everything is about MESSAGE with these folks. Nothing is about substance, truth or justice.

cmc wrote on March 14, 2007 1:21 PM:

correction: she prosecuted the owners of a fence company that repeatedly hired illegal aliens.

Altan wrote on March 14, 2007 1:38 PM:

It hardly matters if she was on a 'disfavored list' early on. When she was fired she was working on the known huge corruption cases, and the LEAST this shows is that the administration "was NOT INTERESTED" in exposing these enormous corruption cases - that it did not consider these as "good work" in her favor... (The worst?: "I knew this b*** was up to no good! I just knew it!")

Dave wrote on March 14, 2007 1:40 PM:

All other considerations, explanations and reasons notwithstanding, this administration has never, ever been known (except when it is politically expedient) to remove someone because of a "deficiency in performance".

elrapierwit wrote on March 14, 2007 1:41 PM:

Well if Issa began his campaign in early 2004, that may account for Lam having the second highest number of immigration cases in the nation, unbeknownst to Issa.

On PBS/Lehrer last night, with Judy Woodruff interviewed Issa and Leahy, after stating that no GOP Senator on the Judiciary committee was willing to come on the program. Thus we had Rep Issa for the republicans.

Issa stated that Lam was 'targeted' because she had a large deficit in terms of immigration and gun control cases. I thought this was curious since Conyers assistant had already, as reported here on Muckracker, noted that Lam had the 2nd highest number of immigration cases in the country!

Now, it comes to light that Issa was indeed on her case early on about immigration cases, so perhaps in the 2 year period, she significantly upped the number of immigration prosecution cases and he does not know that yet, or else he is deliberately sticking to the 'original reason' he targetted Lam.

Too bad, for the GOP, by the time they actually got around to canning Lam, she was on to one of the biggest corruption cases within the GOP, so the lack of immigration cases prosecuted, no longer passes the smell test.
Perhaps, it never did...someone would need to go back and look and see if Lam, significantly increased the immigration cases she prosecuted following Issa's complaints or if they were at the top of the heap already when he began complaining.

It is also more than likely that Lam would have immigration cases that lead national numbers simply because she is in San Diego and there would be far more opportunity for prosecuting those cases, in sheer numbers alone.

Mimir wrote on March 14, 2007 1:46 PM:

What about this consent decree from June 2004?

Forcing the San Diego Registrar of Voters to print more bilingual ballots and undertake other measures to ensure access for presumably non-Republican voters. I'm sure Ashcroft was thrilled to have the US bring this case. And Rove must have been elated, too.

Mimir wrote on March 14, 2007 1:48 PM:

sorry. Here's link:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/litigation/sandiego_moa.htm

yesteray wrote on March 14, 2007 1:52 PM:

"The hit list of 'weak U.S. Attorneys' are those who have 'chafed against Administration initiatives'?

"I mean, come on! Has there been clearer evidence yet that the purge was political?"

I think that is legitimate reason, if the Administration initiatives are legitimate. If the Administration has platform of strong immigration enforcement, or zero tolerance for drug offenses and there is a particular US Attorney who is unwilling to prosecute immigration offenses or drug offenses, there is no reason they shouldn't be fired, even if otherwise they are doing a good job.

The problem here is that Administration initiative seems to be "protect crooked Republicans and prosecute Democrats on the flimsiest of pretexts." That is not a legitimate initiative.

Specter + Patriot wrote on March 14, 2007 1:54 PM:

A lesson is corruption prosecutors should always be media stars, to defend them from this type of retaliation. While the admin would never try this with Fitzgerald, Lam was less famous nationally. Thankfully, San Diego reporters and Josh Marshall did follow her story.

When you look at the dates of Lam's investigations and then read the emails about when she was targeted, it's clear what was going on.

Josh noted exactly what I was thinking: you don't, ever, fire an AUSA making national news for the biggest corruption case in years, involving a Senator from your party and several other high ranking officials across several departments, defense appropriations corruption in a time of war, and hookers, for some side reason.

That's indefensible and reeks of a cover-up. She's obviously doing a great job prosecuting corruption, has investigations into the highest levels of government ongoing, and that should absolutely be her #1 priority.

The excuse she's not prosecuting border issues enough? Come on, it could be any excuse. It's like "retiring" Shinseki becasue he said the war would take several hundred thousand to secure Iraq. Axing competant and honest people is this admin's MO.

Just no rubber stamp congress this time.

the pickle wrote on March 14, 2007 1:56 PM:

Yeah and our local paper just reported the same thing about Margaret Chiara, our USA, that SHE was on DOJ hit list a couple years ago. Coincidence?

Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 2:05 PM:

1) It's clear these were political hit-lists. "loyalty?" Come on. That's not a performance review, it's political litmus test.

2) Republicans were in no short supply of scandals. Abramoff? DeLay? Etc, etc. Plenty of people in this Admin would want to insure AUSA were "loyal" and not the types t go poking around into Republicn business.

3) The San Diego Union-Tribune broke the story publicly on June 12, but they had been investigating prior. When did Lam's investigation begin? Who else knew of Cunnigham's screw ups and when did they know it? There are a lot of people who could have tipped the WH or other Republicans to the need for more "loyal" prosecutors in San Diego. Unfortunatly, this info coming out would be greatly helped by a good AUSA, and Lam was fired for being one, investigation in mid-stride.

cvcobb01 wrote on March 14, 2007 2:06 PM:

Issa was after Lam in 2004? Really? Wow. What could have possibly happened in 2004? Anything to do with phantom voter fraud? An election perhaps?

Mind's a blank. Can't think of a thing...

Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 2:08 PM:

We don't even know these lists are legit. It would be easy to doctor them up and date them to whenever.

Unless there's compelling evidence they're legit, they have strong motive to fabricate at this point, so whatever they submit can hardly be taken at face value.

Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 2:17 PM:

Another consideration is the "real problem with Lam" request for a conf call regarding firing her, that's dated when she broke a major investigation. That's pretty damning.

She broke an investigation and they see that as "the real problem" and move to fire her quickly. Seems that's the key point.

nulla bona wrote on March 14, 2007 2:20 PM:

Just because Carol Lam's name has a line through it on a paper copy produced yesterday of an email that is actually two years old doesn't make it mean what someone wants everyone to think that that is what it means. In addition to getting as many people under oath as possible, they will need to get to the bottom of the forensic IT stuff too. But good to have for other white house related investigations in the future.

Jake wrote on March 14, 2007 2:34 PM:

I thought the North County Time broke the story originally.

ChrisO wrote on March 14, 2007 2:38 PM:

It's important to keep our eyes on the ball. As others have pointed out, there's no law against firing a USA because you don't like their politics. Administrations generally hire US attorneys who are on the correct side politically. So continually looking for evidence that the firings were politically motivated is a dead end. That's an easily defensible charge, and if the discussion centers on that issue we lose.

What does matter is if the USAs were fired because they weren't following orders to prosecute certain people, or drop investigations of other people. That's the kind of thing that causes heads to roll, and could potentially bring down an administration.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 14, 2007 3:13 PM:

Yesterday, Senator Feinstein said she got a call in early January and was told to look into the firing of the US attorneys.

Why Feinstein? Because she is from California? Did one of her constitutents call her?

Eiichi shimomisse wrote on March 14, 2007 3:28 PM:

As Posted above by: elrapierwit
Date: March 14, 2007 01:41 PM, Isa appears very suspicious, as he appeared at PBS?Lehrer, he singled out Carol Lam and was well prepared (?) to have PBS a picture clip of Carol Lam. My suspicion is that Isa complained something (for the sake of his own interests) to Rove, which must have ended on the firing list of Simpson much earler than the rest. It will be a job for the local newspapers (unless they are not controlled by the Republicans in San Diego area) to dig out the dirt around Isa!??

"...if Issa began his campaign in early 2004, that may account for Lam having the second highest number of immigration cases in the nation, unbeknownst to Issa.

On PBS/Lehrer last night, with Judy Woodruff interviewed Issa and Leahy, after stating that no GOP Senator on the Judiciary committee was willing to come on the program. Thus we had Rep Issa for the republicans.

Issa stated that Lam was 'targeted' because she had a large deficit in terms of immigration and gun control cases. I thought this was curious since Conyers assistant had already, as reported here on Muckracker, noted that Lam had the 2nd highest number of immigration cases in the country!

Now, it comes to light that Issa was indeed on her case early on about immigration cases, so perhaps in the 2 year period, she significantly upped the number of immigration prosecution cases and he does not know that yet, or else he is deliberately sticking to the 'original reason' he targetted Lam."

BenL wrote on March 14, 2007 3:40 PM:

Could Issa's complaints had arisen out of the prosecution of a big GOP contributor from the San Diego area? Check out the Metabolife guilty plea from October 5, 2005 for example. Just wondering.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cas/press/index.html

I wonder what campaign finance records show?

Waiting in Texas wrote on March 14, 2007 3:41 PM:

Question - why did HARRIET MIERS RESIGN?
The news about her resignation was listed as January 4, 2007 according to a google search and BBC News article. Diane Feinstein said she got a call on the 5th or 6th of January to look into the matter. I'm just sayin.......

AS wrote on March 14, 2007 3:51 PM:

The interesting thing about the Issa appearance last night was that he took a fairly strong stance against Gonzalez and his underlings, saying rather unexpectedly that these guys have been lying to Congress for the last month and that's just not okay. It was a good look at the congressional Republican "abandonment" position, the beginnings of "hey, I'd like to get reelected in 08 and I'm not going down with these guys."

On Lam, of course, he was ready and is a good spokesperson for "we were complaining for a long time about her immigration work." Sorry, but that's not going to cut it, and unfortunately he didn't get asked about Wilkes and Foggo and the unprecedented midstream firing that is the sourcepoint for all of this.

Keep the pressure on, TPM. Great great work.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on March 14, 2007 4:13 PM:

Excuse me, but this cheesy and cartoonish story seems like an idea lifted mid-chapter from a Harold Robbins novel, and is just so much more Bush Administration nonsense.

I'm completely beyond outrage here. These guys would be their own best parody, if the consequences of what they've done to the country -- six years and counting -- weren't so frightening.

I just want this administration to be over.

BinGA wrote on March 14, 2007 4:21 PM:

The name that repeatedly came up with Issa is Antonio Lopez. Lopez was a coyote who had a number a aliases and had been caught about 20 times crossing the border. He was captured again in 2003. According to the December 18, 2003 The Welsh Report,
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:-RzBJk4v4fkJ:www.welchreport.com/pastnews_c.cfm%3Frank%3D989+%22Antonio+Amparo-Lopez%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8,
A field check by the border agent with the USA office indicated that Lopez would be prosecuted o a smuggling charge. Issa has said that Lopez was released. I can't find anything about his release or why the USA office dropped the case.

Additionally, the Welsh Report contained statements by AUSA Lasater to the effect that resources were limited, and prosecutions were therefore focused on violent criminal aliens. The Welsh Report was scrubbed, but the page above is a cache version that was captured this year.

It seems that if there really was a problem in Lam's office regarding failure to prosecute illegal aliens, there would have been more recent examples than one 2003 incident involving one coyote.

Paul Rosenberg wrote on March 14, 2007 4:44 PM:

From wikipedia on Titan Corp--

The Titan case, cited by Mrs Panstreppon, though setteled in 2005, was active in 2004, which caused the deal with Lockheed Martin Corporation to fall through on June 26, 2004. Titan also had an employee, Adel Nakhla, who was terminated in May 2004, for his involvement in torture at Abu Ghraib.

So that one case alone could have been enough to start warning flags waving, given her reputation for independence. Thus, there seems to have been more than enough early causes for them to want her gone. Then, as others in that category might have been dropped, she gets into the Cunningham case. And, of course, who knows where that could lead--Jerry Lewis, anyone?

dump doolittle wrote on March 14, 2007 8:02 PM:

Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle.

Watching the Border wrote on March 14, 2007 9:36 PM:

Here is the low-down on Amparo-Lopez from a Jan. 24 article. Looks like he never got prosecuted.

"Agents in the Border Patrol's San Diego region nab smugglers every day, but fewer than one in five are prosecuted, according to the agency's statistics.

In the San Diego sector of the U.S. Border Patrol, which includes the Temecula station, 86 smugglers were prosecuted last year, said agent Sean Isham, an agency spokesman. Another 354 were tagged and released in what the agency calls "paper cases," where a record is made of the arrest and the subject is let go.

That's because the U.S. Attorney's Office, which decides which smugglers to prosecute, doesn't have the manpower or funding to prosecute any but the most egregious cases of smuggling, said Debra Hartman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's San Diego office.

Her agency was unable to locate any prosecution record on Antonio Amparo-Lopez, who was arrested in November on suspicion of smuggling undocumented immigrants.

Amparo-Lopez, whose age ranges from 23 to 29, depending on which of 21 aliases he uses, has been arrested more than 20 times and deported. Agents from the Temecula station arrested him Nov. 20, when he was the driver of a car loaded with undocumented immigrants. After agents pulled the car over, Amparo-Lopez jumped out and led them on a foot pursuit in the desert in eastern San Diego County.

Smuggling immigrants is a felony, as is re-entering the country after being legally deported. Amparo-Lopez has been caught in the act several times, but has avoided prosecution.

If he ever is prosecuted, he will probably feel betrayed, said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista.

Issa said he will look into the Amparo-Lopez case to "shed light" on the alien smuggling issue. He said the federal agencies responsible for enforcement of the immigration laws are always clamoring for more money, but have not been doing their jobs."

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_smuggle25.580c3.html

Here's also an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune "Lam's numbers bolster backers of her ouster"

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070314-9999-1n14lam.html

Henry wrote on March 15, 2007 12:44 AM:

This is just a bystander's observation, but the federal district court in San Diego was overwhelmed in the early part of the decade by (1) immigration and (2) drug cases to the point that the court declared a judicial emergency and effectively suspended civil trials in all but a few exceptional cases. The emergency was aggravated by the fact that the Bush Administration was not too quick to nominate additional judges for the District, even though it was owed some, because of its disinclination to allow Boxer and Feinstein to have any voice in the selection of judges -- the old "blue slip" tradition. I would assume that this had some bearing on the number of cases that Lam brought and convictions she obtained in immigration-related cases.

You can read this either way: if Lam was unable to prosecute all the serious smuggling cases it may have been (1) due to circumstances beyond her control (2) for which she was blamed anyway by demagogues like Issa. But if the argument is that her numbers were deficient, it is odd that the DOJ waited until after the emergency had passed to criticize her on this score.

As for the guns charges, my understanding is that the feds had a program with local prosecutors that put most of these prosecutions in state court. This is different from the original program out of Richmond, Virginia, where gun-related crimes were largely sent to federal court, where the laws were tougher than Virginia's. The FAQ on one Project Safe Neighborhoods website offers the following explanation:

Each local program has been contoured to fit the unique gun crime problem in that district -- it is not a “one size fits all” program applied uniformly all across America. Each United States Attorney has convened all law enforcement participants in his or her community, has identified the most pressing crime problems, and is attacking those problems through aggressive prosecution and the use of newly developed gun intelligence-gathering systems.

http://www.psnetn.org/faq.asp. Judging from the Union-Trib article, it appears that Lam and local d.a.'s decided to go with California law instead.

That also appears to be consistent with what the Rand Corporation's study recommended, using the Boston Operation Ceasefire, which targeted prominent gang leaders to send a message to the broader community, rather than running as many people as possible through the system at a high cost to it. http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR142/index.html. Perhaps someone who actually practices criminal law in San Diego County can shed some light on this issue.

Cooley wrote on March 15, 2007 1:36 AM:

In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that Carol Lam was primarily responsible for the prosecution of three Democratic members of San Diego's City Council. (One of the councilmen died of cirrhosis before he went to trial; one was convicted; the other had his convictions overturned.) They had gotten caught up in an investigation of local strip clubs that may have had Mob ties. The investigation broke wide in 2003, so presumably it was one of the first things she worked on in her job.

At the time, I thought that the charges were bogus, and I thought that Lam was a GOP stooge. Hmm. Guess not.

Paul in LA wrote on March 15, 2007 6:32 AM:

And this, also from wikipedia:

"Titan had employed Makram Chams, a Lebanese national, who owned a Kwik-Check convenience store in Venice, Florida, where the biggest overseas money transfer to the terrorists, $70,000 from the UAE, was sent, according to the testimony of FBI agents during the 9/11 Commission hearings."

Kynn wrote on March 15, 2007 1:38 PM:

Mrs. Panstreppon mentions Titan.

Guess who, in 2004, was Darrell Issa's biggest campaign contributor?

Hey, that's right:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00007017&cycle=2004

Full Disclosure: I was the Internet Campaign Manager for Mike Byron, Darrell Issa's Democratic opponent in 2004. That's how I recognized the Titan name.

Tom Maguire wrote on March 15, 2007 8:12 PM:

Re this:

It's also worth noting that because the Justice Department redacted all mentions of other U.S. attorneys on the list, it's not clear how many other federal prosecutors Sampson wanted removed. Was Lam one among 10? 20? 30?

In this batch of emails is one from Sampson to Miers (Jan 9, 2006 / p 20 of 25 in the .pdf) listing 7 attorneys that might be considered for removal and replacement. Two names re redacted, but the rest are familiar.

Of course, the list may have been longer in early 2005. But even early on, Sampson was talking about replacing 15-20%, which would be a max of 18.

Tom Maguire wrote on March 15, 2007 8:13 PM:

OK, no HTML. The emails I mentioned above are here, p. 20:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070314/DOJdocsPt1070313.pdf

mike wrote on March 15, 2007 11:32 PM:

As has been noted, Lam focused on political corruption from her early days as USA here in the SD area. She prosecuted 3 city councilmen, with the results noted, and then went after other corrupt actors, culminating with the Cunningham conviction. Foggo and Wilkes were arraigned at the Federal Courthouse on her last day in office. In the scheme of things, it seems far more important to pursue political corruption than coyotes who bring illegal aliens across the border, and who will be replaced as quickly as they are put behind bars.

I fully expect that a few convictions will "encourage the others" to follow the law.

Kudos to Josh for pursuing this important story.