Wednesday, January 23, 2013

No justice for Mexicans in Florence Cassez ruling

MGR's view - She beat the rap

"I believe that I was declared innocent" - Florence Cassez, on her arrival in Paris

"Pobre país, tan cerca del aplauso fácil y tan lejos de la auténtica justicia - What a sad country; so ready to applaud, so far away from real justice" - Sen. Javier Lozano Alarcón (Puebla)

Guadalajara -
To French poet and novelist Victor Hugo is attributed the statement, "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Some in la République française surely will be thinking about those words as they take le petit déjeuner and devour the bold headlines in cafés this morning (it's already Jan. 24 for them).

Anybody who paid attention to the bizarre twists in L'affaire Florence Cassez, especially in the last year, was not surprised by today's Mexican Supreme Court ruling. The handwriting has been on the wall for months. But that doesn't make it good handwriting.

It was heartbreaking to see a young Mexican woman outside the women's correctional facility in Mexico City this afternoon, waiting in anguish for the Cassez motorcade to depart for the airport. She was inconsolable, wailing, beside herself with grief, as a Milenio reporter tried to calmly interview her.

"This case proves we can't depend upon our own courts, on our own institutions," she cried. "What's the use? Why bother reporting crime to the police, when in the end this is what happens?"

More than a few will agree with her sentiments.

This country just entered the seventh year of what is colloquially called Mexico's Drug War. It could far more accurately be denominated the United States' Drug War Being Fought on Mexican Soil, but that's a theme for another day. In the meantime, responsible officials must bear in mind that legal decisions always have practical consequences. And sometimes they're not desirable ones.

Kidnappings are a common tool of the monolithic drug cartels and organized crime groups which every day give Mexico's government a real run for its money. Today the nation's highest court laid aside very credible evidence of Florence Cassez' enthusiastic support for a kidnapping gang, Los Zodiaco, and gave her a plane ticket home amidst much trumpeting about "human rights violations." To their credit, two ministers of the five judge panel would have denied her amparo petition, finding that admitted procedural violations in the case had little if anything to do with the determination of guilt by lower courts. The dissenting judges got it right. The majority didn't.

Thirty-three years of practicing law in the United States of America makes me comfortably certain that most courts there would have quickly disposed of the claims made by Cassez, a well-heeled child of privilege whose parents probably exhausted several fortunes to spring her. Consider these facts relative to one of her main claims - the denial of access to consular assistance from French diplomatic personnel in Mexico:

On Jan. 7, 1982, brothers Karl and Walter LaGrand walked into a bank in Marana, Arizona, intent on robbing it. In the process they killed a man and injured a woman. A state court jury convicted them and sentenced both to death for murder committed during a felony.

The LaGrand brothers were German nationals. And although they had lived in the United States since they were toddlers, neither one had ever become a U.S. citizen. During the lengthy appeals process, they complained that Arizona prosecutors had not notified them of their right to consular assistance. Ultimately, Germany filed a civil lawsuit against the United States in an effort to stop their execution [Federal Republic of Germany v. United States, 526 U.S. 111 (1999), per curiam order denying motion for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and for leave to file a bill of complaint].

It didn't work. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to stop Arizona from proceeding with its justice, and the brothers were put to death in 1999. The LeGrand case is far from the only such one in U.S. law books. Many, many Mexicans are in U.S. prisons tonight, having never received a nickel's worth of consular assistance from their own government. They made the same claims that Florence Cassez made in Mexico, but no one paid any attention to them. It's anybody's guess how many there are. (With a little help from his friends, Jon Hammar released).

Yes, many in this country will be glad the Cassez case is finally over. One of them is Mexico's new PRI president, Enrique Peña Nieto, who finds his perimeter surrounded by other challenges: AK-47 wielding traffickers, decapitated bodies in streets, police officers who abandon their posts because they're terrified of being next on the narco hit list, huge numbers of unemployed and poverty stats that would make any chief executive cringe with embarrassment (about 46% - and growing).

But for the Mexican on the street, who every day must get out of bed and confront the often times brutal reality of how to stay alive in the Republic of the United States of Mexico, the words of the three judicial ministers who today liberated Mlle. Florence Cassez will sound much like betrayal.

Florence Cassez is aboard an Air France jet at this hour, bound for Paris. She's flying first class.

Dec. 26, 2013 - Condemned Mexican's approaching date with Texas execution chamber poses international risks for U.S.

Feb. 11 - Poor Florence, burned in effigy in Mazatlán
Jan. 30 - Another foreigner who'd like to pull the Cassez Maneuver, and trade balmy Mexico for frigid Ontario
Jan. 30 - Jalisco kidnappings a la Cassez
Jan. 27 - López Obrador: Peña Nieto leaned on Supreme Court to free Cassez
Jan. 27 - In an entertaining editorial entitled Omelette a la francesa (French Omelette), a columnist acknowledges shortcomings of Mexico's judicial system in its handling of the Cassez case, but adds: Hay que ver la insolencia del gobierno galo recibiendo como una heroína a esta escoria social - "One must consider the insolence of the French government in receiving this social scum as if she were a heroine." Ouch. Hopefully that won't get back to M. Hollande in Élysée Palace, or to P.M. Jean-Marc Ayrault.
Jan. 23 - Mexican Supreme Court orders Florence Cassez freed
Mar. 8, 2012 - "Florence Cassez doit payer pour ce qu´elle a fait"

Le Monde's front page, Thursday, Jan. 24: "Florence Cassez is free, after seven years in prison"

7 comments:

  1. Have to agree completely with the article here... I am not a lawyer and don't know much about the legal system in Mexico, the US, Canada, or elsewhere, but speaking as legal simpleton, I see something very wrong with someone being released on technicalities when the evidence overwhelmingly suggests her guilt. A bad day for Mexico, and yet another suggestion to foreigners that they can come here, break the laws, and get away with it.

    Why did Mexico give way to 'Intense pressure from France'? Who cares what the French want? Just ask the British...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, and let's count some of those foreigners - the most recent ones, anyway.

    1. Canadian Cynthia Ann Vanier, who's on trial right now in Chetumal, in Quintana Roo state, awaiting a verdict. She's the darling of much of the Canadian press. Details: http://www.mexicogulfreporter.com/2012/06/candian-woman-facing-long-sentence-in.html.

    2. Jon Hammar. The U.S. media literally shed crocodile tears over this guy, falsely reporting that he had been arrested in Mexico on "questionable charges" (Anderson Cooper, CNN). Then a bunch of politicians butted into the case, pushed Mexico around a bit (fairly easy to do) and got "Shotgun Hammar" out of the Matamoros slammer. Details: http://www.mexicogulfreporter.com/2012/12/with-little-help-from-his-friends-jon.html.

    3. Two Canadian pistoleros ("gunmen") who like to drink beer while watching young flesh up close - real close. They were nabbed at a Zeta strip club in Playa del Carmen last week. Now true, nobody's gone to bat for them yet, and from the comments on MGRR's article it doesn't sound like they're any too popular in Quebec. But wait! Don't they speak French in Quebec?! And don't Frenchmen worldwide stand up for each other?! So there's hope for these bar hoppers yet. Details: http://www.mexicogulfreporter.com/2013/01/two-canadian-gunmen-arrested-in-playa.html.

    4. Florence Cassez. She's done a major Reboot since arriving in Paris yesterday (hairdo, makeup and clothing), and is hitting all the TV interview programs. She lunched today with French president Hollande and his lovely wife, and is probably strolling the Champs-Élysées tonight. Details: http://www.mexicogulfreporter.com/2013/01/mexican-supreme-court-orders-florence.html

    5. Who wants to commit a crime in Mexico next?

    ReplyDelete
  3. But of course we can assume that any Mexican committing a crime in France or the USA (or maybe soon Canada) will be similarly treated right? Oh... wait a minute...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just read the updates and reader comments on #3 - indeed sounds like my tocayo is none too popular in Canada, so doesn't look like they will be rushing to get him back. He'd better hope that M. Hollande is interested in some transatlantic francophone intervention...

    ReplyDelete
  5. A little aside, but Mexico does have the reputation of "guilty" until proven innocent attitude. Also there are police extortion of tourists, bribery etc, so many people, especially in the US, tend to take the Mexican legal system with a big grain of salt.

    However, I do agree that the Mexican gov't and legal system need to start standing up for itself and setting precedents, especially in the face of its own internal troubles, corruption and attitude towards violent crime (where admittedly only 10% of reported crimes ever reach the courts)... Nobody is going to take the Mexican legal system seriously if it can't help its own people, or otherwise, simply locking up foreigners to make an image of standing up (notice the hypocrisy?).

    Btw, what are your thoughts on reinstating the death penalty in Mexico? I am thinking of countries like Singapore, Malaysia, China where it exists, violent crime and drug trafficking are minimal.

    Great blog btw.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RE: the death penalty. There was a time in my life - many years, actually - when I was against it for any reason. But not any more. I regard drug trafficking as a great scourge affecting many nations. A "clear and present danger" to societies everywhere, to use an old legal term. Mexico and the United States are two of them. Talk of legalizing drugs on a worldwide basis is madness, in my opinion. For that reason, I like the approach taken in Singapore, Malaysia and other places (just last week in Bali a 57 year old woman - a Brit, I think - was sentenced to death for cocaine smuggling. And as you know from this website, three Mexicans from Sinaloa were sentenced to death last year for cooking meth - Details: http://www.mexicogulfreporter.com/2012/05/three-mexican-brothers-sentenced-to-die.html).

      I think the U.S. and Mexico should consider the death penalty for trafficking - and then use it. And BTW, I don't favor even the legalization of marijuana in the States. The last thing the U.S. needs is more potheads and stoners laying around, trying to figure out what they "want to do with their lives." Of course, much of the American media thinks legal doping is a magnificent idea.

      Delete
  6. Edward I am interested to know why you are opposed to legalization? I generally find myself in agreement with your views, but am, so far, completely on the opposite side on this one. Why would legalization lead to more users? It's not like individual usage is really prosecuted anyway at this point in most countries (i.e. USA, UK, Mexico, etc. Yes, Singapore has a more extreme approach). These potheads and stoners will lie around trying to figure out what they "want to do with their lives" regardless, with or without marijuana. They don't want to be productive, and won't be, even if you stop them smoking their joints.

    Should any government have the right to tell adults what they can and cannot do with their bodies, health, and lives? I am all in favour of withholding public assistance, public funded medical treatment, etc from drug users, as indeed I am from cigarette smokers, alcoholics, and anyone else who has knowingly and willingly destroyed their own health. But if an adult wishes to kill himself with cocaine, is that not his right? And isn't he going to do it anyway, legal or illegal?

    Lets clarify something here - This is not about me - I have never tried an 'illegal' drug, and have no intention of doing so, however, that is not because they are illegal. It is because I know they are bad for me. I don't use cocaine, not because it is illegal, but because it is bad for me. I don't smoke for the same reason. I like to have a few drinks - I drink because I enjoy it, not because it is legal, and if prohibition suddenly appears, it won't stop me. I also dislike associating with drug users (as I dislike socializing with smokers) but I respect their rights to misuse their own bodies.

    Point is, we all know that drugs are bad for us. We all know that cigarettes are bad for us. We all know that alcohol in excess is bad for us. What is the difference?

    Sure, those under the age of 18 should be protected, as they are from cigarettes and alcohol. Sure, those driving under the influence of drugs should be prosecuted, as they are with alcohol. But criminalizing / prohibiting individual usage by adults? I just don't see it.

    Surely if drugs were legalized, and can be sold at Walmart, they can be taxed? The money being spent on the 'war on drugs' (as un-winnable as the 'war on terror' or my own 'war on the ants' at my house in Yucatan) can be spent on discouraging usage (as with tobacco). Adults can make their own choice about whether or not they wish to use what everyone knows is a dangerous product, as they do with tobacco.

    Legal products can be legally manufactured, and it would surely only be a short time before the multi nationals controlled the production and distribution of cocaine, marijuana and heroin as totally as they do any other consumer product. Proctor and Gamble would probably be the first to open a narco division. Doesn't this more or less end the whole underground narco trafficking which is so destroying our beloved Mexico and much of the rest of Latin America?

    It seems to have worked out in Portugal. Yes, their economy is in the toilet, but at least they are not fighting an un-winnable 'war' and drug use has apparently declined there since legalization: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

    Thats my 2 pesos worth. I'm sure your opinion differs, and I am looking forward to hearing it. Maybe you have published it before, in which case please feel free to link to it in your reply. On a beautiful sunny Saturday afternoon in Guadalajara, I don't want to tie you to your keyboard :-)

    ReplyDelete