Tuesday, August 10, 2004

TAMPERING WITH THE WITNESSES

I am certain that the government deliberately violated: TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 73, Sec. 1512. (b) 1 & 2 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant in the prosecution of my case. In violating Sec. 1512 the government denied me due process[1] as guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment[2].

TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 73, Sec. 1512. - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to -

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to -

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The basis for my accusation regarding TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 73, Sec. 1512 (b) 1 & 2 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant are apparent throughout the history of my case:

1. The differences in Chapman’s testimony at Trial and his ¶302 statements regarding any verbal agreements altering the loan agreement.

2. The Peterson lie regarding meeting with Rosby on April 18th which could have only been constructed by the government between the Indictment and the Trial after learning Rosby and I were not available on April 19th for the alleged phone call and meetings with Peterson, all contrary to both Peterson ¶ 302’s and the civil case deposition of John Rago of AI Credit.

3. The fact the Government knew Cisowski was lying about Rosby’s and my testimony at the ¶341 meeting regarding placing serial numbers on modules. They had the ¶341 transcript and I know William Anderson who conducted the ¶341 meeting knew they Cisowski was lying the very first time the met with the FBI and an AUSA in November 1996. There simply was no such statement or any similar statement made at the ¶341 meeting, which was the whole basis of Cisowski’s testimony and involvement in the case.

4. Holsworth’s verifiable perjury in the civil case; and change in his understanding of Bill Ahead’s from November 1996 to the time of the Trial in November 2002.

All of the above demonstrate that only the government could have guided the witnesses to provide altered testimony from their original statements that was favorable to the governments’ case. It is clear to me in my case the government manipulated the witnesses to arrive at Tom Rosby’s and my wrongful convictions.

It seems to me that the government is allowed to violate Sec. 1512 and that this abuse goes unchecked by Judges and Defense Attorney’s. I have found nothing on the Internet that indicates the government is exempt from Sec. 1512 and can only wonder in amazement how the legal system allows, embraces and upholds Sec 1512 on one hand and on the other hand uses Sec. 6002 (which is relevant in my case) and Rule 35 (b)[3] (which is NOT relevant in my case) time after time to achieve wrongful convictions. In case after case I have discovered people being released (usually after finding new evidence such as DNA analysis) that were convicted based on the false testimony of government witnesses that were immunitized or received reduced sentences, yet no one in the government or on the defendant’s side ever takes any action to stop such immoral practices. The obvious root cause of many wrongful convictions is the governments’ influence on the witness’s testimony based on their exercise of control over the witness utilizing immunity and reduced sentences as compensation. And in my case allowing (and perhaps encouraging) the witnesses to commit perjury in the related civil case.

TITLE 18, PART V, CHAPTER 601, Sec. 6002. - Immunity generally

Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to –

(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,

(2) an agency of the United States, or

(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,

and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order


I have found nothing in TITLE 18, PART V, CHAPTER 601, Sec. 6002. - Immunity generally that allows the Government to manipulate witness testimony, to the contrary it allows the Government to use the immunitized witnesses testimony for prosecution of the immunitized witness for perjury and false statements. Something I think they are obligated to do when they become aware their witnesses are violating the law, but which they have failed to do in my case.

I am sure that when the Sixth Amendment was added in 1789 the founding fathers had no idea the phrase “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” would include criminals the government compensated and controlled through immunity to wrongfully convict government designated targets at will. Ultimately, the Executive Branch of the government should be prevented from offering immunity to influence witnesses in any way; it serves no purpose in obtaining the true facts of a case. In my mind the government can’t avoid violating Section 1512 anytime someone from the Executive Branch provides immunity or offers up reduced sentences. I could find no legal precedent for or against my argument on the Internet, but I am not the lawyer! It seems to me this may be like the Blakely case and the Sixth Amendment; nobody seemed to notice for 20 years that the Sixth Amendment was being ignored. In the instance of using Sec. 1521 to redefine Sec. 6002 and Rule 35 (b), the Defense Attorney’s need to be willing to directly confront the government attorney’s in a personal attack; something Defense Attorney’s don’t seem to be very inclined to do for whatever reasons.

It further stands to reason, that if immunity absent of perjury is available for a witness for the government under the Sixth Amendment, immunity should also be available by the Defendants for witnesses produced as a result of a “compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” as stated in the Sixth Amendment. I am not aware that the Defendant has the opportunity to offer any such immunity for perjury free testimony, leaving the Sec. 6002 inherently unbalanced in finding the truth.

In my case the government knew the very day they gave Holsworth and Cisowski their plea agreements that neither one of them were truthful in their first meeting that evening on November 21, 1996. Yet they continued to provide immunity, letting them know that their lying would be an acceptable practice as long as it benefited the government.

The details of my case can be found at www.FedTarget.com.

[1] due process - An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.
[2] Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[3] Rule 35. Correcting or Reducing a Sentence
(b) Reducing a Sentence for Substantial Assistance.
(1) In General.
Upon the government’s motion made within one year of sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if:
(A) the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person; and
(B) reducing the sentence accords with the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines and policy statements.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home