Friday, July 4, 2014
Prosecutor Robert Daskas Versus Robert Cox
It is my assertion that justice and political ambition are a mostly deadly combination. When a man possesses the authority of the state, that is, to impose the rule of law upon another, it is in the backdrop of political ambition that this imposition may take upon itself a decidedly different motive than justice.
Herein is a prosecutor who has yet to explain himself in the prosecution of Robert Cox, a person of faith from California who was visiting Las Vegas with members of his church, when a large, intoxicated man came out of the bar and attacked this of Cox' party.
Robert Cox, though much smaller in stature, defended those with him, including women and children. It was a brave, though unfortunate event, but Cox performed his duty in subduing the aggressor.
After the event, Cox returned home, able to face not only his wife and children, but his congregation as well, as a man who answered the call of duty. It was quite likely a frightening experience for him and those present, and I would be surprised to learn if none present suffered from nightmares, bad dreams, or other post trauma symptoms of having had extreme elevation of hormones during the event.
Nevertheless, Robert Cox showed himself to be a man, even in a second generation where manhood has been in full retreat, though, perhaps, as the nation degenerates into a "Nanny State" of excuses, abdication, and irresponsibility, may be poised for a comeback. If so, men like Robert Cox will not be castigated by ambitious political motivation, but instead praised for not shrinking back from an immediate threat.
Robert Cox and a small church group were attacked by Link Ellington, a giant of a man intoxicated, possessing not only great size, but the inflated sense of strength from intoxication.
Survelience video captured the event.
Several people were injured by Ellington and Cox defended them. In the scuffle, the man Ellington fell backwards (with Cox on top of him) and hit his head, falling into a coma.
The prosecutor sent Cox a letter saying no charges would be filed.
6 months later, the attacker died from his wounds.
Another 6 months went by and suddenly, Cox found himself extradited and facing murder charges.
It is common for a prosecutor to simply state why he changed his mind, in a press conference. Prosecutor Robert Daskas, instead, chose the "no comment" route.
Statement Analysis was applied to the words of Robert Cox, and others present for the event and I found no deception within the statements.
Reports that Cox "lied" about throwing a punch reached the press, but his words did not show intended deception.
In a fight, adrenaline roars through the body and, as one Cary Grant character told a judge, "Anyone who says they remember every punch in a fight is lying, your honor."
Statement Analysis showed veracity by him and the witnesses. To this, the surveillance video would have to show something quite different than the words in order to justify any type of criminal charge
In the strangest twist, the incident was captured on surveillance video.
It was not only self defense, but an act of masculine bravery, something terribly absent in today's world, as the much smaller Cox defended those with him. The size disparity alone speaks to the bravery of Robert Cox.
Robert Daskas filed "murder" charges against Cox. Not manslaughter, nor a host of other lesser charges, but "murder."
Cox was stunned by the decision and had to post a $100,000 bond after going to Nevada.
The charges were finally heard by a judge, that is, one who is at least as educated as Robert Daskas, and can understand not only the law, but the application of the law. The judge was able to hear the evidence that Robert Daskas has used to change his opinion from "no charges" all the way up to "murder", which would include the surveillance video and eye witness statements.
The judge threw the case out.
The judge also ordered the $100,000 bond refunded.
This would appear to be the end of a most strange and unusual prosecution, but Daskas was apparently undaunted and is now taking the case to a Grand Jury.
The peer of Robert Daskas disagreed with Daskas. This peer would possess, in the least, Daskas' eduction and understanding of the law.
In disagreeing with Daskas, he is now seeking others of whom he might have better luck in persuading. He was unable to persuade one educated and experienced in the law, so why not appeal to those who, more than likely, will not have law degrees, experience, and understanding in the law?
This now leads to the attempt to understand why Robert Daskas is doing this?
Why is he going after a person of faith who acted heroically in defending women and children from a vicious, intoxicated and aggressive attacker?
Who is Robert Daskas that she should so boldly ignore not only the testimony and video evidence, but the discernment of a judge, having heard the evidence presented?
Why is he prosecuting Cox?
Who is Robert Daskas?
I am wondering, along with commentators across the country:
Does he have prejudice against Cox due to Cox' religious affiliation? Is there something in his background that may be particularly antagonistic against people of faith?
Or, does he have his sights, as so many overly ambitious attorneys do, on self promotion and marketing? The 21st Century ambulance chasers seek exposure on television.
We learn that he appeared to have a political seat all but tied up in 2008 only to have to drop out, late in the almost won 'game' for a specific reason.
From the Las Vegas Sun:
"In 2008, After months as the Democratic establishment’s anointed candidate, Robert Daskas on Monday dropped out of the contest against Rep. Jon Porter, citing “family considerations.”
Most readers will quickly think "family considerations" is an embarrassing sexual scandal that threatened to derail what appeared to be a slam dunk election.
We do not know what "family considerations" caused him to drop out but we do know two things:
1. It had to do with family; that is, his wife and two children. Something within this circle of four human beings was something that would cause him, after raising more than $500,000 for his campaign, as well as the countless hours and leg work, and the backbreaking labors of all his team of supporters, to suddenly, just before victory, to quit.
He quit the race.
2. We know it had to do with "considerations", which is plural. This means it was more than just one thing that would cause a major disruption in his political ambitions.
The "family considerations" can have lots of speculation but if it is due to sexual immorality, is it possible that Daskas was opposed by people of faith, who, at least in 2008, held that fidelity to family was a simple prerequisite to fidelity to the public. After all, if a man cannot be trusted by those closest to him, can he really ask strangers to "trust" him?
If this is so, did it leave a "bad taste" from those "hateful, judgmental" people of faith? Was the "thou shalt not" so offensive and onerous to you that you've projected your anger towards an easy target? Already you've seen by the judge's de facto rebuke: You swung and missed. Did something within those "family considerations" taint you against those who hold to unchanging truth?
Was it that people of faith "forced" him to quit the campaign because, as his advisers might have stated, it would be those "moralists" who would not vote for him due to possible indiscretions? This could cause resentment.
I do not know the answer. Perhaps only Robert Daskas and his immediate family know the truth.
Perhaps it is not personal animosity towards people of faith, who still hold to "right and wrong", "up and down" and "good from evil" in a world of cheesy moral relativism.
Perhaps it was simply the pouncing on an opportunity as a 21st Century lawyer seeking time on television.
How would we know if this was the case?
We begin by asking, "Has Robert Daskas ever used his office to get himself on television?"
The answer is here in his own campaign blurb:
At one point in his prosecutorial career, he "won 32 of 33 murder trials, including convictions against single, double, triple and quadruple murderers" and was able to get himself on America's Most Wanted, Dateline NBC, 48 Hours, and Court TV.
This may be the real reason he is pursuing Cox: publicity. But is it to come at the expense of justice?
Has he chosen an out-of-state easy target in an attempt to ingratiate himself to voters?
Since he has refused to answer questions, Daskas is raising more questions, rather than answer them.
Is it merely an attempt to appear "tough on crime"? Does he resent the "family man", Cox, defending the women and children that were with him on the church outing?
Might this case help rejuvenate his political ambitions? Is Cox an easy target? Is Daskas hoping to capitalize on the current anti-people-of-faith sentiment in our country? If Cox was a person of color, or Muslim, would he have been charged with murder?
He has had his eye on Congress in the past...is this what is driving him now?
The Punch Lie.
Let's assume that Robert Cox did, in fact, punch Ellington, while defending those with him, and himself.
This, itself, is no crime.
What if the surveillance video shows Robert Cox throwing a punch? Wouldn't this indicate that Statement Analysis is incorrect about stating that Cox was not deceptive?
In deception, there must be a need, or desire to deceive. More than 90% of deception comes from withholding information, rather than outright fabricating reality. When one is able to outright lie, and deal directly with the internal stress, it puts this person into a small category of habitual liars, who honed their craft in childhood. When a politician, for example, talks about being in a hail of bullets in Viet Nam, yet having never stepped foot on the soil, he reveals himself as one, statistically, capable of all sorts of harm. If he holds a position of power and authority, the danger he poses is exponentially increased beyond anything I could write about here.
If I told you, "My car is green", though it is blue, and you speak to others and say,
"Peter's car is green", your sentence will not show any signals of deception. You are incorrect, but you are not attempting to deceive. It is in the attempt to deceive that we find signals of sensitivity. In fact, if you believed me about the car and took a polygraph, you would pass.
The car would not have turned green, just because you passed a polygraph. Sensitivity in language is seen in the attempt to conceal, or deceive.
In Robert Cox' language, there is no signal of deception. He is not being deceptive. He may be wrong in his memory, and even if he is, it is meaningless.
Imagine being interviewed by police after such an assault. Was it my left hand, or my right hand? I would not necessarily know, as it would take time to process.
In general cases, I would say to Mr. Daskas, "If you have valid reason not shared with the public why you have pursued murder charges, and this becomes known, I will apologize for speculating on your motives" but with not only the statements and video testimony, but now the loud statement of a judge throwing out the charge, there is no need to qualify my questioning of his motives.
Robert Daskas, why are you prosecuting Robert Cox?
Are you using your office to settle something else within you?
Are you using your office for personal ambition?
Robert Daskas, are you persecuting Robert Cox?
Whatever it is you are doing, will you explain yourself?
You've had a solid record of murder convictions and rightfully have stated that the murderer forfeits his right to live when he took the life of another. Getting your cases highlighted on America's Most Wanted, Dateline NBC, 48 Hours, and Court TV, is impressive, as well.
What is it about this case that you not only erroneously went after, but have refused the bench rebuke of your colleague?
You are accused of nothing but have caused me, and others, to question your actions. Perhaps, even beyond the judge who shot down your charge, that you have a valid reason.
From everything I have read, I am unable to think of one.
D you believe, as a public servant, that you owe the public an explanation?