Troy 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?
Premier 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.