[To] assist federal defendants and their families in the most disputed cases to share their stories with independent journalists, academics and local concerned citizens. This will foster a way to engage the attention of courts and Congress, most of whose officials are far too complacent these days.

Back to Bernie and his sentencing. Andrew lists several ways the prosecutors hammered Bernie to the point he felt continuing to fight was hopeless. I've written about them many times on TalkLeft: The disqualification of two of his lawyers; charging crimes so closely related to those in his prior Bronx case; wiretapping his cell phone; adding a new federal criminal case in the District of Columbia, resulting in him facing three trials instead of two, since the judge had severed some of the counts; asking the judge to revoke his bond right before trial; and asking to have him remanded immediately.

This isn't about whether you agree or disagree with Bernie's political views. It's not about defending what Bernie did. It's not saying he didn't deserve punishment. It's about whether the government abused the awesome power it brings to bear when it charges a defendant -- any defendant -- with a federal crime.

As to the Judge's actions in imposing 48 months when the prosecution and Bernie agreed to a guideline sentence of between 27 and 33 months: The sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, and Bernie's agreement specifically stated the judge wasn't bound by their agreement. But I'd like to see the transcript, For one, I'm wondering how the prosecution responded when the Judge suggested he was going to exceed the 33 months the Government had asked for. Did it defend its agreement?

I'd also like to see the transcript to read the entirety of the Judge's comments about why he wasn't going with the plea agreement. (I haven't even seen it reported whether the judge departed upwards from the guidelines in sentencing Bernie or used the 3553 factors to impose a non-guideline sentence and a variance? They are different.)

The only thing I glean from the news coverage is that the judge blasted Bernie for profiting off 9/11, something he wasn't charged with, and said he was sending a message (deterrence) to other public officials.

The Judge's statements that Bernie profited off of 9/11 strike me as unfair. Prior to trial, the Government moved to prevent Bernie from even mentioning 9/11 at trial. The Judge granted its request.

"This is not about 9/11," Judge Stephen Robinson said at a pretrial conference. He said the attack was irrelevant to allegations that former Commissioner Bernard Kerik accepted apartment renovations from a construction company in exchange for recommending the company for city contracts.

If 9/11 was so irrelevant to Bernie's case, why did the judge use it as a factor in determining Bernie needed a longer sentence than the one agreed upon?

And why did the Government, which argued 9/11 was irrelevant in its motion to prevent Bernie from mentioning it at trial, make the same allegation against Bernie in its sentencing memo? Why should the judge and Government be allowed to use 9/11 against Bernie yet prevent him from presenting evidence about it, or even mentioning it at trial? That's a double standard.

Cindy Adams interviewed Bernie and his wife at their home days before the sentencing. It's an interesting interview. One thing that jumps out: Both Bernie and his wife say Bernie didn't even want the Homeland Security job (his wife was particularly against it) and Bernie turned it down at first. Then the White House called back and said Bush wanted him to take it. So he agreed to meet with them in Washington. And we all know how that turned out.

End of story: While I don't think 48 months was warranted, or that it will deter anyone else, at least the judge didn't remand him. Had Bernie not been allowed to self-surrender, I'd probably be opining the whole process was a railroading.

Since Bernie wasn't remanded, I'll just politely say while I disagreed with some of the judge's rulings, I'm not surprised by them, especially considering he's a former prosecutor under Giuliani. The only ruling I think was dead wrong was his revoking of Bernie's bail right before trial. It was overly punitive and that's not the purpose of bail. It makes me wonder whether it was a tactic to get Bernie to capitulate and plead guilty. If it was, it worked. Still, I'll give the judge the benefit of the doubt and refrain from stating it was his intent. I have no facts to suggest it was.

As to the Government, I feel no such restraint. I think it not only over-reached, but used a sledge-hammer to kill an ant.

Yes, Bernie Kerik committed some crimes and should be held accountable. But they didn't need to extract the pounds of flesh they took from him in the process. It's not right and it's not justice.

All of my coverage of Kerik, much of which is quite detailed and relates to Rudy Giuliani, who I have always vehemently opposed, is assembled here.