L.A. DA George Gascón Moves to Make Infamous Menendez Brothers Eligible For Parole Immediately
Challenger Nathan Hochman’s lead over Gascón grows to 30% in new D.A.’s race poll.
Over the years, Legal Insurrection has recounted many of the failures and tribulations associated with the George-Soros-backed Los Angles County District Attorney, George Gascón.
- Los Angeles Prosecutor Wins $1.5 Million in Retaliation Lawsuit Against D.A. George Gascó
- Progressive L.A. County DA George Gascon Might Be Next To Be Recalled, Particularly After Mishandling of Car Attack
- That’s a Champ Right There’: Murderer Vows to Tattoo L.A. County DA George Gascón’s Name on His Face
- A Prosecutors and Hollywood Elite Back Recall of DA George Gascón
- DA George Gascón’s L.A., “Smash and Grab” Morphs Into “Slash and Dash”
Sadly, the effort to recall this awful, criminal-friendly prosecutor has failed. But the upcoming election looks promising.
With less than a month remaining before the Nov. 5 election, challenger Nathan Hochman is 30 percentage points ahead of incumbent Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón in a new poll.
If the election were held today, according to the survey from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, 51% of likely L.A. County voters would choose Hochman, and 21% would cast a ballot for Gascón. That leaves 28% undecided.
With that in mind, it appears George Gascón may be making a bold play to get entertainment community votes by asking for the resentencing of infamous parent-killers Erik and Lyle Menendez and making them eligible for parole “immediately.”
Apparently, Gascón is a fan of the Netflix series on the subject.
Earlier this month, the 70-year-old prosecutor announced he was reviewing the Menendez convictions, which saw them sentenced to life in prison in 1996. “Given the totality of the circumstances, I don’t think they deserve to be in prison until they die,” he has said.
The brothers could be set free, or face a lighter sentence. I am not sure if that’s the right call — but I do have the queasy feeling that Gascón is only using the Menendez case as a last-ditch effort to escape defeat on Election Day.
To his credit, Gascón has overseen 14 exonerations of unjustly convicted people. Only I don’t think that’s happening here. Instead, a politician in trouble is exploiting a tragedy. And make no mistake, Gascón is in big trouble….
Rank-and-file prosecutors note that the move is on-brand for Gascón.
“Throughout his disastrous tenure as D.A., Gascón has consistently prioritized celebrity cases over the rights of crime victims, showing more interest in being in the spotlight than in upholding justice,” Michele Hanisee, a deputy district attorney who is president of the union that represents rank-and-file prosecutors, said in a statement.
Gascon’s opponent was quick to address this move.
D.A. George Gascon received the Menendez habeas corpus petition in May 2023 and request for resentencing in February 2024.
Yet, he has waited until days before the November 5 election, 30 points down in the polls with articles coming about how his failed policies have led to additional murders of innocent people, to release his recommendation for resentencing.
By releasing it now, Gascon has cast a cloud over the fairness and impartiality of his decision, allowing Angelenos to question whether the decision was correct and just or just another desperate political move by a D.A. running a losing campaign scrambling to grab headlines through a made-for-TV decision.
D.A. George Gascon received the Menendez habeas corpus petition in May 2023 and request for resentencing in February 2024.
Yet, he has waited until days before the November 5 election, 30 points down in the polls with articles coming about how his failed policies have led to… pic.twitter.com/OPoM2wEfDL— Nathan Hochman (@NathanHochmanDA) October 24, 2024
The case is a complex one, and the move to resentence and release is based on evidence of abuse.
During their highly publicized first trial in 1993, prosecutors argued that the murders were committed out of greed, while defense attorneys said the killings were done in self-defense. The brothers admitted they killed their parents but claimed that they had been sexually, emotionally and physically abused by them. Prosecutors suggested those claims were false. A mistrial was declared, and in a second trial, what defense attorneys called evidence of abuse was excluded.
In May 2023, the brothers’ appellate attorney, Cliff Gardner, filed a habeas petition to challenge the convictions. The petition cited a 1988 letter from Erik Menendez to a cousin where he detailed alleged abuse by his father as new evidence.
Roy Rosselló, a former member of the boy band Menudo, has also alleged that he was abused by José Menendez, who was an executive at RCA Records, where the band had a recording contract. Gardner has said these circumstances mean the brothers should have been convicted of first-degree manslaughter, not murder, and should have received shorter sentences that would have seen them released from prison years ago.
No matter the other results of November 5th, as a Californian, I will be happy with stronger crime laws and the fact a more reasonable and rational man with be the LA County DA. For me, that is more win than I am used to getting in elections.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
lefty wins again
“Hypocrite: The man who murdered his parents, and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I guess Lincoln didn’t speak Yiddish. I’m thinking “chutzpah”..
They were old enough to leave home, but instead chose to stay and kill their parents.
Is that manslaughter?
Not in my book. Both of them were adults who were not obligated to live under their father’s roof.
Erik writes screenplay about murdering parents.
Erik and brother then murder parents.
Netflix then screens show about Erik and brother murdering parents in which screenplay is revealed and Lyle is on tape bragging about fooling authorities about alleged molestation.
Gascon is moved by the totality of these events to release the boys immediately.
Harris states that the parents, once having been alive, are now, after the passage of time, dead due to root causes that are endemic in the family dynamic.
its like Basic Instinct w/o the beavershot
and his toupee doesnt count
It could be that Gascon is just trying to do as much damage as he can to society before he is forced out.
Subotai Bahadur
Why do people elect foreign born folks from Communist or socialist countries to offices? I’d have to guess it’s either virtue signaling or some other psychological behavior where people assume and project noble characteristics on these strangers based on illogical assumptions.
He came from a poor nation so he must be smart and pure of heart and possess American values. Yeah, right.
You mean like Ted Cruz, Victoria Spartz, and Carlos Gimenez?
Ted? He was a US citizen from birth, due to his mother’s citizenship. She was never a Canadian citizen. You’re either a citizen from birth or you are naturalized. There is no third category.
Cruz is foreign born, and his father is from a communist country. That was WestRock’s complaint.
“Sadly, the effort to recall this awful, criminal-friendly prosecutor has failed. But the upcoming election looks promising.”
“Stupid People May Make Good Use of Wholly Undeserved Third Chance.”
I can understand an argument for mitigating circumstances about the killing of their father; I wouldn’t necessarily buy it, but I would understand it. There’s some evidence he was not a good person, put charitably. However, there is no argument for mitigation about the cold-blooded murder of the mother. None. Zero, Zip. If they’re granted parole, it will be a travesty of justice, IMHO.
This is why I support the death penalty.
Because liberals have proven that ‘life without parole’ means NO SUCH THING.
Isn’t it great to see the LA voters get what they voted for?
I have to tell you, I am offended that people put the stupid accent on Gascon’s name. There are no accented characters in our alphabet; there are none in English, in general. It is annoying and offensive to see people continue to spell his name using a foreign alphabet. Perhaps he belongs in the place where his name is naturally spelled like that? What’s next, using Chinese and Japanese characters to spell the names of those of Chinese or Japanese origin or extraction? Should I force English speakers to pronounce the Hebrew “ch” sound (which doesn’t exist in American English)? No. Things in English are pronounced within the phonemes that are used in our language. Not with foreign pronunciations. And with writing that goes triple.
This is all part of a point that Gascon is un-American and has a desire to remain un-American and is working to try to pervert America to his un-AMerican view. He should not be tolerated in this pursuit and, frankly, is more deserving of being stripped of his citizenship (for having waged war on America from his various governmental positions) and shipped back out to Cuba or Venezuela or wherever it is away from here.
Amen. From my mind to your keyboard!
Sigh. Citizenship, once validly obtained, cannot be lost involuntarily, no matter what the person has done.
Gascon’s parents were legitimate refugees from Cuba, opponents of the Castro government, and he served honorably in the US Army. There’s no question his naturalization was legitimate. Therefore no government or court can take that away from him without his consent.
Complete and utter BS. Point out to me the clause in the Constitution that states that idiotic idea. Of course citizenship can be revoked involuntarily from someone – naturalized AND natural born AND legislated into citizenship. There are acts that justify such an action and only a complete moron would deny that.
And, technically, the death penalty certainly revokes that person’s citizenship. Corpses are not citizens.
You are the one who is full of complete and utter BS. What I wrote is settled, undisputed, black-letter law. You will not find anyone who disagrees with it.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”. That is an unconditional statement. Are citizens. Nothing can change that, except a completely voluntary renunciation. That is what the constitution says, and that is what the courts have said, unanimously and consistently, for longer than any of us has been alive.
And no, the death penalty does not revoke citizenship.
Your grasp of English is wanting.
If you understood ANYTHING you would quickly realize that “are citizens”, as you are trying to argue it, is a STATE of being and, also, does not allow anyone to VOLUNTARILY change it, either. But, of course, that is not how that clause is to be interpreted … the same way that rights described in the Constitution can be lost in various circumstances, such as punishment for crimes.
You make some of the dumbest arguments on Earth.
“are citizens” means forever… LOL.
And your contention that taking someone’s life does not revoke their citizenship … that’s a real hoot. Are you a democrat election lawyer, arguing for dead citizens’ votes?? LOL. By your account – that dead people still have their citizenship, the US must have almost a billion citizens, at this point.
Sometimes, you are a real moron.
Milhouse this is directed at primordial not you
“A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—”
There is no other way of interpreting that clause besides it has to be voluntary, and intentional the term intentional is used.
Danny, that is not what Milhouse is claiming. That is a law that details SOME instances for which a US citizen might lose his citizenship. It is not comprehensive and it is not complete.
Milhouse is claiming that the language of the Constitution, itself, makes it impossible for someone to lose his citizenship in any way. That is incorrect and silly and Milhouse’s laughable interpretation of “are citizens” to mean that it is a state of being of permanence that cannot be changed (and would therefore also preclude any voluntary change) and does not even allow for legislation is ludicrous beyond words.
You are fighting a losing battle trying to defend Milhouse’s asinine claim.
Danny, the law is worded that way only because the constitution requires it to be. The original version of that law that Congress passed didn’t say anything about the intention of relinquishing. It said if you voluntarily do any of these things you automatically lose your citizenship. And the Supreme Court slapped it down and said no, you can’t do that. It is not within your authority. The constitution forbids it, and your entire law is invalid. So they amended it to add that intention clause, in order to save it.
Primordial, that is not my interpretation, it’s the interpretation of every court in the land, for longer than either of us has been alive.
And yes, taken literally it would rule out voluntary renunciation as well, but the Supreme Court said citizenship is a right, not an imposition, so if someone doesn’t want to be a citizen we can’t force him to be one. And if he voluntarily renounces and then changes his mind, too bad, he lost it when he renounced; now he has to apply for naturalization like anyone else. Again, that’s not me, that’s the Supreme Court. This is not even slightly controversial. You will not find anyone who knows anything about the law who will disagree with it. The fact that you think it’s my own peculiar interpretation just goes to show that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
… but NOTHING. That is the proof that your interpretation is stupid and obviously incorrect. And, if you had any intellectual honesty you would admit so.
And I am well aware that courts have been the ones first making this idiotic argument … and they have been transparently incorrect on this – all of them. That is nothing new. Courts have long been in obvious error on long-held opinions. Of course, Roe is the easiest and latest example. Everyone knew it was complete BS from the start but it held for decades – even as it was so obviously ridiculous – and morons like you would argue that “courts have decided … blah blah blah”.
The further argument that citizenship is a right does you (or any courts or other legal “scholars”) no help, since people can lose rights as punishments for crimes. As we all know, the Constitution states very clearly that slavery is a proper punishment for crimes.
Primordial, now you’re just being dishonest. Nobody said rights can’t be forfeited. Obviously every criminal sentence strips the defendant of some rights. But you know very well that that was not the point at all, and you are simply dishonestly pretending you don’t.
I cited the fact that citizenship is a right, not as opposed to a privilege, but as opposed to an imposition. The point of doing so, as you well know but pretend not to, was to explain why, despite the constitution’s language, a person can voluntarily renounce his citizenship. Since it’s a right and not an imposition, it can’t be forced on someone who refuses it.
A further consideration in favor of recognizing voluntary renunciation of citizenship, is that that very point was the official cause for the War of 1812. In reality there were many reasons the USA went to war against the UK, most of them shameful. But the reason we cited to justify ourselves, to ourselves and to the world, was that we were standing up for the principle that a person has the right to change his citizenship. We said we were fighting to protect former UK citizens who had become US citizens and renounced their former allegiance. Given that background, it would be strange and hypocritical if a mere 50 years later we were to amend our constitution to deny that very right.
That is the relevance of the fact that the 14th amendment makes citizenship a right.
You state this like you know it. How do you know this? What do you even know about his parents or his service in the military? I would bet that he was as big a treasonous sh*t-weasel in the army as he has been in civilian life. Your claim that he was totally different in the army and then became a loon only after he got out stretches credulity to the breaking point.
I know it because it’s well-documented, undisputed fact, that you could easily determine yourself if you had taken two minutes.
His honorable service is confirmed by his honorable discharge.
Oh … okay. LOL.
And then, after he got out of the army he turned complete anti-American lunatic. All of a sudden!!
Do you think with that brain?
No, he didn’t turn anti-American. He’s still not anti-American, as far as I know. He’s just pro-criminal. Like many Democrats. He thinks criminals are misunderstood and should be treated with kindness and appeals to their better nature. That doesn’t make him anti-American.
In any case, it’s irrelevant. That he served honorably in the Army is a documented fact that you have no right to dispute. So is the fact that his parents were persecuted in Cuba for opposition to Castro, and came here legally as refugees.
That I “have no right to dispute”??
I have the right to dispute anything I please. You make stupid arguments about legalese crap and then you come out with moronic whoppers like this.
I “have no right to dispute” … the dishonorable, anti-American nature of a POS dirtbag who has spent his entire career in public attacking America and American values and waging war on this nation.
LOL. You are a parody of yourself.
No, you have no right to dispute it. As the well known saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. His honorable service is a documented fact, so you have no right to dispute it, any more than you have a right to dispute that the earth is round, or the germ theory of disease.
Not to be pedantic, but that’s not true. If you’re convicted of Treason, you lose your citizenship. Of course, you’ll almost certainly spend the rest of your natural life in prison, so it’s likely a moot point.
No, you do not. You are absolutely wrong and have no idea what you are talking about.
Dude. There’s an entire section at .GOV that explains what the Expatriating Acts are (there are about a dozen):
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Relinquishing-US-Nationality.html
the last one that’s listed read:
349(a)(7) – if convicted of performing an act of treason against the Government of the United States or for attempting by force to overthrow, or bear arms against, the Government of the United States.
Yes, and it says explicitly (because the supreme court said it has to) that these so-called “expatriating acts” do NOT automatically cause you to lose your citizenship. They are only “expatriating” if performed with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality. Without that intent they cannot be expatriating, because the constitution says nothing can remove someone’s citizenship without his consent.
Even then, they merely “may provide a legal basis for the U.S Government to approve a U.S. national’s properly completed request for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States.” Or they may not But if there’s no “property completed request” then the question doesn’t even come up.
An older brother of a girl in my HS graduating class murdered their parents and got away with it. Police never found the murder weapon – likely a blunt weapon like a baseball bat. He probably ditched the weapon in the SF bay. Police caught up with him in Reno. His sister finished out the semester and graduated. She was a nice quiet sort of person. That was 40 years ago. I hope that she’s had a good life.
George Gasbag’s “14 exonerations” are by and large, unsupported by the factual record.
That’s what I thought when I read that.
Whether or not Jose Menendez was molesting his sons is largely irrelevant to the analysis of the case. Where the rubber meets the road, the only question that matters is whether the brothers were under an immient threat of great bodily injury or death at the moment they shotgunned their parents while they were watching tv in the den. No such threat existed at the time. Game, set, match. That is without getting into the fact the brothers bought the guns illegally with fake ids in San Diego days earlier, the extravagant spending sprees after the murder, and the cousin who is the subject of the dubious “newly discovered letter” actually testified about the abuse allegations at trial and the jury didn’t buy it.
how can lefty NOTTTT LOVE THEM?
The Menendez brothers built a green space in prison. It’s modeled on this Norwegian idea
Their project was inspired by the Norwegian approach to incarceration that believes rehabilitation in humane prisons surrounded by nature leads to successful reintegration into society, even for those who have committed terrible crimes.
Their lawyer and the LA district attorney argued that they have served enough time, citing evidence that they suffered physical and sexual abuse at the hands of their entertainment executive father. They also say that the brothers, now in their 50s, are model prisoners who have committed themselves to rehabilitation and redemption.
so no more jury system <<<ACCORDING TO LEFTY!!
and no more one person one vote
no more electoral college
no more filibuster
LEFTY HATES AMERICA
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481
The issue of involuntary loss of citizenship is essentially semantics:
Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
Committing an act of treason is considered voluntarily giving up citizenship under the Code here.
“A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—”
In other words treason isn’t the act that eliminates citizenship, it is treason with the intention of giving up citizenship.
So in other words if the United States and China go to war and someone sells top secret contingency plans to the Chinese government with the intention of never being caught and living in luxury with billions of dollars as an American citizen-May be convicted of treason and sentenced to death but will die as a citizen.
The United States goes to war with China and the same crime happens with the intention of moving to China and being a Chinese subject against America?-You intended to lose nationality while doing the treason therefore you lose the citizenship.
That intention part means Milhouse is right in saying you can’t lose citizenship without consenting to it.
If the intent is so obvious it could be proven in a court of law that means the consent to loss of citizenship is well……
Willow, you’re looking at the wrong part. The presumption is that the person meant to do the act. There is no presumption that he did it with the intention of renouncing citizenship. A person can commit treason, knowingly and willingly and with malice aforethought, out of sheer hatred for the USA and love for the enemy; that makes him a traitor and subject to the full penalty of the law, up to and including execution. It does not make him lose his citizenship unless he intended it to.
Oathkeepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy, one of the crimes listed in the statute. Did they renounce citizenship? Would they be able to rebut the presumption in a DC court?
No, they didn’t renounce their citizenship, and the government doesn’t claim they did. Nobody is claiming that they are no longer citizens. If their home state allows felons to vote, they can vote. And if they apply for a US passport the State Department has absolutely no choice, it must issue them one.
I would hope that they would not lose their citizenship, but they could in my view. The title of the act reads as follows:
8 U.S. Code § 1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
I don’t think the Justice Department would know what to do with them. Send them to —-?
No, they can’t, because US citizenship cannot be lost involuntarily. Once again you ignored that part that says these acts are only “expatriating” if performed with the intent of renouncing citizenship. Treason committed without such an intention is worthless.
How is that intent detetmined? If convicted of one of the enumerated offenses, the burden is on the convicted to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she did not voluntarily give up citizenship.
If the burden is not met, then the convicted “voluntarily” gave up citizenship, even if the person disagrees, which in effect, is involuntary.