The Mother of All Corruption–DOJ
Chapter 12: The Mother of All Hearings
April 7, 2009—a momentous day in legal history—especially for anyone who cares about individual rights. The prosecutorial misconduct in the Stevens case was before Judge Sullivan.
He began with “In twenty-five years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.” He then shared his thoughts about what the legal community needed to do to safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice system. “When the government does not meet its obligations to turn over evidence, the system falters.” “The fair administration of justice depends on the government meeting its obligations to pursue convictions fairly and in accordance with the Constitution.” “These cases, together with earlier cases condemning the knowing use of perjured testimony, illustrate the special role played by the American prosecutor in the search for truth in criminal trials.” Quoting Berger, he said, “The United States Attorney is the representative, not of an ordinary party to a controversy but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” “We must never forget the Supreme Court’s directive that a criminal trial is a search for the truth.”
He then urged all judges on every trial court to be vigilant and enter an exculpatory evidence order at the beginning of every criminal case. He urged the new attorney general, Eric Holder, to require Brady training for all prosecutors in the country. He urged the president, attorney general and senate to consider this issue in the appointment of new US attorneys.
Brendan Sullivan raked the prosecutors over the coals. “I don’t think there is anything worse than our government presenting false evidence, manufacturing evidence to suit the occasion in order to get the upper hand.” The frightening part was how close the prosecutors came to succeeding. “I was sick to my stomach. How could they do this? How could they abandon their responsibilities?” “There is the failure of leadership. It’s to prosecute to win at all costs, and wrongdoing can flourish when that’s the attitude of a leader.”
Little did Brendan Sullivan know even then how much evidence was still buried within the department, how it would be uncovered, how far back it went, and how many cases Friedrich and his cronies had corrupted.
Clearly, once the senator was indicted, the trial team had to win. Jobs depended on it. And so they abandoned all decency to win a conviction. “The fear of loss drove them to do what they did. The chances of being caught were small.” “If the government is not honest, it can trump even the best efforts of those of us who work in the system.”
Then Senator Stevens was allowed to speak. He was very gracious. To note, he mentioned his wife and family who stood by him through the whole process. And he spoke to how close he came to being completely destroyed.
Senator Stevens said “Until recently, my faith in the criminal system was unwavering, but what some members of the prosecution team did nearly destroyed that faith. Their conduct had consequences for me that they will never realize and can never be reversed.”
“Main Justice” as insiders called the DOJ, had descended to inbreed arrogance and political abuse of power, with disregard for the rule of law.
Chapter 13: Move Over, DOJ: There’s a New Sheriff in Town
Judge Sullivan announced that there would be criminal contempt proceedings against the original prosecution team: William Welch, Brenda Morris, Joseph Bottini, Nicholas Marsh, James Goeke, and Edward Sullivan. This was unprecedented.
He also appointed a nongovernment, disinterested attorney to prosecute the matter. He chose highly respected DC attorney Henry Schuelke III to investigate and ordered the department to preserve all of its files and correspondence.
For good reason, the trial prosecutors were traumatized. This investigation into what they do was really unthinkable. Prosecutors being prosecuted? Prosecutors had immunity. Judges rarely pushed back at all. Bar associations usually just dismissed any complaint as a maneuver by a disgruntled criminal who was rightly convicted. The DOJ furnished the prosecutors with defense attorneys on the taxpayers’ dime, and they hired the best.
Other cases won by Marsh were scrutinized for Brady violations. He and Sullivan were transferred to the DOJ’s Office of International Affairs where they could not try cases.
Meanwhile, a new prosecutor, Patrick Stokes from the Eastern District of Virginia, was assigned to the Barge case after Spencer’s debacles. He had been handpicked by Friedrich, and was a Friedrich “wanna-be”.
The Brown defense team went to the DOJ building to meet with Stokes, but found out they would be meeting with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Rita Glavin. The meeting was non-productive, as the government was very ugly, ignoring the purpose of the visit, to get Brown a dismissal. Within a few weeks, Glavin left the department for private practice.
Stokes continued to press the re-prosecution of Jim and denied there was any Brady material. Judge Werlein continued to ignore defense motions. Then on June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court handed the Enron Task Force its third reversal out of four cases—the Enron Broadband cases of Yeager and Hirko. The prosecutors under investigation began leaving the main office for other positions—the proverbial rats fleeing the sinking ship of the “Public Integrity” Section because of their own lack of integrity.
In December, 2009, Ms. Powell went to the Supreme Court review of another “honest services” fraud case in the Polar Pen fiasco. The question put before the Court was whether the statute used by the prosecution was unconstitutional. In Andersen, Maureen Mahoney had argued that the law requires “fair warning” on what conduct is criminal. The Court was finally dealing with a twenty-seven year-old problem of a law so vague no reasonable person could tell what it meant. It had been used for years by overly aggressive, headline-seeking, or politically motivated prosecutors to send people to prison for transactions and conduct that were not crimes at all.
And that is the crux of the problem in the courts today—the misrepresentation of a statute for political gain. The statute in question is Title 21 §1306.04:
Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations
PART 1306 — PRESCRIPTIONS
§1306.04 Purpose of issue of prescription.
(a) A prescription for a controlled substance to be effective must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice. The responsibility for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances is upon the prescribing practitioner, but a corresponding responsibility rests with the pharmacist who fills the prescription. An order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional treatment or in legitimate and authorized research is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of section 309 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 829) and the person knowingly filling such a purported prescription, as well as the person issuing it, shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations of the provisions of law relating to controlled substances.
(b) A prescription may not be issued in order for an individual practitioner to obtain controlled substances for supplying the individual practitioner for the purpose of general dispensing to patients.
(c) A prescription may not be issued for “detoxification treatment” or “maintenance treatment,” unless the prescription is for a Schedule III, IV, or V narcotic drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for use in maintenance or detoxification treatment and the practitioner is in compliance with requirements in §1301.28 of this chapter.
About the same time prosecutors were “constructing” laws using vague statutes in the Enron scandal, they were also misrepresenting this statute against doctors.
First, as stated in Andersen, the law requires “fair warning” on what conduct is criminal. According to this statute, if the doctor is evaluating and treating a patient, he is exempt from prosecution by the Controlled Substances Act. Any reasonable man would interpret this statute that way. And yet, prosecutors and courts have maligned this statute for 16+ years now, without any legislative regard. The legislature knows what is happening, and they do nothing because it is bringing money to the government coffers and supporting the extensive employment opportunities in Washington. We, the people, will have to force the legislators to do something to stop this and get the law clarified. If not, chronic pain patients and the doctors who serve them will have their heads on the chopping block more and more.
Just one of the ways the prosecutors malign this statute is that they send in a wired informant pretending to be a “patient”. The “patient” even lies about having a pain issue. But then in the court, the doctor is accused of not having a “legitimate medical purpose” because the informant didn’t really have pain, but they got a prescription. How is the doctor supposed to know that the complaint isn’t real? But jurors buy it.
The first thing people have to do is educate your legislator that opioids do not cause drug abuse. Many laws are coming before Congress that will make it worse for the chronic pain patient, not better, because of the ignorance of the legislators and their believing the government propaganda.
I have had my DVD on the REAL Cause of Drug Abuse available on my website. Here is the link if you are interested in getting this amazing knowledge to help correct the misinformation that is being used to persecute doctors and their patients:
For a short time there is a fantastic discount (#4) available on three DVD’s that everyone can learn from. Use coupon code COMBO.
I am now writing all of the legislators about the REAL Cause of Drug Abuse in a letter writing campaign. I hope the people reading this post will join me. You can see example letters and information to use under Call to Action on my website, www.doctorsofcourage.org. Even if you don’t get the DVD or attend the webinar, at least use the information in my letters to inform the legislators about this knowledge.