There is Use of Statutory Law and Rules to Violate Both Defendant's (Neil and Brian) 6th Amendment Rights. The most recent is the Right to A Speedy Trial, Administrative Law over Constitutional Law Jurisdiction, being implemented by the Prosecution and enabled by the Magistrate Judge then overlooked by the District Court Judge reviewing the case De Nuvo.
Reference Recent Update; https://bit.ly/NWP-UPDATE
Excepts from recent Update:
Analysis of the Hearing
While looking at Neil's case we have to take it from the time of his indictment and arrest through his transfer to the Nebraska US district Court and examine it from the 6th Amendment, as well as the 5th and 14th Amendment due process clause.
The first concern is his sixth amendment right to council of choice. Relying on court appointed attorneys begins a conflict of interest that begins to create additional problems. The sixth Amendment right to counsel automatically attaches when someone is indicted and charged with a crime. All those who are supposed to know law are aware of this. It is so important that council be present for someone charged with a crime, felony, because of the due process and recognition of civil liberties that are represented through the rules of criminal procedure and the local rules of the courts.
Neil's 6th Amendment right has been continuously violated since his arrest. First, his right to counsel, of choice. Without this his independent interest and concerns will not be presented to the courts.
Through affidavit and through audio recorded statements it is shown that he did not have counsel. This resulted in a delay, affecting his right to a speedy trial, and missed deadlines for filing motions or claims, such as asset forfeiture claim to certain accounts and properties that would allow for him to obtain his sixth amendment right of council of choice.
There occurred abuse of discretion regarding procedures that were in violation of procedural due process pertaining to his detention and release. It was further conflated by the discretion of the Nebraska District Court Judge and his citing a case not in accordance to the established Bail Reform Act of 1974.
The current on going process has caused violations of Neil's 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights.
As it pertains to Discovery and Disclosure, there also is a violation of his 6th amendment right to a speedy trial. Because Neil's court appointed attorney is also a government representative there is a conflict of interest involved.
In the words of the Magistrate Judge the prosecution is delivering a "data dump", which is considered, in most cases, to be a form of harassment that slows down the defense and its ability to sort through relevant information.
The status hearings are being held between government officials IE judge, prosecutor, and public defender, creating an ex parte communication that has the possibility of resulting in a conflict of interest or violation of rights through negotiated terms of procedure not properly objected to by the defense or properly presented by the prosecution.
The obligation of the Magistrate Judge is to oversee the process to avoid violations of civil liberties of the natural parties involved. This is not happening. There is a gross failure of the Magistrate Judge to properly oversee the procedures and rules in the court.
Preliminary Hearing in the District Court of California Represents the proper Jurisdictional protection of the Defendant by the Judge.
The Defendant was extradited from Fort Leavenworth Prison Kansas where he had been held since shortly after his arrest in July to Nebraska. There was an initial hearing, conducted by video conference, in which the Defendant did not have counsel. In this hearing he was appointed counsel, Mirandized by the Judge, and given 90 days to prepare for a case status check. The prosecution claimed to have One million documents of Initial disclosure and the Judge verified it by calling it a dump. The Judge declared the case to be "complex" and the prosecution agreed.
There are tools and request for information through the freedom of information act and through an amicus brief presented by parties not named in the case but have a direct interest. These tools should be reviewed understood and initiated as soon as possible.
What Are The Steps?
The people, meaning the defendants, are represented by congress and through the legislature. Contacting Representatives given the charge over this and other agencies of the government is the next step to take. In the near future we will be releasing the names and contact information of relevant public officials and give examples of how to bring attention to this case and the possible Civil Liberty violations occurring. In addition we will be including instruction on filing Freedom of Information Act Requests to the D.O.J., FBI, Federal Public Defenders Office, and the District Court of Nebraska. We are looking at developing a fund for actions and legal filings. (Tortious Interference Response Fund)
New Platform Introduction
In an effort to to help raise funds for all projects designed to protect Civil Liberties we are introducing our new online Decentralized Distributed Digital Exchange Platform
The Platform provides secure and private exchanges some of which will go towards funding the necessary actions in the defense of Civil Liberties discussed on this platform, Opt in by click the link and sending a private message to support our efforts.
Comments