Acquitted In 17 Minutes

Gold Hill, Ore. — Harassed, assaulted, hospitalized and arrested are just a few words used to describe what Daniel Young has endured — all while trying to protect his family on their own property. On Feb. 21, almost seven years after disputes with neighbors arose over the use of an easement, Young was accused of “menacing and recklessly endangering” his neighbor, Kevin Mayfield. Proclaiming his innocence, Young and his family spent the next 10 months under severe stress, wondering: “Will Dan be locked up?”

Describing why his neighbor would make false allegations against him, Young stated that he has asked neighbors to refrain from using recreational vehicles (ATVs, dirt bikes, etc.) on the easement, which is also part of Young’s property. According to Young, some neighbors create hazards for his family and others when they turn blind corners at unsafe speeds, tearing up the driveway and creating “large amounts of dust.”

The charges against Young alleged that he attempted several times to run over his neighbor with his vehicle while his neighbor was jogging. Mayfield stated that Young called him a “f*****g p***y” while attempting to run him over. Mayfield stated that he sustained “multiple injuries,” which included many scratches from having to “jump into blackberry bushes” and an “injured knee.”

Several deputies responded to the scene, including Jackson County Deputy Ettinger, who testified: “No photos were taken of Kevin’s injuries.” Ettinger also stated that he “didn’t visit” the alleged crime scene. Ettinger didn’t take any photos whatsoever. According to testimony, Ettinger didn’t even include all of Mayfield’s alleged injuries in his report. Ettinger couldn’t recall seeing any scratches, torn clothing or anything else that would suggest that Mayfield “jumped into blackberry bushes,” to avoid being struck by Young’s vehicle.

Shortly after speaking with Mayfield, Ettinger went to the Young home and informed Young’s daughter that he was there to “arrest Dan.” All the deputy apparently needed was an accusation.

Disputes regarding Young and his property, which has an easement, have often led to what Young described as a “deliberate disregard for his rights, as well as wrongful arrests by Jackson County Sheriffs.” Instead of doing what hasn’t worked in the past, Young found the US~Observer and sought our help. We investigated and published on the case prior to Young’s trial. We did what mainstream media should do, but rarely do: a full investigation.

The facts of this case were simple, but not simple enough for the district attorney’s office to realize that prosecuting Young was not only an injustice, but a major waste of tax dollars. Instead, the prosecution relied on one man’s testimony versus another.

On Dec. 11, Young faced his accuser in court. Young’s attorney, Jamie Hazlett, was very direct. Hazlett tactfully exposed the mistakes by the Sheriff’s Department. She also did exceptionally well while questioning Mayfield. As Young testified, some jurors showed body language that suggested they could tell what really happened. After several hours, the defense and prosecution rested. The jury deliberated for about 17 minutes before Young was informed that a verdict had been reached.

Judge Kelly Ravassipour, who was appointed in September by Governor John Kitzhaber announced “not guilty” on both counts.

After exiting the courthouse, one juror stated, “It didn’t take much to read between the lines.”

Mayfield is still Young’s neighbor; and from what has been reported, this dispute is likely to continue.

Young and his wife Susan stated that “gunshots” have been “blasted” toward their home from the direction of Mayfield’s house. Susan Mayfield said, “I can hear the bullets whistling through the trees at night.”

Due to their lost faith in law enforcement, the Young family now carries video recording devices every time they travel on their own property to protect themselves from false allegations.

Numerous attempts to communicate with Mayfield were unsuccessful — until trial. Mayfield insisted that Young was “crazy,” as he signaled with his finger in a circular motion next to his head. Mayfield did say that he “could understand” Young’s fear for safety when people are using off-road vehicles on the easement at unsafe speeds. Mayfield has not yet contacted this reporter post-trial.

Young recently retired and will enjoy this new year as a free man without the stress of jail hanging over his head.

To read our previous article regarding this incident, please visit usobserver.com and search for Dan Young or Kevin Mayfield in the “Yahoo! search tab.”

–Joseph Snook

West Palm Beach Corruption And Cover-Up

US~Observer Editor’s Note: Due to the constant and significant amount of US~Observer subscribers and others inquiring about the ongoing Jamie Clark post-conviction case in West Palm Beach, Fla., we are providing this update. The information below brings the public up to date on this travesty of justice. We will be publishing further once Judge John Kastrenakes makes his ruling. 

West Palm Beach, Fla. — On Oct. 13, 2006, Jamie Clark was involved in an automobile accident that tragically ended the life of Lucy Miller. Miller, 85, made a U-turn that experts and witnesses say caused the accident. Rabbi Marci Bloch was the only eyewitness other than Clark and the deceased Miller. In regard to Miller pulling directly in front of Clark, Bloch stated: “I had a moment of wanting to say, ‘Don’t go! What are? What are you doing? It was almost like there wasn’t enough judgment in the turn, because it was… I… I would never have made that turn.”

In 2012, Clark’s defense discovered new evidence (vehicle diagnostic reports from Miller’s vehicle), which was not made available or provided to Clark’s defense prior to his conviction in 2011. The evidence was found as his new defense searched through the State’s old file. This evidence, according to experts, scientifically shows that Clark was not at fault, and substantiates Bloch’s statement. Now, more than seven years after the accident, Judge John Kastrenakes is set to rule on a Brady Violation that was rightfully remanded to him by the 4th District Court of Appeals in March.

What is a Brady violation? Wikipedia states:

Brady disclosure consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland,in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process. Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses. Evidence that would serve to reduce the defendant’s sentence must also be disclosed by the prosecution.

Prosecutors and defense experts argued the validity of the newly discovered evidence in front of Kastrenakes in August.

Kastrenakes, who was originally set to rule by Nov. 15, has asked for an extension and is set to rule on the Brady violation by Jan. 18.

Locked up since Sept. 15, 2011, Clark will likely be in prison this Christmas, awaiting an answer from Kastrenakes that should allow him to receive a new trial.

The US~Observer asks that our readers please send their prayers and regards this holiday to Clark and his family. His mother and father, who have dedicated many years to proving Clark’s innocence, have struggled greatly with their health. Under severe stress, Clark’s mother fell down a flight of stairs, causing a severe ankle fracture that required surgery. Clark’s father, who expected to be reunited with his son this November, recently suffered a near life-ending heart attack, which has left him hospitalized on four separate occasions. You can reach out to Clark’s friends and family though Facebook.

The tragic events of Oct. 13, 2006 will never be forgotten. This miscarriage of justice, for which former West Palm Beach Assistant Prosecutor Ellen Roberts is responsible, has cost the Clark family much more than words can describe. Now, Florida State Prosecutor Dave Aronberg and his assistant prosecutors are fighting to keep Clark in prison. Clark deserves justice this holiday season. Please reach out to him and his family with your support. A list of people to contact will be made available on the Jamie Clark Deserves Justice Facebook page.

Please visit www.usobserver.com for the full history of the Clark case or click here, here and here.

–Joseph Snook

Duke Lacrosse Accuser Found Guilty Of Murder

DURHAM, N.C.Crystal Mangum, who made national headlines in 2006 for falsely accusing three Duke University lacrosse players of rape, was found guilty Nov. 22 of second-degree murder.

Mangum stabbed her boyfriend, Reginald Daye, with a kitchen knife in 2011 during an argument. Daye, 46, died 10 days later from complications due to the wound. Magnum claimed self-defense for stabbing Daye. She stated that he dragged her by her hair and threatened to pour hot water on her face and make it so no man would want her.

Mangum stated the argument was about her flirting with other men.

Before dying, Daye admitted to dragging Mangum by her hair, but insisted he was attempting to get away when she stabbed him.

Mangum was sentenced to 14 years and two months in prison, with a maximum of 18 years.

Daye’s cousin Tracey Daye-Wilson was relieved by the verdict, saying: “We are just so overwhelmed. I thank God the jury made the correct decision, and we are just very happy.”

In 2006, Magnum claimed she was gang-raped by a group of Duke lacrosse players at a party where she was hired as a stripper. The case made national headlines when the former Duke lacrosse coach was fired and the remainder of the games for the season were canceled by the University. Prosecutors later dismissed the charges against the lacrosse players.

The “Lacrosse Prosecutor,” Mike Nifong, resigned as Durham County district attorney, was disbarred, was found guilty of criminal contempt and lost a civil suit brought by the falsely accused lacrosse players. Nifong eventually filed for bankruptcy. Nifong was disbarred “for more than two dozen violations of the state’s rules of professional conduct during his prosecution of the lacrosse case,” according to WRAL.

Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III sentenced Nifong to one day in jail. Smith said Nifong “willfully made false statements” to the court when he said that he gave all results from a critical DNA test to the lacrosse player’s defense team.

Mangum will be eligible for parole when she is 49 years old.

–Joseph Snook

 

Editor’s Note: The US~Observer has been successful in winning well more than 4,000 cases to-date. A great majority of our criminal cases were created by corrupt or incompetent cops lying or repeating lies on their official police reports and/or by vindictive, conscious-less prosecutors acting as if they are above the law. These vile prosecutors withhold exculpatory evidence from defense teams representing innocent defendants, and they lie and turn away from truth and fact.

Former Durham County, N.C., District Attorney Mike Nifong was one such prosecutor. The US~Observer investigated and published stories on the Duke Lacrosse false prosecution as it occurred in 2006. Nifong got exactly what he deserved, just as Crystal Mangum finally got what she deserved. They both tried to destroy an innocent group of Duke University lacrosse players. Mangum is in prison, and Nifong has been disbarred and disgraced. This is complete vindication at its best.

Faced With More Police Abuse, Twin Brothers Vindicated Again

Medford, Ore. — Twin brothers Don and Jason Libby, owners of Jackson County Security, have both been cleared of separate false criminal charges stemming from different encounters with the Medford Police Department (MPD). MPD manufactured claims that the two bothers committed serious crimes, and they were eventually arrested and charged.

Jason Libby’s case was dismissed on June 27, just before trial. Don Libby was found innocent of all charges on Sept. 3 (also the date of his wedding anniversary) following a three-day trial.

MPD’s “threats and harassment” against the Libby brothers dates back “over 13 years” according to Don Libby. He said: “We have been wrongfully arrested five times and never convicted.”

For a full background of the Libby’s previous encounters with MPD, click here to read the US~Observer articles.

Background: Jason Libby’s Charges

On Jan. 7, at about 11:30 p.m. Jason Libby went to lock up Weldon’s Cleaners, where he was contracted to provide security. Upon arrival, he realized someone was using the bathroom. He checked the machines and determined that the person in the restroom was not doing laundry. Next, he advised the person in the bathroom that he was a security guard, that he was locking up the building for the night and that the person needed to exit the premises.

The man in the restroom, identified as Jeremy Bondurant, said he would be out in a moment. Bondurant later told police that he was bathing in the sink. The security video seems to corroborate that this man did bathe in the restroom, but he did it earlier — not at the time he was speaking with Jason Libby outside the door.

Jason Libby stood by for several minutes, hearing strange noises from the bathroom that led him to believe Bondurant may have been flushing drugs or engaging in other suspicious behavior.

At that point, Jason Libby notified Bondurant that he had to come out immediately. When Bondurant came out, he had a backpack in his possession, which he placed on the ground after Jason Libby asked him to. Bondurant told Jason Libby that he “had been at the laundry mat doing laundry and that his girlfriend had already left with the clothes and he stayed behind.” When Jason Libby said he would review the security camera to see if Bondurant was telling the truth, Bondurant admitted that he had not been doing any laundry and said he’d been using the restroom to wash himself.

Jason Libby then placed Bondurant under citizen’s arrest for trespassing. The security video shows the amount of force used to effectuate this arrest was minimal and that Bondurant was relatively compliant. After placing Bondurant in handcuffs, Jason Libby attempted to gain his consent to search the backpack, which Bondurant did not agree to.

During this conversation, a woman drove her vehicle into the laundry mat parking lot. She exited her vehicle and began writing down Jason Libby’s license plate number. Seeing a vehicle had come onto the premises, Jason Libby, along with the handcuffed Bondurant, came outside to see who had come onto the property.

Jason Libby recognized the woman as Debra Greenlee, whom he had caught digging through the trash at the laundry mat about six months prior. During that incident, the police were called and Jason Libby told Greenlee that she was never to return to the laundry mat. On Jan. 7, he told her again that she needed to leave. She refused and continuously screamed, “You’re not a cop; you can’t arrest him!”

Jason Libby attempted to place Greenlee under citizen’s arrest for trespassing. While dealing with Greenlee, Jason Libby attempted to call the MPD for assistance but dropped his phone. At that point, Bondurant attempted to flee. Jason Libby left Greenlee and pursued Bondurant on foot. That allowed Greenlee to re-enter her vehicle and begin backing out of the parking lot, stopping only when Jason Libby returned with Bondurant.

Jason Libby called the MPD.

When MPD officers arrived, they ignored Jason’s attempt to speak with them. MPD Officer Jonathon Baglietto directed Jason Libby to stand back while he contacted Bondurant and Greenlee to get their statements first.

In my experience with law enforcement, it is unusual that an officer would deliberately ignore a reporting party to first obtain a statement from a suspect.

Retired Police Chief and Detective for the State of Oregon Dean Muchow stated: “You, as a responding officer, want to know as much as possible about the accused before talking to them. You may only get one chance to communicate with them.” That is why you talk with the party who made initial contact first.

After obtaining statements from all involved parties, no citations were issued or arrests made.

Procedural Irregularities And Suspicious Actions

Bondurant has prior convictions for theft. At the time of this incident, he was on probation with a search clause — something Baglietto should have discovered. That means that his “person or property can be searched if the officer has a reasonable belief he may have controlled substances.” No reports indicated that Baglietto searched Bondurant’s bag that night.

It is suspicious that Baglietto, who should have known that Bondurant is on probation and has search terms for controlled substances (which means he has a history of drug issues) and who was told by Jason Libby that he thought Bondurant was flushing drugs in the bathroom, did not search Bondurant’s bag.

Understanding the MPD’s past with Jason Libby, it’s apparent why Baglietto did not search the backpack; Bondurant must not have been the officer’s suspect. The officer apparently was building a case against Jason Libby and either did not want, nor care, to find out what was in the bag.

According to Jason Libby, he had been told that there was no video evidence. But the night before trial, video was provided from an officer’s dash cam showing that Bondurant professed he didn’t want anything to do with this case. In other words, he was adamantly opposed to being involved in any way.

Baglietto can be heard telling Bondurant that he (Baglietto) would document that. The fact that Bondurant was adamantly refusing to be involved was never noted in any documents given to Jason Libby or his attorney, Nathan Wente.

Beyond not having any reason to be there that night except to escalate the situation, Greenlee did not have a valid driver’s license at the time. The officers reportedly knew that she didn’t and they knew she had driven to the scene. In fact, at the end of the video an officer can be heard telling Greenlee that he was not going to get involved in “her situation.” That same officer was then heard telling Greenlee to get in her car and drive it across the street. Greenlee was not cited or arrested for driving without a license, despite it being a crime to do so.

The MPD reportedly obtained copies of the security video from Weldon’s; however, the department did not turn over copies of the actual security video to the defense. Instead, it turned over its own “created” video, wherein it used a hand-held video recorder to record the security video as it was playing on its monitor.

The MPD specifically eliminated all security video prior to Jason Libby’s arriving at Weldon’s Cleaners. The MPD video eliminated the video footage of Bondurant entering the laundry mat and stealing an article of clothing on a countertop. The video eliminated the footage of Bondurant exiting the bathroom with his shirt off (corroborating that he had just bathed). The video eliminated the fact that Bondurant went rummaging through all the trash cans collecting items, including an empty laundry detergent bottle. It also eliminated the fact that Bondurant then re-entered the bathroom for a second time and did not come out again until after Jason Libby arrived nearly 10 to 15 minutes later.

Why was he in the bathroom for such a long time after bathing? Jason Libby believes he may have been manufacturing meth through a procedure called one-pot, backpack meth labs or shake and bake. One of the materials needed is an empty bottle, and plastic is sufficient. Remember the empty detergent bottle?

In response to Jason Libby’s harassment and fourth-degree assault charges being dropped, Chief Deputy District Attorney Jeremy Markiewicz stated, “We had a less than cooperative victim in that case.”

Background: Don Libby’s Case

On Jan. 8, Baglietto contacted Don Libby in the Bella Vista Heights subdivision in Medford, Ore. Baglietto actually thought Don Libby was Jason Libby, according to information obtained. So in Baglietto’s mind, he was dealing with the same guy that he had just contacted the night before at Weldon’s.

Prior to Baglietto’s arriving, Don Libby had gone up a hill to check a construction site. He was killing some time before locking up a client’s business. Bella Vista had previously been a client; but at the time of this incident, the contract had expired.

Don Libby was just outside his car when he noticed a car coming down the hill from an area he knew to be highly trespassed — a large private lot at the top of the hill that overlooks the city of Medford. It is common for people to trespass there and do drugs, have sex, dump garbage, vandalize, etc.

As the car came down the hill, Don Libby used his flashlight to flag down the vehicle. It was disputed how this interaction took place; but all parties agree that, upon contact, the teenage driver rolled down his window and the strong odor of marijuana rolled out of the car. It was also disputed whether Don Libby identified himself as a security guard. Don Libby said he did; they said he didn’t.

Don Libby advised the occupants the area was a no-trespassing area, and they admitted to having used marijuana that night. He asked for their IDs to document that they had been advised that they were not supposed to be there.

Next, Don Libby asked the driver if he would step out of the car to do a quick eye test. It was while Don Libby was doing the eye test that Baglietto rolled up. Don Libby told Baglietto what he had observed, gave Baglietto the driver’s ID and then left the scene.

Baglietto indicated in his police report that he didn’t notice any impairment that would justify having the driver do field sobriety tests. However, Baglietto stated in his report, “Due to an odor of marijuana in the vehicle, I asked for consent to search.” Both “victims confirmed they smoked marijuana that evening… I suggested (the victims) leave on foot and return with a sober driver.” Why would they need a sober driver if they were not impaired?

After the police sorted out the mistake with the incorrect ID of Don Libby (again, Baglietto thought Don was his brother, Jason), Don Libby was charged with two counts of felony criminal impersonation. After a three-day trial, the jury found Don Libby not guilty on both counts.

Don Libby’s attorney, Wente, had done an exceptional job presenting the facts to the jurors.

Mainstream Media Bias And Government Contributions

You are presumed innocent until proven guilty — or at least that’s how the saying goes. But reality is far from the old saying. Mainstream media headlines such as “Twin Guards Face Accusations Of Exceeding Their Authority,” “Surveillance Video of Incident Leading To Security Guard Arrest…,” “Twin Brothers Face Various Crime Charges,” “Oregon Twins Accused Of Impersonating Police Officers…” clearly and intentionally implicate guilt.

Furthermore, the content in the articles named above touches far beyond innocent until proven guilty. You have government employees giving statements prior to a trial, which can greatly benefit other government (the prosecutor). “A citizen can make a citizen’s arrest,” explained Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau. “In these cases, we think it’s different because we think they’re [the Libbys] clearly going outside of what a citizen should do as far as arrest and also using force in inappropriate times.” Budreau said, “Private citizens cannot administer DUII tests, but they can detain someone for being under the influence.”

Wente addressed this statement during Don Libby’s trial and asked Baglietto to show him where in Oregon statues or any law it says you cannot administer DUI tests. There were no objections sustained, and no evidence or answer to support Budreau’s allegation that you cannot administer DUII tests. Yet that article may have been read prior to Don Libby’s trial by each and every juror.

Although it might seem unreasonable or strange for a security guard to ask someone if he is under the influence or to give an “eye test,” it’s not illegal. Wente stated he was “100 percent certain of this, which is why the prosecutor and MPD couldn’t prove it during trial.”

Several mainstream articles and news reports have alleged the Libbys’ guilt; even the reports that claim they were found innocent still portray guilt by quoting the prosecutors, police, etc. None of them mentions all of the evidence that is reported in this article — at least the evidence that proves the MPD was and is in the wrong. The only media that has stood by their side, conducted a thorough investigation and reported on it is the US~Observer.

To prevent future problems, Don Libby stated: “We have installed go-pro dash cams. Every time one of our vehicles are [sic] in use, the camera is on unless manually turned off.” They have “also purchased” video cameras for their person: the Taser Axon body camera. “We will be letting everyone know we are security officers and making sure they acknowledge during every encounter from now on.”

Let’s hope the MPD finds a way to preserve its evidence as well. That will save innocent people thousands of dollars since they won’t have to defend themselves, and the taxpayers will likely benefit by not funding very costly wrongful prosecutions.

Don Libby stated that they have “spent over $35,000 defending” themselves against the actions of the MPD. He also wanted to put the MPD on notice, saying: “My brother and I plan on filing a tort claim against the Medford Police Department, Chief Tim George and Officer Ernie Whiteman Jr. — independently.”

–Joseph Snook

Editor’s Note: The US~Observer believes that not all officers at the MPD do wrong, and we are quite aware that there are good police. We have many friends in public service and appreciate their hard work. However, good MPD police need to realize that “a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.”

Constitution Be Damned

Jackson County, Ore. — Administrative government, comprised of “administrative hearings officers” (unelected judges) who act as judge, jury and executioner in many cases across the United States have created serious problems for our country. Citizens in Jackson County, Ore., claim this type of system is causing them “permanent damage.” “Administrative hearings deprive us of our 7th Amendment right to trial by jury” and also violate Oregon’s Constitution, Article 1, Section 17: “Jury trial in civil cases. In all civil cases the right of Trial by Jury shall remain inviolate.”

In 2011, more than seven years after Bernie Zieminski of Clams LLC, purchased a billboard, he was accused of “illegally illuminating the billboard.” Zieminski had already proven that other charges to remove the billboard by Jackson County and the State of Oregon were frivolous because the sign was protected under free speech, which has been upheld in other cases by the Supreme Court. So with nothing to go after Ziemenski for, the county finally saw the “light.” (No pun intended.)

The billboard had been around for many years. It was built prior to the construction of Interstate 5, a major West Coast freeway. The billboard was constructed in 1959, many years before Oregon Senate Bill 100 (land use) was signed into law (May 29, 1973). Clams LLC claims that the billboard was “grandfathered” and exempt from land-use ordinances, which became law long after the billboard’s construction.

Clams LLC and their registered agents appeared at a Jackson County administrative hearing and “demanded a jury trial.” Jackson County Administrative Court Hearings Officer Donald Rubenstein said that Clams LLC was not entitled to a jury trial. The administrative court ruled that Clams LLC “violated Jackson County’s land use ordinances by adding lights to its billboard even though Clams LLC presented evidence that the billboard had been illuminated before I-5 was built and that it had only repaired the lights that already existed.”

Jackson County mailed a separate complaint (the document that initiated a new administrative court case) to Clams LLC’s registered agent, an attorney in Ashland, Ore. No attempt was made to personally serve either Clams LLC’s registered agent or anyone else. No one from Clams LLC appeared in court, and the administrative court granted a default judgment in favor of Jackson County.

Less than a year after both events (sign violating land use and illegal lighting) described above, attorney James E. Leuenberger filed motions to set aside the judgments against Clams LLC. The first motion said that the judgment was illegal because the court violated Clams LLC’s right to a jury trial and because Clams LLC had newly discovered evidence (a very old photograph showing the lights on the billboard). Administrative hearings officer Donald Rubenstein said he did not recognize or grant motions to set aside judgments.

The second motion said that the administrative court never had jurisdiction over Clams LLC because Jackson County had not obeyed Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 7 that says that a limited liability company must be personally served with a complaint if the registered agent is located in the same county as the court (not mailed). The administrative court again (Rubenstein) said it did not recognize or grant motions to set aside judgments, even default judgments for which the defendant never appeared in court.

Clams LLC has now filed petitions for writs of review in the Circuit Court for Jackson County. Clams LLC is asking the Circuit Court to tell the administrative court that Clams LLC has a right to a jury trial and that the administrative court did not get jurisdiction over Clams LLC for the second case because Jackson County did not have anyone personally served with the second complaint.

Clams LLC is confident that it is exempt from land-use ordinances because the sign is protected under free speech and the lights were part of that sign, long before the 1973 land-use law.

When a government imposes a fine on someone, and states it is “not a criminal matter,” it becomes a civil issue. For Ziemenski, “It’s a matter of principal.” Ziemenski continued: “I have been fined over $12,000 for my billboard, and I will not let a few corrupted people try to extort money from me. I work hard and give more than my fair share to the community. For them to try and abuse a man who works hard is something I will fight. In fact, I will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Furthermore, I will do everything in my power to cost Donald Rubenstein his job for what he’s done to myself and others. I will also fight to make sure county officials put a stop to what these ‘hearings officers’ are unjustly doing to people in the community.”

Increasing costs, decreasing funds and other tactics are all being used by local governments across the United States to deprive people of their civil or criminal rights to a jury trial. Clams LLC is just one of thousands, if not millions of cases across the United States that verify how the Constitution is damned.

–Joseph Snook

US~Observer Editor’s Note: This is an obvious case of government employees using taxpayer money to pay other government employees to find ways to extort more money from taxpayers. Administrative government goes against the United States’ representative form government by giving one unConstitutional branch of government the power of all three branches — the executive, judicial and legislative (judge, jury and executioner).

If you have any information about Donald Rubenstein, Danny Jordan or anyone in Jackson County administrative government regarding this case or any other cases, please contact us immediately. Send emails to editor@usobserver.com or call 541-474-7885.

Deserving Release: Relief For A Wrongfully Convicted Man?

West Palm Beach, Fla. US~Observer Special Report — Since his conviction of DUI manslaughter on Sept. 15, 2011, Jamie Clark has adamantly maintained his innocence. Clark’s attorneys, Benjamin Waxman and Alan Ross of Robbins, Tunkey, Ross, Amsel, Robins & Waxman filed a motion for post-conviction relief (new trial) on Feb. 13.

On March 1, Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeals granted Waxman’s motion, relinquishing jurisdiction to the trial court, giving the trial court power to rule on Clark’s argument that the State of Florida committed a Brady violation by withholding exculpatory evidence (evidence that could have been used to prove his innocence) during his first trial. Waxman’s motion referred to “newly discovered evidence” not being disclosed to the defense that clearly contributed to Clark’s conviction. The motion further claimed that ineffective assistance of counsel committed by Clark’s trial defense attorney violated Clark’s 6th Amendment right to be adequately represented.

Further delay of Clark’s case occurred when the State prosecutor argued that ineffective assistance of counsel was not specifically listed in the appellate court’s ruling, which caused concern that the relinquishment of jurisdiction was isolated to only the Brady violation. This, along with clarification on whether Circuit Judge John Kastrenakes has the jurisdiction to rule on a bond for Clark, has briefly delayed Clark’s release from prison pending his anticipated new trial. On June 24, Waxman filed a new motion with the appellate court to ask that it grant the lower court permission to rule on ineffective assistance of counsel and Clark’s bond. This motion is pending.

After the appellate court rules on the matter of jurisdiction, the lower court will then rule on pending motion for bond.

Clark has been in prison for almost two years. Oct. 13 will mark seven years since the tragic accident occurred. Seven years of Clark’s life has been taken from him. Clark deserves justice. He deserves a new trial with a well-informed jury that’s been given the “newly discovered evidence” that was not disclosed during his first trial. Other key evidence that Clark’s previous attorney failed to produce during the first trial should be given to an impartial jury as well, so that justice is served in Florida’s 15th Judicial Circuit Court. In fact, Clark’s case should be dismissed in its entirety based on the conclusive evidence of his innocence.

It is reported that an evidentiary hearing is expected sometime in September.

Please support Clark’s case by “liking” the “Jamie Clark Deserves Justice” Facebook page.

The US~Observer prompts Prosecutor Dave Aronberg to seek justice in this case.

Be responsible, please contact Aronberg’s office and demand justice for Clark. He may be reached via phone at 561-355-2225 or by email at mlrodrig@pbcgov.org.

If you have information on anyone involved in this case contact the author of this article at joe@usobserver.com or call the offices of the US~Observer at 541-474-7885.

–Joseph Snook

 

Sticking It To Corrupt Government

It’s not very often that someone can say, “I fought the law, and I won.” However, 66-year-old James Roberts can rightfully say those words. Roberts was charged with one count of reckless driving and two counts of recklessly endangering another person. The charges were for allegedly endangering U.S. Forest Service (USFS) employees Sean Thomas and Donald Ross. Each charge carried a maximum penalty of one year in jail.

Facing a three-year sentence if convicted, Roberts was offered 18 months’ bench probation, no jail time, a three-month license suspension and some fines and fees if he entered a guilty plea and sold out to the criminal justice system.

Claiming the USFS employees lied, Roberts hired a defense attorney and started preparing for trial. After his first attorney “did absolutely nothing,” he fired her and contacted the US~Observer. Roberts later described contacting the US~Observer as “pivotal in my defense, I was going down if I hadn’t contacted them.” Roberts ended up retaining defense attorney Nathan Wente.

Trial

Describing to the jury his first encounter with Roberts at mile post 4, Thomas said he considered Roberts to be a “serious, serious threat to public safety.” Thomas continued to testify how Roberts would swerve into his lane, cut off his vehicle, slam on his brakes and attempt to run Thomas’ vehicle off the road. Thomas, having conducted “thousands of stops” during his 19.5 years in law enforcement, said that “this was the most significant stop” he had ever made. After explaining these serious allegations to the jury, Thomas informed the court that he didn’t pull Roberts over until “30 yards before mile post 18.” Nearly 14 miles would pass after Thomas “witnessed” Roberts’ “serious threat to public safety” before he pulled over Roberts.

Next, Thomas was asked why he waited nearly 60 seconds prior to stopping Roberts before activating his dashboard camera. Thomas replied, “It just slipped my mind.” Thomas, with his partner Ross by his side, conveniently forgot to turn on their video camera for nearly 14 miles — the only way to gather factual evidence.

Testimony Withheld

The only character witness for the Defense was retired undersheriff Don Fasching. He had many problems with Thomas throughout his career and “didn’t trust Thomas.”

While the jurors were excluded from court proceedings, District Attorney Stephen Campbell was present in court, conversing with Prosecutor Esther Smith. Judge Lindi Baker could see that Campbell didn’t want Fasching to testify.

The prosecution objected to permitting Fasching’s testimony, and Baker sustained, disallowing Fasching to testify. This was a clear violation of law (ORS 40.350).

Conclusion

On May 9, Roberts was found not guilty by an impartial jury and stuck it to corrupt government. The conduct of USFS employees, as well as the district attorney and judge, absolutely verified the opening statement for the defense, “The devil is in the details.”

–Joseph Snook