One can understand why the New York Times was bad mouthing President Benigno Simeon Aquino. He did not bring business to New York. The crooks did. More crooks in the mold of the Marcoses, stealing from the Filipinos and splurging those stolen millions in this sleepless city, means more business for New York.
“One winter morning in 1988, Imelda appeared at federal court in New York to Plead innocent, swathed in an aqua-colored puff-sleeved terno more appropriate for evening wear. Beforehand, she stopped at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue to pray, and when she reached the court TV cameras zoomed in for close-ups of what one commentator referred to unkindly as “crocodile tears.” Her bail was paid by friend Doris Duke, the tobacco heiress.”
“Soon after the first edition of this book appeared, the Marcoses’ New York lawyers asked me for help. “The book contains a number of extremely interesting revelations,” they said, “which are potentially of considerable significance in connection with the pending indictment.” If I made certain files available, they could get the indictment thrown out by showing how American officials had encouraged Ferdinand and Imelda to misbehave and participated in their illegal activities: smuggling gold from the Philippines, helping sell it to the Gold Pool and the Trilateral Commission ; urging the Marcoses to invest in stolen assets in the U.S. so they could enjoy them when they “retired”, knowing all along that the Marcoses had set up the California Overseas Bank and other corporations to funnel the loot. A quid pro quo had existed between the Marcoses and Washington under the table.” (Marcos Dynasty, Sterling Seagrave, p. 432).”
After Imelda and Adnan Khashoggi were acquitted from racketeering charges, one juror, Thomas O’Rourke, said: ”It was on the wrong side of the ocean. It was a totally silly case. We are not big brothers to the people overseas.”
Yes of course, American jurors must look at Imelda’s racketeering as substantial business to New York and to hell with the people overseas.
Viewpoint Neutral 
My experience in the American jury system is that jury members are generally straightforward and earnest and drawn from normal walks of life. They are not political players. Attorneys have the chance to “vet” jury members and can throw out those they believe would not fairly hear a case. To the extent that the jury ruled against what you believe is a correct ruling, culpability ought to rest more appropriately with the attorneys and how they dealt with the evidence presented. I think your denigration of the jury system is wrong. I’ve sat on three juries and they were all earnest and sincere in wanting to rule well.
That is not what I know about jury system from a notable satirist and writer, Mark Twain. Before a jury is impaneled a judge asks a prospective juror: Have you read the newspaper about the case: Answer, No. You are okay. If Yes, u were not okay. But you might get another pitch, Have you formed an opinion about the case: No, then you were okay.
How much a juror is paid: $12-$13 an hour. If you were receiving $15 an hour you will find every excuse to avoid a jury duty.
So who are the likely candidates for jury? Those who do not read the newspapers, print and online. Those who read but cannot form an opinion. Those who do not buy newspapers. If you cannot form an opinion about the case despite heavy annotations of commentators and journalists, then u must be dumb. If you cannot afford to buy newspapers, then you must be either don’t know how to read, reading is not your passion or you don’t have money to buy one.
Other jurors are the bums who have nothing to do with their lives and receiving only less than what a juror is being paid so he takes the opportunity of serving as a juror.
Of course you can find a juror who is none of the above. But I would say that the jury composition is more or less those of the bum type.
Please read Mark Twain:
http://www.twainquotes.com/Jury.html
I was a banking executive and considered it an honor to serve. Others on my three panels were from all walks of life. My experience differs from your portrayal. I leave it to you to find the truth in that.
ps, I am not a liar.
Truly! That Imelda’s acquittal was not a proud moment of America’s justice system!
So the only way you can find respect is if the jury, upon hearing the evidence, rules as you want, having not heard the evidence? The jury hears what attorneys and judges decide it will hear. They are not empowered to ask witnesses questions or give directions to the judge. The culprits are not the members of the jury. The gameplaying is done by attorneys. Maybe Imelda had better attorneys, eh?
I am not calling you a liar joe. You and your jury colleagues may be the exception. The deficiency in jury system is not my opinion, it was your compatriot’s, Mark Twain.
Mark Twain lived 100 years ago and was a satirist and activist (promoting Philippine independence avidly, I’d note). Today, large corporations have HR policies in place that give employees pay for time spent on jury duty, and a jury summons is a legal summons. It is possible to get excused, but not easy. The jury system is respected across the nation. Are there flawed cases? Sure. Rarely the jury’s fault. The characterization of the jury system as a pack of poor rabble issuing lousy justice is simply wrong. One case got your goat, but that is no basis for demeaning a well respected democratic institution that the US carries off quite well, considering the numbers of people recruited, interviewed by lawyers, and placed on juries.
That is true Annie.
The system of jury impaneling is the same today as during the time of Mark Twain.
can’t remember what exactly my reasons why i started searching for information about one primitivo mijares but i stumbled upon your blog in doing so, likely because there was hardly anything else relevant. anyway, you might be interested to learn that some of your articles captured my attention and got me glued a bit. problem is, i’m getting bits and pieces of write-ups referenced from lengthy and plenty books of which i have no way of acquiring. so, to cut it short, i am hoping you, having the resources and first hand experience, could answer some of the questions that are bothering me right now: 1. Mijares went to the US Congress in 1975 ala Ben Hur Luy. Aside from the follow-up stories about his disappearance and the succeeding gruesome murder of his son, Mijares and his expose never got any billing from any source i looked at. what did washington do after hearing his testimony? what was the US participation in the conjugal dictatorship? mijares certainly thought that the US could be of help to his cause and the pinoys. washington even paved the way for marcos’ exile to hawaii 11 years after – an event that, in my opinion, implied that there were close ties between marcos and washington and magnified US interests in the philippines. yet, only disappearance and murder cropped up in my search for information in between those 11 years… 2. in a somewhat different issue, why would japan use the philippines to hide an enormous amount of treasure? why did they not transport them directly to japan? the loots were said to be from other asian countries they occupied and some of them were from years passed. why take the time to hide them in pinas and undertake extra ordinary measures digging tunnels and blocking passages then plan to recover them later?
The hiding was done on the late years of the war, Japan was losing and the sealanes had been blockaded. Last ditch effort to hide the goods in RP.
you mean they brought the treasures from other countries to rp instead of japan? didn’t they have lots of time to facilitate the shipment to their homeland way before knowing they’re gonna lose?
During the early years of the war, Japan didn’t think that it would lose the war. The loot was so huge and transporting it to Japan was not the priority at that time. When the tide of the war changes, the last ditch effort to ship the loot to Japan was undertaken. At least two Japanese vessels with gold and artifacts were sank on the way to Japan by the allies. Please read Gold Warriors by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave.
“Waltzing With the Dictator” by Raymond Bonner documents Washington’s honeymoon with Marcos. Mijares’s expose’ did not gain much traction because it was a time when policy makers in Washington believed that Marcos was the man of the hour so they chose to close their eyes over Marcos abuses.
Sterling Seagrave’s “Marcos Dynasty” is another source of Marcos and Washington’s dalliance. His other book, “Gold Warriors” with wife Peggy Seagrave documents the Yamashita diggings in the Philippines made by Marcos, including the Rojas Golden Buddha.
You get the idea of how Marcos manipulated the country and Washington to prolong himself to power through “communist scare.” (Seagrave and Bonner’s books).
i really have no access to these books and seeking your help in finding answers, instead…could it be true that the US eyes were concentrated more at the gold so much so that they couldn’t even keep at least one on rp democracy?
Yes, precisely that was the assay of Seagrave. The U.S. through CIA wanted the gold as much as the Japanese. In fact some of the gold certificate deposits Marcos had brought to Hawaii in 1986 were confiscated by the immigration officers and turned over to the CIA. Or it was made as a ransom for Marcos family being given a safe-haven in Hawaii. Even immediately after the war, McArthur, was given portion of Japanese’s loot as a bribe so he did not ask Emperor Hirohito to step down from power but he went only for the Generals involved in the war to stand trial more for a show according to Seagrave.