It is no wonder that Ruth's columns never state any qualifications
he has to write articles about the topic (or any
articles). Only Ruth's phone number and email address were
given with no biographical or background information
(nor any link to such information). There is a complete
lack of disclosure of whether Ruth has any licensing or educational
achievement that qualifies him to write on such a topic, how
he was selected, nor how much Ruth was paid to write the piece (It
might embarrass him if they printed what he was paid). Ruth learned to
write in government schools on Planet Zircon 9. Compared to
Dr. Curry's illustrious career, Ruth's name is longer than Ruth's career
highlights.
As a career move, Daniel Ruth should not become a lawyer. His "journalism"
might cause some people to wonder if he is competent
even to write about legal issues, or to write at all about
anything. If Ruth is considering a job change then here is a Memo
to Daniel Ruth: Don't start packing your bags. Ruth is in a turd
trap as the Tampa Tribune twists down the toilet. See any internet search
for "Tampa Tribune lays off."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=tampa+tribune+lays+off&btnG=Search
Ruth knows that the media debate challenge that was issued by Dr. Rex Curry
as quoted by another Tribune reporter ( Elaine Silvestrini ),
is also available to Ruth and Ruth knows that everyone else knows that Ruth
has always been too cowardly to do it over the many years and he never will.
The only person Ruth is fooling is himself.
The Tampa Tribune also wrote, regarding Curry's client: "In sentencing
[the defendant] last year, U.S. District
Judge Richard Lazzara said that if he were a circuit
judge [state level] and the prosecution had brought capital
murder charges, the government would have no trouble establishing
the presence of four aggravating factors - facets of the
case legally required for a death sentence."
Ruth is guilty of ineffective assistance of reporting.
| The following
was written by the attorney known as Double D. -- Danny Ruth’s hyperbolic attack on Dr. Rex Curry is entertaining, but even more surrealistic and bizarre than the lawyer’s jurisdictional challenge on appeal from the conviction of a man found beyond a reasonable doubt of drugging, raping and torturing nine men and killing two. Ruth’s suggestion that, but for appellate counsel, the defendant might have looked forward to packing his bags and getting out of prison is as delusional as the defendant’s defense, as reported by the Tampa Tribune during the trial, that the drugging and raping and torturing and murdering was merely consensual deviant sex. The defendant’s retained defense counsel could not “in good faith … make an honest argument” for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case because the prima facie evidence was overwhelming as to all but one of the counts. A sufficiency of evidence challenge having thus been waived, it is hard to imagine what appellate argument Ruth thinks could have won the defendant a get-out-of-jail-free card. Nor does Ruth report any “silver bullet” that ought to have won a remand for new trial or sentencing. The court appointed Dr. Curry about a year after sentencing the defendant, finding the defendant indigent, permitting retained counsel to withdraw and reinstating the appeal that had been dismissed. So, after delving into the cold record on appeal, what Curry, and others, might have found unfathomable is that the defendant was prosecuted in federal court for a drug conspiracy and distribution of the “date rape drug” GHB, rather than in state court on rape and felony murder charges. Indeed, the point of Curry’s jurisdictional argument was that it seems silly, if not plain unfair to everyone involved, to bring a case on federal drug charges largely in the absence of any lab results showing the presence of drugs in the victims, when all the victims and witnesses can talk about is rape, torture and murder, for which crimes there is no federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause. What Ruth either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care to share, is that a jurisdictional challenge may be raised at any time during the proceedings and potentially could result in a conviction being tossed. Curry went for it, probably because that’s all there was. Admittedly, as Danny Ruth so sympathetically, albeit uncharacteristically, points out, “when you’ve been sentenced to 200 years in federal prison on numerous drug charges you’re probably not having a very good day.” However, 200 years is better than facing the needle, or Old Sparky, for murder. The sad fact that Ruth ignores, as he bemoans the sentence on the defendant’s behalf, is that the court could not have imposed anything more. Twenty years is the maximum sentence permitted by federal law for charged crimes of drugging a person with GHB with the intent to commit a violent crime, including rape and murder. Although it was suggested at sentencing that the advisory guidelines could be interpreted to allow application of murder guidelines and imposition of a life sentence, the judge took the cautious approach and exercised his discretion to impose maximum concurrent sentences as a reasonable punishment for the crimes. As was his obligation, Curry challenged the reasonableness of the sentence and the lack of prior notice that the judge intended to depart. But it probably occurred to Curry as he wrote the brief that a maximum sentence of twenty years for doping someone with GHB for the purpose of raping and killing them seems a bit paltry as a punishment in light of the mandatory minimum life sentences federal courts routinely impose on repeat, street level crack dealers. The Bush Administration’s touching defense of the use of torture in the interrogation of prisoners of war and alleged terrorists, however, probably doesn’t have anything to do with the disparity in sentences, unless one believes Congress is comprised of sick perverts, too. Oddly, Ruth also implies by juxtaposition that the defendant’s sentence is unjustly harsh as compared to Schweickert’s 40-year sentence and that, but for Curry, the appellate court might have found it so. But Ruth fails to report that Schweickert, too, got the maximum sentence the court could impose, notwithstanding that he apparently confessed to the killings. In the end, Ruth’s ridicule of Dr. Curry’s efforts seems to suggest that more process is due the sadistic murdering pervert. If that’s the case, just say “No!” if Ruth ever offers to buy you a cocktail. The above was written by the attorney known as Double D. |
