James M. Porfido is a Certified Criminal Trial Attorney certified since 1995 by the Supreme Court of New Jersey and former Chief of Sex Crimes / Child Abuse and Vehicular Homicide Units at the Morris County Prosecutors Officer in New Jersy. He is an Adjunct Law Professor who teaches Persuasion and Advocacy at Seton Hall University School of Law and a TV Legal Analyst on Cases of National Publicity and Interest since 2002. He has been selected as a Super Lawyer in Criminal Defense since 2002 through the present.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/mission-evolution-with-gwilda-wiyaka--2888020/support.
Please note that all XZBN radio and/or television shows are Copyright © REL-MAR McConnell Meda Company, Niagara, Ontario, Canada – www.rel-mar.com. For more Episodes of this show and all shows produced, broadcasted and syndicated from REL-MAR McConell Media Company and The 'X' Zone Broadcast Network and the 'X' Zone TV Channell, visit www.xzbn.net. For programming, distribution, and syndication inquiries, email programming@xzbn.net.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/mission-evolution-with-gwilda-wiyaka--2888020/support.
Please note that all XZBN radio and/or television shows are Copyright © REL-MAR McConnell Meda Company, Niagara, Ontario, Canada – www.rel-mar.com. For more Episodes of this show and all shows produced, broadcasted and syndicated from REL-MAR McConell Media Company and The 'X' Zone Broadcast Network and the 'X' Zone TV Channell, visit www.xzbn.net. For programming, distribution, and syndication inquiries, email programming@xzbn.net.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Welcome to Mission Evolution Radio Show with Gwildowaka, bringing together
today's leading experts to uncover ever deepening spiritual truths and
the latest scientific developments in support of the evolution of humankind.
For more information on Mission Evolution Radio with Gildawaka, visit
www dot Mission evolution dot org and now here's the
(00:31):
host of Mission Evolution, Miss Gwildawiaka.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Following current events may have one wondering if we're losing
the battle between politics, money and true justice. Do we
need to ask ourselves? Is lady justice truly blind? Mission
Evolution Radio TV show is coming to you around the
world on the XOTV channel XCTV. With this this hour
(01:02):
to take a closer look at our legal system is
James M.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Porfito.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
James is a criminal trial attorney, certified since nineteen ninety
five by the Supreme Court of New Jersey and former
chief of Sex Crimes, Child Abuse, and Vehicular Homicide Units.
He's an adjunct law professor who teaches persuasion and advocacy
at Seton Hall University School of Law, and a TV
(01:29):
legal analyst in cases of national publicity and interest.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
He has been.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Selected as a superior Lawyer criminal defense since two thousand
and two through the present his website porfitolaw dot com. James,
thank you so much for joining us on Mission Evolution.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
Thank you, Gwilda, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
So what prompted you to go into law?
Speaker 4 (01:54):
Wow? That goes way back, probably to high school days.
You know, just being the underdog. I feel like the
fight was always there and having to persuade people and
being the littler guy in the sports world made me
a little bit more, i'd say, prone to these kind
(02:14):
of debates.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
So finding justice hit you early on.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
Huh Yeah, yeah, you finding your place, you know, especially
in a world where you're not the biggest or the best.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Tell us about your background and your experience.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Sure.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
I went to Seaton Hall University in South Orange, New
Jersey undergrad and I had a Bachelor of Arts degree.
Then I went on to the University of Bridgeport School
of Law in Bridgeport, Connecticut, which is now Quinnipiac School
of Law. It was consumed after I graduated in nineteen
(02:52):
eighty eight, and I did a judicial clerkship in New
Jersey Superior Court with a judge Ronald Graves, who went
on to the Appellate Court in New Jersey, and then
I got a job in the Prosecutor's office. And it's
funny how things go full circle. But I had an
opportunity to work on a firm that was a small,
growing firm, and I decided or opted to go to
(03:15):
the Prosecutor's office and to get my feet wet trying
cases and getting that experience in criminal law, which was
something I was always fascinated by. When I say, go
full circle, when I closed out my practice, just in
twenty twenty three, I became of counsel with the firm
of fifty attorneys and it's the very same firm that
I interviewed with back in nineteen eighty eight after I
(03:39):
graduated law school. So it's funny how things work.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
They if you're supposed to be there, they come and
get you, don't they.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
Yeah, Yeah, the name of the firm. I'll give them
a plug. Iss Einhorn Barbarrito, Frost Botwinnick Nunn in Mosmano.
And we're in Denville, New Jersey. Presently we're going to
be moving to Parsipony in the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Moving a business is always a challenge, Yes, it sure is.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
So what does it mean to be a certified criminal attorney.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
Well, what that means is that the Supreme Court of
New Jersey recognizes or distinguishes attorneys among their colleagues or
their peers based upon their experience. And being a certified
criminal trial attorney means that you have handled a volume
of cases, either going all the way through to trial
or to pre trial, doing motions challenged in a court,
(04:32):
appearing before juries. So you need to have certain i'll
say criteria in order to satisfy that. And I've been
thankful that I've been recertified over the years since nineteen
ninety five and have maintained that certification through the Supreme
Court of New Jersey.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Is the certification difficult to get and maintain.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
It is only because it's a lot of record keeping.
It's really keeping tabs on the work that you're doing.
Fortunately for me, I was in the Prosecutors office, so
I had easy access to the files and the resolutions
and dispositions of cases, and certainly could keep tabs on
the trials that I had, so it was a little
bit easier. But I think it is a bit challenging
and difficult because you have to concentrate in that area
(05:15):
of law.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Keeping track of it all has to be challenging.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
So yeah, the record keeping is for sure challenge.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
You mentioned closing your practice in twenty twenty three. Why
do you close it?
Speaker 4 (05:28):
Well, there was a lot of things, a lot of
variables that came into play, and a big part of
was COVID, quite frankly changed the dynamics of the system,
changed the rules that I was so akin to over
the years, and I felt that my clients, and I
was a defense attorney at this point and had been
a defense attorney for more than twenty years, felt that
(05:49):
they weren't getting a fair shake. And I felt that
the COVID system that was put in place as basically
a compromise to keep the cases moving really wasn't recognizing
individual rights liberties. And I felt that my clients were
no matter what level of advocacy I provided to them
and the passion behind the case, they just weren't getting
(06:11):
their just due in court, and I felt they were
being treated unfairly. Many of them were incarcerated for a
significant period of time before ever getting their day in court.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
So what were the issues around COVID that you were
defending people. Sure.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
Well, New Jersey put in place, like many states did,
they eliminated cash bails, and the idea behind it was
really it was a wonderful idea is that you don't
want people that are indigent in jail for minor offenses
with a bail that's you know, one hundred and two
hundred dollars and they're just sitting there, sitting there because
they can't post that money. Well, the idea that was
(06:47):
really wonderful, but what ended up happening in practicing in
reality was that everybody would be incarcerated and then they'd
have to fight to be released because there was something
called the pre trial detention, which is still happening, and
people would be detained. And then what would also change
is the judges were not judging simply on the criteria
(07:10):
of risk of flight and danger to the community. They
now had an algorithm. They had a mathematical calculation that
was basically spit out of a computer and it gave
a score and it would basically determine whether your client
would be released or stay. And if they were charged
with the serious offense, the likelihood is and they were
(07:31):
facing incarceration. If they were convicted they weren't going anywhere,
they were going to be sitting in jail, and it
became very frustrating. So I think the system kind of,
in my opinion, that backfired.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
So what did they have to do with COVID.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Well, COVID kind of allowed that to happen, and then
when COVID came into play, everything was being done virtually,
so it was all being done over the computer, similar
to what we're doing right now, virtually.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
You know.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
It just took out the camaraderie and the ability to
communicate in person, and really, I feel sacrifice the rights
of the clients because if you're an attorney that's animated
and speak passionately in your fiery, in your presentation, I
think that's lost when you're staring at a computer screen.
(08:21):
So I felt that that had changed dramatically, and I
found that that clients were being detained unreasonably for significant
periods of time, and I filed many many appeals to
the appeals the Appellate Division or appeals court, and ultimately
was not granted the relief I saw. The judges were upheld.
(08:43):
The appellate courts were fine with saying, hey, this is
what we have now, and we're going to we're going
to protect the community and keep these people incarcerated. And interestingly,
we're seeing a very different dynamic today where there's a
soft on crime in many different jurisdictions, where people are
committing crime and they're they're walking the streets freely.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
And that's frightening too.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
It's like it sure is far one way or too
far the exactly exactly. Yeah, so you're still are you
still engaged in the practice of law?
Speaker 4 (09:14):
And if so, how I am. I'm of counsel with
the firm that I mentioned, and we have fifty attorneys
and I'm in the criminal section. So I consult as
a criminal defense attorney and I refer my former clients,
and you know, for my practice of more than twenty years,
I developed a huge number of clients over those years,
(09:36):
and those are clients that continually call me if they
get in trouble or they have an issue or problem,
and I refer them to the firm and you know,
basically hand them off to the firm or give you know,
some advice or direction regarding their situation. So that's my
role now. It's very passive compared to what I used
to do. For sure. I'm not going to court every day,
(09:59):
that's for sure.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
So you've done both defense and prosecution. What are the
pros and cons for you of doing one or the other.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Well, you know, it's interesting because as a young lawyer,
I felt like justice was on my side. You know,
I was wearing a white hat, you know, and I
represented the taxpayers, the people, and I felt akin to
them when I was sitting or standing next to the jury.
That's the way it is situated in the courtroom. Council
table for the prosecution is always closest to the jury. So,
(10:30):
you know, I felt like I had a job to do,
which was to get those people that had committed crimes
off the street. And I felt like the jury recognized
that I was doing something that they wanted very much.
They wanted someone like me in that position, and I
felt like, you know, justice was fair at that time.
(10:51):
I really felt like the rulings were favorable to me
for reasons that you know, I had the evidence or
I could support the position I was taking. And then
later on in life, or later on in my career,
let's say I became a defense attorney and found that
it wasn't quite the same. I wasn't getting those benefits
in rulings, and I felt that I had to work
(11:13):
probably ten times harder than the prosecutor had to work
to convince the court and these pre trial issues or
motions that we had regarding perhaps an illegal searcher in
seizure or the miranda, you know, someone giving a statement
to the police, whether they were properly advised of their
(11:34):
rights and acknowledged and understood their rights, didn't suffer from
a mental disease or defect which would have impaired or
affected their ability to understand and give a voluntary waiver
to giving a statement. So there were a lot of
things that came up. And I then found that simply
by moving from one council table to the other council
(11:56):
table in the courtroom, that the system had changed dramatically.
It was very different.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
So it sounds like it's not as neutral. People tend
to lean towards the guilty until proven innocent.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
I started to think that quite frankly, because innocent until
proven guilty is a concept we all recognize in our
constitutional principles and certainly in our law backgrounds through law
school and through criminal you know, you know, introduction to
criminal law and criminal law in general, and I found
that wasn't the case. It was almost like you had
(12:31):
to disprove your client's guilt rather than the state having
to prove they were guilty. So the burden really became
shifted upon the defense to bring evidence forward, and I
did that in many cases, hired experts and brought in
people that could, you know, say that the state's evidence
was faulty or flawed, or that they they perhaps didn't
(12:55):
do what they needed to do, or maybe my client
suffered from some mental disease or defect which would have
impaired their ability as far as a purposeful, knowing intent.
So there were a lot of issues that came up
along the way.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
It sounds like, and are the you know what what
changed that were? I shouldn't have asked that, because we're
just about ready to go into a station break.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
So we'll pick up on.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
That on the other side of a break, So James
and I will returned very shortly, So don't go away.
This is Mission Evolution www dot Mission evolution dot org.
Does our legal system work anymore?
Speaker 3 (13:33):
Did it? Ever?
Speaker 2 (13:35):
This is with this is hour discussing the state of
the US legal system. Is James Npraffito. James is the
author of Unequal Justice, The Search for Truth to Balance
the Scales his website Porfolio Law dot com. James, we
were just talking about what happened and when did it
happen that had instead of the proven innocent until proven
(13:55):
guilty kind of switched the other direction to where the
the It was like people were assuming guilt and until
proven innocent. When did that switch over?
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Yeah, it seems like that's been that's happened for quite
a long time. It's really gone on for it's almost systemic.
I hate to say, but there are a number of
cases where, you know, prosecutors use jail house snitches, you know, informants,
and their credibility may be challenged or questioned. Quite frankly,
(14:29):
they may not be telling the truth and they have
an ulterior motive, which is to benefit themselves. That happens
all too often, and a lot of times it's revealed
to the prosecution that this individual, this witness is and
not really being truthful or honest, and the prosecutor has
an obligation to come forward and disclose that, but they
(14:49):
don't do that. And many times the courts are complicit
in that judges are complicit, and there are actual cases
where that's happened, where people are i'll say framed. And
that's a book I read very recently. It's a book
by John Grisham. He doesn't usually venture into real life cases,
but this is a book he co authored with a
(15:11):
guy by the name I believe, Jim McCollough, and they
talked about real life cases, and each one of them
picked five cases of people that were wrongfully arrested, charged, arrested,
convicted after trial and sentenced and with really significant sentences
to determine later on that there was evidence that it
(15:32):
exculpated them that they weren't the perpetrators of the crimes.
And unfortunately, in some of the situations, the judges knew
they were having what we call exparte communications or communications
with the prosecutor without the defense attorney. So it was
(15:52):
very unfair, obviously and unjust, and it actually happened. These
are real cases that and these or that's just you know,
the tip of the iceberg. That's only ten cases, and
I'm sure that's gone on many, many times.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
How common do you think it is, Well, you know, I.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
Would venture to say it probably happens more than we guess,
especially if somebody has been arrested for a very heinous crime,
very something that shocks the conscience, something that society you know,
wants very much to have justice done and they want
that individual off the street. Once someone is the target
(16:33):
of an investigation, sometimes they they are very narrow minded
or myopic, and they're thinking and they don't look to
other possibilities, and the investigation becomes stymied where they don't
look at other suspects. That happens quite often, unfortunately, and
(16:53):
the jade's the entire process and the system when that happens.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
So is it because of overload based overload there's so
much going on that they try to take a shortcut
to get to everybody and everything.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
Well, I think there's a lot of variables. One is
that you know, you know, there's obviously two feel like
there's an appeasement of the community in the public. Secondly,
I feel like there's an attitude that that permeates the
the system on the on the prosecution side, that this
(17:28):
is a bad person and they can justify doing what
they do, even though it may be unethical or improper.
Not revealing exculpatory evidence that's that should be discoverable and
should be turned over to the defense to say that
there's another person out there that committed the crime. Very
(17:49):
rarely does that happen, sadly, you know. So sometimes it's
just full steam ahead and maybe a prosecutor that's looking
to put a notch on their belt, you know, and
they feel like the only way to do that is
to bring this individual to justice, and that brings them,
you know, the I guess, the accolades that they're looking for.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
So what happens to a person's life once they've been
falsely accused and tried and all this stuff, even if
they get it straightened out in the long run, what
happens to.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
Their life as a result of that, Well, you can
only imagine people that lose their lives. Really they're sentenced
through a significant period of time for a murder they
didn't commit. But for these Project Innocence, these groups that
are out there that exist through funding through law schools
and things like that, where people are working on their
(18:43):
cases almost pro bono, which means they're not being paid,
and they're going back over the records and they're looking
at transcripts to see where there were mistakes made or
where the defense was not allowed to bring in witnesses,
or perhaps the defense was not allowed to bring in
a proper defense, and to comb through those records is
(19:06):
so time consuming and obviously to get through the appeals
section of courts, and many of these people had already
had appeals and they were denied. So it's almost like,
you know, once they've heard your appeal once and it's
been denied, you come back again. They're like, it's like
the boy that cried Wolf, you know, but there may
(19:26):
truly be merit, and there certainly can be credence their arguments,
it's just the way it's presented in the timing in
which it's presented. And some of these people have been
sentenced for more than twenty years, you know, taken off
their lives have been taken away from them. You know,
there were examples of that in the book that I
just referenced, and that has happened unfortunately in real life.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
So even if they get proven innocence and released from
prison and everything else, their lives are forever destroyed on levels,
aren't they right?
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Right, And it's not proven innocent. Just so we're clear,
there's no there's no need to prove your innocence. It's
really whether the state maintained their burden of proof, whether
they presented sufficient evidence. And it really you know, some
evidence may have been improperly admitted, illegally admitted, you know,
(20:21):
perhaps a statement or a critical piece of evidence that
was illegally seized. So you know, these things are overlooked
and sadly, you know, like you say, people's lives are ruined,
they're changed forever. They can't get that back. You can't
get those years back. It's impossible, and you know, loved
(20:41):
ones are gone, you know, you know during that period
of incarceration, and it's not a pleasant situation to be
incarcerated by any stretch of the imagination, to be you know,
removed from society and put in that kind of an environment.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
And then was there what's their recourse once they're out?
I mean, are their ability to get jobs and be respected?
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Has that been impacted as well?
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Well?
Speaker 4 (21:08):
Of course, and you know there is there may be
an issue of compensation where the there's a recognition that
something bad was done here and they need to somehow
correct it, and they give money. You know, it's like
but money's not going to solve that. You know, you
can give somebody a million dollars, it's not going to
change the fact that they lost twenty years of their life,
(21:29):
or that their brother or their sister, or their mom
or dad are gone while they were incarcerated, and they
weren't able to even you know, go to the funeral.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
It's heartbreaking set of affairs. So you say, Lady Justice
is not truly blind. Would you explain that please?
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Yeah. So the cover of my book is that I
have Lady Justice depicted, and you know, I actually have
the book right here. Lady Justice is actually peeking out
from the blindfold. She's not truly blind. She's actually and
the scales of justice are imbalanced. In other words, they're
unfairly tipped. So the way I viewed it is that
(22:11):
it's really not blind in that, you know, both sides
are getting their day in court where it's a level
playing field. I didn't feel that when I was on
the defense side, I felt that it was imbalanced. I
felt that there were a lot of advantages on the
prosecution side. And many times, you know, I would file
motions to suppress statements or evidence, and it almost became
(22:35):
the burden upon me to stand there and to make
the arguments, rather than the prosecutor saying why the evidence
should be admitted and how it was done properly. I
was on the other side arguing that there was case
law to support the reasons why I had filed that
motion or application to the court, and that clearly we
(22:56):
had demonstrated that this evidence should be suppressed. And judges,
quite frankly, in my estimation and from my experience, they
just didn't listen, regardless of the strength of the argument
or the case law that supported the arguments.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
So, as former chief of sex crimes, child abuse, and
vehicular homicide units, what's your perspective on the allegations against
Trump and the Epstein files.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Well, that's an interesting, interesting set of circumstances. I mean, honestly,
I had said years, you know, shortly after Julane Maxwell's conviction,
that she's a source of information. I mean, why isn't
it that they haven't spoken to her and kind of
deal with her to get this information? And I have
(23:45):
to believe there are some pretty important people that have
been involved, and certainly we know that from what we've
heard in the media, and certainly exposure to Netflix, and
you know the Epstein shows that are on Netflix. Think
there's two or three of them on there right now,
which talk about, you know, what was really going on
(24:06):
behind the scenes and how this guy was a real
power broker, and really I wouldn't believe, I have no
doubt that he was extorting people. So what I believe
is that ultimately this information has to be turned over.
And you know, regardless of who's involved, it doesn't matter
(24:26):
to me whether you're you know, it doesn't matter if
you're a head of state, you're a prime minister or
a king, a president, doesn't matter. You know, if there
was a wrong that was committed, it needs to be
made known. Sadly, you know, as far as justice is concerned,
I don't think that there will ever be justice for
the victims because there were so many.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
So many and such horrendous things going on. So is
the you know, is the cover up if there is
or lack of searching into it, is that because who
has the money, who has the position.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Well it could be part of it. Sure, you know,
there there probably are some pretty important people and why
I mean, I have a really difficult time understanding regardless
of political analysis or side of the fence you're on
that there's not there's not an ability to you know,
connect the dots. I really have a difficult time with
that because here's playing rides to this Lolita Island. You know,
(25:29):
he was in the company of many, many important people
that were higher up, and there was there was obviously
a disclosure of that and recognition of that in the
public eye. So I have a really difficult time that
they can't connect the dots. There's got to be a
paper trail here. I mean, we know that he videotapes,
(25:49):
had videotapes in his home all over, so we know
that there's records that exist. Why it's not being made
known and I think, quite frankly, sustain the administration not
to just release this information and get it out there
so that they can dispel all this scuttle butt that's
out there about who's involved and why it's not being released.
(26:11):
That was part of the goal of quite frankly, the
US Attorney's Office and Pambondi's mission and Cash Battell as
the FBI director, to to kind of get this out
there in the public eye and to say now there's
nothing there, nothing here, don't look, you know, let's not
focus on this. It's really hard for people, you know,
the general public citizens to accept that and believe that.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Particularly if it's being withheld. I mean, you know, if
there's nothing there, why is it dested? End of the
rug if you.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
Will, Yeah, yeah, and quite frankly, a good investigation, it's
not going to take all that long to kind of
reveal this information. You know, certainly if you assigned a
number of you know, investigators or detectives to that, they're
going to find it very quickly. And I'm sure there's
phone records, there's so much there. There's got to be.
I just have a really difficult time as a former
(27:03):
prosecutor and criminal defense attorney seeing that there isn't you know,
those those inferences that can be drawn in direct evidence.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Quite frankly, well, we're going to have to take another
station break, James and I will be right back to
continue our discussion.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
So stay right there.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
This is Mission Evolution, Mission evolution dot org.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
Is there any justice?
Speaker 2 (27:26):
This is Mission Evolution, Mission Evolution dot Org. With this
discussing the search for justice is James in Porfito his
website porfitolaw dot com. James we're talking about the Epstoin
files and President Trump's possible involvement there, and you were
saying that, you know, the cover up is not serving anyone,
(27:47):
is it serving someone that's trying to cover that in fact,
possibly Trump was involved.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
Well, I think what we've recently heard, now this is
obviously in the public out there in the domain, is
that Julaane Maxwell's finally been interviewed by Todd Blanche who
is I believe, second in charge to Pam Bondi in
the US Attorney's office. And you know, they've released the
transcripts of those interviews, and she's indicated that President Trump
(28:17):
had no involvement whatsoever. And people are having a difficult
time believing that because obviously part is an interests takeover
and people want to believe what they want to believe.
So one side is saying, well, she's only saying that
because she wants the benefit of some pardon or some
favorable treatment or leniency, and of.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
Course the Lord knows he's handed the fair amount of
that out.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Yeah. Well, on the other side's saying, well, but she's
saying what's true. She equally said that she didn't think
that Bill Clinton was involved which is contrary to the
evidence that's out there. You know, the evidence is that
he was actually on these flights to this island where
Jeffrey Epstein was engaging in pedophilia and all kinds of
(29:04):
other charades and antics that were criminal. So you know,
she did not give that information. So, you know, I
think she was being fair in her assessment. Whether that's true,
I can't say. I don't know, but you know, I
think there are certainly some important people involved, and like
(29:25):
I said before, I do believe there's got to be
evidence to support the allegations against these individuals because there
was a lot of record keeping here that I find
it very difficult to believe that it's just not out
there and they can't be revealed at some point, And
why it hasn't been at this point, I can't answer
that either.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
It's definitely adendrum, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Some Now, let's draw on your expertise as legal analyst
on cases of national publicity. What do we have to
learn about criminal justice from the alleged disregard for the
law displayed by the current administration.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
Well, you know, I guess beauty is in the eye
of the beholder, So you know, as a strict constitutionalist,
whether or not those are are are those are true
or not, that remains to be seen. You know, we
have a lot of and you know, we've seen judges
that are very partisan, you know, depending upon their appointment.
(30:24):
And we live in a very fractured society sadly, you know,
where partisan interests seem to take control and people can't
have an engage in an intelligent dialogue about their differences
of opinion, especially when it comes to politics. It's sad
to see, you know. But whether or not the president
is acting within the scope of his power in the
(30:47):
executive branch, we do have a separation of powers in
this country. You know, we have through branches of government,
and you know, that's we have to look at that.
The judiciary branch, whether they have the ability to stop
a president's actions, well it depends, you know, if they're unlawful,
(31:07):
but if he's exercising his function as an executive officer
and using that branch of government and that capacity. Uh,
the judicial branch was not set up to challenge the
court or challenge the president. That that's that's just not
the way our system was designed way back when when
it was founded by our founding fathers. So you know,
(31:30):
it depends on your views really quite frankly, and uh,
it depends on which which cases are going before the courts.
You know, I have a difficult time believing, you know
that that there's a lot of lobby behind a criminal,
illegal aliens to keep them in the country. I just
have a difficult time with that on a personal level.
That and certainly I represented people during the Obama administration
(31:54):
where they were deported for committing crimes, and uh, nobody
seemed to have anything to say about that. Then we
didn't see this huge hue and cry from the Republican
Party saying that he was deporting these people. Everybody felt
that was the right thing to do if they committed
a crime that was a heinous crime, they were not
(32:14):
legal in the country. They were deported, and he deported
quite a few people. And that's not even talked about.
It's you know, it has to be both sides. I'm
a very very very balanced person, you know, and I
look at things from both sides, and you know, what's
good for the goose is good for the gander, or
you know, if you're doing it on one side and
the other side's doing something that quite frankly shouldn't be done. Well,
(32:37):
then let's let's reveal that, and let's show that.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
So James On, you know, on the side of fairness,
what Obama was doing was way smaller in proportions. He
didn't have people going from door to door wearing masks
and dragging people out of their homes because they were
illegal aliens.
Speaker 3 (32:56):
I don't think it was to that extreme.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
So even though he did do deportions, are we looking at.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
Overboard here?
Speaker 4 (33:08):
Well? I don't. I don't agree with that because I
you know, and and I when I see protesters with
masks on, and I see that that ice officers are
being docksed and people are going to their homes and
you know, if their identities are revealed, I'm concerned about that.
I mean, once we start, you know, negating law enforcement
(33:28):
and we see a tremendous disrespect for law enforcement today
in our society, police officers are gunned down and killed
more now than than ever. And uh, you know, that's
an attitude that permeates our society. So you know, listen,
I think the numbers speak for themselves. And if you
look at the actual numbers, and I'm not I'm not
(33:50):
in favor of rating a facility to deport somebody that's
just simply illegal. If we're going to focus on people
that committed crimes, serious crimes against society, and they're walking
our streets and they're illegal, they don't belong in our country.
Quite frankly, you know, they didn't belong here to begin with,
(34:11):
and then it committed crimes. And then I look at
the innocent victims out there that have been slain by
illegals that should not have been in the country, and
there's no recognition of that. I don't see any remorse
on the other side saying, you know, we made a mistake,
just down up to it. You know, you allowed millions
of people into this country illegally, you open the borders,
(34:33):
and there's no excuse for that. I'm sorry. We are
a country of borders. Every country is. You know, I
don't understand it. I have a difficult time seeing it,
and I think if you look at the numbers, they're
actually staggering. On the other side, Obama did it. Maybe
the ICE officers weren't wearing masks, but they certainly were
deporting a large volume of people.
Speaker 3 (34:52):
Did they have ICE back then?
Speaker 4 (34:54):
Did they have short I know that immigration customization enforcement, Yes,
s been around for quite some time.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
You said that the that the our system wasn't set
up to to st police a president, to restrict things
if he was stepping out of line.
Speaker 3 (35:16):
Do you see that as a problem.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
Well, I don't say that willy nilly. I mean, if
he's not exercising his constitutional powers and authorities, that's something different.
That's something different. No one's above the law. We've heard
that so many times. I mean looking at John Bolton
where they just raided his home again. You know, no
(35:40):
one seemed to have a problem when Meri Lago was raided.
You know, a former president saying that he was concealing
secret documents and uh. And then when it happens with
John Bolton, who was actually part of Trump's cabinet previously,
and he wrote a book and disclosed national intelligence and
that's something that quite frankly, he was advised not to
(36:02):
do and did it anyway. So you know, look, I
when someone's acting beyond and above what their constitutional authority is,
I have no problem with that. That there's an enforcement
or or there's an action brook. But we're seeing a
lot of litigation today where we have very parts in
(36:24):
courts taking a very active role in trying to undo
the decisions that are being made. And I don't know
that I can agree with that either, regardless of which side.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
So I guess it boils down to does the American
justice system have any teeth left?
Speaker 3 (36:44):
Well?
Speaker 4 (36:45):
It does. It does when it's when it's used properly
and it's executed properly. If it's abused, no, I hold
a lot of hope because our system has endured. Our
criminal justice system has endured from you know, the birth
of our nation. You know, we borrow from English common law,
(37:06):
and that's the roots of our system. And it's grown
and evolved over the years, not always in the best way,
but I have seen a lot of good things have
developed over the years. For instance, you know Fifth Amendment
rights under Miranda Miranda versus Arizona, that was the case
in nineteen sixty four that allowed people to be advised
(37:30):
of their constitutional rights prior to making incriminatory statements the police.
You know, search and seizure law has developed under the
Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures.
That's developed through the years through cases and protections that
have been afforded to us as individuals. So I see
(37:51):
good things that have developed. The sixth Amendment regarding the
confrontation clause, you know, confronting witnesses against you when you're
accused of a crime, or you're right to council under
the sixth Amendment. Those are very valuable right to the fourth,
the fifth, and the sixth Amendments in the criminal process.
And I do see cases where those are peld you know,
and courts are very regular, you know, they recognize the
(38:16):
importance of those constitutional principles. Now I can't say that
I always experience them in my experiences as a criminal
defense attorney, but they certainly were something that were very
high up on the pecking order. Let's say, you know,
that would be the first first avenue to explore as
a good effective defense attorney.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
So we all have seen on various places the new
social media et cetera, et cetera, this nice long laundry
list of things that President Trump supposedly has been convicted of,
that he is, you know, the words out there that
he is indeed a convicted criminal.
Speaker 3 (38:54):
Is there any accuracy to that?
Speaker 4 (38:56):
Well, again, it depends on which side of defense you're
on here because I I don't believe in any of that,
and I see we're finding out that those were all
sham prosecutions. Uh, you know, look at look at the
forces behind them. In fact, just last week the decision
of the court was reversed. Judge Angern in New York's
five hundred million dollar verdict against Trump was thrown out,
(39:19):
claiming that he falsified or gave a false information regarding
the valuation of Merri Lago for a mortgage. And there
was no victims in that case, but it was motivated
by political prosecution against him by Letitia James, the the
Attorney General of New York, who now is under a
microscope herself for you know, illegally uh, filing for mortgages
(39:44):
and falsifying documents. Alvin Bragg, who was the prosecution behind that.
So you know, we're seeing this and then if you
go as far down as the cases in Georgia, they're
all being thrown out. So you know, there was, in
my opinion, a weaponization of the Justice Department against him
(40:05):
and to stop him. And you know what, I think
justice was served because he's the president, and you know what,
the voters have spoken, and I really have no issue
with that. Whether you like or dislike the man, I
don't know. But you know, what I think was done,
(40:26):
quite frankly, was unjust, and I think it was a
weaponization and we were unjust prosecutions that were allowed to happen.
And the chickens are coming home to roost because those
decisions are all being overturned and the prosecutors that were
in those cases are being subject to, you know, a
lot of scrutiny, which they should be.
Speaker 3 (40:47):
So it is that magic moment again.
Speaker 2 (40:49):
We get to take another station break. Please stay with us.
Is James and I continue to explore our current legal dilemmas.
This is Mission Evolution, Mission Evolution dot Or Is it
about truth or money? This is Mission Evolution, Mission Evolution
dot org. We're continuing our discussion with James in Porfito
(41:10):
his website porfitolaw dot com. James, is the American justice
system really processed to get justice? Or is it motivated
by personal drive, ambition and the political whims of the administration.
Speaker 4 (41:26):
Well, you know, it's it's interesting you say that because
it really could be a little of both, you know,
and it does appear to be, because we've seen how
the tide has turned, so to speak. And what I
mean by that is that we're seeing, you know, cases
now being presented, perhaps like against James Comy or Brenner,
(41:53):
John Brenner, Brennan Brenner, I'm sorry, and James Clapper that
you know, the those individuals are very critical and had
positions in our government. So you know, we're seeing a
different turn in it. And it depends, I guess, you know,
so is it is it justice being done or is
it a political partisanism or the utilization of the Department
(42:16):
of Justice for improper purposes? And then that's something that
you know, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,
quite frankly, and you know, no matter what people's beliefs
or opinions are, that's what they are. And you know,
I've learned a long time ago. I'm not going to
change somebody's opinion.
Speaker 3 (42:32):
Yeah, everybody's gotline, I don't think.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
So. Do you see our justice system as deteriorating or
are we just starting to recognize its failings?
Speaker 4 (42:40):
Well, I don't want to say it's deteriorating. It's really
the best we've got, you know, and and it works
most times. But when it doesn't work, it doesn't work,
you know. And if it doesn't work for one, it
doesn't work for all. You know, I'm a big proponent
and believer of that that if if it fails one individual,
it's really failed us all. So it's got to work.
(43:01):
And no system can work one hundred percent of the time.
It's just not feasible or doable. You know, there are
flaws within inherent within the system that that create problems.
Whether it's a partisan prosecutor or a biased judge who's
not neutral, unbiased and impartial, whether you select a jury
(43:24):
that's truly an impartial jury of your peers, or whether
there's somebody on that jury panel that's been selected to
hear a case that's already got a predetermined notion or view.
You know, so you've got to look at every one
of those situations, and you know, quite frankly, there's there's
a there's a problem. Do you have a good, competent,
(43:44):
qualified defense attorney that's fighting aggressively for you or are
they just sitting there on their hands doing nothing. You know,
it's it's it's a tough one. It's it's tough to say, well, you.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
Know, when when the system was set up, for that matter,
when the Constitution was set up, there was way fewer
people that were involved, way fewer people that had to
be policed, if you will, very few, a lot fewer
cases that had to be heard. What do you think
that we've outgrown the system that was put in place
back then.
Speaker 4 (44:16):
I don't believe. So, you know, it's funny you say that,
because you know, I the First Amendment grants us freedom
of speech. Now, can you say that our founding fathers
back in the day, in the creation of our constitution,
ever imagined child porn, autography, or pornography in general being protected,
(44:38):
speech or hate speech being protected where you know, you're
you're chanting and screaming and you know, having you know,
protest rallies and death to Israel or whatever it may be.
You know, was that ever imagined? No, But we've got
to obviously use what we have. I don't I want
(45:00):
to say throw out the system we have because I
don't believe it's that flawed. I believe there are opportunities
to improve and advance it, and it has done that
over the years. It's evolved and changed. So I do
believe that there's that opportunity to do it. It's subject
to interpretation, of course.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
Well, with all the things going on right now, it
looks like a lot of people are kind of losing
faith in the system. Is that what you're seeing?
Speaker 4 (45:28):
Well, yeah, I think that that is true. But if
you were to boil it down on political levels, you
might have half of the country agreeing that it's flawed,
and you might have the other half saying, well, it's
finally working. You know. So I guess it depends on
your perception of how things are going. You know, at
(45:50):
that particular point in time.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
You know.
Speaker 4 (45:54):
Why the reports about JFK's assassination are being released now
you know no one's around, you know, shouldn't we have
known what was the basis upon which he was assassinated,
who was involved, who were the players? I mean, there's
so much to ask And similar to you know, Martin
Luther King and Bobby Kennedy their assassinations, why aren't those
(46:18):
records being revealed and released? And you know, why are
they protected by you know, governmental interests? You know, it's
some level of involvement on the government's part that they're
trying to protect and they don't want people to know.
Speaker 2 (46:32):
And I think a lot of the American people are
good and truly tired of being treated like children, you know,
with information with held that that doesn't seem like it
lines up with the freedom of speech, people being held accountable,
that sort of thing. It looks more like it's protecting
the guilty. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (46:53):
Well, you know, the disclosure is so important because it
really is therapeutic in a lot of ways. You know,
people get the information and then they can process it
the way they deem appropriate, you know, and they can
have their own opinions of the information, you know, as
to how. But to wait and not to release it
(47:15):
obviously creates that whole similar to what the Epstein situation
is doing today.
Speaker 2 (47:22):
If he had information, people are going to make make up.
Speaker 4 (47:24):
Their own right, Sure, they're going to make their own
minds up and have their own opinions.
Speaker 2 (47:29):
And so that's not really serving our well being at all.
It would appear because then people, you know, people on
this fens people, and that finds lots of truization going on.
The truth disappears underneath all of that. Right, So is
there no accountability anymore?
Speaker 3 (47:46):
Just oh it's okay, we'll just hide hide the files.
Speaker 4 (47:50):
I don't see that as appropriate under any circumstances. Quite frankly,
I think disclosure is so important in all situations, to
reveal and disclose information and to have people, you know,
educated about that. And I think being educated is so important.
And you know, there shouldn't be a media bias one
(48:11):
way or the other. Quite frankly, as a viewer or
listener of news today, which is quite different today than
it was, you know, twenty years ago.
Speaker 5 (48:21):
When we need him right, Yeah, Well you were the listener,
you were the viewer, and you just got the facts
and then you determined which side you thought that something
should be handled on, or you took an opinion one
way or the other.
Speaker 4 (48:36):
It's not like that now. It's a lot of opinion pieces,
not so much about facts. And that's sad because it's
it's really what it's done is it's divided society on
so many levels.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
Well, the level of polarization we're experiencing now is almost epic.
How do you see that impacting in the country.
Speaker 4 (48:57):
Well, you know, I'm not involved in politics. For a reason.
I'm not involved in politics. You know, it's not good,
it's not a healthy environment, and you know, it's just,
you know, to have polarization on two sides. You know,
people are just fighting and arguing over silly things. And
(49:20):
maybe they're not silly, but people have very different opinions,
and like I said, you can't put two people in
a room that have differences of opinion because it doesn't
turn into anything but an argument, and that's not healthy.
I mean, really, there has to be a give and
take and in respect for the other individual. You know,
we'll listen, we're all Americans, quite frankly, and regardless of
(49:40):
what your viewpoints may be, you know, we all support
our country. You know, we don't want our country to fail.
You know, at least I certainly don't, and I would
hope that people don't want that. You know, my dad
fought in World War Two for this country, so.
Speaker 3 (50:00):
Know, as did mine.
Speaker 4 (50:01):
It's like, yeah, so it's like, you know, it's it's
very different today though, I see just very different things,
and it's sad to see. Quite frankly, I don't like
what I'm seeing.
Speaker 3 (50:15):
I'm with you there.
Speaker 2 (50:16):
So does the current process of law result in compromise
between justice and political agendas?
Speaker 4 (50:22):
Many times? It does, sadly does. Yeah, there's there's a
lot of times where deals are struck and you know
there's something behind the scenes that is motivating that case
going away and perhaps not continuing on in the public
eye to trial. You know, we're so many times there's
(50:43):
an agenda. There's certainly some interests that are underlying the
case itself, or the prosecution, or the the motivation behind
the the arrest and the charging. So yeah, but you know,
I don't want to say, please, bargaining is a bad
thing because without it, I don't know that our system
could function. It would basically the weight of the system
(51:06):
would would would would crack, you know, the system we
couldn't possibly function without people acknowledging their guilt and pleading guilty,
uh and disposing of cases in that way. What that
does is it encourages people to plead guilty because they
get a better deal. You know, they might get more
favorable treatment in terms of sentencing if they plead guilty
(51:28):
rather than going to trial where they're subject to the
maximum finds and penalties. So I understand it, I get it.
I understand why ple bargaining happens. But there's a lot
that happens in each individual case behind the scenes that
may lead to that decision being made.
Speaker 2 (51:44):
But the basis behind plea bargaining is lying, is it
not not necessarily?
Speaker 4 (51:49):
Not necessarily? I mean there's there's there's actually good motivation
behind ple bargaining, and which is that it's an effective
As I said, it's an effective tool to resolve a case.
And if I were to downgrade a charge, perhaps as
a prosecutor, you know, from an aggravated sexual assault to
a sexual assault, well you might not say that means
(52:12):
the heck of a lot to me. Or if I
were to take a murder murder charge and amend it
to a manslaughter charge, well, the difference is significant in
terms of the years of imprisonment that someone might be
subject to. And you know, like for instance, a murder
charge would be thirty years to life versus a manslaughter
which is ten years. So there's a significant difference. And
(52:34):
people might say, you know what, I'm willing to plead
guilty to this or that, but I'm not willing to
plead guilty to that. Well, that puts everybody an impass.
When there's you know, this clear lines in the sand.
Either the case has got to go to trial and
be litigated before a jury, which is a very costly process.
Speaker 2 (52:53):
Today, it takes us back to money, doesn't it rather justice? Right,
you know, expedience rather than justice money and expedience rather
than the truth. Somehow that just doesn't settle well with me.
So what strategies can you offer forgetting true justice?
Speaker 4 (53:12):
Well, you know, that's honestly, I have to say that
as a private defense attorney, money is an issue, and
it was an issue quite frankly. There were many times
where I unfortunately had to make an application or emotion
to the court to be relieved as counsel because my
clients couldn't pay me. They just couldn't afford to continue
with the litigation costs. And I found that that became
(53:35):
a tool that was utilized by the state or the
prosecution where they would basically have unnecessary court appearances where
you would have to appear with your client and that
would cost money obviously, and then it would deplete the retainer.
Speaker 3 (53:51):
So where is the justice in that?
Speaker 4 (53:54):
Right? So at some point you're saying, you know, I've
got to make a motion to get out of this
case because we have a conversation with the clients, and look,
you owe me a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (54:04):
Unfortunately, unfortunately, on this note, we are out of time.
Thank you so much for coming on the show.
Speaker 4 (54:10):
James, Thank you Gil, thanks so much for having me.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (54:13):
Our guest is Our has been James in Porfito, certified
criminal trial attorney and the author of Unequal Justice, The
Search for Truth to Balance the Scales. To find out
more about James, where you can find his book and
all he has to offer, visit his website porfitolaw dot com.
This has been Mission Evolution with Gildaweeka. For more information
or to enjoy past archived episodes, visit www dot Mission
(54:38):
evolution dot org. But please be sure to join us
again right here on the x Zone TV channel xztv
dot Ca, where this mission will continue bring information, resources
and support to our evolving world.
Welcome to Mission Evolution Radio Show with Gwildowaka, bringing together
today's leading experts to uncover ever deepening spiritual truths and
the latest scientific developments in support of the evolution of humankind.
For more information on Mission Evolution Radio with Gildawaka, visit
www dot Mission evolution dot org and now here's the
(00:31):
host of Mission Evolution, Miss Gwildawiaka.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Following current events may have one wondering if we're losing
the battle between politics, money and true justice. Do we
need to ask ourselves? Is lady justice truly blind? Mission
Evolution Radio TV show is coming to you around the
world on the XOTV channel XCTV. With this this hour
(01:02):
to take a closer look at our legal system is
James M.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Porfito.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
James is a criminal trial attorney, certified since nineteen ninety
five by the Supreme Court of New Jersey and former
chief of Sex Crimes, Child Abuse, and Vehicular Homicide Units.
He's an adjunct law professor who teaches persuasion and advocacy
at Seton Hall University School of Law, and a TV
(01:29):
legal analyst in cases of national publicity and interest.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
He has been.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Selected as a superior Lawyer criminal defense since two thousand
and two through the present his website porfitolaw dot com. James,
thank you so much for joining us on Mission Evolution.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
Thank you, Gwilda, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
So what prompted you to go into law?
Speaker 4 (01:54):
Wow? That goes way back, probably to high school days.
You know, just being the underdog. I feel like the
fight was always there and having to persuade people and
being the littler guy in the sports world made me
a little bit more, i'd say, prone to these kind
(02:14):
of debates.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
So finding justice hit you early on.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
Huh Yeah, yeah, you finding your place, you know, especially
in a world where you're not the biggest or the best.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Tell us about your background and your experience.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Sure.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
I went to Seaton Hall University in South Orange, New
Jersey undergrad and I had a Bachelor of Arts degree.
Then I went on to the University of Bridgeport School
of Law in Bridgeport, Connecticut, which is now Quinnipiac School
of Law. It was consumed after I graduated in nineteen
(02:52):
eighty eight, and I did a judicial clerkship in New
Jersey Superior Court with a judge Ronald Graves, who went
on to the Appellate Court in New Jersey, and then
I got a job in the Prosecutor's office. And it's
funny how things go full circle. But I had an
opportunity to work on a firm that was a small,
growing firm, and I decided or opted to go to
(03:15):
the Prosecutor's office and to get my feet wet trying
cases and getting that experience in criminal law, which was
something I was always fascinated by. When I say, go
full circle, when I closed out my practice, just in
twenty twenty three, I became of counsel with the firm
of fifty attorneys and it's the very same firm that
I interviewed with back in nineteen eighty eight after I
(03:39):
graduated law school. So it's funny how things work.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
They if you're supposed to be there, they come and
get you, don't they.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
Yeah, Yeah, the name of the firm. I'll give them
a plug. Iss Einhorn Barbarrito, Frost Botwinnick Nunn in Mosmano.
And we're in Denville, New Jersey. Presently we're going to
be moving to Parsipony in the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Moving a business is always a challenge, Yes, it sure is.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
So what does it mean to be a certified criminal attorney.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
Well, what that means is that the Supreme Court of
New Jersey recognizes or distinguishes attorneys among their colleagues or
their peers based upon their experience. And being a certified
criminal trial attorney means that you have handled a volume
of cases, either going all the way through to trial
or to pre trial, doing motions challenged in a court,
(04:32):
appearing before juries. So you need to have certain i'll
say criteria in order to satisfy that. And I've been
thankful that I've been recertified over the years since nineteen
ninety five and have maintained that certification through the Supreme
Court of New Jersey.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Is the certification difficult to get and maintain.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
It is only because it's a lot of record keeping.
It's really keeping tabs on the work that you're doing.
Fortunately for me, I was in the Prosecutors office, so
I had easy access to the files and the resolutions
and dispositions of cases, and certainly could keep tabs on
the trials that I had, so it was a little
bit easier. But I think it is a bit challenging
and difficult because you have to concentrate in that area
(05:15):
of law.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Keeping track of it all has to be challenging.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
So yeah, the record keeping is for sure challenge.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
You mentioned closing your practice in twenty twenty three. Why
do you close it?
Speaker 4 (05:28):
Well, there was a lot of things, a lot of
variables that came into play, and a big part of
was COVID, quite frankly changed the dynamics of the system,
changed the rules that I was so akin to over
the years, and I felt that my clients, and I
was a defense attorney at this point and had been
a defense attorney for more than twenty years, felt that
(05:49):
they weren't getting a fair shake. And I felt that
the COVID system that was put in place as basically
a compromise to keep the cases moving really wasn't recognizing
individual rights liberties. And I felt that my clients were
no matter what level of advocacy I provided to them
and the passion behind the case, they just weren't getting
(06:11):
their just due in court, and I felt they were
being treated unfairly. Many of them were incarcerated for a
significant period of time before ever getting their day in court.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
So what were the issues around COVID that you were
defending people. Sure.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
Well, New Jersey put in place, like many states did,
they eliminated cash bails, and the idea behind it was
really it was a wonderful idea is that you don't
want people that are indigent in jail for minor offenses
with a bail that's you know, one hundred and two
hundred dollars and they're just sitting there, sitting there because
they can't post that money. Well, the idea that was
(06:47):
really wonderful, but what ended up happening in practicing in
reality was that everybody would be incarcerated and then they'd
have to fight to be released because there was something
called the pre trial detention, which is still happening, and
people would be detained. And then what would also change
is the judges were not judging simply on the criteria
(07:10):
of risk of flight and danger to the community. They
now had an algorithm. They had a mathematical calculation that
was basically spit out of a computer and it gave
a score and it would basically determine whether your client
would be released or stay. And if they were charged
with the serious offense, the likelihood is and they were
(07:31):
facing incarceration. If they were convicted they weren't going anywhere,
they were going to be sitting in jail, and it
became very frustrating. So I think the system kind of,
in my opinion, that backfired.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
So what did they have to do with COVID.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Well, COVID kind of allowed that to happen, and then
when COVID came into play, everything was being done virtually,
so it was all being done over the computer, similar
to what we're doing right now, virtually.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
You know.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
It just took out the camaraderie and the ability to
communicate in person, and really, I feel sacrifice the rights
of the clients because if you're an attorney that's animated
and speak passionately in your fiery, in your presentation, I
think that's lost when you're staring at a computer screen.
(08:21):
So I felt that that had changed dramatically, and I
found that that clients were being detained unreasonably for significant
periods of time, and I filed many many appeals to
the appeals the Appellate Division or appeals court, and ultimately
was not granted the relief I saw. The judges were upheld.
(08:43):
The appellate courts were fine with saying, hey, this is
what we have now, and we're going to we're going
to protect the community and keep these people incarcerated. And interestingly,
we're seeing a very different dynamic today where there's a
soft on crime in many different jurisdictions, where people are
committing crime and they're they're walking the streets freely.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
And that's frightening too.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
It's like it sure is far one way or too
far the exactly exactly. Yeah, so you're still are you
still engaged in the practice of law?
Speaker 4 (09:14):
And if so, how I am. I'm of counsel with
the firm that I mentioned, and we have fifty attorneys
and I'm in the criminal section. So I consult as
a criminal defense attorney and I refer my former clients,
and you know, for my practice of more than twenty years,
I developed a huge number of clients over those years,
(09:36):
and those are clients that continually call me if they
get in trouble or they have an issue or problem,
and I refer them to the firm and you know,
basically hand them off to the firm or give you know,
some advice or direction regarding their situation. So that's my
role now. It's very passive compared to what I used
to do. For sure. I'm not going to court every day,
(09:59):
that's for sure.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
So you've done both defense and prosecution. What are the
pros and cons for you of doing one or the other.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Well, you know, it's interesting because as a young lawyer,
I felt like justice was on my side. You know,
I was wearing a white hat, you know, and I
represented the taxpayers, the people, and I felt akin to
them when I was sitting or standing next to the jury.
That's the way it is situated in the courtroom. Council
table for the prosecution is always closest to the jury. So,
(10:30):
you know, I felt like I had a job to do,
which was to get those people that had committed crimes
off the street. And I felt like the jury recognized
that I was doing something that they wanted very much.
They wanted someone like me in that position, and I
felt like, you know, justice was fair at that time.
(10:51):
I really felt like the rulings were favorable to me
for reasons that you know, I had the evidence or
I could support the position I was taking. And then
later on in life, or later on in my career,
let's say I became a defense attorney and found that
it wasn't quite the same. I wasn't getting those benefits
in rulings, and I felt that I had to work
(11:13):
probably ten times harder than the prosecutor had to work
to convince the court and these pre trial issues or
motions that we had regarding perhaps an illegal searcher in
seizure or the miranda, you know, someone giving a statement
to the police, whether they were properly advised of their
(11:34):
rights and acknowledged and understood their rights, didn't suffer from
a mental disease or defect which would have impaired or
affected their ability to understand and give a voluntary waiver
to giving a statement. So there were a lot of
things that came up. And I then found that simply
by moving from one council table to the other council
(11:56):
table in the courtroom, that the system had changed dramatically.
It was very different.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
So it sounds like it's not as neutral. People tend
to lean towards the guilty until proven innocent.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
I started to think that quite frankly, because innocent until
proven guilty is a concept we all recognize in our
constitutional principles and certainly in our law backgrounds through law
school and through criminal you know, you know, introduction to
criminal law and criminal law in general, and I found
that wasn't the case. It was almost like you had
(12:31):
to disprove your client's guilt rather than the state having
to prove they were guilty. So the burden really became
shifted upon the defense to bring evidence forward, and I
did that in many cases, hired experts and brought in
people that could, you know, say that the state's evidence
was faulty or flawed, or that they they perhaps didn't
(12:55):
do what they needed to do, or maybe my client
suffered from some mental disease or defect which would have
impaired their ability as far as a purposeful, knowing intent.
So there were a lot of issues that came up
along the way.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
It sounds like, and are the you know what what
changed that were? I shouldn't have asked that, because we're
just about ready to go into a station break.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
So we'll pick up on.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
That on the other side of a break, So James
and I will returned very shortly, So don't go away.
This is Mission Evolution www dot Mission evolution dot org.
Does our legal system work anymore?
Speaker 3 (13:33):
Did it? Ever?
Speaker 2 (13:35):
This is with this is hour discussing the state of
the US legal system. Is James Npraffito. James is the
author of Unequal Justice, The Search for Truth to Balance
the Scales his website Porfolio Law dot com. James, we
were just talking about what happened and when did it
happen that had instead of the proven innocent until proven
(13:55):
guilty kind of switched the other direction to where the
the It was like people were assuming guilt and until
proven innocent. When did that switch over?
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Yeah, it seems like that's been that's happened for quite
a long time. It's really gone on for it's almost systemic.
I hate to say, but there are a number of
cases where, you know, prosecutors use jail house snitches, you know, informants,
and their credibility may be challenged or questioned. Quite frankly,
(14:29):
they may not be telling the truth and they have
an ulterior motive, which is to benefit themselves. That happens
all too often, and a lot of times it's revealed
to the prosecution that this individual, this witness is and
not really being truthful or honest, and the prosecutor has
an obligation to come forward and disclose that, but they
(14:49):
don't do that. And many times the courts are complicit
in that judges are complicit, and there are actual cases
where that's happened, where people are i'll say framed. And
that's a book I read very recently. It's a book
by John Grisham. He doesn't usually venture into real life cases,
but this is a book he co authored with a
(15:11):
guy by the name I believe, Jim McCollough, and they
talked about real life cases, and each one of them
picked five cases of people that were wrongfully arrested, charged, arrested,
convicted after trial and sentenced and with really significant sentences
to determine later on that there was evidence that it
(15:32):
exculpated them that they weren't the perpetrators of the crimes.
And unfortunately, in some of the situations, the judges knew
they were having what we call exparte communications or communications
with the prosecutor without the defense attorney. So it was
(15:52):
very unfair, obviously and unjust, and it actually happened. These
are real cases that and these or that's just you know,
the tip of the iceberg. That's only ten cases, and
I'm sure that's gone on many, many times.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
How common do you think it is, Well, you know, I.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
Would venture to say it probably happens more than we guess,
especially if somebody has been arrested for a very heinous crime,
very something that shocks the conscience, something that society you know,
wants very much to have justice done and they want
that individual off the street. Once someone is the target
(16:33):
of an investigation, sometimes they they are very narrow minded
or myopic, and they're thinking and they don't look to
other possibilities, and the investigation becomes stymied where they don't
look at other suspects. That happens quite often, unfortunately, and
(16:53):
the jade's the entire process and the system when that happens.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
So is it because of overload based overload there's so
much going on that they try to take a shortcut
to get to everybody and everything.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
Well, I think there's a lot of variables. One is
that you know, you know, there's obviously two feel like
there's an appeasement of the community in the public. Secondly,
I feel like there's an attitude that that permeates the
the system on the on the prosecution side, that this
(17:28):
is a bad person and they can justify doing what
they do, even though it may be unethical or improper.
Not revealing exculpatory evidence that's that should be discoverable and
should be turned over to the defense to say that
there's another person out there that committed the crime. Very
(17:49):
rarely does that happen, sadly, you know. So sometimes it's
just full steam ahead and maybe a prosecutor that's looking
to put a notch on their belt, you know, and
they feel like the only way to do that is
to bring this individual to justice, and that brings them,
you know, the I guess, the accolades that they're looking for.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
So what happens to a person's life once they've been
falsely accused and tried and all this stuff, even if
they get it straightened out in the long run, what
happens to.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
Their life as a result of that, Well, you can
only imagine people that lose their lives. Really they're sentenced
through a significant period of time for a murder they
didn't commit. But for these Project Innocence, these groups that
are out there that exist through funding through law schools
and things like that, where people are working on their
(18:43):
cases almost pro bono, which means they're not being paid,
and they're going back over the records and they're looking
at transcripts to see where there were mistakes made or
where the defense was not allowed to bring in witnesses,
or perhaps the defense was not allowed to bring in
a proper defense, and to comb through those records is
(19:06):
so time consuming and obviously to get through the appeals
section of courts, and many of these people had already
had appeals and they were denied. So it's almost like,
you know, once they've heard your appeal once and it's
been denied, you come back again. They're like, it's like
the boy that cried Wolf, you know, but there may
(19:26):
truly be merit, and there certainly can be credence their arguments,
it's just the way it's presented in the timing in
which it's presented. And some of these people have been
sentenced for more than twenty years, you know, taken off
their lives have been taken away from them. You know,
there were examples of that in the book that I
just referenced, and that has happened unfortunately in real life.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
So even if they get proven innocence and released from
prison and everything else, their lives are forever destroyed on levels,
aren't they right?
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Right, And it's not proven innocent. Just so we're clear,
there's no there's no need to prove your innocence. It's
really whether the state maintained their burden of proof, whether
they presented sufficient evidence. And it really you know, some
evidence may have been improperly admitted, illegally admitted, you know,
(20:21):
perhaps a statement or a critical piece of evidence that
was illegally seized. So you know, these things are overlooked
and sadly, you know, like you say, people's lives are ruined,
they're changed forever. They can't get that back. You can't
get those years back. It's impossible, and you know, loved
(20:41):
ones are gone, you know, you know during that period
of incarceration, and it's not a pleasant situation to be
incarcerated by any stretch of the imagination, to be you know,
removed from society and put in that kind of an environment.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
And then was there what's their recourse once they're out?
I mean, are their ability to get jobs and be respected?
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Has that been impacted as well?
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Well?
Speaker 4 (21:08):
Of course, and you know there is there may be
an issue of compensation where the there's a recognition that
something bad was done here and they need to somehow
correct it, and they give money. You know, it's like
but money's not going to solve that. You know, you
can give somebody a million dollars, it's not going to
change the fact that they lost twenty years of their life,
(21:29):
or that their brother or their sister, or their mom
or dad are gone while they were incarcerated, and they
weren't able to even you know, go to the funeral.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
It's heartbreaking set of affairs. So you say, Lady Justice
is not truly blind. Would you explain that please?
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Yeah. So the cover of my book is that I
have Lady Justice depicted, and you know, I actually have
the book right here. Lady Justice is actually peeking out
from the blindfold. She's not truly blind. She's actually and
the scales of justice are imbalanced. In other words, they're
unfairly tipped. So the way I viewed it is that
(22:11):
it's really not blind in that, you know, both sides
are getting their day in court where it's a level
playing field. I didn't feel that when I was on
the defense side, I felt that it was imbalanced. I
felt that there were a lot of advantages on the
prosecution side. And many times, you know, I would file
motions to suppress statements or evidence, and it almost became
(22:35):
the burden upon me to stand there and to make
the arguments, rather than the prosecutor saying why the evidence
should be admitted and how it was done properly. I
was on the other side arguing that there was case
law to support the reasons why I had filed that
motion or application to the court, and that clearly we
(22:56):
had demonstrated that this evidence should be suppressed. And judges,
quite frankly, in my estimation and from my experience, they
just didn't listen, regardless of the strength of the argument
or the case law that supported the arguments.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
So, as former chief of sex crimes, child abuse, and
vehicular homicide units, what's your perspective on the allegations against
Trump and the Epstein files.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Well, that's an interesting, interesting set of circumstances. I mean, honestly,
I had said years, you know, shortly after Julane Maxwell's conviction,
that she's a source of information. I mean, why isn't
it that they haven't spoken to her and kind of
deal with her to get this information? And I have
(23:45):
to believe there are some pretty important people that have
been involved, and certainly we know that from what we've
heard in the media, and certainly exposure to Netflix, and
you know the Epstein shows that are on Netflix. Think
there's two or three of them on there right now,
which talk about, you know, what was really going on
(24:06):
behind the scenes and how this guy was a real
power broker, and really I wouldn't believe, I have no
doubt that he was extorting people. So what I believe
is that ultimately this information has to be turned over.
And you know, regardless of who's involved, it doesn't matter
(24:26):
to me whether you're you know, it doesn't matter if
you're a head of state, you're a prime minister or
a king, a president, doesn't matter. You know, if there
was a wrong that was committed, it needs to be
made known. Sadly, you know, as far as justice is concerned,
I don't think that there will ever be justice for
the victims because there were so many.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
So many and such horrendous things going on. So is
the you know, is the cover up if there is
or lack of searching into it, is that because who
has the money, who has the position.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Well it could be part of it. Sure, you know,
there there probably are some pretty important people and why
I mean, I have a really difficult time understanding regardless
of political analysis or side of the fence you're on
that there's not there's not an ability to you know,
connect the dots. I really have a difficult time with
that because here's playing rides to this Lolita Island. You know,
(25:29):
he was in the company of many, many important people
that were higher up, and there was there was obviously
a disclosure of that and recognition of that in the
public eye. So I have a really difficult time that
they can't connect the dots. There's got to be a
paper trail here. I mean, we know that he videotapes,
(25:49):
had videotapes in his home all over, so we know
that there's records that exist. Why it's not being made
known and I think, quite frankly, sustain the administration not
to just release this information and get it out there
so that they can dispel all this scuttle butt that's
out there about who's involved and why it's not being released.
(26:11):
That was part of the goal of quite frankly, the
US Attorney's Office and Pambondi's mission and Cash Battell as
the FBI director, to to kind of get this out
there in the public eye and to say now there's
nothing there, nothing here, don't look, you know, let's not
focus on this. It's really hard for people, you know,
the general public citizens to accept that and believe that.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Particularly if it's being withheld. I mean, you know, if
there's nothing there, why is it dested? End of the
rug if you.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
Will, Yeah, yeah, and quite frankly, a good investigation, it's
not going to take all that long to kind of
reveal this information. You know, certainly if you assigned a
number of you know, investigators or detectives to that, they're
going to find it very quickly. And I'm sure there's
phone records, there's so much there. There's got to be.
I just have a really difficult time as a former
(27:03):
prosecutor and criminal defense attorney seeing that there isn't you know,
those those inferences that can be drawn in direct evidence.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Quite frankly, well, we're going to have to take another
station break, James and I will be right back to
continue our discussion.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
So stay right there.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
This is Mission Evolution, Mission evolution dot org.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
Is there any justice?
Speaker 2 (27:26):
This is Mission Evolution, Mission Evolution dot Org. With this
discussing the search for justice is James in Porfito his
website porfitolaw dot com. James we're talking about the Epstoin
files and President Trump's possible involvement there, and you were
saying that, you know, the cover up is not serving anyone,
(27:47):
is it serving someone that's trying to cover that in fact,
possibly Trump was involved.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
Well, I think what we've recently heard, now this is
obviously in the public out there in the domain, is
that Julaane Maxwell's finally been interviewed by Todd Blanche who
is I believe, second in charge to Pam Bondi in
the US Attorney's office. And you know, they've released the
transcripts of those interviews, and she's indicated that President Trump
(28:17):
had no involvement whatsoever. And people are having a difficult
time believing that because obviously part is an interests takeover
and people want to believe what they want to believe.
So one side is saying, well, she's only saying that
because she wants the benefit of some pardon or some
favorable treatment or leniency, and of.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
Course the Lord knows he's handed the fair amount of
that out.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Yeah. Well, on the other side's saying, well, but she's
saying what's true. She equally said that she didn't think
that Bill Clinton was involved which is contrary to the
evidence that's out there. You know, the evidence is that
he was actually on these flights to this island where
Jeffrey Epstein was engaging in pedophilia and all kinds of
(29:04):
other charades and antics that were criminal. So you know,
she did not give that information. So, you know, I
think she was being fair in her assessment. Whether that's true,
I can't say. I don't know, but you know, I
think there are certainly some important people involved, and like
(29:25):
I said before, I do believe there's got to be
evidence to support the allegations against these individuals because there
was a lot of record keeping here that I find
it very difficult to believe that it's just not out
there and they can't be revealed at some point, And
why it hasn't been at this point, I can't answer
that either.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
It's definitely adendrum, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Some Now, let's draw on your expertise as legal analyst
on cases of national publicity. What do we have to
learn about criminal justice from the alleged disregard for the
law displayed by the current administration.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
Well, you know, I guess beauty is in the eye
of the beholder, So you know, as a strict constitutionalist,
whether or not those are are are those are true
or not, that remains to be seen. You know, we
have a lot of and you know, we've seen judges
that are very partisan, you know, depending upon their appointment.
(30:24):
And we live in a very fractured society sadly, you know,
where partisan interests seem to take control and people can't
have an engage in an intelligent dialogue about their differences
of opinion, especially when it comes to politics. It's sad
to see, you know. But whether or not the president
is acting within the scope of his power in the
(30:47):
executive branch, we do have a separation of powers in
this country. You know, we have through branches of government,
and you know, that's we have to look at that.
The judiciary branch, whether they have the ability to stop
a president's actions, well it depends, you know, if they're unlawful,
(31:07):
but if he's exercising his function as an executive officer
and using that branch of government and that capacity. Uh,
the judicial branch was not set up to challenge the
court or challenge the president. That that's that's just not
the way our system was designed way back when when
it was founded by our founding fathers. So you know,
(31:30):
it depends on your views really quite frankly, and uh,
it depends on which which cases are going before the courts.
You know, I have a difficult time believing, you know
that that there's a lot of lobby behind a criminal,
illegal aliens to keep them in the country. I just
have a difficult time with that on a personal level.
That and certainly I represented people during the Obama administration
(31:54):
where they were deported for committing crimes, and uh, nobody
seemed to have anything to say about that. Then we
didn't see this huge hue and cry from the Republican
Party saying that he was deporting these people. Everybody felt
that was the right thing to do if they committed
a crime that was a heinous crime, they were not
(32:14):
legal in the country. They were deported, and he deported
quite a few people. And that's not even talked about.
It's you know, it has to be both sides. I'm
a very very very balanced person, you know, and I
look at things from both sides, and you know, what's
good for the goose is good for the gander, or
you know, if you're doing it on one side and
the other side's doing something that quite frankly shouldn't be done. Well,
(32:37):
then let's let's reveal that, and let's show that.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
So James On, you know, on the side of fairness,
what Obama was doing was way smaller in proportions. He
didn't have people going from door to door wearing masks
and dragging people out of their homes because they were
illegal aliens.
Speaker 3 (32:56):
I don't think it was to that extreme.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
So even though he did do deportions, are we looking at.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
Overboard here?
Speaker 4 (33:08):
Well? I don't. I don't agree with that because I
you know, and and I when I see protesters with
masks on, and I see that that ice officers are
being docksed and people are going to their homes and
you know, if their identities are revealed, I'm concerned about that.
I mean, once we start, you know, negating law enforcement
(33:28):
and we see a tremendous disrespect for law enforcement today
in our society, police officers are gunned down and killed
more now than than ever. And uh, you know, that's
an attitude that permeates our society. So you know, listen,
I think the numbers speak for themselves. And if you
look at the actual numbers, and I'm not I'm not
(33:50):
in favor of rating a facility to deport somebody that's
just simply illegal. If we're going to focus on people
that committed crimes, serious crimes against society, and they're walking
our streets and they're illegal, they don't belong in our country.
Quite frankly, you know, they didn't belong here to begin with,
(34:11):
and then it committed crimes. And then I look at
the innocent victims out there that have been slain by
illegals that should not have been in the country, and
there's no recognition of that. I don't see any remorse
on the other side saying, you know, we made a mistake,
just down up to it. You know, you allowed millions
of people into this country illegally, you open the borders,
(34:33):
and there's no excuse for that. I'm sorry. We are
a country of borders. Every country is. You know, I
don't understand it. I have a difficult time seeing it,
and I think if you look at the numbers, they're
actually staggering. On the other side, Obama did it. Maybe
the ICE officers weren't wearing masks, but they certainly were
deporting a large volume of people.
Speaker 3 (34:52):
Did they have ICE back then?
Speaker 4 (34:54):
Did they have short I know that immigration customization enforcement, Yes,
s been around for quite some time.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
You said that the that the our system wasn't set
up to to st police a president, to restrict things
if he was stepping out of line.
Speaker 3 (35:16):
Do you see that as a problem.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
Well, I don't say that willy nilly. I mean, if
he's not exercising his constitutional powers and authorities, that's something different.
That's something different. No one's above the law. We've heard
that so many times. I mean looking at John Bolton
where they just raided his home again. You know, no
(35:40):
one seemed to have a problem when Meri Lago was raided.
You know, a former president saying that he was concealing
secret documents and uh. And then when it happens with
John Bolton, who was actually part of Trump's cabinet previously,
and he wrote a book and disclosed national intelligence and
that's something that quite frankly, he was advised not to
(36:02):
do and did it anyway. So you know, look, I
when someone's acting beyond and above what their constitutional authority is,
I have no problem with that. That there's an enforcement
or or there's an action brook. But we're seeing a
lot of litigation today where we have very parts in
(36:24):
courts taking a very active role in trying to undo
the decisions that are being made. And I don't know
that I can agree with that either, regardless of which side.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
So I guess it boils down to does the American
justice system have any teeth left?
Speaker 3 (36:44):
Well?
Speaker 4 (36:45):
It does. It does when it's when it's used properly
and it's executed properly. If it's abused, no, I hold
a lot of hope because our system has endured. Our
criminal justice system has endured from you know, the birth
of our nation. You know, we borrow from English common law,
(37:06):
and that's the roots of our system. And it's grown
and evolved over the years, not always in the best way,
but I have seen a lot of good things have
developed over the years. For instance, you know Fifth Amendment
rights under Miranda Miranda versus Arizona, that was the case
in nineteen sixty four that allowed people to be advised
(37:30):
of their constitutional rights prior to making incriminatory statements the police.
You know, search and seizure law has developed under the
Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures.
That's developed through the years through cases and protections that
have been afforded to us as individuals. So I see
(37:51):
good things that have developed. The sixth Amendment regarding the
confrontation clause, you know, confronting witnesses against you when you're
accused of a crime, or you're right to council under
the sixth Amendment. Those are very valuable right to the fourth,
the fifth, and the sixth Amendments in the criminal process.
And I do see cases where those are peld you know,
and courts are very regular, you know, they recognize the
(38:16):
importance of those constitutional principles. Now I can't say that
I always experience them in my experiences as a criminal
defense attorney, but they certainly were something that were very
high up on the pecking order. Let's say, you know,
that would be the first first avenue to explore as
a good effective defense attorney.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
So we all have seen on various places the new
social media et cetera, et cetera, this nice long laundry
list of things that President Trump supposedly has been convicted of,
that he is, you know, the words out there that
he is indeed a convicted criminal.
Speaker 3 (38:54):
Is there any accuracy to that?
Speaker 4 (38:56):
Well, again, it depends on which side of defense you're
on here because I I don't believe in any of that,
and I see we're finding out that those were all
sham prosecutions. Uh, you know, look at look at the
forces behind them. In fact, just last week the decision
of the court was reversed. Judge Angern in New York's
five hundred million dollar verdict against Trump was thrown out,
(39:19):
claiming that he falsified or gave a false information regarding
the valuation of Merri Lago for a mortgage. And there
was no victims in that case, but it was motivated
by political prosecution against him by Letitia James, the the
Attorney General of New York, who now is under a
microscope herself for you know, illegally uh, filing for mortgages
(39:44):
and falsifying documents. Alvin Bragg, who was the prosecution behind that.
So you know, we're seeing this and then if you
go as far down as the cases in Georgia, they're
all being thrown out. So you know, there was, in
my opinion, a weaponization of the Justice Department against him
(40:05):
and to stop him. And you know what, I think
justice was served because he's the president, and you know what,
the voters have spoken, and I really have no issue
with that. Whether you like or dislike the man, I
don't know. But you know, what I think was done,
(40:26):
quite frankly, was unjust, and I think it was a
weaponization and we were unjust prosecutions that were allowed to happen.
And the chickens are coming home to roost because those
decisions are all being overturned and the prosecutors that were
in those cases are being subject to, you know, a
lot of scrutiny, which they should be.
Speaker 3 (40:47):
So it is that magic moment again.
Speaker 2 (40:49):
We get to take another station break. Please stay with us.
Is James and I continue to explore our current legal dilemmas.
This is Mission Evolution, Mission Evolution dot Or Is it
about truth or money? This is Mission Evolution, Mission Evolution
dot org. We're continuing our discussion with James in Porfito
(41:10):
his website porfitolaw dot com. James, is the American justice
system really processed to get justice? Or is it motivated
by personal drive, ambition and the political whims of the administration.
Speaker 4 (41:26):
Well, you know, it's it's interesting you say that because
it really could be a little of both, you know,
and it does appear to be, because we've seen how
the tide has turned, so to speak. And what I
mean by that is that we're seeing, you know, cases
now being presented, perhaps like against James Comy or Brenner,
(41:53):
John Brenner, Brennan Brenner, I'm sorry, and James Clapper that
you know, the those individuals are very critical and had
positions in our government. So you know, we're seeing a
different turn in it. And it depends, I guess, you know,
so is it is it justice being done or is
it a political partisanism or the utilization of the Department
(42:16):
of Justice for improper purposes? And then that's something that
you know, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,
quite frankly, and you know, no matter what people's beliefs
or opinions are, that's what they are. And you know,
I've learned a long time ago. I'm not going to
change somebody's opinion.
Speaker 3 (42:32):
Yeah, everybody's gotline, I don't think.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
So. Do you see our justice system as deteriorating or
are we just starting to recognize its failings?
Speaker 4 (42:40):
Well, I don't want to say it's deteriorating. It's really
the best we've got, you know, and and it works
most times. But when it doesn't work, it doesn't work,
you know. And if it doesn't work for one, it
doesn't work for all. You know, I'm a big proponent
and believer of that that if if it fails one individual,
it's really failed us all. So it's got to work.
(43:01):
And no system can work one hundred percent of the time.
It's just not feasible or doable. You know, there are
flaws within inherent within the system that that create problems.
Whether it's a partisan prosecutor or a biased judge who's
not neutral, unbiased and impartial, whether you select a jury
(43:24):
that's truly an impartial jury of your peers, or whether
there's somebody on that jury panel that's been selected to
hear a case that's already got a predetermined notion or view.
You know, so you've got to look at every one
of those situations, and you know, quite frankly, there's there's
a there's a problem. Do you have a good, competent,
(43:44):
qualified defense attorney that's fighting aggressively for you or are
they just sitting there on their hands doing nothing. You know,
it's it's it's a tough one. It's it's tough to say, well, you.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
Know, when when the system was set up, for that matter,
when the Constitution was set up, there was way fewer
people that were involved, way fewer people that had to
be policed, if you will, very few, a lot fewer
cases that had to be heard. What do you think
that we've outgrown the system that was put in place
back then.
Speaker 4 (44:16):
I don't believe. So, you know, it's funny you say that,
because you know, I the First Amendment grants us freedom
of speech. Now, can you say that our founding fathers
back in the day, in the creation of our constitution,
ever imagined child porn, autography, or pornography in general being protected,
(44:38):
speech or hate speech being protected where you know, you're
you're chanting and screaming and you know, having you know,
protest rallies and death to Israel or whatever it may be.
You know, was that ever imagined? No, But we've got
to obviously use what we have. I don't I want
(45:00):
to say throw out the system we have because I
don't believe it's that flawed. I believe there are opportunities
to improve and advance it, and it has done that
over the years. It's evolved and changed. So I do
believe that there's that opportunity to do it. It's subject
to interpretation, of course.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
Well, with all the things going on right now, it
looks like a lot of people are kind of losing
faith in the system. Is that what you're seeing?
Speaker 4 (45:28):
Well, yeah, I think that that is true. But if
you were to boil it down on political levels, you
might have half of the country agreeing that it's flawed,
and you might have the other half saying, well, it's
finally working. You know. So I guess it depends on
your perception of how things are going. You know, at
(45:50):
that particular point in time.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
You know.
Speaker 4 (45:54):
Why the reports about JFK's assassination are being released now
you know no one's around, you know, shouldn't we have
known what was the basis upon which he was assassinated,
who was involved, who were the players? I mean, there's
so much to ask And similar to you know, Martin
Luther King and Bobby Kennedy their assassinations, why aren't those
(46:18):
records being revealed and released? And you know, why are
they protected by you know, governmental interests? You know, it's
some level of involvement on the government's part that they're
trying to protect and they don't want people to know.
Speaker 2 (46:32):
And I think a lot of the American people are
good and truly tired of being treated like children, you know,
with information with held that that doesn't seem like it
lines up with the freedom of speech, people being held accountable,
that sort of thing. It looks more like it's protecting
the guilty. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (46:53):
Well, you know, the disclosure is so important because it
really is therapeutic in a lot of ways. You know,
people get the information and then they can process it
the way they deem appropriate, you know, and they can
have their own opinions of the information, you know, as
to how. But to wait and not to release it
(47:15):
obviously creates that whole similar to what the Epstein situation
is doing today.
Speaker 2 (47:22):
If he had information, people are going to make make up.
Speaker 4 (47:24):
Their own right, Sure, they're going to make their own
minds up and have their own opinions.
Speaker 2 (47:29):
And so that's not really serving our well being at all.
It would appear because then people, you know, people on
this fens people, and that finds lots of truization going on.
The truth disappears underneath all of that. Right, So is
there no accountability anymore?
Speaker 3 (47:46):
Just oh it's okay, we'll just hide hide the files.
Speaker 4 (47:50):
I don't see that as appropriate under any circumstances. Quite frankly,
I think disclosure is so important in all situations, to
reveal and disclose information and to have people, you know,
educated about that. And I think being educated is so important.
And you know, there shouldn't be a media bias one
(48:11):
way or the other. Quite frankly, as a viewer or
listener of news today, which is quite different today than
it was, you know, twenty years ago.
Speaker 5 (48:21):
When we need him right, Yeah, Well you were the listener,
you were the viewer, and you just got the facts
and then you determined which side you thought that something
should be handled on, or you took an opinion one
way or the other.
Speaker 4 (48:36):
It's not like that now. It's a lot of opinion pieces,
not so much about facts. And that's sad because it's
it's really what it's done is it's divided society on
so many levels.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
Well, the level of polarization we're experiencing now is almost epic.
How do you see that impacting in the country.
Speaker 4 (48:57):
Well, you know, I'm not involved in politics. For a reason.
I'm not involved in politics. You know, it's not good,
it's not a healthy environment, and you know, it's just,
you know, to have polarization on two sides. You know,
people are just fighting and arguing over silly things. And
(49:20):
maybe they're not silly, but people have very different opinions,
and like I said, you can't put two people in
a room that have differences of opinion because it doesn't
turn into anything but an argument, and that's not healthy.
I mean, really, there has to be a give and
take and in respect for the other individual. You know,
we'll listen, we're all Americans, quite frankly, and regardless of
(49:40):
what your viewpoints may be, you know, we all support
our country. You know, we don't want our country to fail.
You know, at least I certainly don't, and I would
hope that people don't want that. You know, my dad
fought in World War Two for this country, so.
Speaker 3 (50:00):
Know, as did mine.
Speaker 4 (50:01):
It's like, yeah, so it's like, you know, it's it's
very different today though, I see just very different things,
and it's sad to see. Quite frankly, I don't like
what I'm seeing.
Speaker 3 (50:15):
I'm with you there.
Speaker 2 (50:16):
So does the current process of law result in compromise
between justice and political agendas?
Speaker 4 (50:22):
Many times? It does, sadly does. Yeah, there's there's a
lot of times where deals are struck and you know
there's something behind the scenes that is motivating that case
going away and perhaps not continuing on in the public
eye to trial. You know, we're so many times there's
(50:43):
an agenda. There's certainly some interests that are underlying the
case itself, or the prosecution, or the the motivation behind
the the arrest and the charging. So yeah, but you know,
I don't want to say, please, bargaining is a bad
thing because without it, I don't know that our system
could function. It would basically the weight of the system
(51:06):
would would would would crack, you know, the system we
couldn't possibly function without people acknowledging their guilt and pleading guilty,
uh and disposing of cases in that way. What that
does is it encourages people to plead guilty because they
get a better deal. You know, they might get more
favorable treatment in terms of sentencing if they plead guilty
(51:28):
rather than going to trial where they're subject to the
maximum finds and penalties. So I understand it, I get it.
I understand why ple bargaining happens. But there's a lot
that happens in each individual case behind the scenes that
may lead to that decision being made.
Speaker 2 (51:44):
But the basis behind plea bargaining is lying, is it
not not necessarily?
Speaker 4 (51:49):
Not necessarily? I mean there's there's there's actually good motivation
behind ple bargaining, and which is that it's an effective
As I said, it's an effective tool to resolve a case.
And if I were to downgrade a charge, perhaps as
a prosecutor, you know, from an aggravated sexual assault to
a sexual assault, well you might not say that means
(52:12):
the heck of a lot to me. Or if I
were to take a murder murder charge and amend it
to a manslaughter charge, well, the difference is significant in
terms of the years of imprisonment that someone might be
subject to. And you know, like for instance, a murder
charge would be thirty years to life versus a manslaughter
which is ten years. So there's a significant difference. And
(52:34):
people might say, you know what, I'm willing to plead
guilty to this or that, but I'm not willing to
plead guilty to that. Well, that puts everybody an impass.
When there's you know, this clear lines in the sand.
Either the case has got to go to trial and
be litigated before a jury, which is a very costly process.
Speaker 2 (52:53):
Today, it takes us back to money, doesn't it rather justice? Right,
you know, expedience rather than justice money and expedience rather
than the truth. Somehow that just doesn't settle well with me.
So what strategies can you offer forgetting true justice?
Speaker 4 (53:12):
Well, you know, that's honestly, I have to say that
as a private defense attorney, money is an issue, and
it was an issue quite frankly. There were many times
where I unfortunately had to make an application or emotion
to the court to be relieved as counsel because my
clients couldn't pay me. They just couldn't afford to continue
with the litigation costs. And I found that that became
(53:35):
a tool that was utilized by the state or the
prosecution where they would basically have unnecessary court appearances where
you would have to appear with your client and that
would cost money obviously, and then it would deplete the retainer.
Speaker 3 (53:51):
So where is the justice in that?
Speaker 4 (53:54):
Right? So at some point you're saying, you know, I've
got to make a motion to get out of this
case because we have a conversation with the clients, and look,
you owe me a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (54:04):
Unfortunately, unfortunately, on this note, we are out of time.
Thank you so much for coming on the show.
Speaker 4 (54:10):
James, Thank you Gil, thanks so much for having me.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (54:13):
Our guest is Our has been James in Porfito, certified
criminal trial attorney and the author of Unequal Justice, The
Search for Truth to Balance the Scales. To find out
more about James, where you can find his book and
all he has to offer, visit his website porfitolaw dot com.
This has been Mission Evolution with Gildaweeka. For more information
or to enjoy past archived episodes, visit www dot Mission
(54:38):
evolution dot org. But please be sure to join us
again right here on the x Zone TV channel xztv
dot Ca, where this mission will continue bring information, resources
and support to our evolving world.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.