Monday, December 23, 2013

Robert Rivernider files Pro Se motion to dismiss due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct

It is happening and expanding nationwide. Overzealous prosecutor's break law, do whatever it takes to win, and get away with it. This week I was sentenced to 12 years in prison based on perjured testimony, false evidence and just outrageous violations of my Constitutional Rights. I detailed them in a motion to dismiss the indictment and withdraw a coerced guilty plea, you can read the motion here The most troubling part is the new tool the prosecutor's use, reading confidential e-mails between a defendant and his attorney. We are learning more and more everyday about the Edward Snowden leaks. The NSA spying scandal encompasses everything in our lives and now privileged e-mails that clearly violate a person's Constitutional right to a fair and open trial. On December 10, 2013, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals again said it was OK to withhold Exculpatory Evidence from the defense, a Brady violation. However, it did not go without a serious rebuke and scolding from Chief Judge Kozinski, read it here Judge Kozinski had some choice comments in his dissent, including: "There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land. Only judges can put a stop to it." "Nearly everything the district judge understood to be true was false." "Some prosecutors don’t care about Brady because courts don’t make them care." "protecting the constitutional rights of the accused was just not very high on this prosecutor’s list of priorities." "I wish I could say that the prosecutor’s unprofessionalism here is the exception, that his propensity for shortcuts and indifference to his ethical and legal responsibilities is a rare blemish and source of embarrassment to an otherwise diligent and scrupulous corps of attorneys staffing prosecutors’ offices across the country. But it wouldn’t be true. Brady violations have reached epidemic proportions in recent years, and the federal and state reporters bear testament to this unsettling trend." "The panel’s ruling is not just wrong, it is dangerously broad, carrying far-reaching implications for the administration of criminal justice. It effectively announces that the prosecution need not produce exculpatory or impeaching evidence so long as it’s possible the defendant would’ve been convicted anyway. This will send a clear signal to prosecutors that, when a case is close, it’s best to hide evidence helpful to the defense, as there will be a fair chance reviewing courts will look the other way, as happened here." They then go on to cite a case that is part of this unsettling trend United States v. Triumph Capital Grp., Inc., 544 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008), that is right, John Durham was the prosecutor. And U.S. v. Rivernider will be added to the list of the cases in which AUSA John Durham committed Brady violations. Seriously, how many Appeals court opinions do you read that include a paragraph like this "Intriguing, in a Jerry Springer kind of way, but whom was Olsen planning to kill? We don’t know. And what was his motive? The panel doesn’t say. Given that the government so thoroughly “captured [Olsen’s] thought process,” id. at 1186, it’s surprising that these “thoughts” don’t shed light on the intended victim (or victims?). Surely somewhere in the 20,000 pages of Internet proxy logs Olsen searched for “what to wear to your boss’s funeral” or “how to file a widower’s tax return,” or maybe he watched “How to Murder Your Wife” on Netflix. But the opinion makes no mention of it, which makes the materiality analysis that much weaker.” Also, I had written about rogue investigator’s in my case, I wonder if the 9th circuit is reading my posts? "Olsen’s case points to another important problem—that of rogue investigators and forensic experts.” and this "Even the vaunted FBI Laboratory at Quantico, Virginia hasn’t been immune from charges of falsification and pro-prosecution bias.” "By turning a blind eye to this grave transgression, the panel has shirked its own duty and compounded the violence done to the Constitution by the Assistant U.S. Attorney.” It will continue, my case proves it, the Constitution is dead. the rule of law, is no more, the courts are no help. I will appeal my case, I hope I turn out to be mistaken and a court in this land steps up and says STOP IT. We shall see. Robert Rivernider