It's easy to understand why people might not know. Jackson doesn't talk about it much, and certainly hasn't provided any details as to any of his cases as a lawyer.
Now we know why.
Back in 1999 Neal Jackson, along with some of his fellow D.C. trial lawyer buddies, signed on in defense of convicted child pornography distributor Lawrence Matthews.
Jackson may think it's perfectly fine for someone to collect and distribute kiddie porn without punishment, but is that really the kind of thinking that Queen Anne's County wants from one of its commissioners?
I have to believe that the teachers association did not know about this when it endorsed Jackson. Jackson's argument that jounalism trumps kiddie porn is disgusting. I guess our children are just collateral damage to the liberal elite.
ReplyDeleteHad forgotten about the teachers' endorsement- good point.
ReplyDeleteQueen Anne's County is not ready for this kind of liberal activism- I'm disgusted by his line of reasoning, and question how he would be able to choose appointed positions. Does this mean that child molestors would be seriously considered as county employees? teachers? Sounds like he's liberal enough to promote that.
He's just lost my vote. Guess this has been a secret around his campaign for a while.
-Centreville voter
Jackson shows he will take money from anyone. He defends a child pornographer and said he had a right to send that trash over the internet---what kind of judgement is that ? Commissioner--hell, send him back to DC and Obama!
ReplyDeleteI understand that every defendant has a right to a lawyer but Jackson was not his lawyer. Jacksons group had no duty to defend, they voluntarily joined in to help the convicted kiddie porn defendant - thats the sad part. All Jackson ever talks about are his ethics. Must be some difference between ethics and morals.
ReplyDeleteBefore everyone gets up in arms, all lawyers are often times directed by the court to defend criminals, and most law firms take pro-bono criminal defense cases. All defendants are innocent until proven guilty, and its the prosecutor's job to prove guilt. Jackson might have taken a case not because he wanted to, but because he HAD to....and a lawyers job, whether you believe your client or not, is to defend the client.
ReplyDeleteThis person was already found guilty. Jackson represented National Public Radio (if I read the brief correctly above) on trying to protect the principle of freedom of the press to apply as this pedophiles defense. People here always are afraid of the county becoming like Glen Burnie - that would be a whole lot better than being like D.C. - Remember Marion Barry?
ReplyDeleteThis is just another example of elitists like Jackson believing he and his friends are above the law. Ethics, morals are apparently only important to Jackson as campaign rhetoric. He surely has no high ground on this one. My guess is there is more to the taint of a career as Liberal DC attorney than this in his closet
ReplyDeleteJackson was NOT the defense attorney - he was doing it for the liberal minded press and argued that child pornography is ok under the First Amendment if done by a journalist under the guise of research. Remember,as the Court pointed out, this so called journalist pled guilty to "transmitting a depiction of a female performing oral sex on a prepubescent minor female." It takes a warped sense of values to even attempt to argue the literary value of such trash without recognizing the obvious harm to the recipient child and the fact that such e-mails are many times forwarded on and on. The Court rightfully found no merit in the argument. It scares me to think that someone who argued such position might have a say in our county government.
ReplyDeleteThe guy was a kiddie pornster who happened to be a reporter. The brief says he couldn't produce any evidence of actually working on a story. A pretty poor choice of cases to defend freedom of the press.
ReplyDeleteI have questioned his ethics from the start. When he was on the ethics committee for the county,a EMS director went into the department of emergency services for a displinary meeting against an EMT. The county Medical director pushed her into a corner and dared her to speak at the meeting, all in front of a witness. A report was made,it was brought up in front of the ethics committee, and guess what, it was all sweep under the rug. No sir I think his ethics are about as sound as a bridge made of jello. A vote for him is a vote for child porn as long as you can some how justify it with a b.s. story. Thats not what I call "our quality of life".
ReplyDeleteI have a great deal of respect for the teachers in this county. My children and I both attended school in QAC. The teachers association is doing an injustice to the teachers if it does not immediately withdrawal its endorsement of Jackson. "C'mon man" - Teachers supporting kiddie porn - I don't think so. The TA needs to find a new poster child.
ReplyDeleteLooks like he thinks letting terrorists photograph sensitive sites is an ok think to do too.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/la-sherrifs-deputy-detains-photographer
"Professor Lipkin is more or less right, subject to some nuances. In the US under our Constitution, in general a law enforcement official may not detain you (that is keep you from having full freedom of movement) unless they have “probable cause” to believe you have committed a crime. What constitutes “probable cause” is the subject of many court cases, but merely photographing some potentially sensitive real estate does not alone constitute probable cause. The Bush-appointed Supreme Court members may change that some day, but they have not yet.
The cops can indeed ask you for your name, and what you are doing. But you, as occurred here, have an absolute right to blow them off and give them no information, including your name. Of course, they may overreach their powers and elect to take you into custody anyway, just because they have the physical power to do so. But that is illegal and they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit if they do.
This crap with the British police (apparently getting no better) is the very kind of reason we in the colonies in 1776 told old Georgie to go put it where the sun does not shine."
by Neal Jackson | 14 Nov 2009 00:11 | Washington, DC, United States
Why isn't this stuff being covered by the mainstream press or at least our county newspapers? The citizens have a right to know the backgrounds of these candidates. Neal Jackson would be a disaster for our county.
ReplyDeleteMr. Jackson has only been in Queen Anne's County for TWO years. Believe me. He is funded by one of the "under the bridge and in hiding" donors who lives in the upper part of the County near Kent County. Use your imagination and look at the QA Conservation Assoc. as his supporters. He may represent any client he wishes but do not paint it another color when the truth comes out. DO NOT VOTE FOR THAT MAN, MR. JACKSON. Trouble ahead.
ReplyDeleteTime for the Queen Anne's County Teachers to renounce this endorsement. ACT like grown-ups and do your homework better the next time.
ReplyDeleteYOU all are going to get a failing grade . . .
Anyone have any connection to the teacher's association/union to call them on their choice? How in the world can anyone defend child pornography? He had a choice to defend this client or not. I'd never vote for anyone who has those moral values and can't imagine how anyone else with children would!
ReplyDeleteIf the teachers union fails to take up this issue, they will have failed as teachers in their duty as champions of our kid's future. Does anyone know how one goes about decertifying a union?
ReplyDeleteDo the citizens of Queen Anne's County know this about Jackson's liberal values? I don't want someone who thinks there is no problem with voluntarilly defending a purveyor of kiddie porn, represeting my interests in county government. What's next? Why doesn't the Queen Anne's Record Observer or the other papers run this information? It's major news and something the voters need to know....where he is morally and politically. We all should do whatever we can to get the word out about this major development on his values, because they sure aren't mine.
ReplyDeleteThe way I understand Mr. Jackson's part in this is like comparing him to a building inspector. He had nothing to do with the plan, design or building of the house; he may have even hated it and thought it ugly, but once the structure was built his JOB was to inspect for flaws in construction. Finding none, he was obligated to sign off on it. Mr. Jackson had nothing to do with the defense in the case of the journalist charged with sending and receiving child porn over the internet. His obligation to his employer was to make sure the 1st amendment argument was structured correctly, period!
ReplyDeleteThis post paints a good man with an ugly brush. Shame on you.
That is the silliest analogy I have have ever heard. You can't possibly type that with a straight face. The people you are trying to fool aren't stupid and no one believes it. He had a choice and he chose to defend the convicted felon. The defense was a crock and the court saw through the sham that Jackson supported...shame on you for purpetrating misinformation! Jackson will never get my vote.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, Jackson didn't DEFEND anyone - he reviewed a brief defending a reporters 1st amendment constitutional rights and found the brief to be constructed properly and containing good 1st amendment arguments. PERIOD. You just keep telling everyone that Jackson defended a convicted felon if it makes you feel better, but it's not the truth. But keep defending Mr. Arentz against all his health dept violations - way more than "normal" and NOT his landlord's fault, as he alleges. You're pitiful.
ReplyDeleteDepictions of a sexual nature are older than civilization as depictions such as the venus figurines and rock art have existed since prehistoric times. When large-scale excavations of Pompeii were undertaken in the 1860s, much of the erotic art of the Romans came to light, shocking the Victorians who saw themselves as the intellectual heirs of the Roman Empire. They did not know what to do with the frank depictions of sexuality and endeavored to hide them away from everyone but upper-class scholars. The moveable objects were locked away in the Secret Museum in Naples and what could not be removed was covered and cordoned off as to not corrupt the sensibilities of women, children, and the working classes.
ReplyDelete