Slashdot Mirror
Whistleblowing IT Director Fired By FL State Attorney
An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kruidbos, the IT director for the Florida State Attorney's Office who'd spoken up when important cellphone evidence he'd extracted from Trayvon Martin's cellphone was withheld by the state from the defense, was fired by messenger at 7:30 PM Friday, after closing arguments in the Zimmerman case. He was told that he could not be 'trusted to set foot in this office,' and that he was being fired for incompetence. Kruidbos had received a merit pay raise earlier this year. The firing letter also blames him for consulting a lawyer, an obvious sign of evil."
... get fired. I see a trend here.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
The US government is sending a message: "We don't like whistle-blowers".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.
Close. The ethics violation is a relatively minor issue.
Yes it is an ethics violation, but more importantly it is also a violation of both the US Constitution and the Florida State Constitution.
It is an unfortunate trend, but prosecutors and police across the country have been facing ever-increasing claims of withholding evidence. Really, the defense should be given access to all information.
Even in this case there was a tussle about the evidence being actually withheld, and the judge agreed that they withheld it and demanded everything be handed over ... but no penalty was given to the state for their violation.
Sadly violations are usually discounted as being accidental oversights and punishments against prosecutors are non-existent. It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice, but there is no incentive for the "good old boys" club to change.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
part of the problem with these types of states is that they can fire you for any reason, as long as they dont give a reason. If they give a reason than it has to be a valid one. Incompetence is a good one as it is typically hard to disprove, except when you just got a pay raise specifically for doing such a good job.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Get 'em
Maybe - he'd have to find a lawyer that will do it on a contingency basis, and it would have to have some potential for a really big cash settlement/judgement before one will touch it. OTOH, maybe there's a lawyer who figures it'd be good for a little publicity - who knows?
Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants (seriously, would you want to catch the attention of the AG's office, potentially exposing your company to "extra scrutiny" if they felt like playing dirty pool against the guy? Didn't think so.)
Chilling effects all around, truth be told - he'll ahve to move out of the reach of that office before he could even hope to find a job, let alone pursue a lawsuit. Unless the state governor gets involved and (IMHO rightfully) fucks over the AG execs who did this to him, the dude is kinda fucked.
IMHO, it stands as a very good reason why you'll never get me to work for any law firm, government (let alone prosecutor's) office, or suchlike. Unless you find a lot of good juicy skeletons in their closets early on (and keep the evidence secure), the boss(es) there would pretty much own your ass, ethics be damned.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
He can't sue.
Florida is a "At Will Employment" state. The only thing you can sue for here is Discrimination. In Florida, you can be fired for anything, with or without reason, and you can quit, with or without reason.
Emphasis mine. What you said is not strictly true. You can be fired without reason, but if you provide a reason then it can't violate the numerous federal laws on the matter. For example, you can't fire someone for race, religion, sex, etc.
In this case they appear to have given a reason, and the reasons would seem to violate federal whistle blower laws, so he can sue.
So when it comes down to it, the case against Zimmerman hinges in no small way on intent. To show intent, they bring out character issues. Okay. I get that. So what about the defense's right to defend their case? The defense's case hinges in non small way on Zimmerman being attacked by a violent person. To prove that case, the character of the assailant is relevant evidence. At every turn, however, the evidence of character of the assailant has been blocked. It is EXTREMELY important and denies Zimmerman a fair trial when his defense case is self-defense. How can anyone prove it if they can't easily show that he was being attacked by a violent person? Lots of evidence shows that, but it wasn't allowed. Why?
Obligation to keep it confidential? When a miscarriage of justice is being perpetrated, it is a citizen's duty to report it. And suppression of evidence is a serious crime. The government is not "priviledged." If you think so, it's a problem. And there is no indication he gave evidence to anyone. It would seem he only reported that it exists.
Additionally, evidence of being a drug user was certainly important. 1. It was in his system. 2. He was not carrying "Iced Tea" he was carrying two ingredients for making "Lean." That's huge. Once again, proving the character of the assailant is key to the defense's case. It's the nation's legal responsibility that all charged receive a fair trial.
Seriously the OSW "99%" whining is really, really stupid.
So let's do a bit of analysis: You have to be making over $400,000 per year (or have multiple millions in the bank) to be in the top 1% in the US. Everything under that is, by definition, "the 99%". The median income in the US is about $50,000 which would be "the 50%".
So, what is life like there? Well I have a fairly good idea, what with making around that. At that income you can afford to own your own house. Not a huge one, but plenty of space. You can afford to have a car that is nice, and in good working order, you don't have to fight with a junker. You can have all the appliances of modern life: dishwasher, fridge, washer/dryer, A/C, stove, etc, etc. You can get more food than you can or should eat, even if you eat out semi-regularly. You can have entertainment, like a bigscreen TV, surround sound, modern computer, broadband Internet, etc. You have enough money you can afford to put some in savings, to deal with unexpected events and not be thrown into debt by them.
In other words, you can have a damn good life. I want for nothing, I have an exceedingly good standard of living on a global scale and I am very, very grateful for it. Do "the 1%" have it better than me? Sure, but I am not "fighting scraps" (I presume you meant fighting for scraps). I am sitting in my air conditioned home, typing on my nice 30" computer screen while contemplating which of my many food options I wish to avail myself of for dinner. That is not a bad life in any way, shape, or form.
So seriously, stop with the uninformed bitching. Stop with this class warfare "1%" type shit. There IS an income inequity problem in the US and we do need to look at it. However it is not a case of "all of us vs them" nor is it valid to pretend that everyone who isn't the most privileged of the elite are starving in the streets.
Also, when you start talking equality, you might want to look on the global scene. You may well BE "the 1%" globally. Starts are a little hard but the median GDP in terms of purchasing power parity is like $12,000. So you can say if you want true equality that anyone making more than that, including you probably, need to give up their money.
"It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice"
This.
My view is that it should be "an eye for an eye". In other words, people caught deliberately corrupting justice, by testifying falsely, or withholding evidence, etc. are putting others in danger of anywhere from jail to even the death penalty. So... the punishment for doing so should be exactly the same punishment faced by the defendant.
When a policeman on the witness stand could face life in prison unless they tell it straight... watch them start telling it straight.
I think that would be an excellent solution to this problem. Ethical and just. People who deliberately put others in jeopardy should face exactly the same jeopardy.
The Zimmerman trial has been nothing short of a farce from the get go. It is reminiscent of Soviet-era show trials because the race baiters have turned this into a witch-hunt.
1.The original probable cause affidavit was so riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies that even a 1L (first year law student) wouldn't make such a mistake. To put speculations in an affidavit and then to swear, under of penalty of perjury, that they are facts is perpetrating fraud upon the court. Affidavits are not places where you speculate or state what your gut feeling is or what you think might have happened. It is a place to state facts. In addition, deliberately omitting evidence from the affidavit that is exculpatory in nature is unethical. Even Alan Dershowitz, who is about as left as you can get, blasted their handiwork.
2.The media has been doing their damnedest to make this about race. Every thing from inventing new terms, like white hispanic, to altering Zimmerman's photo to make him appear whiter and only showing pictures of Trayvon Martin when he was much younger to make him appear more angelic and innocent. In addition, they have been working tirelessly to plant the idea of having riots into peoples minds by continuously bringing it up.
3.The prosecution's entire side was a joke. I mean, Rachel Jeantel changed her story so many times that you would need an entire notebook to keep track of all of them. It was also painfully obvious that she had been coached by the prosecution. The other "witnesses" weren't much better.
4.There is no evidence for murder and the prosecution knows it. Even if the jury convicts (most likely, out of fear for their life or just plain idiocy since jurors are picked based on their emotional susceptibility rather than their intelligence), it will be overturned so fast on appeal that they won't even know what hit them. The case for manslaughter isn't much better and introducing that AFTER the defense has rested is highly unethical on the part of both the judge and the prosecution.
5.Speaking of the judge, she is a life long democrat and has demonstrated very clear evidence of bias. When George Zimmerman refused to testify, she disparaged and criticized him. A defendant has the right not to testify and it is highly unethical for a judge to browbeat a defendant for that because you are not allowed to make a negative inference from an exercise of the 5th amendment.
6.Now we get evidence that the prosecution is, once again, withholding exculpatory evidence. To go after the whistleblower, who blew the whistle on their unethical and illegal activities, just demonstrates how truly execrable the prosecution is.
Regardless of what you think of George Zimmerman, regardless of what you think of Trayvon Martin, regardless of who you think is to blame, regardless of whether you think George Zimmerman was racist, you should not be supporting such a mockery of justice. Everyone accused of a crime deserves their change to have a proper, fair, and just trial. This is nothing of the sort; it is a show trial and a political witch hunt.
Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants
A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal; understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.
Integrity, Intelligence, and Energy are the the most important characteristics to look for in a good employee, and Integrity is the hardest to find -- but the most important one.
You feel like you are "fighting for scraps" because your big screen TV is 6 years old, you have a surround sound system but you don't like it, and your fridge 10?
See this is what I'm talking about with needing to take a more global look at things. Oh no, you don't have all new conveniences, whatever shall you do! I don't either, for that matter. My fridge is about 10 years old, and I've no wish to replace it as it keeps working great. My microwave is over 30 years old, it was given to me a long time ago and just keeps on trucking. Again, no reason to replace it as it still works great. Having a good life doesn't mean buying everything new all the time. In fact a big part of it can be managing your money by spending it smartly on things as needed and keeping what works.
Then of course you have to go with the silly doom and gloom "You won't have a good life soon!" shit and show a rather poor understanding of economics.
Look man, sorry that your life is not working out as well as you believe it should but you also should maybe do a little research and see how good you have it compared to the majority of the world's population.
Also consider that maybe, just maybe, you are part of the problem with your ability to get and keep a job. Layoffs are something that everyone is likely to face from time to time, but if you keep losing your job, if you are always having problems finding one, well then perhaps you are doing something wrong. I don't know much about you so I can't say what, but perhaps some introspection is in order. It is like the people who perpetually have bad relationships yet never seem to consider they may have a part of that.