Most states only permit the use of the deferred adjudication program as a rehabilitative measure for certain non-violent misdemeanor offenses. Iowa is no different. Iowa criminal law clearly states kidnapping is considered a felony. Period. Pull a gun on your victim, and it becomes a violent crime, a second degree felony. This is a true fact in every state. This post describes in detail the Judicial process at least one District Court Judge has used in Iowa to violate the recently passed Supreme Court Code of Ethics.
In 2015, a crime of kidnapping a teenager at gunpoint was committed by a Principal Real Estate Managing Director. The perpetrator, Mark Hanrahan, forced a 19 year old Hyspanic male into his vehicle at gun point, threatening him with death unless the young man found him drugs. Fortunately, the young man was able to contact law enforcement, and Hanrahan was arrested in a business parking lot from where he was taken into custody.
As stated above, under Iowa law, when the kidnapper is armed with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping is a second degree felony. It is punishable for up to 25 years in prison. A parole is considered when the perpetrator has served at least 70% of his/her sentence. A forcible felony is any felonious child endangerment, assault, murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, arson in the first degree, or burglary in the first degree. In other words, if you kidnap any person while armed with a dangerous weapon, such action is considered a second degree felony as well as a forcible felony. Kidnapping in Iowa is a felony… And cannot be ruled as a deferred judgment sentence
Instead, the Iowa District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell delivered a deferred judgment sentence, two years of probation….. and a $1,375 civil penalty when Hanrahan appeared before his Bench. Not even a slap on the wrist! A deferred judgment sentence is no sentence… you are a free man in the Court’s eyes. The Principal Real Estate Director and perpetrator, Mark Hanrahan, drew the “get out of jail free” card. How could this happen? The answer is simple… the Judge lied before his own bench! The original charge when Hanrahan was arrested was kidnapping in the second degree. The Judge changed the charge to solicitation to commit a felony.
For Judge Farrell to achieve this endeavor, it required him to make some creative adjustments… the crime of kidnapping, especially with a dangerous weapon, and also with Hanrahan under the influence of alcohol, would not qualify Hanrahan for the deferred sentence that was ultimately rendered. So the good judge decided that Hanrahan really
didn’t intend to “kidnap” the young man, but rather “solicitated” him to assist in obtaining drugs illegally… with a gun…. while drunk! I guess you might say that Hanrahan wanted him to partner up with him to buy the drugs. Perhaps Hanrahan happened to be out of cash that night. Actually, his wife showed up at the police station early the next morning with $100,000 in cash to make bail, so I guess that would make a poor excuse.
I have a question for Judge Farrell. Why did you decide to change an obvious second degree kidnapping charge to a solicitation charge when the facts proved Hanrahan committed a violent crime to steal drugs? The truth is obvious, Judge Farrell! Your actions are a crime in itself… this is yet another example of what can happen when a Judge lies, and why we need a strong and binding Lower Court Code of Ethics, which the recently passed law is NOT!. Case law plays an important role in the criminal justice system, and the laws enacted in each state are meant to be enforced. When those laws are not enforced, possibly violent criminals like Mark Hanrahan go free.
The Supreme Court Code of Ethics….
The language found in the Supreme Court Code of Ethics specifically addresses lower court federal judges, such as Judge Farrell. The rules state that…
- Federal judges are expected to “maintain and enforce high standards of conduct.”
- Lower court judges should not “lend the prestige of the judicial office” to advance their own private interests or permit others “to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”
- Lower court judges are directed to “take appropriate action” if they have reason to believe that a judge, a judicial employee or a lawyer has violated the code of conduct.
- Lower court judges “should make required financial disclosures … in compliance with applicable statutes …”
- Lower court judges are urged to “divest investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification.”
In their statement the Supreme Court justices made it clear they were adopting the code to dispel “the misunderstanding that justices regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.” Mark Hanrahan got lucky this time… he found a Judge that placed himself above the law, and not to enforce the law. The Hyspanic young man he kidnapped was 19 years of age. Had he been 17, Hanrahan could perhaps still be tried for his crime since the Statute of Limitations is ten years, and would not have yet tolled.
I consider the Supreme Court Code of Ethics is too little, too late… if your 401k is with the Principal Group of Companies, this post describes yet another reason why you do not want to do business with Principal… the scales of justice simply lean too far in Principal’s favor when you might need the law to protect your rights! Millions of other investors have already learned this as fact; now it is your turn.
