John,
I was never given the actual proffer contract to sign. My attorney told me I had to meet him at the Dept of Justice and that everyone would be there. I did not know what was going on. We waited for almost two hours at the Dept. of Justice for Guys attorney Sarah Swain to show up. She never showed. We found out later her and Arron McKee were not in agreement over the meeting, and by not showing she protected Guy from being interviewed.
They told me I had to go to the back and talk to them. We went into a big conference room. Nitz, Bialek, Rantz, Jackson, Terik, McKee, Parker and me. We sat at a big table and they started to ask me questions. My attorney said he would tell me what I could and couldn't answer. Terik didn't like my answers and started to yell at me. Parker told Terik to settle down. During the meeting Terik yelled at Parker they got mad at each other. Parker told him she wanted him off the case and he got mad and told her she don't know who he is, he said this was his case. Anyway Parker was mad and told him he was done.
Parker said because I was answering the questions it was called a proffer. Parker told me if I was honest and gave them good information that the drug and gun charge would remain at a state level. T. I asked what about the ebay case? She said there would definately be special considerations. It sounded good, I figured they wouldn't indict me on that either if I cooperated, and I knew that the D.A. already had told my attorey Sarah Swain that he wasnt taking the drug and gun case so at least that would be done. So I said okay ask me some questions.
Parker said I would have to sign something first. She left and came back with paper. She said this was just a generaic proffer agreement she had in her office, I should sign just to talk to them that day. She said she would have to type up the actual contract later. My attorney had me sign it.
I was never given, shown or asked to sign the actual proffer contract agreement for my case.
But according to Kansas Law even an oral contract can be binding.
I fulfilled my end of the contract, including the sting.
1. The Government has violated the contract,
2. They used the information from the proffer to build the case.
3. They did not fulfill the promise to not indict on the guns & Marijuana
4. They violated by attempting to question me without my attorney
5. They violated by informing informants about my cooperation
6. They have not given me or Guy any special considerations, in fact they had us strong armed arrested instead being allowed to turn ourselves in and held us in a cell for 8 hours without food as a punishment.
We finished up that day and the cops said to fulfill the deal me and Guy would need to continue meeting with them at police dept. When Sarah heard what was going on she withdrew from the case and Guy hired James George to represent him. I proffered at the Police station for about 5 days and Guy for 4..
We refused to continue to proffer after the cops violated the proffer agreement by attempting to question me in my store without my attorney present.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Police Interview witnesses
INFORMATION NOT VERIFIABLE:
POLIC/GOV. PRESS RELEASES HAVE REPEATEDLY IRREVERSIBLY PREJUDICED THE DEFENSE
No information was held back from the press to verify if information from witnesses was genuine. In fact false information inflating merits of the crime were and have continued to be released to the press. Further tainting the anticipated testimony of the witnesses and irreversibly prejudicing the defense.
No alleged thieves or victims were interviewed prior to the raids or press release.
The only evidence of possible stolen property at the Yellow House presented prior to the search warrants, was of police bringing in items from Target and those items were not stolen.
No victims or witnesses found during the investigation to establish that the Yellow House during the course of dealing with buying from the public was knowingly engaged in criminal activity.
(In fact witnesses used ( "NB" Nicole Beach, MA Michael Aldrich, PN Pat Nieder) had all been banned from the store prior to the first search warrant in 2005 (as the evidence shows) yet police corruptly continued to use them, Pat Nieder even served time in jail after Carrie Neighbors cooperated in an investigation against him.)
All the witnesses had a chance and continue to be influenced by the information released to the press by the Government.
Witnesses and cops repeatedly negotiate deals during the recorded interviews in exchange for "telling the cops what they wanted to hear".
The cops fed information to the witnesses during interviews and told them what they wanted them to say. Often badgering them to change their stories.
Cops intentionally attempt to put Carrie Neighbors in danger by telling witnesses she is to blame for thier troubles.
Every witness starts out the interrogation insisting the items they sell to the Yellow House were not stolen. Or want to negotiate a deal for them self first.
Yellow House doesn't have an interrogation room or two hours to badger a witness or make deals to change their story. Carrie has less than 5 minutes to hear a persons story and determine whether to buy the item or not.
Within the first 5 minutes the police have heard what Carrie hears.
The rest of the statements made under duress, badgering, dealing or "police suggestion" would therefore be without merit.
POLIC/GOV. PRESS RELEASES HAVE REPEATEDLY IRREVERSIBLY PREJUDICED THE DEFENSE
No information was held back from the press to verify if information from witnesses was genuine. In fact false information inflating merits of the crime were and have continued to be released to the press. Further tainting the anticipated testimony of the witnesses and irreversibly prejudicing the defense.
No alleged thieves or victims were interviewed prior to the raids or press release.
The only evidence of possible stolen property at the Yellow House presented prior to the search warrants, was of police bringing in items from Target and those items were not stolen.
No victims or witnesses found during the investigation to establish that the Yellow House during the course of dealing with buying from the public was knowingly engaged in criminal activity.
(In fact witnesses used ( "NB" Nicole Beach, MA Michael Aldrich, PN Pat Nieder) had all been banned from the store prior to the first search warrant in 2005 (as the evidence shows) yet police corruptly continued to use them, Pat Nieder even served time in jail after Carrie Neighbors cooperated in an investigation against him.)
All the witnesses had a chance and continue to be influenced by the information released to the press by the Government.
Witnesses and cops repeatedly negotiate deals during the recorded interviews in exchange for "telling the cops what they wanted to hear".
The cops fed information to the witnesses during interviews and told them what they wanted them to say. Often badgering them to change their stories.
Cops intentionally attempt to put Carrie Neighbors in danger by telling witnesses she is to blame for thier troubles.
Every witness starts out the interrogation insisting the items they sell to the Yellow House were not stolen. Or want to negotiate a deal for them self first.
Yellow House doesn't have an interrogation room or two hours to badger a witness or make deals to change their story. Carrie has less than 5 minutes to hear a persons story and determine whether to buy the item or not.
Within the first 5 minutes the police have heard what Carrie hears.
The rest of the statements made under duress, badgering, dealing or "police suggestion" would therefore be without merit.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Government violated the Proffer agreement
plea agreement- proffer
Eleventh Circuit’s decision in U.S.
v. Pielago, 145 F.3d 364 (11th Cir. 1998).
In Pielago, part of which the Government relies upon in its Reply, the
Eleventh Circuit held that “any ambiguities in the terms of a proffer
agreement should be resolved in favor of the criminal defendant.” The Pielago
court, in the same breath, noted that proffer agreements, though generally
interpreted using contract law principles, should not be given “a hypertechnical
reading . . ..” This Court holds that a proffer agreement may not
be given such a technical reading as to effectively defeat the purpose it is
designed, on its face, to serve.
http://www.revolvermaps.com/?target=enlarge&i=0Zqs7wRKNe4&wid=1&nostars=false&color=ff0000&m=0&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ffreetheyellowhouse.blogspot.com%2F
Eleventh Circuit’s decision in U.S.
v. Pielago, 145 F.3d 364 (11th Cir. 1998).
In Pielago, part of which the Government relies upon in its Reply, the
Eleventh Circuit held that “any ambiguities in the terms of a proffer
agreement should be resolved in favor of the criminal defendant.” The Pielago
court, in the same breath, noted that proffer agreements, though generally
interpreted using contract law principles, should not be given “a hypertechnical
reading . . ..” This Court holds that a proffer agreement may not
be given such a technical reading as to effectively defeat the purpose it is
designed, on its face, to serve.
http://www.revolvermaps.com/?target=enlarge&i=0Zqs7wRKNe4&wid=1&nostars=false&color=ff0000&m=0&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ffreetheyellowhouse.blogspot.com%2F
breach of contract, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith.
fraud is established when a misrepresentation is knowingly made with the intent to induce reliance, and justifiable reliance results, see: Crocker-Citizens National Bank v. Control Metals Corp., 566 F.2d 631, 636-37 (9th Cir. 1978);
fraud is properly inferred from the immediate failure to perform a promise.
fraud is established when a misrepresentation is knowingly made with the intent to induce reliance, and justifiable reliance results, see: Crocker-Citizens National Bank v. Control Metals Corp., 566 F.2d 631, 636-37 (9th Cir. 1978);
fraud is properly inferred from the immediate failure to perform a promise.
Where it is proposed by the prosecution to give evidence of a confession in court, and the defence makes a representation to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained by;
oppression or
in consequence of anything said or done which, in the circumstances existing at the time the confession was made, render any confession made unreliable,
the court shall not allow the confession, unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances alleged did not exist (i.e., the onus rests with the prosecution to negate allegations of oppression or unreliability).
Oppression - is defined in S.76(8) as including, “torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and the use of or threat of violence”.
This definition has been widened by R v Fulling to include the “burdensome or harsh exercise of authority”.
Oppression may also cover bullying of a suspect (but not swearing at him/her). It should be noted that allegations of oppression are very unlikely to be accepted if the suspect was interviewed with his/her lawyer present.
Unreliability - Case law has offered examples of the scope of conditions etc. found to make confessions unreliable, and such circumstances include:
Prolonged periods of confinement.
Inducements offered, e.g., “if you confess, we will drop the corporate manslaughter charge” etc.
Confessions made to shield someone else.
Confessions made by suspects with a low IQ or fragile mental condition.
Where there were breaches of the PACE Codes of Practice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oppression is the subjugation of one group by another, carried out under conditions of unequal power, and often enforced by threats of or by actual violence. According to Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1993), oppression is the “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power esp. by the imposition of burdens; esp. the unlawful, excessive or corrupt exercise of power other than by extortion by any public officer so as to harm anyone in his rights, person, or property while purporting to act under color of governmental authority”.
oppression or
in consequence of anything said or done which, in the circumstances existing at the time the confession was made, render any confession made unreliable,
the court shall not allow the confession, unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances alleged did not exist (i.e., the onus rests with the prosecution to negate allegations of oppression or unreliability).
Oppression - is defined in S.76(8) as including, “torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and the use of or threat of violence”.
This definition has been widened by R v Fulling to include the “burdensome or harsh exercise of authority”.
Oppression may also cover bullying of a suspect (but not swearing at him/her). It should be noted that allegations of oppression are very unlikely to be accepted if the suspect was interviewed with his/her lawyer present.
Unreliability - Case law has offered examples of the scope of conditions etc. found to make confessions unreliable, and such circumstances include:
Prolonged periods of confinement.
Inducements offered, e.g., “if you confess, we will drop the corporate manslaughter charge” etc.
Confessions made to shield someone else.
Confessions made by suspects with a low IQ or fragile mental condition.
Where there were breaches of the PACE Codes of Practice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oppression is the subjugation of one group by another, carried out under conditions of unequal power, and often enforced by threats of or by actual violence. According to Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1993), oppression is the “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power esp. by the imposition of burdens; esp. the unlawful, excessive or corrupt exercise of power other than by extortion by any public officer so as to harm anyone in his rights, person, or property while purporting to act under color of governmental authority”.
Police demand that witnesses rehearse testimony
IN THE YELLOW HOUSE CASE A SUBPOENA SENT OUT FOR APPEARANCE AT TRIAL INCLUDED A HANDWRITTEN Note by the officers, (added after the Judge signed the subpoena) with a date and time for witnesses to appear at the police station to practice and go over trial testimony.
The witness is expected to have a clear recollection of such events, a copy of which the advocate will have in front of him/her (i.e., in a witness statement document). The reason being that it is the oral evidence given in court that is the evidence, and not the document.
The witness is expected to have a clear recollection of such events, a copy of which the advocate will have in front of him/her (i.e., in a witness statement document). The reason being that it is the oral evidence given in court that is the evidence, and not the document.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)