Send This Letter to the Senate
Honorable Senator John McCain
Honorable Governor Jane Hull
I am also forwarding copies of this to Honorable Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold as well as Honorable Representative Mark Green. We have this
problem in Wisconsin also.
Subject: Illegal and Unconstitutional acts by Prosecutors, Investigators, and Courts.
The following report indicates terrible things are happening in United States Courts. Apparently nobody wants to confront the issue. We are a Republican form of government, with divided powers. The purpose of divided powers, is for the executive, (President, Governors) Legislature (State and Federal Congress) to monitor the behavior of the Judiciary, and visa vis. Each power has the responsibility to assure the other powers are not acting in conflict with the Constitution. Obviously this responsibility is not being carried out.
Report: Prosecutors Hiding Evidence
CHICAGO (AP) _ Prosecutors throughout the country have hid evidence, leading to wrongful convictions, retrials and appeals that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, according to a Chicago Tribune analysis of thousands of court records in homicide cases. The records show prosecutors have won conviction against black men, hiding evidence the real killers were white. They also have prosecuted a wife, hiding evidence her husband committed suicide. And they have prosecuted parents, hiding evidence their daughter was killed by
06:35 PM ET 01/10/99
The case of Richard D. McClure, who is part Afro-American. Pima County Superior Court, Arizona
Criminal case # CR-63715
The perpetrator in this crime, Michael Ramirez, admitted he did this crime. Two Afro-American men accompanied him. The three victims all stated that Michael Ramirez did this crime.
Border Patrol Agent Bob Stokes (badge #4) investigated the crime. Agent
Stokes, interviewed Michael Ramierz's sister, Christina Ramirez, and threatened her. Agent Stokes stated he would have Christina's children taken away, if she did not implicate her (than) boyfriend, Richard D. McClure.
Out of fright, Christina made the accusatory statements solicited by Agent Stokes. At Trial, Christina stated that agent Stokes had threatened her, that her statement was false to protect her children. Agent Stokes admitted in court that he had threatened Christina in order to get a statement against Richard.
A search warrant was issued, to search Richard's home. The Warrant was not served according to Arizona law, which states force cannot be used unless entry is denied. No evidence at all was found as a result of this search.
Arizona 13-3916 . Service of warrant; breaking and entering to execute
A. A search warrant may be served by any peace officer but by no other
person except in aid of an officer engaging in such service.
B. An officer may break into a building, premises, or vehicle or any part thereof, to execute the warrant when:
. After notice of his authority and purpose, he receives no response within a reasonable time.
2. After notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance.
A basic right is the right to be tried by a jury of peers. Although eight Afro-Americans were called to jury duty, and passed the questioning, they were all dismissed by the prosecution. The all white jury, included an active
Prosecutor, and two (2) Probation Agents.
I strongly note here, that a trial is to be just in the first place! A defendant should not have to go through endless appeals, while in jail, their liberty taken from them, when the trial was unjust to begin.The defense argued that the jury was not a jury of peers; Judge Michael Alfred denied the motion.
Supreme Court Case:
Despite petitioner's assertion and his substantiating evidence, the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to consider the merits of this challenge. 665 S.W.2d
304 (1984). Instead, that court held that, because petitioner was a 51-year-old Negro male, he had no standing to challenge the exclusion of women or young adults from grand juries in Franklin County. The court rested its conclusion on the view that challenges to the composition of a grand jury must be rooted in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than in that Amendment's due process component. Thus, the court below concluded that petitioner himself [469 U.S. 984 , 985] had no recourse for challenging the imbalance of the grand jury that indicted him.
The conclusion of the Kentucky Supreme Court is flatly at odds with the opinion announcing this Court's judgment in Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (1972). That opinion, joined by three Justices, stated: "[W]hen a grand or petit jury has been selected on an impermissible basis, the existence of a constitutional violation does not depend on the circumstances [i.e., the standing] of the person making the claim . . . . [A] State cannot, consistent with due process, subject a defendant to indictment or trial by a jury that has been selected in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, in
violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States." Id., at 498, 502, 2168 ( emphasis added). This three-Justice opinion therefore concluded that a white male had standing under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to bring a racial-discrimination challenge to the state system used to select his grand and petit juries.
The Prosecutor stated to the jury that a fingerprint of Richard was found. However he did not state that it was found in Richards's own car. The defense had to point out this false evidence. The accused has a right to know the charges, evidence, against him. The Prosecution withheld this information for months, providing this information only seven (7) days before the scheduled trial.
In a final attempt to find evidence, the prosecution shortly before trial, offered the admitted perpetrator, Michael Ramirez, who was facing (66) sixty-six years in prison, a plea bargain to seven years. Michael Ramirez,
who had not previously mentioned Richard McClure, now testified that it was Richad McClure that preformed his crime.
This trial resulted in a hung jury, Richard McClure remains in jail. Apparently, across the nation, there are widespread unjust courts. I ask that a Federal Grand Jury be held to investigate this case and others like
it in Pima County Arizona. I further request that legislation be drafted, to establish a federal
agency, to investigate all edged acts of wrong doing by investigators, prosecutors and courts. These two statues give jurisdiction and authority to the US Courts to investigate, and prosecute State officials who subvert the law to their own purpose. "Under color of Law" 18 USC 241 Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
18 USC 242 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by
the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of
citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined
under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Courts are quick to prosecute parents, for being harsh or unjust in disciplining their children. How horrible for our United States Courts to be guilty of the same or worse. All agencies are evaluated according to standards. There is no reason courts too should not be held to the highest standards. Recent concerns have brought video cameras into courtrooms for security. These tapes could be randomly monitored to determine if courts were acting justly.
I look forward to hearing your replies. This is definitely and area of concern. It should be a campaign issue!
Bruce A. Eggum