Meth Merchants out of options

Posted on by

There have been new developments in the Operation Meth Merchant case that we have been following (see related posts at bottom) here at SM:

The infamous Operation Meth Merchant case in Georgia took an unexpected turn with as many as 23 of the accused pleading guilty and two more cases being dropped. Seven of them have already been sentenced to jail time.

“Different people pleaded guilty for different reasons,” said Deepali Gokhale, organizer of the Racial Justice Campaign against Operation Meth Merchant, an apex body of several organizations.

“Those living undocumented pleaded guilty, because in any case they would be deported,” Manny Arora, an attorney, said. Two of his clients pleaded guilty. Some pleaded guilty because the evidence against them was very strong and there was no chance for them in a trial which could have brought stiffer sentences.

One person with a green card was also among those pleaded guilty, Gokhale said. He could be deported because pleading guilty to felony charges is sufficient cause… Since all three were undocumented, the immigration authorities, specially invited by the prosecutor, were waiting to take them immediately to an immigration detention center. Pravin Patel’s wife and four-month old baby were taken to Chicago by her brother.

Though these men said they would leave on their own, the immigration officials did not agree. “INS interfered and used the mandatory detention provision to take them into custody. They may be in custody for up to eight weeks before being formally deported,” Arora said. [Link]

This is quite a convenient situation for the Feds. They don’t need to prove that the actual Meth case was legitimate, and not racially motivated. They can simply coerce a guilty plea. If you are one of the accused and are going to be deported anyways, then pleading guilty will at least move your case through the system more quickly. Even then, you will face jail time before the deportation paper work goes through. Illegal immigration laws should not be enforced in this manner which singles out a particular minority.

Several human rights groups and civil rights groups including American Civil liberties Union have joined the fight on the merchants’ side, accusing the prosecution of racism. However, US Attorney David Nahmias said “The United States Attorney’s Office prosecutes cases based on the evidence and the law not the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or last name. A few cases have been dismissed, many have resulted in guilty pleas, and others are continuing towards trial. We are continually assessing each case on its own merits, and we welcome additional information and views.”

Meanwhile, the North American South Asian Bar Association has partnered with the US Drug Enforcement Administration for a joint project ‘C-Store Outreach Project,’ aimed at educating and creating awareness among the South Asian community about meth.

<

p>I have emailed NASABA for a copy of the poster used in their “C-Store” project and will post it here if they send it to me.

See related posts: Operation Meth Merchant, All look same and sound like Apu, The prosecution’s case falls apart

26 thoughts on “Meth Merchants out of options”

  1. I heard a rumor that NASABA invited the attorney prosecuting the case to speak at their annual meeting. Does anyone know if this is true?

  2. The document has to be multi lingual, a lot of Cstore owners are gujrati, punjabis with not that great english skill.

  3. Also, it’s great that NASABA is working so closely with the DEA to “educate” the community about meth, but who’s working with the DEA to “educate” them about cultural and linguistic issues that may come up when performing a racially-motivated sting operation? The money used to make signs to educate the community would be better spent on training those in law enforcment roles.

  4. I think it’s great that NASABA is working to educate the South Asian community about the meth trade. And while I agree that some might find this to be offensive, the reality is that these uncles DID plead guilty and our community’s involvement in the meth-trade is something that we ought to be aware of. And sure, some people might argue that the federal investigation was racially movtivated, but I disagree. The reality is that these uncles shouldn’t have broken the law. Honestly, it just brings shame to our community.

  5. I have heard similar rumors about NASABA being rather spineless on this Meth Merchant issue — they should be advocating on behalf of the community and holding DOJ accountable, not letting themselves be deputized as government agents.

    Incidentally, the US Attorney who has been prosecuting the case, David Nahmias, seems like a great guy:

    In speeches, he has unequivocally supported the President’s authority as Commander in Chief to designate and detain suspected terrorists, including American citizens, as enemy combatants without judicial review by an Article III court. In the case of the American citizens detained as enemy combatants, he argued that there was no reason for judicial review of their detentions because they, “received the absolute ultimate executive branch process,” because the “President of the United States, operating as the Commander-in-Chief, personally reviewed their cases, and personally designated them as enemy combatants.” The Supreme Court strongly rejected this position this year and held that the detainees in Guantanamo Bay and U.S. citizens being held as enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detentions in federal courts. Mr. Nahmias has also made other troubling comments – such as saying that having hearings for enemy combatants would undermine national security; and that what is “unusual about the military commissions” is “the amount of procedural protection that’s being offered in those commissions compared to the way they work historically and in other parts of the world.” I asked Mr. Nahmias questions about his views on the rights of enemy combatants, his role in investigating, approving, or otherwise reviewing rules, procedures, or guidelines involving the interrogation of individuals held in the custody of the U.S. government or an agent of the U.S. government, and his role in the prosecution of domestic terrorism cases. His original answers were largely non-responsive, despite the number of words used, and I sent him further questions to clarify his record and views. Again, he failed to provide complete responses. For example, I asked him about his role in the development or review of advice from the Office of Legal Counsel on the interrogation of detainees, a serious and important issue to this Senate and the American people. As we all now know, Mr. Bybee’s torture memo was written during Mr. Nahmias’ tenure at the Department. This memo redefined torture to allow all sorts of brutal treatment (such as mock burial alive, simulated drowning, electrocution, tearing off of fingernails, and other such barbaric treatment) so long as the pain caused is not akin to organ failure, and concluded that, as commander in chief in the war against terror, the President and federal agents are not constrained by anti-terror laws.

  7. People who think like “prembear” are exactly the reason why our community is unable to unite in times of hardship. People like “prembear” are more worried about the perception of the indian community in the eyes of our white oppressors, when he SHOULD be worred about helping our brothers and sisters in their time of need. Patel-Bhai, I am with you. Power to the People!

  8. The ‘hurry up and deport em’ prosecution approach was also employed with quite a number of people detained for no reason after 9/11. Then, as now, it was hard to muster up sympathy for people who were in the country illegally to begin with.

    It’s a little sickening that people get punished for crimes other than the ones they are accused of, but there is no way to fight it, unless Congree repeals IRAIRA, or the Supreme Court renders it unconstitutional.

    So I don’t think NASABA is being spineless here by teaming up with the DEA. As for why they’re inviting the prosecutor in this case to their annual meeting, that is something I would want to hear more about.

  9. NASABA is a joke. They do not have one person who has done any sort of racial justice or civil rights work in their criminal justice committee. Second, partnering with the DEA sets a very bad precedent. During the civil rights movement did you see Dr. King partnering with Bull Conner after they unleashed dogs and hoses on that community? How can you partner with a group that has perpetrated the action against your own community? In addition it will be interesting to see how a group of NASABA attorneys who are all working in law firms and who have no connection to community work along with the DEA are received by the community. I’m sure that if I was racially targeted by someone I wouldn’t go and try and learn from them on how it was my fault that I was racially targeted. Finally, it is completely obvious that NASABA is attempting to further their organization’s name, interests, etc. off the backs of those targeted (oh, hi I just gave five dollars to a homeless person, let me issue a press release). They have no honest intentions of helping the community. If they did, they would be working with the community instead of with those who instigated this process in the first place.

  10. Amardeep —

    I think I agree with you that “spineless” might not be quite the best word to use here, since it does not quite capture the concern that people in the community might have with NASABA’s partnering w/the DEA. That said, a fair case can be made that NASABA is indeed being “spineless” here — is it more important for them to spend their scarce time and resources, and those of their members, on doing the DEA’s community outreach for them, or is it more important to spend those resources actually raising concerns with DOJ about race-based inequalities in the Meth Merchant prosecutions — not to mention concerns about other issues, like the Bush Administration’s support for Tom Tancredo’s immigration policy agenda? The latter, without question, requires more spine than the former — and clearly, they are more willing to do the former.

    But let me raise a more direct concern. Is this really why we South Asian American lawyers have a NASABA and pay them membership dues? So that they can be foot soldiers in the war on drugs? I thought that was why I pay federal taxes — and under this administration, cringe when I do so. From NASABA, I expect quite a bit more than their lending prestige and community cover to misguided race-based policies that are devastating people’s lives like this.

  11. Let us not forget that NASABA are also the same people who honored Bobby Jindal. The man who’s father called my family “you people.”

  13. Question: What is the power structure within NASABA? Like, do all the local SABAs get a vote in where the national organization goes policy-wise? I doubt it, because I know more than a few people in local SABAs who would DIE if they knew that this was happening. I think NASABA lawyers out in the field need to hold this bohemoth accountable for what it is doing and for how it is compromising the integrity of our community. I don’t know who they think they are, touting themselves as a link to the South Asian community.

    Thanks, Brown Hornet and AK for echoing my thoughts more passionately than I could.

  14. NASABA is a burden to this case and an even greater burden to organizations in our community who actually do good work. I believe that as long as they continue to take their current arrogant, self-centered, marginalizing approach to working with the community that any person or organization that works with them should be considered as irrelevant as NASABA has become.

  15. The local SABA in Georgia has been against NASABA partnering with the DEA from the get-go. I’m sure many of the other local SABA’s feel the same.

  16. And thank you, Alia, for calling attention to the invitation to David Nahmias, about which I too would want to hear more. What’s next — a NASABA award for John Yoo?

  18. Alia, yeah he’s coming

    And no not everyone in Atlanta’s chapter of IndusBar is happy about it.

    i’m helping to organize the conference, and i know for a fact that there are IndusBar members who planning to protest the attorney’s appearance.

    and… Brown Hornet: “In addition it will be interesting to see how a group of NASABA attorneys who are all working in law firms and who have no connection to community work along with the DEA are received by the community.”

    i gotta tell you, while i’m not the biggest fan of the politics of the organization the entire organization is not made up of attorneys who have ‘no connection to the community.’ a whole bunch are in nonprofit work or government work and i know a couple of big firm attorney’s who volunteer on a regular basis doing pro bono work.

    but, i’m not going to pretend i know everything about this organization, and i’m sure there’s a lot of truth to what you guys have all said.

    ask me after june 19th about what i really think, b/c that’s when i’ll be done volunteering at the conference.

  19. Wait — they invited Bobby after his vote on H.R. 4437? Bizarre.

    All Mixed, is Nahmias part of a panel, with people from the community on the panel to provide different perspectives to him directly? Or is he being given an open platform to present DOJ spin? If it’s the former then I’m less troubled.

    Also, I want to second your qualification about viewing NASABA and the local SABA chapters as monoliths. Our local chapter also has had a number of public interest lawyers and academics who have been involved at various points in time, to varying extents, as well as lawyers in private practice who have done significant and worthwhile pro bono work. But certainly the leaders of these organizations can do a lot more to reach out and include more public interest lawyers than they have so far.

  21. I have been undercover as a tort lawyer at their conference the last TWO years.

    Last year’s conference actually was pretty good, with a pretty broad diversity of lawyers represented on panels etc. And I agree that they are mostly good folks. Still, that particular conference was rather exceptional by South Asian community standards, and the diversity among the panelists was not necessarily reflected among the attendees. All of the SABAs can do a lot more to reach out to public interest lawyers and community-based organizations — I should hope that they would work at least as hard to do that as they would on some of the other things being discussed in this thread.

  22. In actual fact, only 8 people have officially pled guilty, and only 4 of them are South Asian. Seven more have signed plea agreements with their lawyers, but the plea is not official until the court accepts it, which up to this point, it has not. Of the 7 who have signed agreements, there are a few who are considering changing their minds, which they are allowed to do up to the day of their court hearing. Even counting these 7, the total is only 15, not 23.

  23. Why the instinct to invoke charges of racism as soon as some Indians are busted for this crime?

  25. I think this is an important dialogue that people interested in community issues should be having with and about NASABA and other groups that act “in the community’s interest.” First, have they consulted anyone involved in the campaign with the actual merchants involved? Though this step that they’ve announced seems more prospective, in the interest of preventing this kind of thing from happening regularly, or at least, that must be their motivation, I do hope that they’ve taken the step after consulting those who have a good sense of what’s been happening in Georgia.

    Second, what’s the point of this program? I would think that the true education that would be useful to promulgate the so-called war on drugs would be a program that aggressively speaks to potential users, i.e. South Asian youth and their parents who live in heterogeneous communities where meth use is on the rise. Isn’t a program focusing on the merchants more of a model minority view on the issue of drug use? “Don’t break the law by accident and help those terrible drug users” is a far cry from “get aware about these drugs and their harmful effect.” It assumes that the government was within the bounds of what is acceptable (not just technically legal, though that is also at question) in a free and just society. I’m not prepared to just rubber stamp the government’s approach on drug law enforcement, whether in this instance or the many other damaging examples out there. Is NASABA?

    Third, taking the position that the merchants were innocent (or by inference from the scope of this project, ignorant) bystanders is one thing. I find that problematic enough, because it concedes to the government that they were doing something wrong, albeit stating that they weren’t aware of the law or the particular drug at issue. But this feels more insidious. Because they are partnering with the DEA on this program, reenforcing and pushing a “good citizen/good immigrant” image, distancing themselves from the altogether troubling and glaring selective enforcement questions that have been raised about this operation from the moment that the news broke, and lending some kind of legitimacy to the government’s approach in this particular front in the so-called “war on drugs.”

    Finally, NASABA can do whatever they want, of course, but I don’t think that this is helping anyone, and it feels very political/beltway and out of touch with the realities of our communities. I’m not saying that as a professional organization of desi attorneys, they have to be in touch. But if they are going to be public and active in this way, they should be better informed and clearer about their objectives. I seriously question this whole business, and hope that we can get some answers from someone closer to the NASABA braintrust.

    More generally, from what I’ve seen of NASABA, they would be better served to remain a professional association and focus on professional development and networking, like some other bar associations. They should leave substantive policy issues and the practice of working with communities to organizations who know how to do it. It isn’t a matter of the organization’s politics alone. It just serves no one well to have a group take on such important issues that has such limited experience, depth, or strategy.

  26. NASABA IS a joke. Their confernce was a SOCIAL (not professional) networking event (i.e., wannabe desi meat market). NASABA should focus on what they are – a professional association – and not a civil rights advocacy group. Their feable attempt at “advocating” on behalf of South Asians is pathetic at best and dangerous at worst. A bunch of white collar criminal and commerical litigators appear to have done more to harm cstore owners in GA. Leave the civil rights work to the civil rights organizations and seasoned civil rights advocates – perhaps take a more supportive role on pointed issues of law. With the co-chair of NASABA’s Criminal Justice Committee moving on to NASABA’s Exec Committee, NASABA will likely (and sadly) move even further away from the South Asian lawyers (as opposed to the cstore owners, for example) they are supposed to support. NASABA, get your sh*& together!