Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)

A. FINDING NEWLY DISCOVEred EVIDENCE

Typically, the government has records in about 15 different agencies related to a criminal Defendant. When the prosecutor goes before the judge, the judge might ask the Prosecutor if he has produced the evidence in “his files” for your case. The Prosecutor will probably say he has produced the evidence in his files. What will conveniently be omitted by the Prosecutor is that he is required to produce evidence in “all agencies” of the government, and that the prosecutor has conveniently moved the evidence to other agencies so the Defendant does not see it. It is never the prosecutor’s duty to determine what evidence is material, and it is not your responsibility to have to go on a treasure hunt to find the evidence. In order to have a fair trial, or a fair plea process, the government is required to produce all records in all agencies of the government for review prior to trial, or prior to a knowing and intelligent plea agreement.

Unfortunately, the government never does.

B. OBTAINING EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT

In order to obtain evidence of concealment, you need to send FOIA requests to all agencies that might have records on you, and request the answers returned certified. Typical government agencies which might have records include: State Department, FBI, DEA, EOUSA, Interpol, Treasury, Comptroller of Currency, FINCEN, Department of Justice, Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Homeland Security. Go through the list of possible agencies and identify any agency that could have records on you. Then send in FOIA requests and request the answers to be returned certified. You need to be prepared to file a FOIA suit in Washington , DC court (never in your district court), if necessary to obtain the records.

NEWLY DISCOVEred EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL BY LAW

The United States Constitution is the government’s contract with its citizens. The Fifth Amendment requires: “No person shall be …be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …” The Sixth Amendment requires: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

Due Process requires a prosecutor to disclose all favorable evidence to a defendant in a criminal case. Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1994, 1196-1197, 10 L. Ed . 2d 215 (1963); Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 1993).[1]

The government knows or should know that the records concealed and/or destroyed are Brady material. U.S. v. Garrett, 238 F.3d 293, 297 (5th Cir. 2000). The concealment of the records can impact trial strategy and the organized and efficient preparations for trial by defense counsel and the court. Id. It is the job of the defense, not the prosecution, to decide whether and in what way to use arguably favorable evidence. Id.

The concealment of the evidence by the government establishes its materiality as a matter of law, creating a presumption that can not be overcome by the government. Runkle v. Burnham, 153 U.S. 216, 38 L. Ed . 694, 14 S.Ct. 837 (1894)(the failure of a party to produce in evidence or to testify in reference to an instrument, when its contents were peculiarly within its knowledge, justifies the presumption that its provisions would have been unfavorable to his position); Kirby v. Tallmadge, 160 U.S. 379, 16 S.Ct. 349, 40 L. Ed . 463 (1896)(the failure of a party to produce evidence in his power in elucidation of the subject matter in dispute raises a presumption against him); Fitsimmons v. Ogden, 7 Cranch 2, 11 U.S. 2, 3 L. Ed . 249 (1812); Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U.S. 115, 42 L. Ed . 682, 18 S.Ct. 293 (1898) Burdine v. Johnson, 262 F.3d 336, 366 (5th Cir. 2001)(failure to produce available evidence justifies an inference that it would be unfavorable to the other party).

The government waives its right to claim privileges on documents concealed. SEC v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 668-669 (5th Cir. 1981); Clarke v. American Commerce National Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 9th Cir. 1992); Spence v. Johnson, 80 F.3d 989, 1005 (5th Cir. 1996)(inadmissible evidence may be material and disclosable); Sellers v. Estelle, 651 F.2d 1074, 1077, n.6 95th Cir. 1981); Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, & Co. v. West, 748 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1984)(failure to make a clear showing that privilege applies to a document sought in discovery is not excused by a later showing that the document would have been privileged if a timely showing had been made).

As a matter of law, the burden on concealed evidence now shifts to the government and the government can not carry that burden. See Campbell v. United States , 365 U.S. 85, 96, 5 L. Ed . 2d 428, 81 S.Ct. 421 (1961)(“[T]he ordinary rule, based on considerations of fairness, does not place the burden on a litigant of establishing facts peculiarly within the knowledge of his adversary”); United States v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 355 U.S. 253, 78 S.Ct. 212, 2 L. Ed .2d 247 (1957); Allstate Finance Corp. v. Zimmerman, 330 F.2d 740, 744 (5th Cir. 1964)(where burden of proof of negative fact normally rests on one party, but that party has peculiar knowledge or control of evidence as to such matter, the burden rests on the latter to produce such evidence, and failing, the negative will be presumed to be established); United States v. Denver & R.G.R. Co, 191 U.S. 84, 24 S.Ct. 33, 48 L. Ed . 106 (1893); Morgan v. Gardner, 264 F.Supp. 476, 577-578, F.N. 3 (S.D.Miss. 1967)(“…The rule is applicable even in criminal cases”); Local 167 Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, 54 S.Ct. 396, 78 L. Ed . 804 (1934); Patco v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 685 F.2d 547, 577, FN 65 (D.C.Cir. 1982)(“Common sense and established principles of evidence disfavor unnecessarily placing such difficult, perhaps impossible burdens on a party”); Allseas Maritime, S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, 812 F.2d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 1987).

The government’s conduct and concealment of the evidence not only violates Due Process but also violates F.R.Civ.P. 16(c) (continuing duty to disclose); F.R.Civ.P. 11(b) (representations to the Court); F.R.Civ.P 26(e) (supplementation of disclosures and responses); F.R.Civ.P. 26(g) (signing of disclosures, discovery requests, responses, and objections); F.R.Civ.P. 37(failure to make disclosure or cooperate in discovery; sanctions); F.R.Crim.P. 16(c); F.R.Civ.P. 11(b); F.R.Civ.P. 26(e); F.R.Civ.P 26(g); and F.R.Civ.P. 37).[2]

The government’s conduct in concealing evidence also violates most standing orders regarding discovery and the Court’s orders for discovery in trial proceedings.

The failure to disclose violates the Code of Professional Conduct, local rules, and the quasi-judicial responsibility of the prosecutors. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281, 144 L. Ed . 2d 286, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (1999) (the U.S. attorney is the representative of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to Govern at all).

SUMMARY

The Ted Stevens case and Don Siegelman case are just the just the beginning of the evidence of fraudulent practices by the Office of U.S. Attorneys to obtain convictions. Why? When someone wins 99 percent of the time, they are not playing by the rules.

[1] When you present concealed evidence, you should request the court to take Judicial Notice of the Constitution of the United States . See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed . 60 (1803)(Courts of the United States are bound to take notice of the Constitution).

[2] You should also request the court to take judicial notice of the Criminal and Civil Discovery rules and the plain meaning of the words and phrases of the rules. St. Louis, L.M. & S.R. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U.S. 592, 61 L. Ed . 917, 37 S.Ct. 462 (1917); Missouri K & T.R. Co. v. Wulf, 226 U.S. 570, 57 L. Ed . 355, 33 S.Ct. 35 (1913)(All courts, federal and state alike, take judicial notice of the public and general acts of Congress).

due process

Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908)
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)
Tyson & Brother v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927)
Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)
Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935)
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940)
Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942)
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Rowan v. United States Post Office Department, 397 U.S. 728 (1970)
Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972)
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976)
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976)
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976)
Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482 (1977)
Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982)
Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Fifth Amendment

... DUE PROCESS. History and Scope. “It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights ...
www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5bfrag1_user.html - 29k - Cached

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Fourteenth Amendment

... When Is Process Due.—“The extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be ‘condemned ...
www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14dfrag13_user.html - 39k - Cached

[ More results from www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ]

LII: Constitution

... the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html - 9k - Cached

LII: Constitution

... Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)] (see annotations); Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)] (see annotations); ...
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ - 17k - Cached

[ More results from www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ]

DigitalCommons@ILR - Donna Blancero and Lee Dyer: Due Process for ...

... CAHRS Working Paper Series. Title. Due Process for Non-Union Employees: The Influence of System Characteristics on Fairness Perceptions. ...
digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/212/ - 16k - 2009-03-17 - Cached

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Fourteenth Amendment

... Proceedings in Which Procedural Due Process Must Be Observed.— While due notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard to present one’s claim or defense ...
straylight.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14dfrag12_user.html - 18k - Cached

[PDF] Due Process for Non-Union Employees: The Influence of System ...

... Due Process for Non-Union Employees: The Influence of System Characteristics ... Due Process for Non-Union Employees: The Influence of System Characteristics ...
digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=cahrswp

Martin on Social Security Treatise - Part 2-F

Part 2 – Topics. General Legal Issues. § F 100. Constitutional Law and Social Security –
Other Issues: eg, Equal Protection, Substantive Due Process, Taking. ...
www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/martin/2socsecf.htm - 22k - 2007-10-31 - Cached

Criminal procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute

... A few of the rights guaranteed to criminal defendants by the Constitution include the guarantees of due process and equal protection under the laws, the right ...
www.law.cornell.edu/topics/criminal_procedure.html - 34k - 2009-04-22 - Cached

Annotated Constitution Prototype TOC

... and Seizure (1791)]; Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]; Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions ...
law.cornell.edu/anncon/


NOTICE: Unknown author is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.
Share/Save/Bookmark Subscribe

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related itemsBelligerent Claimant
BondsAttention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related itemsEducation
GraphicsHistory
Jerry KirkAware
JurisdictionLaw related items
Lewis MohrLuis Ewing
MoneyOath related items
Reading MaterialReading Room
StuffTax matters
Travel relatedTruth
 Video
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!


Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for those men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.

Freedom School is a free speech site and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or any one else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers´ DMCA Policy

the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, and/or work computers, make effort to be in compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It is our policy to respond to any infringement notices and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.

If your copyrighted material has been posted on the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers, in other than fair use capacity or if links to your copyrighted material are returned through our search engine and you want the material removed, you must provide a written communication that details the information listed in the following section. Please be aware that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys´ fees) if you misrepresent information listed on the site that is allegedly infringing on your alleged copyrights. We suggest that you may want to first contact competent legal assistance on this matter.

The following elements must be included in your copyright infringement claim:

* Provide evidence of the authorized person to act on behalf of the fully disclosed alleged owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Please notice that we generally do not deal with third parties.
* Provide sufficient contact information so that we may contact you. You must also include a valid email address.
* You must identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed and including at least one search term under which the material appears in Freedom-School.com search results.
* A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
* A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
* Must be signed by the authorized person to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly being infringed. (Proper ratification of commencement.)


Send the infringement notice via email to the postmaster at Freedom-School.com

Please allow 1-3 business days for an email response. Note that emailing your complaint to other parties such as our Internet Service Provider (ISP) or server host(s) will not expedite your request and may result in a delayed response due the complaint not being properly being filed.


Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2016
All Rights Reserved

H O M E