Beyond The Horizon
The El Chapo Files: El Chapo And The SAMS (Part 4) (7/1/24)
The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:
- Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.
- Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.
- Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.
- Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.
- The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.
(commercial at 8:35)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)
- Duration:
- 15m
- Broadcast on:
- 04 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
The following is a high-five woman from high-five casino.com Welcome to Burger Healthy, would you like a high-apple pie today? Yes, yes, yes, I won, woohoo! So that's a yes on the apple pie? I just went big time playing high-five casino on my phone to real cash prizes, free daily rewards, over 1,200 games, woah! So yes or no on the apple pie? Woah, ha, ha, I won again! I'll take that as a yes, drive around! Have you had your high-five moment today, only at high-five casino.com? High-five casino is a social casino, no purchase necessary. We're permitted to play responsibly conditioned supplies. See website for details. High-five casino. Hey there, entrepreneurs. What's the easiest choice you can make? Outsourcing tasks you hate. What about selling with Shopify? Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business. From the launcher online shop stage to the first real-life store stage all the way to the did-we just hit a million orders stage, Shopify is there to help you grow. Whether you're selling scented soap or outdoor outfits, Shopify helps you sell everywhere. With their all-in-one e-commerce platform and in-person POS system, Shopify's got you covered. Shopify helps turn browsers into buyers with the Internet's best converting checkout, 36% better on average. Plus, you can sell more with less effort thanks to Shopify Magic, your AI-powered all-star. I love how Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com/dax. It's all lowercase. Go to Shopify.com/dax now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in. That's Shopify.com/dax. What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're going to pick up where we left off with the L-Chapo files discussing the SAMs. C. The other Turner factors support maintaining SAM restrictions. The other Turner factors also weigh against vacating the SAMs and placing the defendant in general population. The BOP can address the defendant's rights to counsel and humane treatment without the court vacating the SAMs. Indeed, as noted above, the BOP has already taken steps toward addressing some of the concerns the defendant raised in his motion, buying cheering that a Spanish-speaking staff member is available to communicate with the defendant. Further, the government agrees that the court may modify the SAMs for the limited purpose of communicating the defendant's desire to retain particular counsel and the logistics of obtaining funds to do so, as discussed below. By contrast, releasing the defendant with his well-documented history of violence into the general population would put other inmates in prison guards at risk and would strain prison resources beyond measure. In light of the defendant's notoriety and role as the leader of the most powerful drug cartel in the world, the resources needed to monitor the defendant's communications with other inmates who may try to curry favor with the defendant by performing acts of violence on his behalf or aiding in his escape would be impossible for the BOP to provide. See Boschiano 530F.SUPP at 449. Acknowledging that attempting to monitor defendant's communications in general population would have significant impact on prison resources and thus weigh in favor of maintaining restrictive conditions. There are no alternative means to address the "pineological concerns" presented by the incarceration of this uniquely powerful and violent defendant. 3. The SAMs do not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The defendant claims that the SAM's restrictions violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in three ways. 1. The SAM's attorney-client provisions are unauthorized by regulation because they are not supported by a reasonable suspicion that the defendant may use communications with attorneys or their agents to further or facilitate acts of terrorism. 2. The parameters placed on an attorney-client communications interfere with the effective assistance of counsel and 3. As applied, the SAM restrictions prevent the defendant from retaining counsel of his choice. The government agrees that the court may modify the SAMs to allow defense counsel and/or private counsel who have been pre-clear to meet with the defendant to send pre-screened communications to the defendant's family members for the limited purpose of communicating the defendant's desire to retain particular counsel and the logistics of obtaining funds to do so. All of the defendant's remaining arguments, however, should be rejected. A. The attorney-client provision of the SAMs are authorized because they are reasonably related to a governmental objective. There is a valid rational connection between the SAM's restrictions pertaining to attorney-client communications and the government's interest in limiting the defendant's contacts and communications. As noted above, the SAM's restrictions are both reasonable and necessary and do not, contrary to the defendant's claims, impermissibly restrict the attorney-client relationship. The government did not impose the SAM's restrictions because of any action by the defendant's counsel giving rise to reasonable suspicion. The reasonable suspicion standard only applies to the monitoring or review of communications between that inmate and attorneys or attorneys' agents who are traditionally covered by the attorney-client privilege. For the purpose of deterring future acts that could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons or substantial damage to property that would entail the risk of death or serious bodily injury to persons. C28CFR501.3D Here the SAM restrictions do not call for the monitoring or review of attorney-client communications and are not certainly intended to imply that the government expects defense counsel to engage intentionally in any wrongdoing in the future. But such wrongdoing is not a prerequisite to imposition of SAM restrictions. See how SHIMI-621 F.SUPP 2D at 78-86. Holding that SAM restrictions that place certain limitations on communications between the defendant and his attorneys did not violate the defendant's right to counsel and were valid because they were reasonably related to legitimate, peniological objectives. In fact, compliance with the SAM restrictions is highly dependent upon the honesty and integrity of defense counsel and their staff, which is not in question here. As detailed above, the government imposed the SAM restrictions to prevent dangerous communications between the defendant and third parties by putting all parties on notice of the heightened security concerns, relating to communications to and from the defendant, which require extra diligence, particularly when disseminating any such communications. Under the circumstances of this case and because of the security concerns, the imposition of restrictions on the defendant's contacts and communications is reasonable and warranted. Ciboshiano530F.SUPP 2D at 448. Finding a position of SAM's rational response to the government's legitimate purpose, where the government offered evidence of defendant's use of third parties to pass messages from prison to associates, regarding affairs of defendant's criminal organization. Moreover, the affirmation, required by the SAM's restrictions for defense counsel and their staff, provides a reasonable measure for ensuring the SAM's restrictions have effect, while permitting the representation to proceed undisturbed. See AshimiF.SUPP 2D at 87. Appolding a requirement that counsel signs SAM's acknowledgement forms, noting that defense counsel would do well to avoid conduct that formed the basis of another attorney's conviction, smuggling messages from her client to co-conspirators, despite acknowledging that SAM's forbade her from doing so. B. SAM's restrictions do not prevent effective assistance of counsel. Arguing that SAM's thwart the effect of assistance of counsel, the defendant contends that one, the limitations on attorney-client communications are over-broadened vague. Two, they arbitrarily make distinctions between staff members and unduly burden the defense team. And three, they impose burdensome limits on the defendant's legal calls. The court should reject these arguments. One, the SAM's guidelines governing attorney-client communications are not over-broad or vague. The defendant claims, erroneously, that the SAM's restrictions on attorney-client communications are over-broadened vague. The defendant injects vagueness into the plain language of the restrictions where none exists. First, the defendant claims that the provisions allowing only for attorneys to disseminate the defendant's communications to third parties is vague because it's unclear whether defense team members can make use of such communications. But this provision plainly concerns only the dissemination of the defendant's communications to third parties, not the use of information derived from the defendant's communications. The provision precludes any member of the defense team other than the defendant's attorneys from disseminating communications to third parties. But it does not limit how any member of the defense team may use such communications in the preparation of the defense. Thus, under this provision, it's up to the defense attorney to make the legal determination as to who outside the defense team should have access to the defendant's communications for the purpose of preparing the defense. In that way, the provision ensures that such communications are carefully guarded and only distributed to third parties after appropriate consideration. Second, the defendant claims that the term "messages" is undefined but does not explain why the dictionary definition of message, i.e., a communication and writing by speech or by signal, does not supply sufficient clarity. See Defense Brief at 15 and 22. Mariam Webster Dictionary, definition of message, at mariamdictionary.com The following is a high-five moment from highfivecocino.com On one! Yahoo! Private, put down your phone. This is the Army! Sorry, highfivecocino is a social casino. It's on your phone. Goes wherever you go. I win three spins, cash, prizes, three down rewards, over twelve hundred games. I won again! Platoon! Present cell phone! Highfive! Highfive! Casino! Wind and highfive casino! That's home! Highfive casino is a social casino. No purchase necessary. We're prohibited to play responsibly conditions apply. See website for details. Highfive casino. Hello, it is Ryan, and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting your steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino. Chumba Casino has all your favorite social casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere, with daily bonuses. So sign up now at ChumbaCocino.com. That's ChumbaCocino.com Sponsored by Chumba Casino, no purchase necessary. VGW Group, void we're prohibited by law. 18-plus terms and conditions apply. Specifically, the defendant expresses concerns that the SAMS prevent counsel from fulfilling its role in informing the defendant's family members about his well-being. Under the plain meaning of the SAMS, Defense Council is simply restricted from communicating a specific verbal, written or recorded message from the defendant, unaltered, to third parties. Defense Council, however, is able to share observations about the defendant, such as his health or spirits, to his family and friends, without violating the SAMS. For example, Defense Council is able to share that the defendant is in good health and wishes his family well, without passing on verbatim messages, which may or may not be coded. Third, the defendant claims that the prohibition against providing the defendant with inflammatory material is over-broad and includes barring the defendant from access to discovery or material necessary for investigative purposes. Defense Brief at 15. There is absolutely nothing in the SAMS restrictions that bar the defendant from reviewing discovery or material necessary for defense investigation. Finally, the SAMS restrictions do not authorize the government to monitor privileged attorney-client communications, and contrary to the defendant's contention, there is nothing ambiguous about that clause. See Defense Brief, example A at 5-8. Accordingly, because the SAMS restrictions are clear on their face, the defendant's claims that their ambiguous are wrong. Two, the distinctions among defense team members are not arbitrary or unduly restrictive. The defendant complains that the SAMS restrictions that allow paralegals to visit with the defendant alone while requiring attorneys to accompany investigators is arbitrary. Because of the unique security risks the SAMS addresses, this particular provision of the SAMS limits the people who meet alone with the defendant to the core members of the defense team. Considering the near daily visits between the defendant and the individuals who would qualify as pre-cleared staff under the SAMS, as well as the length of the visits by those individuals, see Super at 5, it's difficult to discern how this particular provision of the SAMS has burdened the defendant's six amendment rights. In any event, if the defense team has a unique need for sending staff, investigator to meet with the defendant alone without sending a paralegal or an attorney, the government will consider making modifications on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the defendant contends that the definition of pre-cleared staff is unduly restrictive because it excludes visits from outside defense experts. With respect to visits by defense experts, if the expert submits to a background check for pre-clearance and defense counsel will be present for the visit, defense counsel can request modification to the SAMS to allow for that defense expert's visit. Again, the government will consider such requests on a case-by-case basis. Alright, we're going to wrap up right here, and in the next episode we're going to pick up with three legal calls are not unduly restricted. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. The following is a high five moment from High Five Casino.com. Welcome to Burger Yiffney, would you like a high apple pie today? Yes, yes, yes, I won! So, that's a yes on the apple pie? I just went big time playing High Five Casino on my phone to real cash prizes, free daily rewards, over 1,200 games! So, yes or no on the apple pie? I won again! I'll take that as a yes, drive around. Have you had your High Five moment today, only at High Five Casino.com? High Five Casino is a social casino, no purchase necessary. We're prohibited to play responsibly condition supplies, see website for details. High Five Casino. High Five Casino. Ryan Seacrest here. When you have a busy schedule, it's important to maximize your downtime. One of the best ways to do that is by going to chumbakocino.com. Chumbakocino has all your favorite social casino games like spin slots, bingo, and solitaire that you can play for free for a chance to redeem some serious prizes. So hop on to chumbakocino.com now and live the Chumba life. Sponsored by Chumbakocino, no purchase necessary. VGW Group, void where prohibited by law. 18+ terms and conditions apply.