PAGE NOT FOUND

Mag Glass
We're sorry, but we cannot find the page you requested. Our Advanced Search page can assist in helping you find the article or content you are attempting to locate.

Thank You!

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Before, during, and after my federal jury trial before former US District Court Judge David Hamilton, my civil rights were violated by the judge, my worthless public defenders, and my post conviction attorney. I WAS NOT allowed to have discovery before the jury trial. Public Defender Bill Marsh and Jim McKinley repeatedly told me, "We don't do discovery. All discovery is at trial." At my trial, I wasn't allowed to have witnesses, and expert witnesses. Also, I wasn't allowed to use my private attorneys. The judge refused to let me use my private attorneys. I wasn't allowed discovery and evidence at my trial to support my testimony, and refute the govt's witnesses' false testimony. The judge allowed the first AUSA to read the charges against me that took up 8 pages of transcripts. Then the judge allowed the 2nd AUSA have their opening statement against me, which only took up 2 pages of transcript. After my wrongful conviction, I fired the PDs and hired new legal counsel. Within one week the judge telephoned my attorney and threatened him [extortion] by saying, "You're not to try to re-try this case at the sentencing hearing, are you?" I was wrongfully sentenced to 60 months when the statutory maximum under 33 USC 1319 c 4 is only two years. While in Federal custody, I hired another attorney who hired a forensic computer specialist. These persons proved via a Rule 33b motion under Newly Discovered Evidence that the "spreadsheets" used against me at trial WERE NOT on my company's computers or server, vs the govt's witness' testimony that she made them on her computer then sent and handed them to me. This should have overturned my conviction. These "spreadsheets" suddenly appeared just the day before my trial began. The judge refused to allow me to hire a forensic computer specialist to review my company's computer and server to later verify and testify the spreadsheets were fake. Under her earlier subpoena, she had refused to turne in the allegedl "real" spreadsheets to two years earlier. WHY? Because they didn't exist. She made them to bolster her testimony to protect herself. She told me about one year before the trial that she was promised a job with teh City of Terre Haute, IN if she kept her mouth shut about the burglaries at my company, carried out by the Terre Haute govt employees who wanted my valuable 65-acre downtown riverfront property to build their new sewage plant with the under the table expectation to make money from kickbacks. I know this will probably be deleted, but maybe someone will forward this to the FBI so they can investigation municipal corruption. Don't believe me? I have dozens of witnesses and evidence proving everything. I will not stop until these thugs are brought to justice so they can suffer as my family [wife and 4 children] have suffered.

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT