Brady Violation(s) = Mistrial = Dismissal with Prejudice = Waiver of Statutes of Limitations.

“(a) Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Pp. 86-88.” Brady: Syllabus, 1963.

CURRENT EXAMPLE OF 2017-18 BRADY VIOLATIONS: Bundy and Milke.

“Judge declares mistrial in case of Nevada rancher's standoff with federal government.”

www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bundy-trial-20171220-story.html

Dec 20, 2017 – “A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the case involving Cliven Bundy and two of his sons after she found that prosecutors “willfully” failed to turn over evidence related to an armed standoff three years ago. U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro pointed to several (six) violations of the Brady rule — which requires prosecutors to disclose evidence that could be favorable to a defendant.” Emphasis added.

“Judge dismisses case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his sons”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bundy-mistrial-2018-story.html

JANUARY 8, 2018 - “Navarro rebuked federal prosecutors — using the words “flagrant” and “reckless” to describe how they withheld evidence from the defense — before saying “that the universal sense of justice has been violated” and dismissing the charges.”

Navarro didn’t buy it and shredded the government for a “reckless disregard for Constitutional obligations.” Emphasis added.

(So, what to do with that embarrassing and annoying document: The Constitution and of its duties?)

Side Note:. Prosecutors were U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre (Myhre), the lead, seasoned veteran Assistant U.S. attorneys, Daniel Schiess (Schiess) and Nadia Ahmed (Ahmed), and do not think for one second that these attorneys were not aware of Brady mandates, duties and/or obligations.

“Cliven Bundy case: How big a problem is prosecutorial misconduct?”

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2018/0111/Cliven-Bundy-case-How-big-a-problem-is-prosecutorial-misconduct

JANUARY 11, 2018 - “US District Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed the case, which related to an April 2014 standoff with federal officers seeking to impound Mr. Bundy’s cattle, “with prejudice” this week – meaning prosecutors cannot retry the case on the same charges. “The court has found that a universal sense of justice has been violated” by prosecutors who (a) withheld and (b) misrepresented (c) vast quantities of evidence, she told the courtroom.”

“In a 2013 dissent, former US 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, who retired last month amid sexual harassment allegations, declared “an epidemic of Brady violations.” But others say it is difficult to know how often prosecutorial misconduct occurs.”

“Kami Chavis, director of the Criminal Justice Program at the Wake Forest University School of Law in Winston-Salem, N.C., and a former US attorney. “But at the same time,” she adds, “that does create again this issue of how do we then even uncover prosecutorial misconduct, and what do we do to deter it?” Emphasis added.

Yes, Judge Kozinski before his disgraced exit from the bench in whatever case he had opined on, as another judicial source, acknowledged the clear fact and continued expansive existence of Brady violations as “epidemic.” In 2013.

In other words Ms. Chavis had said: We’re attorneys, with decades of criminal court litigation experience and knowledge, having access to all case law authorities and research and we have no idea what to do or even how to uncover this type of prosecutorial Brady misconduct, that has been going on for so long, let alone how to deter it, not stop it, to just deter it.

Really? No one since 1963, nationwide, under thousands of Brady violation cases can figure out a plan, method or means to “deter” let alone stop Brady-violation-prosecutorial-misconduct? We shall see.

See, this is her attitude, in 2018, and the attitude of her governmental attorney peers.

Online definition: de·ter, verb,

(To) discourage (someone) from doing something, typically by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.

Since 1963 these governmental attorneys cannot and will not:

1. Be simply deterred or discouraged from engaging in this type of Brady misconduct. Because there is no direct personal penalty, civil liability or criminal/penal consequence against them. Take a typical speeding ticket situation, here’s their logic: The governmental attorney-driver would tell the citing officer, it was the car or vehicle at fault for speeding, not me individually, so issue the citation against the vehicle, not against me personally.

2. Be instilled with any doubt or fear of any consequences because there is no element of actual doubt or fear of any consequence. At all.

3. Self-correct away from this type of Brady misconduct, nor

4. Stop engaging in this type of Brady misconduct.

According to both online fee based and free legal research sites, Brady v. Maryland has been cited in both criminal and civil cases several hundreds if not 32,687 times as stated by Google Scholar. With about 92,800 published articles also from Google Scholar, all of which are of nationwide sources.

So why, do prosecutors (Federal and/or State – nationwide) still continually “willfully” violate Brady? Yeah, we’ll get to that, but the only answer to that is: Because they know they can: with fraternal, systemic, perpetual, cancerously toxic, subversive (on all fronts: against the Rule of Law, our justice system and their dual constitutional mandates) impunity.

Again, that is why all of these governmental attorney Brady-violators need to be: disbarred, stripped of their employment and pensions; criminally charged and prosecuted, where applicable, imprisoned and/or bankrupted. And yes, there are penal and civil grounds to do all of that.

Hint: Abuse, misuse and misappropriation of taxpayer funds, resources, personnel and salaries on the prosecution and law enforcement side to include the ongoing cost of fraudulent, needless, wasteful and meritless litigation, to further include the cost of unlawfully incarcerating an accused person, all for, or under personal motivations, is a form of embezzlement of public monies and misuse of public office.

See, after decades of Brady violations, Brady misconduct, Brady errors or however they make their word salad attempts to mischaracterize or distort the true meaning: Brady-fraud.

U.S. District Judge Navarro having pointed to several violations of Brady in her courtroom and proceedings, knows (not in the first instance but her seasoned time on the bench) fraudulent, underhanded and unconstitutional suppression and concealment of exculpatory evidence when she sees it.

However, her having found “willful” failure against the prosecutor(s) is on the surface: inaccurate.

Precisely, what the prosecution had demonstrated or carried out before her in her court and proceedings was willful and intentional “refusal,” not a random failure, to adhere to Brady to turn over known material evidence in their possession. Hence, the instant and irreversible mistrial and subsequent dismissal with prejudice declarations, in favor of the Bundy defendants.

Additionally, her having found “several” violations of Brady substantiates, clarifies, solidifies and supports the continued willful disdain that these and other prosecutors have against Brady, the Rule of Law, our justice system and our Constitution, the very thing or things they swore to uphold, coming or arising directly from our very justice administration offices. Subversion.

It’s probably safe to say that these thousands of cases found on Google Scholar relate to violation matters or instances where the State governmental officials/employees: prosecutors and police violated Brady. These are all factual instances (thousands), of attorneys (governmental), right up to current times having subverted: 1. Their duties as attorneys, 2. The public office for which they hold and represent, 3. The constitutionally mandated duties they swore to uphold in serving “The People,” 4. The constitutionally protected rights of the accused to due process and 5. The Constitution itself.

These governmental attorneys and police have no morals, ethics, respect for the Rule of Law, the Constitution or human life. Bearing in mind that, the corrupt conspirator police officer cannot carry out the Brady violation before the trial court, that malicious and fraudulent endeavor falls squarely on the governmental attorney-prosecutor.

For Brady having been the so-called Law of the Land, barring or prohibiting Brady type of conduct or misconduct, why then have governmental-attorney or police-misconduct Brady violation cases not stopped or tapered down to minimally acceptable numbers? But rather since 1963 have accelerated, increased substantially, exponentially, pervasively and widely. Like a living cancer or a plague epidemic.

Best response and/or analogy is this: These Brady-violatin’ governmental attorneys and police are like that old creepy uncle or grandpa in one’s family that can’t help molesting the young children if left alone with him. He’s a habitual, perverted, mentally deranged, sex-crazed pedophile, child-molester or rapist, that no one wants to turn in to the authorities which would cause or bring shame to the entire family and further publically exploit, embarrass or traumatize the young innocent victims. So the family hopes he’ll stop on his own, which does not happen, but instead, he continues, branches out and preys on the neighborhood, school or church kids.

Affirmatively and factually, attorneys (governmental or not) will generally not engage in actions against their peers that would instantly end the careers of, bankrupt or incarcerate their fellow attorneys.

(Into the weeds we go, but armed with a weed-whacker.)

TYPICAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSES DO NOT APPLY FOLLOWING CERTAIN BRADY VIOLATIONS.

Here’s what governmental attorneys know and have known, but don’t want you to know, where a civil action can and does get filed some twenty five years after the rise of a particular act, causation or infliction of injury and/or liability.

There is no other criminal court or civil litigation basis, or grounds for redress for injury and liability arising apart, again: apart, from a wrongful, unlawful and unconstitutional act or violation having occurred in a criminal court proceedings, that voids, bypasses, super-cedes or rejects the standards of Statute(s) of Limitations (SOL) as a defense, than in a Brady-violation civil action to also include matters and methods of relief in a criminal court case, active or not.

They would be terrified if and when you do learn of this basic fact, as outlined below.

Initially for this page which will be expanded on in the following pages, let’s touch on the typical defensive posture or reliance on the SOL as it relates to Brady cases, which these governmental attorneys will generally assert to hide, divert or cover their (criminal, for the most part) fraudulent malfeasance under color of law. You’ll see it having been attempted in In re Sodersten where in the proper forum: trial, appellate or supreme court (State or Federal), where at its core, that defensive argument or contention fails or is rejected.

Here’s why: A garden variety, materially offensive Brady violation is patently unconstitutional and in most cases also unlawful where such willful and/or intentional prosecutorial misconduct is patently indefensible, regardless of time. That which is unconstitutional cannot ever be made just, proper, correct or legal; or allowed to stand.

At any time, any and all, each and every violation to the Constitution, against its protections, mandates, obligations and duties; violations by the parties subject to it, or under it, towards parties entitled to its rights and protections, such violations will not stand. To allow any such violation to stand against the Constitution is to commit violence against it or, God help us, to allow any such violation to stand over the Constitution, would be anarchy, an overthrow of the Constitution and The Republic.

Which, if it may be said of Judge Navarro, in reading between the lines in the above excerpt; she, in her professionally composed courtroom demeanor, may have been internally, directly and personally offended, infuriated and outraged by the disrespectful metaphorical slap in her face, against the justice system over the violence having been committed by the prosecutors against her and against our dear and cherished Constitution.

From time to time you hear of a person having spent decades in prison; accused, charged and convicted (falsely) of some extreme, unconscionable and gruesome crime like murder (yes, there are lots or hundreds if not more of these cases and we’ll get to Mr. Sodersten’s case) and decades later was released from prison due to prosecutorial and/or police misconduct having engaged in or perpetrated Brady violation(s).

Where there has been a subversion of a person’s constitutionally protected rights countered and bolstered by a US Supreme court mandate (Law of the Land) such as Brady, the typical, standard or general defense of SOL simply do not apply.

Case and point: Debra Jean Milke currently has a Federal civil rights action (42 U.S.C § 1983) in the US District Court in Arizona (Debra Jean Milke v. City of Phoenix, et al., No. CV-15-

00462-PHX-ROS (D. Az.)) in part based on the prosecution’s failure-to-disclose Brady violations back in 1989 - 1990.

Filed on March 13, 2015 some 26 years after those factual and material Brady violations having occurred and after her having been wrongfully and unlawfully incarcerated for twenty-three of those years, having been on death row for the false, fabricated and (suborned) perjured accusation and testimony against her that she murdered her four year old son.

Pursuant to a press release offered by her law firm on July 7, 2016, the U.S. District Judge allowed Ms. Milke to proceed with her civil rights claims against the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and Phoenix Police Department Supervisor by having ruled that she had properly alleged three separate theories of widespread systemic in whole or in part, Brady misconduct in the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, dating long before and long after her 1990 wrongful conviction.

Which means, the first round of law and motion hearings usually dealing with in part SOL defense arguments, failed or was rejected.

Had Mr. Sodersten not conveniently died just before walking out of the California State Prison at Corcoran, he too would have been similarly situated as Ms. Milke in proceeding with his own multi-million dollar lawsuit against the State, County and its governmental employees.

In fact, he as petitioner had already prevailed over the SOL defense in the appellate court, during the arguments/deliberations as initiated by the Respondent (Attorney General, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General and Deputy Attorneys General) whom asserted in pertinent part, that his claim (for habeas corpus relief) was procedurally barred because it was untimely (untimely to mean in the general, standard, textbook procedural NON-BRADY VIOLATION circumstance. Big difference. See how these rotten bastards play dirty.), in that petitioner's counsel was appointed on November 24, 1998; was given the (initially undisclosed) tapes on September 8, 2000; and yet waited until July 10, 2003, before filing a claim related to those evidence tapes.

Respondent further contended that petitioner's claim lacked merit, reasoning that there was no Brady violation because there is no reasonable probability the allegedly suppressed audiotapes would have produced a more favorable result for petitioner. An argument/contention rejected by the court in having stated that he was further “entitled to a new trial.” Respondent took no further review action.

See, in precisely that order, timeliness is almost always the first defensive argument or contention. What the Respondent had attempted to do was to thinly, deceptively and manipulatively avoid or gloss over the initial or original dated violation instance or event, Brady or otherwise, and shift the timeliness argument or focus to an event that occurred after the actual violation, years later.

Here’s how the In re Sodersten court responded:

“Finally, although we cannot definitively say that the nondisclosure of the tapes led to a trial so fundamentally unfair that, absent the error, no reasonable judge or jury would have convicted petitioner, the situation comes close. There was a substantial question whether petitioner killed Julie Wilson. (citation omitted) Moreover, the error was of constitutional dimension and was occasioned by the conduct--whether negligent or intentional--of those officials charged with apprehending and prosecuting the guilty person or persons. Significantly, the error carried with it grave risk of convicting an innocent person. Neither our assessment of the error nor our prejudice analysis is affected by the delay; what was unfair in 2003, when the amended petition was filed, was not somehow more fair in 2000, when counsel obtained the tapes, or in 1998, when counsel was appointed. If anything, the delay primarily worked to petitioner's own disadvantage. (See In re Huddleston, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1034.)

We conclude that the lapse of time was not unreasonable under the present circumstances. (See In re Huddleston, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1034.) Accordingly, we reject respondent's assertion of an untimeliness bar to the instant proceedings.” Emphasis added.

Clearly, had Sodersten had lived, been released and filed suit, the SOL defense issue as presently dealt with in Milke’s pending case would have been defeated. The insurmountable wall or barrier that these defendants to include those in Valladares’ case cannot overcome or prevail over is described by the court in having stated in part from the above excerpt: “Moreover, the error was of constitutional dimension and was occasioned by the conduct--whether negligent or intentional--of those officials charged with apprehending and prosecuting the guilty person or persons.”

Let’s be affirmatively clear:

1. The so called “error” deteriorated to the low-bar level of “constitutional dimension,” but was it really an error though? The willful suppression and concealment of material facts, evidence, witnesses or information by the Tulare, CA; Maricopa County, AZ, Nevada and Sacramento County prosecutors and police at the trial court level in Sodersten, Milke, Bundy and Valladares cases or in any judicial proceedings is calculatedly, precise fraud upon the court and absolutely void of anything constitutional. This was actual-fraud.

2. The conduct by these officials and all governmental employees concertedly, was in no way in error or negligent but intentional, which includes the subsequent full knowledge involvement of the State’s Attorney and sub-Attorneys General in the Milke and Sodersten appellate cases in having attempted to cover for their lower court peers (or cohorts) in order to perpetuate the initial or original actual-fraud to keep Milke and Sodersten locked up, indefinitely, until they would die, and

3. The statement, “We conclude that the lapse of time was not unreasonable under the present circumstances.”, affirmatively affirms that “the lapse of time” applies to any and all matters of SOL were made void. In that instance it was five years during those trial court habeas proceedings, but also incorporating the original violation period going back to 1984, some twenty two years prior. Clearly any and all SOL issues were tossed out. And what were the “present circumstances?” Right, the Brady violations.

And, yes, the appellate Respondent(s) later did their best to conveniently try to use Sodersten’s actual death while incarcerated as an alternate defensive argument in order to render the proceedings as moot. Nope, the court was not having that either.

As a final rebuke to the Respondent, the In re Sodersten court granted him, a then dead man to effectively and to solely clear his name, honorably, habeas corpus relief. Again, affirmatively having dismissed even the SOL for typical petitions for habeas corpus relief.

THIS IS HOW PROSECUTORIAL-BRADY-MISCONDUCT COULD/SHOULD BE DETERRED.

Side note: Apparent offensive strategic logic and procedural counter-measures available to Mr. Cliven Bundy et al (to include all similarly situated Brady violation victims) include but are not limited to the following:

1. Demand to see all of the cases prosecuted by those errant subversive attorneys Myhre, Schiess and Ahmed in order to establish a, if not their historic pattern of Brady abuse.

To commit a Brady violation is a concerted effort involving a working secret and intimate collaboration between prosecutors and law enforcement.

2. Demand a list of all supervisory and support staff involved with those attorneys.

3. Demand a forensic accounting of their time spent on the job and on the resources at their disposal, plotting and conspiring to commit the asserted six Brady violations, reduce that to a monetary value or amount as a basis for misuse/abuse of taxpayer funds.

The government is not authorized to fund anything outside of the mandates of their public office and in no way to fund or support their personal militant, subversive fraudulent or corruption activities, a form of embezzlement.

4. Demand copies of all of their work-product and communications: email, business and personal telecommunications records, and computer history.

Work-product and communications by and between attorneys involving criminal activity is not privileged or protected.

5. Interview any and all like-minded and supportive outside counsel and firms to include spouses, in their communications logs, whom were supportive and collaborative in Brady violations and then include those added individuals in any State Bar proceedings complaints to be further included in any civil or criminal action as co-defendants.

6. File complaints against each attorney with that attorney’s respective State Bar Office, for each and every individual Brady violation in the subject proceedings; demand open-public and immediate disciplinary hearings and push for immediate suspensions of their licenses to practice law pending final determination of the disciplinary proceedings.

7. Demand their removal and/or termination of employment from their governmental offices due to: A. Lack of licensing requirements, B. Losing a trial court case and/or having cases reversed or sent back from the appellate courts due to Brady violations or misconduct, C. Investigative, internal or externally by law enforcement or judicial oversight for departmental financial audits for misuse, abuse and embezzlement of public funds and/or resources.

8. File a multi-million dollar Civil Rights violation complaint against those attorneys personally and their supervisors to include claims or causes of action for including but not limited to, third party liability actual-fraud.

9. Formally initiate discovery for the production of, or subpoena all of their personal financial records and tax returns to include the above demanded items/material.

10. Initiate discovery Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories and Depositions regarding their intentions to subvert: A. Their constitutional mandates, B. The Rule of law and C. The justice system and court proceedings in having utilized and violating Brady, at taxpayer expense, all under the penalty of perjury.

11. Demand that the Department of Justice in Washington openly and publically fast-track investigate, charge and prosecute each attorney and associated staff, for each Brady violation under a charge or grounds of misuse/abuse of public funds, and/or embezzlement of public funds for their personal use outside of the parameters and mandates of the lawful administration of justice, and

12. Then upon judgment, seize, lien and levy everything regardless if they are to be incarcerated.

Bearing in mind that disgraced ex-president Bill Clinton was disbarred and/or essentially disbarred in various jurisdictions beginning in April 1999, where U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found him in contempt of court for giving false testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial and fined him over $90,000. He also paid a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas State Bar over the Monica Lewinsky matter and paid a $850,000 settlement to Paula Jones. And don’t think his bank of attorneys worked pro-bono defending that pervert.

Anyone else would have been also criminally charged, prosecuted and convicted for felony: A. Giving false testimony or perjury, and B. Sexual assault, battery, extortion, lewd and lascivious conduct and declared a sexual predator for life.

Disbarment, fines, judgments and bankruptcy which may further include prison incarceration are the proper, lawful, immediate and just consequences or price these governmental elitist attorney subversives to the Constitution, Rule of Law and justice system are to pay.

How about that Ms. Kami Chavis, director of the Criminal Justice Program at the Wake Forest University School of Law in Winston-Salem, N.C., and former US attorney, would the above outline and measures against these subversive governmental elitist attorneys, applied in each and every instance of Brady-violation-prosecutorial-misconduct, nationwide, effective immediately and retroactively to all Brady violators still alive going back to 1963 help in the deterrence, if not affirmatively stop such systemic, widespread “epidemic,” actual-fraud, Brady misconduct?

Keeping in mind that typical prosecutorial and defensive Statute of Limitations on fraudulent and criminal unconstitutional acts or conduct under color of law, do not apply, are void or absent, leaving these subversives’ official, professional, personal and family lives completely open, exposed and defenseless against all of the above to include public-media shaming.

Somehow Ms. Kami Chavis, etc., it is reasonable to suspect, assume, believe and conclude that you have been and are fully aware of each and every in and out of court, proper, aggressive and immediate counter offensive measure listed and detailed above that ought to be and should have been launched against them. You know, as a deterrence.

We shall see.