McCainattacks.blogspot.com Judicial Tyrany -Attempts Upon Our lives!
Linda James/ Aaron James: defendants at trial MN Federal court, on or about Jan 25/2006
Profiled and Attacked Aboard McCain affiliated- ,Sued-By-The Aclu
Northwest Airlines , as Witnessed by Family, We were not given a fair trial and the *breaches in protocol innate within the attack, were followed by our subjection to judicial tyrany as detailed herein and finally, attempts upon our lives via kidnapping/murder attempts in order to silence our online protest!
A fair trial must be in accordance with the policies rules and regulations of court room ethics and proper application of the laws imposed.
The following is an evidentiary report
listing and citing example and occasion whereupon inappropriate application of laws, policy and procedure, presented themselves in the context of our trial.
1. Prejudicial bias was reflected in the body of the jury pool. Although the jury pool is said to be random and not pre-selected, there is very strong evidence to suggest that the jury pool present in this case, was not a by product of random selection but that of a coordinated effort constituted by unknown factions, in the spirit of adding a prejudicial element to the trial. Whether or not the jury selection was tainted, is immaterial: the pivotal issue, is the fact that the jury pool, by one means or another, was laced with members and/or affiliates of FBI, NSA, MN Police, security, prosecuting attorneys, NWA (Airlines) employees (the very company with which we had issue), and other remarkable factions.
A Fixed Trial with an X- U.S. Marine with outstanding criminal charges against him as judge, and a jury pool tailor made not for prosecution but for wrongful persecution complete with members and/or affiliates of FBI, NSA, Military, MN Police, CIA, Prosecuting Attorneys, and employees of the airline on which we were attacked!-Northwest Airlines- which as I have revealed, is, itself, FBI and CIA oriented...(Confidential Passenger Data Used for Air Security Project - EPIC outs NorthWest and NASA via FOIA
*The FBI IS NOTORIOUS FOR THEIR CORRUPTED BEHAVIOUR AND PERNITIOUS TACTICS. PLEASE SEE ‘FBI INVOLVEMENT IN COVERING UP JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AT THE FOLLOWING WEB ADDRESS: http://www.clr.org/FBI-involvement.html
Moreover, given the fact that I am a minority and issues of racial prejudice would have played a part, I would also note here, that the jury pool, though supposedly selected from a city possessing a large ethno cultural diversity, was almost completely devoid of any minorities. Moreover, of the 3 minorities who presented amongst the 45-member jury pool, 2 were members of the inherently prejudicial factions listed above.
Clearly, the elements presenting on the jury pool were not at all impartial or unbiased. A prejudicial element in the jury pool had clearly presented itself, to the effect that, the opportunity for blind and impartial justice had been precluded.
*These kinds of tactics of corrupting and biasing the jury pool are coming to be renown and well documented as strategies used to corrupt the court against due process and justice for those it labels a threat to security.
***The cases of airport profiling appear to be increasing at an alarming rate. Just recently another group of 3 minorities from my own city (
3. The conduct of the prosecution was beyond the legal confines of proper courtroom ethics and has passed on into the realm of prosecutor impropriety, as outlined in the following:
a: A Last Minute 2nd charge was added without notice a misdemeanor charge- by the prosecution- in order to increase the likelyhood of conviction- AS DETAILED IN THE PDF(CLICK*) HEREIN- THIS IS ILLEGAL PROCESS- and it was a contiuum of covert charge tactics including transfering charges from state to federal level charges in order to exact further leverage, also as detailed in the pdf charge statements.
Peace Officer Standards and Training had forwarded the nuances of our complaint to the FBI and prosecution without our knowledge in order to warn them that via our analysis of police statements, we had uncovered the nuances of their lies and deceptions and so judicial tyranny was effected in order to compensate.
Legal citation source:
The following is a citation from legal text on advanced topics in legal ethics. Evidence supporting a miss-trial and the necessity for a review, is given within the scope of that citation, as follows:
“There is a thin line between prosecutorial vindictiveness and zealous prosecution which occurs when…witnesses are told how to…say something, important evidence is kept from the defense, and all this in addition to the toolkit of courtroom theatrics games and tricks.”
The prosecution is guilty of both of the above:
Witness Kosninsky had explicitly stated that he did not see me commit the alleged offense of head butting the officer. (Concordantly, I did not commit this offense and have been framed by the officers involved in order that they could excuse their hyenas actions/ assault and battery on my person)
Ø Prosecution guilty of leading the witness into self-contradictory statements to suit the prosecution’s needs.
In cross exam, the prosecution intimidated witness Kosninsky, stating emphatically, with sharp intonation “ Now are you sure you saw a headbutt?!!” But this was leading the witness to contradict a statement the witness had already just given to the opposite effect-that he in fact had not seen anything!!
In submission to this pressure of cross exam, the witness responded unsurely “uh…yes…yes I’m sure…”
As pertains to the collusion of evidence, the prosecution is also guilty on this count:
Originally, they had made the claim that there were only 4 officers on board the aircraft, in attempt at occluding the presence of the fifth officer, sergeant cooper.
Our defense attorney Robert Jones obtained an interdepartmental MN airport police report from the files of the defense (through unknown means) that indicated the presence of all 5 officers on board the aircraft. Pressured with our apparent knowledge of their collusion, the prosecution counseled key witnesses in the officers, to deviate from their written accounts (which occluded the 5th officer) and give contradictory testimony to the effect of the presence of 5 officers having been on board.
Revisiting the legal text citation, I cite the following:
… “The following is a list from Pollack of the various types of prosecutorial misconduct:
> Failure to disclose evidence-keeping things from the defense because it “isn’t important”. They are in breech on this count, as illustrated above.
> Failure to correct false testimony—allowing small bits of perjury to remain uncontested”
(The prosecution is also in breech on this count:
Although the list of instances citing officer perjury at my trial is far too extensive to list within the scope of this paper, I give some example of it herein
Officer Alvin cooper was overtly caught in perjury, yet this perjury was uncorrected by the prosecution: Alvin cooper had submitted a report 3 days before the trial in which he depicts himself to have been in the front galley area of the aircraft, and then, to have been simultaneously in the rear of the craft, behind me (by evidence of having professed also, to have seen the back of my head, given the fact that I was facing towards the front of the craft).
This was blatant perjury and the prosecution was bound by a code of ethics, to give due diligence towards correcting this perjury and exposing it. They let it pass without a mention.
Officer Cooper had lied about his position, in the context of several officers having given false indication of position in addition to falsified accounts of events, in the spirit of framing and falsely incriminating us.
Witness Kosninsky was caught having professed to be in no less than 4 seating positions on the aircraft, in an apparent attempt to profess to have been in a position where he might have been able to witness occurrence of the alleged act. Again, this overt perjury was not corrected by the prosecution, but was left to slide.
>The prosecution used officer achievements and accolades in order to support the credibility of these witnesses, in breech of courtroom ethics.
Legal text, whose origin is cited above, states the following in support of this fact:
“Admitting evidence about specific instances of conduct supporting the credibility of the eye witnesses is in contravention of Fed.R.Evid 608(b).”
The prosecution pointed to the achievements of officer Hoerdt, in recently effecting the capture of a suspect at the airport. Sergeant cooper, on the other hand, was similarly built up in the estimation of jurors looking on, wherein the prosecution brought up the recent award that he had been granted.
All of this is in breech of the law and courtroom ethics. Why was it allowed?
***More poignant still, is the fact that there is strong evidence to support the fact that the prosecution was not only delinquent in correcting overt counts of perjury on the part of witnesses, but was, by all appearances, intrinsically and intimately involved in the propagation of these various counts of perjury.
To provide some example of this, I relate the fact that witness Kosninsky changes his written report of a “strike” on a police officer to “head butt”, in his verbal testimony, in order to corroborate the prosecution’s allegations.
Police change and self-contradict on many points of their written account. The admission of the fact that there were in fact 5 officers (in contradiction with earlier written statements made) is perhaps the strongest evidence of this, yet many more examples exist.
Although I cannot elaborate on this, within the scope of this evidentiary report, I do expound on the nuances of this in other evidentiary literature.
Revisiting the legal text citation on various types of prosecutorial misconduct, I cite the next example of misconduct, as follows:
“Courtroom theatrics- using impressionistic tactics such as…demonstrations”
The prosecuting attorney, beyond being overly animated and melancholic, in general, stepped far beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct, in visually re- enacting a set of events that it is uncontested, had not occurred, in order to play upon the emotions of the jury, that he might taint them even further against us by illegitimate means.
My defense lawyer had just pointed out the fact that the officers had asserted that I was “not under arrest” and that, as such, they had no business lunging at my injured arm; in rebuttal, the prosecution stated cynically, with elevated hyperbolic tone, “Well, then its all ok isn’t it?!! So do whatever you want to the officer then!!- Kick him if you want!!!; It’s all ok isn’t it?!!”
The conduct of the prosecution smacks of impropriety: not only was the above statement completely impertinent (there had been no allegation of kicking any officer!!), but it was delivered complete with an overt physical display of kicking, such that it was entirely inappropriate and lended itself heavily towards the prejudicial element of the trial in so far as tainting the jury.
Ø Closing argument preparation time was not consistent with the length of time that was promised:
The court had indicated that a period of 30 minutes for closing argument preparation would be allotted.
I had been concerned that my defense attorney and I be given sufficient time to go over the many poignant issues and arguments that had presented themselves to me, as I bore witness to the myriad of perjury and self contradictions that I noted in the verbal testimony of witnesses on stand.
Robert Jones assured me that I needn’t worry, in that we would have sufficient time within the scope of the 30 minutes of closing argument prep time allotted by the court.
Yet in contrast with the above, I point illustrate herein, that after only 15 minutes had elapsed (only half of the closing argument prep time allotted),
my attorney and I received a knock at our door indicating that it was time to return for the presentation of closing arguments. We were caught unprepared as was partly reflected in the poor performance of attorney Robert Jones in the closing argument deliverance. In testimony to the above, I cite here, that communities united against police brutality head, Bill Cooley, who sat in attendance at the time, commented, “I saw absolutely no defense mounted here! This is horrible!!”
We were Severely Underrepresented by Attorney Robert Jones and evidence is very clear of *deliberate sabotage of our case on the part of ‘defense attorney Robert Jones, in conjunction with his personal friendship and association with the prosecuting attorney. Please see my website petitionhttp://defenseattorneyconspirestoaideprosecu.blogspot.com/
(or the accompanying attachment) for details on the nuances .
Time for selection of the jury pool was inadequate, in our opinion:
Technically, the court is in abidance with proper protocol in the time they allotted for jury selection, in our case. In researching
Yet, again, the elements that had presented within the jury pool (members and or affiliates of factions including FBI, NSA, MN Police, security, prosecuting attorneys etc) made the jury representation very unusual and innately hostile and prejudicial.
Given the innately prejudicial elements amongst the jury pool, we feel that a greater care, time and attention was warranted, in selecting the petty jury from the jury pool. The standard allotted time of 15 minutes, certainly did not give time for sufficient reflection on the nuances of who should be excluded in order that the prejudicial element of the jury pool be minimized.
Ø We were severely underrepresented by our attorney, and we substantiate that this lended itself tremendously to a gross miscarriage of justice.
Although a more comprehensive account of our attorney’s delinquency in proper representation is available in other documentation I provide a brief summary of such delinquency herein, as follows:
Failure to call witnesses: Robert Jones failed to call on key witnesses despite direct instruction from both my mother and Ii. Key witnesses amongst the police involved and others in attendance were not in attendance at the trial in any capacity what so ever. This debilitated our efforts in exposing the truth before the jury.
Failure and refusal to relay exonerating arguments unto the jury and the court:
I had been very careful and concise in detailing the nuances of logical arguments pertaining to the evidence within witness statements and contradictions that exemplified and corroborated my innocence. Many of these arguments are stipulated in documentation I have more recently composed. (In the accompanying papers.)
Despite the fact that these arguments were poignant and concise, Robert Jones refused to bring these exonerating arguments before the jury, claiming they were to complex for the jury pool to understand. The jury was not presented the exonerating evidence I had intended for them to see.
Robert Jones misrepresented otherwise exonerating information and misconstrued it in a way that would point towards culpability instead:
***I had very simply, instructed Robert Jones that due to the ***height discrepancy (the officer who claims I head butted him, was effectively 4 inches taller than I am) the allegation that I impacted him with my head at the top of his hairline, is preposterous and self-refuting.
Yet true to form, Robert Jones misconstrued and misrepresented this argument and stated “due to the
*** size discrepancy, the evidence does not support their case.” This statement was counterproductive and damaging in that not only did it not point out the height discrepancy, making the allegation physically impossible, but moreover it reinforced and refreshed, in the minds of the jury, that I am a larger individual, thereby inviting any innate prejudice the jurors might have on the basis of size, to come into full effect.
His statement was so blunderous and effectively damaging, that it left me to wonder if it was not done deliberately…
(And in fact I have exposed the evidentiary nuances of this attorney’s deliberate treachery in other accompanying materials)
Robert Jones refused to countercharge police:
Having been wrongfully violated by unwarranted police brutality, we directed Robert Jones that we wished the police to be charged on account of their hyenas actions. Robert refused.
Robert argued that the allegations would only be reviewed interdepartmentally and then summarily dismissed and have little if any effect. Yet that was not the point- on the merit of principle alone, and in order to illustrate a demonstrable objection to the officers’ actions for the court to consider, it was in our best interests to lay countercharges regardless. Even beyond the issue of strategic ploy, we had felt violated and wished to countercharge on principle alone. Again, Robert did not comply with our wishes.
*** Such was the extent and state of Robert Jones delinquency and inefficacy in our representation, that communities united against police brutality head, Bill Cooley stated, upon witnessing Robert’s performance, “I saw absolutely no defense mounted by this lawyer at all!! This is horrible!!”
In further citation of legal ethics, I relate the following:
“A judge must personally decide if an error committed by police -and there are almost always errors- is serious enough to trigger suppression of evidence…”
Of course, a judge must must also be ethical in order to acknowledge such errors as having come into existence, yet I would question that character in judge doty:
Judge Doty Unethical, in Breach of Law and Listed On Internet With Charges For Which He has Not Been Exonerated:
Judge Doty’s Illegal Threats on Life at Trial:
Judge Doty’s Gestapo Threats Rendition at the Close of Our Trial:
***Judge Doty has a history of criminal charges and allegations against him as can be seen at the following web address: http://www.clr.org/fed-judges.html Of course his position as Senior District Court Judge has granted him immunity from due accountability under the law.
At the close of our trial Judge Doty threatened to have the U.S. Marshalls follow us “to the ends of the earth” in the context of warning me that I had ought not fail to appear in attendance for the forthcoming sentencing subsequent to the (corrupted) trial.
Judge Doty stated “and I’ll tell you right now, if you don’t show up for sentencing, I’ll send the U.S. Marshalls out hunting for you; He then likened his scenario to Hollywood, stating further “and Don’t Think It’s Not Like Hollywood because it is-they overdo the FBI in the movies – but Not the U.S. Marshals- THEY’LL HUNT YOU DOWN-EVEN YEARS LATER THEY’LL GET YOU…”
Years from now they’ll pull you out of another country if they have to. I’ve seen it happen many times before!
…But I’m not to worried (coyly) we have a pretty good relationship with Canada right now so I don’t see that being a problem at all.
Judge David S. Doty Sr District Court Judge MN has corrupted himself entirely in this matter: He has facilitated the use of illegal application of law in allowing prosecution court room theatrics, a corrupted ‘blue collar’ (pre ordained/corrupted) jury pool with NSA, FBI, CIA as its components, and even more incredulous, the uttering of threats against us in the closing moments of the trial to the effect of the rendition detailed above.
Judge Doty has truly placed himself above the law and beyond the law.
Within the scope of the materials I have presented before judge Doty, is strong and compelling evidence of not only an overt collusion and conspiracy amongst officers, to misrepresent evidence and fact, but also self supporting and referenced documentation in support of the fact that we were not given the opportunity to a fair trial, and that malicious and deliberate acts, in breech of law and ethics, have been of great influence therein.
Finally on the grounds of new evidence supporting my innocence, as presented in the accompanying materials and the aforementioned fact that we have not yet had opportunity to present this evidence in an unbiased, non-prejudicial environment in keeping with proper courtroom ethics and conduct- on the grounds that we were severely underrepresented and misrepresented by defense attorney Robert Jones, which contributed greatly in facilitating the gross miscarriage of justice we have outlined herein,
We are respectfully requesting that the court afford us a new trial in conjunction with the appeal process.