ACCESS TO THE COURTS

A Fundamental Right and Necessity

Warning: Unwritten Rules by attorneys and judges use prejudice to subvert the law and violate the constitutional rights of citizens!
About Us (Pre-6/11/07)

The following is an exact and continuous excerpt of the About US page existing at the time of the release of The Citizens REACT Report on June 11, 2007.  It is the last electronic recording of the Access To The Courts website (archived as a snapshot by the site's founder), as some of the site's content was temporarily removed upon submitting the report to the U.S. Congress.  For some as yet unknown reason, the entire Access To The Courts website (including stored documents and links) were deleted and expunged on August 31, 2008. 

So, many of the links below will not be functioning until restored over time.


The following material is over a year old.  Much has happened since, which will be documented on other pages of this website.

********************************************************

About Us

Access To The Courts: A Fundamental Right and Necessity

 

The case history of one man, Jeffrey L. Clemens, will be documented and analyzed for lessons learned and basic patterns:

 

·             Judicial Bias Toward Corporate Interests

·             Judicial Bias Toward Police Interests

·             Police Bias Toward Political and Corporate Interests

 

This site was inaugurated on June 11, 2005, when its basic goals and formats were established.  The site has since undergone numerous regular updates, as evidence is acquired and events unfold.  Access To The Courts occasionally transmits information to the courts and certain attorneys, not to help Jeffrey L. Clemens (as he and others abused by the system must act on their own), but to reflect how their actions are seen, analyzed, and interpreted by independent observers.  Increasingly over time, those observers will be members of the US Congress.

 

We are demonstrating the first element of our established process - documentation of abuses by police and the courts.  This site will continue through the process - document abuses, challenge abuses, declare the sovereignty of the people in condemning abuses, and perhaps go to the only branch of the government having any power over the judicial - the legislature.

 

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson

 

Through the following cases, you will see an innocent man first brutally victimized by police abuse - a (provable) false charge, assault, and threat, ignored by police authorities and courts, then brutally victimized again by "police" abuse - a (provable) false arrest and assault, ignored by the "real" police, then deflected by civil courts in redress of his grievances, to the point of encountering absurdity in the civil proceedings, to then finally being arrested for alleged crimes in making written inquiries!

 

The review and analysis of the case history of Jeffrey L. Clemens reveals four basic themes of misconduct, actually threats to our civil rights:

 

·             Obstruction, harassment, and criminalization of complainants who allege misconduct by public or civil servants [especially in Case 1 and Case 8]

·             False reporting and perjury by police officers [beginning in Case 1 and Case 2, culminating in Case 8]

·             Dereliction by the courts of their basic responsibility as an independent, fair, and impartial judiciary [escalating to an absurdity in Case 8]

·             Prejudice practiced by the courts and police plays out through the manipulation of facts, evidence, and law [persistent throughout all Cases, with extreme prejudice in Case 8]  Abuses are documented in The Independent OBSERVER, first issued on December 14, 2005, with an important follow-on issue on January 9, 2006, with an even more important and revealing issue on January 11, 2006.  The IO returned on June 26, 2006 with a good word about the court.

 

          The Independent OBSERVER of August 23, 2006 highlights blatant and

          very disturbing prejudice carried out by officers of the court.

 

          AND, to take abuse to a new level, officers of the court demonstrate

          their own DELUSION about Mr. Clemens, documented in the one page

          September 1, 2006 Independent OBSERVER.  This stuff should be

          rated X for its nasty adult behavior.

 

          BUT, let us review a few of the US Constitutional rights that the

          courts, officers of the courts, and attorneys have trampled on, in the

          September 2, 2006 Independent OBSERVER.  Read more...

          in the Friday the 13th edition.

 

          WELL, there they go again, prompting the November 20, 2006 edition.

 

          OH, we are not done yet, as the February 5, 2007 edition of

          the Independent OBSERVER reveals...we see how the court,

          probation officers, and court-appointed attorneys (dis)respect the law.

 

          AND, we see how US District Court Judge David A. Katz has adjudged

          Access To The Courts publications on misdeeds in his court with this

          astounding comment: "THIS IS CRAP", in open court!  Reported in the

          last but not least Independent OBSERVER of February 11, 2007.

 

          What should we think of a federal judge who says "This is crap!" in

          open court, in a months long proceeding fraught with abuses, fraud,

          and cover-up by public servants?  We'll take it as a GUILTY plea and

          hope he resigns before the people impeach him (we could save 100's

          of thousands of US Taxpayer Dollars that way.)

 

          Sleight of hand judicial trickery is no match to the TRUTH, Mr. Katz.

 

This, just in!  Available is yet another transcript of yet another hearing in the court proceedings against Mr. Clemens...no, there are no transcripts of trials available (as there has never been a trial - you know, where constitutional rights might be respected), BUT, there is another version of The Independent OBSERVER, of April 10, 2007 !

 

PRESS RELEASE of January 26, 2007 - READ!

 

The Citizens REACT Report is now available!  This Public Version precedes the later Congressional Version (to be released June 11, 2007)...both detail trust-busting misconduct in our courts.

 

ABSTRACT in the Congressional Version:

 

When prejudice in the legal system becomes the norm and unwritten rules allow the implementation of prejudice in an intentional, rights-violating way, then it is time for citizens to react.  Prejudice is basically the undue influence of the outcome of legal proceedings, intentional or unintentional.  That undue influence comes mainly through errors of omission, creative writing in reports and legal briefs, subversion of rules, verbal manipulation, and careful construction of the public record.  Criminal defense counsel and attorneys in general are in a position with the most potential for prejudicial acts and omissions, while also in a position to do the most to prevent prejudice from occurring.

 

Intentional prejudice relies on the basic tenets of our legal system to secure intended (and often unjust) outcomes that are immune to discovery, appeal, or timely resolution.  The tenets hold that defendants have rights and thus are protected, that the adversarial process results in truth and thus justice (assuming the judge is a disinterested, independent part of the process), that judicial errors are a basis for appeal, that finality is an absolute goal of legal proceedings, and so on.  Apply these tenets to proceedings that only appear to have respected rights, allowed adversaries to battle, and generated no apparent errors and you have outcomes immune to collateral attack or appeal.  Attorneys are guardians of this careful process of obfuscation.

 

Prejudice – such as intentionally leaving ex culpatory evidence out of a proceeding, intentionally leaving erroneous evidence in a proceeding, misdocumenting a pleading, or failing to inform a defendant of an adverse court order - does not necessarily result in identifiable judicial errors per se, but can create circumstances that undermine the rights of aggrieved parties to even identify the prejudice, let alone appeal the injustice resulting from prejudice.  Intentional prejudice is a catch-up game, whereby the defendant (or intentionally aggrieved party) is kept ignorant, in the dark, and stuck in a morass of increasing legal complexity and decreasing viable legal options for remedy.

 

Five years of civil litigation by Plaintiff Jeffrey L. Clemens, related to a false citizen arrest (by a professional associate of the FBI) for trespassing in 1997, for which he was exonerated mid-trial by the court, resulted in cash settlements with Defendants.  Two years of post settlement research by the Plaintiff Clemens resulted in evidence of judicial misconduct, with related motions, petitions to Congress, and contact with the FBI either deflected, rejected, or ignored.  A letter to an alleged offending judge requesting explanation for apparent misconduct resulted in the arrest of the Civil Plaintiff (by the FBI) on May 25, 2005, followed by the recent two years of deeply prejudiced proceedings, with some court actions bordering on the absurd.  The prejudicial acts on the part of police, FBI agents, judges, court-appointed counsel, and probation officers – with newly discovered evidence continuing to be found – is indicative of a judicial system gone awry, with abuses of power and excessive self-interests preempting the rights of citizens to face fair, impartial, and independent proceedings in the courts.

 

Plaintiff Clemens, through his successful pro se civil litigation, research, and published allegations of misconduct, posed a fundamental threat to the continuance of the status quo in the legal system, a status quo of working to unwritten rules that favor the vested interests of lawyers, judges, and corporations.  Justice has not been served in the past two years (2005 – 2007), but those with a stake at concealing their misdeeds have been inappropriately served – and that is the basic problem and peril to democracy addressed in this report.  US District Court Judge David A. Katz of Northern Ohio has done the most to circumvent the rules of the court and the law of the land, using the pseudo-police powers of the court’s probation department to achieve illegal and fraud covering outcomes.

 

The Citizens REACT Report intends to provide a basis for the Congressional investigation of the failed workings and systemic prejudice of the US Courts and the corrupted relationship of US Judges with the US Probation Office.  The US Probation (and Pre-Trial Services) Department of the US Courts has apparently evolved into a secretive police agency of the judges, for the purpose of continuing the unchecked and unmonitored prejudicial activities of the courts, activities which can all too easily be confused with independence.  This report seriously questions the appropriateness of continuing the investigating (policing) role of probation officers while being subordinate employees of the judges dictating the terms and conditions of probation that are investigated (policed) for compliance, a formula for conflict of interest and abuse. 

 

As the integrity and independence of the US Courts are at question in the matter reported herein, the US Congress is being asked to perform its US Constitutional duty to oversee the courts and hold judges accountable to their duties and sworn oaths.  The appearance of impropriety in the cited proceedings stands in stark contrast to the code of judicial conduct.



CONTENT of About Us

 

     The Police-Court Process

     Quick Biography

   FRAUD UPON THE COURT

     Case History (1 through 4)

     Research [Judicial Misconduct]

     FBI Field Reports re Accused (and Accusing) Judges

     Information Not Included In Complaint (by the FBI)

     Gavin Debecker, Inc. and the FBI

     Case History (5 through 7)

   Case (8) U.S. v. Jeffrey L. Clemens

     Timeline

   Reward (regarding the kidnapping of Mr. Clemens)

     Stages

   Hospitality (itinery of detention...a long list of locales...)

     ANALYSIS of the FBI Complaint

     ANALYSIS of the Counts

     ANALYSIS of the Pre-Case Proceedings

     ANALYSIS of the Media Coverage

     ANALYSIS of the Proceedings [for Prejudice]

     THE CONSPIRACY

     Scituate (Massachusetts) Matter (Prejudice by Police)

     LAObserved.com and other MEDIA MANIPULATION

     Northampton (Massachusetts) Matter (Assault by Police)

     ANALYSIS of Letters to Judge Tevrizian

     Letters to Judge Tevrizian

     The BIG LIE of the FBI

     PETITIONS to the House Judiciary Committee

     Open Letters

     Pre-Trial Case Status (Power v. Truth)

   Published OPINION

     Detention [why...?]

     WARNING! and DEATH TO JUDGE TEVRIZIAN!

   PREJUDICE From Coast to Coast

     Access To The Courts...the unwritten rules UPDATED 01/02/07 !!!!!

     Summary

   PRESS RELEASE (of the "Citizens REACT Report")

     PREJUDICE IN ACTION - Special Section (at the end of this page)@#$&*!

 

Questions and Answers will suggest how Prejudice is playing out as you read this Access To The Courts website...



The Police-Court Process

 

to cover up mistakes, errors, misconduct, or crimes:

 

Trump Up Charges (no evidence necessary) - Allow Plea Bargains (avoids embarassing trials) - Maintain Prejudice against the accused (via the NON-PUBLIC arrest and charge history records and via the PUBLIC court proceedings).

 

The unwritten rules are enumerated after the case history below.  The unwritten rules have been derived from analysis of the case history, whereby logical conclusions are drawn from the often discrepant, illogical, or unexplained aspects of the cases.  Basically, the unwritten rules explain the behavior of the courts and police, who blatantly practice PREJUDICE.

 

LEO FRANK - The only jew ever to be lynched in the United States.  When wrongly accused of murder in 1915, in a climate of anti-semitism, a mob abducted Leo Frank from his jail cell and lynched him.

 

The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) was established in direct response to the climate of bigotry at the time (1900's).

 

ACCESS TO THE COURTS has been established in direct response to a similar form of bigotry and prejudice in our time (2000's).  The current arrest and detention of Jeffrey Clemens is akin to a lynching, from parties who have the power to do it and the prejudice to actually carry it out.  But, what to call it!  Lynching Leo Frank is to Anti-Semitism as Lynching Jeffrey Clemens is to ? ... Anti-Humanism?  Anti-Justice?  Anti-Truth?  Anti-Rights?  Anti-Civilian? ... Anti-Civilianism!  Anti-Civilianism is the culture we are in now, unfortunately.  Judges are some of its misguided icons (but not necessarily its architects) and the police are its ignorant followers.

 

Before reading the Case History below, you may want to review a summary of the police allegations against Jeffrey Clemens on our "Real Cases - Police Misconduct" page.  Here is what one judge has to say about Jeffrey, after knowing him for 35 years.

 

A quick biography of Jeffrey L. Clemens: Screenwriter.  Lived and worked in Los Angeles area from 1985 to 1992 (in and around California through 2000), born in Ohio.  Holds several college degrees (associate and bachelors), currently attending graduate school (in Massachusetts).  Wrote and produced many short fims, the latest in 2000, including "Spyglass" and "Up From The Beach".  Wrote several screenplays, including "The Misted Mirror", "Quarantine", "Boy Talk", "The Girl Next Door", "Table For Two", "True North", "Harbor Lights", "The Boyfriend", "That One Cape Summer", and "Forty Winks", and is currently working on "Judgment Day".  Jeffrey wrapped up two screenplays in the fall of 1994, where the case history begins.  This editor suggests holding off on judging Jeffrey, but you WILL be tempted to prejudge him, just as the police and courts have done.

 

You will want to read the Citizens REACT Report, scheduled for wide release on March 11, 2007.  The Citizens Recurring Evaluation of Access to the Courts and Trials Report details important Issues, Cases, Analyses, and Recommendations of interest to (most) everyone.

 

If and when Jeffrey gets out of the rights-violating-hidden-self-interest-serving detention, he can work on "The Derelicts", a comedic (Access To The Courts sponsored) alternative to "Judgment Day".  "The Derelicts" cast includes:

 

Shelly "Dinghy Doll" Dell - Mental Abuser

Ingerd "Truth Turd" Sotelo - Truth Avoider

Jane "The Insane" Randall - Queen Prejudger

Hilary "Smash Hit" Potashner - Bail Delayer

Shereen "Shake It" Charlick - Bait and Switcher

Ruth "Truthless" Granberry - Truth Buryer

Michael "Mince Words" O'Hara - Stiff Boner

John "Jack Ass" Rooney - Law Adrifter

Thomas "Two Face" Greenawalt - Does Whatever

Andrew "Wise Ass" Wistrich - Fact Distorter

William "Case Killer" Keller - King Prejudger

 

Resemblence to actual persons is coincidental, as real people would not be caught dead doing the misdeeds these actors will have portrayed!  Perhaps, life has imitated art, in places like Los Angeles, Toledo, and Scituate (Massachusetts).  What is the script?  You will never see it written, but you can predict the intended outcome by knowing the unwritten rules....

 

                         Jeffrey L. Clemens

was at               CDC #0510301130

                        

630 East Rialto Avenue

                         San Bernardino, CA 92415

then was at      MDC #43400-060

                        

P.O. Box 1500

                         Los Angeles, CA 90053

now?                 As of 2/7/06, he's under house detention...free?

                         Under extorted terms of release from the myriad of

                         jail cells (literally all over the country!) that held

                         Jeffrey pre-trial and quite illegally for the previous

                         9 months, Jeffrey is not allowed to go on the internet or to

                         own a computer capable of going on the internet!

                         [FOR NO OTHER REASON BUT TO KEEP JEFFREY FROM

                         RESEARCHING FOR HIS DEFENSE AND FOR HIS PURSUIT

                         OF CIVIL DAMAGES.]  More on the extortion (and burying

                         of Jeffrey's rights) later.

later...              MDC #43400-060 Box 1000 Milan, Michigan 48160

then...               Chicago (as of 11/13/06)...why?  You will want to ask his public defender Jane Randall or subsequent private attorney David Klucas, for those two know the unwritten rules very well...

 

Email to David Klucas on November 8, 2006..."Dave and Jane, Which one of you is going to take responsibility for the September 18, 2006 Amended Order and the associated failure to inform and give notice to the defendant, Jeffrey L. Clemens?"  Jonathan A. Clemens  [Editor's note: The Amended Order ordered Mr. Clemens to a Competency Evaluation; a September 5 Order ordered a Mental Evaluation.  As of November 13, Mr. Clemens has had neither, though has spent months in detention!]

 

Response from David Klucas on the same day..."I've concluded that your [sic] an impediment rather than a benefit.  If you wish to persist to live in the past, do it on someone else's time.  Since you claim to be so well informed, then you would know that my appearance was entered on 5 October 2006.  Dave Klukas"  [Editor's note: Jane Randall did not answer the email request, though she was the Attorney of Notice, who did not give her client notice, thus was derelict.  Mr. Klucas, though, was hired and paid on September 7 (cashing the check on September 11) and participated in closed door sessions with order-issuer Judge Katz in September, BEFORE his entering as Attorney of Notice.]  Note:  It was Jane Randall who motioned on October 5 (one month after Jeffrey Clemens asked her to excuse herself!) to assign David Klucas as attorney of notice...Mr. Klucas' appearance was entered on October 12, NOT October 5, as he mis-stated.

 

Due to the dereliction of his attorneys Jane Randall and David Klukas, Mr. Clemens was denied his right to challenge or appeal the (unknown to him)Amended Order (one keeping him detained unfairly).  David Klucas is on record as stating that a Habeas Corpus motion would be "a waste of time."  SO, a detained man, held after hearings were conducted that violated his due process rights, and which brought forth false information against him, and which recorded erroneous admissions, a man who has a right to challenge his detention with a Habeas Corpus challenge, is wasting his time challenging his months long detention!  With a lawyer like that, who needs enemies?

 

 

***                    SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT...

 

On August 22, 2006, upon prompting by the derelict probation officer Ruth Granberry (who accused Jeffrey of violating his probation by writing a LETTER TO FBI AGENT GREENAWALT to ask again for his Address Book back, or at least the status of its location), the terms of Jeffrey's home detention are modified by Judge Katz in Toledo, OH at a hearing of which Jeffrey received no summons, no prior written complaint, and had NO prior access to counsel:

1) 6 months additional home detention [to keep Jeffrey from (Hingham) Scituate, MA - where Jeffrey has been denied the ability to travel and to defend himself against false charges from police, whom had contact with the FBI at the time of Jeffrey's arrest last year by the FBI - see Case 5],

2) No contact with ANY law enforcement officer (local, state, federal) without prior approval [censorhship, harassment, and abuse at their best, by public servants of all people!], and

3) Court Diagnostics in Toledo, placing Jeffrey where a mental health assessment and finding can be more easily (and more sleazily) obtained, a finding of mental illness advantageous to the COURT and others benefiting from violating Jeffrey's rights...apparently, the mental health counselor to date has been unable to provide a diagnosis of mental illness, as the judges, attorneys, agents, and other derelict public servants in Los Angeles would like...

 

FRAUD UPON THE COURT

 

The Access To The Courts organization identifies the August 22, 2006 hearing as a fraud upon the court.  The proximate parties include a US Probation Officer, a federal public defender, and at least two FBI agents...their misconduct is documented in the August 23 Independent Observer.  The primary party is the US Attorneys Office.

 

US Probation Officer Ruth Granberry lied to the court in her Violation Report when she said that the defendant had told her that FBI Agent Thomas Greenawalt "would harass" his family.  Ms. Granberry is trying to imply antagonism between Mr. Clemens and Mr. Greenawalt.

 

FBI Agent Thomas Greenawalt - the suposed original complainant in this violation matter - had a big motivation to allege a violation and to allege feeling threatened by Mr. Clemens, as he had perjured himself in his arrest report in May 2005 (stating that Mr. Clemens had verbally acknowledged upon his arrest being told that if he wrote another letter to a judge, he would be arrested...a patently false statement), a perjury closely tied to the perjury of FBI Agent Ingerd Sotelo, in her arrest warrant complaint [in the possession of Mr. Greenawalt] in May 2005 (stating that Mr. Clemens had been told if he wrote another letter to a judge, he would be arrested...a pre-arrest FBI Field Report of the one and only FBI visit to Mr. Clemens had no such mandate!).  Agent Greenawalt, through NOT informing Mr. Clemens of the reason or cause or the nature of the arrest, had deceived Mr. Clemens into giving him permission to search his house and belongings...taking amongst other things, an address book.  It was the address book that Mr. Clemens sought from Agent Greenawalt in July 2006.

 

US Probation Officer Ruth Granberry lied to the court in her Violation Report when she said that she had denied travel (to Scituate, Massachusetts to handle a police matter there - see Case 5) because of Mr. Clemens' July letters to FBI agent Greenawalt - not true...Ruth verbally denied travel for Jeffrey in JUNE...Ruth never answered Mr. Clemens' repeated written requests to travel to Massachusetts, saying only verbally in June "You are not going to Massachusetts!"

 

US Federal Public Defender Jane Randall of Toledo, in a phone call initiated by Jeffrey to her on August 21 (after being told - for the first time minutes earlier - by Ruth Granberry of Jane Randall's involvement), stated to Jeffrey Clemens that the next day's hearing was "preliminary" and was to figure out "how to keep you [Jeffrey] from going in and out of court".

 

Attorney Jane Randall never told Mr. Clemens that the August 22 hearing was a violation hearing.  Mr. Clemens never received a Summons.  Mr. Clemens never received a Complaint (stating the accusation against him) prior to the hearing.  Mr. Clemens never asked to be or agreed to being represented by Jane Randall...it was Jane Randall (in the early days of Jeffrey's incarceration in 2005) who literally hung up on Jeffrey's brother three minutes into a first and only conversation about Jeffrey - Jane ignored contact with Jeffrey's brother ever since.  Jeffrey's brother did nothing to warrant a hang-up, which was contrived to keep the family uninformed about Jeffrey, as it was to take 48 days for Jeffrey to appear in the accusing US District Court in Los Angeles, most of the time without communication with the outside world and without legal representation!

 

In the case of Jeffrey L. Clemens, US Attorneys have already manipulated the record of proceedings (in Case 8 below) in the following manner:

 

1) Kept Gavin DeBecker (a security and threat management professional, with associations to the FBI, Secret Service, and US Marshals) out of the Clemens proceedings, despite the fact that Gavin DeBecker was sued in civil court by Mr. Clemens for false arrest (Mr. Clemens was later exonerated;  Mr. Clemens' other civil defendant's were mentioned - Creative Artists Agency, MGM, etc. - but not Gavin DeBecker) and despite the fact that both the FBI and US Marshals - who helped bring criminal charges against Mr. Clemens - are professional associates of Gavin DeBecker.

 

2) Kept three documented police assaults upon Mr. Clemens out of the proceedings...from a Bellevue (WA) Police Department officer (who left a bruise) - later proven to have committed perjury...a Gavin DeBecker employee (who threw off Mr. Clemens' eyeglasses while throwing his face to the ground) - the videotape of which was never handed over to Mr. Clemens in the civil matter...and a Massachusetts State Patrol officer bludgeoning (who left Mr. Clemens with stitches and a wounded knee...all for a broken head light).

 

3) Kept out of the proceedings the EXONERATION of Mr. Clemens in the 1997 arrest by Gavin DeBecker for alleged Criminal Trespass (at Creative Artists Agency)...the US Probation Office, in their reports to the judges in the proceedings - particularly on July 28, 2005 - documented the status of the incident as STATUS UNAVAILABLE...highly prejudicial against Mr. Clemens.  The status was indeed available, for Mr. Clemens' brother sent the court documents (showing exoneration) to the US Attorneys in Los Angeles just days after the May 25, 2005 arrest.

 

Note: A Criminal Harassment charge (see how that charge coincides with Case 1, THE originating act of prejudice by police, who documented a visit to discuss a complaint as an arrest, in response to a provable misconduct complaint against an officer by Mr. Clemens...Mr. Clemens first discovers that the 1995 so-called arrest existed only when the prosecutor in Beverly Hills showed him the FBI Crime Report during the 1997 proceedings - to that point, his first and only criminal arrest before Gavin DeBecker, Inc. arrested him in 1997) was leveled against Mr. Clemens by the Scituate (MA) Police Department AFTER Mr. Clemens was arrested by the FBI in May 2005.  See Case 5 below.  The August 22 extension of home detention interferes with the defense against such charge, and that is WRONG!

 

In her Violation Report (dated August 15, 2006), US Probation Officer Ruth Granberry states "This officer continues to investigate the information from Scituate."  The US Probation Office is NOT an investigative agency.  The Scituate matter is an open criminal manner, of which has included a formal complaint submittal (to the city) alleging police misconduct, and of which Mr. Clemens has been repeatedly denied the ability to defend himself.  US Probation Officer Ruth Granberry is actually OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

 

4) Mentioned the SECRET SERVICE in a May 27, 2005 hearing in US District Court in Toledo, Ohio, whereby Mr. Clemens was seeking bail (denied).  A little known fact, perhaps in the general public, is that the Secret Service founded the NATIONAL THREAT ASSESSMENT CENTER.  The question - why mention the Secret Service (as having provided information on a law enforcement matter involving Mr. Clemens in Massachusetts) in a bail hearing?  Are there not other sources of information about pending court matters?  ANSWER: mentioning the Secret Service is prejudicial against Mr. Clemens, who was eventually detained for 9 months.

 

Note: Mr. Clemens (who did not hear the May 27, 2005 reference to the Secret Service in court) finds out FOR THE FIRST TIME of the Secret Services's involvement (via contact by the Scituate Police Department's Sgt. O'Hara) in his court case IN JANUARY 2006, AFTER agreeing to an extorted plea agreement, following repeated bail denials.

Another note: Gavin DeBecker had a documented relationship with the Secret Service during the Reagan administration...the Executive Director of the National Threat Assessment Center is Bryan Vossekuil - a former Secret Service agent in the Reagan detail.

Another note: The FBI-insisted victim of alleged threats by Mr. Clemens - Dickran Tevrizian - was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan.

 

Is there a judge in the federal judiciary who can honestly say they have never witnessed (intentional) prejudicial activity in court by court officers or attorneys?  Is there a judge in the federal judiciary who will honestly acknowledge improper prejudicial activity if shown and proven?

 

August 22, 2006 represents such an opportunity to show the horrific damage prejudice is causing to an individual...and to the trust of the public.

 

The question is not 'Where is Mr. Clemens' Address Book?', but 'Where is the due process?' - a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

 

Mr. Jeffrey Clemens' improperly (self?) appointed federal public defender Jane Randall of Toledo, Ohio seems to have had more than ignoring Jeffrey's US Constitutional Rights in mind when she said:

 

"You're a walking timebomb."

 

 - Jeffrey's Federal Public Defender stated to Jeffrey on August 28, 2006,

just after Jeffrey's request to seek release pending appeal (of the August 22, 2006 decision to add 6 months of home detention...the decision and order by Judge Katz did not specify the term or condition allegedly violated...huh?  But, Judge Katz' order stated specifically that travel to Massachusetts will not be permitted at this time...Well, what's new, US Probation Officer Ruth "Grand Bury The Truth" already told that to Jeffrey two months earlier!)

 

Editor's Note:  Remember that issue about the Summons to the afore-mentioned August 22, 2006 hearing, that Jeffrey never received?  Ask Ruth Granberry why she called Jeffrey Clemens on the afternoon of August 21 to tell Jeffrey to be at the court at 10 am the next morning...Would not the Summons have ordered that already?

 

"They are monsters!"

 

 - Jeffrey stated to his parents when he snipped off the monitor bracelet that was to have come off by then, on August 28, 2006.  Note, the bracelet was to come off after August 27, yet Jeffrey is ARRESTED during a visit with his public defender on August 29, allegedly for violating this August 22 ORDER !

 

Let's break in here for a moment and see what Judge Katz had to say on September 5, 2006...after reading the August 22 ORDER, see how that Order does NOT set up for a "clear violation" by any stretch...Court:  "Now, you have admitted that you cut your ankle bracelet.  That's a clear violation of the terms of your supervised release.  I'm going to find therefore that you have violated those terms...."  NOTE: The ORDER has absolutely no requirement to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.  The Order issued on September 5 states that the Defendant admitted to the violation, when in fact the judge made a finding that a violation occurred...two different things, legally!

 

NO WHERE in the ORDER does it say that Mr. Clemens is ordered to wear a monitor!  Even its reference to the previous order (whose terms and conditions still applied - which ceases monitoring after August 27) does not require wearing a monitor after August 27.  Mr. Clemens has to sit in jail for a week, until a revocation hearing on September 5, 2006, for an illegal arrest and incarceration!  Truly, some of the US Federal Court personnel are DELUSIONAL.

 

On September 5, 2006, as evidence abounds to new abuses and rights violations damaging to Mr. Clemens, US District Judge Katz orders Mr. Clemens to undergo a mental evaluation!  The revocation hearing - which Probation Officer Ruth Granberry solely brought forth - is "continued".  The mental evaluation card has been played before in the federal proceedings against Mr. Clemens, as US District Judge Armstrong (also of Toledo) ordered a mental evaluation in May 2005...which did NOT happen, but 46 more days of rights violating incarceration (and moving about in the federal detention system) did.

 

You will NOT see due process in action in the Case History of Mr. Clemens.

 

The CASE HISTORY is near, but first read a little further about the recent crimes against Jeffrey Clemens...

Whats going on here?

 

On September 18, 2006 Judge Katz of Toledo, Ohio issues an Amended Order, which calls for a Competency Evaluation (a statutory process that may take weeks or months), and recommends Rochester, MN as the place to do it!  No one bothers to provide the defendant Jeffrey Clemens (sitting in a federal detention center in Milan, Michigan) with a copy of the Amended Order.  The attorney of notice on the US District Court record, Jane Randall, did not provide a copy to Mr. Clemens, even after 15 days.  Does Due Process mean anything to these lawyers?

 

The two months following his citizen information request letter to an FBI Agent, Mr. Clemens experiences Perjury by a Probation Officer, Due Process Violations, Derelictions by a Public Defender, an arrest (for an act not prohibited by law or by court order), and a random issuance of an amended court order and HE is the one ordered to be evaluated?

 

What is going on here?  Another layer of cover up brought to you by the US Courts.  Judge Katz, an otherwise fine and upstanding appearing judge, recently transitioned into Senior Judge Status, has strayed past the realm of reason and is looking out more for his legacy among peers than of the citizens of the United States.  Good bye Judge Katz, it is time for you to go, for you have earned your part in "Judgment Day", a film about a gang of tragically misinformed, misdirected, and misjudging judges.

 

Judge David A. Katz has been, unfortunately yet appropriately, added to the Access To The Courts' list of Those Who Know (the Unwritten Rules).

 

IS THIS ALL TOO MUCH TO COMPREHEND?  DOES YOUR BELIEF IN THE PROPRIETY AND INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM RUN COUNTER TO THE REVELATIONS HEREIN?  Access To The Courts challenges anyone to counter the truths revealed herein.  Can the FBI please address the apparent perjured (certainly discrepant) statement of one of their agents on May 24, 2005?  Can the US Probation (and Pre-Trial Services) Department please explain the apparent misdocumentation of the Defendant's false arrest in 1997, whereby he was actually exonerated, a national record - since seen by numerous police and other public servants - of which is controlled by the FBI?  Can anyone explain what injury or harm was ever threatened by the Defendant?  Would anyone care to analyze the perjured statement of a Bellevue (Washington) Police officer in 1994, of which led to the Defendant herein filing a complaint and being secretly accused of a crime in response?  So many questions, so few people with the wherewithal to comprehend the utter prejudice in our legal system.

 

Access To The Courts will pay $100 to anyone who can disprove any substantive fact or theory herein.

 

THIS, JUST IN!

 

On November 17, 2006, the general public was informed for the first time that in April 2005 the US Supreme Court Justices and several high ranking officials [including Chiefs of Staff and the Director of the FBI] in the Bush Administration were mailed home-baked cookies tainted with rat poison, enough "to kill the entire membership of the court."

 

A subsequent investigation led to a woman in Connecticut who had used as return addresses, on the mailed packages, those of her fellow college classmates.

 

The Defendant herein was arrested in May 2005, without ever threatening any judge with harm and without ever attempting to do harm to anybody, by associates [the FBI] of those in the business of assessing threats to US Supreme Court justices [the Defendant herein's civil defendant of over 6 years - Gavin Debecker, Inc.]

 

We now see how a POLITICAL attack on the Bush Administration played a prompting role in the malicious and political prosecution of a screenwriter-civil-plaintiff, a person with an extensive and notable record of lawfully taking grievances to the courts (and to the legislative and executive branches of government) for resolution.

 

***

 

SEEDS OF DECEIT

 

Consider these two seeds of deceipt, sown by those (in the public trust) with something to hide:

 

·             FALSE ARREST by a police detective in 1995 of Jeffrey L. Clemens re Criminal Harassment (after Jeffrey's complaint of officer assault, threat, and later reported and proven perjured officer sworn statement); the arrest is documented, unbeknownst to Jeffrey, in the FBI national database; no charge was ever filed; Jeffrey was never read his rights, nor was a Summons or Arrest Warrant ever issued;

          This is Jeffrey's FIRST CRIMINAL ARREST.

·             FALSE CITIZEN ARREST by Gavin Debecker, Inc. (security and threat management firm) employee in 1997 of Jeffrey L. Clemens re Criminal Trespass (charged two weeks later/literally EXONERATED at trial - case thrown out!); the FBI - with whom Gavin Debecker is a known professional associate - fails to document the exoneration in its national database (of arrests).

          This is Jeffrey's SECOND CRIMINAL ARREST.

 

The rest is history.  The seeds have sprouted incredible PREJUDICE...

 

CASE HISTORY

 

(1) City of Bellevue (Washington) v. Jeffrey L. Clemens

Bellevue District Court (in King County)

re Speeding (60 in a 35)

 

NOTE: Defendant is issued a questionable speeding citation on October 25, 1994, assaulted (to the point of a bruise on the arm), and threatened with "I'll be seeing you around" by Bellevue Police Department Officer Dennis L. Richards.  OFFICER RICHARDS - AFTER ALREADY ISSUING A TICKET -  HAD REACHED INTO THE OPEN DRIVER SIDE WINDOW, GRABBED JEFFREY'S ARM, TORE JEFFREY'S SHIRT, AND PRODUCED A LARGE RED ABRASION ON HIS ARM.  Defendant Jeffrey L. Clemens submits a complaint to the police department, which is never answered; later, the complaint is made to the city, and again, is not answered.  Defendant Clemens, when seeking to discuss the complaint with a police detective in 1995, is detained in a jail cell for 3 hours without being told why and without being read or told his rights.

 

OUTCOME: A sworn affidavit is submitted to the court against the defendant, in lieu of officer presence at the hearing (for the court had withheld the witness sub poena instructions to the defendant!)  Despite gross self-discrepancies, the court finds for the city and against the defendant.  The sworn affidavit is analyzed by basic mathematics and physics and found to be FALSE...the incident as described by the officer could NOT have possibly happened...whereby analysis actually proves that defendant Clemens was not speeding.  See Analysis for proof.  A letter to the chief is a good read.

 

The defendant appealed the lower court decision and encountered a problem oddly out of place in these days of the computer age...the appellate judge declared that he did "not understand math" and affirmed the contentious lower court decision supporting a perjured statement by a police officer.  The abuse of process in the appeal is documented in Appeal 1 and Appeal 2.  Of course, the city was informed via a complaint, documented in COB 1. COB 2, COB 3, and COB A1.

 

(1A) Jeffrey L. Clemens v. City of Bellevue (Washington)

King County Superior Court (Seattle)

re Civil Tort

 

In August 1997, attorney Paul H. King agreed to represent Jeffrey in a civil action against the City of Bellevue, Washington, taking receipt of a $1500 retainer.  Two objectives were established and agreed upon by the attorney:

 

i) The lawsuit (Complaint) is to contain specific information, including allegations of a false speeding citation, assault, and threat, to include the fact of Jeffrey's submitting a complaint to the city, and to include allegations of the mishandling of the complaint, amounting to a cover-up.

 

ii) The lawsuit (Complaint) is to be filed and served before October 25, 1997, which is the date where the statute of limitations expires, at least for the officer misconduct portion of the lawsuit.

 

Note: As both Jeffrey and Jonathan Clemens lived outside the state at the time of the lawsuit, coordination was mainly by phone, mail, and occasional visits by Jonathan.  A visit prior to October 25, 1997 yielded some surprises - an incomplete and unserved Complaint (only including the officer misconduct) and a hesitancy and later refusal by attorney Paul H. King to update (to include complaint mishandling), refile, and serve the Complaint as previously agreed.

 

OUTCOME: Jeffrey's phone calls to the attorney Paul H. King went unanswered.  The Complaint was never updated nor served on the City of Bellevue.  A follow-on visit by Jeffrey's brother to obtain a refund, in the months following the target October 25, 1997 last filing date, was met with an immediate threat by the attorney to call the police.

 

Jeffrey's rightful civil lawsuit was undermined by an unscrupulous attorney (eventually suspended for two years from practice by the Washington State Bar Association) who abscounded the large retainer and actually assisted the City Of Bellevue in their cover-up.

 

Jonathan's civil suit filed in 1998 against the City of Bellevue, for official misconduct and collusion (documented in the BOTCH Chart), was dismissed for supposed lack of standing - a good example of judicial dishonesty.  The collusion was real and harmful to Jonathan, who DID have standing in the suit.  Even so, several public servants lost their jobs over it.

 

(2) State of California (Gavin Debecker, Inc. citizen arrests Jeffrey L. Clemens) v. Jeffrey L. Clemens

Beverly Hills Municipal Court

re Criminal Trespass [Refusal to Leave Land Upon Request]

 

NOTE: Defendant Clemens is citizen arrested by an employee of Gavin Debecker, Inc., while at the Creative Artists Agency in Beverly Hills on September 23, 1997, despite Jeffrey Clemens having communicated with the agency for almost ten years prior.  Jeffrey is grabbed and thrown to the ground by William D. Michaelis (going under the false name of Rick and Richard Henderson).  Jeffrey is never asked to provide a statement.  Jeffrey pleads with the police to charge Michaelis with assault.  The police, after a delay of two weeks before interviewing witnesses, submits a report requesting the charge of trespassing.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE: Since the Defendant Clemens at one point represented himself in the proceedings...his public defender arrived later, he approached the prosecutor with an objection to being charged with trespassing.  The response was an interesting "Have you ever been arrested before?"  The Defendant Clemens was shown a copy of his FBI Crime Report - with a single arrest dated September 8, 1995 in Bellevue, Washington re Harassment.  The information was news to Jeffrey, for it indicated a tie to the misconduct of the Bellevue Police Department two years earlier.  SO, Jeffrey Clemens is accused of harassment by the Bellevue Police Department, never told so, and is allowed to be prejudiced against by the law enforcement and judicial systems!  And just what was that so-called harassment?  Phone calls and visits to the police to inquire about his unanswered complaint of officer misconduct.

 

OUTCOME: Defendant Clemens is "Exonerated", but that is not at all good for the sake of justice, for Jeffrey Clemens spent almost two thousand dollars in travel expenses and was forced to drop out of college, because of the legal proceedings against him.  Gavin Debecker, Inc. stood to gain by the exoneration, for a trial would have revealed evidence of misconduct on the part of the security and threat management company.

 

We are to find out - in July 2005, nearly 8 years later - that the exoneration of 1997 was apparently misdocumented in the national database (by the FBI, an associate of Gavin Debecker), with disposition status "unavailable"... the Beverly Hills Municipal Court records say otherwise... Docket Page 1 and Docket Page 2 clearly document the exoneration by the judge "in furtherance of justice" under California Penal Code 1385.

 

(3) Jeffrey L. Clemens v. Gavin Debecker, Inc. #98-07779

re False Arrest, False Imprisonment, and Defamation of Character

United States District Court - Western Division Central District (Los Angeles)

 

NOTE: Defendant Gavin Debecker, Inc. fails to answer the Complaint for 5 months, several months past the mandatory 30 days, answering only because the Plaintiff Clemens submitted discovery requests.  The defendant refuses to hand over the security video tape of the citizen arrest of September 23, 1997.

 

OUTCOME: Defendant Gavin Debecker, Inc. (technically in default on the lawsuit) files a motion for summary judgment, which is granted by Judge William Keller.

 

FOLLOW-ON: Plaintiff Clemens files an Appeal to the Nineth Circuit of Appeals...denied by Judges Graber, Mckeown, and Trott.  Plaintiff files a Petition to the United States Supreme Court and is denied.

 

(4) Jeffrey L. Clemens v. Gavin Debecker, Inc., Creative Artists Agency, MGM, et al #01-00125

re Fraud and Misrepresentation (note: primary cause was NOT False Arrest)

United States District Court - Western Division Central District (Los Angeles)

 

NOTE: Case is filed in 2000, but the USDC throws the case out upon its own initiative, based on an erroneous belief that the Plaintiff had not shown proper jurisdiction in the court; no Defendant answers the Complaint.

 

OUTCOME: The Case is re-filed in 2001 and is dismissed upon a Rule 12 motion by the Defendant(s), despite a relate back argument by the Plaintiff...the court dismisses the case for being filed late!!!

Judges King, Marshall, Wilson, Snyder, and Tevrizian are involved.

Plaintiff Clemens files briefs, motions, and appeals, to no avail, challenging the efficacy of the round-about way his case was dismissed.  No defendants answered the Complaint.

 

Here is Judge Snyder's Order to Not File the Motion Upon Fraud brief Jeffrey mailed the day before his arrest of May 25, 2005.

 

When investigating possible tampering of transcripts of the March 23, 2001 hearing in front of Judge Christina Snyder, with use of a court-appointed federal court reporter residing in Las Vegas, Jeffrey's brother was threatened by private detective Hal Debecker (associate of Quality Reporting Services) of Las Vegas, father of Gavin Debecker, with "fuck you up the ass!", on or about October 1, 2002.

 

The case sat idle by the close of 2002, as by December 2002 Jeffrey had settled with the defendants for over $25,000.

 

RESEARCH

 

Through the research of Plaintiff Clemens in the USDC civil case, evidence of judicial misconduct and court malfeasance surfaced, including but not limited to judge ties to the defendants and tampered transcripts (in the second case).  Plaintiff Clemens encounters resistance at the USDC in obtaining access to court clerks.  Plaintiff Clemens approaches the US Attorneys Office and the FBI for help.  Plaintiff Clemens submits a Judicial Misconduct Complaint to the US Congress, requesting an investigation, in 2004.  Plaintiff Clemens writes a letter to one of the judges in July 2003, another in October 2003, another in February 2004, and another in February 2005 (whereby Jeffrey gets a visit from the US Marshals and FBI).  Upon writing a letter to Judge Tevrizian in May 2005, Civil Plaintiff Clemens was arrested, being transformed into Criminal Defendant Clemens.

 

Jeffrey Clemens sat in a jail in Ohio from May 25, 2005 through June 17, 2005 and beyond...that date marks the submittal of an observer letter to the Magistrate Judge in Ohio who is the only federal judge to have seen Jeffrey in court since the arrest...without bail and without formal charges, as he was considered dangerous and a flight risk.

 

Jeffrey Clemens was indicted on June 7, 2005 on four counts of mailing threatening communications.  In neither the FBI Complaint used to obtain the arrest warrant, nor the Copy of the Indictment, does Jeffrey threaten any judge with harm or injury.  The accusations of violating US Code Title 18 Section 876 in the Complaint and Indictment are not supported by the content of letters sent in 2003 through 2005.

 

How could Jeffrey be indicted?  As stated to Jeffrey's brother by a US Marshal in late June 2005, "You can indict a tree."

 

Remember, there are only the US Attorneys presenting their case to the grand jury, with any evidence, document, or witness they want, right or wrong, prejudicial or not, without the defendant or defendant's counsel.  AS NEWLY ACQUIRED ("discovery" documents show) on August 4, 2005, it is obvious that the US Attorneys presented FBI field reports of interviews with JUDGES, CLERKS, AND DEPUTIES to the grand jury.  What is NOT obvious is whether or not FBI field reports of interviews with Jeffrey were presented, for the reports clearly describe a civil plaintiff with an intent at justice, with extensive rationale for his past and planned future actions, and with absolutely no intent on physical harm to anybody.

 

Jedge Tevrizian did not even know what to do when he received the February 12, 2005 letter from Jeffrey!  He could not even recall the name "Clemens".  He accused Jeffrey of tending to "beat around the bush", as relaying a threat only "after the dust settles"...can YOU see through a dust cloud?  He reasonably chose to go to the US Marshals, but what about a written response?  Judge Tevrizian chose NOT to answer the letter.  Are judges not allowed to answer letters?  Despite his confusion over the letter, he was worried for himself and his family.  It is in the report.

 

Judge William D. Keller, who packs a gun on the bench, believes that Jeffrey has a mental problem, should be incarcerated for more than five years, and should be "pursued vigorously."  Keller stated his belief that Jeffrey is "homicidal"...are all screenwriters who write about death homicidal?  Should we arrest other screenwriters?  You would have to arrest about all of them!  Keller also reveals his understanding of the poor security in the judge parking lot at the district courthouse!  It is in the report.  Implication, Jeffrey can sneak in, or something, can you guess?

 

Judge Christina Snyder claims to not even have known about threatening letters from Jeffrey.  It is in the report.  She had NOT seen the October 2003 Motion by Jeffrey [that the court "received but not filed"], the motion in which Jeffrey introduces serious claims of misconduct in the court, the motion in which a threat is alleged to exist.  YES, in October 2003 Jeffrey supposedly threatened a judge, but he is not arrested until May 2005!  May 2005 so happens to follow the April 18, 2005 FBI interview with Jeffrey, where Jeffrey describes in detail his issues with the court, his earlier submittal of a petition to the House Judiciary Committee, and his intentions to file another motion (the FBI asked him if he planned another motion).  THAT motion was rejected and ordered not filed by Judge Snyder in June, while Jeffrey sat in jail.  Jeffrey's brother personally inspected the 100+ page motion (with exhibits) before May 12, 2005.  Jeffrey mailed out the motion on May 24, the day before his arrest.

 

Judge Snyder's court deputy states that a picture hangs on the wall of Judge Snyder's chambers, so they can know when Jeffrey shows up in the court.  It is in the report.  Implication, "Look out for Jeffrey!"  [NOTE: Jeffrey had already appeared in front of Judge Snyder numerous times before.]

 

A court employee [name withheld] alleges that Jeffrey demanded to see Judge Snyder in her chambers.  It is in the report.  [NOTE: Per Jeffrey, he never demanded to see Snyder.  Jeffrey had indeed been to the court and also had made inquiries to the court's Human Resources department.]  Implication, Jeffrey had plans, can you guess?  Apparently, the grand jury guessed.

 

The letters from Jeffrey may suggest a pattern of persistent inquiry about judicial conduct (the likely reason for indictment by an underinformed grand jury), but they do not threaten judges.  Perhaps, the US Attorneys, FBI, and US courts are uncomfortable with inquiry, as Jeffrey had been doing for at least 3 years before being arrested.  More likely, they were setting up for a behavior pattern argument to take to the grand jury.

 

The letter of May 2005 used to obtain an arrest warrant did NOT make a separate count in the indictment.

 

INFORMATION NOT INCLUDED IN THE COMPLAINT OR INDICTMENT...

 

The fact that Jeffrey's civil defendant was Gavin Debecker, Inc. - a security and threat management company, self-professed to be in the business of assessing threats to federal judges.  See GDB Suit III (1).

 

The fact that Jeffrey's civil defendant Gavin Debecker, Inc. had made a citizen arrest against Jeffrey for which he was eventally exonerated.

 

The fact that Gavin Debecker, Inc. is (in the words of Gavin Debecker's own lawyers) a "sought out by the FBI" consultant to the FBI, and whose founder has indeed taught at the FBI Academy.  See the Gavin's lawyers' own words in GDB Suit IV (3).

 

The Gavin Debecker (plaintiff, alleging libel against a publisher) lawsuit is documented at www.mansionsofeden.com, wherein Gavin's lawyers correct all kinds of apparent misinformation about Gavin and his company.  The lawsuit was settled, without details as to possible monetary damages.

 

So, a professional associate (FBI) of Jeffrey Clemens' civil defendant (Gavin Debecker, Inc.) becomes the complainant in the obtaining of an arrest warrant against the civil plaintiff (Clemens)!

 

THE QUESTION OF THE DAY, THE WEEK, THE MONTH (THE YEAR?)

 

If 3 of the 4 counts of the indictment involve letters written more than a year BEFORE Jeffrey Clemens was ever visited by the FBI or US Marshals, or told to stop, then why is Jeffrey being held for weeks without bail on the pretext of being dangerous?

 

Since there is a 4th count (relating to the February 2005 letter), there should be another question, for maybe the reason for denying bail is out there somewhere...

 

If a letter in February 2005 prompted a visit by US Marshals and the FBI to where Jeffrey Clemens lived and attended graduate school, while resulting in NO ARREST, then again why is Jeffrey being held for weeks, now months, without bail on the pretext of being dangerous?

 

Everything (i.e., mailed letters through February 2005) for which Jeffrey Clemens was indicted resulted in no arrests or action against Jeffrey, but the last letter (in May 2005) - addressing alleged judicial misconduct - which resulted in the arrest of Jeffrey, resulted in no separate count in the indictment, YET, Jeffrey is still considered dangerous by US Attorneys (and the underinformed judge in Ohio) and is denied bail, thus forcing his transfer to Los Angeles.

 

More about this show trial, later.  But, for now, let's look at a case originating two days before Jeffrey's famous May 14 letter written to Judge Tevrizian (whom Jeffrey was investigating)...

 

(5) State of Massachusetts v. Jeffrey L. Clemens

re Disorderly Conduct (on 5/12/05)

Hingham District Court (Hingham, Massachusetts)

 

NOTE: Investigating his earlier civil case and current concerns of judicial misconduct therein, and upon leaving the residence of a person of interest and related to one of the civil defendants, Jeffrey Clemens was stopped by an officer (Sargeant O'Hara) of the Scituate Police Department on May 12, 2005 and held momentarily.  When told that he was "free to go", the officer added that he should expect a "summons" in the mail; Jeffrey asked as to why, and was told he was to be charged with "impersonating a private investigator".  Jeffrey objected and asked questions.  The officer called Jeffrey a "fucker!"  The officer arrested Jeffrey for Disorderly Conduct!  What?  See Case (6) for insight into this allegation.

 

On May 13, 2005 Sargeant O'Hara, a police officer also acting as prosecutor, offered a deal to Jeffrey - Plead Guilty to the Disorderly Conduct, pay $100, and two other charges (Unlicensed Private Detective and Criminal Harassment) will go away!  Jeffrey refused the offer.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE: Sargeant O'Hara of the Scituate (Massachusetts) Police Department called Jeffrey a few days later at his parents' home, wherein Jeffrey advised the officer of his civil case and that the FBI was also looking into the allegations of misconduct in his civil case.  The officer's earlier insistence, upon allowing Jeffrey to be "free to go", that he was to receive a summons was just plain wrong, and questionable.  The courts issue the summons, not the officer!  A few days later, a summons to appear in court on June 10 on a charge of Disorderly Conduct (#0558CR00954) arrived in the mail.  What happened to the summons for impersonating a private investigator?

 

Read from the Declaration of the Accused for an accounting of what happened.  Jeffrey made a reasonable, lawful, and rightful inquiry, while the officer obviously violated police department policies, violated Jeffrey's constitutional rights, stooped to false reporting to cover up his prejudicial wrongful deeds, and attempted extortion via a compulsed plea bargain.

 

OUTCOME: None yet, for Jeffrey has had no opportunity to appear in court in Hingham, for he was still sitting in jail on the court date...15 days and counting, because Jeffrey was deemed dangerousWho's dangerous?

 

NEWLY DISCOVERED INFORMATION: On June 10, the appearance date for the Disorderly Conduct charge, and after Scituate police were informed of FBI involvement in Jeffrey's matters, Lt John Rooney of the Scituate Police Department filed two complaints against Jeffrey:

 

Harassment, Criminal c265 s43A(a), offense 05/14/05 (#0558CR001191)

Private Detective, Unlicensed c147 s23, offense 05/12/05 (#0558CR001192)

 

The police allege a "pattern of conduct or series of acts directed at a specific person, to wit: Shelly Laveroni, which did seriously alarm such person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress...."  Shelly Laveroni, the daughter of Jerry Laveroni, former stunt man with Robert Conrad in the TV series "Wild Wild West", has apparently made a victim of herself.  Jeffrey had communicated with Robert in the past over scripts.  Just how does a single inquiring visit turn into criminal harassment?  [Jeffrey made no contact with Shelly Laveroni after the initial contact on May 12, 2005.]

 

The police allege that on May 12, 2005 Jeffrey "did engage in, advertise or hold himself or herself out as being engaged in, or solicit, private detective business or the business of a watch, guard or patrol agency, without being licensed to do so...."  That would be true only when, in the famous words of Judge William Keller (who dismissed Jeffrey's first suit against Gavin Debecker, Inc. - a private detective firm), "when pigs fly."

 

On May 12, 2005 Jeffrey approached the residence of Jerry Laveroni, not wishing to speak with Shelly Laveroni.  Jeffrey stated that he was inquiring about a civil matter in LA and regarding Robert Conrad.  Shelly immediately stated, according to Jeffrey, "This is private property, you are being asked to leave."  Shelly immediately called 9-1-1 as Jeffrey left.  The Scituate police later stopped Jeffrey.

 

WHAT THE POLICE APPARENTLY MISSED was the fact that their witness Shelly Laveroni overreacted, and that the police have an obligation to fairly investigate complaints.  As a former employee with the actor Robert Conrad (also a movie producer), Shelly's father was probably in the know about Robert Conrad's legal troubles - a few years ago an intoxicated Robert Conrad crashed his vehicle in California, injuring (if not killing) people.  Robert likely faced or faces large liability for the injuries.  Shelly may have thought that Jeffrey was there to inquire about the accident case, which was absolutely not the case.  Shelly gave no time to Jeffrey for explaining why he was there.  Why would a woman under no threat use the 9-1-1 system when no potential loss of life or property existed?

 

MORE NEWLY DISCOVERED INFORMATION: On August 4, 2005 Jeffrey's brother received his requested (and paid for) copies of the court files.  The mix of revelations and innuendos could astonish even the uninformed about this Scituate case.  Here is the NARRATIVE of the reporting officer:

 

AT THIS TIME I WAS SENT TO 52 OOB [Ed. Note, OOB is Old Oaken Bucket Road]] TO INVEST SUSP MAN IN GRN BLAZER.  AS I APPROACHED 52 I SAW GRN JEEP CHEROKEE BACKED INTO THE "OOB" HOUSE.  VEH THEN PULLED OUT ONTO OOB AFTER SEEING ME.  I ASKED OPER IF HE JUST CAME FROM 52.  HE DID.  I TOLD HIM TO STOP.  I WENT TO TURN THE CRUISER AROUND.  HE SPED OFF EAST ON OOB.  I PURSUED AND STOPPED HIM.  HE CLAIMED HE WAS GOING TO THE STATION.  I ID'D HIM AS CLEMENS.  HE SAID HE WAS INVEST'G SOMETHING FOR THE "FBI".  HE GAVE NAME OF AGENT BRIAN ZIN.  HE APPEARED VERY NERVOUS.  I ASKED HIM TO GET OUT OF THE VEH.  I PATTED HIM DOWN.  I ASKED IF HE HAD ANY MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, BECAUSE HE APPEARED TO BE UNSTABLE.  HE DENIED ANY M/H/I.  HE GAVE CONSENT TO SEARCH VEH.  HE HAD A CAMERA AND PLOT PLAN FOR 5S OOB.  ALSO KNOWN AS

315 CJ WAY
.  PLOT PLAN WAS OBTAINED 051205 FROM TOWN HALL.  HIS LIC LISTED OHIO AS RESID.  HE CLAIMED TO BE GRAD STUDENT AT UMASS.  OFF GOYETTE ARRIVED FROM 52.  HE TOLD ME RESID OF52 SHELLY LAVERONI'S FATHER IS RETIRED DEA AGENT.  SHE BELIEVED CLEMENS WAS POSSIBLY STALKING HER FATHER.  BOP REVEALED NUMEROUS OFFENSES, INCLUDING HOLLYWOOD INCIDENT.  JERRY LAVERONI WORKED THERE FOR DEA.  I WENT TO SPEAK W. SHELLY.  SHE SAID CLEMENS CLAIMED TO BE A "PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR", AND HE SPOKE W/ SEVERAL NEIGHBORS.

 

I RETURNED TO CLEMENS AND OFF GOYETTE.  I TOLD CLEMENS I WOULD RESEARCH "PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR" CLAIM.  (HE DENIED SAYING THIS, AND HE WAS NOT A P/I).  I [sic] APPLICABLE, I WOULD SUMMONS HIM.  HE BECAME ENRAGED.  HE STARED SCREAMING THAT HE"NEVER SAID HE WAS A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, IT WAS HER WORD AGAINST HIS".  I TOLD HIM HE WAS FREE TO LEAVE.  HE WANTED TO STAY AND ARGUE.  I TOLD HIM "WE'RE DONE HERE.  THIS IS OVER."  I STARTED TO BACK AWY FROM HIM.  THEY [sic] WAS HEAVY TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.  HE LUNGED TOWARDS ME, SCREAMING "I WANT TO SETTLE THIS FUCKING NOW."  HE WAS BEING DISORDERLY AND ARRESTED HIM.  OFF GOYETTE ASSISTED.  HE WAS PLACED INTO MY CRUISER AND I TOOK HIM TO SPD AND BOOKED HIM.

 

Not until one analyzes the report does one notice the subtle manufacturing of an impression.  Indeed, the report contains many facts, and many are indeed true.  But, one must ask...

 

What does "AFTER SEEING ME" mean?

What does "HE SPED OFF EAST" mean?

What does "HE APPEARED VERY NERVOUS" mean?

How do "MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES" enter the picture?

What does "HE APPEARED TO BE UNSTABLE" mean?

What is the "HOLLYWOOD INCIDENT"? [no mention of an exoneration]

How does a "RETIRED DEA AGENT" relate to Jeffrey?

What does "I WOULD SUMMONS HIM" mean? [do cops or courts summon?]

What does "HE LUNGED TOWARDS ME" mean?

What does "HE WAS BEING DISORDERLY" mean?

 

The report is horribly short on descriptive facts, but heavy on the message the officer wants to make.  Editor's interpretation (without Jeffrey's side of the story, which contradicts this report, but only in key ways): The officer preferred to please the DEA Agent's daughter (though she is supposedly married), catering to her baseless allegations and beliefs, and GIVING THAT BIG GOOD OL' BOY SUPPORT TO THE RETIRED DEA AGENT.  (Jeffrey did not know that Jerry Laveroni was a retired DEA Agent...we know now.)

 

EVEN MORE NEWLY DISCOVERED INFORMATION...On May 17, 2005, Sargeant O'Hara engaged in communication about the Scituate matter with an FBI agent in California and another federal agent, 7 days before the FBI (in California) drafted and submitted a Complaint to seek an arrest warrant, which thanks to The Big Lie of the FBI, was granted.  The Big Lie of the FBI is explained below.

 

THE SCITUATE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO!  Criminalizing an innocent citizen, Jeffrey Clemens, is an intolerable act.

 

Who began that criminalizing of Mr. Clemens on May 12, 2005?  Answer: Shelly Laveroni Dell (wife of security professional Tyrone Dell and daughter of Yankee Stadium security professional Jerry Laveroni).  Shelly Dell, is a LICENSED PSYCHOTHERAPIST...yes, indeed, the one who makes a living supposedly helping people with mental disorders and challenges instead burdens an innocent man with false allegations (beginning with a call to 9-1-1 about a "strange man" - Mr. Clemens - sized up in only 8 seconds!), the start of multiple criminal allegations and extended incarceration by opportunistic police, US agents, US attorneys, and US judges.

 

The Scituate Police Department has refused to release to the public the presumed 9-1-1 tape of Shelly Laveroni Dell's call on May 12, 2005, the call ostensibly justifying the probable cause to pull over Jeffrey Clemens minutes later.  The non-disclosure runs counter to Massachusetts General Law 66.

 

(6) State of Massachusetts v. Jeffrey L. Clemens

re Inoperative Headlight and Failure to Yield to an Officer

District Court (near Huntington, Massachusetts)

 

NOTE: When Jeffrey was returning from Ohio in January 2002 to his residence near the university he was attending in Massachusetts, he was pulled over by the Massachusetts State Police.  When approached by an officer, Jeffrey asked if it was the inoperative headlight, which had an intermittent wiring problem.  The officer did not reply.  After the usual paperwork and trek back to his cruiser, the officer returned to Jeffrey to cite him for a broken headlight and failure to yield to an officer! 

 

Jeffrey was surprised at the failure to yield allegation, following the officer back to the Russell Barracks (patrol station), then asking him if that was where his boss worked.  The officer replied affirmatively.  Jeffrey stated that he would see the boss the following day.  When Jeffrey was driving away, a second officer slammed his hands on Jeffrey's car hood and yelled "You tried to run me over!"  Jeffrey replied that he certainly had not, said he was leaving, and drove off.  Minutes later, the officers pulled Jeffrey over and ordered him out of his car...with guns ablazing.  Jeffrey asked as to why he was pulled over and ordered out...moments before a gun butt slammed into the car, breaking the glass...a hand reached in and grabbed Jeffrey, pulling him out upon the broken glass...Jeffrey sustained injuries to his arm and leg, requiring stitches!  Why did this have to happen?  For an inoperative headlight?

 

IMPORTANT NOTE: As the medic treated Jeffrey for his injuries, a MSP officer asked whether or not Jeffrey would submit to a Breathalyzer test!  Jeffrey said no, of course.  The charging papers later cited Jeffrey for assault (with his car!) and OUI (for not submitting to a test!)...we know what happened there...police coverup.

 

OUTCOME: Charges (five total, including Disorderly Conduct...which oddly came up in Scituate, Massachusetts in Case (5)) dismissed after a probation period of one year; no guilty findings were ever made or entered.  See Case 8 for an interesting twist...how this Northampton Matter came to be used as a pretext for denying bail to an innocent accused man.  Court documents obtained in July 2005 indicate an unsigned Application for Complaint, a complete lack of facts in the Criminal Complaint, lack of a documented Probable Cause, and disrepancies between the signed Tender of Plea agreement (for Not Guilty) and the pleas documented in the Docket (implying No Contest), the status of which was made nationally available, for such folks as US Attorneys in Los Angeles who happen to be arguing for Jeffrey's continued incarceration.

 

(7) Douglas County (Nevada) v. Jeffrey L. Clemens

re Failure to Yield to an Officer (1999)

District Court in Douglas County, Nevada

 

OUTCOME:  Nothing much to note here...Jeffrey sued Douglas County for prosecuting him for Failure to Yield to an Officer, and after some delay tactics by the county, settled the case for $5,000.  Jeffrey had been returning to school from filing paperwork in the Gavin Debecker, Inc. case in Los Angeles.  Police had pulled him over for NO reason, and the rest is history!

 

PRE (8) Jeffrey L. Clemens v. Tracinda Corporation

US District Court - Los Angeles

re Civil Tort (Collusion and Bribery of US District Court Judges)

 

In mid May 2005, several days before his arrest and any knowledge of the pending arrest, Jeffrey prepared and mailed a NOTICE of pending lawsuit against the Tracinda Corporation.  Tracinda,  the majority owner of MGM - Jeffrey's previous civil defendant, was given 30 days to respond or face a civil suit.

 

Judge Tevrizian owns stock in Tracinda-linked MGM and personally knows its chairman.  The Lincy Foundation, owned by Tracinda, contributed $250,000 to a scholarship fund in the name of Judge Tevrizian.

 

Judge Tevrizian recused himself from the 2000 lawsuit filed by Jeffrey against MGM and others, with the civil case eventually ending up with Judge Snyder, former attorney for MGM.  Judge Snyder - in a blatant conflict of interest situation - dismissed Jeffrey's case.

 

This pending lawsuit would have implicated Judge Tevrizian in a conspiracy to dismiss Jeffrey's lawsuit of 2000 and to reward Tevrizian (and his reputation) with a scholarship fund.

 

OUTCOME: Due to Jeffrey's arrest by the FBI on May 25, 2005, the Clemens v. Tracinda lawsuit was not filed in US District Court.  As anyone knows, when an innocent man is in jail, he can not work at a job, can not receive phone calls, can not attend graduate school, can not perform legal research, can not have access to the internet, can not prepare legal documents, and can not tend to his personal and financial affairs.  Jeffrey's incarceration, ongoing as of September 2005, is nothing short of a kidnapping, with the intention to SHUT JEFFREY DOWN, RUIN HIS LIFE, AND PREJUDICE HIS FUTURE, with the coincidental benefit of keeping judicial and corporate accountability where the accused judges wanted it...buried.

 

(8) United States v. Jeffrey L. Clemens

D.C. No. CR-05-00548-SJO (from #05-M-1102)

(to in USDC Northern District of Ohio - Toledo...DOCKET SUMMARY as of June 11, 2007)

US District Court - Los Angeles

re Mailing Threatening Communications

 

The first post-self-recusal-motioning Public Defender attorney:

Shereen J. Charlick, Attorney (for Defendant Clemens)

Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc.

225 Broadway,

Suite 900

San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 234-8467 Phone

(619) 687-2666 Fax

 

The latest unwritten-rule-follower attorney:

David L. Klucas

1900 Monroe Street

Toledo, OH 43604

(419) 259-6376 Phone

(419) 259-6360 Fax

davek@buckeye-access.com

 

QUICK STATUS: An August 22, 2006 Order modified terms of Supervised Release set in February...modified terms obviously set in the Judge's chambers in the minutes BEFORE the hearing on August 22, a hearing of which the Defendant had no Notice, no copy of the Complaint (or accusation), and no time to prepare.  The Order states no requirement for bracelet monitoring after August 27, 2006.  After the Defendant removes the bracelet monitor (of which the courts had no right to place on the Defendant) on August 28, 2006, the Defendant is accused of tampering with government property.  Note how the defendant is not specifically accused of violating a requirement to have a bracelet monitor.  On September 5, 2006 the Defendant is ordered to have a Mental Evaluation.  On September 18, 2006, an Amended Order cancels the Mental Evaluation and orders a Competency Evaluation...the Defendant was never told of the amended order, but likely his attorney (David Klucas) knew because he had had backroom meetings with the Judge.  As of November 15, 2006, after 79 days in detention (itself a result of probation officer misconduct, with absolutely NO violation of any law or court order by the Defendant), there has been no evaluation of the Defendant of any kind!  In Judge Katz' court, due process is redefined as more like Dooped Raw.

 

Since May 25, 2005, Jeffrey Clemens has NOT been allowed to conduct research on the internet (to July 11, 2006 and counting)... if he had been allowed, then he would have discovered that his attorney - Federal Public Defender Shereen Charlick - had previously worked for the US Department of Justice (the ones currently prosecuting Jeffrey)...an important fact, considering that a complaint (of perjury) was submitted against US DOJ Agent Ingerd Sotelo on September 18, 2005, two weeks BEFORE Shereen Charlick was assigned to Jeffrey.

 

Jeffrey stated to Access To the Courts in June 2006 that his total time face to face with all of his public defenders during the 9 month incarceration amounts to less than 30 minutes.

 

The Timeline describes in modest detail the journey Jeffrey has experienced in trying to seek justice after a malicious false arrest in 1997 by a firm who is a self-avowed professional associate of the FBI and who was to become an eventual civil defendant.  Jeffrey was exonerated by a court in 1997, only to face, later, a lynching few of us could have imagined.  In 2005 Jeffrey is arrested by the FBI (upon a Complaint to the US District Court) and detained by professional associates of judges accused by Jeffrey of misconduct.  The judicial and police powers, powers bestowed by the citizens of the United States, have found bountiful means to deflect, deny, and avoid their legal, civic, and moral responsibility.

 

A Reward is offered for information leading to the investigation, arrest, indictment, or prosecution of those responsible for the kidnapping of Jeffrey.

 

A 2nd Reward is offered for information leading to the investigation, charging, or discipline of those responsible for the extortion of Jeffrey.

 

The Stages of the corruption leading to the kidnapping of Jeffrey shows us how the system Neglects, Rejects, Deflects, Redirects, and Infects.

 

The Hospitality of the federal system, especially if you have been kidnapped, is more quantity than quality, as the itinery of Jeffrey's detention shows:

 

Toledo, Ohio (May 2005)

Milan, Michigan

Oklahoma City, OK

San Bernardino, CA (arrives for a July 12 hearing, after 48 days!)

Oklahoma City, OK

Las Vegas, NV

San Bernardino, CA (October 2005)

Los Angeles, CA (January 2006)

Huron, OH (Home Detention)

Toledo, OH

Milan, MI (September 2006)

Chicago, IL (result of the work of Judge Katz and Defense Attorney Klucas)

Oklahoma City, OK (December 2006)

Atlanta, GA (January 2007)...Jeffrey is ASSAULTED 3 times by cell mate!

Toledo, OH (Lucas County Correctional Center)

 

NOTE: Every move to other jails or court appearances, before the February 7, 2006 release, was done in CHAINS.

 

A simple ANALYSIS of the FBI Complaint is revealing.  The Complaint:

 

1) makes no mention of Jeffrey's civil defendant Gavin Debecker, Inc. - a security and threat management firm and professional associate of the FBI (in the case of which Jeffrey is accused of mailing threatening communications);

 

2) provides no statements by Judges Keller and Snyder, though they were interviewed by the FBI at the same time (March 2005) as Judge Tevrizian;

 

Judge Tevrizian's comments reveal no allegation of being threatened, only when "the dust settles" in Jeffrey's writings.  Dust clouds are not clear by any means and make an odd metaphor when someone's accused of a crime.

 

Judge Snyder's comments reveal no known or perceived threat by Jeffrey.  In fact, she does not remember viewing threatening communications.

 

Judge Keller's comments are inflammatory and prejudicial...Mr. Keller considers Jeffrey "homicidal", as having a "mental problem", as someone who should go to prison for over 5 years, and as someone who should be "vigorously pursued"; told to the FBI agent who later caused the arrest of Jeffrey, yet left out of the complaint!  (Interpretation...use the good reputation of Judge Tevrizian, rather than the less-than-good reputation of Judge Keller, and use a person who had made no rulings in Jeffrey's civil case, to imply that Jeffrey is unstable and delusional, or something...);

 

3) asserts that a Special FBI Agent had told Jeffrey that if he wrote another letter he would be arrested, which is INCONSISTENT with the documented FBI Field Report of the April 18, 2005 visit to Jeffrey.  The FBI Field Report mentions no such admonition, though the report is very detailed;

 

4) refers to the existence of supposed letters, though not specified, to Judges Keller and Snyder in 2003 and 2004, BUT includes no excerpt or characterization of said communication, other than a statement calling them threatening.  In what way, one wonders.  The statement is prejudicial and without factual basis;

 

5) refers to an October 2003 document, without mentioning that the document was a Motion of Fraud Upon The Court, which indicts Tevrizian, Keller, and Snyder with judicial misconduct, and which was rejected by Judge Snyder, and which was over 30 pages in size.  The Complaint referred to only one sentence in the Motion;

 

6) implies that Jeffrey wrote the May 14 letter then moved away by the time the FBI approached his residence on May 18 (thus, a flight risk!)...the US Marshals and the FBI knew that Jeffrey was a graduate student, that he was known to live at home in Ohio, and that graduate school terms do end at that time of year; the FBI reported no attempts to contact Jeffrey at his other known address (before the arrest)...why was the FBI seeking Jeffrey before they sought and obtained an arrest warrant on May 24?  Such action of seeking Jeffrey before his arrest warrant is INCONSISTENT with the Complaint's assertion that Jeffrey was to be arrested, period, if he wrote another letter;

 

7) refers specifically only to letters to Judge Tevrizian, February 12 and May 14, 2005.  By not specifically referencing earlier letters, the reader is led to believe that Jeffrey has been threatening judges for years, yet no one took action against Jeffrey in the past years; this fact CONTRADICTS the assertion by the US Attorneys AFTER the arrest that Jeffrey is dangerous and a flight risk and, thus, should be detained (as he has been for over 3 months).

 

ANALYSIS of the Counts of the Indictment are revealing, indicating malice and dishonesty in acquiring indictments...dishonesty to have construed threats out of the written record, dishonesty to have omitted pertinent facts that would have countered the allegations of threats.

 

For example...

 

Jeffrey submits a bona fide motion on October 14, 2003 to the court (outlining judicial misconduct), insists on "a full, fair, and impartial review", does not address or direct the motion to Judge Christina A. Snyder, and the result is a criminal indictment [COUNT TWO] that states Jeffrey is alleged on October 14, 2003 to have threatened to assault and murder Judge Snyder, with intent to interfere with her judicial duties!  A ridiculous and fraudulent charge.  The written count in the indictment fails to include threatening words or excerpts and fails to mention that the substantiation was a written motion submitted to the court and (partially) withheld during the Discovery phase of the pending criminal matter, thus the count could not be investigated or confirmed by a casual observer.  Judge Snyder rejected and ordered not filed that very same motion (not yet in evidence or an exhibit in the pending criminal matter, of particular importance at a July 28, 2005 Bail Hearing, as pointed out by defense counsel!)  Even Judge Snyder, in her interview with the FBI in March 2005, said that she was unaware of threats against her!  One would think that a threat of murder lodged against her would have resulted in at least being informed?

 

COUNT ONE is equally as ridiculous and contrived...Jeffrey is accused of threatening to injure the reputation of Judge William D. Keller, per 18 U.S.C 876, which pertains to threats of (physical) injury or kidnapping, by threatening to take allegations of judicial misconduct to "Congressional officials and prosecutorial authorities".  To think, doing what every citizen has a right to do and then being accused of a crime for it!  Worse yet, being detained 6 months for it!

 

ANALYSIS of the Pre-Case Proceedings

 

Actions by Jeffrey L Clemens BEFORE his arrest...

 

OCT03     USDC Motion

NOV04     US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Motion

MAY05     USDC Motion mailed May 24, 2005

Note: All motions were Rejected and Not Filed and served on MGM attorneys.

 

OCT03     USAO Consultation

FEB 04     US Senate Letter

JULY04     US Senate Contact (third)

               US Senator DeWine contacts Capitol Police...Capitol Police

               contacts Miami University (Ohio) Campus Police...Campus Police

               instructs Jeffrey that he is to STAY AWAY from Senator DeWine!

               Jeffrey quits the Fall 2004 term (graduate school)

SEP 04     US House Petition

OCT04     FBI Letter

 

JAN05      US House Letter

FEB05      US House Letter

Note: All motions and contacts to official agencies involved allegations of Judicial Misconduct, including Judge Tevrizian, who owns stock in MGM.

 

PRIOR TO HIS ARREST, Jeffrey submitted three (rejected) Motions to the courts, wrote a letter to the USAO, wrote a letter to the FBI, and wrote two letters and a Petition to the US Congress, not to mention several phone calls to the FBI.  [Much of this was not mentioned in the later FBI Complaint...]

 

Actions by US agents BEFORE Jeffrey's arrest...

 

OCT03 - APR05    USMS (4?) visits to Jeffrey...all were always courteous.

Note: At no time did US Marshals tell Jeffrey to either STOP writing letters or be subject to arrest if he wrote another letter...US Marshal reports do not say it, FBI reports do not say it, and the tea leaves do not say it.

 

APR05      FBI visit to Jeffrey (in Massachusetts)

Note: The FBI has its one and only visit with Jeffrey on April 18, 2005...the FBI learns about Jeffrey's legal plans and intentions, including his intent to file a motion in the US District Court...

MAY05      FBI arrests Jeffrey (in Ohio) on May 25, 2005

 

ANALYSIS of the Media Coverage

 

Media coverage of the proceedings (in Case 8) stemmed initially from releases by the US Attorneys Office and later from observations of the court proceedings.  Notwithstanding the lack of diligence in the press coverage, responsibility for most of the following anomalies must fall upon the US Attorneys and FBI.  The anomalies are primarily omissions.

 

                              Missed (and Mis-) Information

 

[Reported] - - - [Actual]

[wrong] - - - [correct]

 

Only CAA as civil defendant - - - Multiple defendants (MGM, GDB, et al)

Civil lawsuit lost and thrown out - - - Settled ("won")

CAA "escorted" Jeffrey from premises - - - GDB did it via Citizen Arrest (in 1997, throwing Jeffrey down - an assault upon Jeffrey)

No timeframe (implies recent) - - - Litigation since 1998

Context: Recent Litigation - - - Post-Litigation investigation of judicial misconduct

Instruction to stop letters else be arrested - - - NOT told

No delay from arrest to plea described - - - 48 days (too long!)

Partial sentences printed - - - Jeffrey wrote full sentences

Wrote/said [type of communication not specified] - - - Pleading (motion) submitted (and served on defendant)

Partial reference to judicial misconduct allegations - - - Full specifics on record, involving more than Judge Tevrizian

Criminal case only ["causes" of civil cases not described] - - - Related to 3 civil cases

Never sought/obtained family statements - - - Family available

Misquotes Jeffrey's father - - - Father contacted the press

Defendant age 33 - - - Age 42

 

WHAT do the media omissions and distortions suggest?

 

1.           Judge Tevrizian's ties to MGM are hidden.

2.           MGM's primary owner gave $250K to a scholarship fund in Tevrizian's name, in 2002.  The timing and act of the pay out to the fund are not revealed.

3.           The FBI's professional ties to Jeffrey's civil defendant Gavin Debecker, Inc. are not revealed.

4.           Gavin Debecker, Inc.'s association with the US Marshal Service is not defined.

5.           Earlier (before the 1st visit by the FBI) documented allegations of judicial misconduct are not revealed.

6.           The full extent and context of judicial misconduct allegations remain hidden.

7.           Jeffrey was INSUBORDINATE to a [non-existent] FBI instruction; implied danger and/or instability.  Insubordination has implications, perhaps Jeffrey needed force to stop him...maybe an arrest?

8.           Jeffrey's EXONERATION for the September 1997 false arrest incident goes unreported...intentional?  The public is prejudiced against Jeffrey.

9.           The real causes for the litigation against CAA, MGM, et al - FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION - are not revealed.

10.       Lawful protected speech is alleged, in the public press, to be criminal threats, particularly before a grand jury decided on the issue of probable cause.  The grand jury was prejudiced against Jeffrey.

11.       Lack of prior legal action (by the US Marshals and FBI) against Jeffrey - for numerous later-alleged-as-threatening communications - is not revealed.  US Marshals may have thought the communications were within Jeffrey's rights, but Jeffrey's civil defendant-Gavin Debecker's associate - the FBI - may have been motivated to think otherwise.

 

Conspiracy?

 

ANALYSIS of the Proceedings for PREJUDICE reveals numerous examples of acts and omissions, obviously intentional, that prejudice the proceedings of US v. Jeffrey L. Clemens.

 

Five areas of blatant, manipulated prejudice:

 

   FBI Complaint  -  Indictment  - Discovery  -  Orders  - Published Opinion

 

If you have not figured it out yet, P R E J U D I C E is the strategy behind the judicial system achieving its desired outcomes, U N W R I T T E N  R U L E S are the quiet tactics at work every day to hide that fact from the public.

 

Remember the police allegations against Jeffrey Clemens?  Be careful, you might want to take cover, because the prejudice leaps out at you.

 

Factual Discrepancies include at least 10 self-discrepant sets of facts brought forth by those charging and prosecuting U.S. v. Clemens...no coincidence....

The TOP TEN Reasons NOT to trust "The Good Guys":

 

   The FBI "Instruction" That Never Was Nor Could Have Been

   The Lost Civil Defendants (or, where is Gavin Debecker, Inc.?)

   Judge or Security Expert

   The Invisible Addressee (Judge Snyder)

   The Case Before The Invisible Addressee

   Security Footnote or Editorialized Prejudice

   Whereabouts Unknown...Not Quite

   The LAPD May Be A Lot Of Things

   Disposition Status Unavailable...Really?

   Judge Takes Cues From Published OPINION

 

THE CONSPIRACY is no joke, for it cuts to the chase...read it!

 

..............................................................................................................

 

On April 18, 2005 an FBI agent approached Jeffrey in Hinsdale, Massachusetts, ostensibly in response to a February 12, 2005 letter to US District Court Judge Tevrizian, and stated "They have an open case on you", per Jeffrey.

 

At no time did the FBI or anyone else tell Jeffrey that if he sent another letter he would be arrested, per Jeffrey.

 

On May 12, 2005 Sargeant O'Hara of the Scituate, Massachusetts Police Department arrested Jeffrey for Disorderly Conduct, following a threat by O'Hara to send a summons for Impersonating a Private Investigator.

[See Case (5) for background information]

 

On May 13, 2005 Sargeant O'Hara offered a deal to Jeffrey - Plead Guilty on the Disorderly Conduct charge, pay $100, and the other two charges [of Unlicensed Private Detective and Criminal Harassment] will go away, per Jeffrey.  Jeffrey refused the offer.  Note: Sargeant O'Hara, who arrested Jeffrey the day before, also acted as a prosecutor in court.

 

On May 14, 2005 Jeffrey mailed a letter to Judge Tevrizian requesting an explanation for evidence of an apparent bribe.  A $250,000 scholarship fund was set up in 2002 by an employee of Jeffrey's civil defendant, in Judge Tevrizian's name.  Judge Tevrizian had recused himself from the civil case in 2000, with the assignment going to Judge Marshall.  Judge Snyder had dismissed the civil case in 2001, though Jeffrey has asserted that Judge Marshall should have handled the case, because Marshall had been assigned, and had dismissed without prejudice, the nearly identical case months earlier.

 

On May 25, 2005 Jeffrey is arrested at his parents' home in Ohio upon a warrant sought by the FBI in Los Angeles.  A hearing judge in US District Court in Toledo, Ohio, whereby the US Attorney argued that Jeffrey was dangerous and a flight risk, denied bail and ordered a mental evaluation.

 

The FBI Complaint (used to obtain an arrest warrant) alleges that Jeffrey was told by a Special FBI agent that if he sent another letter he would be arrested.  Jeffrey denies the instruction was ever given.

 

Over 40 days since the arrest and Jeffrey still sits in jail with no bail and no mental evaluation, with 21 days at Lucas County Jail in Ohio and subsequently more than 10 days at a federal facility in Milan, Michigan, and still more days in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

 

Jeffrey's hometown paper, the Sandusky Register, who broke the story on Jeffrey's surprise arrest, did not publish a Letter To The Editor pointing out Jeffrey's 30 day incarceration without bail and without an appearance in court where the arrest warrant was issued.  Apparently, violations of constitutional rights is not op-ed page worthy.  Despite a July 19 webmail citing the deficiencies in a July 19, 2005 article in the Lorain Morning Journal about Jeffrey, the Sandusky Register proceeded to print the same deficiencies in a July 20, 2005 article.  The Register identified reports from LA Staff as the source of the article's information (about Jeffrey's Not Guilty plea).  Presumeably, the information is sourced from the US District Court or the US Attorneys office in Los Angeles.

 

THE NEWSPAPERS FAIL OR REFUSE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC THAT JEFFREY WAS EXONERATED FOR A TRESPASSING CHARGE, THAT A FALSE ARREST FOR TRESPASSING WAS MADE, not by Creative Artists Agency but, BY A SECURITY AND THREAT MANAGEMENT FIRM, Gavin Debecker, Inc., WHO WAS SUED BY JEFFREY IN 1998 and AGAIN IN 2001 AND WHO ARE TIED TO THE CIVIL CASE IN WHICH JEFFREY IS ACCUSED OF A CRIME of mailing threatening communications.

 

THE FOLLOWING FACTS SHOULD MAKE US ALL WAKE UP AND SMELL THE STENCH OF MEDIA MANIPULATION...

 

DO a GOOGLE Search on "Jeffrey L. Clemens" and you will get only one hit pertaining to this criminal case, from LAObserved.com.  You will NOT see the article by the originating story-breaker, The LA Times, for they removed their on-line story after 2 weeks - in early June.  Access To The Courts has seen no related articles published in The LA Times since May, despite repeated articles in Jeffrey's hometown newspaper, derived from so-called LA staff writers, and in themselves very misleading and incomplete.

 

www.laobserved.com/archive/2005_05.html

 

Also seen, www.defamer.com/gossip/clemens/bydate , through a different search noting defamer.com, who has their own opinion about the story and who also provides a link to the LA Observed article.  Their lead-in paragraph contains information that only the FBI would know...Also, they note only CAA as Jeffrey's civil defendant, while the other defendants include the security and threat management firm Gavin Debecker, Inc., a professional associate and consultant to the FBI....

 

LAOberved.com's representation of the story of Jeffrey's arrest is deplorable, for someone chose to not only publish the Big Lie of the FBI (their article is entitled "They told him not to do that"), but to publish a misleading shortened excerpt of a written statement by Jeffrey...

 

"some guy is going to walk up behind you, wherever you may be, and proceed to 'lay your brains out on the ground'"

 

is PUBLISHED BY LAObserved.com, BUT Jeffrey's statement is actually:

 

"You should not worry or be concerned whatsoever that some guy is going to walk up behind you..." 

 

[Also not included is Jeffrey's statement that the judge and family were in no risk or danger, as "no harm" was wished upon them.  Jeffrey, a screenwriter, was merely referencing his latest work, Judgment Day, inspired by the civil cases noted herein.]

 

LAObserved.com has failed to respond to four e-mails (to their published address of tips@laobserved.com) requesting either the error be corrected or a reply be published.  Leaving this prejudicial and blatantly false information on the world wide web serves only one purpose...to prejudice the general public against Jeffrey L. Clemens and in favor of the law-breaking and ethics-violating judges involved in Jeffrey's civil cases.

 

WHO IS MANIPULATING THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF JEFFREY L. CLEMENS?  The LAobserved.com deception begs the question.  The answer is likely THOSE who benefit from such defamatory and prejudicial misperceptions: the accused judges, the accused-judge-abiding-FBI, and the accused-judge-friend-civil defendants.

 

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF MEDIA MANIPULATION...

 

The North County Times reported on the not guilty pleadings in US v. Clemens, but again, the press got the facts wrong...and who do you think benefits from such distortions and omissions?  Yes, the accusing (previously accused) judges Tevrizian, Snyder, and Keller.

 

COMMENT submitted in response to the July 19, 2005 story

 

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/19/news/state/71805182155.txt

 

reveals just how different a story reads when certain relevant facts are included after obviously being left out intentionally (by whom?...it would trace back to the FBI and US Attorneys).  It is an erroneous act to report that Jeffrey Clemens sued Creative Artists Agency for being escorted out the lobby...NOT TRUE...Jeffrey sued CAA, MGM, Gavin Debecker, Inc., et al for FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jeffrey finally arrived at a federal facility in San Bernardino, California in early July 2005.  Jeffrey appeared in court for the first time, in the proper jurisdiction (where the arrest warrant was issued), a whopping 48 days after his arrest, and was denied bail!  The pretext for the bail denial?  The Northampton Matter (Case 6), as argued by the US Attorney on July 12, 2005, indicated that Jeffrey was "dangerous".  The US Attorney had asserted that Jeffrey had plead No Contest to a Disorderly Conduct charge.  So, trumped up charges from the past, to which Jeffrey plead Not Guilty, and which never went to trial and were dismissed, are enough reason to hold an innocent accused man!

 

Northampton District Court documents received on July 22, 2005 clearly substantiate the Not Guilty pleas, and the court acceptance as such.

 

One should note that Jeffrey was bludgeoned by the actions of the police in Northampton in January 2002, necessitating hospital treatment and stitches for wounds.  An inoperative headlamp meant five trumped up criminal charges and a trip to the hospital for Jeffrey.

 

The Criminal Complaint in Northampton (and likewise the Application for Complaint submitted by an officer witness, yet unsigned) does not contain any factual basis for the five counts.

 

The Criminal Complaint contains no facts surrounding the injuries Jeffrey sustained during the arrest in Northampton, though the Docket Continuation sheet notes medical records moving back and forth with the hospital.

 

The Criminal Complaint provides no sequence of events as to what happened on January 2, 2002.  The Probable Cause for stopping Jeffrey near Northampton is not documented.  (Jeffrey was stopped for alleged Assault With a Deadly Weapon  - a Vehicle (in the parking lot of the MSP Barracks), a charge of which was never even prosecuted.)  One is led to speculation that Jeffrey: was driving drunk, hit someone with his car, injured himself, and fought with police officers!  THAT is the reasonable conclusion from the criminal counts in the Criminal Complaint.  And THAT could not be further from the truth.

 

We see in 2005 that truth DOES matter.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The ANALYSIS of Letters to Judge will betray the disfunctional command of the English language held by the FBI and US District Court, partners in a revenge kidnapping.

 

The February 12, 2005 Letter to Judge Tevrizian has finally surfaced, through discovery obtained by the incarcerated defendant.  What this editor has to ask "Just where are the threats?"  Note: Judge Tevrizian, according to FBI reports, contacted the US Marshal Service, who dispatched a marshal, accompanied by an FBI agent, to see and interview Jeffrey on April 18, 2005.  The FBI report - much to Jeffrey's favor and deep in details about Jeffrey's pending plan to pursue claims of judicial misconduct in the US District Court - is not yet released for publication.  Pending plans - arrest - incarceration - hmm, any connection?

 

JUST LOOK AT THE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE FBI on February 14 ... just two days after the letter to Judge Tevrizian.  Jeffrey states his concern that Judge Tevrizian's MGM stock may be an issue, while Jeffrey provides a copy of the February 12, 2005 Letter (to Judge Tevrizian) to the FBI.  The FBI most likely had possession of the so-called threatening letter of February 12 BEFORE the judge or court saw it!  What did the FBI do with that information ... and did the FBI take action BEFORE the judge or US Marshals?  The BIG LIE OF THE FBI suggests that the FBI took the lead, NOT the accused Judge Tevrizian, to address the February 12 letter, which would indicate that Judge Tevrizian was acting under false pretenses when he acted threatened.  THE BIG LIE OF THE FBI suggests that the judge and court had insufficient evidence - in testimony or otherwise - to substantiate an arrest.

 

The sole basis for arresting Jeffrey in May 2005 (and keeping him jailed for 150 days and counting) is 1) the February 12 Letter and 2) the fact that Jeffrey wrote another letter on May 14 (containing no threat whatsoever).  We have already been discussing the BIG LIE of the FBI in their Complaint to get Jeffrey arrested, claiming that Jeffrey was told that if he wrote another letter (after February 12) that he would be arrested.  Oddly, the detailed report of the April 18 FBI visit says NOTHING about telling Jeffrey that he would be arrested if he wrote another letter.

 

THE BIG LIE OF THE FBI - a key false statement in a Criminal Complaint used to obtain an arrest warrant - is a serious problem for arrested alleged Criminal Defendant Jeffrey, for the cover up of such a crime is often worse than the crime itself!  Lying in a criminal complaint is a crime.  Covering up that crime is also a crime.  Those doing the cover up are not those you hear about every day doing crimes, so a huge bias must be overcome in Jeffrey's case. 

 

Almost everything Jeffrey had earlier alleged of certain judges has been exemplified in this latest criminal matter, revealing behaviors warranting a public outcry.  Ordering a Mental Evaluation (that never took place).  Taking 48 days to first appear in the complaint-originating court.  Denying bail despite no evidence of being dangerous nor being a flight risk.  Denying a venue change request.  Making prejudicial and inflammatory comments about a long-term civil plaintiff who is subsequently arrested.

 

The May 14, 2005 Letter to Judge Tevrizian has surfaced, as well.  Jeffrey makes no threat whatsoever in the letter.  Jeffrey basically requests that Judge Tevrizian either 1) resign, 2) explain the money trail (from Jeffrey's civil defendant to a scholarship fund in the judge's name), or 3) commit suicide (the "honorable" thing).

 

These two letters constitute the sole factual basis for the arrest of Jeffrey on May 25, 2005.  The only US statute identified in the FBI Complaint, used to obtain an arrest warant, is US Code Title 18 Section 876...which describes a violation (under the section subtitled "Mailing Threatening Communications") as a mailed communication threatening physical injury or kidnapping.  Jeffrey never expressed or implied that he would do or would cause to happen, such acts.

 

The 5-page October 2003 Motion with 30 pages of Exhibits submitted and served by Jeffrey was "received but not filed" by the US District Court.  Jeffrey was denied legal access to address issues in the court.

 

The May 2005 Motion - Mailed and Served - provides 35 pages of links, ties, associations, and relationships between US District Court judges and Jeffrey's civil defendants - it was also received but not filed.  Though mailed the day before his arrest in May, the motion largely reflected the content of a motion submitted and served in November 2004 in the 9th Circuit...that motion was also received but not filed.  MGM attorneys were thus informed of Jeffrey's knowledge of MGM ties to judges in the US District Court...Jeffrey has been detained for over 6 months by associates of those judges tied to MGM...detained with false pretexts...detained to keep, not threats, but the public eye away.  Judges are public servants and they are obliged to have our eyes on them.

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

NOTE: The following timeline describes the pre-conditions and lead up to the arrest of May 25, 2005:

 

February 2005 - Letter to Judge Tevrizian re Inquiry about apparent bribe (also sent to Congressman Sensenbrenner and the FBI with a cover letter)

January 2005 - 2nd letter to Rep. Sensenbrenner re Judicial Misconduct

October 2004 - Letter to the FBI re Judicial Misconduct

September 27, 2004 - Petition to the US House Judiciary Committee (directed to Chairman Sensenbrenner)

Spring 2004 - Letter to the US Senate Judiciary Committee

Fall 2003 - Letter to US Attorneys re Misconduct in the court

October 2003 - Motion of Fraud Upon the Court submitted; rejected/not filed

 

Jeffrey has basically alleged:

 

that US judges have violated Title 18 US Code Sections 201, 1512, and 203...

 

bribery, tampering, and conflict of interest. 

 

The most perplexing questions involve the closeness of some of the judges to the civil defendants and the roundabout way the civil case was assigned to several different judges...with adverse rulings (to the plaintiff) then made by a judge with very close ties to one or more of the defendants.

 

PETITIONS to the US House Judiciary Committee (regarding judicial misconduct)

 

Access To The Courts requested, via a published e-mail address, information about the process of submitting Petitions to the US House Judiciary Committee.  No response has been received (in over 3 months).

 

Jeffrey Clemens submitted a Petition, of misconduct regarding Judges Tevrizian, Snyder, and Keller in US District Court (Los Angeles), in September 2004 and sent a follow-on letter in January 2005.  No response of any kind has ever been received.

 

If the US House Judiciary Committee had merely responded to or acknowledged receipt of Jeffrey's Petition, Jeffrey would not be sitting in jail for 5 months and counting.  Jeffrey had reverted to direct letters in February and May 2005 to Judge Tevrizian to obtain an explanation of an apparent bribe.  Those letters were used as pretexts to arrest Jeffrey.

 

Where is our Legislative oversight of the Judicial branch?  Certainly, no one is going out on a limb to make sure our trusted judiciary is working properly, as evidenced by apparent inattention (or ill-attention) to the serious allegations brought forth by Jeffrey Clemens.

 

Legislative oversight of the Judiciary is missing when it comes to actually investigating complaints of judicial misconduct...Judge Dickran Tevrizian has A LOT AT STAKE...or rather, the USC Law School's "Dickran Tevrizian Trustee Chair" has a lot at stake.

 

Remember, Jeffrey, in court documents and his Petition to the sleeping heads in Congress, identified a $250,000 gift in 2002 from the Lincy Foundation (which is tied to - owned by - the Tracinda Corporation, majority owner of MGM, whose chairman is a friend of Judge Tevrizian, who himself owns stock in MGM), a year after Judge Snyder (former attorney to MGM) dismissed Jeffrey's lawsuit, originally assigned to Judge Tevrizian, against MGM and others.  The $250,000 gift established the Dickran Tevrizian Fund, seed money for the Dickran Tevrizian Trustee Chair in Law at USC.

 

Do politics and personal reputations take priority over the integrity of the judiciary?  That same judiciary helped kidnap a complainant, while illegally and immorally detaining him for the benefit of rich, vested interests - the lions.  Those "lie ons" are sick.  They lie on and on and on, while our elected legislators spectate.

 

In an Open Letter to the Three Little Judges...

 

In light of your prejudicial statements to the FBI, the prior documented and as of yet unexplained appearance of judicial misconduct, the judge-prompted criminal behavior of the FBI to achieve an arrest warrant, the disregard for the lives and reputation of Jeffrey's parents, the lack of any threat (of injury or death) in any of Jeffrey's writings, and the ongoing judicial dishonesty and false pretexts used to detain Jeffrey, there are only two options for you:

 

1) Resign, or

2) Explain your questionable conduct on the open record.

 

The US Attorneys and the FBI orchestrated the press releases about Jeffrey's arrest on May 25, 2005...to The LA Times, The Lorain Morning Journal, and The Sandusky Register (the hometown paper).  The press release was actually a copy of the Complaint submitted to the court to obtain an arrest warrant.  But the press stories (that is, the Complaint) failed to explain the real reason for the arrest, because they failed to mention the statements made by Mr. Keller to the FBI weeks before the arrest.

 

The statements by Mr. Keller explain why Jeffrey was arrested, NOT the comments by Judge Tevrizian.  Judge Tevrizian's published comments, derived from the FBI Complaint, reflected intelligence (though, a bit of play-acting...the FBI needed a recent "victim", because Jeffrey had not communicated with Keller for years (since February 2004), and Tevrizian was willing), while Keller's hidden comments reflected his own ignorance, prejudice, and bias.

 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN (Jeffrey writes)

 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 2 (Jeffrey's brother...)

 

OUTCOME of Case (8): Not forecastable, since Due Process does not seem to be a right recognized by the US Attorneys or the US Courts.

 

(9) Jonathan A. Clemens v. Gavin Debecker, Inc.

U.S. District Court - California District Western Division (Los Angeles)

re Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Theft of Intellectual Property

 

COMPLAINT...hidden agendas, a falsified FBI Complaint to obtain an arrest warrant, no search warrant, theft of private information related to civil matters, and more than a little for the corporation to explain.

 

PRE-TRIAL CASE STATUS (in Power v. Truth)

 

5/25/05     Arrest - Based on FBI Complaint with a key false statement

5/27/05     Bail - Denied re Dangerous and Flight Risk; Mental Eval ordered

7/12/05     Bail - Denied re Northampton Matter; Dangerous and Nomadic

7/28/05     Bail - Denied Motion re repeated letters! (despite countering evidence in the Northampton Matter to US Attorney argument of 7/12/05)

Note: Mental Eval ordered in Toledo, OH never accomplished

8/16/05     Recusal - In Submission (undecided as of 8/25/05) Motion re Public Defender wants out, believing that she works too close to the judges and US attorneys involved, believing that she can not adequately represent Jeffrey, believing (rightly) that neither the US Attorneys Office in Los Angeles or the District Court in Los Angeles should be on Jeffrey's case; as of about 9/14/05 the Public Defender's recusal is approved; Jeffrey remains in custody with no attorney, while en route to Las Vegas for a venue hearing.

9/21/05     Recusal - Denied re Motion (for venue change); The case is now assigned back to the same US District Court (Los Angeles) where judicial misconduct allegations take a back seat to accused-judge-induced FBI lies to the court...the court where Judge Snyder should have recused herself for her relationship to the civil defendant in Jeffrey's case.  Judge Mahan in Las Vegas stated in open court that any prejudiced or otherwise affected judge would recuse oneself...you would think!  Hello, Judge Snyder?

AS OF 10/21/05 Jeffrey's newly assigned "outside" Public Defender has not yet provided a Notice of Appearance in the US District Court - Central Division (Los Angeles)...neither has a Notice of Appeal been indicated on the case docket in Los Angeles...(for an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the decision to deny a judge recusal motion that put the matter in front of a Las Vegas judge).  REMEMBER, it has been THREE MONTHS since Jeffrey's second Public Defender took initial steps to recuse herself and move the case to a less prejudicial venue...AND STILL NO FINAL DECISION as to the appropriate venue for the case.  Are there any constitutional issues here?  Well, there is nothing constitutional about a kidnapping.

11/1/05     Change of Venue - Denied by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals.  The case is now assigned to the US District Court in Los Angeles, where at least one judge thinks Jeffrey is "homicidal", while several other judges have repeatedly denied or rejected Jeffrey's motions to consider evidence of misconduct or fraud, while some have chosen to rule on Jeffrey's civil matters despite serious conflicts of interest with the civil defendant(s).  See the published OPINION below.

 

 

11/7/05     OPINION (of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) published!

Jeffrey L. Clemens stands accused (actually, sits in jail, accused) and the court decides to publish their OPINION, before Jeffrey is ever tried or convicted!  The implications of this questionable act are enormous.  The court has essentially leglislated from the bench, since the published opinion establishes new case law...case law that conveniently benefits the accused judges in the Clemens matter, case law that ostensibly affirms the independence of the judiciary with protection from alleged threats, BUT case law that actually misconstrues and misstates the facts in the underlying case, misapplies its referenced case citations, and projects a conclusion that defends the malice carried out against the defendant.

 

12/13/05     Bail - Denied re Motion For Reconsideration

 

1/6/06         Plea Agreement Proposed - Deferred until 2/7/06, which provides time for a Pre-Sentencing (Probation) Report to be prepared...that is where the cumulative 10 years of prejudicial police misconduct is presented in a way most advantageous for the US Attorneys...for example, the Northamption and Scituate matters are included in the report, even though the police misconduct in those situations included a complaint to internal affairs and a complaint to the Board of Selectmen of Scituate, as well as being open (i.e., not through the court, yet!).  In a related Discovery document, it was found that despite Jeffrey's EXONERATION for a September 1997 arrest by pseudo police officer William Michaelis of Gavin Debecker, Inc., the FBI saw fit to interview William Michaelis, who had just about nothing but lies to tell, anything to help his fellow "police".  The interview explains why the September 1997 incident was statused, at the July 28, 2005 bail hearing, as DISPOSITION STATUS UNAVAILABLE...the FBI and US Attorneys do not want the US District Court judges to know that Jeffrey was exonerated, and William Michaelis was shown to be a crook.

 

Despite the following new factors in the bail decision, the Magistrate Judge Denied BAIL on 12/13/05Access To The Courts was there!

 

1) several new character reference letters,

2) a willingness to wear GPS monitoring equipment,

3) identification of judicial errors in the 7/28/05 bail hearing,

Failing to codify the Order Denying Bail and failure to consider alternatives.

4) a description of the Governing Legal Principles for granting Bail,

Government has the burden (of proving "danger") - and it is not trivial, Evidence supporting allegations have the LEAST WEIGHT, Favor Bail over Detention (afterall, reasonable bail is a US Constitutional Right), etc.

5) concerns of a rights-violating lack of access to legal counsel, and

6) clarifications of communications' intent on seeking (official) legal redress.

Note: The FBI Complaint and later Counts fail to mention that so-called threatening statements were contained in bona fide MOTIONS to the court; for some reason, complete copies of the motions were not made available.

 

Judge Wistrich, who denied bail on 7/28/05 as well as 12/13/05, exhibited PREJUDICE AND LOGICAL DISTORTION in his restatement of the so-called threat...

 

"Unless I win my case, I will have [an urge] to start shooting judges."

 

The actual statement (written in a rejected Motion in October 2003) reads...

 

"Unless I receive a full, fair, and impartial review, I will continue to feel an incredible urge to 'start shooting judges'".

 

Jeffrey's only "threat" is that he would no longer feel an urge to shoot judges if he received a full, fair, and impartial review - which is what he has a right to receive.  Who ever said anything about "winning"? -  Did Jeffrey? No, but the judge, in a hearing TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT, said he did.

 

Governing Legal Principles dictate that strength (weight) of evidence in a criminal allegation is the LEAST IMPORTANT consideration for determining BAIL, yet Judge Wistrich repeatedly insisted on the strength of the evidence against Jeffrey - which the judge had restated incorrectly (as documented above) - as the reason to continue detention.  Absurd.  The judge has to misstate the facts and then misapply the law with regard to the weight of the muddled facts, just to keep a presumed innocent man in jail.  Prejudice?

 

One might say that Judge Wistrich had no business even presiding over a bail hearing in Jeffrey's case, but of course, the Court of Appeals thought it appropriate.  (See their Published OPINION about venue, then again read about Judge Wistrich's prejudice.)

 

2/7/06     Plea Offer - Acceptance re EXTORTION to get out of jail

 

Nearly 100 days of sheer delay (as Jeffrey sat in jail) since the recusal motion was prepared at the end of July, all to allow Jeffrey's second public defender to jump ship and to allow the courts to decide what they had already decided, to hear the matter in the court that has exhibited horrific prejudice against Jeffrey, in the court where PREJUDICE obviously rules.  The delay has also added 100 days to the US Attorney case preparation, while subtracting 100 days from Jeffrey's trial preparation!  It's only fair...(if you are misguided agents of the US out to cover one's ass in a false criminal charge matter...)

 

The Ninth Circuit of Appeals was, as of October 27, 2005, deciding Jeffrey's fate...the same Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that has previously considered, and rejected or denied, SIX appeals by Jeffrey L. Clemens since 2000 in his civil cases.  Those appeals related to conduct, or rather misconduct, of the same judges now touted by the FBI and US Attorneys to have been victimized by so-called threatening communications from Jeffrey.

 

One is left to wonder, did the six civil appeals pose any threat to the judges??????

 

Did the Notice of Pending Lawsuit (indirectly linked to Judge Tevrizian, an alleged victim) sent a week before Jeffrey's arrest pose a threat?

 

Did the ongoing US Congressional investigation into judicial misconduct in the US District Court pose a threat?

 

Did the Motion of Fraud Upon the Court mailed the day before Jeffrey's arrest, and known by the FBI in April to be forthcoming, pose a threat?

 

The new case law (published on November 7, 2005) essentially says that a civil plaintiff can be accused and arrested for a crime of threatening judges, when the civil plaintiff had previously raised issues of judicial misconduct after the civil litigation had ended (by order or settlement), and then tried by the peers (in the same court) of the judges accused of misconduct, when there is a documented cloud of suspicion of misconduct hanging over the peers of the judge trying the criminal case.  HOW DOES THAT EVEN APPEAR TO BE FAIR?

 

Note that some of the judges, not under supposed threat by the criminal defendant, have been implicated by the civil plaintiff in the judicial misconduct.

 

The new case law also redefines the "normal course of litigation" to include the non-normal post litigation investigation into judicial misconduct.

 

    This new case law diminishes the

    accountability of the judiciary, thus 

      expanding the powers of the judiciary,

    in violation of the US Constitution.

 

The opinion's concluding paragraph reveals the truth while telling a lie...

 

Per Judges T.G. Nelson, Thomas, and Tallman in their concluding paragraph, "we must be especially careful not to allow threats of violence to succeed in altering the normal course of litigation."

 

Did those judges say "litigation"?  The term can apply to civil or criminal matters.  This is a criminal matter.  It is important to ask - after reading the Published Opinion, were there threats alleged to have occurred during the current criminal matter?  [Answer: NO]

 

If there have been no threats made during this criminal matter, why is the Court of Appeals publishing an opinion about threats?

 

The Court of Appeals should have been assessing the inflammatory and prejudicial comments made by District Judge William D. Keller BEFORE Jeffrey was even arrested...for one (a reasonable person) might believe that Jeffrey could not get a fair trial in a court connected to a judge like Keller...that is why the Published Opinion completely ignores the prejudicial comments of Judge Keller...a way to obtain US Constitution defying case law that reduces the accountability of federal judges.

 

Facts were submitted in the underlying motion (for venue change) that establishes that alleged threatening communications by the civil plaintiff turned criminal defendant):

 

firstly, addressed issues of JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (and not issues or claims in the original civil suit),

secondly, occurred AFTER litigation had ended and the civil cases had been CLOSED and AFTER evidence of judicial misconduct had been discovered, and,

thirdly, NEVER made demands to alter prior judicial decisions, that is, never made demands "altering the normal course of litigation."

 

The October 2003 Motion of Fraud Upon The Court - rejected and NOT filed, with a stated reason that the civil case was CLOSED - presented the basis for claims of judicial misconduct, itself a bona fide motion to the court...a single sentence has been noted (by the FBI and US Attorneys) and used as a basis for accusing the claimant of mailing threatening communications, only it took the agents a year and a half to make a criminal charge.  What is the Statute of Limitations on such a charge?  One year, yet the claimant is accused over a year after the fact and forced into jail, untried!

 

The question put before the appeals court: Should the decision denying a motion to recuse the US District Court judges in the Central District of California be reversed?  The question does not, and should not, address the guilt of the defendant with respect to alleged threats.

 

The question NOT put before the appeals court, yet answered by the appeals court Should threats against judges be allowed to influence the normal course of litigation?  The question (and published answer) presumes the guilt of the defendant, while ignoring the issue put before the Court of Appeals...whether or not evidence of prejudicial judges, and other information provided by the appellant and Writ of Mandamus seeker, should prompt recusal of the District Court in Los Angeles.  Well, judges, does it?

 

READ this piece of work...your taxes paid for it:

 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0575631P.pdf

 

 

BIGotry PROBLEMS with the OPINION...

 

·             Fact of PUBLICATION is Prejudicial to the detained, untried defendant

·             Authorities cited, but not tied to defendant's case (For example, the Bauman Factors and 28 U.S.C. S 455(a) are cited but ignored in the argument.)

·             The court made a distinction between 3 and all of the judges...though documented allegations of judicial misconduct (and thus possible partiality) extend beyond the 3.  Additionally, several different lower court judges have DENIED Bail, even when pretexts for denying bail have been subsequently countered by new evidence.

·             The prejudicial and inflammatory comments (cited in the recusal motion and "appeal") by USDC Judge William Keller were literally ignored by the court in its opinion.  The court directly stated that no evidence that might give rise to questioning the "impartiality of the judges" was provided!...plainly an inaccurate statement.

·             The concluding paragraph addresses the preservation of the normal course of litigation, while the matter before the court was a criminal (venue) matter and not a civil litigation matter.

·             TWO of the three judges providing the opinion had previously dismissed civil appeals by the same civil plaintiff turned criminal defendant...which might explain why the opinion addressed litigation.  Note: All of the alleged threatening communications addressed judicial misconduct, NOT the original civil claims or issues, AFTER the litigation cases closed.  Note: Jeffrey Clemens was arrested and detained for five months for communicating with JUDGE TEVRIZIAN - whom never had nor never would have ruled or directed Jeffrey's civil case, thus Jeffrey's communications could NEVER be construed to be an attempt to alter the normal course of litigation.

          NOTE: Such litigation was actually SETTLED (per a written agreement)

          in December 2002, 10 months BEFORE alleged threatening

          communications began.

 

 

 

One might as well hang posters around the court, perhaps throughout the federal system, with Judge Keller's prejudicial comments [stated above] plastered on their face.  One could use "homicidal", "mental problem", "prison time", and "pursue vigorously" in the same sentence as "Jeffrey Clemens"...OR, one could use "appalling idiot" in the same sentence as "Judge Keller".  Keller, the judge with a grudge.  Is there a presidential award for that political whore?

 

The defending attorney DOES have a good point - that Jeffrey L. Clemens can NOT get a fair trial in the US Disctrict Court of Los Angeles.  And, that is why he is on his way back there after the ridiculous September 21 ruling!

 

The Magistrate Judge who denied bail on 7/28/05 stated that he had concerns that 1) Jeffrey wrote letters when he was told he would be arrested if he wrote another letter (as falsely stated by the FBI****), 2) Jeffrey had "not cooled down" since 2003 (during a time which Jeffrey was uncovering evidence of misconduct...remember, judge, Jeffrey was a civil plaintiff), and 3) Jeffrey was "obsessed with the Creative Artist case".  Not a single rationale for why Jeffrey was considered dangerous enough to deny bail.  To add insult to injury, Jeffrey was not allowed to speak at his bail hearing.

 

Judge Marshall, herself intimately involved in Jeffrey's civil case judge assignment debacle of 2000-2001 - having been at one time assigned to Jeffrey's civil case, is now the chief judge of the US District Court - Los Angeles AND the judge supposedly assigned to decide Jeffrey's attorney Recusal motion of August 16, 2005, in a criminal case brought on the heels of Jeffrey's accusations of judicial misconduct in his civil case!  What?  Well, the motion (case?) is apparently going to the federal judges in Las Vegas, Nevada...all to give an appearance of non-prejudice.  Hey, an unwritten rule at work!  How are federal judges in Las Vegas any less prejudicial than those in Los Angeles?  Not the right question, because the judges "appear" less prejudicial there.  The August 16 motion (of defending attorney recusal and venue change) gets decided on September 21...Jeffrey must again face 36 days in jail WITHOUT adequate legal representation.

 

**** The FBI report, outlining the discussion of April 18, 2005 with Jeffrey in Hinsdale Massachusetts before the arrest of May 25, a comprehensive and "good" report per Jeffrey's own words upon seeing the report for the first time the week of July 25, did NOT state that the FBI agent(s) had told Jeffrey that he would be arrested if he wrote another letter to a judge...a Los Angeles FBI statement in a later FBI Complaint, used to obtain a warrant to arrest Jeffrey, stated that such a comment was made, thus necessitating an arrest!!!!!

 

The FBI has some serious explaining to do...to resolve factual discrepancies and to explain how a man was brought into custody (and held in violation of his US Constitutional Rights for over 60 days, at which time the US Attorney proposed a new pretext for detaining Jeffrey).  The Letter Not Sent can add insight and facts.

 

Note: The FBI knew on 4/18/05 that Jeffrey had submitted a Petition to the House Judiciary Committee and that Jeffrey intended to file a Motion on Fraud Upon the Court, a motion later rejected and not filed by Judge Snyder, to whom Jeffrey is accused of mailing threatening communications...in 2003!

The same Judge Snyder who used to represent Jeffrey's civil defendant, who actually served as an attorney for the civil defendant, MGM.  Judge Tevrizian owns stock in MGM, as can be seen in the investment income item 161 in his recent Financial Disclosure Statement.  It so happens, the FBI Complaint accuses Jeffrey of mailing threatening communications to Judge Tevrizian, a judge who never ruled on Jeffrey's civil case, but stood to benefit from Snyder's dirty work.  Detention, is there anyone asking why or anyone giving an answer?  [Click on "Detention" link above for a printable chart:]

 

     

 

WARNING!

 

Submittals to the Office of Inspector General (OIG), of complaints of misconduct within the Department of Justice (DOJ) - including the FBI - may be ignored, mishandled, and/or fraudulently concealed.

 

Complaints to oig.hotline@usdoj.gov should request acknowledgement AND be accompanied by an inquiry to a local or regional DOJ office.

 

In the case of the September 18, 2005 Complaint to the DOJ OIG Hotline (as solicited on the USDOJ website), FBI Agent Ingerd Sotelo (who submitted false statements to the court in order to obtain an arrest warrant against Jeffrey L. Clemens) was given an exemption from having to act within the law.  As of April 20, 2006, the Complaint of September 18, 2005 is "unknown" to the DOJ.  Amazing, since two follow-on submittals - each with additional evidence - have also been found to be "unknown" to the DOJ, according to a local DOJ agent inquiring of the Hotline personnel.

 

How do three submittals to the OIG Hotline result in no knowledge, case number, or investigation into alleged misconduct, especially as no messages were received indicating a failure to deliver the messages to the Hotline?

 

[Send a complaint to oighotline@usdoj.gov (no "." between oig and hotline) and you will receive a delivery error message.  Send a complaint to oig.hotline@usdoj.gov and you will receive nothing - nothing for those federal tax dollars we pay!]

 

The September 18, 2005 Complaint had noted simple inconsistencies, in documents submitted by the FBI, that warrant an investigation, inconsistencies that substantiate perjury.

 

The US Department of Juctice may have an integrity problem.

 

DEATH TO JUDGE TEVRIZIAN!

 

According to the Daily Journal - March 14, 2005 (in "

Justice System Ponders Ways
to Protect All" by Don Ray, staff writer), US District Court Judge Dickran Tevrizian had "received death threats recently."  "I've got two right now, " Tevrizian said.

 

US District Court Judge Dickran Tevrizian is in charge of security for the federal court in the Roybal Building in downtown Los Angeles, according the the Daily Journal.

 

In a March 9, 2005 interview with FBI Agent Ingerd Sotelo, Judge Tevrizian made no mention of his position of responsibility for security for the courthouse AND made no mention of Death Threats against his person.  Judge Tevrizian did mention a letter received from Jeffrey L. Clemens (as already posted on this website).  The LA Times reported no death threats to Judge Tevrizian, or any other US District Judge in Los Angeles, in 2005.

 

US District Court Judge Dickran Tevrizian may have an honesty problem, despite his Senior Status on the bench and a USC Law scholarship fund (loaded with $250,000 from Jeffrey Clemens' civil defendant) in the judge's name...the fund, and an apparent bribe, was the subject of the Clemens letter.

 

PREJUDICE FROM COAST TO COAST

 

The commonality between Case (5) in Scituate, Massachusetts on the east coast and Case (8) in Los Angeles, California on the west coast is too large to ignore...

 

TIMEFRAME                    May 2005

ALLEGED VICTIM            Federal Employee (Agent/Judge)

RELATED MATTER           Civil Case CV-01-00125 (under investigation)

INVOLVED PARTY            FBI (to whom Jeffrey initially went for help)

REFERENCED FACTS        "Hollywood Incident" (involving civil defendant)

MENTAL STATE                Mental Problem (alleged and/or implied)

PREJUDICE                     Northampton (Case (6)) re Disorderly Conduct

ARREST METHOD             False Pretext (basically insubordination)

 

Wait!  Commonality between Scituate and Los Angeles?  What does that mean?  Jeffrey is the only commonality, right?  Not quite.  Our U.S. Constitutional Rights are common to both cases.  Police, police methods, and police access to arrest records are common, too.  Both occurred while the plaintiff was conducting an investigation into misconduct in the court in the civil case.  Both involve claims that Jeffrey was insubordinate and would not obey the alleged directive statements of the police (being told the discussion about an unfounded allegation was done AND being told he would be arrested if he sent another letter).  Both involve constitutionally protected activity (free speech, access to the courts, and having protection against those bearing false witness).  Both involve accusations by the police themselves (as opposed to private citizens).  Both involve references to a matter in Northampton in 2002, wherein Jeffrey was bludgeoned by a police officer, and wherein an allegation of Disorderly Conduct was made...such being the initial arrest and charge in Scituate on May 12, 2005 AND such being the primary issue at a (denied) bail hearing in Los Angeles on July 12, 2005.  Both involve the activity of the FBI.  Bottom line...the police are prejudiced, accustomed to being prejudiced, and blinded by their prejudice, compromising their basic duty to serve and respect the rights of ALL citizens.

 

ACCESS TO THE COURTS...the unwritten rules

 

As the American justice system is based on an adversarial process, with challenging parties each instilled with a will to prevail, and supposedly with determinations made by uninterested and independent judges, how is fundamental fairness and justice assured?  It seems self-evident that such a system would be inherently fair, right?  The system is fine if all of the rules are written, capable of being shared and understood by all.  But, not all of the rules are written, for the actual system has evolved a set of subtle unwritten rules.

 

When a Pro Se litigant utilizes the civil justice system, he or she can read the civil rules, research the law and the facts, and acquire case citations.  The Pro Se is highly capable of following the rules.  The problem arises when the Pro Se's pursuit of justice encounters the unwritten rules in action.  The case history of Jeffrey illustrates this reality very well.

 

Jeffrey L. Clemens has been charged with crimes over 6 times since the fateful September 8, 1995, when the Bellevue Police Department "arrested" Jeffrey for harassment when Jeffrey pursued answers from the department on a complaint against an officer.  Most charges have stemmed from alleged crimes against the police.  Though not charged in 1995, as discovered later, that little known "arrest record" becomes a convenient excuse to heap the prejudices of the system onto the innocent, as Jeffrey has experienced.

 

The crowning example of police-misconduct-victim-turned-criminal-defendant, so illustrated with The Bellevue Matter (Case 1), is now The Northampton Matter (Case 6).  Newly acquired information as of July 12, 2005 indicates the use of misdocumented pleadings on five trumped up criminal charges in 2002 (whereby a trial never occurred and guilty findings were never achieved) as a pretext for refusing bail to Jeffrey L. Clemens three years later.  On July 12, 2005, Jeffrey L. Clemens was deemed "dangerous" and "nomadic" and denied bail, solely on the basis of the Northampton Matter (Case 6).  The US Attorney insisted that Jeffrey had plead No Contest to a Disorderly Conduct charge in 2002.  Not true, Jeffrey plead Not Guilty.  Why did Jeffrey sit in jail for 48 days without this assertion by the US Attorney?  The unwritten rules can explain it.

 

Jeffrey has never been on trial, thus he has never been proven guilty of anything with which he has ever been arrested or charged.  Said another way, the prosecution has never faced being proven wrong.  Any opportunity for abuse here?  Plenty.

 

Here are a few of the unwritten rules of the justice system that have sprung out of the documentation and analysis of the case history of Jeffrey L. Clemens:

 

1) Maintain appearances of propriety, fairness, deliberation, and diligence...above maintaining their actuality.

2) Preserve the system above that of non-system entities (like Pro Se parties).

3) Practice indifference, thus accept complacency.

4) Obstruct justice (i.e., delay, impede, cover, conceal, etc,) through the use of excuses or pretexts, in order to maintain appearances.

5) Lie, if certain of not getting caught, to achieve desired outcomes or appearances.

6) Criminalize critics of or challengers to the system, especially the non-players (the players being lawyers, judges, police, clerks, and the like).

7) Never acknowledge misconduct within the system (by a player).

8) Assimulate, to the greatest extent possible, the behaviors, habits, beliefs, and appearances of those players that have come before.

9) Craft criminal allegations against non-system entities whenever convenient or possible, so as to prejudice the system against the entities.

10) Base allegations against non-system entities (such as suspects or pulled-over drivers) on the person's arrest history, inventing and reporting circumstances in a believable fashion, consistent with the prior record, to justify criminal charges.

11) Instill fear whenever possible, as through laying out worst-case scenarios for those accused, making false arrests, providing incomplete or misleading information to the media, promoting judge reputations (as "tough", "trending" toward some undesirable trait, etc.), pushing the plea bargain game (like a drug-pusher promotes his "solution"), or not pushing the plea bargain game - leaving resolution to the vagaries and risks of trial.

12) Market attorney skills that are different or supposedly superior and better than the competition's, yet charge the same outlandish prices for services.

13) Argue the law (when facts are deficient, false, or even abundant) before arguing the facts; argue facts when the law is weak, as in a false arrest situation, but one can simply pretend that the law is stronger.  By arguing law, one leaves current specific issues to the past general beliefs of those who wrote the laws...the knowledge and bases of law makers become unarguable, thus forcing the matter to appeal.  Fortunately, appeals are expensive, so most lower court decisions can go unchallenged.

14) Leave it for appeal, if making fair and honest decisions is too difficult or compromises any of the unwritten rules.

15) Limit the information provided in appeals, in order to prejudice the appellate court.  For example, leave out facts (in the lower court record) that would otherwise counter the prejudice.

16) Conduct off-record meetings in chambers with judges in pending matters to the greatest extent possible, for the purpose of pre-determining outcomes of hearings.

17) Utilize ambiguity in transition periods in court proceedings, such as transfers of jurisdiction or changes of counsel, to perform acts and omissions that prejudice proceedings against criminal defendants or civil parties.

18) Promote false notions to the greatest extent possible, including threats of prosecution and illogical rulings.

19) Omit subtle details in court proceedings to the greatest extent possible, including incomplete and/or inaccurate minutes on the docket.

20) Include prejudicial statements in sealed documents (typically CJA forms, Violation Reports, and certain Orders), such as unprovable allegations and hearsay statements.

 

It is the specific premise of accesstothecourts.org that the justice system has some very serious systemic problems, that many of the system's players have no intention of fixing them, and that Jeffrey L. Clemens has had the unfortunate experience of having to deal with the injustice of the self-preserving reflex reactions of the system's players.

 

SUMMARY

 

To date, Jeffrey L. Clemens has never been on trial for a crime.  The police have consistently made fictitious allegations and charges, preferring to get in as many digs as possible with Jeffrey when given the opportunity.  (Ahh, the computer age and instant access to prior arrest records!)

 

All this since the fateful day of October 25, 1994 when a Bellevue Police Officer just couldn't hold his anger back...what's with all that anger displayed by police, anyway?  Well, Dennis Richards (perjury master) and Michel Pentony (perjury master coverup artist) of the Bellevue Police Department can tell you...they do not like being challenged and held accountable...and that is a disgrace.

 

To be clear, Access To The Courts is not insinuating that all police officers are angry, or bad, or incompetent, or dishonest.  There are systemic problems identified, whose fault lies primarily in the dereliction of the courts in condoning or ignoring misconduct.  Read this Second Statement to Honorable Turchin in US District Court to see the assertion of a systemic problem in the courts.  The Third Statement identifies the FBI as a player in the mask the misconduct game.  The Fourth Statement identifies the Scituate police as players, too.

 

The accused judges and the FBI agent or agents who conspired to arrest a man under false pretenses, outlined herein, deserve to have the light turned bright on their every official action - past, present, and future.  Their actions indicate prejudice, dereliction, and dishonesty, and spell c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n.

 

Read this PRESS RELEASE for information on the "Citizens REACT Report".

 

It's here, the Public Version of the Citizens REACT Report.

 

Look for the Congressional Version to be released on June 11, 2007.

 

PREJUDICE IN ACTION - Special Section

 

On April 10, 2007, US District Court Judge David A. Katz instructed his clerk to hand to Defendant Jeffrey Clemens a copy of the following email inquiry (to US Probation Department Supervisor Eric Corns on March 25, 2007), in open court, for reasons other than to administer justice.  Defendant Jeffrey Clemens has nothing to do with the email.  The email was not read into the public record, nor was a copy given to Mr. Clemens to keep, nor was it included in the March 30 Supervision Report prompting the court summons to this hearing.  Note the reference to the internet (website) in the email and then consider that this hearing was to decide a March 1 request to access the internet for the sake of legal defense work - denied, of course.

 

Eric Corns,

 

You have previously received an email inquiry from me regarding procedural matters, with your answer refering me to the probation department's website.

 

I have one more question.  What procedure may I follow to file a complaint of misconduct against your probation officer Ruth Granberry?  Can I submit a complaint to you?  The court?  The US Attorneys (asleep in the matter against Jeffrey Clemens, as Ruth Granberrey and others have managed to convey charges and criminal proceedings against Jeffrey without the attorneys' help, and without the inconvenience of following the law)?  Who and where?

 

Ruth Granberry is a black person, aka, an African-American.   Is there immunity for someone having come from a race that has experienced a lot of prejudice?  The prejudice displayed in the Clemens proceedings - especially that pointed out to you in my previous email - is a sad story of another form of prejudice, prejudice born from ignorance and the compelling need for public servants to cover their misdeeds.  I have no respect for Ms. Granberry.  She has betrayed her race and betrayed her oath to public service.  As heard somewhere sometime "May the nigger bitch rot in hell."  I do not know where or when I heard that line, but it sure sounds appropriate here...that is, to exercise pure prejudice, since you public servants do it all the time.  Isn't it the probation department's job to assert the proper behavior for the citizenry?  Well, you have done a lousy job, I believe.

 

I will be awaiting your clarification as to the complaint procedure involving one of your employees.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jonathan A. Clemens

 

"You are a racist."

"Don't ever bother calling this house again!"

 - Marilyn J. Clemens (mother of an apparent racist and mother of his brother - who spent 20 months in federal detention and counting, because an FBI Agent knew how to lie to get him arrested and other public servants knew how to prejudice the judicial proceedings to keep him there!)

 

The Independent OBSERVER has identified the practice of prejudice by public servants in several issues...

 

December 14, 2005 [Judge Wistrich* rewrites the facts]

January 9, 2006 [Plea Agreement is no agreement, it is a sham]

January 11, 2006 [Twisted manipulations of defendant by attorneys]

June 26, 2006 [So much subtle misconduct to discover in the record!]

August 23, 2006 [Relates to rights violating August 22, 2006 hearing]

September 1, 2006 [Relates to rights violating August 22, 2006 hearing]

September 2, 2006 [Reminder of the US Constituional Rights we have]

September 12, 2006 [Holy Toledo! Police assaults & other misconduct]

October 13, 2006 [Attorney David Klucas is who?]

November 20, 2006 [Attorney Klucas is up to something, but what?]

February 5, 2007 [Compares August 16 and August 28 allegations]

February 11, 2007 [Judge Katz' "This is crap" to 2/5/7 IO in open court]

April 10, 2007 [Relates to the collusive February 9, 2007 hearing]

 

*Magistrate Judge Andrew Wistrich is assigned on December 12, 2005 to a detention hearing, under suspicious circumstances, in which a possible fraud is revealed in analyzing these two documents available on-line from the US Courts (available to just about everbody EXCEPT the Defendant Clemens):

 

August 31, 2005 Docket Minutes  (In Chambers Meeting - Judge Otero)

 - Note identification of Shereen Charlick as Counsel in the Minutes

 - Note Attorney Donald F. Gaffney for the U.S. (appeared August 12)

 - Note the supposed file date of August 31, 2005 for the Minutes

 - Note the entry date of December 12, 2005 for the Minutes

FYI, Charlick represented Clemens on December 12, 2005 (but Hilary Potashner represented Clemens through at least September 9, 2005, when an Order relieved her).  Shereen soon after the "entry" appeared in front of Judge Wistrich, who became topic of the first Independent OBSERVER.

 

September 9, 2005 Order  (To select outside counsel - Judge Mahan)

 - Note how Defense Counsel was to be selected and the court notified

 - Note how the Order makes no mention of counsel Shereen Charlick

FYI, Shereen Charlick appeared in a Las Vegas hearing on or about September 22, 2005 for Defendant Clemens, without ever having communicated with the defendant!  Defendant Clemens also DID NOT KNOW that in August 2005 Hilary Potashner Motioned to Appoint New Counsel, despite having Motioned for (her own) Recusal in July...the Motion for Recusal was heard and decided on or about September 22 in Las Vegas, but the New Appointment of Counsel Application was granted on September 9!  ATTC was to later learn that Shereen once worked for the Department of Justice, whose attorneys represented the U.S. in U.S. v. Clemens.



**************************************************************************************************************

Access To The Courts

Website Builder