The Exculpation Waltz

davis martin jaharTroy Davis, Martin Bryant, Jahar Tsarnaev

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB  — January 18, 2016

Many persons have been slaving away for years to get convictions overturned in cases where the accused was merely a patsy for the government. Why don’t we just arrest the real criminals?

Somehow, starting in 2008, I got interested in three cases: Troy Davis, Martin Bryant, and Jahar Tsarnaev.

In each case the authorities conducting the prosecution flouted the law to an extreme degree.

For Troy, that authority was the County Court of Savannah. For Martin it was the Public Prosecutor in the state of Tasmania. For Jahar it is the US District Court.

The Real Criminals

How do we get governments to stop wrecking the lives of such men? When will we finally wake up and realize that to persecute citizens like that is a crime in itself?

Let us resolve now to stop treating the unethical conduct of prosecutors as “unethical conduct.”  That’s not what it really is.  Those prosecutors are plainly working for someone other than the people.

And who might that be?  Who gives them their marching orders? I am sure, absolutely sure, they are well instructed to harm us. It is an inescapable notion that for decades a huge team must have been coordinating the downfall of the people.

Two of the three cases I listed were psy-ops. The Powers That Be wanted Australians to feel fear so they sent a man to conduct a massacre, killing 35 people.

In Boston, there was less violence but the whole city went into ‘lockdown.’ I assume that was the main goal – to condition Bostonians to martial law. (Note: Bostonians now ARE conditioned to the whole thing!)

In Troy Davis’s case the likely goal was to stir up racial distrust –part of the famous divide-and-rule strategy. But I admit that hurting Troy and his family was also an instance of “knocking African Americans.” The FBI has been found guilty of this dating back to the COINTELPRO hearings of the 1970s.

Additionally, Troy’s case led to 600,000 people signing a petition for clemency. Then those petitioners had the door slammed in their face. A wonderful lesson in subservience and hopelessness for earnest, Constitution-minded Americans.

Brady Ruling on Exculpatory Evidence

In 1963 the US Supreme court, in the Brady case, confirmed the right of an accused to have access to exculpatory evidence, that is, to be able to present any material that shows his innocence.

I won’t go into the case. All one needs to know is that there was a piece of evidence on file which, had the defendant been allowed to see it, would have given him a better outcome. The Court said:

“We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment…. The principle [is] avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused.  [Emphasis added]

So What Is the Problemo?

The problemo is the fact that the courts are working for “someone else.” Maybe the bad judges are themselves living in fear. Maybe a mafia has threatened to break the bones of their grandkids.

I don’t care if that’s what is making judges misbehave — they must not do it. They will have to risk their grandkids. Otherwise let them resign from the bench.

In 1990, a perfect case of attorney corruption came up in the federal court in Boston. There was a mobster named Ferrara (also called ‘Vincent the Animal’) who was in jail for murder. He had done a plea bargain to get a 22-year sentence instead of a life sentence. (Fathom it.)  Ferrara didn’t realize there was material in the prosecutor’s file that showed another man had confessed to the murder.

Later, in 2008, US Judge Mark Wolf reexamined the situation and said he had to let Ferrara out of jail, animal or not. He then did so. He freed the prisoner without further ado.

Judge Mark Wolf blamed US Attorney Jeffrey Auerhahn for having suppressed the exculpatory evidence, contrary to the Brady rule. A Boston cop testified that Auerhahn knew of Ferrera’s innocence. Yay, cop!

Law, Beautiful Law

So, do we find Attorney Auerhahn in jail today? We certainly should. Obstruction of justice is a felony. I quote 18 USC 1503 which has to do with influencing (or injuring) a court officer or juror:

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in…  any court of the United States… or… obstructs … the due administration of justice, shall be punished  (b) The punishment for an offense under this section is…(3) … imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both. [Emphasis added]

Now, before you go bringing a nice cake to prisoner Auerhahn in jail, let me assure you that he ain’t there. No one brought charges against him, AS INDEED THEY NEVER DO.

Still, we must thank Judge Mark Wolf of the US District Court in Boston, for speaking clearly of Auerhahn’s wrongdoing — which is, unfortunately, common behavior among US Attorneys.  And happily, the First Circuit Court of Appeals referred to Auerhahn’s behavior as “outrageous,” “egregious,” “feckless” and “a grim picture of blatant misconduct.”

The English Language

Of course I do not agree with that last word. It was not “misconduct.” It was criminal conduct, unless I am having trouble reading the English language. Now, wait till you hear what happened next. The Board of Bar Overseers (I had never heard of them) asked for disciplinary action against Auerhahn — to suspend Auerhahn’s license to practice law for two years.

So maybe you think the panel of decision makers would be composed of several laypersons and some lawyers? Wrong-o. It was composed of three judges.  To be exact these were: Rya W Zobel, William G Young, and – wait for it, all ye who study the Marathon bombing case — George A O’Toole.

They ruled that “the allegations of professional misconduct have not been proven by clear and convincing evidence.” The offending fellow didn’t get even a 6-month suspension.

Harvey Silverglate, a Boston attorney, commented that the judges “HAD TURNED SOMERSAULTS” to let Auerhahn off the hook. He said:

“I think it’s a rebuke to Judge Wolf and it’s also a rebuke to all of those [who] for years now have been engaged in the never-ending but seemingly futile battle to get the Department of Justice to turn over exculpatory evidence that can exonerate a defendant, especially an innocent one.”

Never-ending but seemingly futile? Hmm. Not any more! Come on, troops. We need to do what must be done here.

What Turning Somersaults Means

Why — ask yourself why — would judges turn somersaults to let off the hook a person who had obstructed justice?  The answer I feel sure is that OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE IS THE ACTUAL GOAL.

Consider this: the plans by the Powers That Be to reduce us to slaves and idiots is not compatible with a decent legal system, is it? It couldn’t be. So THE LAW HAS TO BE DESTROYED.

It is obvious to me that that’s what’s going on these days.

I think the World Government’s instruction is: Kill the law gradually by misusing it. If corrupt judges really said what’s happening, folks might notice! They’d react and “we,” the hidden rulers, would be in trouble.

Over to You, Citizen

Today we should be spreading the alarm. We must get brave and arrest the persons who are killing our law.

But as a first move, the wrongly incarcerated men must be sent home. It’s too late for Troy Davis who was executed in 2011 at age 44, but Martin Bryant and Jahar Tsarnaev must be let out of jail today.

That’s ‘today’ as in today. This afternoon. Before dinner. Or at the latest before bedtime. Out they go. Enough is enough, isn’t it?

I tend to think the quickest way to do it is by a pardon. Never mind if that’s less than ideal. For Jahar the pardoner can be the US president. (I make the case elsewhere that it should be Governor Baker. Please see my Youtube “To Massachusetts Governor.”)

In the Bryant case, and oh boy are there going to be some compensation payments due, the pardoner is the monarch of Australia. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth can straightaway offer a pardon, via Tasmania’s Governor, Kate Warner.

I think it is also within the gift of the Tasmanian parliament, led by Premier Will Hodgman, to pardon a convict. I hopped over to austlii.edu.au, the electronic storehouse of Oz law, to see what Tasmania’s constitution says about a pardon power in that state.  Not only is ‘pardon’ not mentioned, there is no judicial power provided for in that state’s constitution at all!

I assume that means parliament is supreme.  In any case Hodgman, as head of the Tasmanian Parliament, can write out the pardon — and who’s to stop it from being acted upon?

Tasmanian-PremierPremier Will Hodgman and family

A Remarkable Thing Has Happened at Gumshoe

 Just as we were going to press, Dee McLachlan made a discovery about false evidence that was used in the trial of Jahar Tsarnaev, over which Judge O’Toole presided. She found that a video, presented as Exhibit 22 to the jurors, was doctored in a way that hides exculpatory evidence.

I believe that O’Toole, Ortiz, and the other fakers from FBI and related mercenary gangs are going to find themselves laid out in lavender.

The discovery arose from years of diligent court-watching by Josée Lépine in Canada. See — hard work pays off! And as Dee said in her January 17, 2016 article, “It’s not for nothing that my neuronal pathways have been shaped by four decades of being a cinematographer.”

Take courage, ye out there who have been slaving for Martin Bryant’s release and for a better national policy.

And thank you, Martin, for making us think about these things.

 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Cheryl Dean says:

    What a great article Mary! Over the years language has changed to suit the powers that be, including “prosecutorial misconduct”. No matter what you call it, it is criminal misconduct and should be treated as such! What I can’t fathom is why the overkill and “misconduct” to put innocent people in prison or sentence them to death. Who actually benefits? Does the FBI and prosecutors get a bonus for every person that goes to prison even if innocent? Is this part of deals with the new plague of for profit prisons? It’s easy to see why people are discouraged and feel helpless to do anything, but it is exactly that, that has allowed this to continue, and it removes all barriers for the sociopaths and psychopaths in charge to continue their destructive and crimminal assault on citizens.

    • Terry Shulze says:

      People tend to understand the concept of ‘junk’ science, but ‘junk’ law tends to escape them. Science is essentially an INQUIRY. It builds concepts/principles of reality from what it DISCOVERS, it does not create that reality. There are too many instances of junk science to repeat them, but the underlying sin in all of them is to have a conclusion or agenda and then distort the data/information to arrive at that conclusion. Real science must include ALL information, not just Newtonian physics, but also quantum physics and the element of consciousness – it must contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

      Like the skeleton of a human, law is the framework that everything else hangs off of. Like the principles of science giving a framework to our reality, it is the principles of law that give a framework to the society. The fundamental principles of English Law are not taught in Ozzie schools. It is like being taught physics without including quantum physics in the curriculum. The legal skeleton/framework is incomplete.

      The inquiry process is also severely flawed. All too often there is an agenda and the trial process is nothing more than twisting of the evidence to arrive at the desired conclusion. It is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – it is ‘junk’ law.

      Just because some bloke is wearing a white lab coat doesn’t make him an authority in science, likewise, some bloke dressed up in a wig and gown doesn’t make that person an authority in law. They both can be from the same stuff – bullshit. I have no respect for junk science, I also have no respect for junk law.

      Perhaps one of the first steps that could be undertaken in Australia would to teach the fundamental principles of English Law in Australian Law schools – either that, or tell the frauds to take those stupid horsehair wigs off.

  2. Hi Mary, the above quote is from a new movie on the net titled ” Incontrovertible – New 911 Documentary.” Please watch if you can. Thankyou for your good work.

  3. Judge Ferdinando Impositano. “The 911 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers of the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.”

  4. Neah Pierce . Former U.S. marine. 20yrs old R.I.P. “War is horrible. It fucking sucks here. It sounds like you guys in the states are for the war. All the soldiers I know including me think it’s a bunch of bullshit. We came in and invaded this country and murdered a lot of innocent people. So tell me how are we heroes?”

  5. Hmm. I’m gazing at the line-up of the three men, for each of whom there is fabulous exculpatory evidence,

    I note Troy’s lack of hair — he had already been a prisoner for many years. I see Martin’s golden tresses, but we know they were soon shaved off. And we see Jahar in good barber-worthy pose. That pic was printed by the Boston Globe on March 6, 2015, “contributed” by a teacher or a coach. But of course his Day of Disaster had not yet happened.

    Just wondering why Jahar showed up in court in 2015, looking rather hirsute. In his “flipping the bird” photo, which Gumshoe did an article about, Jahar was clean-shaven. So I ask, is his goatee part of the Hollywood set?

    Woo-hoo. I just went to look up the rules of prisoner hygiene. I see that in US there was a 2015 ruling in favor of a guy named Holt who said the Arkansas requirement to shave in prison offended his religious beliefs. That Supreme Court ruling (Alito wielding the pen) mentioned that it is a prisoner’s right to correspond with his religious advisor. Jahar: are you reading this? Contact your clergyperson forthwith! Any port in a storm.

Trackbacks

  1. […] I said in an article entitled “The Exculpation Waltz,” I recently consulted the state constitution of Tasmania to see the role of the judiciary, and […]

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: