I am not some crazy
conspiracy fanatic.
I am not some crazy conspiracy fanatic, I do not see conspiracies everywhere. I have endured over 7 years of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[1], two psychological examinations, and over three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America. [2]
My issues revolve around unconcealed corrupt actions of the police, the prosecutors and the judges. This corruption was enumerated at or near the time of occurrence and the subsequent cover up of those, negligent, malicious and corrupt actions by a criminal conspiracy of deliberate depraved indifference to rights (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights ).
I do not see a conspiracy against rights in “Texan declared innocent after 30 years in prison.” Eyewitnesses make mistakes there is no avoiding it. It could be likened to a fact of life almost, “Eyewitness: How Accurate Is Visual Memory?”(60 Minutes) Now given that eyewitness testimony has made mistakes, we need to improve the way we utilize eyewitness testimony to establish guilt e.g., double blind[3] photo arrays, unbiased computer photo lineups. As suggested by the 60 minutes story in North Carolina:
“showing victims lineup photos one at a time and emphasizing that the right answer may be none of the above, having lineups conducted by a person who doesn't know who the suspect is, or not by a person at all.
One system now used in a handful of cities is computer software Mike Gauldin helped develop to have a laptop conduct photo lineups.
But law professor Rich Rosen says that in the vast majority of places, there's been no reform, and that needs to change. "This is something that police officers can and should be in favor of," he told Stahl.” and other auditing measures.”[4]
In my cases, I told the police officers, the prosecuting attorneys and the Judges they had made a mistake before we went to trial and then repeated it before sentencing in the form formal pretrial[5] and post trial motions[6] and objections. Nonetheless the Police Officers, the Prosecuting attorneys and the Judge confirmed their criminality by purporting and/or allowing negligent, malicious, and corrupt testimony, thus criminal conspiracy of deliberate depraved indifference to rights.
There is no excuse for their undeniable CRIMINAL Conspiracy of depraved deliberate indifference to RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[2] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[3] double-blind study - an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; "a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and placebo effects"
[4] Eyewitness: How Accurate Is Visual Memory? Lesley Stahl Reports On Flaws In Eyewitness Testimony That Lead To Wrong Convictions, March 8, 2009. It was updated on July 11, 2009
[5] Pretrial Motions in 26th District - September 16 and 30, 2003 Case No.:CR203-1336M, Tim Schlesinger Motion 12-5-03 (Jeep, Sharon vs. Jeep, David Cause No. 03FC-10670(M) Division No. 65)declares his pretrial motion of November 13, 2003.
[6] Tim Schlesinger Motion 12-5-03 (Jeep, Sharon vs. Jeep, David Cause No. 03FC-10670(M) Division No. 65), Wednesday, February 4, 2004, Motion for a Directed Verdict of Innocent in Favor of the Defendant Case No.:CR203-1336M, Monday, February 9, 2004 Motion to overturn the Verdict in favor of the Defendant Case No.:CR203-1336M
(see my blog for these items http://dgjeep.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment